When OC Weekly reporter Nick Schou
contacted us for a "possible cover story"
about the extensive evidence we have
obtained concerning the 9/11/2001 attack on
the Pentagon we saw it as a tremendous
opportunity to get this important
information to the public.
As an OC Weekly reader I was
hopeful (and fairly confident, really) that
Nick would look into the evidence thoroughly
and objectively, and report fairly. Still, I
couldn't help but feel slightly
apprehensive. We know full well that the
implications of our findings make it
difficult for the average person--journalists
included-- to do this. Would Nick have a
knee-jerk negative reaction based on the
implications of the evidence we present and
therefore dismiss the evidence itself out of
hand as we have seen from others in the
media?
We could only hope that the answer
was "no" to this question, and so we
instantly made an effort to express to him
the importance of focusing on this evidence
as opposed to us personally, or the drama
behind the personalities involved with the
"9/11 truth movement". After working hard to
shuffle his schedule to fit in a time when
he could meet with us we invited him to my
partner Aldo Marquis' home. We planned to
talk in person and show him video clips of
the new witness interviews we only recently
obtained. These new interviews strongly
validate the main point in our original
presentation,
The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version, which
we released over a year and a half ago. That
point is this:
All of the eyewitnesses we have
spoken to who were at or near the former
Citgo gas station, including two Pentagon
police officers, definitively place the
plane on the north side of the station. As
we show in our latest presentation,
The North Side Flyover, via detailed,
on-location interviews, there are now
thirteen eyewitnesses, all with different
vantage points, who all independently
corroborate each other on this fact. This is
an astronomical level of validation for such
a claim, and it is simply not reasonable to
assume that they are all simultaneously
incorrect.
Why is this significant? It is
because the damage path requires an approach
from the southern side of Citgo. That is, in
order to have been the cause of the five
downed light poles and the damage to the
Pentagon outlined by the ASCE Pentagon
Building Performance Report, the plane had
to have flown on the south side of the Citgo
gas station. If it had hit the building from
any other trajectory the physical damage
would have been completely different. Since
it was not, an approach from north of the
former Citgo gas station is mutually
exclusive with the notion that the plane hit
the building.
Besides showing Nick these
interviews, we wanted to make sure he heard
the recording of the account of another
Pentagon police officer, Roosevelt Roberts
Jr.
Immediately after the explosion
(supposed impact), Roosevelt witnessed the
plane less than 100 feet off of the ground
flying away from the Pentagon, confirming
what we already knew to be the case based on
the testimony of all of the other witnesses:
that the plane did not strike the Pentagon,
but in fact flew over the Pentagon and
continued on. We attempted to explain the
extreme importance of this brand new
evidence to Schou, but in retrospect we can
see that our words fell on deaf ears.
When he arrived at Aldo's
residence, Nick seemed affable enough. From
the beginning, he expressed his intention to
focus on our personal back-stories and
involvement with personalities within the
9/11 truth movement first in the article. He
would get into the evidence later, he said.
We understood how some of this was
necessary for an interesting article and
were happy to oblige. Nick shared multiple
beers with us, and the conversation flowed
smoothly. However, despite our desire to
delve into the evidence itself, Nick
skillfully kept the conversation on a
superficial level. In retrospect, his main
interest did not seem to be the evidence,
but rather juicy gossip or controversial
quotes which, taken out of context, could be
construed as outrageous claims on our part
(with the release of his article, this has
proven to have been the case).
Before we knew it, 3 hours had
passed and it was clear that Nick's time
with us had virtually played out. At this
point we insisted on going over the new
witness interviews and once again stressed
the importance of the brand new critical
first flyover witness, Roosevelt Roberts Jr.
However it was clear that Nick instantly
turned disinterested and inattentive, so he
cut off the interview within minutes with a
promise to follow up and potentially meet
again since there was no deadline set for
the story yet and therefore plenty of time.
Despite numerous requests on our
part in the subsequent weeks, no such
meeting occurred. He actually had the gall
to flat out tell us that he would not meet
with us again to go over the evidence
because it was simply too much work to
transcribe the interview! Nick told us, "I
have some follow up questions but after
spending a week transcribing that interview,
I'd rather do the rest of the talking by
email because I'm too short on time to do
that again."
Remember that it also seemed like
a strain on his schedule to pull off the
initial interview even though he actually
lives in the same city as Aldo, Long Beach,
and we gave him an open invitation to his
home.
