ScootleRoyale Debate Thread

I´ve been over at Scoot´s channel now for a while.
He and ´911debunkerschannel´ are currently engaged in a campaign over at 911visibility under the wing of Hoffman.
They are currently working on a ´project´ called ´CIT Virus´ (although the link doesn´t actually lead anywhere..)

http://visibility911.com/?p=1328

Judging by what I have gleaned so far from their arguments, it is the same old tired ill-informed disinfo from people trying to impress the self-imposed junta of the Truth Movement.
Playing politics with such a serious subject should never be tolerated.

Here´s a sample of their mindset shown on comments made at the YT video by Scoot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DqDBPmV5qc

It means he has SCORES of people who did not witness an impact.
The very fact that he didn´t ´clean up his list´ means that he is intentionally
supplying disinfo.

Still waiting on that revised list...he COULD go through that list but obviously can´t be arsed. These guys LOVE to quote numbers but actual individual testimonies?

Publically supplied information determining an accusation as serious as that which Hoffman/Wolsey et al have done against CIT needs to be 200% correct.
´Say he is 50% wrong´...wtf?
Now I FULLY understand CIT´s hesitancy in confirming any witness testimony unless they have thoroughly checked it out themselves one on one.

Yes, these people rely on second hand media reports, pure disinfo AND people who weren´t even within sight of the Pentagon!

Just ignore the 13 witnesses...wow.
Shouldn´t be surprised really given that this is what these people have been doing.
The ´new´ tactic of these people is to completely ignore this undebunked evidence
and attack from the angle of incredulity and government data.
On the Pentagon issue they are in effect duhbunkers waving a ´truther´ banner.
I know the more intelligent and not so easily lead amongst ALL ´truthers´ will see
through this.
Ask anyone who has seen Mark Roberts links being used at 911Blogger..

NOT ONCE in ALL their posts did they discuss the evidence. Using the duhbunker tactic of relying on government supplied and controlled data.
Data that has been thoroughly debunked.
Linking me to debunker sites.
One such site was that of ´Slimebuster´ who has publically stated on his comments pages:
´It´s a pity twoofers weren´t aborted. Save us a headache.´
Nice.

Aieee, where do you start with that comment?? Jeez man..

He couldn´t even be arsed making sure he got the figures right before making such a broad , totally inaccurate statement.
I corrected all this badly researched and thought out statement.
No retraction.
Yeah Scoot. Just leave it there.

I offered 911debunkerschannel aka John Michael Talboo to come to the forums to debate the evidence. Probably why Scoot has suddenly sent an assinine comment here, eh Scoot?

Why don´t you and JM and whoever debate Craig and Aldo or whoever you want here.
No one else will pipe in. Fair and square.
Stop sending boys to do a man´s job.

I'm not denying the fact that the FDR data is probably fraudulent ... but i think its fraudulent to promote disinfo not because they're hiding something... why else would they fake the data so that it contradicts the official story?

The fact is you have little if any direct evidence that there was a flyover or that Lloyd England's scene was staged. It simply "must have happened" because you have "proven" the plane approached from the north side ... except you haven't.

The rest of your stuff is based on deceptive photo and video analysis. I've highlighted an older example of your false analysis (when you claimed the Ingersoll images captured Lloyd's scene as it was being staged) in this article.

http://911duhbunkers.blogspot.com/2009/09/...erspective.html

When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

"It was the worst thing you can imagine," said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. "I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/se...ntagon-usat.htm

"For the first time, Regan's team saw something they had expected to see all along but had been scarce until then: recognizable airplane parts. They all thought they would find big pieces of the airliner laying everywhere, the way car parts end up strewn across a highway after a crash. But the physics of an airplane crash were obviously different: Mostly there was just tons of shredded metal and melted plastic.

Finally, they found several airplane seats, piled among the usual mounds of upturned office furniture and random wreckage. A couple of the seats still had bodies belted into them, which had already been found and marked for the FBI. Most of the workers inside were conscientious about not gawking, yet the seats attracted a lot of attention. They were the first objects the nonaviation experts had seen that unmistakably belonged to an airplane."
~ Firefight, Page 373.

