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

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


You are only making things worse. Nick only showed others what the rest of us already thought.

Dude, you even made a Youtube Video??? Christ sake man...LET IT GO!


I'm curious, which evidence will you be presenting to a court first...

Your Pentacon evidence or your accusations of Libel.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Christ sake man...LET IT GO!
I'm curious, which evidence will you be presenting to a court first...

Hell no, don’t let nothing go!

Whilst Craig and I might have our disagreements – he says he isn’t a no-planer, I say he is a twenty-five percent no-planer because none crashed at the Pentacon – his research is solid and presented concisely and legibly. You’d be stupid to diss the man for his work.
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.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 8/27/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Originally posted by pinch

And also, I'm pretty certain now that the OC story was the "WE'VE GOT SOMETHING THAT'LL BLOW THE LID OFF!"

Quote me or admit you lied.

We never touted this article.

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....

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Reheat]

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
You’d be stupid to diss the man for his work.

Thanks Wiz!



You know I like you despite our disagreements.

There seems to be a pattern here. First you guys accuse CIT of misrepresenting eye witness testimony in their interviews. Then you attack them for not bringing the evidence to media and/or court. Then somebody writes an article attacking CIT and you praise it. Then when CIT comes forward to point out the inacurracies, misrepresentations and flat out lies, you attack them again for trying defend themselves.
It seems you guys are more about attacking CIT then finding out the truth.

For anyone who hasn't noticed, there's a big flashing yellow statement at the bottom of every thread in this forum. Let the snide comments, personal attacks, and insults go. Debate and discuss the topic please, or do not participate.

Craig. HANG IN THERE! Regardless of your stance on the Pentagon attack, you are being attacked (IMO) by a group of posters who use no other tactic than childish mocking and schoolyard bullying methods. I have watched the deplorable behavior of these posters and I honestly believe that it's a concerted effort to undermine your investigations.

You have no doubt ruffled some feathers and the actions of your...(sigh) detractors speaks volumes IN FAVOR of your investigation. They show desperation in their methods and that says (to me) "I'm getting a paycheck to throw people off your theories."

Like I said, hang in there. Don't stop doing what you guys do. It matters.


I, myself, am not a truther. I am not in any camp. I suspect that we were lied to with things like The 9-11 Report and the NIST "findings", but, I have not read or heard anything that represents the truth of the incident yet. I recognize you are busting YOUR butt to do so, though.

Cuhail

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods

his research is solid

No it's not.

Craig has been running around for several weeks claiming that he has a flyover witness. He has, as of yet, never attempted to explain how he came to the conclusion that his witness is a ''fly over'' witness and not a second plane witness.

Hello? Craig? Flyover Path?

Originally posted by Boone 870


Craig has been running around for several weeks claiming that he has a flyover witness. He has, as of yet, never attempted to explain how he came to the conclusion that his witness is a ''fly over'' witness and not a second plane witness.

That's because the answer to that question should be obvious to anyone who listens to his 2 interviews.

But let me break it down for you since you seem to be having trouble.

There was no "2nd" commercial airliner with "jet engines" at less than 100 feet altitude flying away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion.

He specifically told us it was not a C-130.

The only possible explanation for the jet he saw is a flyover and the 13 time corroborated north side evidence proves it.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
There seems to be a pattern here......
[...]
It seems you guys are more about attacking CIT then finding out the truth.

Wow....well put!

Craig,

Does Lloyd know you're telling everyone that he is a liar? That he is part of the massive conspiracy?

He may take these statements as libel and can persue legal action against you.

So, which comes first....

Your lawsuit against the governement, or your lawsuit against the O.C. paper?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITThere was no "2nd" commercial airliner with "jet engines" at less than 100 feet altitude flying away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion.

Finally...something I can agree with. You are right - there wasn't. There wasn't ANYTHING flying away from the Pentagon that morning. Nothing. The sheer numbers of people who would have seen and reported something fly in the face of anything and everything that suggests there MIGHT have been.

I covered this on the OC board, and noticed it was conveniently ignored by the CIT crowd.

South parking has over 2,000 parking places. Anywhere from dozens to hundred of people are coming and going out of that parking lot all the time and most definitely would have been there at 0930 on a clear Tuesday morning. Military personnel coming on duty/watch or going off, people heading in to a meeting or just leaving one, tours happening all the time. The south-east side of the building is a major bus Fairfax and DC terminal as well as a metro stop and 3 major thoroughfares pass within 2/10ths of a mile away, making the presence of people all over the place even more of a factor.

If a plane - 757, C-130, Cessna, blimp, *whatever* went flying over that parking lot at 50 to 100 feet during any time frame after the initial impact of AA77, don't you think someone besides Roberts would have seen it? Anyone? Bueller, perhaps?

I was watching the impact fire cloud billowing within 5 seconds of impact from my vantage point on the 10th floor of 3 Crystal Park 1.2 miles away from the Pentagon. I watched for approximately a minute before I left the office and returned to my own office. During that time I watched I never saw any aircraft fly by, in front of or through the smoke cloud. An aircraft with a 125 foot wingspan banking around through over south parking at "50 to 100 feet" would have been more than noticeable, particularly if it was dragging a wingtip, which is what it would have been doing according to your scenario.

The fact that you have one (1) witness to such an event that would have taken place amidst scores of people in the parking lot of a building that houses 25,000 people is an aberration. It is not proof of anything. You have either chosen not to find any more witnesses or you have not been able to find any more witnesses.

It is the latter.

reply to post by pinch


Arguments from increDOOlity do not refute hard evidence.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by pinch

 

Arguments from increDOOlity do not refute hard evidence.

One person saying they saw something which goes against *ALL* other accounts of witnesses that saw the impact, does not make it "hard evidence".

No other witness can corroborate his story.

Nice attempt at spin.

Down, down, down ...

reply to post by Soloist


One person?

Clearly you haven't been paying attention.

The north side approach proving a flyover has now been independently corroborated 13 times over and has been directly refuted by none.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Soloist

 

One person?

Yes, the one person who claims to have seen the "flyover". Please try to follow along.

The north side approach proving a flyover has now been independently corroborated 13 times over and has been directly refuted by none.

The approach in and of itself proves nothing, all the other witnesses do not claim to witness any "flyover", and many state the opposite.

Originally posted by Soloist

The approach in and of itself proves nothing,

Of course it does since a north side approach is mutually exclusive with the physical damage and all reports.

Please try to follow along.