Craig Ranke vs Adam Larson (Caustic Logic) debate

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT



Didn't Edward Paik also state he watched the plane hit the pentagon? Something about barely seeing the tail disappear or something like that?

reply to post by CaptainObvious


No.

Edward Paik could not see the Pentagon at all from his location.



You are thinking about Terry Morin who was right in front of him at the Navy Annex.

Morin corroborates Paik's account of the plane flying directly over the Navy Annex. This completely contradicts the NTSB data and the physical evidence yet supports the north of Citgo approach which requires the plane to pass directly over the Navy Annex.

Morin could only see the very top of the Pentagon from his location so if he really did see the tail as it reached the building that can only mean that he witnessed the flyover.

This was his POV:

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


So your witness, when he stated he saw the tail... it was on the verge of going up. Can you please explain to me how this was possible?

and his view would not have been obstructed by heavy black smoke.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by CaptainObvious]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Your own witnesses debunk your fly over and NoC.

Morin says Parallel to the Annex, that makes NoC impossible, he watched as the tail went into the Pentagon, not over.
Morin said.

(flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB).

I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.

Boger saw 77 impact the Pentagon. He never said the plane was NoC in 2001. You have him saying NoC now? How did you coach him?
Boger said.

I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building.

Boger saw 77 hit the Pentagon, by using anything from him as your "hard evidence" testimony from witnesses, it confirms 77 hit the Pentagon. Are you throwing out Boger?

reply to post by CaptainObvious


I have now created a thread regarding Terry Morin's account and the ONA claim (over the Navy Annex) here.

But with or without the smoke you can only see the top floor of the Pentagon from the Navy Annex.

reply to post by beachnut


Boger admits to hitting the deck.

Anybody would do this if they saw a plane headed right for them.

This is probably why he missed the pull up and flyover and assumed it hit.

The fact that he places the plane north of the citgo AND banking over the Navy Annex proves it.



Even Mike Walter supports the bank!



You do understand how ANY bank/pivot/turn at this point AT ALL fatally contradicts the official story don't you?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

So you say Boger, who said he saw it hit, is a liar? How many witnesses have you discredited and still use their testimony?

Please present to the degree the bank angle, not seen by Paik, or Morin. No bank over 10 degrees seen by anyone in the last 10 seconds.
Sorry, the evidenced stands, your witness saw 77 hit the Pentagon, and Morin saw the tail crash into the Pentagon, not fly over.

Too bad no one saw the fly-over. Flyover – 0, official flight path and impact - 3

Paik's path is South of the Pike, and Morin's path is parallel to the Annex. Parallel means not over the Annex, both make paths made up by you, all you non paths, impossible.
All your witnesses support the official path. Paik, south of Pike and he points to the Pentagon, Morin parallel to the Annex watching the tail go to the Pentagon where the impact was, and right through the lamp posts, and Boger, he sees 77 hit!

Sorry, the real path 77 took includes small bank angles, like those seen on 911. Please present the bank angles you speak of, in degrees; or are these some non-bank angles, like the non-paths; you never had. ?

Originally posted by beachnut

So you say Boger, who said he saw it hit, is a liar? How many witnesses have you discredited and still use their testimony?

No not at all.

I say he innocently embellished.

This is quite typical for eyewitnesses which is why it is necessary to use the scientific method of corroboration to determine which parts of eyewitness testimony are accurate.

Since of course the north side claim is corroborated by everyone it's clear that this part of his testimony is accurate proving that he is mistaken or embellishing about the impact.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
This is quite typical for eyewitnesses which is why it is necessary to use the scientific method of corroboration to determine which parts of eyewitness testimony are accurate.

And where did you go to school for witness statements; I went to USC. Where did you go. Are you trained?

You did not use the scientific method, you used the throw out what you do not want, and keep what you can twist into your false path story.

Sorry, Morin saw the tail all the way to the Pentagon, and it never went over. Therefore no NoC. And Boger, saw 77 hit the Pentagon; so did others.

No one saw a fly over.

