Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Debate _ Cit Publishes Response To David Chandler & Jonathan Cole's Joint Statement About The 9/11 Pentagon Attack

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 4 2011, 04:32 AM

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/CIT-Response-to-David-Chandler-and-Jonathan-Cole-Pentagon-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 http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/news/2011_02_03-response-to-chandler-cole.html.

Posted by: SanderO Feb 4 2011, 07:54 AM

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.

Posted by: 23investigator Feb 4 2011, 10:39 AM

Indeed --

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 4 2011, 10:58 AM

Nice work!
cheers.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 4 2011, 11:14 AM

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

Posted by: BADBURD Feb 4 2011, 11:58 AM

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!!!

Posted by: GroundPounder Feb 4 2011, 01:32 PM

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.

Posted by: SwingDangler Feb 4 2011, 01:34 PM

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?

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 4 2011, 02:19 PM

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.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 4 2011, 02:22 PM



This gif says a lot.

Posted by: wilddaddy Feb 4 2011, 02:51 PM

Swingdangler....That was an awesome post. Thank you.

Posted by: dv8 Feb 4 2011, 03:01 PM

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.

Posted by: kawika Feb 4 2011, 03:49 PM

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.

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 4 2011, 05:47 PM

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/CIT-Response-to-David-Chandler-and-Jonathan-Cole-Pentagon-Statement/#hill



Ron Weick made a "surprise" appearance at http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=9629 recently with his "doots up", after having been http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1017&view=findpost&p=2372378 and leading to a thread over at the govt loyalist site entitled (until subsequently altered) http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p=6366917&postcount=1

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?

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 4 2011, 06:50 PM

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.

Posted by: GroundPounder Feb 4 2011, 07:35 PM

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.

Posted by: Miss Mab Feb 4 2011, 08:14 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.

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

Posted by: KP50 Feb 4 2011, 10:11 PM

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.

Posted by: amazed! Feb 4 2011, 10:39 PM

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.

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 4 2011, 10:49 PM

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.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 4 2011, 11:00 PM

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


Guess I am stating the obvious haha

Posted by: tnemelckram Feb 4 2011, 11:25 PM

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.

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 4 2011, 11:36 PM

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/what-didnt-happen-at-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.

Posted by: maturin42 Feb 5 2011, 12:50 AM

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

Posted by: Tamborine man Feb 5 2011, 01:32 AM

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!

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 5 2011, 02:08 AM

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.

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 5 2011, 02:55 AM

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

Posted by: aerohead Feb 5 2011, 03:14 AM

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.

Posted by: albertchampion Feb 5 2011, 04:38 AM

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.

Posted by: aerohead Feb 5 2011, 05:21 AM

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.

Posted by: 23investigator Feb 5 2011, 05:38 AM

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.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 5 2011, 05:50 AM

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.

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 5 2011, 06:13 AM

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.



http://www.fltplan.com/AwDisplayAppChart.exe?CRN10=1&CARRYUNAME=PILOT&DEPTARPT=KDCA&ARRARPT=XPTG&TYPECHART=00443RIVER_VIS19.PDF&END=END&WINDOW=YES

Posted by: SanderO Feb 5 2011, 09:20 AM

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.

Posted by: Westgate Feb 5 2011, 09:29 AM

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.

Posted by: SanderO Feb 5 2011, 10:28 AM

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.

Posted by: Atomicbomb Feb 5 2011, 11:41 AM

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

Posted by: CuriousGeorge2 Feb 5 2011, 11:51 AM

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


This story is proudly PUBLISHED at http://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

Posted by: ErinMyers Feb 5 2011, 11:58 AM

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

Posted by: GreekForTruth Feb 5 2011, 01:58 PM

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!!!!!

Posted by: aerohead Feb 5 2011, 02:42 PM

Everyone within the truth movement needs to realize
that..........WE ARE THE NEW INVESTIGATION.......ALL OF US.

The government will not provide one for us, they will not help us,
they will prolong it, they will resist it, they will fight it at all costs.
We are our forefathers' sons, we are the resistance to tyranny that
made this country great in the first place. We are the spirit of Liberty
and Justice that flowed though Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams and
Washington. We are the founding fathers of our country's future history. Let it
not be said that we did nothing when tyranny once again raised its ugly head and
tried to enslave Free Men. Our founding fathers didnt mince words and their
stand against tyranny was clear. There is a reason why George Mason
("The Father of the Bill of Rights") implemented this seal and motto for
the great state of Virginia in 1776..........................


Sic Semper Tyrannis- Thus Ever to Tyrants -Death to Tyrants


They didnt play around. And this issue with 9/11 is very serious.
We need to get to the bottom of it and bring those responsible
to justice in a court of law as our Forefathers would have. We cannot be strong if
we are divided and fighting against each other all the time.
People were murdered, our money was stolen and the frauds are
still rampant today. We are becoming the sick, the tired and the
homeless as we speak. Our land is being conquered by banks and
politicians just as Jefferson warned it would if we let what is happening
happen. I support CIT, P4T and all my brothers everywhere who are true
to the original idea of America- Liberty and Justice for all.

The longer we fight each other, the longer we let them prolong it,
the more it fades into history as a chapter won by the tyrants.

The real question in my mind is.............is their a Judge out there strong enough,
brave enough, with enough resolve to be true to his country and swing this
hammer of justice and do what needs to be done ? Or is the age of Great Men
a thing of the past.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

Posted by: Marigold Feb 5 2011, 02:48 PM

QUOTE (Atomicbomb @ Feb 5 2011, 07:41 AM) *
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


Adam,
Your response is brilliant! You are the Keith Olbermann of the 911truth movement, and I say that as a compliment. Well, you say it all!! Your words are like "special comments" that we all need to really pay attention.
I agree with you, once I heard Jeff Hill's drunken calls in the middle of the night to a witness, I was just embarrassed. Yes, for David Chandler and Jon Cole to quote him or his "work" at all is inexcusable! Had Craig or Aldo made such utterly embarrassing calls, they would be the first to apologize or step down!
Keep up your special comments, Adam, they are sorely needed.
Marigold

Posted by: SanderO Feb 5 2011, 03:12 PM

Adam Ruff,

Exquisitely crafted comment. I second Marigold.

It must be pointed out who are the "thought police" of the truth movement and where to they fit in.

Jon Cole is a board member of AE911T
Justin Keogh is board member of AE911T and runs Blogger
David Chandler has AE911T's logo on his videos

I do not want to dismiss the fine work AE911T has done.

I want to point out that 3 people who behaved irresponsibly in the CIT hit piece are in key positions to control (and censor) the discussion. This is not a good thing. The inmates are running the asylum.

I was on the board and ousted by Keogh and Cole for much the same kind of "thinking" which has been used to attack CIT. Of course I was accused of trying to destroy AE911T and nothing could be further from the truth. Dwain Deets was a board member at the time and fought against their nonsense and finally quit when he could no longer tolerate it.... and decided to focus on aviation issues and the pentagon "attack".

Something is terribly wrong, both with Blogger and AE911T when then act in in such a manner. These are two of the most respected and "visited" websites in the truth movement and AE911T is believed to be the professionals who have put their licenses and careers on the line. If only those professionals knew what has been going on.

If both of these groups don't "clean up their act" and engage in research not censorship, they will lead the truth movement nowhere fast and all the credibility they have built will be out the window. Mark my words.

If these groups had a small following like Fetzer and Woods, they could be ignored as quacks. But they don't and they trade on their "credentials".

Maybe, just maybe, the CIT response to these posers will awaken the truth movement and the fakes will be sent packing... or returned to their seats and let the adults take over... Justin are you listening?

Thank you Adam Ruff!

Posted by: GroundPounder Feb 5 2011, 03:24 PM

when the cheshire cat says, "we're all mad here.." is that what you are getting at sanderO?

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 5 2011, 04:14 PM

QUOTE (GreekForTruth @ Feb 5 2011, 05:58 PM) *
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!!!!!


Awesome post. thumbsup.gif

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 5 2011, 04:14 PM

The Sandia test bears no comparison to either the Pentagon or the
Twin Towers. The plane was composed of synthetic material, not
aluminum. It blew into millions of tiny pieces. An aluminum plane
would have crumpled and torn apart, but nothing like the Sandia
case. A point that seems to have gone under-appreciated is that
the alleged planes in New York carved cookie-cutter-like images of
their shapes (which showed up only after the had passed into the
buildings). No outline of any plane is discernible at the Pentagon,
even though its limestone facade is far softer and more porous
that the massive steel-and-concrete design of the Twin Towers.

In relation to Shanksville, the ground was supposed to be rather
soft and giving. Two reporters stated that the strange thing about
the crash site was that there was no evidence that any plane had
crashed there. One theory even has it that the plane disappeared
into an abandoned mine shaft. We know what to do with miners
who are trapped in abandoned mine shafts: we bring out the bright
lights and the heavy equipment and dig, 24/7, in the hope that, by
some miracle, someone might have survived. That was not done
at Shanksville. Instead, reporters were kept 1,000 yards away and
the singed bushes and trees were trimmed to make sure they could
not be subjected to chemical analysis to determine what burned them.

I sympathize over your concerns about infighting. But the emergence
of research on 9/11 had to be expected, when the dimensions of the
scam that was being perpetrated on the American people was of such
extraordinary dimensions. We should have a no-holds barred, all out
study of different aspects of the case. Those who are imposing bans
on discussion of "sensitive subjects" like the video fakery/no planes
or what happened at the Pentagon are being unscientific and closed-
minded. They have promoted the view that the Pentagon is fraught
with hazard, when it is actually far more clear-cut than what happened
in New York. It really is the Achilles heel of the government's fantasy.

The constant appeals to the alleged "witnesses", moreover, are much
about very little. I had three two-hour shows on "The Real Deal" with
Mike Sparks in which we went through the witnesses at the Pentagon,
where the mast majority were either too vague to be useful or were
otherwise not credible. So I think we have another case of bluffing
about the evidence by parties who don't want the truth to be exposed.
Those interviews were on 4 January, 18 January, and 1 February 2010
and can be accessed at the archives, http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.
Phony witnesses is simply one additional form of fakery and deception.

QUOTE (aerohead @ Feb 5 2011, 02:14 AM) *
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.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 5 2011, 04:17 PM

@ Marigold-that's what I thought! Nice one too Adam Ruff!

Posted by: GroundPounder Feb 5 2011, 05:21 PM

sure, yeah, let's compare a 29535 lb empty weight f-4 to a 179082 lb empty weight 767.

Posted by: aerohead Feb 5 2011, 05:23 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 5 2011, 03:14 PM)
The Sandia test bears no comparison to either the Pentagon or the
Twin Towers. The plane was composed of synthetic material, not
aluminum. It blew into millions of tiny pieces. An aluminum plane
would have crumpled and torn apart, but nothing like the Sandia
case.
Im not going to argue with you about it, but you would be the
first person ive ever heard make the claim that the Sandia test was
with a composite F-4, not that it matters. Ive worked on many
F-4's in the Airforce and it appears to be a real F-4, but i dont see any
landing gear and the engine exhaust doesnt look right, which leads me to
believe the engines may not have been installed. I agree with you
that it doesnt matter, as i said in my post, because it was apples and
oranges. Please READ my replies BEFORE correcting me about something
i agree with you on. Both crash sites (Pentagon and Shanksville) should have
yielded ample amounts of evidence of what it was.



In relation to Shanksville, the ground was supposed to be rather
soft and giving. Two reporters stated that the strange thing about
the crash site was that there was no evidence that any plane had
crashed there. One theory even has it that the plane disappeared
into an abandoned mine shaft. We know what to do with miners
who are trapped in abandoned mine shafts: we bring out the bright
lights and the heavy equipment and dig, 24/7, in the hope that, by
some miracle, someone might have survived. That was not done
at Shanksville. Instead, reporters were kept 1,000 yards away and
the singed bushes and trees were trimmed to make sure they could
not be subjected to chemical analysis to determine what burned them.

Yes, and if you would have read my reply, you would see that this
was my point also. And the fact that no human remains, engines or
major parts were found. And the fact that rummy slipped up and said
it was shot down.



I sympathize over your concerns about infighting. But the emergence
of research on 9/11 had to be expected, when the dimensions of the
scam that was being perpetrated on the American people was of such
extraordinary dimensions. We should have a no-holds barred, all out
study of different aspects of the case. Those who are imposing bans
on discussion of "sensitive subjects" like the video fakery/no planes
or what happened at the Pentagon are being unscientific and closed-
minded. They have promoted the view that the Pentagon is fraught
with hazard, when it is actually far more clear-cut than what happened
in New York. It really is the Achilles heel of the government's fantasy.

My response was aimed at the people trying to discredit CIT's work,
which to my mind, has been flawless so far. I agree with you here,
the disinformation needs to stop. But it wont, until everything is compiled
and looked at by a real judge that orders a real public investigation.
The facts will separate from the disinfo at that point.




The constant appeals to the alleged "witnesses", moreover, are much
about very little. I had three two-hour shows on "The Real Deal" with
Mike Sparks in which we went through the witnesses at the Pentagon,
where the mast majority were either too vague to be useful or were
otherwise not credible. So I think we have another case of bluffing
about the evidence by parties who don't want the truth to be exposed.
Those interviews were on 4 January, 18 January, and 1 February 2010
and can be accessed at the archives, http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.
Phony witnesses is simply one additional form of fakery and deception.

I agree with you. People will be "gotten to", intimidated, and turned for
sure. Evidence will "disappear", be lost and fabricated. The JFK murder set a precedence
for that. My problem is when ego's take the stage before truth. If we are all really on the same side,
and someone has a problem with someones work, they should go to that person and try to
work it out like adults and gentlemen before publicly denouncing their work.
We have no time for infighting for ego. CIT is leading the way at the Pentagon.
And some may not like that due to it trumping their own work. Who cares.
Are you trying to promote your own work, or are you here to stand with your
brothers ? I have been wrong about things in the past, but i havent let my
damaged ego stop me from standing with my brothers. I had a theory of
possibly an F-4 being used at the Pentagon, it failed the fact test so i abandoned it.
Simple as that.


Posted by: jfetzer Feb 5 2011, 05:24 PM

Adam,

Just to pick up on your theme condemning censorship in the 9/11 research
community, it seems to be endemic and from multiple points of view. Thus,

A noted investigative journalist, Robert Parry, savaged the 9/11 movement
as a "parlor game", basing his attack on false claims by the government:

(1) "The 9/11 Truth Parlor Game"
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/011511.html

I replied by taking him to task for his lack of knowledge about those events,
making many refutations of points he made based on the official account:

(2) "9/11 Truth is No 'Parlor Game'"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/911-truth-is-no-parlor-game.html

Kevin Ryan then attacked me on the basis of his own impressions about my
views on how the towers were destroyed, video fakery, and the Pentagon;

(3) "Robert Parry is Right about 9/11 Truth"
http://visibility911.com/kevinryan/2011/01/why-robert-parry-is-right-about-9
11-truth/

I had to explain that there is no evidence a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and that I
SUPPORT THE STUDY of but DO NOT ENDORSE DEWS, among his confusions:

(4) "The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/02/misadventures-of-kevin-ryan.html

The situation is ridiculous. Kevin Ryan made no effort to determine whether or
not I held the views he attributed to me, some of which were completely absurd.

I AM convinced that video fakery was used in New York on 9/11 and have now
created a thread about it at http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread659196/pg1

Before anyone draws premature conclusions about video fakery, they should visit
the thread and consider the evidence, which is always an appropriate thing to do.

It took me around two years to open my mind to the possibility that something was
wrong with the broadcast footage. Considering the evidence is the right thing to do.

I have no problem with being held responsible for my positions. But it is completely
irresponsible to go off on a rampage attacking others for views that they do not hold.

Jim

QUOTE (Atomicbomb @ Feb 5 2011, 10:41 AM) *
. . . .

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

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 5 2011, 05:45 PM

aerohead,

Just for the record in relation to your reply, I was not attempting to correct you, if you
formed that impression. Surely the Sandia plane was some kind of composite. How
else could it have shattered into millions of tiny pieces? If I am wrong about that, I
would like to know.

I thought we were on the same page almost across the board, but you were inviting
more discussion of the Sandia case, which I was advancing, along with comments
about Shanksville and comparisons between the Pentagon and the towers, which are
incongruent.

Here, again, I was simply adding some additional reflections to your remarks. I am
not a pilot and have benefitted from what Pilot is doing for 9/11 Truth. And I could
not agree more that, before launching personal attacks, one should know a target's
actual views.

Jim

Posted by: gerryhiles Feb 5 2011, 05:56 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 4 2011, 05:47 PM) *
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/CIT-Response-to-David-Chandler-and-Jonathan-Cole-Pentagon-Statement/#hill



Ron Weick made a "surprise" appearance at http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=9629 recently with his "doots up", after having been http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1017&view=findpost&p=2372378 and leading to a thread over at the govt loyalist site entitled (until subsequently altered) http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p=6366917&postcount=1

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?





Who the hell IS this bloke? I've been away for a while and my internal 'jury' on the Pentagon is still out, so I've shut up about it. But what this Weick character is saying is off the planet.

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 5 2011, 06:07 PM

Well, I have had more than my share of interaction with Ronald Weick. He hosts a cable TV show
called "Hardfire" that is taped in Brooklyn. I appeared on a three-part show about 9/11 with Mark
Roberts, where he was aggressive on Roberts' side but nothing like he has become. A thread on
which a couple of dozen of us have discussed issues related to 9/11 was infiltrated by him, and it
has been impossible to get rid of him. He's been prominent on James Randi site, but, in my opinion,
he has gone off the deep end and rational exchange with him have become a virtually impossibility.

QUOTE (gerryhiles @ Feb 5 2011, 04:56 PM) *
Who the hell IS this bloke? I've been away for a while and my internal 'jury' on the Pentagon is still out, so I've shut up about it. But what this Weick character is saying is off the planet.

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 5 2011, 06:12 PM

The thread, "Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11?", can be
found at www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread659196/pg1

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 5 2011, 04:24 PM) *
Adam,

Just to pick up on your theme condemning censorship in the 9/11 research
community, it seems to be endemic and from multiple points of view. Thus,

A noted investigative journalist, Robert Parry, savaged the 9/11 movement
as a "parlor game", basing his attack on false claims by the government:

(1) "The 9/11 Truth Parlor Game"
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/011511.html

I replied by taking him to task for his lack of knowledge about those events,
making many refutations of points he made based on the official account:

(2) "9/11 Truth is No 'Parlor Game'"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/911-truth-is-no-parlor-game.html

Kevin Ryan then attacked me on the basis of his own impressions about my
views on how the towers were destroyed, video fakery, and the Pentagon;

(3) "Robert Parry is Right about 9/11 Truth"
http://visibility911.com/kevinryan/2011/01/why-robert-parry-is-right-about-9
11-truth/

I had to explain that there is no evidence a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and that I
SUPPORT THE STUDY of but DO NOT ENDORSE DEWS, among his confusions:

(4) "The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/02/misadventures-of-kevin-ryan.html

The situation is ridiculous. Kevin Ryan made no effort to determine whether or
not I held the views he attributed to me, some of which were completely absurd.

