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 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Cit Publishes Response To David Chandler & Jonathan Cole's Joint Statement About The 9/11 Pentagon Attack

Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 4 2011, 04:32 AM
Post #1





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



We've been put in the difficult position of having to defend ourselves against people whose work regarding the destruction of the World Trade Center we respect and appreciate. Although we had never spoken to David Chandler or Jonathan Cole prior to the publication of their "joint statement" on the Pentagon attack, we had always considered them natural allies, had never badmouthed them or had any inclination to do so, and had even praised their work.

Unfortunately they did not have the courtesy or sense to get in touch with us to see if we had any responses to their apparent serious issues with our work before publicly denouncing it. The result, as we have now documented in great detail, was a simplistic, horribly sloppy, and defamatory essay which reveals that, at best, they had barely spent any time at all on our website, let alone bothered to view our extensive catalog of video presentations to familiarize themselves with the full scope -- or even many of the basics -- of the evidence we present, or us personally, before rushing to judgment and aggressively attacking us.

Due to the frequent and extreme falsity of their claims, a very lengthy response was necessitated. Sometimes a single sentence would have multiple false and/or misleading claims requiring several paragraphs to untangle. We'd have preferred a shorter rebuttal, but there was no other way to do it if we were to remain accurate and thorough, as we strive to do in everything we publish.

While it was frankly quite obnoxious to have to spend so much time refuting a such a simplistic and shoddy essay that these two men clearly did not put much time into at all, the silver lining is that it gave us an opportunity to address their essay in the context of the dishonest and dishonorable campaign being waged against CIT by a relatively small clique which has gained control over 911Blogger.com, where we are not only "censored", but more importantly, attacked on a virtually daily basis with misinformation and disinformation and denied a "right of reply". For some reason David Chandler apparently has no problem with this situation considering that he published the "joint statement" by him and Jonathan Cole there and then further badmouthed us and our work in the comments section.

Given these circumstances, and the wide-ranging nature of our response to David Chandler and Jonathan Cole, we ask you to please set aside AT LEAST an hour or two to read our response in full so that you can hear our perspective. Unlike Chandler and Cole's essay, our response is heavily sourced, so if you can set aside extra time to REALLY dig into its contents and follow the links and sources, even if you do so over the course of several days, this will give you a MUCH more detailed look at the intricacies of what is going on here, and we feel that the reality of the situation will become that much more clear to you. This is an especially important thing for you to do if you are a regular reader of 911Blogger, since this means that you have likely spent hours over the past months or even years reading the frequent bogus attacks against us which we are forbidden from responding to.

I'd like to thank our webmaster for his critical help with writing this response and putting it together. Please pass it along to anyone you can and encourage them to read it. Thank you for paying attention to both sides of this manufactured controversy by reading our entire response:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/CI...agon-Statement/

Sincerely,
Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team


P.S. There will also be a podcast forthcoming to address some of the additional points discussed by David Chandler in his recent interview with John Bursill on this topic.

Index and "jump to" links for our response:Originally published here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 4 2011, 07:54 AM
Post #2





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



Craig,

I support CIT's work and certainly their rights for a fair and open hearing of their work. We've given that much to others.

I am interested in also trying to understand what this is happening.

Is this a phenomenon of good people with good intentions trying to do the right thing, but simple wrong or blinded by something which prevents them from seeing what they are doing?

Is this a phenomenon of good people who haven't the requisite understanding of a topic (although they believe they do) and so can't come to the correct conclusions and are too "proud" to admit their errors?

Is this some more complex "dis info" campaign where people are not who they are and their purpose is to fragment the truth movement's effort to "nail the truth" and they lead us off not only down the wrong paths, but get the movement fighting about where to go?

What is behind what is now such almost viscous behavior from people who profess to have the same set of goals - truth and justice related to 9/11?


NB.

Chandler and Cole have done some good work re 911. BOTH of these men have made mistakes, technical mistakes and made illogical statements, ignored science in some cases which they claim to be proponents of, and used straw dog arguments, false simplistic analogies and so forth. We don't need to "throw the baby out with the bath water" and must accept the good work that they and anyone does and reject the flawed work, point it out and go forward.

