Pentagon fireball

After going a few rounds with me on a recorded debate Caustic Logic has side-stepped the north side claim and all the pertinent evidence that we present that he can not explain and decided to issue a diversionary challenge to us on his blog about the fireball caught in the security video.



The problem is that he censors all comments on his blog and comments aren't published openly for public reading anyway.

So instead of issuing the challenge where I could reply openly and publicly he took his challenge to the Loose Change Forum where he didn't even sign up until he knew I could no longer post there.

In the LCF Caustic Logic posts under the arrogant screen name "Pentagon Reality Check" and he has a much more smarmy attitude compared to when he posts here particularly when addressing the research of CIT.

Even in this challenge post (again where he KNOWS I can't reply) he has a rather sarcastic and patronizing tone.

Plus he is taking statements of mine out of context and what I said is already being misconstrued as he clearly intended.

Because of all this I figured it was important to bring his challenge here where I could publicly reply.

So here it is in all it's smarmy glory:

I've issued a challenge to the Citizen's Invetigation-ish thing. Anyone else feel free to offer assistance.
The Post

Note how the deflgration seems to have moved into the building and against it, indicating momentum and a certain angle. A 150-foot high rolling fireball that moved against the Pentagon at about the deflection angle expected on the official heading, injecting fire into the upper floors far to the north of impact. This was not caused by eplosives-laden bricks inside the spooky renovated area.

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.

Craig responded "tap tap, t-tapitty tap" No need to speculate on how it happened, it's been proven it was faked.

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.

It had to happen somehow, folks.

Why would he issue a challenge with such attitude in a forum where I can't respond or in a private blog and then take comments of mine out of context to vaguely insinuate that I am asserting the fireball was created with exotic weaponry?

He conveniently left out another comment of mine where I say:

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

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.

I NEVER said that the fireball was made with exotic weaponry.

My only point was that the suspect in question who is the richest most advanced defense agency on earth has access to unknown weaponry so surely a simple fireball at their own secure and controlled headquarters in a part that had been under "renovation" for years and was relatively unoccupied would be quite simple to create.

[edit on 21-11-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Here is the rest of my original reply that he failed to include:

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.


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.

Not to mention there is no valid evidence of what the fireball looks like.

None.

No independent or live footage.

Only 2 dubious bad quality Pentagon security videos of virtually the same view provided by the suspect years later.

It's quite likely that the real fireball was "enhanced" but it doesn't even have to have been.

To suggest the fireball in that video defies the capabilities of the Pentagon to create without crashing a 757 is absurd.

He even went so far as to LIE about what I said here:

Yes that's Craig with the exotic weaponry.

source

Except NOWHERE in the quote he is referring to did I say those words.

What I said was:

"But I do know that the suspect in question has access to the most advanced weaponry in the world including unknown technology."


This is an absolute factual statement that nobody on earth would deny.

My only reference to "exotic weaponry" is in regards to how INSANE the notion is that it would be needed to create that fireball.

Of course regular jref posters at LCF like Red Dawn are ALREADY running with Caustic Logic's direct and clearly deliberate manipulation of my words and COMPLETE mischaracterization of my claim when I said the opposite.


What's sad about this is CL and I were debating earlier today before he posted this and he left the debate amicably with this:

Craig, John, I realize I've stepped over a certain threshold here. But I've stated my case. Take it as you will. There is no point arguing it further. In fact I was just popping in to do so, we seem to be on the same wavelength John.

Craig, yes, you have made a well-crafter case based on rigorously gathered real data analyzed by a method at least party scientific. And it's true that my theory is pure speculation with no proof and only circumstantial evidence that places it somewhere on the credibility spectrum. That's it. I just wanted to talk about it some more.

Happy Thanksgiving guys. Hope we can all just chill and do something sould-nouriishing with family and friends. I know I can use it.
post here

I guess he simply couldn't leave the forums for the holiday on a positive note.

Such a shame.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I NEVER said that the fireball was made with exotic weaponry.

My only point was that the suspect in question who is the richest most advanced defense agency on earth has access to unknown weaponry so surely a simple fireball at their own secure and controlled headquarters in a part that had been under "renovation" for years and was relatively unoccupied would be quite simple to create.