I AM convinced that video fakery was used in New York on 9/11 and have now
created a thread about it at http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread659196/pg1

Before anyone draws premature conclusions about video fakery, they should visit
the thread and consider the evidence, which is always an appropriate thing to do.

It took me around two years to open my mind to the possibility that something was
wrong with the broadcast footage. Considering the evidence is the right thing to do.

I have no problem with being held responsible for my positions. But it is completely
irresponsible to go off on a rampage attacking others for views that they do not hold.

Jim

Posted by: Shallel Feb 5 2011, 07:18 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 3 2011, 07:45 PM) *
aerohead,

Just for the record in relation to your reply, I was not attempting to correct you, if you
formed that impression. Surely the Sandia plane was some kind of composite. How
else could it have shattered into millions of tiny pieces? If I am wrong about that, I
would like to know.

I thought we were on the same page almost across the board, but you were inviting
more discussion of the Sandia case, which I was advancing, along with comments
about Shanksville and comparisons between the Pentagon and the towers, which are
incongruent.

Here, again, I was simply adding some additional reflections to your remarks. I am
not a pilot and have benefitted from what Pilot is doing for 9/11 Truth. And I could
not agree more that, before launching personal attacks, one should know a target's
actual views.

Jim


Hi Jim And all -

The Sandia F4 was filled with water and propelled through the collision at 500+ MPH by a rocket engine.
It didn't as much shatter as it did "splash" as most of the weight was water.
We all know that this is not a relevant analogy to a hollow 757 "flying" at sea level powered by turbofans.

It is too bad the the authors of this joint statement, who I had thought were some of the finest scientists,
with brilliant work to their credit, are letting "truth movement" political talking points interfere with their
adherence to scientific procedure.

I am glad to see such scholarly and polite discussion here, as well as excellent science.

Kudos to P4T and CIT, you are definitely on the right track here!

Blessings, Shallel

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 5 2011, 07:20 PM

Of course, here comes Jim Fetzer pulling his Killtown tricks, trying to blend in and associate his no plane, Judy Wood, Space beam disinfo with us.

Jim Fetzer, this thread is about the Chandler/Cole article. Please take your disinfo to the alternative theories forum and DO NOT dare try and associate your disinfo with us.

Rob, can we move his posts to the trash can?

DISCLAIMER: CIT does not support or welcome the "work" of Jim Fetzer. A common tactic disinfo operatives pull is trying to associate with their target so it appears they are on the same side. Hence, Fetzer is trying to blend in his crap with us and bring down this very important response piece and thread. CIT does NOT support no plane/video fakery/holograms/space beams at the towers, Fetzer or Judy Wood.

Posted by: Shallel Feb 5 2011, 07:29 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Feb 3 2011, 09:20 PM) *
Of course, here comes Jim Fetzer pulling his Killtown tricks, trying to blend in and associate his no plane, Judy Wood, Space beam disinfo with us.

Jim Fetzer, this thread is about the Chandler/Cole article. Please take your disinfo to the alternative theories forum and DO NOT dare try and associate your disinfo with us.

Rob, can we move his posts to the trash can?

DISCLAIMER: CIT does not support or welcome the "work" of Jim Fetzer. A common tactic disinfo operatives pull is trying to associate with their target so it appears they are on the same side. Hence, Fetzer is trying to blend in his crap with us and bring down this very important response piece and thread. CIT does NOT support no plane/video fakery/holograms/space beams at the towers, Fetzer or Judy Wood.


So much for "scholarly and polite discussion here, as well as excellent science." (!)

Pathetic ad hominem!

Bye.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 5 2011, 08:57 PM

QUOTE (Shallel @ Feb 5 2011, 11:29 PM) *
So much for "scholarly and polite discussion here, as well as excellent science." (!)

Pathetic ad hominem!

Bye.


You mean like when I met Jim Fetzer at an LA 9/11 Truth Conference and I politely tried to inform him about the "mistake" (one of many) he made regarding the blue emergency responder tents at the Pentagon he was going around claiming was a "blue tarped box carrying out a plane part" and he turned to me in front of all his followers and literally got in my face and forcefully told me I didn't know what I was talking about like a complete maniac? That kind of ""scholarly and polite discussion"?

Posted by: wilddaddy Feb 5 2011, 09:42 PM

Mr. Ranke and Marquis,

I just finished reading your reply to the Chandler/Cole statement. I wanted to take more time to think about it before replying but I know how that invariably ends....in no comment at all.

Something led me to the pilots from the beginning. I read one or two of the 911 books fairly recently. Mr. Griffin, Gage, etc., are true patriots to me and I am sure, if we survive this, will be seen in history as such.

The pilots to me had "IT." They (Mr. Balsamo) were able to explain the situation clearly, concisely, honestly, scientifically, and with a sense of "urgent humility," which ultimately led me to conclude, beyond any imaginable reasonable doubt, that 911 was a false flag operation. You too have done that. Perhaps even more so.

I think you should thank Mr. Chandler and Mr. Cole. Your response complemented your previous research and even added to that which really required no addendum. Your response was powerful and brilliant, IMHO.

Please do not even grace that Hill guy with one more electron from your brain, let alone with your valuable time. He is an opportunistic loser. Please never again grace him with your focus.

I have never heard of Chandler and Cole. Perhaps therein lies the crux of the problem (their problem that is). I am taking it on YOUR word that they are important. But, as a self appointed true representative of the mainstream sheeple, they are nothing. I will forget about them after I finishing writing this.

I have sent Rob's stuff and Your stuff to everyone I know. Whether you like it or not you guys are it. I think I am just intelligent enough to KNOW that.

Thank you for what you have done and continue to do. As a husband, father, a professional myself, and as an American, there isn't a day that goes by that I don't hope beyond hope that some "revelation" will be splashed across the headlines about the false flag that is 911.

I suspect that that isn't going to happen though. Chandler/Cole were correct when they stated that those that committed this crime are playing for keeps. The stakes couldn't be greater. I hope I will be up to the task and be able to emulate both you and Rob.

Thanks

Tim

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 5 2011, 10:11 PM

Wow, Tim. That was a very moving letter of approval. Thank you. You definitely put fuel in my fire.

Bless.

Posted by: SanderO Feb 5 2011, 10:24 PM

Tim....

David Chandler is a retired physics teacher and a Quaker. He began to study the motion of the collapses with a soiftware program that allows him to tag a pixel and trace its movement and the software computes its speed and acceleration.

He was the person credited with showing that one pixel on the roof on WTC7 traveled at free fall acceleration fro 2.25 seconds or a 105 feet drop of the entire 571 feet height of the tower.

He managed to get into an early NIST press conference and confront NIST in a Q&A and it turned out that NIST tried to ignore this simply starting the clock earlier, lengthening the duration, slowing the speed and acceleration. It was dishonest and unscientific and led them to admit the free fall period.

They have yet to explain it. This happens to be the one irrefutable smoking gun evidence of engineered destruction much like a controlled demolition.

Chandler and Cole and others have gone on to produce YouTubes which demonstrate what they believe is evidence of controlled demolition in the twin towers. Unfortunately not all of this work is showing this and it has been demonstrated that their work has errors. This doesn't dismiss all of their work, but enough to invalidate some of their conclusions. Not so fast guys...

The twin's collapse was quite a bit different from 7 and the truth movement is looking for the smoking gun in the evidence for the twins and Chandler has attempted similar analysis but it is not conclusive and it appears he is trying to fit the observations to his CD thesis... so he sees what he wants to see. This is a common problem in the truth movement As troubling as the molten metal and the iron micro spheres in the dust and the reg gray chips is and they DO need to be explained... this is not proof of CD.

The problem with the twins is that the collapse WAS a natural gravitational collapse. It was not caused by the plane strike and it was not caused by the fires... WE CAN'T SEE WHAT CAUSED IT BECAUSE IT HAPPENED INSIDE... HIDDEN BY THE FACADE. And it likely was explosives or cutting charges but the evidence of this is not there yet.... not in the videos. What we DO see is a gravitational collapse even though many have said it was too fast. This is pure hooey.

What Chandler and Cole and others are seeing is not what actually happened and they and others are telling us that the collapse... was not definitely not gravity driven... but some unexplained sequence of hi tech explosive and they have not even described how it may have been accomplished. It's a slight of hand science driven by the sloppy logic.. and poor observations.. if *they* did it at 7... 1&2 had to be CDs top to bottom.

They weren't CDs top to bottom and this may be a subtle distinction, but it IS an important one because the complexity and size of the attack helps us figure out who could of done it and how they did it... and that can lead to the planners.

And then there's the issue of "intellectual honesty" and science. We need to honor both of these if we intend to be taken seriously. And both Chandler and Cole don't seem to care at this point. This is hard to explain.

Since you asked... I thought I would share my thoughts about these two well regarded people by most in the truth movement. DRG cites Chandler's research all the time. So you can see why this could be a problem.

Posted by: tnemelckram Feb 5 2011, 11:43 PM

Bump to keep this important thread on top.

Posted by: aerohead Feb 6 2011, 12:37 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 5 2011, 09:24 PM) *
The twin's collapse was quite a bit different from 7 and the truth movement is looking for the smoking gun in the evidence for the twins and Chandler has attempted similar analysis but it is not conclusive and it appears he is trying to fit the observations to his CD thesis... so he sees what he wants to see. This is a common problem in the truth movement As troubling as the molten metal and the iron micro spheres in the dust and the reg gray chips is and they DO need to be explained... this is not proof of CD.


I have to disagree with you here Sander.
I fail to see how you think the twins were different than building 7.........at all.
What are the odds of 2 of the strongest buildings on planet earth,
falling in the exact same way, through the path of GREATEST resistance,
at very near the speed of gravity, with manufactured military grade explosives
found in their debris....................and it NOT be a controlled demolition ?????
You must acknowledge that the twins got STRONGER as you go down, not
weaker. The core beams were tapered in thikness, just like telephone poles
are, thicker at the base and tapered to the top. Basic stuff here. And the twins were
not impacted in the same place (floors) or impacted in the same manner (first hit near center
of the tower, second was more of a corner hit). The eye witnesses heard the explosives
going off, the people inside felt the explosives going off, explosives are the only thing that
can explain the core instantly wilting. Its all there.


As far as the Pentagon goes............this is the crack in the dam.
And it cannot be disputed.




Thank you Craig and CIT.

Posted by: Michael Morrissey Feb 6 2011, 03:19 AM

Excellent contribution, Craig et al., and my comment is not directly apropos but I want to get it off my chest. I wish someone would expose "Arabesque." (I think he is Ray McGovern, but that's just a hunch.) We know that "shure" is Jeff Hill, "reprehensor" is Alan Giles, and that "George Washington" is Alex Floum, an intellectual property rights lawyer in Walnut Creek, CA. Of course that's just the first level of subterfuge, and real names doesn't do much to expose the deeper affiliations, which is probably a losing game anyway since camouflage and dishonesty is the specialty of the Enemies of Truth. Still, the anonymity irritates me mightily because it's like talking to someone wearing a mask. Here in Germany a Muslim woman who sued to be able to wear a full-face veil was defeated in court recently on the grounds that such anonymity is not acceptable in an open society. The same arguments should be applied, I think, to internet communications, although I realize that many people are against this for understandable reasons (fear of reprisals in the workplace, etc.), but I think the focus should be on defending responsible free speech, i.e., an individual's right to speak freely without fear of reprisals but also with the responsibility to defend what s/he says and engage in civilized dialogue. The anonymous free-for-all name-calling and mud-slinging we see so much of on the net does not promote this, but just the opposite. I don't mean to start an argument here, and I know that many feel quite differently and I understand why, but I just wanted to say this because I just gag whenever I see good people having to argue with "people" like Arabesque.

Posted by: Lasthorseman Feb 6 2011, 07:52 AM

I have this penchant for the outrageous which often pisses people off but here it is anyway.
Daniel Estulin+SS-N-19.
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=Daniel+estulin%2BSS-n-19&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=3b15e1a9e1579b3b

To me it's no more outrageous than the daily din of commercial American post industrialized media.

Posted by: GroundPounder Feb 6 2011, 09:08 AM

anonymity is not what it used to be. ultimately in germany, the failure to keep your anonymity got you shot. think 'second world war - white rose'. here in the us during revolutionary times anonymous handbills were posted. can't really do that today since most printers have micro id embedded in every printed document. why do you think that was done? and why do you think they want to get rid of cash?

if as someone posted, 'they' are playing for keeps, then perhaps chandler and cole have been 'gotten to' just as albert contends. i re-iterate, the work and findings of cit is the elephant in the room. the whole fairy tale of the pentagon falls apart because of it.

edit:

aldo, jim, any possibility of mending fences?

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Feb 6 2011, 11:11 AM

Hey PTF,

Could we split out the posts in this thread, that are not about this specific topic? I normally don't like to change or split threads. But in this case, since this is a deliberate tactic that ops uses to attach their agendas to other people work these post should be moved or removed.

Please move this post with it too.

Since, I know and can prove that images were faked and that passenger jets did not hit the WTC, I have always tried to respected this forum and to keep those views to my own forum and out of threads here that have nothing to do with those issues. But unfortunately, from the begining operatives (who are still at it) made sure these topics were so toxic that no one could even talk about them any more and have spent their time ever since, derailing and subverting everyone else's honest work.

In peace
DYEW

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 6 2011, 12:36 PM

Well, this is most interesting. I came to SUPPORT your work against the attack by Chandler and Cole, not to "associate" anyone with anything. Perhaps you missed my statement. On the other hand, you are now demonstrating that you are better at some kinds of research than you are at others. You are reacting on the basis of your IMPRESSIONS of what you take my positions to be, not on the basis of my actual views.

This is ironic, since that is the kind of charge you have justifiably made against Chandler and Cole, where you are committing the same kind of IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR here. There is a difference between ADVOCATING THE STUDY OF A POSITION and ADVOCATING A POSITION. We don't know how the Twin Towers were destroyed, but it appears to me most unlikely to have been done with thermite and explosives alone.

I therefore encourage the study of alternative explanations, including nukes (3rd or 4th generation, mini or micro, fusion or fission), lasers, masers, and plasmoids, because we don't know how it was done. Perhaps it has to do with my background as a professor and philosopher of science, but it is not good science to reject hypotheses on the ground that they are unusual, unconventional, or you simply do not like them.

As for video fakery, I guess this is another case where you are willing to take a stand WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE. Personally, in the course of my work in epistemology, methodology, and the philosophy of science, it is very clear that those who are unwilling to consider the evidence are unlikely to discover the truth. But I suppose you have never read "More Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11" to learn more about it.

The tendency you display of claiming "privileged access" to the truth about 9/11 is most unfortunately, since it puts you in the same category with others who think they know all there is not know about these things. A recent example, in case you missed it, is that of Robert Parry, who published a piece attacking the 9/11 truth movement entitled "The 9/11 Truth Parlor Game". He is prominent; lots of people read it.

So I replied with "9/11 Truth is No 'Parlor Game'", where I took him apart for endorsing so many provably false claims about 9/11: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/911-truth-is-no-parlor-game.html Rather to my astonishment, Kevin Ryan used the occasion to ATTACK ME, very much as you do here, based upon his IMPRESSIONS of my positions rather than KNOWLEDGE of those positions. It was very bad.

Kevin not only had my positions on 9/11 wrong, he had completely misunderstood a subtle exchange between professional philosophers about the meaning of the word "information". Luciano Floridi claims that, for an assertion to qualify as "information", it has to be true. But we receive information all of the time and have to sort out which is true and which is not, like your claims about my positions on 9/11.

I therefore had to explain why his critique of me was unjustified and false, just as I am having to explain it to you. The article in which I purse this task is entitled, "The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan", and can be found here: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/02/misadventures-of-kevin-ryan.html I hope you will read it, although I expect that you will not, to see where the combination of ignorance and arrogance leads.

I do not know how the Twin Towers were destroyed, but I do know that Judy Wood has advanced an interesting hypothesis. I don’t know if CGIs, video compositing, or holograms were used to perpetrate video fakery, but the evidence of video fakery is simply overwhelming, once you actually study the films. I have in fact initiated a thread at Above Top Secret for those who want to become familiar with the evidence.

So I don't understand why you would think that attacking me based upon false beliefs about my positions is any more admirable than for Chandler and Cole to attack you and Craig based upon false beliefs about your position. You and Kevin Ryan seem to belong to the same fraternity of condemning those who hold views at variance with your own. If you were always right, that might work, but sometimes you are wrong.

Something is warped in a research community that is intolerant of research. None of us possesses privileged access to the truth about 9/11. We all have to struggle to sort it out. But if we exclude some theories on the grounds that they are unusual, unconventional, or not "politically correct", we may in the process have forfeited our opportunity to discover the truth. We must follow logic and evidence where it leads.

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Feb 5 2011, 06:20 PM) *
Of course, here comes Jim Fetzer pulling his Killtown tricks, trying to blend in and associate his no plane, Judy Wood, Space beam disinfo with us.

Jim Fetzer, this thread is about the Chandler/Cole article. Please take your disinfo to the alternative theories forum and DO NOT dare try and associate your disinfo with us.

Rob, can we move his posts to the trash can?

DISCLAIMER: CIT does not support or welcome the "work" of Jim Fetzer. A common tactic disinfo operatives pull is trying to associate with their target so it appears they are on the same side. Hence, Fetzer is trying to blend in his crap with us and bring down this very important response piece and thread. CIT does NOT support no plane/video fakery/holograms/space beams at the towers, Fetzer or Judy Wood.

Posted by: amazed! Feb 6 2011, 01:01 PM

Excellent post by Jim Fetzer.

It is true that within the "truth community" there are many who let personalities become more important than the search for truth.

Joe is a bad guy, but Harry is a good guy, therefore only Harry can be right. So much nonsense.

So many times we have the appearances of a type of dogma, in which a nonbeliever is labeled the heretic or apostate. Pity about that.

