Wednesday, March 5, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
March 5 2008
Last update 3/14 2am

Craig Ranke the other day left this comment at John Farmer's newly revived blog regarding some things Farmer had said: “you will not find a single statement from us where we have accused ANY witnesses as being liars, government agents, or where we have "condemned" them for anything," Ranke admonished. The "Dishonrable" and "deceptive" intentions of this baseless accusation were clear; "You are simply lying about us again as usual.” Farmer passed this along to me, and it triggered me to put this together, something I’ve been thinking about for a while; a list of all the witnesses that Ranke (aka Lyte Trip) and Aldo Marquis (aka Merc) of Citizen Investigation Team have accused of being liars, government agents, or otherwise condemned to evidentiary oblivion in their Eastman-esque info-universe.

Oh I’m a fine one to talk, CIT will protest – Caustic Logic the operative with his zany 'deep cover operative' disinfo NoC witness theory. I meant to cover that first but this post was getting WAY too big with the Mea Culpa attached. So I’ll cover that in another post and we’ll see how crazy it is… Back to the current subject in which CIT’s own words are at issue.

Referring to the case of Dawn Vignola (see below) and the word ‘roughly,’ which he felt were at issue, Ranke said “we have not even published anything on her yet so to say we've treated her (or any witness) "roughly" is a lie.” Really? Then why the distinction “we have not even published anything on her?” Is there something in this process that might be called rough? “I can GUARANTEE that we did not treat her "roughly" in any way at all. We have all of our conversations with her recorded […] When we were at their home it was a short and perfectly civil meeting.” I’m sure there are no sounds of a scuffle in those recordings, or even raised voices. I don’t think that was ever the point.

‘Rough’ might not be the right word, and not with the witnesses themselves. Riding roughshod over their accounts, which reflects back on them of course, and often over their general character and credibility, is more like it. Easy dismissals of whole testimonies via what I’m calling the ‘couldn’t see shit’ maneuver, willful ignorance or minimizing of key details, flippant if vague accusations, adduced sinister connections, and a general sorting into credible witnesses and dubious ones, each with its own rules and standards. All these are employed in the CIT cherry orchard, where harvests are hand-picked, and that is undeniable.

The reasoning for and the resistance to this sorting was explained by Ranke in a discussion of the USA Today Parade (see below):

"I understand how it is hard to put a human face to this crime in any way and that it's much easier to assign blame to an entity like "the government" as opposed to living humans. But living humans were involved. They had to be. Complicit operatives were present during this incredible military black psychological operation of deception. It's up to the citizens to decide who the genuine witnesses are and who the liars are. It's not easy but we must make that determination.” [source]

Well they sure make it LOOK easy. CIT tops their professed belief in fraudulent video, radar, FDR, planted and ridiculous contrived physical evidence, and a totally unseen pull-up flyover, with a long line of eyewitnesses whose accounts can’t be trusted. They have reasons at the ready to dismiss a good portion of published recollections, ready to copy and paste when anyone tries to counter them with a pesky eyewitness account of, say, a low impact with a slight left bank. Many were just dismissed because they couldn't see something or other, or are 'unconfirmed.' Others are dismissed via serious flaws and some of these people perhaps deserve some doubt. Perhaps some are just mistaken, or duped, but the dubiousness of some accounts seems to CIT to go deeper than that.

This is serious stuff here, a matter of good and evil. As Aldo once and infamously said: "I can say I've spoken directly to operatives from the Pentagon attack. I have looked the devil in the eye."The man does have some theological insights; his Myspace page has info on Masonic architecture, old-school American Satanists, and the Israeli Supreme Court building with its inverted Cross walkway where some vague 'they' "plan to seat the "Anti-Christ." He has later clarified that he meant the overall plot - the attack, the cover-up, the whole sinister operation - was 'the devil' in that statement, but some person or persons on this list - in fact in the somewhat shorter list of ones they've spoken to - was part of it, the eye into which he peered and saw the darkness pulsing beneath. Craig backs him up: "if 'demon' isn't a fitting description for someone willingly involved what is?" [ source] Just as demons are sent from the devil, operatives are sent from the op. However literally we should take this, their evidence deals with the more earthly level, and so here are the witnesses they'd have us know have issues.

The Suspicious Ones
1) Lloyd England – Not necessarily ‘an operative from the Pentagon attack ,’ but probably, and so suspicious he gets his own short video; ‘The First Known Accomplice?” and CIT and their allies make a huge deal of his account all over the place. Little wonder they try; on the surface he’s the best light pole witness in the sense that he says the plane flew over him just as the pole came flying through his windshield. ‘Did you actually SEE the plane hit the poles,” the old CIT standard, gets real silly in this case. The reason they keep at it and put the cab on their main page is it’s a strong point for them in that England’s account of the big pole segment piercing the windshield and coming to rest long heavy end out without leaving a mark on the hood doesn’t make much sense. Of course that doesn’t prove anything except that a witness is telling a story that makes no sense; his windshield was damaged in a way other than he says, obviously. Like by a different piece of pole. When I first met Ranke as "Jack Tripper," he challenged me "Name one witness I have dismissed as a plant besides Lloyd." [source] Their apparent “Lloyd-bashing” is a persistent magnet for criticism, so CIT now goes to pains to explain “We haven’t even accused Lloyd of anything even though his story is physically impossible and proven false by the evidence. We have always maintained that he may have been coerced or manipulated which would make him a victim.” [source] But whatever they make of why, his evidentiary credibility, and all evidence connected to it, is toast. And that this piece of toast appeared right at that crucial spot and time is another clue that deception is afoot. Convenient. Ranke: “At this point the debate regarding what happened at the Pentagon boils down to whether you choose to believe the CITGO witnesses or Lloyd.” No. I don’t have to fully believe either. Period.

2) Stephen McGraw – Also suspicious enough to warrant his own short video; “From the Law to the Lord,” which “features our interview with former Department of Justice attorney turned Catholic priest Stephen McGraw” to let him “tell his story on camera and to confirm or deny some of the suspicious details in his previously published account.” Though he admits he didn’t actually see the lamp poles hit, he inexcusably describes a low impact, controlled and straight from 20 feet over his head from the left and arguably behind, making him a solid south path/impact witness. He’s also coincidentally a member of Opus Dei, a much-distrusted Catholic sect, so good choice… “The well known dubious details surrounding this secret society,” Ranke remind us, include “espionage, perversion,” and that it’s “favored by the Washington elite,” all “relevant points when considering McGraw's high profile involvement with 9/11.” On changing plans to minister to the dead and wounded at the Pentagon, Ranke affirms that “shirking his commitment to a mourning family waiting at the cemetery with their loved one in a casket is most definitely a questionable act.” They seem to presume he wasn’t even at the scene until after the crash, but “place him under the official path” in their graphics “because we are typically discussing his account in the context of the official story,” which, in CIT land, is now a proven lie. It’s clear they don’t take him seriously as a witness, just let him talk, ignore the words, and say “Opus Dei.”

3) Bob Dubill - An editor at USA Today, a mainstream media employee of some influence, and far too many of them from that one paper on that short stretch of road that day just ‘heading to work.’ They of course have a whole video on the ”USA Today Parade.” Nothing specific against Dubill I noticed.

4) Richard Benedetto: USA Today reporter, member of the suspicious parade of witnesses. Ranke has emphasized “the relevance of Gannett/USA Today as far as mainstream media manipulation goes in general and how it's a major propaganda arm of the governement similar to fox news,” and the “incredible coincidence” of six of them “being within .16 of a mile in the most critical area to witness the attack.” [source] I confess this is an odd coincidence at 9:30 am, but it really depends how many people worked there and were drawn there each day. There are roads in Seattle where at any given moment anywhere near rush hour, every other car has at least one Microsoft employee in it.

5) Mary Ann Owens – news room assistant, included in USA Today parade, who 'saw' the plane fly over them on a point well south of the NoC path - portable human planted light poles! Ranke: “The plane was on the north side of the citgo. If these people simply had ambiguous memories that would be one thing but this is a far cry from that.” [source]

6) Joel Sucherman – Member of the USA Today parade, verified in the video, and his view verified – couldn’t see shit! Of course he passes off their concentration as a natural effect of that being the route to work and backed up. Regarding his account of the C-130 passing ‘3-5 seconds’ after impact, Ranke points out Sucherman is “highly publicized […] as one of the second plane witnesses, yet he would not identify the type of plane.” This is made to sound suspicious, and CIT has wondered if this account was “meant to ambiguously act as cover for the flyover?” [new video]

7) Mike Walter – USA Today Parade member, Very clear impact witnesss, view partially blocked by trees – CIT talked to him, had dinner in his house, mischaracterized his bank report, and decided he couldn’t see shit at some point or other and was making stuff up. Ranke: "I do not believe or trust Mike Walter for a single second and we have plenty of evidence to show deliberate contradictions in his account.” [source]

8) Vin Narayanan – Confirmed by CIT via phone [new video], he saw a second plane, presumably the C-130, ‘a couple minutes’ after impact, but is steadfast that it was a jet. Read back on Chaconas [see same link], who some feel saw the C-130 but decided it was a commercial jet, so a jet it must be says CIT. Ranke: Narayanan also “claims he saw a "2nd jet" fly over the building. Works as good cover for a flyover doesn't it?” [source]

9) John O’Keefe – in their new video, via Narayanan, CIT learns he too is part of the suspicious USA Today witness parade. They spoke with him and decided he couldn’t see it for 45 seconds as he says from "his now-confirmed alleged location." [new video]

10) Fred Gaskins – USA Today editor and a Pentagon witness, possibly part of the parade. Ranke: "No matter how you look at it, even if it WAS still rush hour, it strains credulity to suggest that so many reporters or editors would be in such a crucial location together during such an historically significant (and questionable) world event. Put that together with the fact that the trees blocked their view and the north of the citgo testimony and once again the implications are clear.” [source] Yeah, they had their plants blocked by trees. Great planning, as usual from the worldwide black-oppers.

11) Bobby Eberle – GOP USA connected = a liar about the Pentagon attack. Ranke: “Could you find anyone more dubious? His account reads like a fiction novel.” Shoomp, there goes another impact witness. [source]

12) Gary Bauer – PNAC connections = a liar about what he saw at the Pentagon. Ranke: “THERE IS NO PROOF HE WAS ON EVEN ON THE HIGHWAY. He is one of the PNAC signers. That would make him a suspect "witness".” Shooomp. In comes another probable plant. [source]

13) Steve Riskus – A clear and close impact witness with no GOP connections (he’s a skateboarder and a nice guy) who didn’t actually SEE the poles get hit, but is sure it hit the building, low, but not the ground. Ranke: “What a joke! Steve Riskus is obviously a plant. The website creation date is a dead give away […] no true skater would have a website with a front page as cheezy as this! And he has never bothered updating it in years. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.” [source] (Ranke has backed off this accusation - see comments section).

14) Penny Elgas – Extremely detailed low impact account from a perfect vantage point. She could see shit. “Penny Elgas has a significant position in government and a very high profile highly publicized account so should be instantly considered suspect. She claims the plane was 80 feet up which is too high to hit the poles and that it "banked" which also contradicts the official story while a bank is required in the north of the citgo flight path.” [source] He’s wrong about her banking account – it matches the official story.

15) Dawn Vignola – CIT has said that her news call-in from 9/11 about the plane impact was ‘coached’ by her roommate at the time, Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman. Suspicious. Listen for the ‘coaching’ yourself here - a voice in the background helping add technical details. Too bad she’s tainted, she was almost a useful witness. As Merc noted: “She told us multiple times that the plane was white, but for some reason had fused the AA into it, perhaps becuase of news reports, perhaps because of her roomate, Timmerman.” Aldo defends coaching charges: “He says it, she repeats it. Is that not coaching?” His list has her as “claimed the plane was white seemed unsure of final position.” [source] Here’s an interesting discussion between CIT and a source familiar with Dawn, one “Plan271.” Ranke explained they think it was “Vignola's husband” who “came to our forum anonymously and made viciously attacked us for no reason whatsoever.” Of course if he had no reason he wouldn’t do it, now, would he? You go cherry picking, some guy no likey you pick his wife’s cherries. Not surprising.

16) Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman – see above. An impact story liar who coached Vignola, later gave his own detailed account ” it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike […] and then I lost it behind a building. And then it came out, and I saw it hit.” CIT got to look through the view they shared and found they couldn’t see shit. “The highrise building in front of them to the left completely blocked their view of the final moments of the flight path so there is no way they would have been able to tell if the plane was north or south of the citgo,” and the fireball would have blocked the flyover. Ranke: “This hitting the ground claim by Ms. Vignola and even the "plane person" Hugh Timmerman completely contradicts the official story and is further PROOF that they deduced the impact and embellished these details.” [source] No. They saw it from high up so the details were less clear. One wing hit the generator and probably exploded while the other basically hit the ground, so it exploded at ground level just before impact. From above it would look like - it his the ground and blew up.

17) Noel Sepulveda - Ranke: “There is a lot of reason to doubt the legitimacy of this account and we were not able to find him for verification." [source] Sepulveda’s account is goofy, and I see reason to doubt its accuracy, but not necessarily its legitimacy. Not sure if they were trying to cast doubt here or just flinging a bit out of simple habit.

18) Afework Hagos – This witness “is not claiming to have SEEN the light poles get hit. We can't find a trace of this person existing at all but regardless...” [source] Funny enough, other than CIT proclamations, I can't find a trace of Aldo Marquis existing at all, but regardless… here I am dealing with someone going by that name sayin’ what they’re sayin’. Merc’s list has Hagos as “unconfrimed account-deduced? Lying?” [source]

19) Madelyn Zakhem – Merc noted after participating in an interview with her in 2006 “Her account placed the plane "inches" from the roof of this small building [she was at]. With the left tilted down. Unfortunately, this would place it BELOW treeop level which we all know is impossible.” [source]Once again, when convenient, read a figure of speech too literally and debunk it. It was convenient, as the building that plane was some number of INCHES above, clearly puts it on the south path, and with the official bank and slight turn to the left. Marquis: "Trees blocking her view. Madlene is a suspect witness. She is clearly lying about the flight path. We know because Edward blew it out of the water and we interviewed her, and now her bizarre behavior is explained. Madlene Zackem, the lady with the jewish last name, Israeli accent while displaying a crucifix around her neck is not telling the truth about what she saw." [source] Wow, that is some suspiciously - what? Indeed it's the name. When I first heard of her, I misread and wondered if she was related to suspected "9/11 Mastermind" Dov Zakheim at the Pentagon. Obviously this didn't pan out, but there's apparently still some kind of play still being made on this vague perception.

20) Terry Morin – Ranke: “Due to all of these extreme contradictions with the official story and explicit exaggerated details meant to support's clear that Morin is either relaying a completely fabricated or else wildly embellished account.[source]

21) Don Mason – 2nd-hand account said he saw poles hit and a truck antenna. Ranke warns us Mason “was a Pentagon Renovation worker that is one of 3 PenRen workers cited in the ASCE report. Because of this he is a VERY suspect witness.” [source]

22) Frank Probst – PenRen bigwig, so at least as suspicious. Someone in the renovation program had to know about the column bowing-inward explosived built into the structure by Masonry Arts to fake an airliner impact. Why not Probst, who also gave a suspiciously precise account of the official impact story? Ranke: "a very small handful do place [the plane] somewhere along the physical damage path," where we know it wasn't. "These are very very few such as Frank Probst. It would be foolish for someone to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job but completely write off the possibility that ANY of the witnesses were planted.”[source] He had to be, or was compelled to lie later. Bigwigs don't as often get compelled. Probably an operative and participant in the mass murder.

23) Rich Fitzharris - The third Penren guy interviewed by ASCE so also suspect. He didn't even claim to see the impact however, so it would seem he was under-utilized. Perhaps this was just a touch of realism. That they'd all three be in the right spot might seem silly.

24) Aziz El Hallou – An odd case I didn't learn about until recently, proud owner of part of the plane... Merc: “Debunked lying witness, proven to be at Navy Annex.” [source] Compellingly indicated there anyway… this case is unique. I think they may have an opportunistic liar here. Or not ... Doesn’t prove much in itself, but put together with all the others … no, still nothing.

25) James Robbins - Merc: "a national-security analyst & NRO contributor for National Review, William F Buckley (CIA) publication." [source] Certainly not an outright accusation, but he sure does sound suspicious.

26) Dave Marra - Merc: "dubious, questionable witness-claims plane cartwheeled into building." [source] Further dubious details unsure, but it's true that event did not happen. Again like Sepulveda -reason to dismiss the witness, or just to not rely on his details? I'm not familiar with this one, so I'll just leave it there.

27) Thomas Trapasso - "Political appointee"under Clinton, looking for new cronyism when he ‘saw’ the plane on the official path and reported so. No appointments I've heard of in thanks. He was stiffed. Wouldn’t return CIT’s calls. Suspicious. Mentioned at the beginning of "Flight 77 The White Plane.”

28) Albert Hemphill – Marquis: “Albert Hemphill is a Lt. General with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. The C-130 was not a "Navy electronic warfare aircraft", so that would serve to fuel the conspiracy theories about it controlling the plane. […] This account seems more like an account about the C-130 that "just happens to" give fuel to the theories. I'll let the reader decide which category that fits into.” [source]

29) Keith Wheelhouse – CIT verified him on video, his C-130 ‘shadowing’ 77 account promising possible flyover treasure… after he insisted the C-130 and 77 flew together in his view for 60 seconds, which is impossible for various reasons, but drew the official fight paths for each that conflicts with what CIT feels happened, and perhaps a little too perfectly. His location and POV were questioned, he couldn't see shit they found, his re-affirmed impossible timing proves him a liar, and yeah, his account isn’t right. I don’t know about his location, why he’s wrong, what he really saw, or what any of this proves. CIT wonders “were Joel [Sucherman] and Keith’s account meant to ambiguously act as cover for the flyover?” [new video] Note here the use of singular ‘account,’ softly implying they were handed the same script.

30) Alfred S. Regnery - A peripheral witness – too far from the scene to come into the debate much. I mentioned him once as seemingly supporting a south path and Ranke mentioned “He is the president of right wing mainstream publishing company Regnery publishing who put out books by Anne Coulter, Newt Gingrich, as well as Barbara Olson the famous right wing CNN pundit and alleged vicitim passenger of flight 77. Coincidental no?” [source] Yeah, that is odd. But we have another possibly dubious witness? Why didn’t he lie himself closer and say he saw it hit the light poles as Barabara wrestled the hijackers inside? That alone would have sold tens of thousands of extra books I'd think.

31) Mickey Bell/Jack Singleton – Ranke: “1. Mickey Bell's account is told by HIS BOSS. It is hearsay; not evidence." True. Deduced really. No original content. Nonetheless " 2. He is a Pentagon Renovation contractor and should therefore be considered automatically suspect. 3. He describes a bank which is inconsistent with the official story.” [source] Wrong. The bank is necessary for the physical damage, that's why he mentions it.

32) Rick Renzi – A witness who got on camera reporting a steep descent and impact, perhaps from east of the Pentagon, and offering no clue of a flyover. Then he became a Congressman, one of the 20 most corrupt I hear, GOP-neocon connected, and on February 22, 2008 he was indicted on charges of theft, extortion, and conspiracy. Ranke: “It's clear he was "free styling" details on 9/11 and pushing propaganda a month later by outlining the neocon agenda at the time that has since come true.” [source] He could be an opportunistic liar, but somehow I think he’s describing what he saw, just exaggerating the dive. His general honesty is not the issue here – it’s his account of the descent being too steep for CIT to feel it’s consistent with the official story or, of course, theirs, which required a negative dive (a pull-up) that every witness but one missed. Ranke: "No doubt Renzi was simply a bit too enthusiastic while being under briefed."

33) Steve Storti - Ranke: "Can you prove he was really there on 9/11? Did you interview him and get video tape of his view from that window to get his view? Either he is deducing the impact or he is lying. Most people were fooled but certainly some were planted witnesses and some accounts were completely fabricated." [source] Again, nothing specific against Storti, just a friendly reminder that some unspecified accounts - perhaps this one! - are works of fiction, not evidence. And he keeps saying this about every other account anyone offers AS evidence. And every account is dubious until it's verified by CIT, and the ones still found suspicious after that are the worst of them all.

A whole list of Lyte Trip witness dismissals collected by a JREFfer.

The following text and graphic appear in just this relation at The PentaCon website :

“We tried to find someone who might have seen it on the south side but it just wasn't happening.

Consider this an open request to all the witnesses that supposedly support the official story who are willing to go on record countering Edward, Robert, Chad, and Bill's placement of the plane .

We sure haven't been able to find ANYONE who is willing to directly contradict the north side claim AND we have not found a single previously published account that directly contradicts it either.

You better believe it's a smoking gun.”

Considering all this, is there not a clear message, if unintended, to this text-graphic placement? It’s clear what they want to believe, what they want to hear. Just say the right things or you’ll be suspicious too. Your religion, your legal affairs, your suspect employment, any scandals, all might be called on to discredit anything they don’t want to hear. They throw out innuendo like all this and then they invite witnesses to come forward and meet the smoking gun. Lo and behold precious few do, at least that are willing to be specific, and the witness pool stays nice and shallow so their tenuous construct won’t drown. In their own little info-universe anyway.


Craig said...


Great read!

That's probably the best blog you ever made. What's scary is how your obsession seems to be evolving into a legitimate love affair or something.

It's creepy to think about someone staying up late scouring the internet for my quotes and writing such involved and personal pieces about things I have said in the past years.

What's great is that out of all of these examples you were only able to find ONE where I actually accused the witness of being a plant! Of course you had to go back to before CIT existed and before I had gone public and was still posting anonymously under Lyte Trip.

For the record.....I officially retract my definitive (yet anonymous) statement from well over a year ago about Riskus being a plant. Not that I know that he isn't one but I can't prove it and I actually have some as of yet unreleased information suggesting he may be legitimate after all. I reserve the right to change beliefs about ANY witness as information is revealed and research progresses.

There is nothing wrong with that.

But every single other statement I stand by 100%.

The irony of the fact that you accuse the north side witnesses of being plants wasn't completely lost on you but the fact that you write off any and all contradictions to the official narrative as being "error" or "embellishment" and of course deliberate disinfo means you have absolutely zero right to hypocritically cast the stone you have so viscously hurled in yet another classic hit-piece focusing on us personally while continuing to skate around the rock solid evidence we present.

Caustic Logic said...

A fair enough contribution. So that old incautious accusation against Riskus is not supported by the new you - duly noted. Since then you've gotten more - careful - it seems. As indicative of a general mindset that obviously leans that way, however, it stays in here.

"focusing on us personally while continuing to skate around the rock solid evidence we present."

You see the problem there? WE present. I've already addressed your 'cock-solid evidence' and more keeps sputtering out of YOU GUYS PERSONALLY.

Okay moderation off, but I'll delete or cut and re-post anything too off-topic. I'll be moderating and updating this piece tonight. Any witnesses I forgot, anyone, feel free to add.

Caustic Logic said...

