Originally posted by tezzajw
...however many other people would prefer to see Aziz challenged on his claims.

Are you paying attention? You just echoed my original post in this thread. That is exactly what I am taking ol' Craig to task for. 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 pinch
Are you paying attention?

Yes, pinch. Probably more than you.

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.

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 tezzajw

Originally posted by pinch
Are you paying attention?

Yes, pinch. Probably more than you.

I'll say! You are indeed one sharp cookie. 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.

pinch, either Aziz lied or he disturbed a crime scene and confessed to it. Which would you prefer him to be guilty of?

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?

[edit on 15-11-2008 by pinch]

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.

Damn straight I would have grilled him. Your plea to emotionalism is noted, though. Regardless of what happened that day, FOX have a duty to maintain professional standards. They failed. They let Aziz say whatever he wanted to on TV.

Either they let a liar on TV or they let a confessed criminal on TV. Which was it, pinch?

The same plea to emotionalism was used against the American people that day, when your leaders geared all of you up for war and most of you bought it without question. Propaganda. Very well placed propaganda too. I'm wondering if they chose Aziz, due to his apparent middle-eastern name and looks? It looked great having a middle-eastern person supporting the OCT on TV.

Has he stopped beating his wife?

I don't care. It's off topic. He never mentioned that he did or didn't in the TV interview. Why don't you ask him and find out?

I have no idea what he was guilty of, or if indeed he was guilty of anything.

That doesn't surprise me, pinch. I guess I won't ask you again, as you find it difficult to differentiate between a liar and a criminal.

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

Here we go again... you've been reading from jthomas's script again, where he accused me of things that I did not state. Show me where in my 2200+ posts where I have conclusively stated that a plane did not hit the building?

I ask for proof that a plane hit the building, pinch, but no one supplies me with any. Sure, I have my doubts and I wish I knew what happened that day. Maybe a plane did hit, maybe it didn't. Maybe people like Aziz stole all the pieces of the alleged plane that had the serial numbers stamped on them, hey? No wait, you told me, without proof, that the FBI have all the parts and numbers and are not releasing them. You still haven't proved that claim and it was made around six weeks ago. Why has it taken you that long to get back to me with proof, pinch?

so how could he be guilty of "disturbing a crime scene"?)?

This must be the part that you don't understand. If Aziz didn't remove a piece of the alleged plane, then he lied on TV and FOX let him do it.

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?

Who knows what he did with it? I imagine that when he gave it to the authorities that he should have been arrested for not giving it to them at the crime scene, if it was a piece of the alleged plane. If the authorities didn't chase him up, then the piece of alleged plane that he had, couldn't have been too important to them. Who needs any evidence when you're told what happened, right?

Was he indeed up at the Navy Annex after the crash?

Photographic evidence places him there.

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?

Who else reported smashed windscreens? His is the first report that I have read about cars having smashed windscreens from a jet passing 60 yards overhead. That's what he said, pinch. You're an old fly-boy, you should know how completely crap that claim is.

You going to hang him because he exaggerated something like that?

He hanged himself by showing that he's either a liar or a criminal.

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.

I know a lot about Aziz in the five minutes that I heard him have free range to speak about anything that he wanted to, as permitted by FOX.

Are you and ol' Craig related?

Off topic. But, we are related, we're both human. Go figure, huh?

[edit on 15-11-2008 by tezzajw]

Nice post edit!

Great job proving how I most certainly HAVE been interested in contacting him since day one.

As I said, if I could find his phone number I wouldn't hesitate for a second to call him.

Send me a pm if you have any luck finding it.

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.

You can rant to someone else.

Originally posted by makeitso
Beyond that, due to your post, I won't be back to this thread.
You can rant to someone else.

So what was the point of your hit-and-run tactics, other than trying to make Craig look stupid?

If you really want to help, like you claim, then you'll look for Aziz's number and pass it to Craig via U2U.

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.

Oh no please leave it as is.

I like it like that!

It links to a great thread.

Beyond that, due to your post, I won't be back to this thread.

Of course not!

Don't let the door hit ya in the behind.