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 6 2011, 01:05 PM

The differences in the modes of destruction of the Twin Towers and
WTC-7 are rather substantial, include thing following characteristics:

. . . . .. .. .. .. . . . WTC-1 & WTC-2 / WTC-7

. . . Sequence: . Top down . / . Bottom up

. . . Floor motion: Stationary . / Falling together

. . . Mechanism: . Pulverization / Controlled Demolition

. . . Time/Speed: About 10 secs. / About 6.5 secs.
. .. .. ... . . . . . . . (~ free fall) . . (~ free fall)

. . . Remnants: . No pancakes / . Pancakes
. . .. .. . . . . . . (below ground level) . (5-7 floors)

They display substantial difference even in gross appearance.
Their modes of destruction thus appear to have been different.
If WTC-7 was brought down in a classic controlled demolition--
as virtually all sides agree--then WTC-1 and WTC-2 were not.
The phrase, "controlled demolition" still applies, since they
too were brought down by a demolition that was under control.

QUOTE (aerohead @ Feb 5 2011, 11:37 PM) *
I have to disagree with you here Sander.
I fail to see how you think the twins were different than building 7.........at all.
What are the odds of 2 of the strongest buildings on planet earth,
falling in the exact same way, through the path of GREATEST resistance,
at very near the speed of gravity, with manufactured military grade explosives
found in their debris....................and it NOT be a controlled demolition ?????
You must acknowledge that the twins got STRONGER as you go down, not
weaker. The core beams were tapered in thikness, just like telephone poles
are, thicker at the base and tapered to the top. Basic stuff here. And the twins were
not impacted in the same place (floors) or impacted in the same manner (first hit near center
of the tower, second was more of a corner hit). The eye witnesses heard the explosives
going off, the people inside felt the explosives going off, explosives are the only thing that
can explain the core instantly wilting. Its all there.


As far as the Pentagon goes............this is the crack in the dam.
And it cannot be disputed.


<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3GHM5f9lVho" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thank you Craig and CIT.

Posted by: SanderO Feb 6 2011, 01:19 PM

I agree with Fetzer's thing in the above post. I wish he would practice what he preaches in it.

I think we are witnessing a struggle over the evidence and what it actually is. On the face this sounds odd... since everyone seems to think they know what they are seeing. Fetzer raises the point of intentional fakery. And this would undermine the evidence, and if used ...some of it where it was used and cause is to question the evidence where it wasn't used.

But aside from accurate honest observations of the evidence, we need the technical background to understand those observations. And here our movement is filled with arm chair quarterbacks and hardly and real ones. No David Chandler is not one, nor is Frank Legge, nor is Mr. Fetzer. All intelligent men and all who show an absence of the kind of technical knowledge about forensic engineering or structural failures to describe their observation assuming they got the observations correct.

I have "checked" some of our facts and found them to not be facts at all... but exaggerations.... sort of white lies or half truths if you will. This is not ALL the facts and I have not checked nor have the expertise to do so of ALL the facts. But some of them are wrong. And if you try to built a house on a weak foundation it will fall.

We should attack others, but their arguments, logic and reasoning, "science" and so forth and perhaps their stubbornness to both admit their limits and accept facts.

CIT did rigorous work. Their critics did sloppy work and their critics critique of CIT was sloppy.

Doesn't that undermine their creds? Does it or does it not undermine everything they have done before? Does it require we take a second look at their prior work in like of their false critique of CIT?

I say yes...

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Feb 6 2011, 01:58 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 6 2011, 12:01 PM) *
Excellent post by Jim Fetzer.

It is true that within the "truth community" there are many who let personalities become more important than the search for truth.

Joe is a bad guy, but Harry is a good guy, therefore only Harry can be right. So much nonsense.

So many times we have the appearances of a type of dogma, in which a nonbeliever is labeled the heretic or apostate. Pity about that.

That's fine, they have a right to their opinions. But does that give them the right to stalking forums and hijacking threads?

No one is saying that Jim or anyone else shouldn't be able to present their work and opinions. But then start a new thread.

Posted by: DonM Feb 6 2011, 02:03 PM

Prof Fetzer,
I just got back from reading "The Misadventures of...". Excellent article. Thank you

SanderO,
You have alluded to several "facts" about WTC that are "sort of white lies or half truths if you will". Can you expound on that theme a little more?

Don

Posted by: SanderO Feb 6 2011, 02:34 PM

I started another thread... Junk Science Meets Real Science to discuss this.

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 6 2011, 02:59 PM

Why are you suggesting I am "stalking" or "hijacking" this thread? I have published about the Pentagon (in "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon" and elsewhere) and I wanted to extend my support for Craig and Aldo. Their theme in rebutting Chandler and Cole is that they (Chandler and Cole) did not study their (CIT's) work and were attacking them on false and misleading grounds. This, of course, is not the only case of its kind.

I defended CIT against Chandler and Cole, but was then attacked by Aldo on false and misleading grounds, just as I have been attacked by Kevin Ryan on false and misleading grounds. That belongs in this thread. Aldo also attacks me for not taking his word for it about the blue tarp. Based upon my personal military experience, I do not find his explanation plausible and have offered my own take on what was going on. I could be wrong, but I don't think he is right.

I have no doubt that there is fraud in the evidence. At least four of the first five frames--the "fireball" frames as opposed to the "plane" frame--released to the public by a circuitous route appear to be fakes. Videos of the plane hitting the South Tower appear to be fraudulent. It is traveling at an impossible speed, makes an impossible entry into the building, and passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. That, of course, would be possible only if a massive steel-and-concrete building provides no more resistance than air.

SanderO faults me because I am not a physicist, a pilot, or an engineer. That of course is the very reason that I founded Scholars--to bring together experts across various disciplines, including pilots, physicists, and engineers. Today different groups have their own societies, but that was my aim in founding Scholars. I have no illusions about the scope of my personal knowledge, which is why I believe in collaborative research. John Lear, for example, who is among our nation's most distinguished pilots, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth, have both confirmed that the plane shown in the 175 videos is traveling at an impossible speed.

That it enters the building in violation of Newton's laws should be easy for anyone with even the most elementary knowledge of physics to appreciate. The plane melts into the building with no collision or deceleration. It does not crumple or crunch. Neither its wings or its tail fall off. There are no falling bodies, seats, or luggage. Indeed, any damage to the building, including the cookie-cutter-cut-out images that are later visible, do not show up while the plane is (purportedly) creating them. So the effects (the cut outs) of the cause (the plane passing through the South Tower) do not show up until after the plane has completely entered it.

Take a look. Just by reviewing the first fifteen (15) slides of "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?", which would not take even ten minutes, you can see exactly what I am talking about. And notice, too, that, as John Lear has observed, there are no visible strobe lights on the top or bottom of the fuselage or the tips of its wings. Now if your mind is already made up and you already KNOW that those videos are genuine, then of course you don't need to look at the evidence. That is the position of Robert Parry, Kevin Ryan, and CIT. But if you are open-minded enough to take a peek, try http://twilightpines.com/JF-BuenosAires/Buenos-Aires.html

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Feb 6 2011, 12:58 PM) *
That's fine, they have a right to their opinions. But does that give them the right to stalking forums and hijacking threads?

No one is saying that Jim or anyone else shouldn't be able to present their work and opinions. But then start a new thread.

Posted by: aerohead Feb 6 2011, 03:26 PM

Im not here (this thread) to argue with people about
the WTC, im here to support CIT and their response to
Chandler and Cole. It appears to me Jim, that you are here
to promote your own work and steal some support for it.
When people do this i become very suspicious of them and
do not trust them. If you cannot get enough support for your
work without hi-jacking some here, maybe you should rethink
your work. People instinctively flow to and follow the truth.
Maybe there is some video fakery, i dont really care, because what
i have seen in true authentic video proves enough for me and should
for most. I dont see what i want, i see what is. And what i see and hear
is 3 buildings being demolished.

Sander there are people exponentially more
qualified then us who have explained the WTC construction and
its capability, one being the designers, others being scientists that
have peer reviewed, published work on it. I am not a scientist, or
an engineer. But even i can see and understand what
brought down the WTC buildings.



NPT, Nukes, etc........ bs_flag.gif

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 6 2011, 03:37 PM

I don't know who appointed you ARBITER OF TRUTH, aero,
but if you actually are reading my posts, you have to know
that what you are alleging is nonsense. Why don't you take
some of your time to rebut the points I made in my latest
post about impossible speed, impossible entry, the same
number of frames to enter the building as to pass through
air, and the missing strobe lights, for example? I am here
because I want to expose falsehoods and revealing truths
about 9/11. Why don't you do some of that for the forum
by assessing the arguments that I have just presented as
opposed to launching an unjustifiable ad hominem attack?

QUOTE (aerohead @ Feb 6 2011, 02:26 PM) *
Im not here (this thread) to argue with people about
the WTC, im here to support CIT and their response to
Chandler and Cole. It appears to me Jim, that you are here
to promote your own work and steal some support for it.
When people do this i become very suspicious of them and
do not trust them. If you cannot get enough support for your
work without hi-jacking some here, maybe you should rethink
your work. People instinctively flow to and follow the truth.
Maybe there is some video fakery, i dont really care, because what
i have seen in true authentic video proves enough for me and should
for most. I dont see what i want, i see what is. And what i see and hear
is 3 buildings being demolished.

Sander there are people exponentially more
qualified then us who have explained the WTC construction and
its capability, one being the designers, others being scientists that
have peer reviewed, published work on it. I am not a scientist, or
an engineer. But even i can see and understand what
brought down the WTC buildings.



NPT, Nukes, etc........ bs_flag.gif

Posted by: aerohead Feb 6 2011, 04:16 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 6 2011, 02:37 PM)
I don't know who appointed you ARBITER OF TRUTH, aero,
but if you actually are reading my posts, you have to know
that what you are alleging is nonsense. Why don't you take
some of your time to rebut the points I made in my latest
post about impossible speed, impossible entry, the same
number of frames to enter the building as to pass through
air, and the missing strobe lights, for example? I am here
because I want to expose falsehoods and revealing truths
about 9/11. Why don't you do some of that for the forum
by assessing the arguments that I have just presented as
opposed to launching an unjustifiable ad hominem attack?


Why dont you start a thread about your video
fakery so we can all discuss it there.
I am not attacking anyone, i am posting my opinion,
as does everyone. I agree with some of the stuff you
post, some not. So what. Start a thread and lets talk.
Dont get all evil on me...... laughing1.gif

I said what i said because it appears you have a history
of hi-jacking threads. When that happens, people usually
have an agenda of their own. If im wrong then i
apppp.....appppp......apapap........im sorry........if i hurt
your feelings.

This thread is about CIT.
And i am not the Arbiter of truth, only a grunt in the trenches.

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 6 2011, 04:49 PM

There are a lot of tightly interrelated issues here,
aerohead, and I can't imagine why you should be
arbitrating which can be discussed here or not. I
just reviewed the entire thread, and the issues I've
been discussing are central to those raised by the
Chandler and Cole attack on CIT and belong here.

As for all this business about "hijacking threads",
where does that come from? What threads have
I been "hijacking"? As a member, I have supposed
I have the right to contribute my views here along
with everyone else. Are you upset because I have
made points of which you have been unaware about
the Sandia test and the differences between WTC-7
and the Twin Towers, which are important points?

Yet instead of acknowledging them, you pose as if
you know it all. That might be a better handle for
you. Your claim you know what happened because
you have "seen authentic videos" is just a bit much:

"Maybe there is some video fakery, i dont really care,
because what i have seen in true authentic video
proves enough for me and should for most. I dont '
see what i want, i see what is. And what i see and
hear is 3 buildings being demolished."

How can you NOT CARE if there was video fakery?
By itself, video fakery PROVES high-level complicity
between the government and one or more television
channel. You say that you have seen "true authentic
video", but how could you possibly know? You claim
that you don't see "what [you] want, [you] see what
is"! Everyone else is wrong but you are always right?

I'm astonished at your arrogance, aerohead, but I take
it that's your trademark on this forum. You admit that
you aren't a scientist or an engineer, but still maintain
that you know and understand what brought them down:

"I am not a scientist, or an engineer. But even i can see
and understand what brought down the WTC buildings."

Well, then, aerohead, share your insights with us, by all
means. Save us the time and effort to actually study the
evidence. And tell us what I and John Lear and Pilots are
wrong about the impossible speed, the impossible entry,
and the missing strobe lights in the videos of Flight 175
hitting the South Tower. That ought to be enlightening.

QUOTE (aerohead @ Feb 6 2011, 03:16 PM) *
Why dont you start a thread about your video
fakery so we can all discuss it there.
I am not attacking anyone, i am posting my opinion,
as does everyone. I agree with some of the stuff you
post, some not. So what. Start a thread and lets talk.
Dont get all evil on me...... laughing1.gif

I said what i said because it appears you have a history
of hi-jacking threads. When that happens, people usually
have an agenda of their own. If im wrong then i
apppp.....appppp......apapap........im sorry........if i hurt
your feelings.

This thread is about CIT.
And i am not the Arbiter of truth, only a grunt in the trenches.

Posted by: mainer Feb 6 2011, 04:54 PM

I really appreciate your taking the time to respond to the paper in detail, Craig. I've purchased almost all the CIT DVDs and, although the witness statements were compelling, all the "official"-supporting witnesses troubled me. I was only vaguely aware of the battle lines that had been drawn, until the Cole/Chandler paper came out. Since then I've become much more aware of the infighting and the Leggett paper(s), and it was helpful to get your side of the story, especially since I, like you, have a real respect for David Chandler's otherwise clear thinking and ability to communicate. I admit I'm completely puzzled by Chandler's participation in this attack, and can only assume, as you have, that he's the victim of disinformation. And one of the helpful observations to come out of my following through on your references was the point that none of the "official" witnesses (except possibly one) claims to have actually seen a plane hit the lightpoles.

But the reason I'm writing now is that one of the useful threads you refer to, on the Dihle interviews (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=499&st=0) contains a link to an interview you did with Dihle (http://www.thepentacon.com/ErikDihle.WMA). It is troubling or confusing, because he explicitly refers to the "2nd plane" as a regular commuter flight -- "a standard plane that flew over every day around that time, 9-whatever-it-is in the morning," not as a C-130. Yet you seem to ignore him, since you immediately talk about it as Lt.Col. Steve Obrien and the C-130. In the original interview (http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3, 0:55-) Dihle refers to it as a four-engine-overhead-turboprop, which obviously also matches a C-130, but a few seconds later he clearly refers to it as the regular "commuter jet."

It seems that you are assuming he was mistaken, and that the C-130 happened to be there about the same time the commuter jet would have come (which perhaps was grounded elsewhere as part of the national order), and that Dihle couldn't tell the difference. But you don't say so. Is that the case? Thanks for any help on this.

Posted by: amazed! Feb 6 2011, 05:02 PM

I have been visiting various internet fora since about 1998 or so, and every single one shows frequent examples of "Off Topic" posts.

I respect the idea when people spam, but when it encourages rational public discussion, which is usually the case, I say what's the big deal? why not just have the discussion and move on? All threads die a certain death at some point.

For Mr. Fetzer:

How many 175 videos have you seen, and how many do you suppose exist?

One possible explanation for no bodies or baggage "falling out" (at 350 knots) is that there were no bodies or baggage onboard the aircraft.

Strobe lights? Would that be the actual fixture on the aircraft, or do you mean an illuminated strobe light?

I have no doubt that there are elements of fakery and manipulation of the video, though I know nothing about such things. I accept it as true because so many knowledgeable people seem to insist that such is the case.

But the existence of fakery and manipulation of certain videos/pictures does not necessarily mean that no Boeings were in Manhattan that day.

Posted by: aerohead Feb 6 2011, 05:02 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Feb 5 2011, 06:20 PM) *
Of course, here comes Jim Fetzer pulling his Killtown tricks, trying to blend in and associate his no plane, Judy Wood, Space beam disinfo with us.

Jim Fetzer, this thread is about the Chandler/Cole article. Please take your disinfo to the alternative theories forum and DO NOT dare try and associate your disinfo with us.

Rob, can we move his posts to the trash can?

DISCLAIMER: CIT does not support or welcome the "work" of Jim Fetzer. A common tactic disinfo operatives pull is trying to associate with their target so it appears they are on the same side. Hence, Fetzer is trying to blend in his crap with us and bring down this very important response piece and thread. CIT does NOT support no plane/video fakery/holograms/space beams at the towers, Fetzer or Judy Wood.



And as usual, Aldo is right.
Jim, I will not entertain discussion with you anymore and i will
not waste my time trying to "enlighten" you. It is painfully
obvious to me what you are doing and i want no part of it.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Feb 6 2011, 05:48 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 6 2011, 04:02 PM) *
I have been visiting various internet fora since about 1998 or so, and every single one shows frequent examples of "Off Topic" posts.

I respect the idea when people spam, but when it encourages rational public discussion, which is usually the case, I say what's the big deal? why not just have the discussion and move on? All threads die a certain death at some point.

For Mr. Fetzer:

How many 175 videos have you seen, and how many do you suppose exist?

One possible explanation for no bodies or baggage "falling out" (at 350 knots) is that there were no bodies or baggage onboard the aircraft.

Strobe lights? Would that be the actual fixture on the aircraft, or do you mean an illuminated strobe light?

I have no doubt that there are elements of fakery and manipulation of the video, though I know nothing about such things. I accept it as true because so many knowledgeable people seem to insist that such is the case.

But the existence of fakery and manipulation of certain videos/pictures does not necessarily mean that no Boeings were in Manhattan that day.
The TITLE of the thread = Cit Publishes Response To David Chandler & Jonathan Cole's Joint Statement About The 9/11 Pentagon Attack

If you wish to discuss anything other then the OP, please do it on another thread. Is that too much to ask? We all know Jim and SO's positions and POV on these off topic issues. This game is getting old.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 6 2011, 06:00 PM

Thank you Aero and DYEW.

I am not trying to get into it with Fetzer. My guess is he wants the attention. I do not trust Fetzer at all. He's former military AND he has behaved irrationally with all of this known disinfo about no planes/video fakery at the towers and the divisive fallout of the Scholars group. He is too smart to be this gullible. I am sorry.

As pointed out, if you do not wish to discuss the Chandler/Cole article, please take it elsewhere. Preferably, off this forum entirely IMO.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Feb 6 2011, 06:02 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Feb 6 2011, 05:00 PM) *
Thank you Aero and DYEW.

I am not trying to get into it with Fetzer. My guess is he wants the attention. I do not trust Fetzer at all. He's former military AND he has behaved irrationally with all of this known disinfo about no planes/video fakery at the towers and the divisive fallout of the Scholars group. He is too smart to be this gullible. I am sorry.

As pointed out, if you do not wish to discuss the Chandler/Cole article, please take it elsewhere. Preferably, off this forum entirely IMO.

