ETA: better angle
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Frustration Ends Here... Or Starts, Depending...
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
- Thomas Pynchon, Jr.
"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191
---
The "9/11 Truth" scene has made major inroads on the mainstream American psyche in the last two years. A record number of people now believe the government, at best, allowed the attacks to occur. Personally, I'm convinced the kernel of this is the same deep-seated suspicion I and many others have felt since that fateful morning. But the reason it's coming out in such a flood now has numerous explanations, one of which is the cumulative effect of various alternate theories, most notably the strain spread via the video Loose Change.
---
It is my opinion that these arguments have swelled the movement for all the wrong reasons. The “hard proof” crowd have claimed to find literally hundreds of “smoking gun” clues left laying out in the open. While some have real validity, many, on closer inspection, are fraudulent. Yet somehow the worst arguments get more air play and capture more attention and so the “Truth” movement has become dominated by the desire not to provide the most rational explanation but the one most opposite to the official story. Beyond providing endless distraction and requiring endless de-bunking (and they keep coming back!), this approach alienates intelligent skeptics, whom we need on our side.
---
It's not for me to say who has intentionally misled and who is simply wrong, but herein I hope to help break the spell of one of their key arguments – no big Boeing jet hit the Pentagon on 9/11 - in hopes of getting some people off that train before it crashes for good. Luckily others have gone before me, and this once crowded carriage is steadily emptying. Through careful research, I have found as have others that almost all evidence points clearly to a 757 as the attack vehicle, piloted by whatever means, and in the process have exposed a long thread of apparent disinformation running from 9/11 to the present and continuing despite all evidence to the current day.
---
Truth is a road, not a destination, and it's much safer to walk.
---
Please feel free to leave comments. I hope I've convinced, provoked, or otherwise effected people with my words here and would love to see any feedback, positive or negative. You can post anonmymously.
---
Words about The Frustrating Fraud and its author:
"This site [...] does what few do -- take on the Pentagon no-plane/no-jetliner theory head-on and expose the errors of those promoting it."
- Jim Hoffman, 9-11 Research, sites with original research on the Pentagon attack.
"I have been reading your blog. Your style is witty and refreshing." - Russell Pickering, Legendary once-proprietor of Pentagonresearch.com
"Blog Devoted to Debunking No Plane at the Pentagon: Unfortunately, like Russ Pickering (whose work gets cited), it's still essentially devoted to 9-11 Denial." - Screw Loose Change
"[A]s Caustic Logic has demonstrated, it’s only evidence when it’s legitimate evidence. False and misleading claims do not constitute evidence—they constitute disinformation." - Arabesque
"Adam Larson / Caustic Logic -- Critically examined the Pentagon attack and the charged issue of its disinformation surrounding it, extensively referencing earlier work." - Victoria Ashley
"[Y]ou’ve done a nice job on continuing to gather facts and reality based information about the Pentagon attack. Some of the comments gave me a laugh or two as well. You’ve accomplished far more in the past couple years in trying to separate facts from fiction than I ever did with that giant 1.5 million+ reads thread! - "Cat Herder" via e-mail
"Caustic Logic made a sad attempt to neutralize our info by casting doubt on us personally. It's pathetic and obvious. And he's a bad writer too. It's like he is a cointelpro flunkie but he keeps trying!" - Craig Ranke
"People like you and Jim Hoffman are dangerous to the truth. You will calmly suggest irrational suggestions in order that you mold the mind of the reader." - Aldo Marquis
"CL, we know you will never amount to anything more than a trash collecting janitor [...] is there some sort of sanitation website where we can check your credentials as a trash throwin janitor?" - Rob Balsamo/John Doe X
"Caustic, one of my favorite LIEHOPers!" - Killtown
What is Caustic Logic?