[edit on 21-11-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

I've always thought the video in question was doctored. When first released it was all of 5 seconds long and its authenticity and who exactly released it was in doubt, still is. Many have analized it and posted their findings causing further doubt in my mind.

Why no other of the videos recorded that day have been released gives rise for concern as to what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. Your flyover theory intrests me so I read most of your posts. Thanks and keep on diggin'.

Infinityoreilly

reply to post by infinityoreilly


Awesome thanks man.

We've got some BIG stuff in the works to release.

We have a better handle on how this deception was carried out more than ever and some explosive new data that really helps put the pieces of the puzzle together.

Yeah that video is clearly manipulated.

I've always maintained that the object and smoke plume are the parts that were manipulated but certainly the fireball could have been easily enhanced.

I think that the "debris" you see flying up and over the building was likely added as well.

But the odd thick squiggly smoke plume in one frame is particularly questionable since it doesn't even cast a shadow while everything else does.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I think that the "debris" you see flying up and over the building was likely added as well.

Craig, don't forget the 'intact' portion of the Pentagon which was also in the fireball!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Note how the deflgration seems to have moved into the building and against it, indicating momentum and a certain angle. A 150-foot high rolling fireball that moved against the Pentagon at about the deflection angle expected on the official heading, injecting fire into the upper floors far to the north of impact. This was not caused by eplosives-laden bricks inside the spooky renovated area.

But i remember a military witness near the Pentagon stated that a fireball came out of the builidng and destroyed the back section of the plane.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But i remember a military witness near the Pentagon stated that a fireball came out of the builidng and destroyed the back section of the plane.

Assuming that you are not using the term "military witness" as an oxymoron, his powers of observation must have been phenomenal considering it would have taken less than 2/5ths of a second for the airplane to enter and disappear inside the Pentagon.

Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by johnlear
Assuming that you are not using the term "military witness" as an oxymoron, his powers of observation must have been phenomenal considering it would have taken less than 2/5ths of a second for the airplane to enter and disappear inside the Pentagon.

But he states the plane did not go all the way into the Pentagon, only the nose section and to the wings, then the fireball came out of the builidng and destroyed the tail section.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


If you ever reference witnesses it's best to state their name, their quote, and the source.

Even then the account is not valid evidence until it can be confirmed and we hear it direct from the witness' mouth.

Even then they may be operatives so their claim must be corroborated and tested against their real life POV before it can be validated.

It's a lot of work but it's the only way to determine legitimate witness accounts during a world wide psychological operation of deception.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
After going a few rounds with me on a recorded debate Caustic Logic has side-stepped the north side claim and all the pertinent evidence that we present that he can not explain and decided to issue a diversionary challenge to us on his blog about the fireball caught in the security video.



The problem is that he censors all comments on his blog and comments aren't published openly for public reading anyway.

So instead of issuing the challenge where I could reply openly and publicly he took his challenge to the Loose Change Forum where he didn't even sign up until he knew I could no longer post there.

Oh booh-hoo, you fact distorter. I offered the challenge on my blog while comments were open and uncontrolled. You openly responded basically 'I decline the challenge because it's dummb and my case is proven.' Then you started going off more than I like and soapboxing it and I put the cork back in, letting comments in one at a time. So far I've let all in but the last, as its more ad hom than substance it seems. Nothing much is censored. All the others there and on the other post are still readable by all. And since you didn't seem interested in the challenge, I also took it to LCF to give your supporters there a whack at it. And again, it's not my fault you were banned from there and can't ignore the challenge over there too.

And in case it's an issue (I didn't read the whole thread) here's what I wrote at LCF:

[Craig] never said exotic weaponry of course. That was my flourish. Is it inaccurate?

Depends on what you mean by exotic. It can't be identified yet, but is surely at the hands of the high-tech perps. It wouldn't really have to be very exotic, however, just unusual. Some kind of super-flamethrower plus debris catapult is most likely. Not too high tech. There are issues about where it would have to be placed, at what angle, and where it could be hidden so no one would see it. Not having mapped it all out yet, I can't say how plausible it all is. If we find the scene set-up isn't right for your standard flame cannon/debris catapult set-up, we might have to consider something more truly exotic.