"The airplane had nearly disintegrated, but Dan Fitch's group found several huge cogs, bent and blackened, that weighed a couple hundred pounds each; it took a couple of workers to handle each one. Other objects nearby looked like large gears, and strips of metal that appeared to be fan blades. Workers realized that they were pulling apart the remnants of one of the aircraft's two engines. The aluminum cowling that had encased it all had been torn away, but the guts of the engine were there.

FEMA crews used a blowtorch to free the core of the motor from the column in which it was embedded. Then Fitch and several others used pieces of six-by-six to pry the motor loose from the column and push it off the pile. With the help of some Old Guard troops, they rolled the heavy piece of machinery onto a dolly and finally managed to push it outside. The whole effort took the better part of an entire shift."
~ Firefight, Page 425.

"As crews dug deeper, unmistakable remnants of a passenger plane were
everywhere. Wallets, shoes, jewelry, and the everyday items that had been
stuffed into dozens of suitcases were littered throughout the debris."
~ Firefight, Page 426

Are all these witnesses lying? I liken your north of citgo stuff to the Chewbacca Defence on that episode of South Park. The scientific method is bout looking at ALL the evidence and coming up with a hypothesis that fits that evidence. If there's evidence which contradicts your theory, you need to either PROVE the evidence to be fraudulent or uncredible (which you don't, you just point out little anomalies) or you need to come up with a new theory.

The recent National Geographic documentary, while a completely biased propaganda piece, did demonstrate that penetration is the only way the observed damage could have been made... an explosion would have looked completely different. The highly uniform hole in the C-Ring actually proves a plane hit.

To give people like you more fuel for confusion. To make it seem like there is enough of a margin of error between the north and south path which they did AGAIN with the 2008 released FAA animation. Bottom line it doesn't matter....the fact that the data is fraudulent works against the official narrative, not for it.

Why does evidence contradicting the official narrative bother you so much?

We don't prove it. The witnesses do. Why do you refuse to believe witnesses from all walks of life who contradict the official story? Why is the official story so important to you that you would dismiss them all as liars or delusional? Have you contacted them to tell them that they did not see what they report and that they are all lying or delusional in the same way? If not why?

Why are you ignoring the fact that Lloyde's FBI employee wife AGREED with me that the plane did not hit and continued on and that we caught Lloyde admitting off camera that he knew full well his cab and pole were near the bridge? Lloyde's story is beyond implausible and the north side witnesses prove why -- because the plane was nowhere near the poles and you know it.

This is just as obviously dubious to anyone who looks at the info as the collapse of building 7.

You look ridiculous trying to defend it.

Well now look at you desperately searching for something to "debunk" regardless of how irrelevant it is.

Of course you are forced to LIE about our claim which is why you failed to quote us. We did not say this has been "proven".

You said:

Except you don't quote us because you are lying. We said it's "possible evidence" and even admit in the article that it "It may be hidden behind the bush"!

Stop lying about our claims Scootle. That shows that YOU are disinfo because obviously you read the article closely and searched for hours for something to claim you "debunked" it. The fact is that you had to LIE about our position to "debunk" it because we never claimed this was proof of anything and ADMITTED the pole could be there!

That's a far cry from claiming it has been "proven" but that didn't stop you from completely misrepresenting us.

The reality is that this has ZERO bearing on the rock solid north side evidence proving the plane did not hit the poles and why Lloyde's account is so blatantly questionable on its face.

The scene could have been staged in a minute or two and most likely happened immediately after the explosion during all the chaos when everyone was fixated on the Pentagon. Our CURRENT article on this is available on our FAQ page:

How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?

Let's see you try to "debunk" that. Hint: An argument from incredulity is deceptive faulty logic and does not debunk anything.

Another hint: You need to QUOTE people whose claims you are citing and stop making up your own version of what we claim which is known to honest critical thinkers as a "straw man argument". A Straw man argument is deceptive faulty logic and does not debunk anything.

