When talking to people who are skeptical of 9/11 truth, because it provides a plausible scenario that explains the numerous eyewitnesses people have been told saw the plane flying towards the Pentagon. The idea that it was "sleight of hand" with a plane flying over and an explosion going off just at the right time to create the illusion of an impact--that can help people to understand a very basic premise required for accepting the truth about 9/11. That it was a staged deception, with things DESIGNED to look a certain way to lead us to false, if seemingly logical conclusions. Whether the plane that flew over was on the north side or not, and what exact role a weird cab driver has been playing in the deception, are simply not the most salient aspects of this issue. Absence of verifiable, identified debris is.

That said, any information on the record is good to have, and for that reason CIT's collection of evidence has a great deal of potential to play a significant role, but it is by no means an airtight account of what actually happened, or at least we can't assume it to be yet. Further down in this thread I think Craig and I got to this impasse, where the only thing that I think we disagree on is how likely it might be that their work is part of a deliberate disinfo campaign. Naturally Craig says that is not true but he also says it is illogical to believe it could be true. I disagree, but that is not the same as saying I believe it to be true. It is perfectly logical to hold something to be a possibility as long as there is a reasonable probability that it could be true. I don't think the WTC demolition is subject to such a reasonable doubt, but the sincerity of CIT, well, I just don't know--again, that should not be taken as a slight against Craig and Aldo, just a logical assessment of the situation by someone who doesn't know them or any of the witnesses personally.