albion

Dec 4 2008, 04:58 PM

Aldo seems to have forgotten that he and Craig chose to do an "investigation" and it is their claims from their "investigation" that are at issue. No one is going to do their investigation for them.

Apparently, Aldo and Craig don't yet understand that the burden of proof is on their shoulders and their shoulders alone to fully substantiate their claims with solid, irrefutable evidence. They have a huge job to refute all of the thousands of lines of independent evidence and eyewitness testimony that informs all of us of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 and remains unrefuted.

Real skeptics, of course, ask questions. We ask questions of CIT. We demonstrate the weaknesses, flaws, vagueness, contradictions, sloppy research of the investigation CIT is responsible for undertaking and asked CIT to explain the problems. Craig and Aldo don't.

No one else has any obligation whatsoever to conduct his or her own investigation to challenge CIT's claims. CIT is obligated to support its claims when those claims are challenged. I and other real skeptics have shown that the conclusions CIT wants us to accept are not acceptable by any rational standard in the world. Instead, CIT repeatedly tries to shift the burden of proof from its shoulders to those who have shown its claims to be invalid or questionable.

Let's remember that CIT has been challenged from all quarters, particularly from other Truthers, to produce verifiable evidence to support its claims. CIT's claims raise questions and it is those questions that CIT tries to skirt. In the several years of CIT's existence, many questions arising from Aldo's and Craig's "investigation", have been posed and either have been never answered or those posing the questions have been verbally attacked for asking.

One of the questions that have arisen from CIT's claims was met by determined evasion:

Q. If AA77 did not the Pentagon, what did the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage inside the Pentagon see, removed, or sort through openly on the Pentagon lawn?

A. "The wreckage was planted...All the 1,000 people worked for the 'government.' They can't be trusted....What people?...What wreckage?...We interviewed one person. That's all we need." And so on.

We have seen the same thing with CIT's inability to provide any positive and verifiable eyewitness testimony of any jet flying over an away from the Pentagon. NONE of their eyewitnesses ever saw any jet fly over and away the Pentagon and they believe the jet hit it. But all CIT can do is make the fantastic claim that these eyewitnesses think a jet flew a NoC flight path, therefore what "they think the saw" must, magically, trump all of the physical and eyewitness evidence, including those own witnesses beleif the jet hit the Pentagon.

CIT is eventually going to either come up with verifiable evidence or finally admit that it has none. So far, none of their claims have withstood the queries everyone is entitled to ask and have answered with evidence. If CIT's own eyewitnesses don't support CIT's claims, it is Craig's and Aldo's responsibility to contact them and clarify. It is no one else's responsibility.