911Truth.org now relying on "vague recollections" for survival

Check out the latest absolutely absurd post over at 911truth.org:

We are putting out a request for any of you who may know more about the following hearing to please contact us. It's quite important.

On approximately March 11-12, 2003 a hearing was held for which we're trying to find video or a transcript. The info is a little sketchy, but here's what we have that's pretty solid: It was at one point broadcast on CSpan (no, I can't find it in their archives now); was chaired/participated in by Senator Max Baucus; Michael Chertoff was present; apparently the Army spokesperson at the hearing represented that 17 soldiers verified Mohammed Atta was never present in the United States prior to 9/11; at one point during the two-day hearing, this frustrated Senator (Baucus?) said, essentially, "I know what the other 17 soldiers have said. Where's the 18th soldier who was supposed to testify? I want to hear what he has to report. Why can't he be found?" in reference to a military intelligence unit, possibly led by Stephen Reed.

What we don't have is: What committee chaired the hearings, the specific focus or title of the hearings, location of a video or transcript, role Michael Chertoff played in the hearing. If any of you recall seeing that on CSpan, or have any other info about it that could help us find it, please email janice (at) 911truth.org. Even details of your "vague recollection" would be helpful. Thanks so much.

Have you ever tried to have a debate but all your opponent says is, “well, I don’t have the information in front of me… but trust me it totally proves you wrong so you could just believe me?” Perfect example right here.

First of all, regular soldiers are not going to be privy to information about the whereabouts of the hijackers prior to 9/11, basically as a point of fact. Second of all, asking your cohorts (who are notoriously incapable of being honest about anything) to rely on their “vague memories” of a public information channel that clearly none of them watch is just begging to be lied to, frankly. They are begging for someone to come along, someone so desperate to defend the crumbling farce that is the 9/11 denier movement that they will either deliberately lie or willfully open their memories to complete flights of fancy for this “cause,” that they’ll just secrete some fanciful story to confirm this already clearly made-up instance.

Akin to putting “allegedly” before any outlandish claim to let it go into print without worry, they’re going to put “this is just my memory, but…” Of course, these are the same people who believe that everyone in “the government” has a perfect memory, never has a slip of the tongue or can’t properly recall the minutia of some fleeting memo or meeting – so we’re going to be watching and waiting. Every claim that comes up, we’re going to cross-check and double-check against every available source on the record. So if – and when – the 9/11 deniers respond to this absurd demand for fraudulent information, and we prove them either outlandishly wrong or wildly inaccurate, they’re going to have to explain how the existence of faulty, false, or obfuscated memories is consistent with their belief that everyone (else) in the world can remember everything with perfect accuracy. Oops, guys, you just issued the wrong call!