Nick Schou, OC Weekly reporter, lies about 9/11 evidence & libels Citizen Investigation Team

reply to post by Azrael75

Thanks for your support I appreciate it!
Will you bring the CIT evidence of MASS MURDER to a court for the CIT?

opsy daisy double post

[edit on 28-8-2008 by TheBobert]

Craig, I mean this with a true heart and honest intentions, will you admit your conclusions are not accurate?

Focus on the real questions.

You have talent, energy and a real focus that is sorely lacking in modern day life. There is no dishonor in admitting you might have been wrong.

As a matter of fact, it speaks to your credibility and honesty. If you admit you might have been wrong it does NOT mean that you’re a ‘sham’, it means your honest. And as such, a true researcher.

EDIT /sigh. I can’t seem to get one darn post out the door without revisions. I am only human


[edit on 28-8-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

I want to know when Craig will be able to explain the bodies that were witnessed to be still strapped in their seats.

"It was probably planted" will not cut it.

Thank you

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
I love how you 9/11 Deniers hide behind your own canards.

What's that? You can't prove the identity of the alleged plane?

Do you want me to repeat your canards for you? OK, here they are, in your own words:

------------
1) Please show the reports that forensically identify the alleged wreckage of the alleged plane that matches the alleged Flight 77.

2) Prove that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, then we have something to discuss.

3) I've yet to see an official story believer show me an official report that matches the alleged wreckage by serial numbers to that of Flight 77.

4) I even had one believer admit that he could not find any serial numbers for wreckage that was allegedly from the WTC complex. I was supposed to take it on good faith that two planes crashed there.

---

Any questions, 911 Denier?

Perhaps you would like to provide the eyewitnesses to a "flyover" jet away from the Pentagon since CIT can't.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I want to know when Craig will be able to explain the bodies that were witnessed to be still strapped in their seats.

"It was probably planted" will not cut it.

Thank you

According to both Craig and Aldo, a non-flyover jet, witnessed by non-witnesses, with a non-flight path, cannot have non-passengers strapped to non-seats.

The CIT insanity continues.....

Originally posted by Azrael75
instead of grammar and wording, it would be nice if anyone could actually prove the 'official' account, or this one, or any other one. just some proof of what happend would be nice. i am not sure what all this nitpicking about inconsequential details is helping anyone prove anyone wrong about 9/11.

Perhaps it would benefit you to take a look at the topic of the thread and comment on that.

The topic is NOT anything to do with the "official story", it is "Nick Schou, OC Weekly reporter, lies about 9/11 evidence & libels Citizen Investigation Team".

CIT has no libel case!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by nicepants

 

Are you denying there was a C-130?

As I said before, you should stop using ridiculous strawman arguments.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I admit I tried leading them to the official story a few times.

Do you believe that leading questions indicate bias on the part of the interviewer?

Originally posted by TheBobert
reply to post by Azrael75

 

Thanks for your support I appreciate it!
Will you bring the CIT evidence of MASS MURDER to a court for the CIT?

thanks for proving my point. all you can do is insult, but you cannot back up the official story and that is the one requiring a burden of proof. i know what i saw, i know what i know, and i know what i believe based on those two things. now tell me a plane full of passengers is on that lawn or made that hole, ok, SHOW ME PROOF THAT HAPPEND.

or admit you are wrong and scared by attacking my post, maybe my grammar, my typing skills, call me immature or stupid, but still no proof.

either way, i will be happy to move on from this pointless *snip*.

MOD Note: Please Review This Link: Terms and Conditions



[edit on 8/28/2008 by semperfortis]

In all honesty; the best reply to Nick's "hit piece" would be.......silence.

Thou does protest too much.

Craig,

Take a look at the whole quote from Nick's article:

In fact, other than a few interesting interviews with people who saw a plane fly on one side of a gas station when the official data places it on the other, ThePentaCon includes no evidence of anything whatsoever, just a lot of questions and innuendo set to an ominous hip-hop beat.

Notice, first of all, Nick is talking only about ThePentacon. Now, besides the interviews pointing out that the plane flew NoC, what other evidence of anything does ThePentacon include? Anyone else care to answer?

bc

reply to post by biscuit cough


Not a thing. And, that is the answer.

reply to post by Azrael75


I never insulted you I only thanked you and showed you simple human kindness.
Please try in the future to stay on topic.

reply to post by biscuit cough


I don't know BUT I would cough up a biscuit if they actually had proof of anything!

Originally posted by TheBobert
reply to post by Azrael75

 

I never insulted you I only thanked you and showed you simple human kindness.
Please try in the future to stay on topic.

i did not say that you insulted me. i said that in lieu of any actual defense of the story you purort to believe, you only offered insults. i am still waiting for any actual defense of this story, evidence of this plane, proof the government is not covering up ALOT about 9/11.

Originally posted by Azrael75

Originally posted by TheBobert
reply to post by Azrael75

 

I never insulted you I only thanked you and showed you simple human kindness.
Please try in the future to stay on topic.

i did not say that you insulted me. i said that in lieu of any actual defense of the story you purort (sic) to believe, you only offered insults. i am still waiting for any actual defense of this story, evidence of this plane, proof the government is not covering up ALOT about 9/11.

Easy solution to this. Will you do as Bobert asks, since the CIT Cover Girls and the Sky Kings from PffT, led by Captain Bob, won't do this?

