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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 12:42 PM
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.


CIT's denial has been addressed here:

www.denialism.com...


Denialism (n): the practice of creating the illusion of debate when there is none.




posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Duplicate post.


[edit on 28-8-2008 by jthomas]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Investigative reporters don't tell witnesses what other witnesses said.

That would be leading.


Perhaps you could explain this then, Craig?

Craig Ranke in the Pentacon, interviewing Robert Turcios: "there were other planes as well...some people say a grey plane flew over the pentagon...that was following it, but you didn't see that?"


[edit on 28-8-2008 by nicepants]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants

Perhaps you could explain this then, Craig?

Craig Ranke in the Pentacon, interviewing Robert Turcios: "there were other planes as well...some people say a grey plane flew over the pentagon...that was following it, but you didn't see that?"



Sure.

After I had his entire account I attempted to probe him a bit to see if he saw the C-130.

He did not so any charges of "leading" in the case are irrelevant and obviously this has nothing to do with the the north side approach which is what proves a military deception on 9/11.

Nobody was led to the north side.

I'll admit I did try leading a few witnesses to the south side (official story) but they simply wouldn't bite.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by nicepants

Perhaps you could explain this then, Craig?

Craig Ranke in the Pentacon, interviewing Robert Turcios: "there were other planes as well...some people say a grey plane flew over the pentagon...that was following it, but you didn't see that?"



Sure.

After I had his entire account I attempted to probe him a bit to see if he saw the C-130.

He did not so any charges of "leading" in the case are irrelevant


You didn't have his entire account. This was mid-way through the interview.

The fact that you weren't successful does not change the fact that, by your own definition, you were leading the witness.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Investigative reporters don't tell witnesses what other witnesses said. That would be leading.


Either that statement is false, or you were leading him. You can't have it both ways.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by nicepants
 


Fine...call it a mistake on my part if you want.

I have never said I am perfect.

Perhaps I should have left it at...."Did you see any other planes?".

Pretty cool how out of hours and hours of interviews with dozens of witnesses the only tiny mistake you could find is completely irrelevant to the evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job!



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by nicepants
 


Perhaps I should have left it at...."Did you see any other planes?".

Pretty cool how out of hours and hours of interviews with dozens of witnesses the only tiny mistake you could find is completely irrelevant to the evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job!


It just proves that you're not an "investigative reporter", at least according to your own definition of the term.

I never claimed that this was "the only mistake I could find", nor would I consider your leading of eyewitnesses to be irrelevant.

Do you feel that leading questions are appropriate when conducting an unbiased investigation?



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
instead of grammar and wording, it would be nice if anyone could actually prove the 'official' account, or this one, or any other one. just some proof of what happend would be nice. i am not sure what all this nitpicking about inconsequential details is helping anyone prove anyone wrong about 9/11.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants

It just proves that you're not an "investigative reporter", at least according to your own definition of the term.


Really?

I said that investigative reporters never make mistakes?

I don't recall that.

Nor do I recall stating that if an investigative reporter had asked a leading question at one point in his career that it means he is not an investigative reporter.

Certainly my point was, and I stand by it, that investigative reporters SHOULD not ask leading questions but I highly doubt you could find one that has NEVER asked one throughout his entire career.



I never claimed that this was "the only mistake I could find", nor would I consider your leading of eyewitnesses to be irrelevant.


It's the only one you cited but yes this example is completely irrelevant to the evidence proving a military deception on 9/11.



Do you feel that leading questions are appropriate when conducting an unbiased investigation?


No.

I make very strong efforts to avoid them, but again, I highly doubt that every single investigative reporter in the world is 100% perfect. (or any for that matter)

I slipped up and worded that one question in a way that could be perceived as leading.

Luckily the answer from the witness proves that he WAS NOT led but of course even if he was, which he wasn't, this question has no bearing on the evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job.

Are you finished with your irrelevant badgering/hair splitting yet?



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by nicepants
 

Pretty cool how out of hours and hours of interviews with dozens of witnesses the only tiny mistake you could find is completely irrelevant to the evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job!


Criag, it's not a tiny (or the only) mistake. It's just the first you're willing to admit to.

Like I have said before, I applaud you for actually doing something. I also applaud your efforts.

However, good intentions the truth does not make. Meaning; if you’re misleading someone (of your own admission) what else have you been…….less than forthright about? I’m not suggesting you’re an outright ‘liar’.

I do think, in my opinion only, that you are guilty of wanting to believe so, so badly that you are willing to over look some amazingly obvious things and have doggedly ignored anything that doesn’t fit within your theory.

Unfortunately, that’s not research of any sort.

It’s propaganda.


[edit on 28-8-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Are you finished with your irrelevant badgering/hair splitting yet?


Speaking of hair splitting, every Court in the land is going to accept certified original or expert testimony regarding the 84th RADES data, the Tribby Video, the Looney Photographs, the Reagan National Radar Records, the ATC recordings and transcripts, and the FDR. No, your cronies at pfft won't be allowed to spout their tripe either. The Court will get REAL EXPERTS.