Hopefully an Admin can move these off topic posts to another thread soon.

Peace
DYEW

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 6 2011, 06:34 PM

QUOTE (mainer @ Feb 6 2011, 09:54 PM) *
I really appreciate your taking the time to respond to the paper in detail, Craig. I've purchased almost all the CIT DVDs and, although the witness statements were compelling, all the "official"-supporting witnesses troubled me. I was only vaguely aware of the battle lines that had been drawn, until the Cole/Chandler paper came out. Since then I've become much more aware of the infighting and the Leggett paper(s), and it was helpful to get your side of the story, especially since I, like you, have a real respect for David Chandler's otherwise clear thinking and ability to communicate. I admit I'm completely puzzled by Chandler's participation in this attack, and can only assume, as you have, that he's the victim of disinformation. And one of the helpful observations to come out of my following through on your references was the point that none of the "official" witnesses (except possibly one) claims to have actually seen a plane hit the lightpoles.

But the reason I'm writing now is that one of the useful threads you refer to, on the Dihle interviews (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=499&st=0) contains a link to an interview you did with Dihle (http://www.thepentacon.com/ErikDihle.WMA). It is troubling or confusing, because he explicitly refers to the "2nd plane" as a regular commuter flight -- "a standard plane that flew over every day around that time, 9-whatever-it-is in the morning," not as a C-130. Yet you seem to ignore him, since you immediately talk about it as Lt.Col. Steve Obrien and the C-130. In the original interview (http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3, 0:55-) Dihle refers to it as a four-engine-overhead-turboprop, which obviously also matches a C-130, but a few seconds later he clearly refers to it as the regular "commuter jet."

It seems that you are assuming he was mistaken, and that the C-130 happened to be there about the same time the commuter jet would have come (which perhaps was grounded elsewhere as part of the national order), and that Dihle couldn't tell the difference. But you don't say so. Is that the case? Thanks for any help on this.



Hi mainer,

Thanks for the kind words of support and for looking at the information closely by clicking on the sources. I really appreciate that.

Yes as you said Dihle referred to it as a "four-engine overhead wing turboprop plane", which obviously matches a C-130, but he also refers to it as a "regular commuter plane". He told me it had four engines, two on each wing as well.

It can't be both (he was not describing two separate planes) and since we know that we have several eyewitness accounts documented (as well as video evidence) that it was a C-130 while there are no other accounts of a "commuter plane" arriving a few minutes after the explosion we know for a fact which of the conflicting descriptions that he used is accurate. We have never denied that eyewitness accounts are subjective and prone to error and that they often describe things improperly and/or use wrong terminology. This is why we rely so heavily on corroboration and Dihle's original detailed description from weeks after the event of this second plane being a "four-engine overhead wing turboprop plane" is heavily corroborated. The fact is that Dihle may have assumed the C-130 was on its regular route but this is simply not true as we know that ATC asked them to turn around and try to report back on the attack jet, which they had lost sight of before the explosion. Of course we can't talk about the C-130 without also noting how the pilot admitted in an email to Rob with P4T that they were so far away at the time of the explosion that they could not tell where it was coming from:

"I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC."
-C-130 Pilot Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien

The Pentagon is massive compared to a 757 so if they couldn't see the Pentagon there is no way they could see an "impact" or flyover.

Obviously none of this is relevant to the main point made in the essay which is that Dihle said that one of the first things people were saying immediately after the explosion was that "a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going".

As you also heard unfortunately he had no recollection of this when I called him years later. No doubt he wrote it off as inconsequential and obviously accepted the witnesses who were deceived into believing the impact since this obviously matched the official story. It stands to reason that he also had written off the "four-engine overhead wing turboprop plane" as inconsequential as well. Nevertheless his initial account is on audio recording so we know that he DID report it as this and that he DID also report that immediately after the explosion people said ""a bomb went off and a jet kept on going" even though he no longer remembers this. Of course he even admitted as much to me.

Regardless his account of the approach DIRECTION of the C-130 as being from the NW is also a heavily corroborated detail that is fatal to the official story on an entirely different level.

For the details regarding why this is so important I recommend you view this full-length presentation:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-htpio.html

Posted by: SanderO Feb 6 2011, 06:38 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Feb 6 2011, 05:00 PM) *
Thank you Aero and DYEW.

I am not trying to get into it with Fetzer. My guess is he wants the attention. I do not trust Fetzer at all. He's former military AND he has behaved irrationally with all of this known disinfo about no planes/video fakery at the towers and the divisive fallout of the Scholars group. He is too smart to be this gullible. I am sorry.

As pointed out, if you do not wish to discuss the Chandler/Cole article, please take it elsewhere. Preferably, off this forum entirely IMO.



Believe me he's not that smart or he plays dumb very convincingly... but writes quite well. Somphin don't add upp..

And Bursill is pushing Legge's fantasy over at blogger...in another post w/ a podcast.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 6 2011, 10:04 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 6 2011, 10:38 PM) *
Believe me he's not that smart or he plays dumb very convincingly... but writes quite well. Somphin don't add upp..

And Bursill is pushing Legge's fantasy over at blogger...in another post w/ a podcast.



Maybe you are right. But something doesn't add up for sure.

No surprise on Bursill btw,..

QUOTE
About John Bursill

John Bursill (Born 1968) is a Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer based in Sydney Australia working on Boeing Aircraft and is qualified in Avionics (Elect/Inst/Radio) on the 767, 747 and 737 series aircraft. He is a family man and involved with numerous community events and organisations. John has served his country as a member of the Australian Army Reserve over many years and finished up as acting Operations/Intelligence Sargent for 4/3 RNSWR. John considers himself a true patriot of his country and a supporter of the US alliance in the sense of us together supporting national security, freedom and justice throughout the world.

visibility911.com/johnbursill/about-john-bursill/

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 6 2011, 10:07 PM

QUOTE (aerohead @ Feb 7 2011, 12:35 AM) *
Your welcome Aldo. Its not hard to see whats going on here. Took me about 5 minutes.
Btw, nice signature. Being on the right side has many benefits. yes1.gif


Thanks, Aero. Some Ephesians for the righteous and to ward away the wicked.

Posted by: tnemelckram Feb 6 2011, 11:51 PM

Hi All!

Kodos to SanderO for starting a new thread about the WTCs. He is right. The same is the same and different is different.
This thread is about the Pentagon and CIT's Response, not the WTC's. But what both have in common is that they are deadly serious issues. And WTC 1 and 2 are not the same as WTC 7 (former were of rather novel inner and outer vertical strength with floors suspended between while latter was classic steel frame throughout). We have to keep our thinking caps on and be able to draw sharp distinctions when they are justified.

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 7 2011, 03:10 PM

I have split off-topic posts and moved it here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21064

I havent been online for a few days and playing catch-up, so if any mod/admin wishes to split out the off topic posts and merge them with the above linked thread, feel free.

Please stay on topic.

Cit Publishes Response To David Chandler & Jonathan Cole's Joint Statement About The 9/11 Pentagon Attack

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/CIT-Response-to-David-Chandler-and-Jonathan-Cole-Pentagon-Statement/

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 7 2011, 03:50 PM

amazed,

My response to you has been moved to the new thread that Rob has created. You can find it there.

Jim

QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 6 2011, 04:02 PM) *
I have been visiting various internet fora since about 1998 or so, and every single one shows frequent examples of "Off Topic" posts.

I respect the idea when people spam, but when it encourages rational public discussion, which is usually the case, I say what's the big deal? why not just have the discussion and move on? All threads die a certain death at some point.

For Mr. Fetzer:

How many 175 videos have you seen, and how many do you suppose exist?

One possible explanation for no bodies or baggage "falling out" (at 350 knots) is that there were no bodies or baggage onboard the aircraft.

Strobe lights? Would that be the actual fixture on the aircraft, or do you mean an illuminated strobe light?

I have no doubt that there are elements of fakery and manipulation of the video, though I know nothing about such things. I accept it as true because so many knowledgeable people seem to insist that such is the case.

But the existence of fakery and manipulation of certain videos/pictures does not necessarily mean that no Boeings were in Manhattan that day.

Posted by: Atomicbomb Feb 8 2011, 08:37 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 5 2011, 01:24 PM) *
Adam,

Just to pick up on your theme condemning censorship in the 9/11 research
community, it seems to be endemic and from multiple points of view. Thus,

A noted investigative journalist, Robert Parry, savaged the 9/11 movement
as a "parlor game", basing his attack on false claims by the government:

(1) "The 9/11 Truth Parlor Game"
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/011511.html

I replied by taking him to task for his lack of knowledge about those events,
making many refutations of points he made based on the official account:

(2) "9/11 Truth is No 'Parlor Game'"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/911-truth-is-no-parlor-game.html

Kevin Ryan then attacked me on the basis of his own impressions about my
views on how the towers were destroyed, video fakery, and the Pentagon;

(3) "Robert Parry is Right about 9/11 Truth"
http://visibility911.com/kevinryan/2011/01/why-robert-parry-is-right-about-9
11-truth/

I had to explain that there is no evidence a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and that I
SUPPORT THE STUDY of but DO NOT ENDORSE DEWS, among his confusions:

(4) "The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/02/misadventures-of-kevin-ryan.html

The situation is ridiculous. Kevin Ryan made no effort to determine whether or
not I held the views he attributed to me, some of which were completely absurd.

I AM convinced that video fakery was used in New York on 9/11 and have now
created a thread about it at http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread659196/pg1

Before anyone draws premature conclusions about video fakery, they should visit
the thread and consider the evidence, which is always an appropriate thing to do.

It took me around two years to open my mind to the possibility that something was
wrong with the broadcast footage. Considering the evidence is the right thing to do.

I have no problem with being held responsible for my positions. But it is completely
irresponsible to go off on a rampage attacking others for views that they do not hold.

Jim


Jim,

I have no doubt that you along with many others have been attacked for views you do not hold. There is a definite "cadre" of people who seem to do very little else but attack others in the truth movement, in many cases for views they do not hold. These individuals are toxic poison pills for the truth movement and I am still in the process of unlearning all the bad information they have spread far and wide. One example of that is my previous attitude about Kevin Barrett where I essentially dismissed him out of hand thinking he had been exposed as a charlatan. I have come to the uncomfortable realization that I was stuck in group think mentality concerning Mr. Barrett and the reality of the situation is that he has been the target of the cadre's disinformation campaign. Today although I do not necessarily agree with everything Mr. Barrett says I do agree with most of it and I have come to respect him and understand how badly misinformed I was about him and come to understand what he has gone through at the hands of these toxic individuals who have infiltrated the truth movement.

I am glad to hear that you do not endorse DEW's as being the cause of the WTC destruction. I have studied the DEW theory and Judy Wood's information extensively and discovered through my own research a number of compelling reasons to reject the DEW hypothesis. I won't get into those reasons here in this thread because it isn't the place for it. I have also studied in some depth the video fakery hypothesis (I will check your link) and found several compelling reasons to reject it too Jim. I do not think the discussion of those topics (or any reasonable topics) should be censored or blocked in any way and I reject and condemn any attempts to do so. There does come a time however when advocates of a particular theory move from being passionate champions of the hypothesis to being "trolls" for lack of a better word. A person becomes a troll when they persist in repeating the same claims that have been properly addressed and thoroughly refuted. For example when Chandler and Cole repeated the thoroughly debunked claim in their paper that "over a hundred eyewitnesses" testified that they saw the plane "clip several light poles" and "crash into the face of the Pentagon" they moved into troll territory (unless they really are not aware the claim is false in which case they are just very sloppy and reckless and not actually trolls). This patently false claim has been exposed as disinformation for years now and once a person has been made aware of damning evidence that their claim is false and they keep making it they are no longer debating in good faith and are instead intentionally spreading disinformation. Victoria Ashley aka Victronix is a classic troll under this definition and were I a moderator of a site where she posts I would present her the evidence that her claim is false ONCE and insist that she either retract her false statements or prove the evidence I presented was itself false. She would not be allowed to simply ignore the evidence presented against her claims and continue making the false claim the way she does on 911Blogger for example. In an organized debate as you know Jim it is against the rules to make unsupported claims and it is especially a violation of conduct to repeat a false claim that your opponent has exposed as being false. Trolls such as Ashley would very quickly find themselves warned, moderated, and then banned if they persisted trolling on a forum I moderated. I have no issues with moderating trolls because they are not debating honestly but are rather intentionally disrupting/derailing discussions and/or trying to purvey disinformation. This is a very slippery slope however and therefore I personally would set the standard very high as to what constitutes a troll. FTR: From what I have seen so far this site is run very very well in stark contrast to the way 911Blogger is run for example

All that having been said Jim I can only say that I share many of your concerns about Kevin Ryan and find him to be making the same mistakes Chandler and Cole have made in regards to CIT, P4T, and the pentagon.

ETA: I tried the link to your thread Jim and it led me nowhere. Perhaps you can PM me the correct address?

ETA: Any mod who feels this post is off topic please do move it elsewhere as I do not want to muddy the waters on this important topic.

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 8 2011, 11:47 AM

Atomicbomb,

Thanks for this excellent post. As it happens, Kevin Barrett will be interviewing me on noliesradio.org this morning at 11 AM/CT (9 AM/PT and Noon/ET) about the "Parlor Game" exchange and Kevin Ryan's attack on me. He has also invited Kevin Ryan, but he may or may not show. The link is http://noliesradio.org/

I organized a symposium, "Debunking the 'War on Terror'", which was presented in London on 14 July 2010 at Friends House, where Kevin Barrett, Gilad Atzmon, and I spoke and Ken O'Keefe, the hero of the Freedom Flotilla, was our master of ceremonies. You can find it at http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/

The URL to Above Top Secret seems to be encrypted, so that it becomes garbled when I post it. The title of the thread is "Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11?", www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread659196/pg1 I have just discovered a short piece by Chandler and Cole there. Has CIT addressed the issues they raise?

Jim

"David Chandler and Jonathan Cole Denounce CIT", www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread645977/pg1

From David Chandler and Jonathan Cole:
911speakout.org...

The CIT videos don’t qualify as scientific studies. Their witnesses are not representative of the overall eyewitness pool, the witnesses accounts are far from contemporaneous with the events, and the conversational style of the interviews frequently leads the witnesses.

Who knows what conversations preceded the videotaped interviews to either shape or filter the testimonies? The “researchers” ignore the fact that none of their witnesses directly confirms their primary hypothesis: a Pentagon flyover. Some of the witnesses contradict themselves, but this does not count against their credibility. Furthermore, there is no mention of the voluminous eyewitness testimony that supports the conventional path in line with the path of destruction.

Rather than subject their work to peer review, even internal peer review within the 9/11 Truth Movement, they simply disparage any who take issue with their methods or their results, and instead rely on a list of questionable endorsements. They posted a literal “enemies list” on the internet in which they attacked the character of those who disagree with them. [Ed. Note: we are not yet on that list, but after posting this essay we will surely qualify.]

CIT has even gone so far as to disparage their own witnesses, accusing the driver of the taxi that was hit by a light pole of being a co-conspirator with the perpetrators of the crime. CIT has gone out of its way to make themselves a highly divisive issue in the 9/11 Truth movement. The “Flyover theory” had recent success in getting main stream media coverage on the Jesse Ventura “Conspiracy Theory” show.

Whether CIT in fact represents an orchestrated attempt to splinter the 9/11 Truth Movement or not, it is having a splintering effect. “Divide and Conquer” has a long history, going back to Caesar in the Gallic Wars, and Alexander the Great before him. CIT is attempting to become the public face of the 9/11 Truth Movement. If it succeeds, the 9/11 Truth Movement will be seen as vicious, mean spirited, crazy, and ultimately discredited.

Posted by: GroundPounder Feb 8 2011, 01:44 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 6 2011, 01:47 PM) *
The CIT videos don’t qualify as scientific studies. Their witnesses are not representative of the overall eyewitness pool, the witnesses accounts are far from contemporaneous with the events, and the conversational style of the interviews frequently leads the witnesses.



it most certainly qualifies as a study, whether the 'scientific' label is warranted has no merit. their witnesses are most certainly a subset of the overall witness pool and as such constitute valid data. whatever 'style' is employed is irrelevant. leading of the witnesses is conjecture.



Who knows what conversations preceded the videotaped interviews to either shape or filter the testimonies?

irrelevant

The “researchers” ignore the fact that none of their witnesses directly confirms their primary hypothesis: a Pentagon flyover.

so what, they confirm the north approach which is by far more damning.
Some of the witnesses contradict themselves, but this does not count against their credibility.

examples?

Furthermore, there is no mention of the voluminous eyewitness testimony that supports the conventional path in line with the path of destruction.

why should there be?



Whether CIT in fact represents an orchestrated attempt to splinter the 9/11 Truth Movement or not, it is having a splintering effect.

only according to them. i find rational debate and inquiry fundamental to finding/discovering the truth, whatever that truth may be. short of an epiphany, what other approach is there?

Posted by: DonM Feb 8 2011, 02:11 PM

GP,
I think that you are responding to a quote from Chandler & Cole that Jim inserted from abovetopsecret.com.
It appears to me that Jim clearly agrees with CIT.
Don

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 8 2011, 03:06 PM

QUOTE
The CIT videos don’t qualify as scientific studies. Their witnesses are not representative of the overall eyewitness pool, the witnesses accounts are far from contemporaneous with the events, and the conversational style of the interviews frequently leads the witnesses.



it most certainly qualifies as a study, whether the 'scientific' label is warranted has no merit. their witnesses are most certainly a subset of the overall witness pool and as such constitute valid data. whatever 'style' is employed is irrelevant. leading of the witnesses is conjecture.



Who knows what conversations preceded the videotaped interviews to either shape or filter the testimonies?

irrelevant

The “researchers” ignore the fact that none of their witnesses directly confirms their primary hypothesis: a Pentagon flyover.

so what, they confirm the north approach which is by far more damning.
Some of the witnesses contradict themselves, but this does not count against their credibility.

examples?

Furthermore, there is no mention of the voluminous eyewitness testimony that supports the conventional path in line with the path of destruction.

why should there be?



Whether CIT in fact represents an orchestrated attempt to splinter the 9/11 Truth Movement or not, it is having a splintering effect.

only according to them. i find rational debate and inquiry fundamental to finding/discovering the truth, whatever that truth may be. short of an epiphany, what other approach is there?


Thank you GP for finally bringing the topic at hand to the forefront.
All excellent points.

When carrying out an investigation all subsets of evidence must be explored and explained especially when there is not a single witness (never mind a subset) to the contrary.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 8 2011, 03:36 PM

QUOTE
I have just discovered a short piece by Chandler and Cole there. Has CIT addressed the issues they raise?


