[hard to counter] a point by point fisking would assist

WONDER WHY NO ONE LOOKED AT THIS VIDEO? :)

This is a long video [over an hour] and as this is just a blog, I'd not expect anyone to see it through, which is such a pity because it is well worth it. What did I find? Evidence which it is hard to counter, some assumptions I had which turned out to be inaccurate and some conclusions which are hard to sheet home.

911 should not be a slanging match between neo-cons shouting, 'Conspiracy theory,' and truthers saying, 'You're all corrupt and murdered Americans.' I'm not interested in someone saying, 'Oh come on, James, surely you can't believe any of this?' Why not? Do you have hard facts to counter it? For example, the vid states that A met B in Washington. Now, if you have proof he didn't, that he was somewhere else, then say so.

The vid needs a point by point fisking - then we can accept what you say.

Similarly, I'm not interested in being told what I should conclude from this material. I don't need to be led - I can make up my own mind. I've come to some conclusions and I'm waiting for those conclusions to be comprehensively fisked, after which I can adjust my stance.

I tell you one thing though - if even half of this stuff is authentic, then we are in very DS.

UPDATE WEDNESDAY: Oh, oh, here it is - the admission.