CIT-CL PHONE DISCUSSIONS
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
November 14 2007 10am
Updated 12/19 2am
Recently I agreed again to a phone debate/discussion with Aldo and Craig of Citizen's Investigative Team. This happened on page two of the comments section at my first 9/11 Blogger post. I was reacting in silliness to provocations like this:
Aldo: "Then you have the "team" that came out after to help reinforce [the 'official story']. "John Farmer", "Arabesque", and "Adam "Caustic Logic" Larson".
There is not a doubt in my mind that we are dealing with ops here.
I dare Adam Larson to provide a history and proof of his identity. I defy Arabesque to do the same.
You can all laugh, but what they do is called "neutralization". This is exactly what COINTEL ,does amongst other things, like calling us "frauds", "profiteers", "liars" etc.
Neutralizing is dangerous. It leaves us in limbo, it leaves us stuck with no real resolution. It is meant to cause jut enough doubt that you feel you don't know what happened and leave confused."
Craig: "This is an information WAR and the government has the benefit of control of the media, all the power, technology, money, and methodology to manipulate and DECEIVE the masses.
This isn't MY investigation it is the TRUTH MOVEMENT'S investigation that has the momentous task of working against all of that.
By not clarifying what side of this information war you are fighting for you are by default working to defend the government.
All we are doing is figuring out ways to lift the veil of lies to uncover further proof that will help to deprogram the masses.
If you fail to understand and acknowledge this then you are a clear enemy in this information war."
The terms were set, numbers swapped, and a date of November 14, 3:30 pm agreed to chat with Aldo was agreed to. In light of my agreeing to the phone thing, Craig said "your willingness to debate us online and now this recorded call has me leaning towards you being a brainwashed minion of the Pickering/Hoffman/Arabasque squad rather than a professional." Along the way we agreed no one would win a 'debate,' or at least we could never agree on who won, so it'd be a discussion. We also decided I'd talk with Aldo and Craig at the same time.
Craig called about 3:30 as agreed; Aldo had backed out for some reason, so the two of us talked about witnesses, logic, investigations, evidence, flyover, impact, etc. It was essentially civil, low-key. Unfortunately I was a bit tired and not too nimble on my toes, so I largely just let him talk. It's pretty boring really from my end. He calIed me wishy-washy several times and I stammered a lot. But there are interesting parts, like where he questiooned the timing of my appearance on the scene (along with Arabesque's) as they were first releasing their crucial data.
Here is CIT's posting of the first debate in video form. God, I hate my voice and sometimes my brain. Hah! You can 'see' it here - notes added are theirs of course.
And then on December 3 I followed through on round 2 with Aldo and Craig at the same time. I actually held my own a little better this time, but we still have a Kennedy-Nixon dynamic going on, where radio listeners claim Nixon won the debate while Kennedy took it hands-down with TV audiences. While we had earlier agreed not to call it a debate since both sides would simply claim they had won it, it seems that's how it's turned out anyway: Cit has posted on their "Recorded debates with Adam Larson", which they clearly feel they've won, while of course I know I won whether or not it'd be obvious just listening to the tones of triumphalism in our voices. On content and logic I win hands-down, which is why I do better onlne with all my data here and some time to think out what I'm going to say. Anyway, here it is, the only way they could trick me into re-posting their famous 4-way north-path witness montage: