Originally posted by TXRabbit
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?

Unfortunately, the OP brings it on himself as he has constantly attacked the character of many witnesses (calling them suspect, etc) as well as many of the respected members of this forum. Threads like this are made in desperation as he and his "team" have NO evidence of their "flyover theory" whatsoever.

Yet they continue, and those of us that see through the smoke and mirrors *will* call him out on it.

If what he's discussing is so WRONG then why not provide evidence to the contrary. Why does somebody's research bother you SO MUCH that you feel compelled to derail the thread and misdirect the flow?

Personally it bothers me so much because it's nothing but a fraud and lies, period. And sadly, people jump on the bandwagon and throw out all common sense and reasoning to believe this junk.

You want contrary evidence? How about this, none of their witnesses saw the plane go anywhere but into the Pentagon. THEIR witnesses, you know the ones they use to prove their "flyover theory"...

No one saw any evidence being planted, and there is no evidence that the actual plane is anywhere else put in pieces.

How about the calls from the plane to loved ones?

Now take all of that and add it up, and apply some common sense to it all...

Or would you rather take this (OP) "evidence" of what seems like a guy jumping at the chance to get on TV and exaggerate his account for whatever reason, and actually think this is proof of a "conspiracy"?

Originally posted by Soloist
Unfortunately, the OP brings it on himself as he has constantly attacked the character of many witnesses (calling them suspect, etc) as well as many of the respected members of this forum.

Off topic ramblings, Soloist? This thread is not about the original poster, it's about the topic in the original post.

Threads like this are made in desperation as he and his "team" have NO evidence of their "flyover theory" whatsoever. Yet they continue, and those of us that see through the smoke and mirrors *will* call him out on it.

More off off topic ramblings, Soloist? There's nothing in the title of the thread that suggests a flyover.

This thread was made to show how the media was complicit in spreading LIES that were told by Aziz.

Personally it bothers me so much because it's nothing but a fraud and lies, period. And sadly, people jump on the bandwagon and throw out all common sense and reasoning to believe this junk.

I completely agree with you. I don't know how anyone could believe Aziz or Fox news. His entire story was lies and fraud, yet people fell for it and jumped on the bandwagon for war.

You want contrary evidence? How about this, none of their witnesses saw the plane go anywhere but into the Pentagon. THEIR witnesses, you know the ones they use to prove their "flyover theory"...

More off topic ramblings, Soloist? This is not a flyover thread.

No one saw any evidence being planted, and there is no evidence that the actual plane is anywhere else put in pieces.

In that case, why wasn't Aziz charged for removing a piece of the alleged plane from a crime scene?

How about the calls from the plane to loved ones?

More off topic ramblings, Soloist?

Or would you rather take this (OP) "evidence" of what seems like a guy jumping at the chance to get on TV and exaggerate his account for whatever reason, and actually think this is proof of a "conspiracy"?

This thread is about showing the LIES that were told that day.

At worst, FOX is complicit in these lies by knowingly giving a false witness five minutes of critical airtime.

At best, FOX is extremely unprofessional for not verifying his story before they gave him five minutes of critical airtime.

Look at 1:20. Anchor: It's almost macabre to have a.. a piece of something like that in your hands...

Well, it's just as macabre to watch the LIES that were spread that day and see how other people deny them or brush them off as trivial details.

Himmler would be impressed with the propaganda spin that was in place that day.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

In one of the most egregious examples of dubious witness accounts we have Aziz ElHhallou.

Yo Craig! Could you post the interview you have with Aziz, please? You know...the one where you ask him about all the apparent inconsistencies in his story.

You *did* interview, him, didn't you? Else how could you insinuate he's a blatant liar?

You *did* give him the opportunity to explain the apparent inconsistencies in his story, didn't you?

You *did* afford him the decency of letting him speak up against those accusing him of falsehoods, didn't you?

You *do* have more than mere circumstantial evidence and supposition and guesswork to back up your claim that he is not telling the truth, correct?

You *did* confirm that the individual in the photograph *was* Aziz, didn't you? Besides just *saying* it is.

You *didn't* use leading questions when you interviewed Aziz, correct?

Because you *are* Professional Citizen Investigators, I would expect you to have something...you know.....solid...before you accuse someone of lying.

We'll wait for it.

I'll look forward to the transcript.

Originally posted by pinch
You *do* have more than mere circumstantial evidence and supposition and guesswork to back up your claim that he is not telling the truth, correct?

Here's the crunch, pinch.

If Aziz was telling the truth, then there would have been lots of cars with smashed windscreens from a jet passing maybe 60 yards over their heads. That's extremely unlikely and was never reported by anyone other than Aziz. Car windscreens do not smash, en-mass, from a jetplane flying 60 yards overhead.

If Aziz was telling the truth and he did have a piece of the alleged Flight AA77, then he should have been charged for removing a piece of crime scene evidence.

If Aziz was telling the truth and was not charged, then that showed a lack of law enforcement procedure to not follow-up on Aziz's claims. On national TV, he confessed to removing crime scene evidence. That shouldn't have been hushed up quietly.

Either Aziz was lying and showed that FOX did not do their job properly for not verifying witnesses, or Aziz was telling the truth and showed that law enforcement officials did not do their job properly for not charging him with removing crime scene evidence.

Which is it, pinch? Do you have another explanation?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Off topic ramblings, Soloist? This thread is not about the original poster, it's about the topic in the original post.

Oh please, get off of it! If you paid attention at all to the post it was in answer to the quoted member. I addressed the OP later in that post.

None of this is proof of anything, just like EVERYTHING else the OP posts.

No evidence. None. Zip. Nada.

This is why anything the OP posts is and should be treated and confronted with an enormous amount of skepticism due to his long history of spinning and deception to prove his "theory". You can say it's all about the guy on TV all you like, however some of us know the OP's agenda.

Sorry if some don't like it, but that's the way it is.

Originally posted by Soloist
None of this is proof of anything, just like EVERYTHING else the OP posts.
No evidence. None. Zip. Nada.

The evidence is straight from Aziz's mouth in the interview. His evidence is dubious and most likely a lie, yet it was pushed on national TV. Why?

This is why anything the OP posts is and should be treated and confronted with an enormous amount of skepticism due to his long history of spinning and deception to prove his "theory". You can say it's all about the guy on TV all you like, however some of us know the OP's agenda.

You are discussing the original poster again, instead of discussing the topic in the original post.

Originally posted by tezzajw
The evidence is straight from Aziz's mouth in the interview. His evidence is dubious and most likely a lie, yet it was pushed on national TV. Why?

Maybe he wanted attention? Who knows? It is NOT evidence of the OP's conspiracy theory is the point. There is no evidence of that. None.

You are discussing the original poster again, instead of discussing the topic in the original post.

Yes, the OP's intentions need to be made clear due to his "team's" history of spinning things to fit into their conspiracy, which is what he is doing in his post. People who do not know this have the right to be informed, why do you want these things hidden, hmm?

Originally posted by Soloist
Maybe he wanted attention? Who knows?

Then why did FOX give him that attention and push it for five minutes? Aziz was part of the propaganda spin used on that day to push the Pentagon story.

Fox permitted this man to go on national TV with a dubious story - why?

It is NOT evidence of the OP's conspiracy theory is the point. There is no evidence of that. None.

The OP was about Aziz. Why are you mentioning something off topic?

Yes, the OP's intentions need to be made clear due to his "team's" history of spinning things to fit into their conspiracy, which is what he is doing in his post. People who do not know this have the right to be informed, why do you want these things hidden, hmm?

You are discussing the original poster again and not the topic of the original post.

People have eyes and brains, they can read what is written and decide for themselves what they choose to believe.

Why don't you try and stay on topic and comment about Aziz and let people see what you think about his interview?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Then why did FOX give him that attention and push it for five minutes? Aziz was part of the propaganda spin used on that day to push the Pentagon story.

Fox permitted this man to go on national TV with a dubious story - why?

More like why did Fox permit him to go on national TV and brag about committing a federal offense as if it's show and tell?

Removing evidence from the scene of a crime is illegal.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Then why did FOX give him that attention and push it for five minutes? Aziz was part of the propaganda spin used on that day to push the Pentagon story.Fox permitted this man to go on national TV with a dubious story - why?

It was a crazy day, things happen, people make mistakes, it doesn't mean conspiracy.

The OP was about Aziz. Why are you mentioning something off topic?

It's not off topic, this will be my last response to your policing of my posts. From the OP:

One of the hardest things for people to overcome in the psychological battle of coming to grips with the 9/11 conspiracy is the notion that real people who seem like your every day guy had to have been involved.

There is no way around it.

This conspiracy involved dozens of intellectuals/professionals/assets/operatives/mercenaries (as well as dupes and patsies) who were no doubt mostly convinced that what they were participating in was for the greater good while simultaneously profiting heavily AND compromising their lives.

The OP as you can clearly see is about fitting the interview INTO the his conspiracy "theory", it's plain as day if you would step back and look. This is what he does.

People have eyes and brains, they can read what is written and decide for themselves what they choose to believe.

Funny you should say this, actually. Did the people at the Pentagon who witnessed the attack have eyes and brains? But yet the OP here will tell you they are wrong, with NO PROOF. Not everyone coming here knows his tactics and history of deception, and they have a right to know, and then indeed decide for themselves.

Why are you so afraid of that? Would you rather they take everything the OP says blindly? How is that any different?

Why don't you try and stay on topic and comment about Aziz and let people see what you think about his interview?

Why don't you stop patrolling my posts, my point is very relevant, sorry you don't seem to understand it.

Originally posted by Soloist
It was a crazy day, things happen, people make mistakes, it doesn't mean conspiracy.

Did Aziz make a mistake with his story?

FOX were negligent for allowing Aziz to appear on TV that day. That's not a mistake, that's far worse.