What do you think this thread is about?

Posted by: DonM Feb 8 2011, 03:42 PM

Aldo,
Jim was asking if you had responded to Chandler & Cole at www.abovetopsecret.com.
We know that you and Craig have posted an excellent response here.
Don

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 8 2011, 04:20 PM

You read my statement of support for your research, right? Yet you went after me
--hammer and tongs!--because YOU THINK I HOLD VIEWS YOU DON'T LIKE. Well,
maybe I do and maybe I don't, but you never bothered to find out what my views
actually are. By the same token, that makes it look easy for others to mistake the
views of CIT, as Chandler and Cole are doing here. You complain that they didn't
check with you, but you didn't check with me, either. Some of the issues that they
raise are reasonable questions, where I found this short piece on ATS and asked
if you had responded to them. If you can't tell the difference between my quoting
them and making a statement of my own--even though the difference is very well
demarcated here: I even say, "From David Chandler and Jonathan Cole"--just think
how easy it is for you and me or you and they to misunderstand each other. Let's
have more tolerance of research in the 9/11 research community, especially on
the most controversial issues we address. Compare it to Holocaust denying. If
the Holocaust is real, as I believe, then research should substantiate it; and if it
is not, then we need to know. Either way, there is no more justification for laws
against denying the Holocaust than there is for ruling out study of video fakery or
how the Twin Towers may have been destroyed by unconventional weapons. The
study of the Pentagon is an instructive example, where some factions--led by Jim
Hoffman, for example--want to RULE OUT THE STUDY OF THE PENTAGON. If you
can see what's wrong with that, then why can't you see what's wrong with opposing
RESEARCH ON VIDEO FAKERY or on HOW THE TOWERS WERE DESTROYED?
There is no good reason to banish or blackball anyone for their research interests. 9/11
was a sprawling operation and we need to expose all the ways in which it was staged.

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Feb 8 2011, 02:36 PM) *
What do you think this thread is about?

Posted by: amazed! Feb 8 2011, 04:38 PM

Excellent post Jim!

Rational Public Dialogue is what this is about, incorporating scientific practices and principles.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 8 2011, 05:11 PM

QUOTE (DonM @ Feb 8 2011, 08:42 PM) *
Aldo,
Jim was asking if you had responded to Chandler & Cole at www.abovetopsecret.com.
We know that you and Craig have posted an excellent response here.
Don


Chandler and Cole did not post anything at ATS.

That was the proven liar Jeff "shure" Hill simply reposting the same article that we already debunked.

Our detailed response with sourced links is in http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/CIT-Response-to-David-Chandler-and-Jonathan-Cole-Pentagon-Statement/#cit and is copied here:

QUOTE
"Their witnesses are not representative of the overall eyewitness pool, the witnesses accounts are far from contemporaneous with the events, and the conversational style of the interviews frequently leads the witnesses."

These are all very reckless and serious accusations that they have failed to back up with a single example, so I'm going to take them one by one.

1. "Their witnesses are not representative of the overall eyewitness pool"

Really? Why not? Which witnesses would be, how many would it take and why? Of course Chandler and Cole don't bother to even attempt to provide these relevant details because they are simply making unsupported accusations in a transparent attempt to cast doubt on our findings. The reality is that -- while we have spoken with several dozens of witnesses firsthand -- with regard to the critical question of what side of the gas station the plane flew, the body of witnesses we present is not only overwhelmingly strong but also comprehensive with 100% of the known witnesses to the plane who were on or immediately near the gas station's property represented, as well as witnesses who were, we contend, in the next best locations to answer this question, namely the ANC workers and Sean Boger. There are no witnesses on record who could see the gas station and say they watched the plane fly past the south side of the station, so it's not surprising that Chandler and Cole do not name or quote a single witness in this entire essay.

2. "the witnesses accounts are far from contemporaneous with the events"

As I already explained and documented in greater detail earlier , we make it extremely clear in both National Security Alert and on our website that a number of the witnesses are on record much earlier reporting the same flight path. Once again Chandler and Cole have demonstrated that they have, at best, not bothered to pay attention to the presentation they are so harshly attacking. In the same earlier section I also pointed out the hypocrisy of them making this charge, yet going on to promote a website containing interviews conducted several years AFTER our interviews and calling it "a great witness resource".

3. "...and the conversational style of the interviews frequently leads the witnesses."

Surely readers will agree that the least Chandler and Cole could do is provide a single example to support such a lofty accusation. Actually, numerous examples would be appropriate given that they claim we "frequently" do this. Yet they failed to provide one. That is not to say that it would necessarily be impossible to find any examples where we could have worded a question better, but if so, it is the exception to the rule, not something that we do frequently at all, as we make a genuine effort to ask non-leading questions. I address this charge in more detail later in this response.

Who knows what conversations preceded the videotaped interviews to either shape or filter the testimonies?

The notion that we would be able to "shape or filter" the very detailed testimonies of these people in any significant way is pretty absurd, particularly since the witnesses were all in essence strangers to us until shortly before the on-camera interviews began. We are not capable of leading witness after witness to describe the north side flight path in such great detail and with such conviction. I think this is obvious to the overwhelming majority of people who watch the interviews. Another big problem with this theory is that, again, as explained clearly in National Security Alert and on our website, a number of these people are on record placing the plane in the same place years before we ever interviewed them; in some cases just weeks after the event. Moreover, we have provided the witnesses with copies of our presentations and none of them have accused us of misrepresenting their claims, while some have openly affirmed that we represented their accounts honestly and fairly.

The “researchers” ignore the fact that none of their witnesses directly confirms their primary hypothesis: a Pentagon flyover.

See above. It is also very ironic for them to put "researchers" in scare quotes in the context of such a stunningly shoddy article.

Some of the witnesses contradict themselves, but this does not count against their credibility.

As usual Chandler and Cole provide no examples of witness contradictions to support their statement, so there is nothing specific for me to address here. We supply recordings of the detailed interviews so that people can determine each witnesses' level of credibility for themselves. We think the north side flight path is credibly established well beyond a reasonable doubt. It has been our experience that most people who view the interviews agree.

Furthermore, there is no mention of the voluminous eyewitness testimony that supports the conventional path in line with the path of destruction..

Now this is a doozy right here. I understand that they have not bothered to support virtually any of their claims so far in this entire essay, but this one? Come on. How could they NOT at least cite SOME examples of this alleged "voluminous eyewitness testimony that supports the conventional path"?

There are really only two possible answers: Chandler and Cole are simply repeating what they have been told/misled to believe without bothering to research it in any real depth themselves, or they are lying. I'd prefer to believe the former.

David, Jonathan, since your friends Jim Hoffman and his wife Victoria apparently hung you out to dry on this, let me speak to you directly and explain:

There are ZERO eyewitnesses on record who could see the Citgo station as the plane flew past it and place the plane on the "conventional path", i.e. south side of the station, where it had to be in order to hit the downed light poles, generator trailer, and building as already admitted by you. On the other hand, there are now over a dozen on record who could see the Citgo gas station and place the plane on the north side flight path.

If we were "cherry-picking" witnesses then the witnesses who "erroneously" place the plane on the north side would be greatly outnumbered by the witnesses who "correctly" place it on the south side. It would therefore be much easier to find south side witnesses than north side witnesses. And yet, in nearly four years since the release of The PentaCon and our four initial north side witnesses, which Jim Hoffman baselessly called a "hoax" at the time, none of our detractors, who have spent a combined total of countless thousands of hours arguing against the north side approach online, have been able to locate and interview a single one. Meanwhile, every person that we have interviewed since releasing The PentaCon who could see the Citgo gas station corroborated the initial north side reports that Hoffman had quickly branded a "hoax". Why do you think this is?

Furthermore, all witnesses are not created equal regarding their ability to answer the question of which side of the gas station the plane was on. The majority of the witnesses could not see the Citgo as the plane flew past it. We have interviewed the witnesses who, out of the entire known witness pool, were in the absolute best locations to judge where the plane flew in relation to the Citgo, and they consistently said that it was on the north side.

Why are you and especially the people you are parroting so willing to make false statements to defend the "conventional flight path" and the theory that the plane (which you suggest also may have been AA77) hit the Pentagon, which has long been (justifiably) widely-rejected by the 9/11 Truth Movement?

Rather than subject their work to peer review, even internal peer review within the 9/11 Truth Movement, they simply disparage any who take issue with their methods or their results, and instead rely on a list of questionable endorsements.

Subject our work to "peer review"? We have published our work. It's there for all peers to review. Our findings are more suitable for a citizen jury than scientific peer review, as it does not take an expert or scientist of any sort in a court of law to determine the veracity and strength of eyewitness evidence. This is explained in detail in this thread, where it is also demonstrated that the alleged "peer review" process given to Frank Legge's dishonest opinion piece titled "What Hit The Pentagon?", which was published in the Journal of Nine Eleven Studies, was a complete sham.

The notion that we "simply disparage any who take issue with" our "methods" or "results" is incorrect as this very rebuttal shows. We are not "simply disparaging" David Chandler and Jonathan Cole - we are specifically explaining why so much of they say is false and/or misleading. Although we are proud of the more formal statements of support and praise that National Security Alert has garnered from some of our peers who have reviewed it, the validity and strength of our work does not "rely" on them.

Posted by: DonM Feb 8 2011, 05:19 PM

Craig,
Who said that Chandler & Cole posted their hit piece at ATS? Whoever posted it is TOTALLY irrelevant.

Jim was letting you know that he had seen part of it posted there and asked if you had responded to it.

that's it.. period

Don

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 8 2011, 05:27 PM

QUOTE (DonM @ Feb 8 2011, 09:19 PM) *
Craig,
Who said that Chandler & Cole posted their hit piece at ATS? Whoever posted it is TOTALLY irrelevant.

Jim was letting you know that he had seen part of it posted there and asked if you had responded to it.

that's it.. period

Don



The answer is yes it's been responded to and that is exactly what this thread is about.

I just copied you on the response.

If either Jim or you are concerned that Jeff "shure" Hill over at ATS hasn't seen it feel free to go there and post the link.

But Jim's question makes no sense because he is suggesting that there is something DIFFERENT from Chandler and Cole posted at ATS that we hadn't responded to when obviously this is not the case.

Posted by: Maha Mantra Feb 9 2011, 03:28 PM

I've emailed Professor Chandler a few times, and I got some impression that he may have been gotten to by pressure from various sources. He didn't come across like I would have expected after watching his contributions to the WTC collapses. Still after looking at some of this, I'd have to say there is a high mathmatical probabillity that a certain group has embarked on determined 'head up each other's ass to see eye to eye' excercises regarding their negligent abuse of CIT. The degree of determination appears to be remarkable. They can not claim to be intellectually pursuing the truth. So what the hell are they doing ?

Posted by: SanderO Feb 9 2011, 05:12 PM

Maha Mantra asks a very good question... Allow me to speculate.

We are coming up on the milestone 10th anniversary of 9/11. The truth movement has made progress in raising awareness of the lies in the OCT and there are more and more people beginning to demand a new investigation.

The truth movement needs more than ever to make a "winning presentation" to the American people as they turn their attention to the event.

The powers that be, both INSIDE the truth movement and those who are trying to clamp it down and avoid the lies are jockeying for domination of the media and public's attention.

If the movement is not unified and making really "good sense" and acting mature and professional the truth movement will be trashed and it will be a massive fail.

All the loud mouths are raising their voices now and the struggle is on to either cripple the message or completely control it. And this has nothing to do with the truth.

What say you?

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 9 2011, 06:19 PM

What does or does not make sense to you appears to be highly variable. I asked a simple question and now you want to insinuate something sinister is going on? That is the kind of unfounded paranoia that gives the truth movement a bad name--and this is not the first example of it that I have encountered with you.

There is a darker cloud on your horizon than my asking a simple question, however, which is that Richard Gage has now distanced himself from you based upon similar concerns: http://911truthnews.com/richard-gage-completely-withdraws-support-from-cit/ He is raising the same kinds of questions. I think that you had better answer them.

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Feb 8 2011, 05:27 PM) *
The answer is yes it's been responded to and that is exactly what this thread is about.

I just copied you on the response.

If either Jim or you are concerned that Jeff "shure" Hill over at ATS hasn't seen it feel free to go there and post the link.

But Jim's question makes no sense because he is suggesting that there is something DIFFERENT from Chandler and Cole posted at ATS that we hadn't responded to when obviously this is not the case.

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 9 2011, 06:26 PM

Since you have previously sketched your response, it should be easy to craft a reply. But you need to take this new critique seriously and not come across as overly defensive. Gage stands tall with a large following, so you want to take some care in how you deal with this. Give it your best shot and see what you can do.

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 9 2011, 06:19 PM) *
What does or does not make sense to you appears to be highly variable. I asked a simple question and now you want to insinuate something sinister is going on? That is the kind of unfounded paranoia that gives the truth movement a bad name--and this is not the first example of it that I have encountered with you.

There is a darker cloud on your horizon than my asking a simple question, however, which is that Richard Gage has now distanced himself from you based upon similar concerns: http://911truthnews.com/richard-gage-completely-withdraws-support-from-cit/ He is raising the same kinds of questions. I think that you had better answer them.

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 9 2011, 06:31 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 9 2011, 10:12 PM) *
Maha Mantra asks a very good question... Allow me to speculate.

We are coming up on the milestone 10th anniversary of 9/11. The truth movement has made progress in raising awareness of the lies in the OCT and there are more and more people beginning to demand a new investigation.

The truth movement needs more than ever to make a "winning presentation" to the American people as they turn their attention to the event.

The powers that be, both INSIDE the truth movement and those who are trying to clamp it down and avoid the lies are jockeying for domination of the media and public's attention.

If the movement is not unified and making really "good sense" and acting mature and professional the truth movement will be trashed and it will be a massive fail.

All the loud mouths are raising their voices now and the struggle is on to either cripple the message or completely control it. And this has nothing to do with the truth.

What say you?


I'd say spot on.

In any debate I've had it always comes back to the same point.

"Even if it were true, the public wouldn't buy it"

It's a LIHOP based campaign with a sprinkling (if not heavy dose) of well bedded in cointel implementing a long thought out plan to control and water down the accusations made against the "powers that be".
They claim to be motivated by an attempt to appeal to the "mainstream". The same "mainstream" that censored 9/11 Truth and actually aided and abetted in the OCT.

So they have a perfect excuse to continue the charade and trail some well intentioned individuals along for the ride to cover their tracks. It's a perfect set up. They can whittle away at organizations and researchers that have a proven track record under the banner of "mainstream acceptance".

It's no different from the initial (and continuing) marginalization) of respected figures who actually back up their claims with solid science and evidence and the mass branding of anybody who questions the official narrative as "conspiract theorists, tin hat brigade and twoofers". Thing is, I believe that they've gotten carried away and pushed the boat out just a little too far, too quickly.

Anybody who denies the carefully laid out and detailed response by CIT and embrace the Legge/Stutt shambles (coupled with many previous debunks/exposés on these people) are either too lazy to check all the facts, agenda driven or in denial of the NOC evidence.

Okay, people may have a hard time accepting a flyover but to refuse to acknowledge what the entire witness pool described within that basin of land, the numerous anomalies regarding the official data which contradicts a 757's limits, all witness testimony, and eachother is at the very least in denial. And of course the fact that the officially released NTSB data does not add up to "impact" (nor the long running Stutt saga - which was coincidentally heavily and hastily pushed in this the tenth anniversary of 9/11 - was Stutt forced to "blow his cover" or originally duped into "discovering" this obviously inserted ambiguous "data"?)

9/11 was smoke and mirrors involving the intentional collapse of three towers, a whole scenario devoted to pushing the "passengers fought back" publicity stunt and the supposed unhindered aeriel attack on the Pentagon, pushing all conceivable limits of a commercial aircraft and aerodynamics and the assassination of thousands of civilians, military, police officers and firefighters.
If incredulity had been a factor given the enormity of the accusations levelled against the government as we are now being told by certain parties to embrace, we would be open to more bare faced attacks like 9/11.

What's more incredulous? That an evidence based independently confirmed event (namely NOC) occurred on the most disinfo ridden area of the 9/11 attacks that makes it necessary to at the very least hold back on the acceptance of an "impact" at the Pentagon? Or that the perps had the gall to bring down a tower in Manhattan, caught on camera and blame it on "fires"?

Physics was turned on its head that day in every imaginable way and physics has in turn been used to chip away at the OCT. "Impact" cannot physically occur from this trajectory. Fact.

They're caught in a corner and have been reduced to blatant lies and denial. End of story.

Posted by: SanderO Feb 9 2011, 07:04 PM

Look at who are the editors of:

911truthnews.com/

The very people who have trashed CIT...

Of course they are going to publish Gage's piece.

Posted by: wilddaddy Feb 9 2011, 08:02 PM

"Claim 1 is contradicted by the demonstrated performance capabilities of a Boeing 757, and Claim 2 fails to acknowledge that the increased lift due to ground effect can be negated by lowering the angle of attack."



The above quote is from the Chandler/Cole piece about flight 77. To Craig and Aldo, that piece just makes your research all the more powerful. Their entire effort is pointless.

Regardless, Rob can you comment about this angle of attack/ground effect issue? I'll understand if you feel like you spent enough time already but when that "blurb" was released by the government, I was impressed by the fact that it actually PROVED that it wasn't a 757 due to the level flight at that speed and ground effect.

What is this "angle of attack" bullshit this guy is talking about?

Thanks

PS. I am well aware of the dozens of other examples you have PROVEN in your videos, not to mention the excellent CIT work.

Posted by: wilddaddy Feb 9 2011, 08:26 PM

Also, hopefully to stay on topic... The work of P4T is brilliant plain and simple. But it definitely is relatively complex. I remember Rob mentioning once if he were to try to explain his various topics any better, YOU (the reader) would have to become a pilot. I laughed because he was correct!

The more and more I think about this the more I am absolutely convinced Craig and Aldo have hit a major and DEVASTATING nerve. I mean how could two kids (they appear to be young to me smile.gif ) who I presume are not engineers, architects, physicists, or even pilots unravel what is perhaps the greatest criminal event in the history of this country, while those same professionals are spending countless hours, resources, reputation and perhaps their careers trying to do the same? It boggles the mind.

But it absolutely is the truth. How can it not be?


See, truth is exactly like this. It is almost always beautiful in its simplicity.

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 9 2011, 08:35 PM

QUOTE (wilddaddy @ Feb 9 2011, 07:02 PM) *
"Claim 1 is contradicted by the demonstrated performance capabilities of a Boeing 757,


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20969&view=findpost&p=10793146




QUOTE
....and Claim 2 fails to acknowledge that the increased lift due to ground effect can be negated by lowering the angle of attack.


