It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
... is mutually exclusive...


Good point. I'm glad you highlighted that.

The impact of the aircraft proves that a north side approach is not possible. All of your witnesses who were in a geographical position to see an impact did, indeed, report seeing an impact.

If your own witnesses reported seeing an impact, the physical evidence of said impact is stronger evidence than the recollections of individuals about where an aircraft came from or went to.

Oh....and you still don't have any fly-over witnesses - south parking, north parking, directly overhead - so where are they?




posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

The piece is a true look at your CIT group. It is easy to understand how upset you are as someone attacks your work based on your fantasy ideas. You have a fantasy plane nobody saw, but you say is a flyover, Flight 77 impacts the Pentagon and all souls are killed, DNA found, FDR found. This is hard evidence you make baseless statements saying the FDR the DNA and the plane never existed and there is a massive cover up from all the ATC, FAA, and military all around DC. You ignore the terrorist flying the planes preparing for years, who murdered us! But you make up fantasy CT ideas based on your flawed interpretations of witnesses.

The piece was not a hit piece, it was telling others what you do, and what you have. Here is a statement from your own witness you have to call a liar to support your fantasy. How do you ignore the many more seeing 77 impact, and 77 hitting the lampposts? The article reveals the truth, you are upset with the article?



Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."


When you look at the article and your work, the article wins. Sorry, you do work hard, but this article will not stop people from believing your work, some people for some reason like your ideas even though based on pure fantasy. Keep up the good work. I would never be able to say the things you do with the evidence you have knowing the people who died on 9/11. I guess being a military member that day I have a better idea what serving the country is and how disrespectful it is to not have evidence and make your claims, actually saying the military is in on it. Yes, there are lots of people who will like your stuff.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


Actually you are simply using circular logic to dismiss scientifically verified evidence based on nothing but pure faith in the government.

Why do you prefer faulty logic and faith to evidence and science?



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


Sorry but I wasn't able to decipher your point (if there was one) in that incoherent, rambling, hyperbolic, irrelevant response that does not address the clear 18 points of inaccuracies, distortions, omissions, and blatant lies of Nick Schou that I have carefully and clearly listed in this thread.

Please come back and make your point again when you learn how to form clear, concise, coherent sentences that directly address the information presented.

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Actually you are simply using circular logic to dismiss scientifically verified evidence based on nothing but pure faith in the government.

Why do you prefer faulty logic and faith to evidence and science?


Please explain how eyewitness statements are "scientifically verified". Who was the scientist that verified this "evidence"?

Were the people's statements that actually saw the plane impact the building also "scientifically verified"?

Funny how you accuse someone else of using circular logic, which is all your "theory" is based on.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

17. Inaccuracy: Schou incorrectly quotes us as having spelled the name of our own organization wrong! The irony here is while making this ridiculous error he felt the need to nitpick regarding a small grammar mistake we made by using the word "specific" instead of "specifically". Schou quoting us, "Take the bizarre disclaimer at the end of the film: 'Citizens Investigative Team is not directly accusing anyone specific [sic] featured in this presentation as being complicit in the crime,'"

Why is he more concerned with our grammar than his own accuracy or bothering to validate or refute the evidence?

(error subsequently acknowledged in print and corrected in online version but our question still stands)


i am sure this is at the bottom of the list of important things to be concerned with here but if specific were modifying 'accusing' then it should be specifically, but i read it as modifying 'anyone' in which case you were correct the first time.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Tell you what Craig, please explain with supporting calculations the flight path shown in the animation on your home page: you know how it passed OVER the Annex, BANKED north of Citgo while descending, descended below the tree line between the Annex and the Pentagon (remember when you said that about Terry Morin), pulled out of the bank, leveled off, and then pulled up and over the Pentagon through the Fire ball as shown in your animation.

C’mon CIT, your whole premise is based on the condition that an airliner can actually do what you claim it did based on your “eyewitness testimony.”

Thanks, your pal 16.5



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azrael75


i am sure this is at the bottom of the list of important things to be concerned with here but if specific were modifying 'accusing' then it should be specifically, but i read it as modifying 'anyone' in which case you were correct the first time.


Ha!

Figures.

And this guy is a career journalist.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist


Please explain how eyewitness statements are "scientifically verified". Who was the scientist that verified this "evidence"?




Corroboration is the time tested and fully accepted systematic process used to validate eyewitness claims.

