Tuesday, November 20, 2007

FIREBALL FAKERY: CHALLENGE TO CIT

FIREBALL FAKERY: CHALLENGE TO CIT
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
November 20 2007
pretty much final Nov 21 3 pm


In the interest of critical thought regarding fakery of the Pentagon plane impact, I’d like to address the massive fireball unleashed when the plane *supposedly* struck the building. This was reportedly unleashed from the exploding fuel tanks of the 757 that impacted at a 39 degree angle traveling 530 mph or more. By the laws of physics, the motion of the expanding fireball would be determined by some combination of its general expansion (in all directions,) the forward momentum it retained from its flight there, and the angle of deflection and as such should spread across much of the building face, especially to the left (north) of impact, pressing against limestone and glass alike on its way. It would also have some tendency to rise and roll forward over the facade, igniting the roofing materials.

If there was a staged overflight with on-the-ground explosives and pyrotechnics used to create the fireball, it would either somehow have to mimic this pattern, or reveal the deception with inconsistencies. Ignoring for the moment the likelihood of this fakery, let’s look at some of the evidence of this event and its aftermath; whether it was stage-managed or simply crashed into, what does the building and the scene reveal about what actually happened?

The Crappy Video Evidence
First, let’s look at the famous and much-questioned CCTV security gate video of the attack. These choppy sequences of images (video at one frame per second) were captured by two cameras near each other at a security post just north of the supposed crash site. They show the plane (in black or white, depending on how one sees it) for one frame, about 600 feet from the cameras and closing at an oblique angle, less than a second before a bright flash at impact in the next frame, followed by a surging orange fireball that engulfs the building (below). That seems to make sense. The silhouetted structure is the heliport tower. Note this for later.


Note the deflagration's apparently triangular or conical shape, peaking just to the left of the building edge. I’ve seen this taken as a static, Christmas tree-shaped mass of fire, rising straight up from an epicenter in the building – as if the upper floors weren’t there, proof of obviously bad photo-editing. Another explanation is that the incandescent mass is rolling forward with plane’s momentum – from right to left of course and also somewhat towards the camera, if the ‘official’ trajectory is any clue. And a third possibility is that it was Photoshopped right to look like it should, which would look the same as the second option.

If the blast originated within, as a flyover would indicate - and the video were honest – I feel it would look something more like this (at left): an apparent fuel explosion (I'm not sure) inside the building five minutes after impact radiating out from the first and second floor impact wound. What we see here is indeed consistent with a fireball rolling forward with plane’s momentum – from right to left of course and also somewhat towards the camera (see below). The glowing mass spreads along the façade to the area behind the heliport – it’s certainly difficult to imagine any inside-the building incendiary package actually doing this.Debris movement as seen in the video is another clue; some fragments hurtling out and ahead of the fireball seem to move backwards, but the larger pieces go forward, and presumably towards the camera, another clue of its overall momentum. As so many have said before, of course, this controlled video footage would have been easy to doctor, and so we're left with the old question - is it live or Memorex?


Post-Attack Photos
For whatever reason, photographs of the scene are not as often accused of fakery, but in fact they are easier to doctor. But ignoring the pit of paranoia that opens, here is a photo of façade burns after the impact and collapse, taken from an angle similar to the gate cameras. In fact, the cameras are in and in front of the small foreground buildings. The taller structure between them is the heliport/fire station. Compare the burn area to the left of the collapse zone to the narrower area to its right (not so clear in this shot). Also note for reference the security camera in about the middle of the wide left area.

This face-on early shot taken by Steve Riskus shows the area before the collapse, just minutes after the impact. Already we see that even after the fireball has passed, there are rectangular patches of fire that has somehow gotten inside of widows, and much further to the left than to the right (heliport cropped off the left side). This is yet more evidence of a fluid combusting with forward momentum consistent with a path from the southwest combined with expected deflection angle.