Now...I will concede that you have demonstrated the pole is in fact in that image after all. As anyone with integrity would do I will update the article. See how that works? It's easy.

If you have a shred of integrity you will update your blog to reflect the fact that we did NOT cite this as "proof" and that we even ADMITTED in the article that the pole could be there.

Agreed?

We have never denied there were plane parts inside the Pentagon or that people were scorched to death.

This does NOT refute the north side approach proving the plane did not hit and your pure faith that they were really "strapped to airplane seats" only demonstrates your willingness to believe what you are told by the govt or media while applying zero skepticism or investigation.

You are using faulty logic to cast doubt on evidence proving the official narrative false. Even worse you are merely citing mainstream media propaganda used to sell the official lie based on nothing but faith to support this deceptive logical fallacy argument.

NOTHING THAT WAS ALLEGEDLY IN THE BUILDING CAN REFUTE WHAT THE PLANE DID OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.

That means you act just like a typical JREFER as you have publicly admitted you look-up to and respect. You use propaganda and deceptive spin based on faulty logic to defend the govt story when faced with conclusive evidence proving it false.

That demonstrates dishonesty when it comes to discussing this important evidence that has life or death implications.

Please.

3rd hand media propaganda reports that you have made zero effort to confirm by contacting the alleged witness directly does NOT equal independent verifiable evidence. Apparently you will believe anything you are told by the media or govt as long as it supports the official story.

The witness could easily be mistaken during all the chaos or innocently embellishing. They don't even have to be lying. Charred bodies of office workers in the chairs could very well be mistaken for passengers if the person was told a plane hit and was looking for such a thing.

Bottom line THIS DOES NOT REFUTE THE EVIDENCE FOR A NORTH SIDE APPROACH in the least and to suggest it does for a moment is a deceptive logical fallacy.

Why do you use faulty logic and pure faith in what you were told by the govt or media as a means to defend the official narrative and dismiss independent verifiable evidence proving it false?

3rd hand media propaganda reports that you have made zero effort to confirm by contacting the alleged witness directly does NOT equal independent verifiable evidence. Apparently you will believe anything you are told by the media or govt as long as it supports the official story.

If there is a shred of truth to this there is nothing to say this wasn't the result of a room packed with plane parts and explosives. There is certainly NOTHING proving it was from Flight 77 or the impact of ANY plane.

Bottom line THIS DOES NOT REFUTE THE EVIDENCE FOR A NORTH SIDE APPROACH in the least and to suggest it does for a moment is a deceptive logical fallacy.

Why do you use faulty logic and pure faith in what you were told by the govt or media as a means to defend the official narrative and dismiss independent verifiable evidence proving it false?

So what?

IF there is a shred of truth to this there is nothing to say that this wasn't the result of a room filled with plane parts and explosives. There is certainly NOTHING proving it was from Flight 77 or the impact of ANY plane and this govt provided propaganda does nothing to refute the rock solid north side evidence.

At least not for intellectually honest skeptics.

Only for official story worshiping pseudo-skeptics who are willing to dismiss independent verifiable evidence proving the govt story false based on FAITH, govt propaganda, and deceptive faulty logic.

Again......ZERO proof that any of this came from "passengers" if the story is true and ZERO evidence that stuff wasn't there before the attack.

No unverifiable media report can refute the independent verifiable evidence proving the plane was on the north side and therefore did not hit.

If you were a true and honest skeptic you would DEMAND independent verifiable evidence. Clearly evidence, skepticism, and true critical thinking means nothing to you.

You have not cited ANY witnesses. You have cited the author of an official story supporting propaganda book with ZERO investigation or fact checking of your own let alone evidence. NONE of this is independent or verifiable or evidence at all for that matter. They are merely words on a page that you accept based on pure FAITH because you are happy to dismiss evidence proving the official story false based on what you were told in support of the official lie.