The fact that I have to keep explaining this to you guys over and over is scientifically demonstrating how pseudo-skeptics are inherently unable to understand the meaning of "science" when it works against their confirmation bias.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Corroboration is the time tested and fully accepted systematic process used to validate eyewitness claims.

The fact that I have to keep explaining this to you guys over and over is scientifically demonstrating how pseudo-skeptics are inherently unable to understand the meaning of "science" when it works against their confirmation bias.



But not one single witness corroborates your sole, lonely "flyover" witness. Sorry, but your attempt at anything "scientific" has failed miserably.

The fact that people have to keep explaining this to you over and over surely must be "scientifically demonstrating" how pseudo-investigators are inherently able to confront and accept reality.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


yeah, just to double check, cuz well why not.

if you accuse someone specifically, you are accusing someone in a specific manner.

if you accuse someone specific, there is a specifc someone you are accusing.

i just didnt want to steer you wrong there so i had to make sure.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Clearly you are deliberately missing the point and refusing to consider the implications.

The 13 north side witnesses and the first critical flyover witness prove an unprecedented psychological deception.

If the plane hit there would not be ANY "flyover witnesses" and people would not place the plane on the north side of the station time and time again.

SOMEBODY would have pointed to the south side.

There would not be these dubious accounts of people talking about a 2nd plane flying away from the building immediately after the explosion when no 2nd plane did such a thing.

If these guys could tell us this.....



....then why didn't EVERYONE see this alleged "2nd plane" "shadowing" it or flying away immediately or "3 to 5 seconds" after the explosion?

If the plane hit there would be no reason for them to continue to sequester the 911 calls that would have revealed what people REALLY first reported.

They were released in NY so why the cover-up at the Pentagon?

I'll tell you why....because the plane flew on the north side of the gas station and did not hit the building.

I am certain there are more people who saw it.

If they didn't reconcile it in their minds and simply accept that it was an alleged "2nd plane" they are scared for their lives and prefer to stay out of it just like Roosevelt Roberts.

But I don't doubt that more will eventually come forward as attention to this evidence grows and they start feeling safe to speak out.

If we were the "snake oil salesmen" or crazy kooks that people try to make us out to be we would not be getting letters from first-responders who were all throughout that building saving lives on that day thanking us and encouraging us to keep it up because our "hard work will pay off in the end".




We would not have still enlisted 9/11 heroes giving us full after hour tours of the inside of the Pentagon.

We would not have victims endorsing us:


We KNOW we are on the right track and we KNOW that the work we are doing is ruffling a lot of feathers.

We hear from insiders who also secretly encourage us.

There are a lot of people in DC who know it was a deception and feel powerless.

We give them hope and they give us encouragement and fuel to continue by reassuring us we are on the right track.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally Posted by Craig Ranke CIT

And this guy is a career journalist.


From what you have just detailed, I think many people in that profession would disagree with that statement.

It appears this non-journalist exhibited typical, MSM inaccuracy in reporting, (omission, distortion, fabrication).

No surprise there.



[edit on 27-8-2008 by FewWorldOrder]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I am certain there are more people who saw it.


If you ever find them do them all a favor, and don't lie or deceive them about what you're up to, like you admitted to last time.



If we were the "snake oil salesmen" or crazy kooks that people try to make us out to be we would not be getting letters from first-responders who were all throughout that building saving lives on that day thanking us and encouraging us to keep it up because our "hard work will pay off in the end".


Well, do tell what info this first responder gave you! It all sounds a little vague to me.



We KNOW we are on the right track and we KNOW that the work we are doing is ruffling a lot of feathers.


Seems like you're ONLY ruffling feathers.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Pinch is absolutely correct and the obvious unavoidably of there being many scores of eyewitnesses to an actual flyover is crystal clear to CIT and its supporters. My straightforward analysis using GIS software to map out the geographical area within view of a jet 100 Feet over the ground above the Pentagon supplements and illustrates Pinch's analysis.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

CIT was unable to refute this analysis nor that of Pinch, Reheat's straightforward facts on physics and aerodynamics, nor the many others who have demonstrated that CIT has no clue what it rants about nor the willingness to back up its own claims with actual evidence.

So let's step back and review once again:

CIT has:

1) NO eyewitnesses who saw ANY jet fly over and away from the Pentagon after the "explosion."

2) NO flight path of any jet flying away from the Pentagon after the "explosion."