MORE CAUSTIC LOGIC AT THE BLOGSPOT
(click picture to return to the Caustic Logic Hub)
The Masterlists {Masterlist} – permanent side-post
Literally hundreds of informative over-written posts linked in these categories:
Pentagon Attack Timeline Questions
Citizen Investigation Team / The PentaCon
The Frustrating Fraud Namebase
Pentagon Attack Timeline Questions
Citizen Investigation Team / The PentaCon
The Frustrating Fraud Namebase
external 9/11 Pentagon links
>>Video links: Good and bad - watch your step.
---------
The old video sidebar section has been moved to a dedicated post - click the image for the link.
---------
>>Pentagon research links:
---------
The old sidebar links section has been moved to a dedicated post - click the image for the link. Needs to be updated!
---------
---------
The old video sidebar section has been moved to a dedicated post - click the image for the link.
---------
>>Pentagon research links:
---------
The old sidebar links section has been moved to a dedicated post - click the image for the link. Needs to be updated!
---------
21 comments:
Yup, right on the money.
Btw, spell my name right! :)
Har har.
You know your 757 trajectory in this image does not match the official flight path:
CIT_poles_wrong_underneath.jpg
In fact it looks like it matches the "mislabeled implied flight path" that you erroneously portrayed.
How ironic.
Try again but this time put it on the same angle as the official flight path.
I dare ya!
>>>Yup, right on the money.
Btw, spell my name right! :)
Haha! A typo in my fist non-text post. Okay, I was always spelling it wrong, stupid nonsense words...
>>> You know your 757 trajectory in this image does not match the official flight path:
Yes, that was in the text I didn't feel like finishing. Find me a photo of the right angle and I'll re-do it. closest I could easily find.
Yeah, it's closer to the wrong path you implies erroneously by shifting pole labels one south on the left and 2 south on the right. Diff = about 110 ft on the left, 250 on right. That's a big difference. And yes, at the overhead means the plane was overhead, the left half on his left side, but then continuing up the road with less of a side view, but still enough to see.
Okay, I dare me too to check that.
Pretty good job with this:
CIT_poles_wrong_Under_77angle.jpg
I can accept that as a fairly accurate representation of the best possible alleged POV.
Too bad it is irreconcilable with Sucherman's testimony of seeing the plane move left to right across his front windshield and continue to the Pentagon from his passenger window!
Sucherman does not describe the plane as approaching from BEHIND him and moving forward to the Pentagon.
And of course his claim that he "heard it first" as it approached from behind him at 535 mph makes no sense either.
He would be unaware of it until it passed over him and after being surprised at the sight he would only have about 1.5 seconds to impact.
I guess you're right Larson.
He HAS to be a north side flyover witness!
LOL!
I'd release our initial phone call with Sucherman where he goes into his irreconcilable POV in more detail but but I am waiting for blablabla to post what Sucherman told him first.
I have a feeling he prefers to cover it up.
What do you think?
"You know your 757 trajectory in this image does not match the official flight path:
CIT_poles_wrong_underneath.jpg
In fact it looks like it matches the "mislabeled implied flight path" that you erroneously portrayed.
How ironic."
LOL!
Here's Craig asserting that Adam has erroneously put the plane on the "mislabeled implied flight path" whilst seemingly oblivious that he has now virtually abandoned his "underneath the flight path" claim.
I thought your little mistake didn't change anything, Craig?
The lies are endless.
"I'd release our initial phone call with Sucherman where he goes into his irreconcilable POV in more detail but but I am waiting for blablabla to post what Sucherman told him first.
I have a feeling he prefers to cover it up.
What do you think?"
Yeah Adam, what do you think? :)
He's desperate to know what's in the Sucherman email. He's been making assertions about it's content to egg me on to release it.
Now he's claiming further irreconciable detail in his original recording of Sucherman. Amazing how this detail didn't make it into either of the CIT presentations that feature his in person interview, which was recorded after the phone interview.
Just more bluster to get me to release the email so he knows he Sucherman has said to make it a little easier to craft more lies around Sucherman's account.