There is no edit function here, but that typo is funny enough to leave. :) read: "rock solid"

Craig said...

>>>>>You see the problem there? WE present.

No I don't see a problem. The fact that we are the only ones willing to spend our time, resources, and put our necks on the line to obtain new evidence and publicly present it is not a valid excuse to unilaterally dismiss the evidence while hyper-focusing on us personally to cast doubt on the messenger while detracting from the message.

It's typical and quite predictable behavior for someone whose logic is bankrupt and is somehow threatened by the information present.

Caustic Logic said...

No, I'm not threatened, just strangely obsessed with debunking you claims that I'm certain you yourself don't really believe.

You are indeed among the FEW "willing to spend our time, resources, and put our necks on the line to obtain new evidence and publicly present it." You gather far more new evidence than me, at about zero. I embrace the evidence you provide, and I go over it.

I also find the commentary and conclusions you pass on with it rather amusing. It's in this - what you do with it - that the problem mostly lies. You know that and I've covered it a fair amount for all to see and judge for themselves. And you guys PERSONALLY are the ones who do what you do with this evidence.

Am I missing the forest for the trees or vice-versa by looking at the source instead of the result? I dunno - look above - tree after tree after tree... looks like a forest. To block the view of your prospective suckers so they can't see shit but the few witnesses you want them to.

Craig said...

>>>>>just strangely obsessed with debunking you claims that I'm certain you yourself don't really believe.

That is a flat out accusation and a completely hollow one. I don't believe that you don't believe I believe what we assert.

There isn't a reason on earth for us NOT to believe what we assert.

You are lying.

>>>>>I also find the commentary and conclusions you pass on with it rather amusing...blah blah

All we do is accept the independent evidence that we obtain as valid! How in the world can that be considered "amusing" or strange or a personal interpretation of any kind?

CIT did not hypothesize the north side claim. We merely reported the evidence as valid since it is.

The unavoidable implications of the evidence have nothing to do with us personally.

It is YOU who is insisting on personally interpreting the evidence by refusing to accept it as valid and even go so far as to assert a vast conspiracy.

You are straight up without a doubt attacking as personally as a method of attacking and casting doubt on valid EVIDENCE simply because you don't like the implications of the evidence.

Your behavior and statements are so contradictory and hypocritical it's ridiculous.

Caustic Logic said...

"I don't believe that you don't believe I believe what we assert. [...] You are lying."
Nope! Ireally don't believe it. Which means I believe you guys are willfully lying. All the time. Either that or something seriously wrong with your brains. And that's just my educated opinion.

independent evidence ... valid ... unavoidable implications ... personally interpreting ... refusing to accept ... vast conspiracy ... attacking and casting doubt ... the implications of the evidence ...
contradictory ... hypocritical ... ridiculous.

Neat. You make an impassioned argument that on the surface to the unstudied might seem valid and eloquent. Good for you.

Craig said...

It has nothing to do with the "argument" or "interpretation" and EVERYTHING to do with the evidence that you have not and can not refute.

This is why you focus on us personally.

CIT did not hypothesize the north side claim.

CIT did not hypothesize the east side claim.

We simply reported the evidence and the fact that the implications are so incredible and horrendous has nothing to do with us personally.

John Farmer said...

My, my seem to have upset Craig. As usual, he takes the comments everywhere but to the thesis of the post.

Caustic Logic said...

Craig - I realized last night I have no animosity against you even though this is a serious attack. I'm just doing this because ___ fill it in yourself since you can't ever know anyway. Selfish reasons to be sure, my own ego. But that doesn't change that I'm right anyway. I'm sorry if you're actually suffering here but you shoulda realized that before you drained your witness pool so low you think you can reject reality and take a few erred/lying witnesses as its replacement.

Comedy, yes, not of the ha ha funny type but of the ?? type like Schwarz, Hufschmid, Von Kleist, Bollyn, Eastman. There's nothing totally new here except your massive bluster to keep this shithouse from crumbling into its own sewage.

Craig said...

