IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

10 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Cit Publishes Response To David Chandler & Jonathan Cole's Joint Statement About The 9/11 Pentagon Attack

Aldo Marquis CIT
post Feb 4 2011, 11:00 PM
Post #21


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 5 2011, 03:49 AM) *
Agreed man.


Guess I am stating the obvious haha
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Feb 4 2011, 11:25 PM
Post #22





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Aldo!

Great work! I have a question about the little .gif video you posted. Was it taken from a plane landing at DCA using the north approach?

It looks like the path of the many planes I saw landing on the North approach when I walked the Pentagrounds the day before the Alexandria Conference on July 09. Every minute or so, a commercial plane would come in a screaming descent out of the north straight toward, and then and about 100 feet above the river side of the Pentagon, before landing. It was about 6:00 PM, I suppose sort of a rush hour.

One thing, it does take some of the sting out of the conjecture about Pentagon Missile Defenses (if there ever were any). I don't think it would be wise to have a that kind of a hair trigger defense system when this type of business is normal. ETA: There would never be enough time to sort the planes out and make an informed decision whether or not to use it in the midst of that kind of clusterfuck.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Feb 4 2011, 11:28 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Feb 4 2011, 11:36 PM
Post #23





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Craig has authored an excellent response to Chandler and Cole, which certainly suggests that considerations other than the search for truth about 9/11--and especially the Pentagon!--has affected them rather profoundly. The most interesting claim they make concerns the impact that CIT's findings would have in "splintering the 9/11 truth movement". Since bona fide evidence cannot undermine, much less "splinter", the search for truth, where establishing the truth is essentially dependent upon the discovery of bona fide evidence, this attitude is not just preposterous but inconsistent with the search for truth. The only splintering that can occur from the discovery of bona fide evidence is separating true theories from false ones.

Indeed, as Craig himself most appropriately emphasizes, the discovery of witnesses who agree on the simple point of whether the plane that approached the Pentagon came from north or south of the Citgo station is one of the simplest and most easily understood forms of evidence that could possibly emerge in the pursuit of truth about the Pentagon. I have long believed that the Pentagon is even more of the Achilles' heel of the official account of 9/11 than the controlled demolition of WTC-7 for the obvious reason that, as the center of the nation's military command and control, if the government would lie about the attack on the Pentagon, there is no reason to think it would speak the truth about any other aspect of 9/11.

Among the first books I studied on 9/11 were Thierry Meyssan's PENTAGATE and 9/11: THE BIG LIE. I was convinced that there was something fishy about the Pentagon attack, which I have pursued on may occasions, including "What didn't happen at the Pentagon?", which I have published without the "inside baseball" introduction of the rense.com version at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/wh...t-pentagon.html One of the features I love about the Pentagon is the use of those gigantic dumpsters to create the dense, black smoke that was used to intimidate the members of Congress when they poured out of the Capital and looked across the Potomac. Because the original fires had long since been extinguished, those "special effects" were indispensable.

That is not to suggest that my own work on the Pentagon has been flawless. For most of the time, I have taken for granted that those early five frames were authentic. It was only when I belatedly realized that the absence of damage from fire to the section of the building that collapsed undermined the claim that massive fireballs had exploded there. I have found the one frame labeled "plane" of special interest, not least of all because it is only about half the length of a Boeing 757, when the image of such a plane is sized to the scale of the tail that is visible just above the gate mechanism. But I have been among those who has long believed a smaller plane might have hit while a larger one flew over the building, the reasons for which I have often explained.

Interestingly, Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley were attacking Scholars from the moment of its conception, so there is nothing new here. I responded to attacks that Jim launched over the first few months of the society's existence, which are archived on Scholars web page (and were until recently linked to my entry in Wikipedia) but far from common knowledge in the 9/11 research community, even though they are extremely revealing:

The Company You are Keeping: Comments on Hoffman and Green
http://www.911scholars.org/Fetzer_9Feb2006.html

What's the matter with Jim Hoffman? Abusing logic and language to attack Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://www.911scholars.org/ArticleFetzer_14Jun2006.html

Indeed, I have discovered that Wikipedia is being used to perpetuate myths about 9/11, including seriously distorted entries about Scholars for 9/11 Truth and about me personally. Although I repeatedly attempted to correct those entries and render them more accurate and complete, I was repeatedly rebuffed, as I explained in "Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6078.shtml

911blogger.com lost credibility long ago, when a series of posts I had made about Steve Jones and (what I consider to be) his exaggerated assertions on behalf of the powers of thermite were abruptly removed. Up to that point, I had valued blogger as a repository of alternative points of view regarding the most complex and controversial aspects of 9/11. Even those who support Steve's hypothesis should appreciate the fundamental role of diversity of approach and of alternative theories, where scientific progress emerges from competition between alternative explanations, especially when we do not know how the destruction of the Twin Towers was done. It is for that reason that I pursue a "big tent" approach and encourage the study of diverse alternatives.