We continued to give Nick the
benefit of the doubt that he would write a
thorough and accurate story so we tried to
empathize with his situation. We forwarded
him as much information via email that we
could. His responses were curt and his
follow up questions were completely limited
to further information about us personally
and gossip involved with the 9/11 truth
movement. Within this time our new
presentation including all 13 north side
witnesses and the critical first flyover
witness account of Roosevelt Roberts Jr. was
publicly released online. When I requested
that he watch it, and asked if there was a
publish date for the story set yet, Nick
replied, "I'll check out the new
presentation...The story will run a week
from next Thursday."
That message was sent on Thursday
July 31st so the story was set to run on
Thursday August 14 giving him plenty of time
to review and include the newly released
evidence that we had been pleading with him
to feature in the article since he initially
contacted us.
All follow up questions from Nick
via email were limited to personal details
and 9/11 truth movement gossip. In the final
article he merely made a dismissive and
cursory mention to some of the 9 new north
side witness accounts we just released
(without naming a single name) yet
completely omitted the critical flyover
account of Roosevelt Roberts Jr. despite our
repeated requests to make this important
brand new evidence the focal point of the
article. This is an absolute deliberate lie
by omission on Nick Schou's part given the
importance of this evidence and the fact
that we literally begged for Nick to review
and look into this information and even
provided him with Roosevelt's personal cell
phone number. If he found the evidence
invalid why wouldn't he have made this
point? Instead he chose to ignore the
information all together and simply made
blanket statements denying that we presented
any evidence at all. Schou wrote, "...The
PentaCon includes no evidence of anything
whatsoever, just a lot of questions and
innuendo set to an ominous hip-hop beat".
This statement is a blatant lie
and is ultimately what proves libel since we
explained to Nick how first-hand eyewitness
testimony is acceptable evidence in every
court in the land. We provided him with all
14 names of the witnesses and 12 recorded
accounts of their interviews, most video
taped on location. He chose to only attempt
to validate one of the 14 and he
failed to refute even this account. But even
more egregious he only mentioned 2 out of 14
of the names in his article. This can not be
considered anything less than a deliberate
cover-up when considering the significant
amount of urgency we impressed upon Nick to
investigate this information.
Not surprisingly, Nick's final
story ended up being a vapid gossip filled
hit-piece wrought with inaccuracies and
devoid of the facts. He blatantly
misrepresented our claims by flat out lying
about what we said in an obvious effort to
make us look crazy. He avoided following up
with questions regarding the claims of
others about us and deliberately omitted the
evidence that validates what we had been
saying.
The lack of journalistic integrity
is abominable as it is now clear that Nick
Schou deliberately set out to libel us, his
investigative reporting colleagues, while
dismissing evidence implicating high crimes
of the U.S. government with a hand wave.
I will now proceed to list the
numerous inaccuracies and deceptions infused
throughout his entire article in order.
1.
Inaccuracy: Indeed the very first
sentence in his article contains a fatal
error or else is further evidence of a
military deception on 9/11. Schou reports
regarding alleged witness Mike Walter, "When
he first saw the passenger jet descending
too low and too fast over the Potomac
River�"
According to the official NTSB
data the plane never flew near or over the
river at all. Either Schou simply
embellished this unquoted detail or else
Mike Walter is seriously contradicting the
official story with this claim that he has
never been quoted as making in the past.
Given the extreme importance of this matter
we respectfully request that Schou clarifies
which is the case.
2.
Blatant lie: The lie seems to be
on the part of alleged witness Mike Walter
but Schou's failure to request a response
from us regarding this serious accusation
indicates pure journalistic laziness if not
a deliberate desire to run with any
whimsical accusation against us. Schou
reports, "Walter chatted casually with the
pair, and at one point, he realized that
Ranke was surreptitiously tape-recording the
conversation."
The claim is ridiculous. If it was
"surreptitious" how would Walter know about
it? The fact is that after more than one
hour of generalized discussion regarding
9/11 as well as all world affairs, when
Walter was being particularly candid about
the state of mainstream media vs alternative
media reporting, I openly pulled out my
recorder and asked Walter permission to
document his opinion. Walter was taken aback
yet agreed but clearly became uncomfortable
and clammed up after the recorder was turned
on and set at the center of the table. After
a few minutes of empty awkward discussion I
opted to shut it off and that was that. It
was never published because nothing of
interest or relevance was discussed at that
time. The notion that this was done
"surreptitiously" is a lie for character
assassination purposes that Schou eagerly
lapped up without so much as a courtesy
email to get my response.
3.