So just to clarify, talk of 'exotic weaponry' was me making fun of Craig, not his admission.

I don't apologize for saying it, just for any misunderstanding as to what they were actually saying, which is that the Pentagon was burned by a giant fireball engineered against its facade by an unknown means as part of the fakery program.

I'm smarmy when I post as PRC? Sure it's not just the name? 'Cause when I want I can be a real smart-ass anywhere. One difference, as I'm sure you know, is the unmoderated 'wild west' quality over there compared to ATS. This is like whining to your big city cohorts about how I act over in gunsomke city where you used to prowl until the sherrif booted you. Are you just jealous that I'm still welcome in both city and town, and get to use both my manners and my trigger finger on a regular basis?

Anyway, that's all for now. Good points or whatever, I'm sure you might be right about the fireball stuff. It's really not all that amazing a thing, even if the video shows it as-is. I just wanted to highlight another weird thing your thery requires.

Ultima is talking about Noel Sepulveda I think,

"For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it. An explosion followed."

Read too literally it's kinda silly. I think he's also the one who saw it catch a 'utility pole guidewire' and was physically knocked down by the blast. Weird account.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


Oh booh-hoo, you fact distorter.

You mischaracterize my statements to erroneously associate my claims with "exotic weaponry" and I am the "fact distorter"?

You are too much.

I offered the challenge on my blog while comments were open and uncontrolled. You openly responded basically 'I decline the challenge because it's dummb and my case is proven.' Then you started going off more than I like and soapboxing it and I put the cork back in, letting comments in one at a time. So far I've let all in but the last, as its more ad hom than substance it seems. Nothing much is censored. All the others there and on the other post are still readable by all. And since you didn't seem interested in the challenge, I also took it to LCF to give your supporters there a whack at it. And again, it's not my fault you were banned from there and can't ignore the challenge over there too.

Your blog comments are not publicly displayed and it is not a neutral environment for debate.

You re-issued the challenge in a place were you could deliberately misrepresent my statements without retribution in a last ditch effort before the holiday to cast doubt on us or to make yourself feel like you have an upper hand.

I simply wouldn't stand for it and forced you to retract your lie.

Your challenge IS stupid and I am merely addressing your lies about my response.

I'm smarmy when I post as PRC? Sure it's not just the name? 'Cause when I want I can be a real smart-ass anywhere. One difference, as I'm sure you know, is the unmoderated 'wild west' quality over there compared to ATS. This is like whining to your big city cohorts about how I act over in gunsomke city where you used to prowl until the sherrif booted you. Are you just jealous that I'm still welcome in both city and town, and get to use both my manners and my trigger finger on a regular basis?

Jealous? Hardly.

I am only "banned" at LCF for censorship reasons because our research threatens the integrity of the info in Final Cut.

The fact that we are still featured in the credits is enough to prove that our contribution could not go unacknowledged despite our differences with Dylan.

You SURE DO post with a different attitude there! In a schizophrenic kind of way.

I would bet a million bucks that you would lose that attitude real quick if I was an active member.

Anyway, that's all for now. Good points or whatever, I'm sure you might be right about the fireball stuff. It's really not all that amazing a thing, even if the video shows it as-is. I just wanted to highlight another weird thing your thery requires.

It is not "weird" or a necessary thing to address since you have no valid evidence for how it behaved.

Government provided data is not valid evidence in support of their story and there is PLENTY to show (once again) that this particular data has been manipulated.

So you are making up nonsense about incendiary "catapults" based entirely on manipulated data.



Happy Thanksgiving and I look forward to your debate with Aldo on Wednesday at 3:00.

Bring your notes this time because you're going to need them.

p.s. I knew he was referring to Sepulveda but showing him what it would take to make it valid evidence was more important.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Ultima is talking about Noel Sepulveda I think,

Subject: Hispanic Hero Recalls Experiences
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:18:03 -0400
From: Press Service [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]

By Rudi Williams
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30, 2003 - Many courageous military and
civilian men and women have been honored for their
actions after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on
New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

But only one member of the Air Force received the
Airman's Medal, the nation's highest award for heroism
not involving combat with an enemy. He also received the
Purple Heart for his injuries.