The same sloppy investigative work has been done by Chandler, Cole, Legge, Hoffman, and others from the mainstream truth movement. And their response is to double down and attack those who point this out.

Everyone claims they know what the evidence was, what the correct and accurate observations are and what the evidence "set" to work with is. Yet this could not be further from the truth and likely the root of the problem here. PEOPLE ARE SEEING WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE and BUILDING THEIR THEORIES ON THIS.

We have a problem of FLAWED OBSERVATIONS, and LIMITED TECHNICAL expertise by many of the self proclaimed "investigators". This is a fact and needs to be faced.

Peer review is meant to provide a check and a oversight by competent experts. This process is seriously flawed in the truth movement and is doing nothing to reinforce the published findings in these "peer reviewed" papers. In fact, by so doing it will and is undermine the independent research and researchers who participate in the 911 peer review process set up by 911 web sites.

Let's establish the actual facts and move on from there. Let's be cautious and conservative and be prepared to admit mistakes and revise our thinking.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Feb 4 2011, 08:59 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Feb 4 2011, 10:39 AM
Post #3





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



Indeed --
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 4 2011, 10:58 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Nice work!
cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 4 2011, 11:14 AM
Post #5



Group Icon

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



Nice job Craig.


I sent this letter out to Jonathan and David after they published their article.... no response.

QUOTE
From: Pilots For Truth <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>
Subject: Response to Pentagon Article from 911Speakout.org

Date: Monday, January 3, 2011, 1:58 AM


Hi David and Jon,

First let me say thank you for all the hard work you have done regarding the WTC research. I found your arguments and experiments extremely compelling compared to what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission, the NIST and other govt agencies. Being a laymen in terms of the WTC collapse, I always defer others to your work. Thank you for your service in seeking truth and justice.

I have been alerted to your latest article regarding the Pentagon. I was looking forward to the read, but instead I find it rather divisive in nature with some of the technical issues discussed seriously lacking and mostly inaccurate.

In order form a more thorough opinion on the matter, I invite you to discuss this information with those who have gone into the field and have put in thousands of hours into the research regarding the events at the Pentagon. My door is personally always open for discussion for those who have earned my respect, and both of you have certainly done that in the past. I can also set up a conference with representatives from CIT if need be.

Once again, thank you for all your hard work and I look forward to hearing from you. Call anytime.

Regards,
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org
xxx-xxx-xxxx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BADBURD
post Feb 4 2011, 11:58 AM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 83
Joined: 31-December 09
From: Mid-West
Member No.: 4,824



I was reading what they were saying about CIT on their site and it really took me by surprise. Everything they were doing seem to be helping the cause. Then when they begin bashing CIT I wondered were this was coming from. Clearly if anyone really looked at CIT's video's combined with the P4T'S video's and information on this site (and common sense) there is NO DEBATE. Once somebody pushes disinformation it's time to steer clear of them. Reguardless of any good facts they have presented. I will never bother to look at their site again. DAMN SHAME!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Feb 4 2011, 01:32 PM
Post #7





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



nice olive branch rob.

i cannot believe that the two gentleman in question have even looked at the work of cit. seriously. all those eye witnesses to a north approach... those are not 'flyer data points' in the data, they are the elephant in the room.

don't know the other guy, but chandler (if he's the one that got nist to rebut the freefall) seems like a stand up guy. if his fame has gotten to his head, then pride goeth before the fall. hope they open their eyes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Feb 4 2011, 01:34 PM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



Very well spoken Craig. I read the entire published response. As you know, I've been a supporter of CIT and PFT for years. One of the biggest reasons I began supporting your work and defending you is very simply your investigation. Hell anyone can scour the net to find press accounts, etc. arrive at a conclusion, and then move on. Thankfully for the WTC the mainstream media was doing that during the event which did not necessitate the activities CIT needed to do. Sadly, much of it was covered up or was accepted by NIST and not released at a later date.

Anyone that truly watches your investigation unfold can plainly see something is very very wrong with the official story at the Pentagon. This goes beyond "nothing should have been in the airspace in the first place".

