Thanks Craig, the media loves the macabre, and this no exception. It's interesting how we all just ate it up as the gospel in the beginning. The more you look into some of the more sensational witnesses, the more questions that pop up.

Thanks infinityoreilly.

The pseudokeptics won't touch this one.

Wow... just wow Craig.

You are borderline accusing this man of being in on it. At the minimum you are calling him a liar.

Just to let you know, he and the Washington Moroccan Club have been informed of your accusations.

CaptainObvious, the OP never came out and actually said that he called him a liar or accused him of anything.

He simply said that he was presenting the evidence and that the reader/viewer was to make up their mind on this man.

Craig even says: "Make up your own mind what to accept in regards to the implications of this evidence."

And given the evidence it can lead one to believe that this man is not being totally truthful; however, he could be telling the truth 100%. I think the evidence is laid out in a way that a reader could decide either way on the issue; it is also presented very well. This does not look like an accusation by the OP, more simply just a stating of information that he had found and was presenting. It gives new info that I was not aware of and if the people here at ATS are going to deny ignorance, we have to look at all sides to get a full perspective on an issue.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by ChrisJr03]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Wow... just wow Craig.

You are borderline accusing this man of being in on it. At the minimum you are calling him a liar.

Just to let you know, he and the Washington Moroccan Club have been informed of your accusations.

So, as you cant argue against the evidences, you simply attack the person who brought it up ?

Its a normal (loser) move when someone is on the defensive.
This just prove that you have no explanation to the given facts.

Great find again Craig, man that smirk, it's just so obvious....

Yea let me just pull out this pristine piece of 77 out of my back pocket.

What a crock of crap.

Yea I'm calling him a liar and his STORY a fake right now. So?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
"borderline" about being in on it. But his post IS implying that he is lying about his account.

Craig also states that this man is guilty of an "act of terrorism no less."

That is NOT what I said.

Here is what I said: "In essence he admits to a federal offense on live television since this would obviously be removing evidence from the scene of a crime. (an act of terrorism no less)"

The act of terrorism is the crime from which he illegally removed evidence from the scene of.

Are you denying that this is illegal?

Don't you find it the least bit strange that this was so casually paraded on live TV?

Isn't that smirk unsettling? Particularly when the reporter says that "it's almost macabre to have this".

What is Craig implying here? That the guy is happy about the death of all those people? I don't know.

There are lots of things that one can get off a smirk but it's typically not grief and there is absolutely no question that he repeatedly smirked throughout that interview. Do you deny this? The reporter is trying desperately to suggest that Aziz must be all emotionally broken up from his experience. He is likely doing this because this isn't the slightest bit what Aziz's body language conveyed and the reporter also sensed how awkward and unsettling it was.

Craig have you contacted this witness? I was able to obtain his e-mail VERY easily.

Perhaps you can get his story? Tell him he is guilty of removing evidence from a crime scene?

We tried to reach him by phone with no luck. Are you sure his email is current? PM me his email and I'll be happy to send him one.

Frankly I highly doubt he would talk to us particularly now since if his email is current YOU alerted him already.

Regardless, the evidence that he is lying, is the Jason Ingersoll image, not something we said.

If he hadn't seen the Ingersoll image it would have been a great interview if we found him and he agreed.

I'm surprised ATS allowed you to link to his charitable organization. Bad taste in my opinion.

It's called investigative reporting and it's entirely relevant.

I didn't say ANYTHING about the charity because that is not why I posted it.

Naturally you think it's immaterial that he used a completely different last name when he told his alleged Pentagon attack experience on live TV to the world.

We think it's entirely relevant to the notion that photographic evidence proves his account false and I simply posted that link as evidence showing how he goes by a different name.

Craig is absolutely correct in his analysis on this. The man was allowed to keep and show a piece of the debris which seems to incredible to believe. It was a crime scene and *IF* we are to believe the *OFFICIAL Tale* then no-one knew what was going on at that point.

Is it NOT a fact that freaks lurk on CT site....? like most any other sites? I was not referring to anyone in particular. Nor was I attacking anyone personally. Ranke supplied contact information for a man that he is calling a liar and in his eyes a possible perp. Read his OP.

If this forum spoke ONLY of facts, the 911 truth movement would not exist here.


[edit on 13-4-2008 by CaptainObvious]

A couple warnings have been issued due to the nature of the activity in responses within this thread.

And unfortunately, due to the inability for some to remain civil, I'm closing this thread.

If any participants feel this closure is hampering discussion of an important issue, feel free to begin a new thread, referencing the material brought up in this one. However, please be certain to remain focused on the issues and not each other.