And yet the data shows an increase in AOA when entering "Ground Effect".

Once again Chandler and Cole demonstrate their bias.

There are other factors which are fatal to an aircraft operating well outside it's design capabilities.

Chandler and Cole havent a clue of what they are talking about when it comes to aviation. This is why they have not one aviation professional to support their claims. The closest they have is some idiot named John Bursill (...of which no one has heard of in the aviation community i http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core), but if he does really work in aviation... it's clear he is nothing more than a parts changer and hasnt a clue when it comes to http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19288&hl=bursill.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 9 2011, 08:35 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 9 2011, 10:19 PM) *
What does or does not make sense to you appears to be highly variable. I asked a simple question and now you want to insinuate something sinister is going on? That is the kind of unfounded paranoia that gives the truth movement a bad name--and this is not the first example of it that I have encountered with you.


I never said it was sinister.

I said it didn't make any sense because it doesn't. You were not paying attention and were incorrect in your assumption that what you saw at ATS was something new and therefore unaddressed. It was not.

You said:

QUOTE
I have just discovered a short piece by Chandler and Cole there. Has CIT addressed the issues they raise?


Of course you had already been actively posting in this thread where the exact thing you were referencing at Above Top Secret HAD BEEN addressed so obviously if you had actually read the entire rebuttal that this thread is about you would have been well aware that you did NOT "just discover" anything new at ATS at all and you would have been well aware that we HAD already addressed the "issues that they raise" in this rebuttal and you would have not needed to ask the question.

So either you didn't bother to read our entire rebuttal before choosing to so energetically insert your uneducated opinion in this discussion or you have a very low capacity to retain information.

This type of absent-minded approach to a simple discussion and failure to admit when you have made an error is indicative of the woefully inadequate and fallacious information you have published regarding the Pentagon attack in the past. THIS is the problem we have with you Jim: perpetually sloppy research and a stubborn failure to admit errors.

Whether or not your motive for this is "sinister" is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: wilddaddy Feb 9 2011, 08:44 PM

Thanks Rob. Of course I knew all of that, sorry to waste your time.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 9 2011, 08:49 PM

QUOTE (wilddaddy @ Feb 10 2011, 01:26 AM) *
Also, hopefully to stay on topic... The work of P4T is brilliant plain and simple. But it definitely is relatively complex. I remember Rob mentioning once if he were to try to explain his various topics any better, YOU (the reader) would have to become a pilot. I laughed because he was correct!


Quite true which is why we should patently reject fallacious papers claiming to rebut P4T written by individuals without the proper credentials.

Legge is counting on people being confused due to the technical nature of this discussion so they just throw their hands up in the air in frustration. It's his only recourse.

But CIT's findings are NOT technical as citizen juries are required to judge the veracity of eyewitness evidence in court all day long every day. The simplicity and strength of our findings is a big reason why we are so heavily targeted.

QUOTE
The more and more I think about this the more I am absolutely convinced Craig and Aldo have hit a major and DEVASTATING nerve. I mean how could two kids (they appear to be young to me smile.gif ) who I presume are not engineers, architects, physicists, or even pilots unravel what is perhaps the greatest criminal event in the history of this country, while those same professionals are spending countless hours, resources, reputation and perhaps their careers trying to do the same? It boggles the mind.

But it absolutely is the truth. How can it not be?


See, truth is exactly like this. It is almost always beautiful in its simplicity.


Haha. I'm 41 and Aldo is a 35 year old father.

So we're definitely not "kids" but we ARE just regular citizens who had questions like everyone else. The difference is that we sought answers and discovered the evidence that provides them.

Anyone could have done what we did. We just took the initiative to ask the witnesses EXACTLY what they saw and it exposed the deception.

So yes, it's clear that we have hit a "devastating nerve" here which is why there are a lot of people working overtime to keep it contained.

We appreciate any help that you or anyone can offer to stop them from succeeding.

Thanks for paying attention wilddaddy!

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 9 2011, 08:59 PM

QUOTE (wilddaddy @ Feb 9 2011, 07:44 PM) *
Thanks Rob. Of course I knew all of that, sorry to waste your time.


You're welcome.. .and it's never a waste of time. Especially if others who have not seen the information before... can benefit from the dialogue.

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 9 2011, 09:05 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Feb 9 2011, 07:35 PM) *
Of course you had already been actively posting in this thread where the exact thing you were referencing at Above Top Secret HAD BEEN addressed....



I been following this loosely.

Let me see if i can sum this up.

Jim has been asking you in this thread if you had addressed the claims made by Chandler and Cole which was posted at another forum, yet this thread here in this forum is exactly what Jim is looking for....?

Jim... click here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh9PYtmVybU

(sorry for the 80's reference.. it seemed appropriate...)

Jim... start from page 1 of this thread.. and read.

If you're still confused as to what this thread is about, click page 1 and look at the top.


Now, if Chandler and Cole came out with yet another attack piece on CIT, I would ask, why havent they (Chandler and Cole) gone to Arlington to interview witnesses, and would they (Chandler and Cole) prefer people ignore the witnesses interviewed?

Posted by: wilddaddy Feb 9 2011, 09:09 PM

Wow! 41 and 35...thank God! I am 46 and must admit a little envy to think these young kids pulled this off. I don't know where I got the idea that you were barely out of college. LOL.

Posted by: SwingDangler Feb 9 2011, 09:32 PM

Oh JIIIIIIIIMMMMMMMM.....

Please re-read and re-listen to the Roosevelt Robert's accounts. Where did the plane go after the fly over?
So to account for those witnesses who saw an impact one must view the vantage point of each witness and listen to exactly what they state happened, and how they responded and in what order. I think you will understand that they had deduced that the plane impacted as they ran for cover, dove into their car, hit the deck, turned away,etc. The key word is deduced. And Jim it doesn't take me to tell you how POWERFUL deductions can be especially when reinforced by the very same culture that provides for your existence.

If I were one of the NOC individuals, I would deduce the very same thing and after being told over and over that my deduction was the truth from my government's account as reinforced in the press, and taught in all levels of academia, it would become my perceived reality, much like JFK as you well know. I would probably be a pretty patriotic individual and get down right pissed at someone who told me or used my story to suggest a fly over.

That is until I was exposed to the facts of the event in the form of the physical evidence, eyewitness participation (Eye of the Storm), expert analysis of the flight data recorder information and aircraft capabilities and NTSB data, eyewitnesses to the fly over, visual evidence from video sources, suspect DOD video footage, pilot skill, discrepancies in the recovery of key data,the 'hope to be released someday' 9/11 phone call records from Arlington. I can hear those now, "Uh yeah operator, I just saw a plane dive bomb the Pentagon and head towards D.C.. Are we going to go shoot him down or what?" "Sir, We've been told we have fighters in bound now go back to work. Emergency responders are on the scene."

Hell I was told Santa Clause existed by the most trusted people on the planet, it was reinforced by my government and the media and taught through academia, and I saw the red light of the reindeer high in the sky. If you told me Santa didn't exist and he didn't land in my front yard, I would get down right pissed.
Until I saw the sleigh marks in the yard missing the hoof prints, the writing on the gifts that matched my mothers hand writing, and the red low altitude light on the water tower.

The point is, if you have followed the research of CIT, they have very adequately discussed that controversial issue and provided sound logic as to how NOC witnesses became impact 'deducers'. Secondly, if you looked at the links Mr. Gage posted, IT'S THE HOFFMAN HITMEN!! The same crew that silences any opposition to the official story at the Pentagon over at 9/11 Blogger. The very same crew that WILL NOT DEBATE the professionals at this site or at CIT! They use discredited evidence and eyewitness accounts. What did Gage do? He failed to watch all of CIT's investigation that is clear. He has ignored the research of aviation professionals in the field which happens to be the same conceptual core of his organization he created...experts and professionals in the field!! Go figure.

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 9 2011, 10:06 PM

Others have observed, as I have observed, that you are MASSIVELY POSSESSIVE AND TERRITORIAL about the Pentagon. Give us a break, Craig. You are not the only one who has noticed something was wrong at the Pentagon. Thierry Meyssan was way ahead of the rest of us, to cite one example.

Why you have to launch an all-out TAKE NO PRISONERS approach for asking a question about whether on not you had replied to a post on ATS is beyond me! I did not see any response there and supposed--my mistake!--that it was a separate piece to which you had not already replied. SO WHAT?

I came to support you and made a statement on your behalf. I like the fact that you found witnesses who confirm the fly over hypothesis that PILOTS HAD ALREADY DISCOVERED based upon the NTSB's FDR data. So that is good work, but it is hardly earthshaking. Yet you act like IT'S A HUGE EVENT.

It seems to me your response to Chandler and Cole was a considerable overreaction and your response to me is a MASSIVE overreaction. WHAT ENTITLES YOU TO ACT SO ARROGANT? I asked what I took to be a simple question and I have been met with an OBNOXIOUS AND MASSIVE ASSAULT.

Just to make a general point, there is no reason why different students of 9/11--or any other complicated subject, for that matter--should converge in their findings unless they are considering the same body of evidence and the same alternative hypotheses using the same rules of reasoning.

Since that is seldom the case, equally serious students of complex issues like 9/11 can arrive at different conclusions based upon the evidence that has been available to them and the hypotheses that they have considered, often without even understanding the principles of scientific reasoning.

You seem to think--this is called JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS--that if someone differs with you, then they are either mentally retarded, sloppy in their research (one of your favorites!), of some kind of disinfo op! But that is simply one more manifestation of your (Craig Ranke) paranoid cast of mind.

You don't own the Pentagon. Others beside you have done good work on it. We all agree that the official account is corrupt. I and Mike Sparks spent three two-hour shows going through the purported Pentagon witnesses, sorting them out, and finding there is no much there. Have you done that?

I would argue that what we did--and it was Mike Sparks' research, which I highlighted by featuring him--is as important as what you and Aldo have done, where you were strengthening the evidence for the fly-over and we--he, principally--was weakening the evidence for a plane having crashed there.

We all bring different strengths and weaknesses to the study of 9/11. None of us knows it all. So I think it would be more becoming if you were to tone down you act and assume the role of an actual human being and does not mistake himself--as do you!--for SOME KIND OF GOD! Get over it, Craig.

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Feb 9 2011, 07:35 PM) *
I never said it was sinister.

I said it didn't make any sense because it doesn't. You were not paying attention and were incorrect in your assumption that what you saw at ATS was something new and therefore unaddressed. It was not.

You said:

Of course you had already been actively posting in this thread where the exact thing you were referencing at Above Top Secret HAD BEEN addressed so obviously if you had actually read the entire rebuttal that this thread is about you would have been well aware that you did NOT "just discover" anything new at ATS at all and you would have been well aware that we HAD already addressed the "issues that they raise" in this rebuttal and you would have not needed to ask the question.

So either you didn't bother to read our entire rebuttal before choosing to so energetically insert your uneducated opinion in this discussion or you have a very low capacity to retain information.

This type of absent-minded approach to a simple discussion and failure to admit when you have made an error is indicative of the woefully inadequate and fallacious information you have published regarding the Pentagon attack in the past. THIS is the problem we have with you Jim: perpetually sloppy research and a stubborn failure to admit errors.

Whether or not your motive for this is "sinister" is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: KP50 Feb 9 2011, 10:14 PM

QUOTE
OBNOXIOUS AND MASSIVE ASSAULT.

Don't be a drama queen Jim, grow a pair and move on. Somewhere in that long rant, I believe you conceded you made an error - good. Now please leave this thread alone.

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 9 2011, 11:03 PM

For those who want to assess the witness evidence,
the interviews with Mike Sparks were conducted on

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2010

Mike Sparks
Pentagon witnesses, Part III

MONDAY, JANUARY 18, 2010

Mike Sparks
More 9/11 Pentagon witnesses

MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 2010

Mike Sparks
9/11 Pentagon Witnesses, Part I

They are archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 9 2011, 11:14 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 9 2011, 09:06 PM) *
I like the fact that you found witnesses who confirm the fly over hypothesis that PILOTS HAD ALREADY DISCOVERED based upon the NTSB's FDR data.



Psst... Jim.

The FDR Data is not 'proof' of anything. I've explained this ad nauseam not only on this site, but in almost every interview i have ever done, including my interview on your show several years ago.

Let me break it down again.

The FDR data does not support the govt story, but it should (if the govt story were correct).

Some make excuses.

Some attempt to say "Nothing to see here folks.... move along"...

Others want answers.... and the http://pillotsfor911truth.org/core.

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 9 2011, 11:24 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer)
I came to support you and made a statement on your behalf. I like the fact that you found witnesses who confirm the fly over hypothesis that PILOTS HAD ALREADY DISCOVERED based upon the NTSB's FDR data. So that is good work, but it is hardly earthshaking. Yet you act like IT'S A HUGE EVENT.


Sorry Jim, but the NTSB's FDR data is a manually fabricated concoction or taken from another flight before 9/11 based on witnesses not only around the Pentagon basin but from miles before it entered that area and further disproved by witnesses in Washington, on the Potomac river itself and confrmed by many ATCs.

Pilots proved that the data itself does not add up to "impact" given the PA readings. CIT's work further reinforced that the FDR is a heap of ambiguous crap that has no bearing on reality.
Both organizations treat this data with the same mistrust and only make the conclusion that it didn't come from "Flight 77" and certainly haven't used it as proof of anything AFAIK, let alone flyover.
The questionable data indeed adds up to flyover, but the preceding data follows the OCT "loop" that fails to pass East of Potomac which makes it look totally manufactured.

This is in a long line of "data" and "simulated flightpaths" released both officially and unofficially by RADES, NORAD, the FAA and even National geographic. Also rejected as proof of anything due to this "loop" and the non witness compatible "SOC path".

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21045&view=findpost&p=10794254

2cents

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 9 2011, 11:35 PM

Well, sure it does. It proves that the government's own "evidence" contradicts the government's "official account". That is quite significant. In the law, it's know as "an admission contrary to interest" and receives special weight. So you should not be remotely apologetic about this. IT IS A MAJOR DISCOVERY. The only way the government could discount your discovery is by denying the authenticity of the data, yet it came to you from the NTSB. I am not a pilot, Rob, but I am a student of logic and argumentation. What other explanation could there be than that the data provided by the NTSB to you--which is official government data but contradicts the government's official account--CONTRADICTS THE GOVERNMENT'S OFFICIAL ACCOUNT? Now I certainly agree that CIT's discovery of witnesses who confirm what you have determined to be the actual flight path ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN DATA is empirical confirmation of that alternative account. Mike Spark's critique of the witnesses who support the official account is also significant, since their number and the strength of their testimony is vastly reduced by his study. But none of us would have any idea of the significance of the CIT witnesses were it not for having a theory about the actual flight trajectory WHICH RESULTED FROM YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE NTSB DATA. The combination of the alternative theory plus confirming witnesses plus studies showing that the strength of the witnesses supporting the official account is very powerful. I think you have not appreciated the importance of your own discovery and that you have therefore thought I was exaggerating it. But your discovery already nullified the official account, even without the witnesses. What you found established that the official account was contradicted by the official data, which meant that the government has no coherent explanation for what happened at the Pentagon. Which was very good work.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 9 2011, 11:14 PM) *
Psst... Jim.

The FDR Data is not 'proof' of anything. I've explained this ad nauseam not only on this site, but in almost every interview i have ever done, including my interview on your show several years ago.

Let me break it down again.

The FDR data does not support the govt story, but it should (if the govt story were correct).

Some make excuses.

Some attempt to say "Nothing to see here folks.... move along"...

Others want answers.... and the http://pillotsfor911truth.org/core.

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 9 2011, 11:42 PM

It may have been fabricated, but (a) it came from the NTSB in response from a FOIA request from Pilots for the FDR data for Flight 77 and (b) it turned out to support a completely different flight path and altitude, did it not? That has been my understanding from scratch. What am I missing? Is this not the government's own data? and does it not contradict the government's own "official account"? What have I got wrong? That has been my understanding from the beginning. I wrote a press release from Scholars that was even linked to Pilots and the only feedback I received was that Pilots was not maintaining, on that basis, that no plane hit the Pentagon, only that the FDR data it was given for Flight 77 contradicted the official account. If it was data for some other flight, why would anyone care? Why would Pilots even study it? Here's a link to that original article. If I had something as significant as that wrong, surely Pilots would have said as much:
http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=110&Itemid=67 Here's the abstract:

ABSTRACT: Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained black box data from the government under the Freedom of Information Act for AA Flight 77, which The 9/11 Report claims hit the Pentagon. Analysis of the data contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude. The plane was too high to hit lamp posts and would have flown over the Pentagon, not impacted with its ground floor. This result confirms and strengthens the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the building.

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 9 2011, 11:24 PM) *
Sorry Jim, but the NTSB's FDR data is a manually fabricated concoction or taken from another flight before 9/11 based on witnesses not only around the Pentagon basin but from miles before it entered that area and further disproved by witnesses in Washington, on the Potomac river itself and confrmed by many ATCs.

Pilots proved that the data itself does not add up to "impact" given the PA readings. CIT's work further reinforced that the FDR is a heap of ambiguous crap that has no bearing on reality.
Both organizations treat this data with the same mistrust and only make the conclusion that it didn't come from "Flight 77" and certainly haven't used it as proof of anything AFAIK, let alone flyover.
The questionable data indeed adds up to flyover, but the preceding data follows the OCT "loop" that fails to pass East of Potomac which makes it look totally manufactured.

This is in a long line of "data" and "simulated flightpaths" released both officially and unofficially by RADES, NORAD, the FAA and even National geographic. Also rejected as proof of anything due to this "loop" and the non witness compatible "SOC path".

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21045&view=findpost&p=10794254

2cents

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 9 2011, 11:51 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 9 2011, 10:35 PM) *
The only way the government could discount your discovery is by denying the authenticity of the data, yet it came to you from the NTSB.



Correct.

Some do not understand this as they make the excuse, "Well, if the data is not authentic, why are we even looking at it...?"

Either way,. it's a felony.

Also known as Checkmate.

But again, the data is not 'proof' of what actually happened. It is 'proof' that the govt story does not add up. We need subpoena power to get further details, which we have been http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit. We just need to find a Judge willing to look at the evidence.

People like Cole, Chandler, Legge and Stutt (and now as I understand it, Gage), feels we should not be pursuing this evidence.