That blogger, which Victoria Ashley now manages (if my latest source of information about blogger is correct), has receded into the role of cheer leading for its preferred side has been conspicuous with its publication of a bizarre attack on me after I went after Robert Parry, "9/11 Truth is a Parlor Game", with a rebuttal taking him apart, "9/11 Truth is No 'Parlor Game'". Instead of supporting, Kevin Ryan has used me as an example of why Robert Parry was right, "Why Robert Parry is Right about 9/11 Truth", which would be fine if it were based upon accurate information about me and a subtle philosophical exchange about the nature of information. No such luck, however, as I have been compelled to explain in my reply, "Kevin Ryan's Misadventures". Check it out!

When Ben Collet asked if blogger would allow me to respond, the post making his inquiry was deleted. Anyone who reads the comments that were posted about Kevin's attack on me would see that they are mindless and fawning, indicative of the low level of intellectual engagement to which much of the 9/11 movement has been reduced. I attribute much of this to the insidious influence of Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, and Arabesque, who, in my opinion, have done more to damage the 9/11 truth movement than all the theories about video fakery, planes/no planes, or space beams ever could. No constructive purpose is served by banning theories from public discussion. After all, if they are false, they will be exposed; and if they are true, then we need to know.

Most of you will know that, when I founded Scholars, I invited Steve Jones to serve as co-chair. What you do not know is that, when Steve first set up The Journal of 9/11 Studies, I was supposed to serve as it managing editor and Judy Wood was supposed to be his co-editor! Having probably more editorial experience than any other member of the 9/11 truth movement, I emphasized to Steve that the success of the journal would hinge upon the quality of the individuals he appointed to the editorial board. He disregarded my advice, cashed in Judy and me, and proceeded to turn the journal into his own private fiefdom. I cannot begin to say what a huge different it might have made and where we might have been today, alas, had he only followed my advice.

As it stands, Steve Jones filled the editorial board with friends and associates, some of whom had appropriate backgrounds and standing, but others not. The result has been that the journal has been inconsistent in its standards for acceptance and publication. Some of its products, such as Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross's "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job", have been brilliant, while others, such as Greg Jaynes's unwarranted attack on Judy Wood, have not. The residual problem is that people who may have done good work on some aspects of 9/11, such as Chandler and Cole, cannot be taken for granted as doing good work on other aspects. Their attack on CIT was as biased and unjustified as Jaynes' on Judy Wood. Both of them deserved far better than they got.

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Feb 4 2011, 11:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Feb 5 2011, 12:50 AM
Post #24





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



CIT's long-form rebuttal of the Chandler/Cole attack piece on CIT is closely reasoned, well supported, and should be very effective, given any fair-minded reader. It also comports well with my recollection of the evolution of CIT's work, from my first becoming aware of their research, and the exchanges I read on the P49T forums. I have never had any basis for describing their work as being anything other than straight-forward, fair-minded, open, and, in a word, honest. When they were caught up in the excitement of having their "eureka" moment when it was dawning on everyone that the implications of an undeniable north-side approach were huge, I recall having a discussion on the forum about the possibility of the damage being done by a missile. CIT was making very strong statements at the time, very definitively stating that fly-over was proven. I recall that a number of members remained supportive of your work while reserving judgment on total agreement.

I don't think I realized at that time how completely their research had debunked the south-side approach and thus the official story. I had only seen the PentaCon at that time (if memory serves) and it took me a couple of times through NSA when it was released, to become completely comfortable with the conclusions. It took a while for it to sink in completely how one fact (NOC) simplified the case, and I pretty much had been convinced from very early on that an aircraft causing the observed damage was very doubtful.