Trying to shift the burden of proof is another typical pseudo-skeptic tactic. If you believe there is already enough evidence proving 9/11 was a black op or even just enough to warrant an investigation into this it is NOT our responsibility to prove their unverifiable evidence fraudulent. It is THEIR responsibility to prove it valid or YOUR responsibility if you choose to use it in an argument against information contradicting their story.

The faulty logic you are using is not "scientific" it is deceptive. IF you truly believe that 9/11 was an inside job as you claim you would understand that this was a black operation and who the suspect is. You would DEMAND only independent, verifiable evidence and refuse to take information at face value that was controlled or provided by the suspect or used for their propaganda.

There is NOTHING scientific in your approach to this information.

Your actions, arguments, and conclusions go against all rational logic for a true skeptic who is looking into this event.

The fact that you have admitted that you respect Mark "Gravy" Roberts says it all.

See? You are once again forced to source an ADMITTED "biased propaganda piece"! Hilarious! You are taking their word based on faith. You have no idea what you are talking about and have presented zero evidence that refutes the north side approach.

Since you are clearly having trouble with critical thinking principles let me give you a clue.....true scientists REQUIRE evidence of greater strength to refute any body of evidence.

So in order to refute the north side witnesses you would AT LEAST need 4 or more witnesses filmed on location who were on or right next to the gas station and ALL definitively place the plane south of the citgo every bit as emphatically as Brooks, Turcios, and Lagasse place it on the north side.

You have none because there are none. To accept anything less exposes a confirmation bias in favor of the official story and exposes YOU Scootle as no better than a dishonest JREFer who will not bat an eye to use faulty logic, lies, spin, and propaganda in defense of the official narrative.

Listen, Scoot. The very FACT that the FDR/RADES Data was forged to represent a flightpath NOBODY saw and which witnesses contradict indicates the perps wanted this path to be imprinted on the people´s psyche.
It indicates that the lightpoles were staged. Each witness that the media said had seen the lightpoles being ´struck´ has been debunked by CIT.
They were found to have ´deduced´ or were told after that they had been ´struck´.
´I think´ doesn´t cut it here.

The NOC route has been proven. Until you debunk the evidence at hand, which you haven´t touched upon once in your ´thread´ , your opinions are meaningless unless you back them up.

Don´t mention the rest of CIT and Pilotsfor911Truth´s ´stuff´ when you haven´t bothered your arse to first debunk the NOC witnesses.
Talk about them.

Why haven´t these photos ever been released? How did these particular ´passengers´ survive the apparent ´liquidisation´ of the plane?
The ´planeseats´ survived the inferno?
This witness testimony had to have happened in a half-hour timeframe. Was this seen before the collapse? If it was, how could ANYBODY make this accurate description of a scene in a totally blackened, smoke-filled, blazing debris filled area?
If it was after the collapse how did these particular, non-documented ´passengers´ still strapped to their seats survive the ASCE reported 1000ºC inferno?

You still quoting that Newman book like it was the bible Scoot?
Photos? Documentation?
Which parts were ´recognisable´?

...and in amongst this they found what had to be small but ´recognizable´ plane parts?
Again, Scoot you can quote that book up the ass but you haven´t produced one official document identifying these numerous ´parts´
The authors of this book were recognised as the ´official storytellers´ of the Pentagon attack so excuse me if I don´t raise an eyebrow at their ´relevations´
The official diagram offered to us shows where the bodies were found. They were ALL found within the area in which an inferno was raging.
Again how did the seats survive?
How did the seatbelts survive?
Why no photos released?

They ´had been stuffed into dozens of suitcases´??
And they know this because....
There were victims blown to bits within the Pentagon.
Photos? Documents?

First you question the integrity and authenticity of this documentary and then use it´s findings to back up your findings?
You do see my problem with this?

Funny. Duhbunker tactics in full swing.
Ridicule , incredulity, ignoring evidence that doesn´t fit your agenda and incredulity.
The ´evidence´ you have mentioned....have any of these testimonies been personally or indirectly verified by you?
The ´official´ evidence which was in complete control of the very people that are under scrutiny here. But that´s okay with you?
Check Aidan Monaghan´s blog for FOIAs he has applied for and tell me this ´evidence´ is solid.