Blatant lie: Once again Walter
proceeded to spin a complete fairytale that
Schou was happy to publish without bothering
to get our response. Schou quoting Walter;
"They were saying things like, 'Are you sure
the plane didn't land [at Reagan airport]
and they set off a bomb?' They kept coming
up with all these scenarios".
When we met with Walter it was the
first evening of our first trip to
Arlington. We knew nothing of the north side
evidence we would eventually obtain, and had
no theory or "scenario" in mind at all other
than a suspicion that the official story did
not add up due to the anomalous physical
damage to the building. Furthermore we have
never suggested that we believe the plane
landed at Reagan. This is a fabrication
created by Walter and Schou that has nothing
to do with the evidence we present or claims
we have made to either of them. You will not
find a quote from us in this regard in any
of our presentations or anywhere for that
matter. A lack of quotes from us regarding
Schous' statements about our claims is
prevalent throughout the article.
4.
Inaccuracy: Amazingly, despite
the fact this was for a 5 page cover
article, Schou was so disinterested in
accurate reporting that he failed to
reference the name of our organization
correctly! We are Citizen Investigation
Team yet he erroneously chose to refer
to us as "Citizens Investigative Team"
throughout the article. We are a registered
California tax paying LLC and Nick failed to
so much as take a cursory look at our
website or pay attention enough to our video
presentations to get this simple detail
correct.
(this error has been subsequently
acknowledged in print and corrected on the
online version but he also incorrectly
called me and my partner "software
engineers")
5.
Misrepresentation/childish ridicule:
Now came the time when Schou would sum up
our alleged "theory" in his own words.
Naturally he got it wrong but he made sure
to not leave out unnecessary ridicule while
misrepresenting our claims in yet another
blatant effort to make us look crazy. First
he said, "The Citizens Investigative
Team[sic] claims to have obtained undeniable
evidence that what happened at the Pentagon
on Sept. 11 was not a terrorist attack by
al-Qaida (the official story) or a covert
operation by the U.S. military (the widely
held conspiracy theory)�"
Now wait just a minute. How does
this make sense? We repeatedly refer to it
as a "military deception" and unabashedly
suggest that it was an inside job. Of course
it was a covert operation! We are quite
clear in this throughout the interview. How
could Schou get this wrong? Is he implying
that we suggested it was some magical
illusion created by space aliens without the
knowledge of anyone in the U.S. government?
I don't know because he does not elaborate
or quote us in this regard and simply makes
this false comment in segue to ridicule us
and further misrepresent our claims. He goes
on, "-pause for circus music- a magic trick
in which a military plane painted to
resemble an American Airlines jet flew low
over the Pentagon while explosives took down
a wall of the structure in a convenient
cloud of smoke, thus allowing the plane to
fly away and secretly land somewhere,
presumably at nearby Reagan National
Airport. Unfortunately, their film The
PentaCon, doesn't provide any evidence
of this."
We don't provide evidence for this
because it is not our claim. We never said
the decoy jet in question was painted to
look like an AA jet and in fact we claim the
opposite. The evidence we provide suggests
that it did not look like an AA jet since
most independent witnesses we spoke with
describe different colors. Furthermore we
have never claimed nor do we believe that it
landed at Reagan National Airport. As stated
earlier Mike Walter was simply lying about
our claims and Nick apparently decided to
run with it without bothering to check with
us. This is why Schou does not quote us
making this claim. Schou was not interested
in asking us about the evidence or
accurately reporting details regarding our
complete theory. He instead chose to create
his own theory while leaving out the
evidence we present as a means to childishly
ridicule us by suggesting that the reader
pauses for "circus music".
6.
Inaccuracy/misrepresentation:
Schou continued, "The fact that all those
eyewitnesses and many more believe they saw
the jet hit the Pentagon-which happens to be
the official version of what happened that
day as well as the accepted truth among most
conspiracy theorists-doesn't bother Ranke
and Marquis".
This unsupported statement is
sheer lunacy. Most "conspiracy theorists"
certainly do not believe a plane hit! Most
believe a missile hit the building. That has
been the widely held theory since day one
that we are responsible for debunking with
hard evidence. Once again Schou has no
qualms speaking for us without quoting us or
ever having asked us our thoughts on this
matter, but this time he decided to do it
for the entire 9/11 truth movement as well.
He went on, "The 'evidence', they say,
proves all those witnesses actually saw
something else; another jet, flown by an
unknown military pilot, soaring just over
the roof of the Pentagon, while explosives
planted by government operatives�."
