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: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Post to the TOPIC and NOT the MEMBER...


Semper



Thank you.

I have presented 18 points of inaccuracies, omissions, distortions, and blatant lies by Nick Schou each with their individual post for easy quoting yet nobody has attempted to contest any of them.

Glad to see that everyone agrees with me!




posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Post to the TOPIC and NOT the MEMBER...
Semper


That's kind of funny, since the topic started by the member is about the member.



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I have presented 18 points of inaccuracies, omissions, distortions, and blatant lies by Nick Schou each with their individual post for easy quoting yet nobody has attempted to contest any of them.


I would be willing to bet most people don't contest them because they actually don't care. I have seen you do the same rants from back when you had your own forum on this site. It's the same spin and repeat.

But.. on the topic of the article itself :

I would say that you now know how it feels to be deceived, since you were expecting something else to come out of this article and seem to assume it would have been positive. It's not a good feeling, now is it?

Hopefully you'll be more upfront and honest with people you interview in the future, since you know what it's like to get burned. And maybe next time you are being interviewed about it, you won't chuckle about not telling them the truth.

Ain't karma a kick in the pants?



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

That's kind of funny, since the topic started by the member is about the member.


No it is about reporter Nick Schou who lied about evidence of high crimes of the U.S. government and libeled our organization.




I would be willing to bet most people don't contest them because they actually don't care.


Of course the people who care enough to click on the thread and post in it can't be given that excuse.

Hey wait a minute....that means you care!

How sweet.




I have seen you do the same rants from back when you had your own forum on this site. It's the same spin and repeat.


Really?

Prove it.

All the threads are still there.

Back up your accusation.

I think you are lying because I don't remember such a thing.




I would say that you now know how it feels to be deceived, since you were expecting something else to come out of this article and seem to assume it would have been positive. It's not a good feeling, now is it?


No no....that is not what happened at all.

Nick never said whether it would be a positive or negative article.

My problem is that in the article he lied about the evidence and libeled our organization.



Hopefully you'll be more upfront and honest with people you interview in the future, since you know what it's like to get burned. And maybe next time you are being interviewed about it, you won't chuckle about not telling them the truth.


Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about.

We deceived nobody.

We lied about nothing and of course we haven't lied about any evidence like Nick Schou has so you have no point.

Your accusations are baseless which is why you fail to quote me or provide an example when making them.

Either prove your accusation or retract it or you will have demonstrated your own dishonesty.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

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]


For your statement to be true conspiracy theorists would have to not be labeled as crazy, and you indirectly label them as crazy in your post.

Start taking yourself seriously or no one will.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Let's see if we have this right, now.....

The RADES data proves you wrong (blue stick pins for C-130/red stick pins for AA77):



The Tribby Videos prove you wrong:

Distant view:

www.youtube.com...

Close up view:

www.youtube.com...

The Looney Photographs prove you wrong:



The ATC transcripts prove you wrong:



The Reagan National TRACON (Radar) proves you wrong:

www.aal77.com...

The aerodynamic modeling of the NoC Flight path proves you wrong:

www.911myths.com...

And you spew pages after page accusing someone of libeling you? You have some funny thoughts in your head!

[edit on 28-8-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 28-8-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 28-8-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Your accusations are baseless which is why you fail to quote me or provide an example when making them.

Either prove your accusation or retract it or you will have demonstrated your own dishonesty.



We have already been over this. It's on video. You admitting to NOT telling the witnesses what you were up to.

Hint :

You are sitting in front of an upside down flag.

Got it?

Good.

Now, you don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot,eh? Don't give me that line that it wasn't positive or negative, you were pimping the possiblity of getting the story in OC Weekly before it came out, now you're upset.

Karma. Ouch.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Huh?

I never said any such thing which is why you won't quote me.

I simply said they did not understand the implications of what they saw.

That has nothing to do with me.

I told ALL the witnesses what we were "up to".

We said we are independent journalists trying to document exactly where all the eyewitnesses saw the plane.

This is obviously the truth.

Investigative reporters don't tell witnesses what other witnesses said.

That would be leading.

We simply collect the data and analyze it later.

That is the proper approach.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Don't give me that line that it wasn't positive or negative, you were pimping the possiblity of getting the story in OC Weekly before it came out, now you're upset.




I just saw this.

No we did not liar.

We did not tout the OC Weekly story at all which is why you won't quote me.

You keep blatantly lying about what I have said without quoting me.

Stop doing that.

Produce quotes with sources or admit you are fabricating this nonsense.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


None of that comes CLOSE to proving the north side evidence wrong!

Saying it over and over doesn't make it so reheat.

Your claims are nonsensical and you provide no independent evidence whatsoever.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 02:30 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

Craig, your investigation is extremely important, which is why people are going so hard against you. You are on to something crucial and as you nail it down tighter you will be the target of agent provocateurs who will appear to be friends. (The worst of it is that some of them will actually have been friends.)

Look at what happened to Alex Jones at the DNC with the s**t disturbers who pretended to be his friends. The truth movement is not going away. The string pullers of the NWO know that they have a serious problem on their hands.

You are probably going to have to tighten up a little as you get closer to the goal posts, i.e., to overwhelming corroburation of your Pentagon scenario. Think football, dude. They don't make it easy on the ball carrier at the goal line.

