It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
We won't get into your "track record", which is beyond the scope of this post. Suffice it to say that I don't think anyone is worried about you or your tenacious bulldog-like investigative skills.
As far as bluffing goes, honestly, Craig, you don't scare anyone.
I could care less if you get Aziz on tape as admitting to the Lindbergh kidnapping - it won't go anywhere other than the handful of Internet web pages you frequent, so why even bother?
I'm merely pointing out to accuse someone of lying at that level without interviewing them is really the height of irresponsible "journalism", if that is what you call your shtick. Your bias in this whole thing is incredible and the way you consider yourself and your co-cover boy as some kind of "investigative reporter" is really hilarious.
I hope you find him - and I hope he shoves his Schwinn down your pie hole.
Originally posted by tezzajw
...however many other people would prefer to see Aziz challenged on his claims.
Originally posted by pinch
Are you paying attention?
Ranke is accusing him of lying out his pie hole without asking him one flippin' question. THAT isn't even junior-varsity journalism - that is pop-warner.
Originally posted by tezzajw
Originally posted by pinch
Are you paying attention?
Yes, pinch. Probably more than you.
pinch, either Aziz lied or he disturbed a crime scene and confessed to it. Which would you prefer him to be guilty of?
Originally posted by pinch
On a day when initial estimates of dead in NYC reached upwards of 25,000 and initial estimates of the dead at the Pentagon were 800 or so and the collective grasp of what the hell was going on remained elusive, you would have had the clarity of mind to grill an on-air witness and challenge the veracity of his claims. You are one piece of work.
Has he stopped beating his wife?
I have no idea what he was guilty of, or if indeed he was guilty of anything.
What were his intentions with that piece of aircraft (a piece that shouldn't/doesn't exist since, you claim, no aircraft hit the building
so how could he be guilty of "disturbing a crime scene"?)?
Did he turn it in to authorities? Did it turn out to be a piece of automobile hardware that had been kicking around the roadside for the past 6 months?
Was he indeed up at the Navy Annex after the crash?
Was his claim of "shattered windshields" a bit of over-the-top hyperbole? Were only *some* windshields shattered? Do you know for a fact that none were?
You going to hang him because he exaggerated something like that?
There is so much to this story that you nor ol' Craig don't know and don't care to know, yet you still are quick off the mark to call Aziz a liar.
Are you and ol' Craig related?
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
If I had his number I wouldn't hesitate for a second to call him
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
If I could find his phone number I wouldn't hesitate for a second to call him
Jan 6 2008, 03:59 AM
[quote=Craig Ranke CIT,Dec 29 2007, 01:24 PM]
Wow! Excellent work bro.
[...]
Man I wish we knew all this when we were in town.
We would have soooo ambushed him with a camera or audio recorder!
Originally posted by makeitso
Beyond that, due to your post, I won't be back to this thread.
You can rant to someone else.
Originally posted by makeitso
Oops, I edited my post, and it must have been while you were posting your response. Sorry. I will re-edit it to the original if you wish.
Beyond that, due to your post, I won't be back to this thread.
Originally posted by makeitso
Since his response is repulsive, I won't let the door hit me in the butt.
The internet has saved our collective asses and you all know it. They know it too.
Originally posted by jthomas
Why does Craig continue to avoid interviewing eyewitnesses? How bizarre is that?
The attacked produced evidence. That evidence counts.
For some reason he has a problem with the fact that we have focused our investigation primarily and specifically around eyewitness to the plane in order to determine the true flight path.
Another evasion. Craig Ranke does not get to limit evidence under any circumstances.
Craig knows full well that the eyewitnesses to the crash of AA77 into the Pentagon were widely separated, and not connect to each other in any way.
It is not the truth movement's responsibility to prove absolutely everything that happened on 9/11.
Unfortunately, Craig, when YOU make claims, YOU have to support them by dealing with all of the evidence
We only need to prove a critical part of the official story false.
False. First, the evidence is not an "official story."
Fortunately, people are far smarter than you give them credit for, Craig, They know full well that you have persistently avoided conducting a real investigation, that you have deliberately evaded your responsibility. You cannot continue to try to shift the burden of proof to me or anyone else to do YOUR homework. You need to deal with all of the evidence.