While this is close to our claims
it is not entirely accurate and it
contradicts when Schou earlier and
erroneously claimed that we said it was not
a "covert operation by the U.S. military".
Is he paying so little attention to the very
words he is writing about us that he can't
see this contradiction in his assessment of
our beliefs? Furthermore we never said it
was flown by an "unknown military pilot". We
make no claims in this regard since we have
no evidence as to whether it was remote
guided or who or what could have flown it.
Once again Schou fails to provide a quote of
us making this claim but has no qualms
misrepresenting this as what we said anyway.
7.
Blatant lie: Schou's effort to
demonize us as hated within the 9/11 truth
movement is indicative in this statement,
"Many conspiracy theorists-like Avery and
Pickering- are no longer on speaking terms
with Ranke and Marquis."
Schou admitted that Avery declined
to comment for the interview so why is he
speaking for him? The fact is that we told
Schou how Avery has remained cordial with us
and even showed up in person for a
presentation I did for the San Diego 9/11
Truth group only days after we spoke with
Schou. Avery stepped right up, shook my
hand, and spoke with me. He made a point to
shake my hand again before he left and
congratulate me on the new evidence that
Schou failed to cover in his article. So
that leaves Pickering as the sole person we
are not on speaking terms with. Given the
fact that Pickering publicly quit the
movement after spiraling out of control in a
flurry of personal attacks against us means
that he is no longer a "conspiracy theorist"
or member of the 9/11 truth movement so now
Schou's claim of "many" that we are "no
longer on speaking terms with" has been
reduced to zero.
8.
Blatant lie: As a means to
continue his theme that we are paranoid or
crazy Schou lied about our claims once again
without quoting us when he said this, "They
say their phones have been tapped..."
We never said our phones were
tapped which is why Schou did not quote us
making this claim. We did say we heard
clicks when talking with Pickering shortly
after the first trip, which is true, but
Pickering also heard them and he was the one
who was acting spooked out by it. We
suggested that Pickering was doing that to
deter us and when Schou finally does quote
us about it you can see that this is what we
really said. But this was only after Schou
already lied about us definitively claiming
our phones were tapped. Pickering most
certainly was acting plenty spooked about
the clicks at the time but apparently Schou
failed to ask him about this or simply chose
to misrepresent what we said as a means to
falsely attack us.
9.
Inaccuracy: This could be
considered a minor mistake but
pseudo-skeptic detractors of ours have
already used it as an example that I am
inaccurate or embellishing my story when in
fact it is Schou. Schou inaccurately states,
"That's when Ranke heard the cell-phone
calls placed by terrified passengers on the
planes that hit the towers."
I stated that the reports
of the cell phone calls are what convinced
me. No actual recordings or transcripts had
been released yet but reports of Barbara
Olson's alleged calls from "Flight 77" to
her husband Solicitor General Ted Olson were
reported by CNN early in the morning on
9/12/2001.
10.
Inaccuracy: Schou continued to
rely on the word of Mike Walter without
bothering to get a response from us about
his claims. Schou continues, "One of their
first stops was Walter's Fairfax, Virginia,
home. After noticing Ranke's not-so-subtle
effort to secretly tape-record their
conversation-and realizing that Ranke and
Marquis weren't interested in hearing
anything that contradicted their notion that
a plane didn't actually hit the building-he
refused to submit an interview."
As described earlier this is a lie
on Walter's part as I openly asked him if I
could record. Furthermore Walter was not
scheduled to give an interview to us. He was
scheduled to give the interview to Avery
whom Walter told Schou he thought was "young
and nice" while we were apparently the
"crazy" ones. Walter gave a very different
excuse to Avery and actually said that he
drank too much with us to get up early for
the interview but also that he had a
contract negotiation coming up with WUSA and
was "advised" not to give the interview.
This is evidence that Walter is now
dedicated to saying whatever it takes to
make us look bad. We even forwarded Schou an
email from Walter to Dylan Avery, from
months after our visit, that Avery had
shared with us painting a very different
picture of Walter's attitude of us at the
time. Here it is for the record; Walter said
this to Avery regarding a recent youtube
piece Walter put out in response to what
people were saying about him online:
"I know you are not out to character
assassinate me, I've never once presumed
that, and if I did think that, clearly I
never would have invited you into my home.
I would never presume to think that
Craig and Aldo are out to get me either.
I bear no grudges or hard feelings towards
anyone. I just responded to some of the
stuff that has been written about me on the
internet that I am aware of. I have no idea
who wrote these things. Quite frankly I
don't care."