When CIT (and P49T) were attacked by Hoffman/Wolsey, I found it extremely puzzling, and, like you, disappointing. I had tried to contact Wolsey several months earlier to urge that he bring Rob on his show. I never got an answer to my inquiries, and then to see the Visibility 911 program become a platform for Hoffman's and later Legge's and Bursill's attacks went beyond disappointing. Of course, Chandler and Cole added to that disappointment, and Kevin Ryan was the cherry on the top of the "friendly fire" sundae, where it became impossible to regard the attacks as being anything but a deliberate assault on the credibility of the Truth movement from within. I can understand why Cass Sunstein wants to throw fog at the issue, but people who have done significant work in the cause - what do they have to gain?

I have tried to make sense of the attacks from within the Truth movement, with no more success than anyone else. The best I can do is to conclude that, at some level, in the machinations that we can only presume that are going on within the "management" of the official myth of 9/11, CIT's valid and supported conclusion is a show-stopper that does not permit any flavor of "limited hangout", such as an admission that some rogue elements "let it happen" or that it was anything but a well-planned and carefully engineered staged event requiring many witting accomplices within the Military/Intelligence complex. The proof CIT offers would become a huge obstacle to selling any LIHOP fallback position, and an attempt at a full defense of the official flight path would at least muddy the waters for those who don't read too closely.

This paper makes the case for any reasonable person to conclude that CIT has been attacked by witting disinformation efforts with the intent of marginalizing their research and the researchers, and producing the divisions in the community they accuse CIT of working for. I think it is incumbent upon the Truth movement to become very familiar with the facts of this case. I have criticized some who have rewarded the attacks on CIT (and P49T) by backing away from previous statements of support and trying to change the subject away from CIT, based on the fact that their Pentagon work had become "controversial", which, in view of the mendacity of their very vocal critics, is like backing away from evolution based on the "Creation Museum" display of dinosaurs wearing saddles.

I agree totally with CIT's statements regarding the previous quality work of Chandler/Cole on the WTC and commend them for their refraining from personal attacks. Good work.

Shelton

This post has been edited by maturin42: Feb 5 2011, 01:19 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 5 2011, 01:32 AM
Post #25





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



Snow Crash at 9/11 blogger 22/12 - 10, responding to post by RL McGee:

"As for Hani Hanjour piloting, I have doubts about that also".


Please read the above a couple of times. Let the 'implications' truly sink in!


For peace of mind (or mental health reasons), one would probably be much

better off ignoring all together these people over there!


Or in other words (with a bit of Light poetic license):

Let them remain the flock of sheep left alone on barren desolate ground with

nowhere to go,

and let us remain the true individuals who leave and wander our own ways to

search for the lush green fields, and the rushing clear pure cool waters, which

only the Truth can guide us toward.

Cheers


PS!
Bolding by me!

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Feb 5 2011, 01:39 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Feb 5 2011, 02:08 AM
Post #26


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Feb 5 2011, 03:25 AM) *
Hi Aldo!

Great work! I have a question about the little .gif video you posted. Was it taken from a plane landing at DCA using the north approach?

It looks like the path of the many planes I saw landing on the North approach when I walked the Pentagrounds the day before the Alexandria Conference on July 09. Every minute or so, a commercial plane would come in a screaming descent out of the north straight toward, and then and about 100 feet above the river side of the Pentagon, before landing. It was about 6:00 PM, I suppose sort of a rush hour.

One thing, it does take some of the sting out of the conjecture about Pentagon Missile Defenses (if there ever were any). I don't think it would be wise to have a that kind of a hair trigger defense system when this type of business is normal. ETA: There would never be enough time to sort the planes out and make an informed decision whether or not to use it in the midst of that kind of clusterfuck.


Yes Mark, that is a plane on the north approach into DCA.

As for missile defense. They had 35 minutes to get some of these into place. Under attack at 9:03, Pentagon attack at 9:38...



They obviously knew the Pentaplane was an unidentified plane approaching so they could have taken it out and groundstop was at 9:26.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 5 2011, 02:55 AM
Post #27



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Feb 5 2011, 01:08 AM) *
Yes Mark, that is a plane on the north approach into DCA.

As for missile defense. They had 35 minutes to get some of these into place. Under attack at 9:03, Pentagon attack at 9:38...

They obviously knew the Pentaplane was an unidentified plane approaching so they could have taken it out and groundstop was at 9:26.


We will be going over this in full in our next presentation. Sit tight Mark.. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Feb 5 2011, 03:14 AM
Post #28





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



Nice work guys. Im still in the middle of reading it all,
but it looks really good so far.