I also get the impression that Aldo and Craig are not notifying the witnesses that they are being recorded.
>>>>I also get the impression that Aldo and Craig are not notifying the witnesses that they are being recorded.
Impression?
Hardly.
It is a fact that we freely admit.
As a present I will give you (and of course that obsessed weasel Larson) a little insight into our typical M.O.....
MOST of the time we do NOT tell them we are recording them.
However we typically ask permission to publish it afterwards and explain how we don't tell them we are recording in advance in order to obtain the most candid and objective interview possible. (smart don't you think?)
Most of the time they still give us permission to publish as Boger did. Very rarely they don't like Stephens.
In most states, like Virginia, it is perfectly legal to record phone calls with only ONE party consent anyway.
So in those cases it us up to us to release the recording even without permission.
Sucherman was in Virginia.
The only reason we didn't release his initial phone call recording is because he agreed to, and we later obtained, a video taped interview with him and so the initial phone call became essentially irrelevant at the time.
Many times, the initial phone call is simply recorded as a back up in case we are never able to obtain a video interview.
Sometimes we only get one chance with the witness but we only learned this through trial and error so not all initial phone calls were recorded. Luckily with Sucherman it was. Sometimes the initial phone call is not an interview and merely a set up for a future interview. Sucherman talked during the initial recording even after booking the video interview.
Anyway....as it stands with Sucherman we have no need to EVER release the initial phone call since his video taped interview reveals plenty enough irreconcilable contradictions as it is.
But now that you have spilled the beans and implied that he suggested we misled him you BETTER BELIEVE I want you to release what he told you!
So blablabla.....why did you immediately ask me if we tell the witnesses we are "debunking conspiracy theories" after you got the email from Sucherman?
Hmmmmmm?
Random question?
LOL!
Release your Sucherman data and I'll release mine.
I bet you NEVER will!
hahahahha!
Go ahead and keep it silent while you suck U.S. government ass you pathetic Aussie wanker!
Sucherman is nothing but a footnote within the massive body of independent verifiable evidence we present anyway.
"But now that you have spilled the beans and implied that he suggested we misled him you BETTER BELIEVE I want you to release what he told you!
So blablabla.....why did you immediately ask me if we tell the witnesses we are "debunking conspiracy theories" after you got the email from Sucherman?"
Wow, first it was fact, now you've reduced your charge to I "implied he suggested."
Well which is it, Craig? Did he say it or not?
And more importantly, how the fuck would you even know?
I asked the question because I wanted to hear your answer, Craig. It's my assertion that you misled your witnesses.
And frankly I don't give a fuck what you want. You've been asked time and time and time again to produce evidence that certain persons have made statements you claim they made, and you have failed to do so. We're still waiting to hear Sean Boger's NoC testimony, and also you telling him that he must have deduced the impact.
In fact, do you know what Sean Boger did when I told him he must have deduced the impact?
He laughed hysterically.
So please. Kindly take your demands and shove them up your arse.
Hahaha!
You are awesomely hilarious.
You are nothing but a useless marsupial badly in need of a dose of population control. Maybe you can be processed into U.S. government head cheese!
EVEN IF Boger retracts or backs off his north side claim....which he won't because it's 100% true and backed up by ALL the other witnesses.......it doesn't matter because of um well....all the other witnesses.
I love how you are up until the wee hours of your morning pressing refresh on Larson's lonely blog because we banned you!
Thanks for the open forum Larson.
Keeping your comments open is the best (and only) way to give this pathetic site attention.
"EVEN IF Boger retracts or backs off his north side claim....which he won't because it's 100% true and backed up by ALL the other witnesses.......it doesn't matter because of um well....all the other witnesses."
What, you mean the impact witnesses Craig?
The impact claim is more heavily corroborated than your NoC claim, and all of your NoC witnesses in a position to see the impact are... impact witnesses.
