Wednesday, December 24, 2008

The Gift That Keeps On Giving

That thread that I pointed out the other day at Truth Action is like the Energizer Bunny.

The CIT-heads keep asking, "Where was North of the Citgo debunked?" They parrot the CIT line that "All the witnesses we have corroborate each other!" and moan about how nobody will discuss the evidence with them, they just dismiss it.

Enlighten me.

That's all I'm asking.

What is your theory for the witnesses who all place the plane on the North of citgo?

Are they all complicit in the crime? Is this some elaborate conspiracy to throw us all off the mark perhaps?

Why is it I'm supposed to be rejecting this strongly and independently corroborated testimony?

Great fun! My favorite part is when I come up:

But don't worry - he gives a special li'll patronising pat on the head to those "responsible" truthers who took care to successfully distance themselves from this April Gallop nonsense.

As usual by applauding one group over the other, I end up sabotaging the credibility of the former among the latter. If I really wanted to beat the CIT-heads into the ground I should talk about how strong and compelling the North of Citgo evidence is. Which it is; one day Aldo and Craig will be recognized as the "Truthers" who dismantled the entire "official" story.

Update: Still more humor. When John Albanese suggests they check out Arabesque's solid post on the Pentacon, which has an incredible 251 footnotes, one of the CIT-heads replies:

John A, how can I put this; ah yes - that article relies on a lot of padding
Examples: “I saw it clip a light pole.”[38]
[38]Unnamed Navy Admiral.

“The plane flew very low over his car and hit the building and blew his windows out of the vehicle and he’s on interstate 395.”[16]
[16] Unidentified Pentagon Worker.

No kidding, he finds that two of the 251 footnotes are poorly sourced, and from that he deduces that Arabesque's review is "padded"? Look, I think Arabesque's post is a little weaselly (like when he says, "Arabesque’s Hypothesis: A large commercial airliner with American Airlines markings hit the Pentagon (note: this does not necessarily prove it was flight 77, or even a 757. The government has never convincingly proven that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon)."

But for crying out loud, if I debunk 104 of DRG's 115 points there will be Troofers rambling on about the 11 that I didn't cover. What a bunch of fruittards.

Labels: , ,

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home