Alleged Pentagon attack alleged witness Aziz ElHallan, I mean, Aziz ElHhallou (let's try this again, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times

reply posted on 14-4-2008 @ 07:32 PM by jthomas

Originally posted by TXRabbit
reply to post by jthomas

Why do people feel the need to add NOTHING WHATSOEVER to the thread or discussion at hand but merely attack the character of the poster?

Surely you know that it is not Ranke's character that is being discussed. The subject matter is Craig Ranke's claim is that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, as is in all the threads he starts.

That is why he must support his claim by addressing all of the evidence. Surely you are aware that he must be able to refute ALL of the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon before he can even begin to posit any theory whatsoever.

Ranke's threads demonstrate one clear fact: that he will not deal with all of the evidence of what happened at the Pentagon. So it is important to hold him to the requirements of doing a proper investigation and showing him why he hasn't.

reply posted on 14-4-2008 @ 09:33 PM by EndOfFile

reply to post by jthomas

jthomas, you are dead on right in the way you are handling this thread. I agree, you simply can't focus on one little piece of puzzle and then make a claim that a plane didn't hit the pentagon. It is impossible to have so many things happen involving so many people and everyone is able to keep a secret for this long.

However, there is nothing wrong with continuing to research, its your time. But I think that you need to interview people who were at the scene. I would be very interested to hear what all the first responders have to say.

Does the OP have any interviews with the first responders?

reply posted on 14-4-2008 @ 10:10 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by EndOfFile

jthomas, you are dead on right in the way you are handling this thread. I agree, you simply can't focus on one little piece of puzzle and then make a claim that a plane didn't hit the pentagon.

NOWHERE in the OP was the claim made that the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

It is impossible to have so many things happen involving so many people and everyone is able to keep a secret for this long.

Argument from incredulity.

Faulty logic does not refute evidence....however this thread is about one witness account.

Care to comment on the OP?

However, there is nothing wrong with continuing to research, its your time. But I think that you need to interview people who were at the scene. I would be very interested to hear what all the first responders have to say.

Then you should try contacting some.

Does the OP have any interviews with the first responders?

Yep.

We will be presenting a fire captain who was all throughout the building on 9/11 and on 7 prior plane crashes in his career and he does not believe for a second a plane hit the Pentagon.

We've talked with 2 other firefighters (tried talking with others) and we got a tour of the Pentagon from a currently enlisted rescue worker who wrote us this letter:

He is one of the men in this image:

The fact that some of them happen to believe the official story has no bearing whatsoever on the evidence we present.

We focus primarily on witnesses to the actual plane and the true flight path.

We have multiple lines of corroborated hard evidence proving the plane came from east of the river and flew north of the citgo.

This is the extent of our claims and it just so happens to prove 9/11 was an inside job.

jthomas or nobody has offered anything to refute this evidence.

We make no claims beyond what we can support with evidence.

We provide evidence to back up ALL our claims.

jthomas provides none to back up his or refute what we present.

We ignore and avoid nothing and most certainly have contacted DOZENS of witnesses, first responders, and victims.

For jthomas to constantly ride us as if we haven't is old, tiresome, false, and extremely hypocritical since he has contacted NOBODY.

Now please keep this thread about the account of Aziz ElHallou.

reply posted on 15-4-2008 @ 06:50 AM by jthomas

reply posted on 15-4-2008 @ 09:15 AM by Craig Ranke CIT

I'm not shy about my beliefs in the least.

Everyone knows that.

But this thread is about the evidence surrounding the account of Aziz ElHallou.

Care to respect the rules of this forum for once and comment on topic?

reply posted on 15-4-2008 @ 09:41 AM by SlightlyAbovePar

reply to post by TXRabbit

I appreciate your post and your viewpoint.

I think what you may be missing from your questions is this: at what point do you call the absurd, the absurd?

What’s absurd is putting forth a ‘theory’ based on only the evidence you choose to evaluate because you know the outcome is going to be beneficial to your preconceived ‘theory’.

What CIT has done, and continues to do, is put forth only those pieces of information that support their propaganda. This is intellectually dishonest and at its core deceitful.

For whatever reason CIT, and the so-called “truth movement”, perennially uses this tactic. You might ask yourself why? The answer is very simple: because more than six years later, that’s all they’ve got.

The evidence supporting the “official” story is massive, overwhelming and virtually complete. Notice I said virtually complete. Are there inconsistencies, voids and contradictions? Absolutely there are. There is inconsistancy in any event that is witnessed/involved by thousands upon thousands of individuals.

Do these inconsistencies validate the various theories put forth? Absolutely not!

The preponderance of evidence is completely, utterly devastating to any notion of a conspiracy surrounding 9-11. What you have to remember is the so-called truth movement lives in these inconsistencies and voids and flat-out ignores the other, massive amounts of supporting evidence that indicates 9-11 was not an inside job.