The F-4 test has plagued me for years and i see it is a bone
of contention here for these guys. Could it be that this test was
done to see how much evidence could be destroyed at a 500 mph
smash into a building ?
I think yes, BUT the Pentagon was no 5' thick solid block of reinforced
concrete, it had windows that were not broken, and no impact damage
from the heavy, mega tough wing/tail spars and supports. And the field
in Shanksville certainly wasnt a "non-movable surface". Something should
have been left, some evidence of human remains and certainly something
that could positively identify that plane. EVERY part on an aircraft has a part number
on it, and all the essential parts have serial numbers that can link that part
to that aircraft, ie- landing gear, wheels, brakes, engines and their parts, seats,
O2 bottles, 02 masks, life-vests,computers, CRT's, radios, fire-extiguishers, fdr,
cvr, actuators, pumps, reservoirs etc.......

Anyway, its sad to see all this in-fighting and ego powered bashing within such
a noble movement. Those of us who know what 9/11 really was, are hurting and
damaged to our very core. Something we all love dearly and have believed in and
tried to serve all our lives, was ripped from us the very instant we came into the
carnal knowledge of 9/11.
But whats worse, it may have never existed. Atleast not in my lifetime.

If we dont have each other, we are truly lost. I dont think some realize the
weight and the grave repercussions this event can have. To be honest, i have contemplated
abandoning my search for truth, due to my love of this country and my desire
to preserve it. But i know that it wasnt America that did this, it wasnt my countrymen,
or my brothers in the military and police. Justice must be served in order to make
America great again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Feb 5 2011, 04:38 AM
Post #29





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



what more can be said? as you got to the truth about one of the collisions with terrain events of that day, you became targeted.

who knows how chandler and cole became compromised. a visit from the irs? a visit from the fbi?

but what i know is what a great job of care and concern for the preservation of this republic you have performed.

and i recognize how the doing of your research has cost you much psychic loss. my immediate analysis that the state was lying about that day has cost me most of everyones that i thought to be a friend. it has been a shock to discover how ignorant so many are, care to be.

and i applaud the cementing of your conviction that you have gotten the basics of the pentagon episode accurately.

because i think you have revealed truths. truths that were supposed to remain buried.

and the other truths that continue to go undiscussed....dc, camp david are ringed by sam sites. at the most fundamental level, belligerent aircraft cannot cross certain boundaries and not be blown out of the sky. unless a stand-down order has been issued from the highest levels[jcs minimum].

and if there were no such orders issued, then there was no belligerent aircraft colliding with the pentagram.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Feb 5 2011, 05:21 AM
Post #30





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Feb 5 2011, 03:38 AM) *
belligerent aircraft cannot cross certain boundaries and not be blown out of the sky. unless a stand-down order has been issued from the highest levels[jcs minimum].

and if there were no such orders issued, then there was no belligerent aircraft colliding with the pentagram.


And thats the most disturbing aspect of it. Cheney is being told the distance till impact
and does nothing. Just like the 2nd tower. No one warned them that another hijacked aircraft
was still in the sky and heading there way, they were told to go back to their offices.
If i did that, i would be charged with murder, or negligent homicide min.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Feb 5 2011, 05:38 AM
Post #31





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (aerohead @ Feb 5 2011, 07:51 PM) *
And thats the most disturbing aspect of it. Cheney is being told the distance till impact
and does nothing. Just like the 2nd tower. No one warned them that another hijacked aircraft
was still in the sky and heading there way, they were told to go back to their offices.
If i did that, i would be charged with murder, or negligent homicide min.


You can be assured about that.
But you are obviously an AMERICAN, those that brought about the terrible atrocities' of 11-9-2001 denied themselves of that identity for eternity.
Tragically they do not care, how could they or they would not have done it in the first place.
They don't think like you, or your fellow true AMERICANS, they have lost touch with all decency, that is if they had it in the first place.
Some don't, why, that is a lot more difficult to reason and understand.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 5 2011, 05:50 AM
Post #32





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Feb 5 2011, 04:25 AM) *
Great work! I have a question about the little .gif video you posted. Was it taken from a plane landing at DCA using the north approach?



Here is the source video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g03VBCbb2q8

That is what's called the "DRA" or the down river approach which is a typical approach to Reagan.