Upper Floor Fires
And in this picture, again after the collapse, note the same asymmetry and also the fires flaring out from inside on upper left, some of those that raged and smoldered inside for over a day. I’m not certain of the official take but would guess these are believed to be caused by the impact fireball breaking out windows in the un-renovated wedge two, and entering the upper floors though these breaches.

ASCE, Pentagon Building Performance Report, 2002:
“Clearly, some of the fuel on the aircraft at impact did not enter the building, either because it was in those portions of the wings that were severed by the impact with the facade or with objects just outside of the building, or because it was deflected away from the building upon impact with the facade; that fuel burned outside the building in the initial fireball.” [p 41] "Windows that had not been upgraded generally were broken for several hundred feet to the north of the impact point." [p 28] "A large fireball engulfed the exterior of the building in the impact area.Interior fires began immediately." [p 20]

These observations of the ASCE would support the theory that these upper floor fires far from impact were injected by this possible engineered inferno. The following passage however is confusing: "Most of the original windows in a vast area of Wedge 2 were broken after the fire was extinguished. It is probable that some of these windows were broken by the fire or by firefighting efforts rather than by the effects of the impact." [p 44] This gives little clue of just how the fires got started behind these intact windows. With the fire unable to spread laterally through walls from the actual wing impact points, let alone up through floor slabs, it seems likely the fire came in from outside.

The Running Eyewitness Evidence
The rolling deflagration was reported by eyewitnesses, including Fort Myer firefighters Alan Wallace, Mark Skipper, and Dennis Young, close enough to have to run for their lives as it billowed towards them. On duty at the Pentagon’s heliport (which has a mini-fire station beneath it and an on-site engine, ‘foam tender 161’), Wallace and Skipper were outside the station, inspecting 161 they had just parked against the Pentagon’s outer wall. As Newsweek reported:

“The two looked up and saw an airplane. It was about 25 feet off the ground and just 200 yards away -- the length of two football fields. They had heard about the WTC disaster and had little doubt what was coming next. "Let's go," Wallace yelled. Both men ran. Wallace hadn't gotten far when the plane hit. "I hadn't even reached the back of the van when I felt the fireball. I felt the blast," he says. He hit the blacktop near the left rear tire of the van and quickly shimmied underneath. "I remember feeling pressure, a lot of heat," he says. He crawled toward the front of the van, then emerged to see Skipper out in the field, still standing. "Everything is on fire. The grass is on fire. The building is on fire. The firehouse is on fire," Wallace recalls. "There was fire everywhere. Areas of the blacktop were on fire." [source: "Washington's Heroes - On the ground at the Pentagon on Sept. 11," Newsweek, 9/28/01. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta04.html]

Wallace’s account is interesting in that his image of its trajectory and altitude indicated imminent impact; and being so close to its said impact location, he’d have the perfect vantage point to see it work its flyover magic, (80 feet off the ground minimum to pass over). But being so close to its anticipated impact point from 25 feet up and 600 feet away, he was running with his eyes pointing away from it at the time. At any rate, it’s a good thing they ran instead of standing and fighting the fire like men. It would have won. This is Foam 161 afterwards, at the spot they were standing when the plane first came into view. Jon Culberson photo, Smithsonian

By the flyover hypothesis championed by some, however, this palpable pressurized explosion was not the effect of impact, but something engineered beneath the steeply pitching plane.

The Challenge
The usual proposal for non-plane damage is a truck bomb out front, or bombs inside the building. Any number of explosive materials could be used – including a jet fuel element to simulate a 757 strike – and different mechanisms employed to create the angle of the engineered fireball. Who knows, huh?

Well, for people who claim something to that effect actually happened, it would be useful to have some guesses at hand. So I challenge Craig and Aldo of the Citizen’s Investigation-ish Thing to offer a plausible method for how this was all faked. An unseen incendiary catapult hidden behind the generator to hurl a fireball against the wall as the explosives blew outward? I seriously challenge them – describe the least Rube-Goldberg-esque contirivance, the least exotic weaponry they feel may have been actually used. Diagrams, specifications, numbers, guesses as specific as they’re willing to get. Brainstorm on it. People are watching.