-Mike Walter
So what could possibly posses him to suggest
to Schou that we are "crazy" and lie about
what we said and did?
The fact that Schou failed to
report this email that seriously contradicts
what Walter would later tell him about us
speaks volumes in regards to Schou's lack of
journalistic integrity.
11.
Inaccuracy/pigeonholing/demonizing:
Schou went on to quote Walter's friend Troy
who attended the barbecue in regard to his
opinion on us. Schou reported that Troy said
about us, "Their objective was to unseat the
U.S. government".
Reporting Troy's ludicrous opinion
about us is fine but failing to get a
response from us regarding this strong
accusation that makes us out to look like
terrorists is not. Our "objective" is to
uncover the truth behind the worst attack on
American soil, seek justice for the crime,
and put an end to the fraudulent war on
terror. We are not anarchists; we are
anti-war truth seekers who refuse to accept
what we are told by the media and government
without independent confirmation. Of course
a rational response from us in this regard
would not play out very well for Schou's
hit-piece so he simply chose not to ask us
to respond to Troy's baseless accusation.
12.
Inaccuracy/lie by omission: Now
that we are coming to the end of the article
Schou finally decided to talk about the
evidence a bit. Amazingly, Schou only talked
about 2 out of 14 corroborated witness names
presented seriously reducing the level of
validation that we have obtained, but beyond
this lie by omission, he got the name of 1
of the 2 he featured incorrect! William
Lagasse's name tag on his police uniform is
prominently visible during our video taped
on-site interview with him in the
documentary yet Schou spells his name
"Legasse" throughout the article
demonstrating further his blatant laziness
and utter disregard for accuracy in
reporting.
13.
Distortion/misrepresentation:
Schou claimed, "Where some might find
contradictory eyewitness accounts a normal
outcome of an intense, traumatic event,
Marquis and Ranke view any eyewitness
statement placing the plane on the north
side of the gas station as clear evidence
that the NTSB data is phony and further
proof that the military was behind 9/11."
This statement sums up the
ultimate decision of Schou to ignore,
dismiss, and misrepresent the evidence that
we present at all cost. The witnesses are
not "contradictory". They unanimously make
the exact same claim in regards to the plane
being on the north side. They independently
corroborate each other perfectly while
nobody directly refutes them. We wonder if
Nick Schou has ever found validation on that
level for any of the stories he has
investigated yet still refused to believe
it. If the witnesses didn't match then of
course the claim would be questionable. The
fact that they all corroborate each other
means the notion of a "traumatic event"
typically causing contradicting witness
statements is irrelevant to this evidence.
They all perfectly match and that is the
point here. If Schou was truly interested in
refuting this evidence with anything more
than blanket denial he would have sought out
witness accounts of the plane on the south
side. He would have had a rough time because
there are none. This is the point that Schou
refuses to accept, and has attempted to
cover up, by failing to report all 13
witnesses accounts that we have obtained, or
even so much as acknowledge how many exist.
He made no attempt to contact them and
re-validate their claims like a reporter is
supposed to do. He has simply pretended they
don't exist and deceptively reduced the
number from 13 to 2 for this article.
14.
Blatant lie: This is probably the
worst blatant lie of the bunch. When
referencing Russell Pickering's beliefs
Schou said, "He still believes that 9/11 was
an inside job, but Pickering strongly
disagrees with Ranke and Marquis' fly-over
theory, which isn't supported by a single
eyewitness. 'Nobody looked up and saw a
plane fly over the Pentagon and fly away.
Nobody reported a fly-over.'"
Roosevelt Roberts Jr. did. We told
this to Schou. We provided Schou with the
interview and Roosevelt's number. So why did
he fail to mention Roosevelt and insist on
lying about what evidence exists or doesn't
exist? There is no way to know but we hope
that Schou will publicly answer this
question since his claim is utterly false
and we had already provided the evidence
proving it. Furthermore we explained to
Schou how the 911 call tapes and transcripts
from Arlington have been all confiscated and
permanently sequestered by the FBI while
they were released from New York. This
implicates a deliberate cover-up of what
people really did first report in Arlington
so we are left to rely on the media.
Apparently this doesn't bother Schou or
Pickering as they are happy to accept what
they have been told regardless of the level
of evidence there is to the contrary.
15.
Inaccuracy: Schou went on, "Ranke
and Marquis also interviewed several
Arlington National Cemetery employees after
receiving permission to bring cameras to the
facility".