Will you bring the CIT evidence of MASS MURDER to a court for the CIT?

I mean....if indeed there is no actual defense of this story, as you put it, or no evidence of this plane, and no evidence the government is not covering up ALOT, it oughta be a slam-dunk! Think of the accolades you will receive! You will be rich beyond anyone's wildest dreams! ALL because YOU took the bull by the horns and brought this open and SLAMMED shut case to court.

Will you? Or will you revert to the standard excuse matrix - my dog, it...my job, they...my wife, she...my boss, he...

I mean...if this isn't important enough to take to court and SUE the perps and get them to do the frog-walk from the west wing, why do it?

Do it for the TRUTH, man! *sob*

If not, why? If it is *really* that important, somebody has to, and it is quite obvious the CIT Cover Girls and the PffT Sky Kings and the Archies and Engineers (or whatever they are called) and every other Truth organization has no intention of doing anything about this. Probably something about their Cafe Press stores that might be impacted.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by pinch]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Investigative reporters don't tell witnesses what other witnesses said.

That would be leading.

From your Roosevelt Roberts interview:

Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?

Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around; because you've got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon.

Aldo: Sou- southwest away from the Pentagon, okay; so kind of doing a U-turn, in a way?

and

Craig: Okay.

Aldo: A- okay. So- an- an- but- would- now how long would- I mean would you be sure that it was about ten seconds that it would take you to run from the phone to the outside, or would you think it was less than ten se- ten seconds?

Craig: Or a little bit more?

Roosevelt: It would've t- it would've taken about ten seconds, because after impact I stepped out the little, uh, booth that I was in. And the distance between. . . that booth and the edge of that dock is about, maybe, I don't know like. . . seven steps away from there.

Aldo: Wow.

And that isn't asking leading questions? Suggesting to the witness what YOU think happened?

And please TELL ME you aren't basing your case on Roosevelt Roberts testimony.

Wait. You have no case. Else we'd all be doing the frog-walk by now.

Originally posted by pinch
Wait. You have no case. Else we'd all be doing the frog-walk by now.

What is really ironic about what Roberts' says is that his statements are much more confusing and contradictory than all of the witnesses they have dismissed.

This includes England, Wheelhouse, Sucherman, McGraw, and others. A case? What case? It's not even close.

What's more it is proven wrong in about 5 different ways the easiest of which, is that it's ludicrously unrealistic.

reply to post by pinch


i see, so if i do not believe the official story, then i am wrong for not bringing it to court? i never said i had proof, i never claimed to be a lawyer. i said that i need proof of the story i have been given in order to believe it. i am glad that you are so easily pacified but what the government tells people to tell you. good sheeple, sit there and just believe everything. i am free to doubt, that is what makes america so great. and in that doubt, i am free to express it. as a result, i am also free to ask for some proof of what the government has told the news to tell me happend on 9/11. i am so glad you have your smarmy little comeback all prepackaged and ready but i have already seen that argument enough times to know that you guys need to get new writers or maybe individual thought patterns of your own. if it were the other way around, would you have proof of what is now the official story to bring to court to prove it was as stated?

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Of course 9-11 issues can’t be taken to court -- no judge will throw his career away by being labled as crazy for daring to allow questioning of 9-11 events.

Whoops, the conspiracy has now expanded to the Judiciary System! I think this just about covers everyone now, except, of course, the conspiracy theorists themselves. Well, it's just a matter of time....

Funny, very funny. But no, the fact that no judge in our union will go anywhere near cases questioning 9-11 is not a conspiracy. It has nothing to do with complicity but rather everything with human nature. Perhaps a refresher course in anthropology is in order.

Humans are a herd animal and conform to whatever happens to be socially acceptable. Right now, 99.9 percent of the population thinks 9-11 was the work of ‘terrorist’ attacks. The opinion polls ATS members keep referring to, about all these 9-11 doubters amongst us, HAVE TO BE NONSENSE. Why? Well if there really are so many folks distrusting the official 9-11 stories, then WHERE ARE THEY? Certainly not here, on ATS! We have less than a hundred posters on this 9-11 forum. Of which half are OCT-ers. Which leaves only one in two million adults (US population only) as persons who explicitly challenge the mainstream 9-11 views. And that’s overestimating the number of 9-11 doubters because ATS is an international site.

Worse yet, lawyers and judges are a conservative, conformist bunch. Ever seen a judge wearing jeans? Our entire establishment – the president, our house and senate, supreme court members, captains of industry, and the pitchfork-wielding public -- has signed off on the standard reported 9-11 story. No magistrate is ever going to take this on (the 9-11 fable). And perhaps, by definition, they shouldn’t.

‘Justice’ is whatever the majority of people at any given time want it to be. Justice is not a scientific standard, it’s a dynamic, rubbery entity. It’s whatever we want it to be. If people think it’s ok to steal from and kill native American indians – as we did 120 years ago – well then it is. If folks think it’s alright to invade another country in the name of our ‘national security’, i.e. to steal oil that we feel we ‘need’, well then by Jove that’s okay too. We will always model our justice system according to the conveniences of our day.

So please, don’t demand that Craig Ranke take his Pentacon investigation to court. It’s a ridiculous demand.

Regards,
The Wizard In The Woods