"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?"

In fact I believe both to be possible, and have no way to know *for sure* which is correct. But let's amend the first part to say that the info you present proves a flyover *and is honest*. Because I don't contest the fact that if there was such a flight path it would seem to necessitate a flyover. Asking me which I think is more logical, well, I would have to say that given the scope of the 9/11 cover-up and the fake truth movement of which we know there can be no doubt, adding in one more angle of deception, perhaps in the form of "deliberately defending a cause with faulty arguments" doesn't seem too outlandish.

The problem here is that for some reason you want us all to swear allegiance to the flyover explanation, and to your and the witnesses' credibility and actively promote it. Well, I will certainly include your evidence in any effort I make to discuss alternative scenarios to the OCT at the Pentagon, but always with the caveat that it *might* be a set up of some kind to be later discredited when a new batch of witnesses is "discovered".

What I think is great is that you got some people on the record, on camera, giving their account, which differs from the official explanation. One day they should all be called to testify in court under oath, but for that day to come we need many more people to become aware that the entire official story about 9/11 is extremely dubious.