Did the law enforcement agencies make a mistake for not arresting Aziz for disturbing crime scene evidence?

Did the people at the Pentagon who witnessed the attack have eyes and brains? But yet the OP here will tell you they are wrong, with NO PROOF.

Aziz had eyes and brains and he said that car windscreens were smashed due to the jet. How many other eyes and brains reported that happening?

Not everyone coming here knows his tactics and history of deception, and they have a right to know, and then indeed decide for themselves.

Sure, you're right. In this case it looks like there was a deception by FOX to parade Aziz as a star witness - why?

Why are you so afraid of that? Would you rather they take everything the OP says blindly? How is that any different?

I'm not afraid of looking at evidence, Soloist.

I watched the interview with Aziz and I can see how incredibly dubious his story is. Windscreens do not smash, en mass, when a jet passes over cars at around 60 yards height.

Photographic evidence contradicts his claims of where he was at the time that he stated.

Originally posted by Soloist
Your attempt at trolling has failed.
Sorry, obvious troll is obvious.
Kinda sad when you have to twist things in response due to not being able to answer them.
Better luck next time!

Your off topic post is noted, along with your personal attack against me.

At least some people will see that the behaviour of Aziz and FOX was highly suspicious, dubious and should be investigated further.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Here's the crunch, pinch

Try to keep up, tezz, and try to keep on topic.

My post was questioning ol' Craig on his investigative efforts in discussing the event with Aziz. I could care less about Fox News or the penchant for ALL news organizations to rush people or witnesses on air without properly vetting them or their story.

If ol' Craig is going to accuse Aziz of lying and "stealing" debris from a federal crime scene, then he should at least have had the balls (and the investigative acumen, but we already know the CiT Boys lack that in spades) to talk to the guy to see what he has to say. That does not appear to be the case, which means ol' Craig is calling this guy a liar based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence and his (ol' Craig's) own bias.

Up to speed now? Jolly good! Crikey!

Originally posted by pinch
My post was questioning ol' Craig on his investigative efforts in discussing the event with Aziz.

Here's where you need to keep up, pinch. Craig hasn't interviewed, Aziz - so all of your questions to him were pointless.

I could care less about Fox News or the penchant for ALL news organizations to rush people or witnesses on air without properly vetting them or their story.

So you don't care about the topic of the thread. Why bother posting here?

If ol' Craig is going to accuse Aziz of lying and "stealing" debris from a federal crime scene, then he should at least have had the balls (and the investigative acumen, but we already know the CiT Boys lack that in spades) to talk to the guy to see what he has to say.

Aziz said it himself on national FOX TV news! Why does Craig need to verify what Aziz said himself? Aziz confessed that he had a piece of the alleged plane with him and confessed where he allegedly found it.

There are two possibilities:

It is true, so he stole it.
It is not true, so he is telling lies.

If I could find his phone number I wouldn't hesitate for a second to call him and confront him with the blatant anomalies in his account and forward him the photographic evidence proving he lied.

In fact if I had Aziz's address a visit to his house to knock on his door and confront him in person would be high on my priority list for my next trip to Arlington.

I think my track record in this regard should be enough to show that I am not bluffing.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
None of these activities involve americans killing thousands of other americans on american soil - if this is a homegrown conspiracy then this would be unprecedented.

since i believe other nations helped carry out the attacks this is quickly and simply explained away with 'outsourcing'. maybe you can't find a dozen or two american units to wire the wtc for demolition but how about mossad or isi ??? [that is an example and not meant to drive the thread off topic but to illustrate a point]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
If I could find his phone number I wouldn't hesitate for a second to call him and confront him with the blatant anomalies in his account and forward him the photographic evidence proving he lied.

I think my track record in this regard should be enough to show that I am not bluffing.

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 pinch
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?

Every crack that opens up is important, pinch. Aziz is about as good as Condi Rice - liars the pair of them.

You can only present so much information to people before they either evaluate it or stick their head in the sand and ignore it.

I'm merely pointing out to accuse someone of lying at that level without interviewing them is really the height of irresponsible "journalism"

No, not at all. I'll let you know what the height of irresponsible journalism is: Image a scenario where a TV news station allows someone, on a live five minute segment, to confess that they have stolen crime scene evidence and to present the evidence on camera. Then, the interviewer takes the evidence in his hands with his macabre words... That's far worse than calling anyone a 'liar'.

It's also extremely poor journalism not to question a person thoroughly and ask them to clarify their story. At the start of the interview, Aziz states where he was, then retracts it instantly, all without a blink of the eye from the interviewer. That's weak journalism.

Aziz was used as a prop on FOX. His interview was propaganda. Aziz was allowed to tell his fairytale story without any opposition from the interviewer.

, 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.

What about the obvious bias of the FOX interviewer who was sucking up and believing everything that Aziz said, without a single challenging question?

Perhaps you might prefer the FOX style of reporting and interviewing, however many other people would prefer to see Aziz challenged on his claims.