Simply branding it as another point that could be done any number of ways will not suffice. Sure, they’re investigating people with theoretically unlimited power and they’ve said before they don’t need to explain how, since their witnesses prove this was all staged somehow. While that presumption remains contested, if this fireball fakery was another of the many points of deception, it had to happen in some way, by some mechanism, or it wouldn’t happen. Columns can be bombed. Poles can be clipped or torched down and hidden. Fences can be torn down. Generators can be pushed, etc. But what on earth could hurl a fireball like that against the façade of the Pentagon? I’d love to see any guess as to what, other than a crashing jetliner, it could have been? Or failing that another tap dance routine will suffice.

I'm not trying to push this as some smoking gun debunking either, just a good point to offer a firm challenge on. And Aldo, you aren’t banned here. Feel free to comment.

22 comments:

Craig said...

Alan Wallace claims the plane was "white" and that he did NOT see the impact.

Since Sean Boger was inside the heliport tower and saw the plane bank over the Navy Annex and approach on the north side of the gas station like everyone else I'd put money that this is where Alan Wallace saw the white plane as well.

The notion that it "seems implausible" that the richest, most technologically advanced defense agency on earth could create a fireball however they want laughable.

Caustic Logic said...

Well then laugh. Others will be joining you.

Craig said...

No doubt they will!

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip
/miscellanious/punch.gif

Craig said...

I'd like to request that you do a special blog on your "main" witness Terry Morin.

Analyze his personal account for us FF style!
http://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm

That would be cool.

Arabesque said...

Alan Wallace:

"There was debris falling everywhere"

"About 9:40, Alan Wallace had finished fixing the foam metering valve on the back of his fire truck parked in the Pentagon fire station and walked to the front of the station. He looked up and saw a jetliner coming straight at him. It was about 25 feet off the ground, no landing wheels visible, a few hundred yards away and closing fast. “Runnnnn!” he yelled to a pal."

Pentagon height is 77 feet.

“…The witnesses… are frankly—shell-shocked… Alan Wallace looked up… he saw the plane about 50 feet away [and] screamed for his partner to run…” [Alan Wallace:] “We both started running. I ran directly north and he ran out into the field a little bit. There was a flash and a horrific crunch. There was a fireball. When I felt the fire, that’s when I dove on the ground and slid underneath the van and crawled underneath, [went] out the other side, and shortly after that I could see that Mark was ok. There was debris falling down everywhere. At that point we began to try and take charge of what was going on, and do what we could to do to help anybody else.” Reporter: “Wallace told me that his fire truck was destroyed so that they essentially had to use their hands to help people from that point on. The van that he was talking about was a van in the parking lot that he just spotted… to get under—and that he believes saved his life… He was taken to the hospital [after helping rescue survivors]—his whole left arm… [had] second degree burns.”

FOX News, 9/11 4:23 PM

So how do you explain the fact that he witnessed falling debris, and the plane was "25 feet" off the ground? Don't forget to explain the plane debris on the lawn.

Caustic Logic said...

Craig: It is now I who challenge you. I'll address Morin stuff at ATS. Maybe here.

And regarding AW: That is cool that you interviewed him. He saw it was white, huh? Like the 'smoke plume' in the video, or the flyover white jet that's o-so proven. Did you ask him if it was north or south? Cause if he also saw it north but still thought it impacted, that's like Lagasse if Lagasse were right there runnin from the fireball after the 80-foot high plane passed 25 feet up - that's worse than the light poles.

I might contact this guy. I hate bothering people and have limited time as you know. Perhaps you coud verify again, ask him specifically, and share the results? If so be sure to ask based on speed, loaction, altitude, angle, explosin characteristics, anything, what he saw if he erased how he filled in the gap, is a pull-up and flyover EVEN POSSIBLE?