Although it's great that finally
Schou at least made a cursory mention to the
new evidence, he is once again reporting
inaccurately when he said we obtained
permission to bring cameras to the facility.
This time we simply showed up and conducted
the interviews without any permission.
Interesting how Schou mentions the
importance of the banking motion of the
plane without having looked into why this is
important or made any effort to confirm or
refute this. But he also fails to mention
the extreme high level of corroboration of
the north side claim we have obtained. 13
witnesses independently corroborate the
north side claim. Why do you suppose Schou
has so much trouble stating this while he
has not presented a single statement from
any one of the 13 witnesses contradicting
this or suggesting that we misrepresented
their accounts? Why do you suppose he only
attempted to contact one of
these witnesses to verify or refute the
information despite the fact that he chose
to do a cover story on it? This is not the
behavior of an investigative reporter with
integrity or an honest desire to find the
truth.
16.
Inaccuracy: Schou goes on to
refer to our interview with alleged witness
Keith Wheelhouse and suggests that it is in
"The Researcher's Edition of The PentaCon".
However the Researcher's Edition
has not yet been completed or released so
once again Schou is simply demonstrating his
laziness and inattention to details and an
inherent tendency to report inaccurate
information. When discussing our interview
with Wheelhouse Schou completely misses the
point how Wheelhouse's claim that "AA77" was
literally "shadowed" by a C-130 up until the
last moment when the C-130 veered away from
the building immediately after the explosion
is not corroborated by any other witness,
the official data, and is fully contradicted
by the actual pilot of the C-130 Lt Col
Steve O'Brien, yet this proven false claim
serves as perfect cover for the flyover.
Perhaps if Schou paid better attention to
the title of the presentation he was
actually watching, The 2nd Plane Cover
Story, he might have understood this.
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
said,
"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)
18.
Distortion/misrepresentation:
Schou continues in regards to our alleged
claims about the 2nd plane cover story, "How
witnesses who saw a second plane high in the
skies above the Pentagon could possibly be
part of a conspiracy to fool the public into
thinking that a plane nobody saw fly over
the Pentagon actually crashed into a
building is a question that is as
ridiculously convoluted and inherently
illogical as the very theory embraced by
Marquis and Ranke".
If Schou had trouble understanding
our claims he could have asked us to clarify
but his statement here proves he was either
unable or simply refused to get it. He is
not accurately representing our claim. We
state that ambiguous media reports of a real
2nd plane that flew in to the scene minutes
later were blended with false eyewitness
reports of this 2nd plane flying away from
the scene immediately after the
explosion. If Schou believes Wheelhouse's
account of this then why doesn't he think
that everyone would have seen this shadowing
plane flying away immediately after the
explosion? You can't suggest that this
report is accurate and simultaneously
suggest that no plane flew away at the same
time as the explosion. This is where the
confusion sets in but instead of trying to
figure it out or asking us to clarify; Schou
incredulously throws his hands up in the air
and waves it all away. Wheelhouse doesn't
describe it "high in the sky" and Sucherman
or Narayanan didn't either until we
interviewed them and forced them to nail
down more details. Like many of the other
USA Today employees, who conveniently and
coincidently also mention the 2nd plane in
their accounts, they were ambiguous in
regards to the 2nd plane details such as
altitude, type of plane, and timing. It's
the ambiguity that left it floating out
there to work as cover, yet combined with
Wheelhouse being very specific about the 2nd
plane allegedly "shadowing" the attack jet
and flying away immediately after the
explosion, this should ring warning bells
for any honest researcher. It's amazing that
Schou can literally claim he believes this
account while simultaneously stating that
nobody saw a plane flying away from the
building immediately after the explosion,
yet he remains completely oblivious to this
clear contradiction.
There can now be no question that
Schou went into this article with an agenda
and a clear desire to portray us a certain
way. It's rather apparent he was unwilling
to put in the necessary effort to validate,
refute, or even understand the evidence and
preferred to focus on gossip instead. This
type of behavior is despicable for any
journalist and frankly the extreme level of
blatant dishonesty as outlined in this
letter leaves the OC Weekly vulnerable to
charges of libel. Citizen Investigation Team
demands that all errors are corrected and
that a complete retraction of all the false
claims and distortions outlined in this
letter is issued.
Sincerely,
Craig Ranke & Aldo Marquis
Citizen Investigation Team
www.ThePentaCon.com
Copyright 2007
Citizen Investigation Team. All rights reserved.