I didn´t bother my ass posting links because you obviously didn´t check any given to you.

Discuss the evidence at hand. The evidence you guys are ignoring.

Oops, beat me to it Craig..

Is it possible for the government to have planted plane parts during the years-long renovation to that section of the Pentagon? Yes.

Is it possible for all of the known witnesses at the Citgo station to be wrong about which side of the gas station the plane flew on given their perfect vantage point, especially given that they say things like they are "100% sure" and would "bet my life on it", and when they are corroborated by the ANC parking lot witnesses, Bill Middleton, Ed Paik, Terry Morin, Sean Boger, Maria De La Cerda, and George Aman? No.

A plane on the north side could not have hit the light poles or the building, as even CIT's biggest detractors acknowledge.

What do you think about this quote Scoot?

http://living-testimony.blogspot.com/2006/...te-of-hell.html

What can be taken from this testimony?
He didn´t see ANY bodies.
Was he exaggerating when he said he saw ´metal desks and file cabinets melt ´?

http://arlingtonfirejournal.blogspot.com/2005/03/attack-on-pentagon-sept-11-2001.html ://http://arlingtonfirejournal.blogspo...t-11-2001.html

The first firefighters allegedly arrived at @09:45, at what time did they enter?
We know they pulled out 5 minutes before the collapse having been beaten back by the flames according to Gibbs´quote.
But it was actually 15 minutes before the collapse:

Then the numerous evacuations took place during that and the following day.

So the firemen you quoted must have seen the sights you describe after the collapse.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

This report claims that the columns along the path of ´impact´ were
exposed to high temperatures, including ´C´Ring where the majority of bodies were ´found´ where the HIGHEST temperatures were recorded over a longer period.
There were bodies admittedly found to the left and right of this ´path´ but..

So now do you see the problem I have with the testimony you
quote from your book?
Where in the building were these bodies allegedly found?
When were they found?

I´m in no way saying that these people are liars. Just that testimonies
become polluted and altered by the time they reach us.
That all testimonies must be questioned.

That is why it is so important to verify testimony.

By the way why did you rename the link to the blog to "http://911duh-bunkers.com"?

by the way....why don't you address one of the posts from aldo, craig, or onesliceshort when they tear your "research" of their real legitimate research to shreds and acknowledge that you were wrong?

this hit and run posting most likely isn't going to last much longer. so put your cape on and step up to the plate if you want to be the 911 superman you think you are.

By the way why did you rename the link to the blog to "http://911duh-bunkers.com"?

Gotta have a sense of humour with this guy.
Ignores all the in-depth answers and notices a minor detail like that.
X-Ray vision mate?
Try using it on the answers given to you.

Gotta say I didn´t notice that myself haha. Made my morning.

Because I just showed you how you LIED about our claim which means you are spreading disnfo.

If it was an "error" acknowledge this and fix it or you will be admitting that you are a liar who is spreading disinfo.

I wasn´t quite sure where to post this thread but it concerns Scootleroyale and his compadre over at 911visibility.

http://visibility911.com/blog/?cat=117

What a shocker...

John Michael Talboo´s blog. A tirade of misinformation and contradictions on the findings of CIT and Pilotsfor911truth.

Just two sentences into this piece and he links us to Arabesque´s erroneous ramble on the FDR data deciphered by professional pilots and tries to contradict their findings by showing a counterargument by Caustic Logic, one of the most repeatedly debunked ´critics´ of CIT.
Arabesque wrongly asserts that the whole issue of the FDR readings is that CIT/Pilots claim that the animation that Pilots painstakingly reconstructed from NTSB official readings requested through an FOIA proves that the plane did not fly on the official route.
It is the exact REVERSE.

The FDR animation does in fact show the official path. The problem is that this path has been proven to be well off. Even detractors admit that the plane passed over the Navy Annex. Eyewitness testimony from ALL angles have proven this.NOC will eventually be accepted as fact.
The fact that the data matches EXACTLY the official route and then is backed up by RADES Data is the crux of the problem.
I honestly believe that these people have never really looked at the info on both sites. That they make their opinions based on other people´s translation of the evidence/info.