To each their own i guess. Their name isnt on our work so they shouldnt have anything to fear. Nor do we wish to have such names without the credentials in aviation and the ability to debate the topic in front of a willing Judge, Jury and perhaps new and independent commission. Nor do i wish to debate WTC CD in the same context. Pilots for 9/11 Truth will never be called as an Expert Witness on WTC CD (nor do we expect to), just as Chandler, Cole, Legge, Stutt nor Gage will ever be called as an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness on aviation related issues.

Speaking of which, does anyone know if Bob McIllvaine filed any lawsuits.... with Cole, Chandler, Gage et al signed on with affidavits, as we did with http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit.html?

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 9 2011, 11:58 PM

My ability to edit is being cut off after one pass, so I am adding this here. Notice that I said, "This result confirms and strengthens the previous findings of SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH that no Boeing 757 hit the building." I did not attribute that finding to PILOTS. I have had a long-standing interest in the Pentagon from my first paper about 9/11, "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", to my more recent, "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon". The absence of a massive pile of debris from a 100-ton airliner, the missing wings and tail, the lack of bodies, seats, and luggage, and the smooth and unblemished lawn as the lime-green fire trucks were extinguishing the rather modest fires--and that not even the massive and virtually indestructible engines were recovered--has led me to believe that it is far more easily understood by the public than the complexities of the controlled demolitions in New York. And because it happened at the command and control center of the US government, if the government would lie about the Pentagon, it would lie about any other aspect of 9/11! Which means that the government has no credibility about 9/11, once the public understands WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN THERE. And when you throw in the use of those gigantic dumpsters to create the fires that produced the billowing black smoke to impress the members of Congress when they rushed out of the Capital building, when told it might be the next target, the case is made!

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 9 2011, 11:24 PM) *
Sorry Jim, but the NTSB's FDR data is a manually fabricated concoction or taken from another flight before 9/11 based on witnesses not only around the Pentagon basin but from miles before it entered that area and further disproved by witnesses in Washington, on the Potomac river itself and confrmed by many ATCs.

Pilots proved that the data itself does not add up to "impact" given the PA readings. CIT's work further reinforced that the FDR is a heap of ambiguous crap that has no bearing on reality.
Both organizations treat this data with the same mistrust and only make the conclusion that it didn't come from "Flight 77" and certainly haven't used it as proof of anything AFAIK, let alone flyover.
The questionable data indeed adds up to flyover, but the preceding data follows the OCT "loop" that fails to pass East of Potomac which makes it look totally manufactured.

This is in a long line of "data" and "simulated flightpaths" released both officially and unofficially by RADES, NORAD, the FAA and even National geographic. Also rejected as proof of anything due to this "loop" and the non witness compatible "SOC path".

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21045&view=findpost&p=10794254

2cents

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 10 2011, 12:08 AM

That's why this is a point of logic. When you are confronted with inconsistent propositions, you know you are dealing with a false claim since both cannot be true at the same time. Discovering a contradiction in an official account--especially one as blatant as this!--is A MAJOR EVENT. You have proven that to be the case without having to prove which of the contradictory propositions is true. With the addition of witnesses from CIT, you have further support that the NTSB trajectory is true, and with the critique of the other witnesses by Mike Sparks, you have further support that the official trajectory is false. The argument for the NTSB trajectory is therefore very strong. As I mention here and there, a friend of mine from JFK research, Roy Schaeffer, had a buddy, Dave Ball, who was a trucker and who was in front of the Pentagon when it happened. He told Roy that he had seen a huge plane head directly toward the building and then swerve off and fly over it. Roy wrote me to tell me that he could not understand why Dave still insisted that a plane HAD HIT THE PENTAGON, WHEN HE HADN'T SEEN THAT HAPPEN. I tried to get Dave on the air to discuss what he had seen, but he was skittish and wouldn't do it. He was later found dead in an abandoned building. A lot of witnesses think they are safer if they don't come forward and make their knowledge public, but it works the other way around. Once you have made what you know public, there is far less motive to take you out, since your testimony is already in the record and, if you now die, that may create a great deal more public interest in what you had to say.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 9 2011, 11:51 PM) *
Correct.

Some do not understand this as they make the excuse, "Well, if the data is not authentic, why are we even looking at it...?"

Either way,. it's a felony.

Also known as Checkmate.

But again, the data is not 'proof' of what actually happened. It is 'proof' that the govt story does not add up. We need subpoena power to get further details, which we have been http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit. We just need to find a Judge willing to look at the evidence.

People like Cole, Chandler, Legge and Stutt (and now as I understand it, Gage), feels we should not be pursuing this evidence.

To each their own i guess. Their name isnt on our work so they shouldnt have anything to fear. Nor do we wish to have such names without the credentials in aviation and the ability to debate the topic in front of a willing Judge, Jury and perhaps new and independent commission. Nor do i wish to debate WTC CD in the same context.

Speaking of which, does anyone know if Bob McIllvane filed any lawsuits.... with Cole, Chandler, Gage et al signed on with affidavits, as we did with http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit.html?

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 10 2011, 12:20 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 9 2011, 11:08 PM) *
With the addition of witnesses from CIT, you have further support that the NTSB trajectory is true,



The NTSB "trajectory" does not match the witnesses interviewed by CIT.

Both sets of data conflict with each other, and both sets of data conflict with the govt story.

With that said, Stutt's new "additional" data is what one would expect to see if a "flyover" occurred, but his data has the aircraft on the south approach (based on heading), and is inconclusive based on lat/long. If taken into consideration with Radar, it does favor a Northern approach. However, a new independent investigation is needed for ALL the details, including witnesses.

Some are hard at work attempting to suppress such evidence. They claim it is because it makes them "look bad". Yet, their name isnt even on the work, nor do they have the expertise to analyze the information.

Go figure.

They do have a little amount of understanding... but as the old saying goes in aviation, "...having a little understanding is more dangerous than having none...". Legge and Stutt's latest paper demonstrate this perfectly.

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 10 2011, 12:27 AM

And the fact that the "official account" is a fantasy since no Boeing 757 could fly that fast that close to the ground or even come that close to the ground, much less take out lampposts without their wings being ripped apart or bursting into flame and their trajectories being dramatically altered shows that the government has been trading in gross falsehoods. It is one thing to claim that an account IS FALSE because it is inconsistent with the facts of the case (the lack of debris and all that), but a far stronger point to observe that it not only is false (given the evidence) but that IT CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE because it violates the laws of aerodynamics and of physics, which cannot be violated and cannot be changed. The proof that the official account is false does not merely derive from being incompatible with the absence of the kinds of debris that would be expected but also from the fact that NO BOEING 757 could have done what this one is alleged to have done. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE, which is far stronger than merely claiming that IT IS FALSE. So you have always had a massively stronger case than you have supposed you have. Not only is the government's official account contradicted by the government's own data but the alternative flight path has been confirmed by the CIT witnesses and the government's witnesses have been weakened in number and credibility by Mike Sparks' studies but, in addition, the official account could never have been true because that would entail violations of laws of aerodynamics and of physics that cannot be violated and cannot be changed. If I were an attorney, I would salivate at the prospect of taking this to trial--apart from the politics of the case, since the government would go "all out" to prevent it from being heard by a jury.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 9 2011, 11:51 PM) *
Correct.

Some do not understand this as they make the excuse, "Well, if the data is not authentic, why are we even looking at it...?"

Either way,. it's a felony.

Also known as Checkmate.

But again, the data is not 'proof' of what actually happened. It is 'proof' that the govt story does not add up. We need subpoena power to get further details, which we have been http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit. We just need to find a Judge willing to look at the evidence.

People like Cole, Chandler, Legge and Stutt (and now as I understand it, Gage), feels we should not be pursuing this evidence.

To each their own i guess. Their name isnt on our work so they shouldnt have anything to fear. Nor do we wish to have such names without the credentials in aviation and the ability to debate the topic in front of a willing Judge, Jury and perhaps new and independent commission. Nor do i wish to debate WTC CD in the same context. Pilots for 9/11 Truth will never be called as an Expert Witness on WTC CD (nor do we expect to), just as Chandler, Cole, Legge, Stutt nor Gage will ever be called as an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness on aviation related issues.

Speaking of which, does anyone know if Bob McIllvaine filed any lawsuits.... with Cole, Chandler, Gage et al signed on with affidavits, as we did with http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit.html?

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 10 2011, 12:31 AM

Well, that is something I have not appreciated. Thanks for explaining that to me. Where could I find a discussion of the divergence between the NTSB trajectory and the CIT witness data? I thought that the NTSB trajectory implied that the plane had come in north of the CITGO station and that the witnesses therefore confirmed it. If I am wrong on that point, then I have misunderstood what CIT has done. I have not supposed their witnesses were confirming anything more specific than that it came in north of the CITGO station.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 10 2011, 12:20 AM) *
The NTSB "trajectory" does not match the witnesses interviewed by CIT.

Both sets of data conflict with each other, and both sets of data conflict with the govt story.

With that said, Stutt's new "additional" data is what one would expect to see if a "flyover" occurred, but his data has the aircraft on the south approach (based on heading), and is inconclusive based on lat/long. If taken into consideration with Radar, it does favor a Northern approach. However, a new independent investigation is needed for ALL the details, including witnesses.

Some are hard at work attempting to suppress such evidence. They claim it is because it makes them "look bad". Yet, their name isnt even on the work, nor do they have the expertise to analyze the information.

Go figure.

They do have a little amount of understanding... but as the old saying goes in aviation, "...having a little understanding is more dangerous than having none...". Legge and Stutt's latest paper demonstrate this perfectly.

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 10 2011, 12:40 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 9 2011, 11:31 PM) *
Well, that is something I have not appreciated. Thanks for explaining that to me. Where could I find a discussion of the divergence between the NTSB trajectory and the CIT witness data? I thought that the NTSB trajectory implied that the plane had come in north of the CITGO station and that the witnesses therefore confirmed it. If I am wrong on that point, then I have misunderstood what CIT has done. I have not supposed their witnesses were confirming anything more specific than that it came in north of the CITGO station.



CIT witnesses observed the aircraft crossing over from south of the Sheraton, South of Columbia pike, over the Navy Annex, and North of the Citgo.

The NTSB animation has the aircraft North of all points at all times.

An FAA animation was released which more closely resembles the witnesses interviewed by CIT, but still, is not considered "proof" of anything. It is evidence.

Jim, i would recommend you spend some time at http://citizeninvestigationteam.com and become fully informed of the data, information and arguments presented by CIT. It also might be a good idea to read the first post of this thread and their rebuttal to the Chandler/Cole piece.

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 10 2011, 12:46 AM

OK. Here's what I added before discovering that my editing ability had been cut off again. Thanks.

Well, that is something I have not appreciated. Thanks for explaining that to me. Where could I find a discussion of the divergence between the NTSB trajectory and the CIT witness data? I thought that the NTSB trajectory implied that the plane had come in north of the CITGO station and that the witnesses therefore confirmed it. If I am wrong on that point, then I have misunderstood what CIT has done. I have not supposed their witnesses were confirming anything more specific than that it came in north of the CITGO station. Since the official account cannot possibly be true, I am puzzled at the prospect of a new theory of an approach from the south.

That suggests to me that someone is fudging the data (again) to come up with a way to create uncertainty about what did or did not happen at the Pentagon. We KNOW the official account is false since it violates the laws of aerodynamics and physics and is therefore impossible. Having more than one alternative account is a common stage in figuring things out. But one that comes from the south sounds suspect on its face to me. Tell me where I can learn more about Stutt's new theory. I presume we all take for granted that even radar data can be faked. I would observe, by the way, that the purpose of disinformation is not to convince the public of one theory or another but to create sufficient uncertainty where everything is believable and nothing is knowable.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 10 2011, 12:20 AM) *
The NTSB "trajectory" does not match the witnesses interviewed by CIT.

Both sets of data conflict with each other, and both sets of data conflict with the govt story.

With that said, Stutt's new "additional" data is what one would expect to see if a "flyover" occurred, but his data has the aircraft on the south approach (based on heading), and is inconclusive based on lat/long. If taken into consideration with Radar, it does favor a Northern approach. However, a new independent investigation is needed for ALL the details, including witnesses.

Some are hard at work attempting to suppress such evidence. They claim it is because it makes them "look bad". Yet, their name isnt even on the work, nor do they have the expertise to analyze the information.

Go figure.

They do have a little amount of understanding... but as the old saying goes in aviation, "...having a little understanding is more dangerous than having none...". Legge and Stutt's latest paper demonstrate this perfectly.


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 10 2011, 12:40 AM) *
CIT witnesses observed the aircraft crossing over from south of the Sheraton, South of Columbia pike, over the Navy Annex, and North of the Citgo.

The NTSB animation has the aircraft North of all points at all times.

An FAA animation was released which more closely resembles the witnesses interviewed by CIT, but still, is not considered "proof" of anything. It is evidence.

Jim, i would recommend you spend some time at http://citizeninvestigationteam.com and become fully informed of the data, information and arguments presented by CIT. It also might be a good idea to read the first post of this thread and their rebuttal to the Chandler/Cole piece.

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 10 2011, 12:57 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 9 2011, 11:46 PM) *
OK. Here's what I added before discovering that my editing ability had been cut off again. Thanks.


Edit limitations are set for new posters as we have had a problem of people editing their posts long after a reply was made, to change the whole meaning of their post. We have also had problems with spambots.

To mitigate such limitations, I recommend you use the "Preview Post" feature before you hit reply.

You can edit as much as you like in "Preview Post" mode. Once you are satisfied with your post, publish it by clicking "Add Reply".

Hope this helps.

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 10 2011, 02:34 AM

Sure. I just thought I had more than one opportunity to "edit" after posting. I find I catch things once I have posted that I did not catch in the preview. Maybe its something about me, but I have always been that way: being more critical of my writing after I see it posted and making revisions. But that's of no consequence. I will take a bit more time in the "preview" stage and use my edits to greater advantage.

I have reread the response by Craig and did find one point I had overlooked before, namely, that this guy Stutt is co-author of a piece with Legge for The Journal of 9/11 Studies. Somewhere I have explained that Steve did not take my advice about creating a first-class editorial board but drew upon friends and chums, which undermined its credibility. And I raised that issue with Steve way back in 2006, just for the record.

I know all about 911blogger (which booted me before it booted Craig), Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley, and Arabesque. (In one of my earlier posts, I pointed out I had encountered problems with Jim Hoffman myself and regard him as a major problem within the 9/11 research community.) I sized up John Bursill a long time ago. But the deviations in the sketches between the CIT witnesses strike me as insignificant.

The case of Jeff Hill is very interesting, because he did such good work with his phone calls directed to the question of impossible speed in relation to Flight 175 and video fakery. He was excellent at doing that and I find it a bit odd that Ranke is so eager to call him "a liar". Lying implies insincerity. If Jeff has changed his mind because he sees things differently, then Craig may not like it, but that does not turn Jeff into a liar.

Similarly, while on ATS re my thread on video fakery, I noticed a short piece by Chandler and Cole on ATS. I did not notice that it was a conjunction of sentences to which Ranke had replied in his long response. So I asked whether they had replied to that short piece, which they had not done on ATS. IT WAS A QUESTION. For asking, I have been savaged by Ranke with gross smears about "sloppy research" and other nonsense

Other than Stutt's co-authoring a paper, I am not quite sure that I learned anything else new from reading it through again. Certainly, the specific data points that Stutt and Legge are relying upon are not given here. The government is going to keep fudging and wiggling with variation upon variation in its deliberate effort to foster uncertainty. I have been dealing with that on a thread about the Twin Towers on another forum.

What we can know for certain is that no Boeing 757 flew at more than 500 mph less than 60 feet above the ground, hitting lampposts which did not affect its trajectory while its wings did not burst into flames from the friction, and hitting the ground floor while leaving unbroken windows, spools and fence, where there was no massive pile of debris, no wings, no tail, no bodies, seats or luggage. Not even the engines were recovered.

Now I have make these points and many others in "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", in one version at rense.com that included introductory paragraphs about Dick Eastman (oddly enough, for attacking me when I thought we were on the same side) and another without those at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. I have long thought that we (you, Pilots; and me, Scholars) were on the same side with the same general take on this.

What I find problematical about Craig and Aldo is that they are quick to jump on Chandler and Cole for not checking with them about the criticisms they were making, when they (Craig and Aldo) were equally amiss in not checking with me about the positions I actually hold. And to make matters worse, they have issued grossly exaggerated and defamatory statements about me, when I have been here in support of them.

The moral I derive from this story is that we all should be more tolerant of research by others. I continue to believe that a smaller plane may have approached the Pentagon at the same time that a Boeing 757 flew over it and fired a missile that was intended to take out the budget experts who were attempting to track the $2.3 million that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld announced had "gone missing" the day before 9/11.

I have explained my reasons for thinking so in "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", which includes a study by Dewdney and Longspaugh of the damage to the Pentagon that concluded that, while it was inconsistent with a large plane, such as a 757, it was consistent with a smaller plane, such as an F-16. I suppose that makes me guilty of even more "sloppy research" from the point of view of Ranke and Aldo.

But we have to acknowledge that different students are going to converge only when they are considering the same body of evidence and the same alternative hypotheses using the same rules of reasoning. I could argue on the basis of our divergence about this that THEY are guilty of "sloppy research". In fact, I do not think that their research is flawless and have found instances in which they exaggerate the certainty of their findings.

But if we are going to make progress against an implacable enemy with overwhelmingly greater resources, we are going to have to find a way to sort out our differences that does not require destroying each other, literally or figuratively. On that other thread, Craig's trash talk about me has been posted by my adversary, which has caused me considerable concern. Craig is not the only one bothered when others treat him unjustly and with disrespect.

We have to find a way to deal with our differences without resorting to character assassination and gross distortions. My question about whether they had answered the short piece on ATS was advanced because it didn't seem familiar. I now grant that Craig had dealt with it and that I had not noticed the sentences were the same because the paragraph was disjointed. But that offense hardly deserved his massive retaliator response.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 10 2011, 12:57 AM) *
Edit limitations are set for new posters as we have had a problem of people editing their posts long after a reply was made, to change the whole meaning of their post. We have also had problems with spambots.

To mitigate such limitations, I recommend you use the "Preview Post" feature before you hit reply.

You can edit as much as you like in "Preview Post" mode. Once you are satisfied with your post, publish it by clicking "Add Reply".

Hope this helps.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 10 2011, 03:55 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 10 2011, 04:40 AM) *
CIT witnesses observed the aircraft crossing over from south of the Sheraton, South of Columbia pike, over the Navy Annex, and North of the Citgo.

The NTSB animation has the aircraft North of all points at all times.

An FAA animation was released which more closely resembles the witnesses interviewed by CIT, but still, is not considered "proof" of anything. It is evidence.