So NoC doesn't really mean anything at all because of um.... all the impact witnesses.
And you helped find them!
Thankyou for debunking your own work!
Banned from where, exactly?
I just posted on your forums with no problems at all.
Yet another lie from Ranke.
>>>>>The impact claim is more heavily corroborated than your NoC claim, and all of your NoC witnesses in a position to see the impact are... impact witnesses. So NoC doesn't really mean anything at all because of um.... all the impact witnesses.
My how brilliant. Ignore contradictions and only accept what seems to support the official line. U.S. government ass kissers from other countries crack me up.
A north side impact is impossible in context of the physical damage and NTSB data. You would be the FIRST stupid enough to assert that it is possible.
Even Larson knows the data we present is 100% irreconcilable with the official story. In fact he even believes it's impossible for all the north side witnesses to be mistaken! Do you know how he reconciles it?
He claims that all of the north side witnesses are IN ON THE CONSPIRACY and deliberately spreading disinfo.
Of course this also would prove 9/11 was an inside job.
Do you like that hypothesis blablabla?
You know you are helping Larson to make his case that Sucherman is a NoC witness and therefore in on the disinfo conspiracy right?
How does that make you feel?
p.s. I can't wait to watch Larson accuse the new wave of north side witnesses of being operatives too!
"Even Larson knows the data we present is 100% irreconcilable with the official story."
That's generally what happens when you recycle a whole bunch of lies and invent some new ones on the way, much like you have.
Some forum w/no moderation at all, huh? I was tired last night and I've got other things going on, but I'll respond now, eventually, to everything on here.
First lemme shut 'er down - Further Craig comments will be unnecessary and rejected. He is banned for violations of honesty, as well as being an asshole. Imagine that! Took long enough too.
Examples:
>>> He claims that all of the north side witnesses are IN ON THE CONSPIRACY and deliberately spreading disinfo.
That's the last time he misrepresents my theory here. When he says this, it's clear he mean THE conspiracy, yknow, the Pentagon attack conspiracy, whatever form it really took. No, some MAY be in on A conspiracy, less disinfo than ad-hoc organized HOAX, possibly gov. engineered, and as likely organized by the witnesses themselves. As always, CIT's absolute refusal to acknowledge the possibility is among the best clues that it's true, and that they are in on it as well.
>>> My how brilliant. Ignore contradictions and only accept what seems to support the official line. U.S. government ass kissers from other countries crack me up.
Ranke has done the exact opposite - ignore correlation of evidence and common sense and physics of the 3D world just to mindlessly oppose the official line with anything that can be made to appear to contradict. No quotes anymore on official line - it IS official, in fact determined by the office of REALITY, not the US gov. As supporters of that power, Bob and I have earned the right to speak here at this pathetic blog and these charges of "ass kissing" are hollow. If you come on here saying the US gov owns reality and we need to reject it to snub them, then the US gov thanks you and I say fuck you.
>>> A north side impact is impossible in context of the physical damage and NTSB data. You would be the FIRST stupid enough to assert that it is possible.
To my knowledge he has not, but it's his right and he would not be the first if so. It's a silly move, but natural for one who looks for correlation of evidence but hasn't thought it all out yet.
Again, there's no way to reconcile a NoC path with what happened. Yet several people with no perspective problems (of that type and scale) possible have said it passed just there, AND impacted. These few cannot likely all be in error in the same way by accident, which is where I think "conspiracy."
Other than that CIT has nothing but lies and distortions of their own making. Correlation of evidence: CIT is caught in a lie. They're caught a distortion, a curious "error" over here, three selective readings over there, and then another outright lie, etc... correlation of evidence = CIT are liars. It holds up time and again. See, this really is the sounder method than working off discrepancies that don't even match each other.
Bob, if you would LIKE to keep debating this jackass liar, it'll have to be at his forum if you can or e-mail or wherever else he'll meet you. No real communication is possible in this situation and I tire of this game that keeps sucking me in.