I will attempt to explain, using my own moment of enlightenment and chronological order, why some might disregard the investigation and what led me to ultimately accept the facts.

1. The Penta-lawn photos pop up on the internet. Strike 1. A plane at that level colliding with the building and no damage to the lawn in front, no disturbance, lack of debris....something very fishy early on. Published statements about what was in the airspace. See #4 below.

2. DOD clearly showing no plane at all with apparent manipulation. Strike 2.

3. Confiscation within minutes of all visual evidence of what caused the Pentagon attack and the refusal to release these to the public. Strike 3

4. 'Stories' of people seeing a small passenger plane, references to a missile, a plane dissimilar to the attack jet, etc. These statements have one effect either intentional or not: something 'hit' the Pentagon. The 'published accounts' of debris in the Pentagon, etc. Strike 4.

5. The initial statement of pilots regarding the skill of the pilot etc. that would be able to pull of such a move, etc.

At this point and after checking out the evidence, most would have assumed that the official story is false. That 'something' did hit the Pentagon but it wasn't what we were being told.

5. Enter CIT. Hey finally someone actually investigating the attack instead of compiling mainstream stories and arriving at a conclusion. IMHO this was the best the Truth Movement was offering. Heck anyone can watch videos of the WTC collapses, do some analysis, and conclude something was fishy. But to go to the people who were there, inteview them, have them confirm what they had already stated in the past, was very simply the best research that was going on and in my opinion combined with PFT still is!!
The biggest difference to this multi-college degree critical thinking educator: the eyewitness were on film not only describing their viewpoint, what and where they saw a large passenger airplane, but drawing on film their approximation of the route of the plane. What did I take from these earliest interviews, the NOC was indeed the true path of the plane and the witnesses were dead on in their assessment, the light poles were staged, however, I was still trying to reconcile the plane on that path hitting the building. I NEEDED a flyover witness to seal the deal so with that in mind I began supporting your early work without getting to the forgone conclusion: the fly over.

Why is the fly over theory now I believe fact, scary for most? On the face of it, it truly is unbelievable. Individuals will start then to have that internal struggle between what was told to them by the media, the government, etc. over and over again until it is internalized and circumstances and evidence showing a the fly-over. Then they begin to contemplate a fly-over and how ridiculous that must sound. The problem is in most cases, these same people are simply unaware of the vast body of evidence and like Chandler and Cole are apparently told by others how to think about it.

Well when Roosevelt Roberts Jr. and Erick D. entered the scene, that is what I was waiting for. After some more thought and re-review, I came across the very real situational blindness phenomenon.
There are very true legitimate reasons why 'fly-over' witnesses are not pouring out of the woodwork:
A. Situational blindness-residents in the region would be 'blind' to the mundane. And the mundane are numerous fly overs in the area on a daily basis. Detractors tend to think this is what would stick out. Of course it wouldn't! It is the mundane, the norm, the daily occurrence. Explosions, fireballs, and columns of smoke on the other hand or not.
B. The 9/11 calls that have never been released! Heck how many of those record something like, "Hey I think a plane just bombed the Pentagon and flew away!!" After all, would it not be prudent to release these calls if they described the officials story??

6. Enter the FDR and PFT analysis and the problems with that story. When you combine CIT's body of work (I loved the 'prediction' the fly over theory held regarding a second plane cover story popping up when the NOC/Fly Over started to spread quickly.)
If I'm not mistaken Craig, you predicted stories of a 2nd plane would start popping up to cover for the fly over and sure as shit that is EXACTLY what happened. I'm not a scientist, but in order to increase the validity of a theory, predictions made will come true and that is what happened with the second plane cover story.

7. The cover-up by the Pentagon and the FBI to release critical data, serial numbers, manipulated video, false statements.

So then why the open and blatant attacks from a group that questioned the Pentagon attack and scene initially and now believe the official story:
1. In order to spread 9/11 Truth as a whole, suggesting a WTC CD scenario is much more 'believable' than a Pentagon fly over story. I mean they do have dust to test. So lets keep the CIT/PFT stuff out of the majority of 9/11 Truth discussions despite what they present. But how to do this? Essentially ad-hom attacks while banning supporters from supporting their work. This is the more 'innocent' of the three approaches.