It's coming from the north headed southbound.

I wouldn't call it "the north approach" because we typically refer to the north side of the gas station approach as that which is actually more like an approach from the west headed east.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 5 2011, 06:13 AM
Post #33



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Feb 5 2011, 04:50 AM) *
That is what's called the "DRA" or the down river approach which is a typical approach to Reagan.



DCA River Visual Runway 19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 5 2011, 09:20 AM
Post #34





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



QUOTE (maturin42 @ Feb 4 2011, 11:50 PM) *
I agree totally with CIT's statements regarding the previous quality work of Chandler/Cole on the WTC and commend them for their refraining from personal attacks.

Shelton


Not entirely true Shelton. Chandler, Cole, Legge, Hoffman and others have produced flawed work as well at the WTC. Not all of it, but some of it. And when it is pointed out, they launch into the same character assassinations and attacks.

CIT and PFT have produced impressive fact based presentations and put them out there for people to see and draw their own conclusions. I respect and admire both these groups for not only the research but for their presentation an dissemination of same to the public.

The public has not been aware of the exaggerations and over the top claims of the above in regard to the destruction of the twin towers because no one has stepped up to put together a presentation on the level of CIT and PFT. But this work is being done without the public outreach. I urge readers to visit this site:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org

And do some reading. It is not a the govt loyalist site site by any means. Its members debunk the govt loyalist site claims all the time. it is a fact based engineering and science based site which explores the technical explanations about 911. The site or its members have not put together a complete "package" or presentation as CIT and PFT have, though they have made several media presentations of their work.

Chandler dropped in and dropped right out when he couldn't take the "heat" so to speak. And the time will come when the actual facts about the collapse of the towers will have to be faced by Chandler, Cole and the others. At the moment they are in denial and in the same mode of shoot the messenger, to hell with the facts... though one wouldn't know it because they CLAIM to be scientific and engineering principles driven.

Lies have short legs... they don't go far.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Westgate
post Feb 5 2011, 09:29 AM
Post #35





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 121
Joined: 11-March 07
From: Cambridge UK
Member No.: 752



Craig - I have your DVD and have watched it several times now. You are to be most definitely applauded for all your excellent field work and exhaustive investigations, the interviews really hammer home the truth you have so carefully and patiently unfolded. I agree with all your refutations on the stupid Chandler/Cole piece - we can only surmise as to their true motives.

We know that Barbara Olson did not make telephone calls to her husband, the Solicitor General, so why should any other aspect of the OCT regarding Flight 77 be regarded as true?

Anybody who truly sticks their head above the parapet - the 911 truth parapet, that is - with something other than comments on other's researches, so easily obtained via the web, must expect a critical analysis by all the so called 'experts'. I see no problem in that, but unfortunately with 'Blogger' we have the usual mix of egos, reputations, jealousies, envies, that make up most any and probably all organisations.

Thankfully P4T is an oasis of calm by comparison, thus almost my only port of call these days.

As an old and ageing survivor of the 60's - although I may not remember much of those happy times, I do recall my continued interest in 'Earth Mysteries'. That movement rapidly expanded with so many 'experts' appearing at lectures, book-signings - festivals - etc, all expounding their latest theories on Ley Lines, stone circles, Stonehenge, UFOs et al. All well proven of course! They made money and reputations, then argued and became prim-a-donas and eventually took their bats and balls home and sulked.

911 is far more serious than the above - but identical egos have arisen. 911 is not for messing around with, many lives were lost, many lives have been lost subsequently and are still being taken daily, all in the name of 911. The MSM has ensured that nearly all of the population in the USA, the UK and Europe in fact, remain ignorant and ill informed. But mostly they, the general population, do not give a damn anyway.

911 was the most amazing and blatant false flag operation ever - the perpetrators got away with it totally, still remaining untouched even today.

Please Craig, do not ever give up, you have carried out real and I do mean real field research and more than proved your point mate.

One day, one thing will emerge that tips the balance (the Olson story has been studiously ignored so it will have to be more substantial than that I guess) and just maybe we shall see it gathering momentum somewhat. Thus, all the work done by P4T and Rob and others, most definitely including CIT, will make such an amazing highly detailed source of future reference.

'nil carborundum illegitimi'. Never let the 'Bastards grind you down' Craig - hang in there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 5 2011, 10:28 AM
Post #36





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Westgate's comment touches on several important points about "911 truth movement" and his character analysis of the main players... most vocal in their advocacy is something which needs to be discussed understood and sorted out.

