CIT is useless
UPDATE 8/15/10: Added a segment about closing statements.
Originally posted: http://arcterus911.blogspot.com/2010/08/cit-is-useless.html
Some time ago I wrote an article about the importance of not wasting time on CIT. Most of their followers are impossible to convince and consequently the endless debates with them are entirely fruitless, resulting in nothing more than distraction. But that's not to say we should ignore them completely. Just because we ignore them doesn't mean they won't be zipping around spouting their flawed testimony, their aggressive behavior, anything that discredits those of us who are careful and have realistic standards of evidence.
There's an issue I just don't see talked about often enough in regards to CIT. People are ready to talk about the things I mentioned above and more. The contradicting testimony, the over-zealous nature of their followers, the fact that the testimony contradicts physical evidence, all these things that relate to debunking them. What I don't see talked about is how this all plays into the legal implications of what CIT is proposing.
Let's say that CIT is right. For the sake of argument, let's say that all of those unsupported excuses, all of that "all the other witnesses are wrong/disinfo" and that "the physical evidence was faked" was, indeed, how it went. Well, perhaps you are satisfied with the evidence CIT has passed on and agree with their proposed conclusion, but bear in mind that when it comes to the big picture this means nothing. What convinces you and what can pass convincingly in court are two entirely separate things, and if our goal as a movement is to merit a new investigation to achieve accountability, then the court method is the more important one, correct? If you agree that trial is going to be a necessary factor in the grand scheme of things, so to speak, then you also have to acknowledge that, well...CIT is useless.
Let's run by a quick list of what we can all agree on.
1. CIT has 13 witnesses who support a north-side path.
2. There are other witnesses who support a south-side path.
3. The physical evidence supports a south-side path.
Bear in mind that none of those 3 points are asking for validity. They are simply pointing out, at face-value and without cross-examination, what it all appears as initially. Do you think the south-side witnesses are wrong? Fine. But we should still be able to agree that these witnesses support a south-side conclusion, however valid or invalid that testimony may be.
Let's also add to the list:
4. Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, nor anyone else would be allowed to divulge in aggressive behavior, even if given permission to treat as a "hostile witness".
5. Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, nor anyone else would be allowed to give opinions.
6. Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, nor anyone else would be allowed to speculate on possible explanations.
For #4, there is a certain court etiquette by which all participants must abide by, else they are held in "contempt". For #5, Lawyers present, examine, and cross-examine the evidence to the jury. They do not lead the jury by offering their personal thoughts on the matter. For #6, that's more or less the same thing. It just means they can't say "But you see, it only seems that way because..." You can not offer explanations until you are presenting the evidence that you believe explains away whatever it is you are opposing, and even then you can not do so in a way that leads the jury.
I clarify this because it means, first and foremost, that Craig, Aldo, and everyone else involved on the legal team would have to act like civil, adult human beings. That's something that has been a problem for them. It also means that their normal way of arguing would not be admissible. They could not say "this part of the testimony is right, but he was mistaken on this part" because they can not give opinions. The best they could do would be to bring up additional testimony or evidence to contradict it, which would also be a problem because it discredits the witness (I'll go more in-depth on that later). CIT can absolutely bring up witnesses and examine their testimony, but they CAN NOT offer opinions on what the validity of the testimony is or what that testimony means, which is basically their entire process for arriving at the conclusion of a flyover.
Now I'm going to start offering several scenarios which, I think, show how horridly CIT would hold up in court.
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 don't want to make this article too long by going through each and every witness, but I assume we can all agree that the majority of CIT witnesses report testimony that CIT themselves disagree with, mostly concerning whether or not the plane hit the building. Again, I remind you that CIT can not give their normal explanation of the whole thing being like a magic trick or sleight of hand. They can not offer opinions. They can only suggest as much by objectively examining the evidence. Evidence which they lack, since the entire premise is built on speculation.