2. Cognitive Infiltration- by focusing researchers efforts on the WTC attacks and discounting CIT/PFT work, the shift away from Pentagon and more towards the WTC complex and how a CD team can get into the towers, Mossad agents, etc. This steers research away from the direct involvement of individuals within the United States military involvement in the Pentagon attacks. This involvement is directly required by the CIT/PFT line of inquiry. And for some more patriotic minded Truthers, this might be a bit frightening....after all granddaddy was in WW2! This lends support to the 'divide & conquer' technique as well. By gaining trust in the WTC research, the trust is then used to sway critical examination away from the Pentagon event. For example, I wonder why Kevin Ryan has not dug into the companies and individuals behind the Pentagon attack like he did with the companies in the WTC at the impact floors.

3. Popularity Contest- As the popularity of the truth movement over time has gained momentum, followers, and exposure, the access to consumer dollars can not be ignored. The person or people with the most 'popular' face and name can and do earn income from their DVD sales, book sales, etc. If 'they' are more popular than me, then I might loose money as the theory goes. So lets attack them to protect our future earnings. LOL!

With that in mind, I would like to ask those detractors, especially at 9/11 Blogger: Why all the cover up of information, anomalies, etc. at the Pentagon if the official story holds true that Flt. 77 did impact the building.

1. Why not release every video from security cameras around the region?
2. Why not release serial numbers and data to the public?
3. Why not show the vast collection of debris from the plane and how they are linked to the flight ?
4. Why avoid questions that could be clearly answered if Flt. 77 did hit the Pentagon?
The list goes on.

It makes no sense to cover up something that did occur if it indeed did occur.

With that in mind, Craig and Co., I think you have done a tremendous job debunking 9/11 Blogger leaders and others. The only question that has yet to be answered: Why are they doing this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Feb 4 2011, 02:19 PM
Post #9


Citizen Investigator


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



QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Feb 4 2011, 06:34 PM) *
The only question that has yet to be answered: Why are they doing this?


They have been influenced by infiltrators or are themselves infiltrators.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Feb 4 2011, 02:22 PM
Post #10


Citizen Investigator


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





This gif says a lot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wilddaddy
post Feb 4 2011, 02:51 PM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 35
Joined: 31-December 10
Member No.: 5,553



Swingdangler....That was an awesome post. Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dv8
post Feb 4 2011, 03:01 PM
Post #12





Group: Contributor
Posts: 652
Joined: 24-October 06
From: Detroit
Member No.: 160



Magnificent response Craig and CIT,,,very professional and along the higher road as well. Good luck and here's hoping they truly mis-spoke and are open to discussing what REALLY happend at the Pentagon that morning as the evidence makes clear.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Feb 4 2011, 03:49 PM
Post #13





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 476
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



Hello Craig.

Not just you. Did you see how SnowCrash replied to my queries over at 911blogger? I wish these rabid dog attacks would stop and let people have an opinion, asks questions and further their own education.

We still have many questions. Attacking other researchers is not going to help us find the answers. Chandler and Cole need to make amends.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 4 2011, 05:47 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Will Chandler and Cole recognize the negative and questionable motives of the latest annually regurgitated disinfo muppet following in the footsteps of Russell Pickering, Arabesque, "Frustrating Squad" aka Adam Larson, Eric Larson, John Farmer, etc..?

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/CI...Statement/#hill



Ron Weick made a "surprise" appearance at 911Oz recently with his "doots up", after having been in contact with Hill and leading to a thread over at the govt loyalist site entitled (until subsequently altered) "Recovering Truther Jeff Hill Repents For His Sins In The Name Of The Truth Movement"

Weick called Chandler a "coward" and a "liar" at 911Oz. Hill kept his peephole shut. As did his minions, tripping over eachother to lay roses before his feet (I'm not kidding, it was disgusting..).