Since there is disagreements on fact and observations - "the evidence" all sides cannot be correct. Truth is a unique singular concept. Obviously some are wrong. We usually determine the truth or tease out the facts of a complex event or observation by rigorous methodical scientific investigation. CIT has done just this.

Then there's the idea of falsification - disproving an assertion and eliminating it as a fact and science based explanation. They've done that too.

But the 800 pound gorilla in the truth movement room is trying to ascribe motive to the researchers of the truth movement. On the face... they want the truth because most can see that the OCT doesn't add up. So even this needs some scrutiny... is it a pack of deliberate lies... or a blundering mass of mistakes... or both woven together with some actual facts?

If it's all three and this is my guess, then each aspect of the OCT needs to be examined to sort out... lies, mistakes and facts and then begin to stand up the truth... which is the motive of the truth movement. Why?

911 was the murder of thousands followed by the killing of hundreds of thousands and the expenditure of perhaps trillions (lots of people got rich too) all based on the OCT explanation. If it's a lie, we need some accountability and justice. We can't bring back those who sacrificed their lives, and likely recover the ill spent money related to 911, but we might be able to establish some level of justice and accountability.

Are those who make false claims in this noble mission... well meaning? Are they driven by ego, fame, control, power, even money... all potential "fatal" human failings. Or is there something more sinister at play? Could they ALSO be intentionally trying to confuse and cause chaos, sew dissent and cripple the efforts of those with a genuine interest in justice? Could well meaning people even be manipulated to support efforts to effectively stymie the truth movement noble goal... without their own consent or knowledge?

How do we explain when intelligent people do dumb things? Sunstein and et al told us they intend to use cognitive infiltration to counter a movement which seeks to question the government sponsored and supported narrative. Whether they launch their operatives or not... the idea alone seeds distrust and can cause the movement to coalesced around seeking the truth then becomes one of internal struggle for competing theories and accusations that those who disagree are cognitive infiltrators. So much for "the truth".

My sense is that there are few if any cognitive infiltrators in the likes of those mentioned. One can't be sure. But surely the other human failings are operative and the idea of cognitive infiltration is having the effect of actual cognitive infiltration so perhaps that was a clever strategy of the government to weaken dissent... get them fighting with each other and distrusting each others motives... all based on the belief that the government is up to no good.

Clearly there are some egotists here in the truth movement who are operating above their pay grade. Can anyone tell me what qualifications Justin Keogh has to be a leader and play such a powerful role in the truth movement? What has he actually done? What research has he done? What civil or aviation engineering background does he possess? NONE... he is a geek who set up AE911T's website and 911 Blogger. Who granted him such power and control? Why is it accepted? Why is the truth movement so accepting of these self professed experts who show no expertise?

CIT and PFT have demonstrated how to do fundamental research with competent technical support. As far as I can tell most of the others are pretenders and surfing the 911 truth wave... some have made it their occupation... and literally live off of 911 truth... selling truth materials to get out their message and ...make a little in the process. Makes you wonder.. doesn't it?

Lots of well meaning egotistical people for sure. Self preservation and self esteem trump truth.

Justs the facts Watson.... Just the facts.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Feb 5 2011, 01:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Atomicbomb
post Feb 5 2011, 11:41 AM
Post #37





Group: Newbie
Posts: 64
Joined: 28-January 10
Member No.: 4,870



I read the entire response from CIT to Chandler and Cole and it is superb! I knew that Chandler and Cole were lazily relying upon Hoffman's long debunked disinformation for much of their attack piece but I did not know they were also citing Jeff Hill. I also did not know just how bad Hill aka "shure" really was until I listened to the drunken, harassing, and repeated phone calls he made to Jay Maisel at 1 AM in the morning, that CIT cited in their response. That was a revelation to me akin to Troy's disgusting harassing phone call to Bob Mcilvaine. My God, anyone who cites Jeff Hill as a source for anything other then "how to be an absolute a-hole" has got some very serious credibility issues in my book. Chandler and Cole have just lost whatever credibility they had with me, that is for certain and my estimation of Jeff Hill just went from “poorly informed group thinking dupe” to “poorly informed operative participating in a disinformation campaign”.