This is what, IMO, CIT perpetually engages in and what JT consistently points out. A real ‘investigation’ would deal with all of the evidence and report back what the preponderance of evidence indicates. On the other hand, groups like CIT, report on those inconsistencies and voids I mentioned earlier and misrepresent this outlier evidence as the only evidence or the ‘average’ which it’s not.

That, my friend, is propaganda, not truth seeking.

And that's exactly what's going on in this thread. The calls of "de-railing", dis-info, personal attacks, etc, etc are nothing more than another attempt to defuse the attention away from the facts and back to the propaganda.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply posted on 15-4-2008 @ 09:55 AM by SlightlyAbovePar

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Not impressed. You've spoken to a few firefighters and I am supposed to trust your relation of that discussion as accurate? Beyond that, those few equal or outweigh the thousands of others that do not support your pet ‘theory’?

I read the note from the NCO. Interesting: what he was referring to is anybodies guess. He could have been referring to something (which is my suspicion) completely unrelated to a fringe, pet theory and your “work” surrounding it.

It's already been exposed that some of your "witnesses" (in other threads) were duped and had no idea what your true agenda was when filming them.

After that, why is it not fair game to ask these kinds of questions?

I notice that you have added the American Flag background to the NCO's note. Interesting.

reply posted on 15-4-2008 @ 10:01 AM by SlightlyAbovePar

reply to post by EndOfFile

Notice the evasions.

Very valid questions you asked and (predictably) he has brought forth the infamous NCOIC note.

Keep in mind, the note in question is very vague and could have been written in response to just about anything. It has been proven that CIT is less than honest when interviewing "witnesses" and has no problem misleading said witnesses into thinking they are participating in something other than a truther propaganda video posted on Youtube.

It's entirely fair to keep these facts in mind when evaluating CIT’s claims.

reply posted on 15-4-2008 @ 11:11 AM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

Not impressed. You've spoken to a few firefighters and I am supposed to trust your relation of that discussion as accurate? Beyond that, those few equal or outweigh the thousands of others that do not support your pet ‘theory’?

This is not about anyone's "theory" to us including our own. It's about evidence that proves the official story false.

I read the note from the NCO. Interesting: what he was referring to is anybodies guess. He could have been referring to something (which is my suspicion) completely unrelated to a fringe, pet theory and your “work” surrounding it.

Yeah right! We live in California. The 9/11 hero who saved lives at the Pentagon on that day and throughout the recovery efforts wrote the letter and specifically THANKED us and told us that all of our work will "pay off in the end"! He specifically addressed it to "Citizen Investigation Team" and hand wrote it on personal stationary. What else could he possibly be talking about?

Talk about denial.

It's already been exposed that some of your "witnesses" (in other threads) were duped and had no idea what your true agenda was when filming them.

This is an absolutely lie. You are so desperate. These attacks are so blatant and deceptive. Back up your libelous and completely false claim or retract it.

After that, why is it not fair game to ask these kinds of questions?

Because you are blatantly lying.

I notice that you have added the American Flag background to the NCO's note. Interesting.

Ummmm no I did not.

That is the pattern on his personal stationary that he wrote the letter of gratitude on.

S.O. specifically asked to keep this thread on topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
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.

Please obey his requests.

reply posted on 15-4-2008 @ 06:31 PM by SlightlyAbovePar

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Thanks for your response.

Talking about what you have entered into the public discussion, in your very own thread, most certainly is on-topic. If you think anything I have commented on is off topic, then I suggest you tighten-up your delivery.

Nice try though.

reply posted on 15-4-2008 @ 06:42 PM by infinityoreilly

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

You and jthomas and CaptainObvious haven't really made any comments about Aziz ElHallou. Would you care to state your opinion regarding this witness to the Pentagon attack?

reply posted on 15-4-2008 @ 08:37 PM by mirageofdeceit

I've no formal training, but that guy is showing several signs of lying to me.

Body language:

* He's shaking his body around; he won't sit still

* He often looks UP, especially when trying to recall a detail he should know

* He looks around the room, rather than at the person interviewing him

Speech:

When it comes to the details, he:

* Has a problem remembering the time ("eight or nine fifteen") - AHEM - he doesn't know when his girlfriend or himself goes to work???!! He actually had a problem recalling this fact (because it is not his normal routine - he was told to remember it)

* He says which road he was just driving onto, then says "actually no" and continues as if nothing happened. The interviewer didn't seem to pick up on this

* He emphasizes where he found the piece of metal

* He claims he spent a "good 20 minutes talking to the Police, Military Police" etc..

