CIT Research Forum -> Caustic Logic and Arabesque's "devil" claim

Caustic Logic and Arabesque's "devil" claim, more deceptive charachter assasination

Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Craig Ranke CIT

Posted: Dec 6 2007, 03:25 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,930
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07

Caustic Logic took this deceptive quote from Arabesque's personal attack blog against us and ran with it:

QUOTE

�Dylan Avery observed of the CIT investigators, �anyone who's watched [CIT�s] behavior on our [Loose Change] forum knows exactly where [they] stand. �The generator damage? It was faked! The light poles? They were faked! These eyewitnesses? They're lying or agents! Bla bla bla...� Aldo's tirade in the TNR pretty much seals the deal. You think Lloyd England is a government operative, �THE DEVIL� as Aldo put it.� Ranke attempted to justify calling Lloyd the taxi cab driver a �devil� by saying, �if �demon� isn�t a fitting description for someone willingly involved what is?�

The problem is that we never called Lloyd or anyone specific "the devil".

Dylan was wrong just like they are.

Aldo has said more than once that we have "looked the devil in the eye" during our investigations. This is merely a metaphor (and a well known one) that was first used during our radio interview with Jeff Rense.

But NEVER have we specifically called Lloyd or anyone "the devil".

Yet the words have been twisted and the CIT haters use them regularly to try and make us look bad since they can not refute the evidence we present.

The fact is that while Aldo certainly was referring to the fact that we have spoken direct with operatives who are directly and willingly complicit in mass murder.....he was NOT referring to anyone specific and he was not literally calling anyone "the devil".

It is simply a metaphor.

Although CL agreed to "retract" this claim during part 2 of our debate......he did something entirely different.

He used his imagination to write a literary interpretation of what we meant and STILL insisted on including nonsense about Lloyd's eyes. Here it is:

QUOTE

There has been some confusion over who said and meant what in this case. Aldo's original quote, in a radio interview, apparently talking about Lloyd, was: "I can say I've spoken directly to operatives from the Pentagon attack. I have looked the devil in the eye." I had a phone conversation with Aldo yesterday where he clarified that he meant it in a more figurative sense; the overall plot - the attack, the cover-up, the whole sinister operation - was 'the devil.' Lloyd just the eye into which he peered and saw the darkness pulsing beneath. They maintain that he could be simply duped into playing along, and manipulated against his will into lying about what happened, and thus be simply an unwitting surrogate of the devil's works. But clearly he is a window onto the abyss, and that he happens to be the one witness whose south path testimony they've verified, they must place him in special quarantine, apparently rimmed with theological barbwire.

Have you ever heard anyone lay the bullshit on so thick?

We never said ANY of that.

Lloyd's account is dismissed as invalid because it has been proven to be invalid by the CITGO witnesses but also because it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

The evidence is there proving this.

Caustic Logic is deceptively twisting our words AND meaning in order to make us out to seem like we are basing the information on a wild emotional hunch without regard to evidence.

As if we are looking at the evidence from a "theological" stand-point.

It's completely incorrect, a VERY manipulative, and deliberate attempt to frame us on his part.

« Next Oldest | CIT response | Next Newest »

DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you