Paik said the plane was close to the tower, he even said it hit the tower once. That makes your new path wrong. With the plane is close to the tower, not over the buildings, you need more BANK angle. Broken by Paik, now how can you move the path scientifically when Paik saw it close to the tower? Paik saw a level jet, you say it was banked up 62 degrees, at your made up speed, and 78 degrees at the real speed.

And you use science but can not do the math to tell us the bank or G force required for each of your impossible paths. Physics is important if you are tying to make up paths.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by beachnut]

Larson has taken his disinfo conspiracy theory a step further by claiming the ringleader is Barbara, the CITGO station manager who initially told us about Robert Turcios and his north side claim.

His theory sure requires a lot of deep cover operatives who were lying in wait working at a gas station for 5 years until someone like CIT dropped in to record their lies that contradict the official story.

That's a long time to pump gas and run a convenience store even though you are making fat cash as an undercover agent on the government payroll!

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Haw haw!!! That is CRAZY! Not like your simple theory - er, proven.. er, I'm not here to argue. just to point at that while Craig will dismiss my stupid disinfo, you'll note he doesn't link to it for fear someone will read it and see where I'm coming from. now deny that that's the reason, and so on...

reply to post by Caustic Logic


Why should I link to it? It's nothing new.

You awkwardly verbalize it for everyone in our debate in the OP and the members here have already told you what they think about it.

Plus I knew you could not resist another fix!

You are admittedly "obsessed" with us as a means to feed your "ego" after all.

I told you that you'd be back to read my responses even though you proclaimed you wouldn't and that you were taking your ball and bat and "going home".

Look who was right AGAIN!

Yes your conspiracy theory is "CRAZY" while mine is perfectly logical.

Here's why....

You have zero evidence for your conspiracy theory while I provide lots of it.

There is zero motive (or logic) behind your conspiracy theory that is actually contradictory to the operation. There is no reason on earth for the perpetrators to go to such levels to cast doubt on their own operation 5 years after the event that was physically carried out exactly as planned and pulled off completely successfully. Especially after their goal of permanent global war and a populace that completely supports has been achieved.

If it ain't broke why fix it?

There is a reason why none of your fellow 757 impact congregation has uttered one word of support for your nonsense ego driven theory.

It makes no sense.

I'd love to see you interview Barbara and make a case for accusing her of being an accomplice to mass murder.

To CL everyone who unwittingly CONTRADICTS the offical story is an accomplice to the crime and any information or data that contradicts it is "disinfo".

Brilliant logic isn't it?

Ummmm no.

It's textbook spin.

Take information that proves a conspiracy and create another conspiracy within a conspiracy to try and cancel it out.

The funny part is he is oblivious as to how transparent it all is.

"Haw haw" is right!

yeah, changing gears doesn't happen over night - I knew I'd at least read the response as soon as I typed that. THere is no point arguing with you was my point. I'm not typing this up, it's something I wrote last might that as a comment at that post that maybe you saw that pretty well sums up where our cts are relative to each other:

You started out

"Boy your conspiracy theory keeps growing!

A lot of people were in on this massive government sponsored plot ..."

I told you a while back I thought Barbara was in on it. You said wow, the list grows... three witnesses and a manager. And now I add... a manager! In a post about how much of this story hinges on this ONE person, and you say wow, what a big vast conspiracy!

when people are asked to be IN a conspiracy they might ask what it entails. You would have us believe however many people - almost certainly hundreds, maybe a thousand or more - were involved in killing the passengers elsewhere, faking and planting all the physical damage, altering all the data and lying or organizing lying witnesses, and all of these people all remain silent after they learn it was part of the cover-up of mass murder... i mean if you were the guy who tore up the generator a day before 9/11 and possed up the pushing crew just before the building blew up and they used that as evidence of a plane - but you knew it was you - no rash of mysterious suicides even, that I've heard of.

I propose that a few people were coaxed to SAY SOME THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE to representatives of a widely-reviled group (9/11 Truthers who make Lagasse sick) to mess them up... and this is considered by you insane? And you're gonna keep messing things up until everyone believes Lagasse's impossible scenario first offered as a prank but co-opted and magnified as a master-prank?