I cannot for the life of me come up with a reasonable explanation for Chandler and Cole to have written this "paper" that does not involve some sort of malevolent intent. Chandler and Cole certainly are not stupid people, nor are they unable to perform basic fact checking yet obviously they did not fact check their sources or demonstrate any real mastery of the subject matter. I just find it hard to believe that this is all just a keystone cop routine being played out before our eyes.

As always CIT’s work has been excellent. They absolutely crushed Chandler and Cole's sloppy opinion piece, and along with it the disinformation they relied upon to write it! I am confident that Chandler and Cole will, like the other CIT/P4T attackers, refuse to debate the subject in public like honorable men would do, and will instead launch more attacks from inside the protective cocoon of 911Blogger and Co, where all opposing voices have been silenced. I am also quite sure they will, in stunningly hypocritical fashion, assert that CIT’s well thought out and reasonable response to their blatant unprovoked attack piece was itself an unwarranted attack upon them. I therefore wish to preemptively set the record straight when they start in with the crocodile tears about how abusive or disruptive or abrasive CIT is. Mr. Chandler and Mr. Cole it was you who initiated this attack on CIT, not the other way around, so let’s be absolutely crystal clear about that. Now that your lousy opinion piece has been thoroughly eviscerated don’t come looking for sympathy as though you are somehow the victims in this case. You are the attackers not the defenders and the response you received was well deserved.

Separately and for my own sake I want to say something to Mr. Chandler and Mr. Cole about your call to “police” the 9/11 Truth Movement. First of all neither of you, nor anyone else I know of, are qualified to do that in the first place. Secondly you do not get to control the thoughts of others or control the direction of research the 9/11 truth movement takes and you especially do not have the right to censor anyone else. Thought Police are not needed or wanted here sirs because there is already a natural process in place to correct errors and misinformation within the truth movement, it is called discussion and debate. Your shoddy paper has just been subjected to that process and has come up seriously wanting.

Sincerely,

Adam Ruff
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CuriousGeorge2
post Feb 5 2011, 11:51 AM
Post #38





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 40
Joined: 19-August 10
Member No.: 5,218



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 4 2011, 09:49 PM) *
Agreed man.


This story is proudly PUBLISHED at 911NewsCentral.com!

The original Chandler/Cole story was discarded from our database due to our problems, not with Chandler's other works, but, specifically, with the "Honey Pot" section of the piece in which it is claimed that AA Flight 77 struck the Pentagon and which also challenged the validity of CIT evidence.

Thank you CIT members for exposing the fraud of the crimes at the Pentagon on 9/11/01, which, let us not forget, included the, shall we say, "mysterious deaths" of accountants investigating the missing 1.3 trillion. Where is the justice for their deaths? Who will speak for them?

Please support the site that was created in part to ensure publication of CIT evidence.

THANK YOU!!!

Cheers!

911NewsCentral

This post has been edited by CuriousGeorge2: Feb 5 2011, 11:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ErinMyers
post Feb 5 2011, 11:58 AM
Post #39





Group: Core Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 25-January 09
Member No.: 4,088



SanderO:

I'm not sure if I've ever met in meat-space all the actual persons writing here, but many of your writings I greatly appreciate.

Many times I've seen that SanderO has smashed the target of what I also find important. 'We're competing in a contest of vastly grave importance. We're contesting for our very lives, if not for our very souls. The opponent is profoundly devious, profoundly well-funded... and equally contesting for their own lives as well to be expected.' I can not imagine higher stakes.

This contest appears timeless, at least when looking backwards. Almost disheartening, when looking forward. However, a contest worth fighting... if our very souls can be counted as the prize.

It's going to be a very long game. But even it we could win it tomorrow, it seems prudent to play as-if an eternity lays before us.

Erin

This post has been edited by ErinMyers: Feb 5 2011, 12:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GreekForTruth
post Feb 5 2011, 01:58 PM
Post #40





Group: Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 28-November 09
Member No.: 4,701



Hey guys & gals

It's very plain & simple!

WHOEVER attacks CIT's findings/evidence, which are the ONLY ones that warrant at least a Grand Jury investigation and indictment, IS the enemy. Period!!!!

Forget the 'flyover' debate or what Robert Jr saw or didn't see! It's irrelevant...The INDISPUTABLE north side approach is more than enough to set the wheels in motion!

They have a guy who ADMITS, on video, that it was all PLANNED, for fuck's sake!!!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 10th December 2019 - 01:11 AM