I wouldn't be too surprised if he says yeah it's possible, biut it hit. but there was such a small hole - I know it hit but where are the parts. I'm brainwashed but there was no scrape on the lawn. Like Bob Pugh and the others.

Or perhaps you can add him to your sinister list of suspicious insider official story supporters and accomplices. Perhaps he wouldn't want to talk to anyone about it anymore. I've heard of this described as 'pissing in the witness pool.'

Caustic Logic said...

And if so we're both pissing in the pool now.

Arabesque, anyone: I've gotten almost zero support from anyone my disinfo witness theory. Is option 2, simultaneous innocent north path error, that much more likely than 3), co-ordinated 'error?' Or is there another option I'm ignoring besides CIT's thesis being essentially proven? I don't want to be accused of setting up a false dichotomy here.

Craig said...

1. You are still spelling our name wrong. Citizen Investigation Team.

2. I never said we interviewed Allan Wallace. His entire first hand account where he specifically states that he did NOT see the plane hit and that he thought it was white is here:
http://web.telia.com/~u43109230/flight77/texts/Wallace.txt

3. Your challenge is an idiotic straw man. It has no bearing on the evidence proving a deception. I am not a weaponry specialist and I know nothing about explosives or incendiaries. But I do know that the suspect in question has access to the most advanced weaponry in the world including unknown technology. I also know that this act of violence happened at their own secure headquarters in a portion that had been under renovation for years and was conveniently at very low occupancy because of this.

I have no intentions of accepting your challenge to speculate as to exactly what was weaponry was used to create a fireball and the fact that I turn down this desperate attempt to move the goal posts on your part does not prove that the suspect could not have created this fireball. It also doesn't change the fact that we have proven a military deception and that you are left accusing innocent men of mass murder based on zero evidence whatsoever to protect your 757 impact conspiracy theory.

Craig said...

Arabasque,

All the small pieces of debris were likely blown from the two construction trailers that were completely obliterated. That's why you see most of it concentrated in the helipad area.

Here are the trailers I am talking about:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/
Pentagon%20folder%202/constructiontrailerscomposit.jpg

Craig said...

Adam,

Please let me know if you can get a hold of Alan. That would be awesome.

I am quite certain he would tell you the plane was on the north side.

I wonder if that would convince you or if you would simply accuse him of being a murderous traitor like you do Robert, Edward, Chad, Bill, Sean, and Levi.

Caustic Logic said...

Innocent men? Who am I accusing of murder here? Murderous traitors? Where have I mentioned murder Or treason? They probably think terrorists did it, nothing will change that now, and they're doing the right thing for their country getting CTers fighting over this. Just tell'em what they wanna hear. Just say north.

Anyhoo, I didn't think you'd take the challenge. Even after all the challenges I've accepted from your end. It must be duly noted that you simply have no way to argue your case except to keep calling it proven. I have an explanation for everything - your witnesses are wrong, by design or bizarre coincidence, and all else was done with the 757. You have - your proof that proves your proof.

Craig said...

Improvised "explanations" are not evidence.

All you really have is speculation.

I have provided real evidence while you have provided none.

Do you think speculation is stronger than evidence?

There is no comparison at all as you have not even spoken with a single witness or analyzed a single POV or provided a single piece of independently confirmed evidence.

Setting up a straw man of identifying the damn incendiary for a lousy fireball while acting like you present evidence on the same playing field (or at all) is pretty desperate Adam.

You have not investigated anything.

You simply blog usually incoherent and ALWAYS inconclusive speculation.

Caustic Logic said...

ALright, the acceptance filter is back on. Anything relating to the challenge I've offered I'll approve. Thank you for your opinions - er, hard proven facts.

Craig said...

Dude....

Censor the debate all you want but
your "challenge" is merely a straw man with an impossible question to answer to make you feel like you have the upper hand.