3) NO testimony from any of its 13 NOC eyewitnesses of a jet flying over and away from the Pentagon, only statements of seeing a jet flying towards the Pentagon and a jet hitting the Pentagon.

4) NO corroborating evidence to CIT's claim that Roosevelt Roberts' supposed claim of seeing a jet flying over the parking lot. BY necessity, IF a jet was seen by one person, there would have to be scores of other eyewitnesses who saw the same thing from different vantage points at different times as a fast-moving, low-flying jet made it's "getaway."

5) NO willingness by Craig Ranke or Aldo Marquis to even want to support their claims by finding and corroborating eyewitness testimony. As many of us have demonstrated for the last two years, CIT refuses to conduct anything approaching a proper, credible investigation.

There is a lot more, of course, but the above facts I have listed are irrefutable and known to be so by Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and Rob Balsamo. CIT is helpless in its own contradictions, seeking nothing but publicity for their Pentagon Fairy Tale, no matter how absurd, how contradictory, how physically impossible, how contrary to known evidence, and how devastatingly insulting and hurtful it is the the families of all the victims of 9/11.

The only reason CIT gets away with it is that there are people who actually believe CIT's nonsense. But even those here who have been taken in by CIT must know - or at least, sense - that something is drastically wrong when a few people claim to be the prosecution, the judge, and the jury all at the same time.

Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and Rob Balsamo have deliberately chosen the path they are taking, against all reason and common sense to the majority of us, Truthers and non-Truthers alike, They know perfectly well what they are doing - they are not unintelligent. But what they claim and write is knowingly false and self-serving. To what end, who knows? Money, perhaps. Fame, even if it is negative, perhaps. Boredom, a sense of no meaning to their lives, or just getting in deeper than they ever planned but not knowing how to get out, perhaps. But I am fairly confident they do not do so out of ignorance. They just don't care.

A wise man writes:


Burden of Proof

There is a really solid reason for placing the burden of proof on the
person who is proposing that an object exists, based on the balance of
effort required to provide evidence for or against something.

As we have seen, the proof on an object's nonexistence is actually
impossible in practice. On the other hand, it is not necessary to produce
the object itself to show that it does exist – all that is required is
convincing evidence for it - which in principle is a much simpler task.

So the balance of effort is overwhelmingly weighted in favour of the
person who is dreaming up these imaginary objects, and against the person
who seeks to disprove them. That is why we require a higher level of
up-front commitment by anyone who proposes that an object exists. They
must first provide convincing evidence of a proposed object's existence
before any serious discussion about it can begin. Until that happens there
is literally nothing to discuss.

This process is necessary to weed out half-baked ideas that would
otherwise endlessly waste people's time trying to debunk, or tie them up
in fanciful discussions about nonsense. At least in getting the originator
to provide evidence, the worst they can do is waste their own time.

/567ot7


That is why we require a higher level of up-front commitment by CIT who proposes that a jet flying over the Pentagon existed. CIT must first provide convincing evidence of a proposed flyover jet's existence before any serious discussion about it can begin. Until that happens there is literally nothing to discuss.

We are wasting our time with CIT because all CIT can actually produce is a waste of time and consistent denials that it, and it alone, has the burden of proof. All we can do is hope Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and Rob Balsamo can summon up whatever common decency, selflessness, and integrity within them to stop their nonsense - or produce the necessary evidence and proof required of anyone answerable to the truth.

Until, and unless, CIT and P4T change their ways, is there a reason to engage them and give them the audience they crave and need? That is the question - an ethical question at that.









[edit on 27-8-2008 by jthomas]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Post to the TOPIC and NOT the MEMBER...

Please review these links..

Terms and Conditions

Please Stay On Topic

Semper



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
That is why we require a higher level of
up-front commitment by anyone who proposes that an object exists. They
must first provide convincing evidence of a proposed object's existence
before any serious discussion about it can begin. Until that happens there
is literally nothing to discuss.

Please show the reports that forensically identify the alleged wreckage of the alleged plane that matches the alleged Flight 77.

Prove that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, then we have something to discuss. By your own external quote, you have to prove that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, otherwise, we've got nothing to discuss.

I've yet to see an official story believer show me an official report that matches the alleged wreckage by serial numbers to that of Flight 77.

I even had one believer admit that he could not find any serial numbers for wreckage that was allegedly from the WTC complex. I was supposed to take it on good faith that two planes crashed there.

Start proving, jthomas, it's your quote.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by tezzajw]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join