Peace out!

There, I've put it back. It was an accident. I meant to post a new post.

Let me know if the re-edit is not the same as before so I can fix that.

There was no hit and run. I wanted to know if he had called, since he had not responded by the third day.

Since his response is repulsive, I won't let the door hit me in the butt.

Have fun guys.
makeitso

Originally posted by makeitso


Since his response is repulsive, I won't let the door hit me in the butt.

"repulsive"!!!

Now, it looks more like you're running away with the tail between your legs!


Cheers

Respect Craig! You have responded the the uncalled for abuse on this thread with great character. Keep up the good work. I think the guy interviewed by Fox is a plant and you are definately onto something. I noticed that most evaded the point that he was not even at the scene for the time he mentioned.

As I sit here years after the event and think about the media controlled world we live in today, I find it sad that so many are still so manipulated. Still so trapped in their old world paradigm. Many people think that the "experts" on TeeVee still tell the truth. The level of sophistication in television PROGRAMMING as a social force multiplier is astounding. Listen to the news. Listen to your coworkers. Bring up some topics. Listen to the responses. They are often the same.

Now think about the levels of sophistication when they aren't just trying to sell you coca cola on tv but the military is now involved and they are selling you a war, they are selling you your future. Psychological Operations against the American people were largely successful and we went along with the script.

The internet has saved our collective asses and you all know it. They know it too.

So even if you don't like the original poster, you must admit that these are some glaring examples of POTENTIAL gov't media plants.

However, it is up to us to be ready to accept that they are not.

But when a guy like Pinch slams all of the citizen journalists for their lack of credentials and journalistic standards, he really exposes himself and his paradigm.

I praise the Citizen Journalists of the world, warts and all. The point is not that we have to be perfect. We can make mistakes. It is up to the individual reader to become informed about the world at large and learn to extrapolate meaning from multiple sources.

Never give up. Never forget.

Elhallou is clearly a plant he blatantly removed evidence from a crime scene and he's not been charged with this crime.They would have nailed anyone else in any other case but he's there to sell the official story.

[edit on 013030p://5326 by mike dangerously]

Originally posted by jthomas
Why does Craig continue to avoid interviewing eyewitnesses? How bizarre is that?

He's interviewed quite a few. How many have you interviewed?

The attacked produced evidence. That evidence counts.

People weigh evidence according to their view of the world and the people involved in producing that evidence. That's as true in a jury room as it is on a discussion board. Some evidence may be called into question. That's actually the point of this thread.

And I have to say, that for someone who continues to accuse Craig of evasion, your points are off-topic.

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.

You are either confused or deliberately confusing the issue here. Craig does what he wants with his time. You don't get to tell him what to investigate.

You may be deliberately confusing the issue here with this word "limit". Is Craig preventing others from investigating areas they find of interest? No. Yet that's what you're implying by using the word "limit". Nice straw man.

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.

You make a lot of references to Craig's state of mind and what he knows. Extraordinary perception, I must say.

But in that outburst you veer dangerously close to the actual topic at hand. In fact this thread is about one witness and his possible connection to the events.

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

Says you. I say I'm glad there's someone going out there and getting evidence. They will obviously draw their own conclusions, but at least they're adding to the mountain of evidence.

And your logic is severely suspect.

We only need to prove a critical part of the official story false.

False. First, the evidence is not an "official story."

Evasion. There is the official story. Then there is evidence that supports the official story, and evidence that contradicts it. If you can demonstrate the falsity of a piece of evidence that supports the official story, you've kicked a hole in the official story.

The facts are not all out yet. To expect a full picture from what is publicly available is expecting too much. To expect any citizen without subpoena powers and a serious budget to provide a complete theory is absurd. Craig is doing what he can, which is more than most of us.

This is pretty much a smear tactic, and is pretty ugly:

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.

You're not dealing with any of Craig's evidence, I note. Just as well, as, like the rest of your post, it would be off-topic.

On-topic - I agree with the point of the thread. This is a witness I hadn't seen before, and points already made - e.g., how was he set up? - are very relevant.

I look forward to seeing how this develops.