Is this really the low level that the authors of that "opinion piece" want to stoop to?

SwingDangler, I think the main reason that there has been so much effort into dismissing CIT and P4T regarding the Pentagon is that it doesn't require reams of technobabble to prove an inside job if this evidence were accepted from the start for what it is. If the flyover were proven 100% to the mainstream public, there'd be civil war and gallows being built in the morning. Why else would certain individuals who know perfectly that they are promoting disinformation because it has been repeatedly debunked and pointed out to them actually risk being exposed and feel safe in their positions while doing it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Feb 4 2011, 06:50 PM
Post #15


Citizen Investigator


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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 4 2011, 10:47 PM) *
If the flyover were proven 100% to the mainstream public, there'd be civil war and gallows being built in the morning.


Slice, if the north side of the Citgo flight path alone was 100% accepted by the mainstream public we'd see the same thing.

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Feb 4 2011, 06:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Feb 4 2011, 07:35 PM
Post #16





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Feb 2 2011, 08:50 PM) *
Slice, if the north side of the Citgo flight path alone was 100% accepted by the mainstream public we'd see the same thing.


the mainstream public is a little slow. you would need to spell it out to them. i've read tons of stuff on the stockholm syndrome. what is conspicuously missing is literature/documentation on how to combat it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Miss Mab
post Feb 4 2011, 08:14 PM
Post #17





Group: Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 11-May 08
Member No.: 3,321



I just wanted to lend my support and appreciation for the excellent work created by CIT and the wider P4T in the midst of all this incredibly out-sized harrassment and criticism that's been going around.

This site has always been my 911 'starting point' and have been a member for quite a while now though certainly one of the most silent and invisible ones! I was probably slower to involvement in 9/11 truth than some but when I did decide to get my act together I started here at this site because, well, let's just say as back-end cargo on that fateful day stuck outside the US watching the horror unfold complete with subtitles and strange graphics well, when I wanted to get involved I came here first because [i]these are my people[/i].....
Anyhow...

Having watched all the videos here as they came out over the years and following along at this site I would only tangentially check out other stuff, other blogs and organizations, usually through links or via Griffin books, etc. and so let me just say I was so SHOCKED to check in recently(probably around the airing of the Governor's shows--btw, nice to put a pic to you Rob finally and great job on that) was just completely blown away at the negative, nasty, HATE-filled rants and overall treatment you guys were being dished for what I already knew was such terrific and well researched work you'd done. I mean, it was just such a stark contrast to the tone and discourse I had previously been accustomed to seeing and it took me many an hour to kinda back the whole story up in order to follow along and see just what the hell had happened and gone on over there(and here) since I'd seen it.

Anyway, just a real shame and entirely undeserved and so just wanted to pipe up from my voyeur's chair to send my support and hopes that, as in all else, the truth will win out and to remind you that all here are supported by a HUGE silent majority---god knows I can't be the only one:)---so don't let the vociferously vocal slimeballs get ya down. You are appreciated. You have done good work and you should be proud. That goes for all who do the honest work of getting the real truth out there.

Thanks!!!!
Best,

MAB
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Feb 4 2011, 10:11 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE (Miss Mab @ Feb 5 2011, 01:14 PM) *
I just wanted to lend my support and appreciation for the excellent work created by CIT and the wider P4T in the midst of all this incredibly out-sized harrassment and criticism that's been going around.

Well said Miss Mab. I consider this is the around the time of the end game for the CIT/PFT detractors - they are desperately projecting an image of credibility from among their very small numbers and using censorship within 9/11 Blogger to give the appearance that nobody supports CIT/PFT. It is time for the silent majority to stop being silent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 4 2011, 10:39 PM
Post #19





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Those guys are desperate. They have chosen to defend a lie, and maybe are just now figuring that out, years later.

It's true that there are bright bulbs and dim bulbs.

Great response Craig.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 4 2011, 10:49 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Feb 4 2011, 11:50 PM) *
Slice, if the north side of the Citgo flight path alone was 100% accepted by the mainstream public we'd see the same thing.


Agreed man.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th October 2019 - 06:39 PM