But how about the other witnesses? The witnesses who support a south-side path? No longer can CIT accuse them of being liars without adequate proof, no longer can they insist that they were influenced by media reports without reasoning. No, I'm afraid CIT can only call forth the witness, listen to their testimony, and try to find holes in it. Even if they find holes, which they probably would for at least some of them, given the vast quantity of witnesses, the witnesses who support a south-side path outnumber the north-side witnesses so greatly that right off the bat it would be more convincing. More importantly, many of these witnesses were interviewed immediately after the attacks. Most of the CIT witnesses were interviewed years later. The opposing lawyer would undoubtedly bring up an expert to talk about how A) Trauma distorts the memory (it does not strengthen the memory as CIT so erroneously claims in their documentary) and B) How memory fades with time. More importantly, there are so many holes in the CIT witnesses that would be revealed upon cross-examination that any found in the south-side witnesses would be underwhelming. In a best-case scenario, you have the jury not being convinced by either side. More likely though, the jury is leaning towards the side with more witnesses, more credible witnesses, and of course witnesses who corroborate the physical evidence.
Ah yes, that pesky physical evidence. It's been quite an issue for CIT, as it's quite damning to their conclusion. CIT has basically offered that their claim of the evidence being faked is supported by the witness testimony, but in fact it's quite the other way around. In the legal world, physical evidence trumps witness testimony, always. This is explained in detail by Edmond Locard, a pioneer of forensic science and the creator of Locard's Principle of Exchange.
"Wherever he steps, wherever he touches, whatever he leaves, even without consciousness, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value."
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.
It is this portion, this matter of physical evidence, where CIT falls short that it makes the witness matter pale in comparison. That whole mess is such a wishy-washy roller coaster ride filled with holes and mistakes that I only include that out of thoroughness. In truth, all I need to point out is this right here. That CIT has NO physical evidence to back them up, and without that they have no case. All signs point to a plane striking the building. CIT would not only have to disprove that, but they would have to also prove that the south-side path was faked, and they would have to do so objectively and built on a mountain of evidence which they lack. THEY CAN NOT SPECULATE.
At the end, CIT and the opposing side would give their closing statements. Note, it is ONLY in the opening and closing statements where either side can offer explanations. This is the one time where a tiny fragment of speculation can see it's way in. Each side tells the jury how they view the evidence at hand. Both sides are still bound, however, by the evidence presented, so they can't delve too much outside of that. Here's an example of what a closing statement might look like for two different sides.
A man is having money troubles, but did not share his concerns with his family. He is an avid hunter who regularly used guns and kept one in the house. He is found in his study, dead, with a gunshot wound to the head. His shotgun is nearby as are cleaning supplies for the gun. Shortly before his death, he spoke with a friend on the phone. He gave no sign - to anyone - of depression or impending suicide. The friend said he sounded completely normal on the phone. He was a devoted family man, committed to his wife. Widow is suing insurance company which claims the man commit suicide and is therefore refusing to pay the life insurance claim.
Both attorneys have the same facts to work with, right? Some are good for them, some are bad. Here's how they would explain the evidence to fit their theory of the case:
Widow's Attorney: This was a tragic accident. Man makes a terrible mistake while cleaning his gun and it accidentally discharges. Widow lost her husband and now Insurance Company is trying to make things even worse. This was not a suicide. Friends and colleagues testified that Man was not depressed and gave no hint of suicide. In fact, he spoke with Friend shortly before his death and there was no hint that he was moments from taking his own life. Why is that? Because he wasn't. He may have had money problems. Lots of people do. But that doesn't mean they are all suicidal. The evidence shows that this was a tragic accident. Don't extend the tragedy. Return a verdict for the plaintiff.