I am not suffering in the least.

As I said I stand by all of the statements 100%! (but back off the Riskus one a bit)

It's perfectly fine with me that you compiled a list of the dubious previously published accounts while even conceding a few. (you should make a blog on Aziz!lol)

The fact that you openly admit you have an "obsession" with us and now admit that you are driven to this based on "ego" explains everything perfectly.

Keep on keepin' on Frustrated Fraud.

Your self admitted ego driven obsession exposes your motives and it drips from every word you type. Naturally this only serves to highlight the important work that we do.

Both you and Farmer can not continue to attack us and think that you'll be able to hold onto a shred of credibility.

I've been rather enjoying watching you two implode with the release of our latest.

Caustic Logic said...

"I am not suffering in the least."
Me neither, so that's good.

"The fact that you openly admit you have an "obsession" with us and now admit that you are driven to this based on "ego" explains everything perfectly.

Keep on keepin' on Frustrated Fraud.

Your self admitted ego driven obsession exposes your motives and it drips from every word you type."

Great! You'll note that I just handed you that. I note that you ignored the second half "But that doesn't change that I'm right anyway." You deny this up and down but you know it's true. Your theory is stupid stupid stupid and you know it. Have fun telling everyone of my latest admission and how it explains everything. Some of your buddies will pretend to believe it, and so on...

Craig said...

Your credibility has been bankrupt for a while now because of your obsession with us. You look so silly and Farmer is right behind you as his obsession becomes more and more apparent.

Your entire "pissing in the witness pool" trip is plain old idiotic because:

1. As your list confirms we have never even accused anyone of anything.

2. We have ALREADY proven a military deception. That cat is out of the bag. We have proven the pool quite dirty as it is without anything that we could possibly add to it.

3. It's absurd to suggest that 9/11 is an inside job or cover up or that coordinated "disinfo" was involved in any way while denying that any planted operatives are included in the mainstream media published witnesses.

4. MOST of the witnesses we present were previously unknown! There is this common misconception that the previously published witnesses are the whole shebang. We have proven this notion false. The unknown witnesses can not be "tainted". They have to be found. This is the ONLY way to find pure data in regards to the Pentagon attack and THIS has been the core focus of CIT. The fact that you are spinning this approach by attacking us for questioning the accounts that have been touted by the media and support the official story is beyond ridiculous in light of the incredible amount of contradictions we have uncovered. You forget that both the north and east side claims are based primarily off previously unknown witnesses. Brooks and Lagasse were merely corroboration. You better believe that independent unknown witnesses are more valuable to the investigation into a military psyop on this level.

Use some damn LOGIC for once "Caustic Logic".

Your ego driven obsession has seriously impeded your ability to think logically or "maintain vigilance and calm".

Caustic Logic said...

Blah Blah Blah.
You keep your eyes close on that credibility thing. It's like credit - it helps people believe you when you're wrong or lying. I don't need credibility. I've got the facts and common sense and your comedic antics to make the case for anyone paying attention. Beyond that, people will just believe what they do.

You'll also note that we're just typing past each other here. I think I'm done.

Caustic Logic said...

And that did it I guess.
I didn't block anything, the steam just dissipated I guess.
Never did respond to John:
john farmer said...
"My, my seem to have upset Craig. As usual, he takes the comments everywhere but to the thesis of the post."
I love it. They didn't accuse anyone of anything... they haven't filed charges... whatever... they just compile half-ass reasons to ignore their accounts, which are the only things about them that matter in the current 'investigation.' I don't care who they 'accuse' of what, it's the sloppy, careless condemnation to irrelevance of an entire class of evidence by any means necessary to clear the field and make their little construct seem plausible that I was talking about. And they say they're running an 'investigation.'

CIT paraphrase: "YOU" "you and Farmer" "and Arabesque" "attacking us personally [...] instead of the evidence" We write about the evidence, declare the findings that they are wrong again, and they attack US for attacking THEM while just insisiting they're claims are still intact without actually exlplaining how...