CIT for the Prosecution

Arcterus, one of the more intelligent Truthers, writes about the problems CIT would experience if they were running the case for the prosecution.

Let's start with their own witnesses being cross-examined with each other. CIT's own witnesses state that the plane impacted the building. Their case for claiming the physical evidence was faked revolves around the testimony that the flight path as on the north side of CITGO. They would HAVE to find some way to convince the jury that part of the testimony was right and another part was wrong without directly saying so. Now even if they made this possible, invalidating a witness discredits their ENTIRE testimony. Even if you're only arguing against part of it, it only makes the entire testimony look bad. It's so unlikely it might as well be said to be impossible that an entire jury would accept a testimony to be PARTIALLY accurate. They would almost definitely disregard it. Even if, by some miracle, each and every one of them thought in this way, that would go out the window upon cross-examination. Take, for example, Sergeant Lagasse. CIT says that Sergeant Lagasse giving irrefutably wrong locations of the taxi cab and light poles actually supports their theory. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but back in the realm of reality, all it means is that he's WRONG. And if he's wrong, it means the entire testimony could be wrong. That and, of course, they wouldn't be allowed to say why they think it supports their conclusion. They can not speculate.

I particularly like this part:

In short, this means "Every contact leaves a trace." Are the implications of this clear? Physical evidence is always correct, because it can not be wrong. IF the physical evidence was faked, then there'd be some sign, some EVIDENCE that it was faked. Does everyone understand? You can only trump physical evidence with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

Were the light poles blown away by explosives? Then there should be some explosive residue. Was that segment of the Pentagon blown up? Then like all bombs, there must have been some shrapnel. Were the plane parts planted? Then it should be clear to forensic examiners that the locations of the plane parts are all wrong, that they flew in the wrong trajectory, that they weren't traveling at the right velocity, anything to suggest that they didn't originate from a high-speed plane crash. Did the examiners miss all of this? If so, it doesn't matter. It means CIT has no case here. If the evidence was missed by those examining the scene, there's nothing that can be done about that. It still means there's no documented, verifiable physical evidence with which to suggest that the whole scene was set up.

Indeed. Of course, if we try to suppose that Professor Jones is in the witness chair, and Arcterus the prosecutor, I'd love to hear this part:

Arcterus: Did you obtain confirmation that the red-gray chips were thermite?

Jones: Well, we sent them to a guy in France, who confirmed the existence of the chips, although not in the quantity we found them, and he discovered they had been deactivated...

Arcterus: Do you have any evidence that they had been deactivated?

Jones: Errr, well, that is to say....

Still More Hoffman

Here's the final segment of the Hoffman/Arcterus interview; I have not bothered to listen to parts 5-7, because it all seems to be the same.

Where Hoffman goes off the rails is on the assumption that certain theories he finds nutty are being pushed forward by forces malevolent to 9-11 "Truth". The reason that certain nutty theories are being pushed forward are that small "Truther" factions have formed around individual aspects of 9-11. So you've got your folks who think the missile at the Pentagon is the best evidence. You've got others (like Hoffman) who insist it's controlled demolition. You've got others who think Val McClatchey's photo proves inside job, or North of the Citgo, or video fakery. And they're all convinced that they've proven it beyond a reasonable doubt.

They're all paranoid nutbars, of course, which is why Hoffman, despite seeming more sensible than, say, Aldo and Craig, is still convinced that people pushing the theories he disagrees with are government agents, not just paranoid nutters like himself.

If anybody bothers to listen to parts 5-7, I'd like to know if Arcterus ever asks Hoffman about a debate between him and Mark (Gravy) Roberts. I confess that I can only take Hoffman in small doses.

Arcterus Interview with Hoffman

I like that Hoffman starts out by saying that the proponents of "false theories" are mostly well-meaning people. I am listening to see if the topic of a debate with Gravy comes up.

Part II.
Part III.
Part IV.