But this isn't football. They killed 3000 New Yorkers, just for starters.


[edit on 28-8-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Again, who cares what Nick S. thinks? Who cares what skeptics think? To your point; lets focus on the evidence.

As your evidence is of a smoking gun nature, I am sure you will have no problem finding a sympathetic D.A. who will help you bring these mass-murderers to justice?

Unless, of course, they are all "in on it" too.

If 'they' are "in on it", I am sure you will have no problem getting a sympathetic media outlet to bring your evidence to the forefront and ask the important questions?

Unless, of course, they are all "in on it" too.

If they are all in on it, surely there are other recognized, mainstream, alternative publications from other countries that would love the opportunity to help discredit what they call the "Bush Regime"?

Unless, of course, they are all "in on it" too.

So, basically, this is your ‘theory’:



So let me see if I've got it straight:

According to the Citzen Investigation Team, the Government or whomever wanted to fool the world into thinking American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, along a certain heading that took it through several light poles and low over the freeway just prior to impact.

To do this, They executed the following:
• They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon
• The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)
• The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question
• The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact
• One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead
• A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by
• The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual
• The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77
• A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft
And, finally,
• The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.
.


We are left with two, real possibilities:

  1. You’re wrong
  2. The conspiracy has now grown to include anyone and anything that doesn’t agree with the conspiracy



    [edit on 28-8-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 04:55 AM
link   
I am concerned: of the links you show to watch your original doc, only the Google Video version seems legit. The others show your first frame but when selecting play, Party Poker comes up ... have your other displays been hijacked? Warning ... thanks.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Reheat
 


None of that comes CLOSE to proving the north side evidence wrong!

Saying it over and over doesn't make it so reheat.

Your claims are nonsensical and you provide no independent evidence whatsoever.


This is an epitome of why you will NEVER be taken seriously by anyone who matters. You dismiss with a wave of your hand what is in reality is HARD EVIDENCE that destroys every tenant of your fantasy, but tout your biased and wrong interpretations as the "real deal". It's a joke and the joke is on CIT.

Further you call this HARD EVIDENCE nonsensical. It is RADAR data from DIFFERENT SOURCES! It is VIDEO. It is PHOTOGRAPHS. It is TRANSCRIPTS. It is VERIFIABLE TIME HONORED AERONAUTICAL PHYSICS. ALL of them refute every faucet of your nonsense.

The only argument you can make is that ALL of the people who had anything to do with this REAL EVIDENCE are "in on it". It already includes anyone who doesn't agree with your delusion and then it will go to some of those who do... On and On until eventually even you are "in on it" too.

Once you venture outside of CT Web Sites (even on some CT Sites) you are laughed at, mocked, and ridiculed and you then go to several CT Web Sites and whine like a little kid that you were libeled by a guy who revealed you and your cohort for what you are - DELUSIONAL FRAUDS.

[edit on 28-8-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

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]


I love how you 9/11 Deniers hide behind your own canards.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
I'm not in agreement with the folks who think Craig is full of it, except in the sense that I think that neither his information or any of the other 9/11 related stuff is likely to ever result in criminal convictions for Bushelzebub or his cohorts.

This stuff is like all the technical evidence at the OJ trial. Juries have a hard time digesting this stuff. Logical inferences aren't convincing to people who don't make a habit of using them.

The way things look now, it is more likely that the Bushwhackers will go down for war crimes.

I think you could make a statistical case that there are way more people open to this notion. It's more of a makeable case, especially in political terms. I hope the Europeans, at least, try them in absentia. It would be good to have the legal precedent of an American administration convicted of war crimes, even if none of them ever do a day in jail.

That doesn't mean that everybody should stop trying to make their cases though.The more evidential vectors pointed at BushCo the better, so "Go Craig!!"



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 08:51 AM
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?


Do you ever do any internal processing of the things you say here? "Scientifically verified evidence"? WHAT is "scientifically verified"?

Actually I am using your own witnesse's words and statements that you recorded/copied - an dthat you convieniently ignore when it suits your purposes.

If you are claiming your witnesses are employing "faulty logic", then I certainly don't expect you to use their statements as "evidence".

And since when does conflicting eyewitness testimony include "science"?

And the evidence *does* prove an aircraft hit the Pentagon - your own witnesses even state that.

Are you going to put these witnesses on the stand when you sue OC Weekly for libel? I'd *pay* to see that!



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I never said any such thing which is why you won't quote me.
I told ALL the witnesses what we were "up to".


15:50ish into the interview -

"They were deceived into believing the plane hit the building, so that's why they were willing to talk to us. In fact, they thought they were defending the government's story" ... (laughs)


That's deceptive and dishonest in my book. Like I said, spin it however you like, the outcome is the same to those of us that can see through the blabber.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Craig,
After having libeled soooo many people in your movies how does it feel now?
You claim Nick libeled you which is a crock.
He said you have no evidence which you don't.
Any sane person would realize that it is his word against yours and libel cases are not easy to win.
You act as though you have this rock solid case of libel but just like for 2 years how you have argued that you will take your evidence to court I see that just like you wont take your evidence to a court your libel case will never see a court.
Its over Craig no one cares.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join