Senior Master Sgt. Noel Sepulveda, 53, a Hispanic-
American member of the Air Force Reserve, was a medical
inspector at the Air Force Inspection Agency, Kirtland
Air Force Base, N.M. But on Sept. 11, 2001, he was
working at the Pentagon as a reserve program manager in
the Air Force Strategies and Policies Office.

As he reached his motorcycle, Sepulveda noticed the
aircraft wasn't following the normal flight path down the
Potomac River for Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport. Instead, it was coming over a distant hotel,
headed in the direction of the Pentagon.

"It seemed like the pilot was scrambling to keep control,
and I watched as he dropped lower and lower," Sepulveda
said. "Then he dropped his landing gear and started
coming down even faster and lower.

As it came down, the plane was hitting light poles, the
sergeant said. "Then the right wheel hit a light pole and
the plane popped into a 45-degree angle. The pilot tried
to recover -- go back vertical – but he hit some more
light poles.

"He dipped the plane's nose slightly, and then smashed
into the building," said Sepulveda, who was presented the
Airman's Medal and Purple Heart by Air Force Chief of
Staff Gen. John P. Jumper at the Pentagon April 15, 2002.

Sepulveda said the wings disintegrated, and then
disappeared. "For a brief second, you could see the
fuselage sticking out of the side of the Pentagon,"
Sepulveda recalls. "Then, all of a sudden, this ball of
fire comes out from inside. It looked like it was just
coming from inside the building, engulfing the fuselage.
And then the fuselage was all gone."

Well Craig you appear to be seriously PO'd and rightfully so.
I find this same mentality among a vast majority of debunkers here and elsewhere.
THEY want PROOF, and specific proof.This gives them validation in their eyes or amongst their peers.If you ask them for PROOF, one gets the standard form reply "I don't have to provide any.", or something to that effect.
Many debunkers hold on to the official story of 9/11 yet can't prove it's true.Nobody has proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that a commercial jet hit the Pentagon.
Caustic Logic is indeed caustic (my own opinion) and his diatribe shows a lack of intelligent thinking or rational debate in my view.
I'm not an explosives expert but I'm willing to guess that any number of devices could cause an explosion and fireball like the one at the Pentagon.If Hollywood can do it, so can the U.S. military and/or government.
If Caustic Logic thinks a B757-223 hit the Pentagon, then perhaps he should show PROOF.A few scraps of shiny aluminum doesn't cut it.I want verifiable proof of serial numbers.I want to see both engines,all of the seats, the black boxes,wing debris etc.
I'd also like him to prove that the explosion can ONLY be caused by a 757.
I already know what the reply would be, so I tend to ignore people of his caliber.

this might seem silly... but why does the video say sept 12?

Originally posted by Odessy
this might seem silly... but why does the video say sept 12?

not silly at all. it's proof that everything is not as it seems, in fact.

craig, awesome spirit. keep kicking lie butt.

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.

p.s. for the record, i have openly associated my "billybob" name with my "newton" name at physorg. i chose "newton" for physorg because i just wanted to talk to physics oriented people about the physics of 911, and it's all about the relatively("einstein") SIMPLE newtonian laws of motion. i don't hide my "one man, one voice" behind puppets and proxies.


[edit on 22-11-2007 by billybob]

I just dont know the more I watch that recurring vid the more I notice an object on the right before the fireball that resembles not an airliner but a missile is there anyway of capturing a clear still?

Originally posted by johnnyrobbo
I just dont know the more I watch that recurring vid the more I notice an object on the right before the fireball that resembles not an airliner but a missile is there anyway of capturing a clear still?

yeah.
with a really good camera.
unfortunately, resolution cannot be "reverse engineered" with any accuracy. you can interpolate pixels, and smooth out a pic, but it gets you no closer to the actual original light reflection off object. it only makes it "nicer" for you mind's eye.