* "Most of the cars they had their front windshield broken because of the noise of the airplane"

A WORLD FIRST!!! (Any photographic evidence of this, besides Lloyds car?? Note that front windshields are STRONGER than side windows)

* As he's talking about looking to his left, and talking about it looking like a professional airline pilot, he says something unintelligible, but at the same time as he is trying to recall this bizarre detail, he looks up again.

If he did talk to the Police and Military Police (BTW - does he really mean MPs?), why didn't they take his piece of shrapnel off him, instead of letting him keep it to show on national TV? As was said in the original thread on this subject, he committed a felony by removing that piece from the scene.

I think this guy is 100% plant and pure BS, and 0% witness.

I can see why they don't mention the Pentagon these days.

EDIT: At 3:40, he mentions the police and MPs again, when asked if he got out and helped anyone. He says he couldn't get out (but hesitates and then doesn't say why he couldn't get out) [size=4]then mentions that they didn't know if there were going to be "other explosions after the third one happened". WTF?!?!?![/size] +1 to the witness list for multiple explosions!!!!!!

(Note to Mods/Admin: Size formatting isn't displaying properly)

[edit on 15-4-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply posted on 16-4-2008 @ 03:01 PM by SlightlyAbovePar

reply to post by infinityoreilly

I think the criticisms against this guy are valid. Does it prove a conspiracy? Not a chance.

As I have said before, can you find inconsistencies in the amassed evidence? Of course! Especially with eyewitnesses. Eyewitness testimony alone is a very unreliable fact gathering technique. In concert with all the other evidence, the picture is quite clear what happened.

Therein lies the rub. ALL of the amassed evidence, not some of the evidence. CIT, and truthers in general, use this tactic at every opportunity. It’s dishonest and nothing but pure, unadulterated propaganda.

Think about this. On the one hand, CIT ravages eyewitnesses as being utterly unreliable. However, they don't waste a second holding up 'their' witnesses as telling the gosphel. You can't have it both ways.

In addition, this guy has been accused of being a "plant" but yet he's incapable of appearing sincere. Again, you have the hyper-competent government (conspiracies, cover-ups, paid plants, etc) and the hyper-incompetent government (clearly a buffoon who can't lie convincingly) totally at odds with each other.

In conclusion, can you (post-event) find inconsistencies with eyewitness reports? Of course you can. Does this mean there was a conspiracy? Only if your propaganda-driven agenda requires it.

[edit on 16-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply posted on 16-4-2008 @ 03:08 PM by gottago

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

Pfft.

A million years is also about how long we'll have to wait for the pleasure of reading the NIST report on WTC 7.

Sorry to go OT, but your sweeping, broad-brush tactics deserve such a response.

reply posted on 16-4-2008 @ 03:12 PM by SlightlyAbovePar

reply to post by gottago

Pfffft.

I would expect nothing less.

After all, that’s all you have six years and counting of ‘serious’ research.

The good news for the truth: you guys are your own worst enemy. You make pointing out the obvious, glaring flaws far, far too easy.

P.S. I am not talking about the you specifically, but rather the royal you.

reply posted on 16-4-2008 @ 03:27 PM by gottago

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll reply in context. This guy is an obvious shill, waltzing into a newsroom with stolen evidence and telling his story. Reminds me of the other 9/11 MSM shills already ID'd: the 50-something guy with stringy grey hair and glasses at the WTC; the guy who later got a congressional seat at the Pentagon talking flightpath impossibilities; and the other guy at the WTC who said in the most unconvincing voice imaginable, bare minutes after collapse, that jet fuel fires had weakened the towers and brought about collapse.

Disinfo agents on-scene, in front of network cameras, spewing their spiel, mere minutes after the events.

Again: pfft.

reply posted on 18-4-2008 @ 02:19 AM by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by infinityoreilly

I think the criticisms against this guy are valid. Does it prove a conspiracy? Not a chance.

[edit on 16-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Thanks for the reply. I see your point about the eyewitness double standard, but the not a chance part of your argument is weak. This "witness", and others like him that were paraded on the news had an effect on perceptions for many who were glued to their TVs trying to grasp what happened.

I think Craig is simply pointing out the problems with the official version of events as presented by our MSM. The possibility of a conspiracy by the media to avoid certain aspects of 911 is valid.

reply posted on 18-4-2008 @ 03:38 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

I realized that I forgot to copy over from the other thread the actual proof that Aziz's story is false!

Unfortunately I can't edit the OP.

This is what I left out:

Aziz claims he was on route 27 for "a good 20 minutes" after the event which is when we are supposed to believe he simply snatched a piece of the aircraft that allegedly landed by his car.

But here he is up at the Navy Annex in the very first Jason Ingersoll image that was taken less than 5 minutes after the event. We know this because we have the original images with the time stamp AND because we confirmed it direct with Jason Ingersoll himself.