Arabesque:

Pilots deciphered the data. Who deciphered HIS translation of it to come to this conclusion?
He makes out that the data/animation may be off to explain any dicrepancies.Arabesque is very cute in this regard as always. A carefully thought out play on words that leaves wiggle room to manouevre and who´s arguments appear strong to naieve people wishing to inform themselves. Just as he has done in his ´impact witnesses´ piece.

Michael Talboo is just as guilty. He seems rather intelligent but puts his blinkers on for this topic and obviously links to this disinfo without researching it for himself, or worse ignoring it.


Pilotsfor911truth have covered EVERY criticism or possible ´mistakes´ made.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7163

G-Forces:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=57...586758033&hl=en

Topography and obstacles on Pentagon official flight path:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html

If the plane followed the official route serious problems arise concerning g-forces experienced especially at the VDOT tower.
Critics have claimed that Pilots have exaggerated this descent which was derived from the official NTSB provided FDR readings.
Pilots even lowered the plane´s altitude to the lowest possible height (even though it contradicted the readings on the altimeter) and found that the MINIMUM g-force that was exerted was 10.14 gs.
The official data would have the plane at 34gs.
Even R.Mackey ,through convoluted parameters admitted that the plane would need to exert a constant 4 g's for 4 seconds from the VDOT tower to the Pentagon wall.
The FDR only shows an average of 1.17 g's for that segment.
These are the OFFICIAL figures.

The next problem was the altimeter reading recorded.

Detractors have used the final steep descent that allegedly never happened to explain the altimeter reading in the final few seconds of the approach. That these seconds were ´lost´ due to lag.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7163

Pilots were courteous enough again to take on board detractors´ claims:

http://dtrs.dfrc.nasa.gov/archive/00000221/01/104316.pdf

Do you see Michael?
You have linked to a totally erroneous piece by Arabesque on the dilemma CIT/Pilots have with the FDR.
Each and every point raised by debunkers as to the accuracy of the animation produced from incredibly detailed NTSB Data has been answered if you would go check out these sites yourself.

Even the discovery of the black box itself raised issues:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=5505

The list goes on. This is why it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth when Arabesque´s very first ´assertion´ was:

Even your statement that the NOC/SOC paths were ´slightly different´ really does show your ignorance on this whole topic.
The lightpoles being ´knocked over´ narrows the trajectory of the plane to within very narrow parmeters. Your insinuation that NOC is non consequential really does show that seeing as how none of you have ever debunked the NOC witnesses you will resort to any method lurking in the bottom of that empty barrel of yours.


You then go on to link to witnesses that you insinuate contradict the NOC witnesses.

Tom Hovis??

Did you know he wasn´t there that dy but was in fact in his office 8 miles away?

Gary Bauer?

The PNAC signatory? Did you know that CIT have photos of his POV and he can only see the top floor of the Pentagon at the nearest point?

You then go on to list people who just saw the plane at some stage over the I-395. Did you bother to check where on this motorway?
Ed Paik and Terry Morin gave their trajectory of the plane over the Annex. Follow that path BACKWARDS and you should have an idea how far away from the immediate basin of land surrounding the Pentagon they are talking about.

Debunks NOC? Fail.

A list of witnesses who were at least 2 miles from the scene watching through windows?

And how would they gain a perspective of where this plane was flying?
How could they tell whether it was NOC or SOC? Fail.

Ian Wyatt who is actually a Navy Annex witness?

Levi Stephens and Terry Morin who are in fact NOC witnesses?

Do your research man. This is getting really embarrassing.

I mean how does a guy who was 8 miles away in his office and 2 confirmed NOC witnesses alomg with 3 witnesses who´s full testimony describe NOC, (a PNAC signatory man?) and Annex witnesses(??) contradict NOC???

Wow, mate, wow.