That Grace Slick reference was perfect, dude. And the white knight is talking backwards, every backwards step of the way, sarcasm and irony and inversion, at full volume without even an attempt any more to conceal the fact. black is white, lies are truth, and you think you can sit there and throw these right back on others and manufacture mental illnesses for your opponents?

You either have incredible self-discipline in this charade or ... wow. MK Ultra-level mind problems.

Now my conspiracy theory could well be wrong. I don't even really care if that's so, it's just my proposal, nebulous as it is, for how all this insanity and you started. For the record and all that. Your response is quite telling, of course.

Anybody who cares, if the mods edit that out, go to this post and read comment #6.

So you think you're like heroin, huh? ell if you're a habit I'll kick you like a kitten (remember that line?) just not all at once. I do admit you've had quite a journey here with none of it evenhidden, and it's still fascinating. I may write a book even, how's that for obsessive, but no time to waste arguing with you just to spin wheels and keep the forum going while getting nowhere. It's been [st]fun[/st] - very serious - working opposite you. take care, and don't let your obsession with my obsession get you down.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Larson has taken his disinfo conspiracy theory a step further by claiming the ringleader is Barbara, the CITGO station manager who initially told us about Robert Turcios and his north side claim.

His theory sure requires a lot of deep cover operatives who were lying in wait working at a gas station for 5 years until someone like CIT dropped in to record their lies that contradict the official story.

That's a long time to pump gas and run a convenience store even though you are making fat cash as an undercover agent on the government payroll!

Perfect example of argument from incredulity, a common deflection technique in debate.

Because Craig finds something hard to believe, he dismisses the posibility.

Craig, don't you find it equally hard to believe not one single insider to the plot of deception has come forward? Not one single person has reported seeing evidence of light pole manipulation?....Planting of explosives?....final disposition of AA77 Passengers and crew? Final disposition of N644AA? Planting of aircraft parts? etc.

Your theory sure requires cicumstance alot less credible than a disinfo agent lying in deep cover for 5 years!

reply to post by darkbluesky


Wrong.

He is merely using circular logic as a means to dismiss independent verifiable evidence.

He presents zero evidence to back up his "theory" and fully admits it's based on pure speculation.

Why would you choose to accept faulty logic and speculation over scientifically verified evidence?

His argument would be similar to somebody discounting the fact that planes hit the towers by suggesting they were holograms.

It's not an "argument from incredulity" to dismiss absurd speculative theories that are not backed up with any evidence.

reply to post by darkbluesky

Argument from incredulity? From Craig, the universal expert in deducing logical fallacies on his opponents' part? No way, I don't believe it.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It's not an "argument from incredulity" to dismiss absurd speculative theories that are not backed up with any evidence.

Oh really? You're doing it again. "absurd"? "speculative"? Isn't it only your personal opinion that the theory is absurd or speculative, therefore incredible?

Argument from personal incredulity
Two common versions of the argument from personal incredulity are:

"I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true." (The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is (or claims to be) unable or unwilling to fully consider that it might be true, or is unwilling to believe evidence which does not support her or his preferred view.)

"That's not what people say about this; people instead agree with what I am saying." (Here the person is asserting that a proposition must be inaccurate because the opinion of "people in general" is claimed to agree with the speaker's opinion, without offering specific evidence in support of the alternative view.) This is also called argumentum ad populum.

Wiki

Well, if it's good enough for CIT , then it's good enough for me!

It's my opinion, as well as that of many others, that your theory is absurd and highly speculative.

You also provide absolutely no evidence of a fly over, or the presence of explosives. You provide testimony of indivduals, but only the testimony you like, you discard testimony from the same people that DIRECTLY refutes your theory.

No.... no evidence whatsoever, just highly absurd speculation. That's all you have.

reply to post by darkbluesky


So do you support CL's theory that all of the citgo witnesses including Robert Turcios and the manager of the station Barbara along with ATC in the heliport Sean Boger are all deep cover government operatives who were planted to spread disinfo that proves the official story false 5 years after the event?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT



No, I just enjoy pointing out how absurd and speculative your theories are at every chance I get.

reply to post by darkbluesky


Funny how the irony eludes you.