1) Lloyde England is a bit of a weird guy--and I don't think that's an act--I think that deep down Lloyde is eccentric. Not saying whether I think he is being coerced or bribed to participate in the cover-up, just that if he is either of those, or innocently mixed up with this, I don't think he can help acting weird about it. He may well have been honestly interested in David Icke--that wouldn't surprise me.

None of this speculation is relevant to the fact that the evidence proves the light pole and cab scene staged. I find it odd that you would speculate about this at all without even having viewed the evidence. You were unaware of the Icke book earlier today. Did you view the entire "Eye of the Storm" presentation this afternoon where I ask him about the Icke book? It's 100% clear to me from his reaction that he certainly did not read the book. To consider the presence of that book within a proven staged scene of arguably the most controversial and questionable facet of arguably the most controversial, questionable, and significant attack on our nation (that you already 100% believe was a deception) a mere coincidence is far from a logical consideration in my opinion.

"Since you collected and publicized the witness statements, we have to believe or disbelieve both they and you, Craig, together. I say this because I don't think it's likely that somehow the witnesses were lined up with false testimony in the hope you or someone else would come to interview them. The possibilities are a) that you and the witnesses are honest or that b) you are in cahoots with the witnesses for some disinfo purpose. Sorry if that offends you, but what good would it do me or anyone to give you the benefit of the doubt on this?"

Healthy skepticism is fine and I have no problem with that at all. But to refuse to accept such a massive body of independent verifiable evidence that proves the official narrative false you better have a good reason for it. Nobody has cited a valid or logical reason for not accepting the information we present or accusing Aldo and I of being disinfo agents. We keep to ourselves and don't attack others in the movement, we make logical coherent arguments and back up our claims with evidence, we are utterly despised by all the people you DO think are disinfo, and the consensus of people on this site DOES seem to already agree with us. It's not like we are some newbies coming out of nowhere with a bunch of outlandish claims. You've all had plenty of time to check into the veracity of the information and do all you can to look for ANYTHING we may have done that would arouse suspicion or warrant a refusal to accept the evidence.

If you can't cite a single valid reason to suspect us of being disinfo you are only muddying the waters and casting doubt on us needlessly by making that assertion.

It's good to be skeptical but at some point, when people have repeatedly passed all the tests and only behaved logically and with integrity while backing their claims up it's important to welcome, embrace, and accept them as honest patriots who are on your side if you ever want to get anywhere in this psychological war.

The coordination around a "disinfo" operation on the scope of what we present including people from all walks of life (citizen immigrant mechanics, cemetery maintenance workers, gas station attendants etc) would be astronomical. It's not the least bit logical but more importantly there is no MOTIVE. Particularly now that the operation has been completely successful and we have been committed to permanent global war well into the next administration.

They haven't a reason on earth to coordinate such a complex false effort proving the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

Bottom line you can't cite one single legitimate or significant reason why we should not be trusted.

We are BEGGING you and everyone to check the info out thoroughly (which as of this morning I am quite sure you hadn't done).

And yet you say that if we think there is more direct evidence for controlled demolition than for the north side flyover the *we* are acting like Jon Gold. I think that's not only hypocritical but that it's simply wrong.

I never said that!

My point is that both have been proven and nobody here or anywhere has put forth a logical argument showing otherwise and most here have agreed.

Whether you think there is MORE proof for CD and prefer to lead with that when addressing "newbies" I really don't care.

But that does not change that fact that if you accept the north side evidence that you MUST scientifically accept it as proof of a flyover.

Of course you can refuse to accept it and write it off as disinfo with no basis whatsoever. Certainly that is everyone's prerogative no matter how illogical it is. But if you DO accept it, it is proof of a flyover.

That's what this thread is about.

Once something has been proven you can't say that something else that has also been proven is somehow more true.

Truth is truth and proof is proof.

Just like a woman can't be sort of pregnant.

So it boils down to this.....you can accept the info we present proves a flyover, or you can write it all off as a coordinated disinfo effort.

There is no other choice.

Which do you feel is more logical gretavo?

Witness testimony is not the same as physical evidence. Something inferred based on indisputable physical evidence (free-fall collapse implying use of explosives) is not the same as something inferred from witness testimony (north of citgo flight path implying flyover) because those witnesses COULD be lying whereas it is much less likely that the free fall of WTC7 could somehow be a deception.

Again healthy skepticism is good but when there is no valid REASON or BASIS for skepticism and when it's used to illogically dismiss such a large body of verifiable information that proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon it becomes ridiculous and extremely counter-productive.

Is it technically POSSIBLE that all the witnesses are deep cover operatives who were part of a disinfo conspiracy to put out false information proving the plane did not hit the Pentagon? I suppose so but by that same token it's also POSSIBLE that all of the footage of the building 7 collapse we've seen has been faked.

Both notions are absurd and are not based on any evidence whatsoever or even a single logical, coherent, or valid train of thought.

At some point it's important to rally behind the info that checks out.

I showed up at your site to remind you that this info checks out (while urging you to view it in full) and in good faith answer any questions or suspicions you have about it or us directly.

Ultimately you are faced with a simple choice....do you embrace the fact that there WAS indeed a plane that did not hit or do you write off CIT as disinfo?