Nobody could possibly know what kind of weaponry was used. But to go so far as to suggest this means it's impossible or even remotely unlikely that the Pentagon could have created that fireball is beyond silly.

I'm sorry but the suspect in question here has capabilities beyond what any of us could even imagine and you know this.

Please look up straw man.

It is a logical fallacy.

It is a cheap and dirty way to debate.

It is what you are doing.

Caustic Logic said...

Just related enough tho basically a repeat of what you said above.

This doesn't make me feel I have the upper hand. It actually clarifies the fact for others. You're a pro, a master of twisting things so you stay on top. You've kep it up this long even with this ever-sinking ship.

staw man:
an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.

The argument I've made here is a big ol 150 foot high fireball rolled agaist and into the Pentagon from outside and your theory necessitates it was engineered by some method and I'd like to see you guess what. Where is the misrepresentation?

I never asked you to know how, just guess. It's clearly posible to engineer something like this. SO far the best guess I'm seeing is some unkown exotic weaponry. I was hoping for something more concrete, but I guess that's the best it's getting, huh?

And who am I to be asking questions? I can't even acknowledge what's been PROVEN.

Arabesque said...

Caustic, I think you fail to understand CIT's argument here, so let me help you out:

We can all go home now.

The CIT witnesses prove an inside job.

The case for a military deception is clear.

It is a "straw-man" to ask CIT to explain any other aspect of the attacks without including reference these smoking gun witnesses.

They PROVE everything (yes, everything) was faked, we don't need to PROVE to you how they did it!

These witnesses CAN'T be wrong. That's clearly IMPOSSIBLE. (Argument from personal incredulity
"I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true.")


It is disingenuous for you to doubt this eyewitness testimony!

There's no point in actually debating this topic.

Stop being so illogical.

Thanks,
Arabesque (;

Craig said...

The notion that exotic weaponry had to be used to create a semi directional fireball is insane.

There may have been incendiaries on the roof.

The fireball went upwards more than anything else.

Besides the fireball in the doctored video was likely enhanced anyway.

It's certainly not valid evidence worth postulating weaponry over.

The fact that a real fireball existed does NOT support the notion that this video is valid, untouched evidence.

Every single thing you bring up is based on fallacies or assumptions that the suspect is being honest.

You have abandoned all critical thinking principles and scientific reasoning in a sad and scared effort to cast doubt.

Craig said...

So are we on for round 2 Wednesday at 3:30 with Aldo?

Craig said...

Arabasque,

Your only recourse in this discussion it so set up a straw man based on things I never said or faulty reasoning that I do not believe.

During debate you regularly falsely attribute statements to me while even going so far as to put quotation marks around things I never said.

This is extremely deceptive.

Please stop it.

Craig

Anonymous said...

tsk tsk - et tu lyte tripp?

Caustic Logic said...

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread316769/pg1

This is Craig's thread response at the ATS main page. I find it funny. He said at one point:
"The problem is that he censors all comments on his blog and comments aren't published openly for public reading anyway. "

I'm not allowed to edit comments even if I wanted, I've only ever blocked or deleted two comments that weren't outright spam, and comments are published right below all posts on their stand-alone pages, and one click away when read from the main page.

But since no one can publicly read this explanation (?? can anyone hear me out there?) this might not help at all. That thread is out-of-hand stupid and I'm just letting it rattle on.

Billybob had this to say:
"caustic logic used "reality check" in an avatar name?
why have more than ONE web identity, unless you are trying to come off as several people?

caustic logic is MOST LIKELY the author of "debunking 911", aka commen sense, common sense, link to physorg membership list

these debunkers......ALWAYS with the army of SOCK PUPPETS on their side."

Arabesque said...

"During debate you regularly falsely attribute statements to me while even going so far as to put quotation marks around things I never said."

I have never done this. Please provide examples, or I will assume you are spreading lies.

The more likely explanation is that you refuse to take accountability for anything you say.

If you continue spreading lies about me, I will do another expose on you and I assure you, you will like it even less than my second one.