Insurance Company's Attorney: This was a tragedy. On that I think we can all agree. But it was no accident. Man was clearly adept at hiding things. He hid his financial troubles from his wife and his severe depression from his friends. On the day he spoke with Friend and sounded as he always had, it was because he had found a solution to his troubles. After hanging up, he walked over to his shotgun and pulled the trigger. Why were the cleaning supplies out? Well, Man was a smart man and knew about the suicide rider, that the insurance company would not pay life insurance if the death was a suicide. So he left out the cleaning supplies to make it look as if it were an accident. We feel for Widow, but that doesn't mean that the rule of law doesn't apply. It doesn't mean Insurance Company should pay to make things better for her. We ask that you review the evidence and draw the only sensible conclusion. Return a verdict for the defendant.
What we see here is how two completely different stories are formed using the same body of evidence. Now imagine the case with CIT. Remember that, outside the possibility of their opening statement, they'd have been incapable of even mentioning things like "flyover", "faked evidence", "sleight of hand illusion", or anything else that didn't reside in speculation, since none of those can be supported by any witness testimony or evidence of any sort. Still, as long as they make it fit with the evidence, they can still mention those things in the closing statement. But that's a problem for them, even here where their speculation is granted the most leniency. Here is probably something it might look like:
(Although Craig/Aldo would probably have a professional lawyer hired, I'll use "Craig" as the lawyer for simplicity's sake.)
Craig: The American people were all lied to about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. We showed you 13 witnesses who all reported a flight path completely different from the one suggested by the damage path. This can only mean that the path was faked, and the plane did not actually strike the Pentagon.
Here are some important things to note on that. I simply have to make sure how clear it is that they are bound by the evidence in hand. They can not talk about other witnesses "lying" or "being agents" without evidence that was brought up in court to suggest as much. They can't bring up "sleight of hand illusion", since there's no evidence that any such distraction occurred. It is an entirely speculative excuse for why the witnesses would have said there was an impact. They can't even specifically say the plane "flew over", since their witnesses don't say as much. They can only imply it, to the subtlest extent, with a line like "It didn't strike", using the contradiction between their proposed flight path and the damage path as support. CIT is so limited in what they can say that they're forced to do more ignoring of evidence than framing it to fit their conclusion. Now here's what the opposing attorney might say.
Opposing attorney: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is almost certainly nothing suspicious about the evidence brought up in court today. The 13 witnesses contradict each other and have indisputable mistakes in their testimony. We have also brought up experts to show how trauma and time are both severe factors in the preservation of memory, and we've brought up several witnesses of our own who give testimony consistent with the flight path of the official story. Even without that, do 13 witnesses really trump something as damning as the hard, physical evidence of the damage path? It all comes down to this, are you going to trust physical proof, or the aging, mistake-ridden memories of some trauma victims?
If you were on the jury, which way would you decide?
So to recap:
1. The north-side witnesses would be discredited and/or counter-productive towards CIT's case both upon direct examination and cross-examination.
2. The south-side witnesses would, at the very best for CIT, make the jury neutral.
3. The physical evidence is sound and completely inarguable unless CIT was to come across legitimate, verifiable physical evidence.
4. They would have to be civil.
5. They could not speculate.
6. Their closing statement would be heavily restrained, and would possibly make them look ignorant or even foolish with such a short, weak closing statement followed by a long, convincing one.
With all this, I don't see how CIT could even get to flyover outside of their opening/closing statements. Their entire case for flyover is built upon speculation, and that is inadmissible in court. Without being allowed to offer their own opinions and speculations, it is impossible for them to lead anyone to believing that their witnesses are more credible, that the physical evidence was faked, or that there was a flyover.
Do you agree with CIT's conclusions? Do you think they are right? If so, I'd recommend devoting your time elsewhere. Unless CIT can bring up MUCH stronger evidence, they will never accomplish anything other than being laughed out of the courtroom. At this moment, CIT just doesn't have a case. This is not a debunking article. It's simply here to objectively analyze the testimony and hypothesize how it would hold up in court under federal and state laws. Whether or not CIT is right is not the issue. The most important issue here is that they can not benefit the cause of the movement.