ALL OF THOSE ITEMS EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY PROVE YOUR DELUSION WRONG!

Your witnesses are going to be dismissed for conflicting testimony. In fact, after hearing two or three of them, I'd guess the Judge will not even allow the others to testify after asking them if they too have conflicting testimony.

YOU and YOUR sidekick are not going to be able to bat your gums or bang on your keyboard day and night in an attempt to try to spin testimony your way.

It's my bet that you will never even get as far as a Courtroom without being laughed out of the building.

And now you accuse someone who writes the truth to have libeled you. The further you go with this stuff the deeper and more difficult it is going to be to get out of the cycle and retain any pride when it's over. It should have been over months ago, but you keep spinning away to keep it going. Have it your way, but I suggest you think about how it's going to end. It is not going to be pleasant for you.

[edit on 28-8-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 



And now you accuse someone who writes the truth to have libeled you.


it should not matter what you believe or feel about 9/11. anyone that can read can see the article was full of errors and misleading statements. that is not the truth. and if that qualifies as truth then i fear for how you see 9/11 stuff.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


You are caught LEADING YOUR WITNESS yet you deny it.
It is plane as the sun in the sky!
Unreal.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Craig,
Speaking of libel....
In one of your MOST RECENT radio interviews you claim CIVILIAN CONTRACTORS planted explosives at the Pentagon.
Given the absolute absurdity of this claim I know that out of fear of LBEL/SLANDER you wont name which contractors these were.
POT MEET KETTLE.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I love how you 9/11 Deniers hide behind your own canards.

What's that? You can't prove the identity of the alleged plane?

Thanks for that.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by nicepants

It just proves that you're not an "investigative reporter", at least according to your own definition of the term.


Really?

I said that investigative reporters never make mistakes?

I don't recall that.

Nor do I recall stating that if an investigative reporter had asked a leading question at one point in his career that it means he is not an investigative reporter.


No need for absurd strawman arguments, Craig.

You said : "investigative reporters don't tell witnesses what other witnesses said.". But that's exactly what you did. I'm just pointing out that you aren't living up to your own standard. Take from that what you will.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITCertainly my point was, and I stand by it, that investigative reporters SHOULD not ask leading questions


Then you SHOULD follow your own advice.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


I never claimed that this was "the only mistake I could find", nor would I consider your leading of eyewitnesses to be irrelevant.


It's the only one you cited but yes this example is completely irrelevant to the evidence proving a military deception on 9/11.


Proof that you deliberately asked leading questions is completely relevant to the credibility of your research.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Do you feel that leading questions are appropriate when conducting an unbiased investigation?


No.


Do you believe that leading questions indicate bias on the part of the interviewer?


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITI make very strong efforts to avoid them, but again, I highly doubt that every single investigative reporter in the world is 100% perfect. (or any for that matter)

I slipped up and worded that one question in a way that could be perceived as leading.


Your excuses don't concern me. It was a leading question, perception has nothing to do with it.

So that people realize this isn't an isolated incident, here's another great example:

Craig: "they say there were other planes in the area, Edward, that people saw. One was just like this one here, that was supposedly following the plane, did you see more than one plane, or just-"

Edward: "No Only one"

Craig: "Only one"

Edward: "Yeah, only one"

Craig: "No other planes.....ok 'cause other people said they saw two"

Edward: "No"

Craig: "And there reports that a plane just like this, a C-130 with two engines-"

Edward: "No, no"

[edit on 28-8-2008 by nicepants]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I must admit that I am thrilled that on CT forum such as ATS Craig has virtually no one on the CT side supporting him.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


as I've stated numerous times now the video evidence released from FOIA requests supports the CIT story and not the OS.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by nicepants
 


Are you denying there was a C-130?

I admit I tried leading them to the official story a few times.

Funny how the RADES data has the C-130 flying directly over Edward's head yet he didn't see it!



No matter how hard I tried leading him to the official RADES data it didn't work.

Just like whenever I tried leading witnesses away from the north side to the south side......it didn't work.

If I was leading them to the north side and it did work, you would have a point.

But since I did the opposite.....in these instances....my "leading questions" only STRENGTHENS the fact that they prove 9/11 was an inside job.

Thanks for making sure to drill that point home.




posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TheBobert
 



I would go back and read this thread all the way through again bobert. and thanks for adding so much to the debate. your facts and evidence have really helped your argument. way to stay on topic and have an intelligent discussion!

seriously? you say noone here supports craig but i have yet to see anyone supporting the other side of the argument. sure, people are successfully pointing out that craig made a mistake or two, or failed to be perfect.

i am still waiting to see how any of this backs up the 'official' story. instead of worrying about whether or not he contradicted his own words on something that is obviously inconsequential in any realy way, how about proving the official tale we have been told. anyone up for that?

[edit on 28-8-2008 by Azrael75]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join