The ´impact witnesses´ link to Arabesque´s blog which is about exactly???
You do know he has had names on his blog that he KNOWS were misinfo?
The fact he leaves them there for 2 years makes it disinfo.

Read through the various witnesses discussed at CIT forums that you constantly point to. Do none of you guys follow links?

You then go on a ´tirade´ against the validity of eyewitness testimony having linked to witnesses in the previous paragraph.
Witnesses that do nothing for your cause I might add.

The first video is about identification of a person through eye witnesses and the pitfalls involved.
Please don´t tell me that a person trying to identify another through features, height, accent and clothing can be compared to a witness pointing to where he saw a bigass plane flying 1-200 ft agl. Especially witnesses that were right under the thing. Witnesses who were from/ worked or knew the area and who used buildings and structures as a backdrop and perspective as to where they saw it?
A simple matter of left or right in some instances.
Is this what you are saying?

Second video...same.

Third video is based on memory failure regarding details. Minor details. Nothing to do with the eye witness testimony in Arlington that day. Nothing.

Now just what exactly were you getting at with the ´bandwagon´ explanation?
Concerning the NOC witnesses?
Sean Boger - alone in the heliport
Ed Paik - alone
Terry Morin - alone
Robert turcios - alone
Brooks and Lagasse - drew separate maps of where the plane went - exact match
The 5 ANC workers - up and down the ANC parking lot.

Their testimony was gathered over the YEARS and they did not realize the consequences of their testimonies. How can ´jump on the bandwagon´ eyewitnesses be compared in any way to this scenario??

If you are inferring that people who follow and agree with CIT and their findings then you should know that this investigation didn´t just spring up out of nowhere.
I myself was a lurker on their site following their findings carefully until I couldn´t deny the legitimacy of it and joined in.

Maybe you should follow my lead Michael. Research a bit before jumping on Hoffman and Arabesque´s ´bandwagon´
Judging by the disinfo you are guided by and severe lack in knowledge on this subject YOU (along with Superboy) have blindly followed the leader.
You guys have set a precedent within the ´Truth Movement´
Argue your points as duhbunkers do.
Cover your ears, close your eyes and yell ´wah wah wah´ when faced with hard facts.
Use links to Mark Roberts and JREF Forums.
Repeat debunked topics and counterarguments in the hope that some of the shit sticks.
Pure disinfo.

These ´hit-and-run´ blogs and commentary style are going to come back and bite you and the instigators of this smear campaign (for that´s all you have) on the ass.

Or come here and we can go through your points one by one.
Go through witnesses one by one.
Tell us how you can hold ´evidence´ from a controlled scene as a counterargument.
Explain why you would want to throw away evidence of government manipulation of the FDR. Surely no matter what you believe on the NOC/SOC issue this comes second to actually having tangible proof?
Surely the proven fraudulent Gatecam is another one?
The totally threadbare ASCE report?

What exactly IS Plan ´B´ to prove the black op at the Pentagon?
Any ideas or are you guys too busy propping up the official story to have thought that far ahead?

Peace

Here´s something else to chew on Scoot and Michael.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15636

Aidan Monaghan blog

Here´s another one from a surprising source given his counterarguments to CIT´s findings.

http://visibility911.com/blog/?cat=164

This is 911visibility´s Michael Wolsey welcoming Aidan Monaghan´s research and numerous FOIA requests.
The FOIAs concentrated on in this blog is the total lack of FDR identification numbers and documented proof of plane parts, including Flight 77.
He publically endorses Aidan´s outstanding work in proving that we have never had real proof from the FBI as regards plane part identification.
That the FDR´s lack of serial number raises serious questions as to its authenticity.
That the manipulation of the ´crime scene´, evidence and documentation is more than just a theory. That it is a fact.

So the next time detractors from Hoffman/Wolsey´s ´camp´ waves the ´there was aircraft debris at the Pentagon´ flag to counter NOC, remember that he acknowledges manipulation of evidence and documentation at all sites including the Pentagon.
This also includes the only ´proof´ of SOC. The FDR.

Enough of the hypocrisy. Please.

Peace.