It's all cool mate, I got my LCF access back, so it's all back on the table over there. I apologise for the scene.
All cool back. That wasn't like a rebuke, like quit arguing here, but more like a "sorry, you'll have to go elsewhere." They have no case, just an insane amount of energy to annoy people and keep them arguing. I'm through with it is all. You can still come here and rip on them if you like and I'm planning new posts, at least until I finally get bored because I'm not seeing all their provocative idiocy.
CIT distorting the witness statements?
Sloppy/misleading/deceptive "research"?
Angry, flaming rhetoric that belongs in a schoolyard?
You don't say.
People died in the Pentagon attack. Those people died regardless of the cause. The White House was evacuated, and the Pentagon was not. There's your treason.
>>> Angry, flaming rhetoric that belongs in a schoolyard?
Not in any schoolyard I have anything to do with. Good to hear from ya again, chum. Apologies for letting this drivel go on as long as I did.
On second thought, venting is pkay and I think we're all big enough to know everyone's got their opinions, so issues only...
---
Craig:
I'd release our initial phone call with Sucherman where he goes into his irreconcilable POV in more detail but but I am waiting for blablabla to post what Sucherman told him first.
I have a feeling he prefers to cover it up.
What do you think?
---
Me:
Me? I think he's not sure if its right to. He did show it to me, and it does contest where you placed him. He does not however place himself literally at 2:00 from impact, but is vague, No quotes yet... I'd like to see them both published, but it's not a big deal.
---
Craig:
As a present I will give you (and of course that obsessed weasel Larson) a little insight into our typical M.O.....
MOST of the time we do NOT tell them we are recording them.
However we typically ask permission to publish it afterwards and explain how we don't tell them we are recording in advance in order to obtain the most candid and objective interview possible. (smart don't you think?)
---
Me:
I don't disagree. Legality issues aside, I'd at least consider recording a convo w/o permission, if only for my own reference. Publishing, yeah, I'd ask first and comply w/their wishes. But so far it hasn't been an issue for me. Insert weasel sounds here.
---
Craig:
In most states, like Virginia, it is perfectly legal to record phone calls with only ONE party consent anyway.
So in those cases it us up to us to release the recording even without permission.
Sucherman was in Virginia.
[...]
Anyway....as it stands with Sucherman we have no need to EVER release the initial phone call since his video taped interview reveals plenty enough irreconcilable contradictions as it is.
---
Me:
Hmmm.... suspect reasoning. Why not go for confirmation? Irreconcilable... "no trees, Joel?" Yeah, that's what he said, dumbasses, which proves you placed him wrong. So no call, since it's "irrelevant."
---
Bobloblaw:
In fact, do you know what Sean Boger did when I told him he must have deduced the impact?
He laughed hysterically.
---
Me:
Why do I not doubt that? Again, good work there, presuming this is indeed true. All anyone really need do is explain to these witnesses NoC = non-impact and let them chose freely which they're more sure of. Lagasse is the only one they did this with and old-hand pro that he is, he flat REFUSED to chose. The others were never asked...
---
Bobloblaw:
What, you mean the impact witnesses Craig?
The impact claim is more heavily corroborated than your NoC claim, and all of your NoC witnesses in a position to see the impact are... impact witnesses.
So NoC doesn't really mean anything at all because of um.... all the impact witnesses.
And you helped find them!
Thankyou for debunking your own work!
---
Me:
Well-put. An interesting side-effect of this hoax is that people are learning in greater detail about what actually happened, despite CIT's apparent intent.
---
Craig:
Even Larson knows the data we present is 100% irreconcilable with the official story.
---
Nope. The data you represent, aside from your own spin, is that so-and-so said such and such. Reality's official story DID happen, and so did the interviews. They said all this stuff, the plane was/seemed over here and then hit the building low and level, etc. You know this Ranke, but here is a reminder again...
Words
are
words
.
Post a Comment