Jim, i would recommend you spend some time at http://citizeninvestigationteam.com and become fully informed of the data, information and arguments presented by CIT. It also might be a good idea to read the first post of this thread and their rebuttal to the Chandler/Cole piece.


Yes and don't forget that they all describe it much lower than the NTSB data and we have also provided significant evidence showing it flew over DC skies and came from east of the river which is NOTHING like the NTSB data at all.



Jim has thoroughly demonstrated that he hasn't paid attention to a wealth of Pentagon attack research and evidence that has been published in the past 4 years. His perpetual rants have really cluttered up this thread making productive discussion virtually impossible. I wish he would stick to video fakery where he is clearly the leading expert.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 10 2011, 04:10 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 10 2011, 06:34 AM) *
The case of Jeff Hill is very interesting, because he did such good work with his phone calls directed to the question of impossible speed in relation to Flight 175 and video fakery. He was excellent at doing that and I find it a bit odd that Ranke is so eager to call him "a liar". Lying implies insincerity. If Jeff has changed his mind because he sees things differently, then Craig may not like it, but that does not turn Jeff into a liar.


Obviously you STILL didn't read it very thoroughly or check the sources because we provide several examples of his dishonest behavior.

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/CIT-Response-to-David-Chandler-and-Jonathan-Cole-Pentagon-Statement/#hill

Hill is a proven manipulative liar. It's all supported and sourced.

However I don't believe we use the word "liar" to describe anyone in the entire essay making Jim's accusation inaccurate and well, sloppy.

But I do agree that this would be an accurate word to describe Hill.

QUOTE
We have to find a way to deal with our differences without resorting to character assassination and gross distortions. My question about whether they had answered the short piece on ATS was advanced because it didn't seem familiar. I now grant that Craig had dealt with it and that I had not noticed the sentences were the same because the paragraph was disjointed. But that offense hardly deserved his massive retaliator response.


It was not a "massive retaliator response" (whatever that is).

Both Aldo and I calmly pointed it out while you denied it and refused to admit your mistake until I spelled it out for you in numerous posts and you were FORCED to admit it.

Posted by: GroundPounder Feb 10 2011, 06:16 AM

"an admission contrary to interest" sounded good, but in searching, really found nothing relevant.
searched law.cornell.edu and it returned links, but the phrase was absent from the associated documents.

anybody? buehler?

Posted by: SwingDangler Feb 10 2011, 09:28 AM

Jim I think one of the reasons why Craig gets so frustrated is that all of this hard work and research is in the public domain and is easily accessible to the expert as well as the layman.
Secondly, when you show up and start asking questions about items are irreleveant to the OP, it only clutters the thread. For example Gage's new public declaration and suggesting Craig should address that. I can only imagine how frustrated the 'Men" wink.gif of CIT are. They interviewed some witnessess about the Pentagon attack put the information into the public domain, and the attack dogs show up lambasting the information, making unfounded accusations, etc. and these were from people on supposedly the same 'side' and the list goes on. So I suspect, Craig is a little frustrated at covering the same things over and over.

And then you pop in on this OP and start asking questions about other items. Stutts new theory??? What relevance does that have to this thread? Secondly, Stutt is addressed in other parts of the forum so if you want to know his theory, research those threads instead of cluttering this one.

I think Jim that some of your points and questions could be answered by your own research which is why Craig is referrring to it as 'sloppy'. It has been covered elsewhere.

Jim, thanks for the heresay info on your flyover witness. Did you ever happen to follow up with his family members to see if the individual who saw the plane fly away discussed it with friends or family?

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 10 2011, 12:40 PM

SwingDangler,

Thanks for this reasonable post, which I welcome. I think I have sorted out at least one aspect of what is going on here, which I want to address. First, however, let me use this occasion to respond to some of the attacks that have been launched on me, which, frankly, I had not expected at this forum. But what's new?

KP50, for example, says I should "grow a pair and move on" and that referring to Ranke's unwrranted and vicious attack on me as an OBNOXIOUS AND MASSIVE ASSAULT is being a "drama queen"! Well, that's pretty rich, considering my offense was trivial and it ought to be obvious, even to KP50, I didn't deserve it.

His suggestion that I "leave this thread alone" strikes me as extremely inappropriate. I have as much right to address these issues as do others--where departing with my tail between my legs would be a sign neither of intellectual integrity nor of moral courage. And most of what I said about them in the post he faults is true.

It was only on rereading Craig's reply to Chandler and Cole that I figured out why I had thought the short piece in ATS was different, which is because the sentences were distributed in his reply and I had not read them together as paragraphs. I suppose if Rob had not suggested I read it again I would still not know.

In this latest reply, Ranke claims, "Both Aldo and I calmly pointed it out while you denied it and refused to admit your mistake until I spelled it out for you in numerous posts and you were FORCED to admit it." But I wasn't "FORCED" to do anything and the idea that he and Aldo "CALMLY POINT IT OUT" is simply absurd.

Anyone who reads his rebuttal to Chandler and Cole, including his treatment of Jeff Hill, not to mention his "massive retaliator(y) response" upon me, can see for themselves that he is a "TAKE NO PRISONERS" kind of guy who leaps to conclusions and draws the most unfavorable inferences about those who challenge him.

I am 70 years old. I find almost everything I post has typos, where it doesn't require great fluency to see that the phrase "massive retaliator response" meant "massive retaliatory response". When I tried to "edit' and correct that and several others, I was not allowed to do it. So EVEN THAT becomes a federal offense.

These is a pattern here that Ranke has patented. EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THEM IS MENTALLY RETARDED, A DISINFO AGENT, OR GUILTY OF "SLOPPY RESEARCH". That is true of Chandler and Cole, of Jeff Hill, and of me. And it doesn't matter is your offense is major or minor, as my own case shows.

There is more than enough fault to go around. If Chandler and Cole did not study their position enough to get it right, it is also the case that they did not study my positions enough to get them right. And no doubt I have not studied their witnesses enough to get them right. So we have all committed mistakes of our own.

My background is that of a philosopher of science, who taught logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years. I am especially interested in the strength of premises (evidence) in relation to conclusions (hypotheses). I deal with measures of strength of evidence but am not always expert in content domains.

Thinking about Rob's observations--that the CIT witnesses observed the aircraft crossing over from south of the Sheraton, South of Columbia pike, over the Navy Annex, and North of the Citgo, while the NTSB animation has the aircraft North of all points at all times--has led me to reconsider what may be going on here.

In my post to Rob after rereading Ranke's response, I remarked that "the deviations in the sketches between the CIT witnesses strike me as insignificant." Given the extent of the differences involved here, however, I misappraised the situation. I had focused on their reports about the plane north of the Citgo station.

When it comes to more complex conclusions, Chandler and Cole may have a point. Students of eyewitness reports know that, when it comes to the salent features of experiences--the ones that are significant to those who are observing them--witnesses tend to be highly reliable, as scientific studies have shown.

Elizabeth Loftus, EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY (1996), for example, published a summary of a Harvard study that demonstrated, using 151 subjects, that when their subjects were observing events that were salient (or significant) to them, then they were 98% accurate and 98% complete with respect to their recollections.

But of course memories fade across time and the influence of intervening factors--especially with regard to events that have been widely publicized and discussed--are likely to have been affected, where those percentages would no doubt substantially decline with the intervention of other of life's ongoing events.

I am NOT claiming that what their witnesses have reported is not completely reliable, but I now can more clearly see why Chandler and Cole have raised the questions they have raised. I am not an expert on the psychology of interviews, but it seems to me that asking questions about it was not inappropriate of them.

The part I have had wrong is that I (mistakenly) supposed their witnesses were affirming that the plane had passed north of the Citgo station. That is a simple and salient point, where their reliability would be high. The differences between the NTSB trajectory and what they are inferring from the witnesses is less certain.

Now it is true that I have not studied their witness reports in detail and that Chandler and Cole may have been in the same boat. However, in principle, the questions they are raising seem to be appropriate, where a kinder and gentler response would, in my opinion, have been preferable. But that is not their style.

I therefore seems to me that it might be worthwhile to have an expert on the psychology of interviews review what they have done to assess its reliability. This suggestion may enrage CIT, but, given the quandary it has created for reconciling conflicting data, I think it would be an appropriate step to take.

Here is the point where Craig and Aldo rush to attack me for not understanding what this thread has been all about. I am no more an expert on their witnesses than they are on my arguments about video fakery, which they treat with disdain as though it were obviously wrong. But that is typical of their modus operandi.

Well, it ISN'T "obviously wrong", where the plane's impossible speed, impossible entry, passing through its own length in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, and missing (functioning) strobe lights affords substantial grounds supporting video fakery, where we need to figure out how it was done.

Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that, given the visual orientation of American culture with our obsession with television and the movies, the demonstration of video fakery would probably have a more powerful affect in convincing the public that it had been conned on 9/11 than even the Pentagon scam!

Ranke will UNDOUBTEDLY launch another of his savage attacks for thinking outside of the box in which he is so firmly entrenched. Who knows what I have said here that may trigger off another massive retaliatory response. I can only address these issues based on my current understanding, however flawed it may be.

It doesn't take balls to walk away from a intellectual confrontation, which has never been my style. I admit I have been surprised to be attacked from so many different sides. But we all have to appreciate that solving 9/11 requires many kinds of resources, including those of CIT, those of Pilots, and even those of mine.

Jim

QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Feb 10 2011, 09:28 AM) *
Jim I think one of the reasons why Craig gets so frustrated is that all of this hard work and research is in the public domain and is easily accessible to the expert as well as the layman.
Secondly, when you show up and start asking questions about items are irreleveant to the OP, it only clutters the thread. For example Gage's new public declaration and suggesting Craig should address that. I can only imagine how frustrated the 'Men" wink.gif of CIT are. They interviewed some witnessess about the Pentagon attack put the information into the public domain, and the attack dogs show up lambasting the information, making unfounded accusations, etc. and these were from people on supposedly the same 'side' and the list goes on. So I suspect, Craig is a little frustrated at covering the same things over and over.

And then you pop in on this OP and start asking questions about other items. Stutts new theory??? What relevance does that have to this thread? Secondly, Stutt is addressed in other parts of the forum so if you want to know his theory, research those threads instead of cluttering this one.

I think Jim that some of your points and questions could be answered by your own research which is why Craig is referrring to it as 'sloppy'. It has been covered elsewhere.

Jim, thanks for the heresay info on your flyover witness. Did you ever happen to follow up with his family members to see if the individual who saw the plane fly away discussed it with friends or family?

Posted by: GroundPounder Feb 10 2011, 01:53 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 8 2011, 03:40 PM) *
The part I have had wrong is that I (mistakenly) supposed their witnesses were affirming that the plane had passed north of the Citgo station. That is a simple and salient point, where their reliability would be high.


YES!! exactly. salient and reliable!

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 8 2011, 03:40 PM) *
The differences between the NTSB trajectory and what they are inferring from the witnesses is less certain.


that's where the mistake is made. the difference is HUGE. if you have a north of the citgo approach, the downed light poles aren't possible and path of damge inside the pentagon doesn't work. it's simple. don't over think it.


still need a law reference for "an admission contrary to interest" . thanks in advance.

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 10 2011, 02:24 PM

Here are some sources that are easily accessible via google:

Declaration against interest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A declaration against interest differs from a party admission because here the ... was so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_against_interest - Cached - Similar

Admission Against Interest Law & Legal Definition
An admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule which allows a person to testify to a stament of another that reveals something ...
definitions.uslegal.com › Legal Definitions Home › A - Cached - Similar

admission against interest legal definition of admission against ...
admission against interest n. an admission of the truth of a fact by any person, but especially by the parties to a lawsuit, when a statement obviously ...
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/admission+against+interest - Cached - Similar

admission against interest n. an admission of the truth of a fact by any person, but especially by the parties to a lawsuit, when a statement obviously would do that person harm, be embarrassing, or be against his/her personal or business interests. A third party can quote in court an admission against interest even though it is only hearsay. (See: hearsay, admission)

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Feb 10 2011, 12:53 PM) *
YES!! exactly. salient and reliable!



that's where the mistake is made. the difference is HUGE. if you have a north of the citgo approach, the downed light poles aren't possible and path of damge inside the pentagon doesn't work. it's simple. don't over think it.


still need a law reference for "an admission contrary to interest" . thanks in advance.

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 10 2011, 03:45 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer)
The part I have had wrong is that I (mistakenly) supposed their witnesses were affirming that the plane had passed north of the Citgo station. That is a simple and salient point, where their reliability would be high. The differences between the NTSB trajectory and what they are inferring from the witnesses is less certain.


What happens when some of those witnesses couldn't physically have seen the "NTSB trajectory" or were in a position where they could not describe certain aspects because of their surroundings?

Terry Morin was in between the wings of the Navy Annex and is on record as saying that the aircraft went over his head and that he couldn't see the stripes on the side of the plane. That description narrows the physicality of his testimony considerably.

http://www.thepentacon.com/ona.htm

He should have been able to see this according to the data and his POV:

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/gifs/morinPOVsouth.gif

QUOTE
06:50

¨MORIN: WHEN THE PLANE WENT RIGHT OVER THE TOP OF ME I WAS WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE EDGE OF THE WING (OF THE ANNEX)

CRAIG : SO YOU WERE KINDA IN BETWEEN THEM (THE WINGS OF THE ANNEX)

(...)

MORIN: I WAS INSIDE..FLEW OVER THE TOP OF ME¨

....

CRAIG: WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT THE PLANE FLEW ON THE SOUTHSIDE, SOUTH OF COLUMBIA PIKE?

MORIN: NO FRICKIN´ WAY. IT FLEW OVER THE TOP OF ME

....

I HAD NO SIDE-VIEW. IF I HAD HAVE HAD A SIDE-VIEW I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THE STRIPES AND IDENTIFY IT AS AN AMERICAN AIRLINES JET..I DIDN´T SEE THE STRIPES, ALL I COULD SEE WAS THE BELLY¨


(sorry for the caps...gotta fix that)


William Lagasse was at the Citgo Gas Station and was under the canopy. Looking toward the official/directional damage path from his POV, he wouldn't have and is on record as stating that he couldn't have physically described what he remembers seeing. Namely the "starboard" of the aircraft, corraborated exactly by his co officer Brooks who was not under the canopy but viewing from behind the gas station and drew the exact same flightpath.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/gifs/northside.gif

http://i43.tinypic.com/23jimc2.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/ivg1f5.jpg

Robert Turcios confirmed this and pointed to an overhead sign as a landmark which he remembered that the aircraft had to "pull up" to avoid.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/gifs/Robertpointsnorth.gif

http://i42.tinypic.com/1znvix2.jpg

Sean Boger, who was directly facing both the gas station and the Navy Annex and whose description cannot be twisted into some "line of sight issue" as the official path is to his left for the entire duration.

http://www.thepentacon.com/SeanBogerATC.htm

http://i40.tinypic.com/sq6mus.jpg

William Middleton and all of the ANC witnesses have a memory of the aircraft coming straight for them and banking over/beside the ANC carpark.
William Middleton in particular was in a position where he could not physically see the official path (and in fact can be seen to have the most northern approach over the Annex) as it allegedly passed the south side of the Annex and detractors have to paint these people as, well, morons/liars/cointel (I kid you not) or to have jointly hallucinated the image of the aircraft's position as it came towards and passed them.

http://thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giX1a1qnL_w

http://i39.tinypic.com/1zlbvkk.gif

All interviews here:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

Chandler and Cole made the claim that http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/CIT-Response-to-David-Chandler-and-Jonathan-Cole-Pentagon-Statement/#hill and apparently his "interview techniques" are above board?

This same guy found more NOC witnesses Jim. CIT have been painted as somehow hiding the "impact" testimony which is a blatant lie as all interviews are available warts and all. As to "leading" them?
Watch the interviews.

Detractor and denier of his own early solid research, http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=14657&st=0 sent a questionnaire to Robert Turcios asking him to pinpoint where he saw the aircraft (again) and he reiterated what he had told CIT.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/rt2.jpg

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 11 2011, 02:52 PM

Off topic posts have been split and moved here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21084

STAY ON TOPIC PLEASE!

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Feb 11 2011, 04:58 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 9 2011, 04:20 PM) *
With that said, Stutt's new "additional" data is what one would expect to see if a "flyover" occurred, but his data has the aircraft on the south approach (based on heading), and is inconclusive based on lat/long.

I was just trying to take the WStutt data and go back from the alleged point of impact (he alleges the plane impacted 5gon, using the accelerations in last subframe, doesn't he?) using heading giving the exactitude of like <0.5meter sidewards for the given distances traveled in one second and groundspeed which I recalculated on distance traveled with a centimeter exactitude and looked if it would fit the pathway pattern of the lat/lon coordinates. When I go backwards there is relatively slight but consistent divergence (just for quick idea ~7 meters/second) What could it mean? Wind?? But it was less as I look into http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KDCA/2001/9/11/DailyHistory.html - 5.1 m/s for 9:41. if I count it well and even if I subtract the wind then the average divergence of 1.9 m/s would put the plane from the needed airpath to NoC in just around a minute and from the given FDR coordinates in just like 40 seconds which happens to be the time from when the plane finished the turn and aimed to pentagon. Moreover the divergence goes not from the very first point, but from the second when the plane happens to be closest to Citgo. then for the last two periods the before consistent divergence goes sharply backwards. I don't want to much speculate, but could it look that the coordinates although not at the needed airpath anyway are riged to get the plane from NoC at least the a bit more than halfway southwards? dunno.gif If anybody is interested in this I can make the pictures.

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 11 2011, 07:17 PM

Assuming this is "on topic", I recall having no particular problem with CIT's interviews in the past and, while I have not reviewed them again, I expect I will still feel fine about them. My suggestion about someone who is an expert in the psychology of interviews and the subtle introduction of bias was on the order of "trust but verify".

I am active on too many forums and debates, alas, so I want to offer my suggestion for Pilots as to one way the society might proceed. I published an earlier piece, "New Study from Pilots" (in 2007) and, more recently, "What didn't happen at the Pentagon" (first on rense.com in 2009 and later on jamesfetzer.blogspot.com 2010).

While my press release from Scholars, "New Study from Pilots", may have gone further than the society was willing to go at that time, with the additional information provided by CIT, on the one hand, and by Mike Sparks, on the other, now might be the right time for Pilots to publish a more definitive study along roughly these lines:

Tentative title: "No Boeing 757 Hit the Pentagon"

The official account is not supported by the debris,
violates the laws of aerodynamics, and has been
contradicted by the government's own FDR data.

The witnesses the government cites to support its
account are far less impressive than advertised,
and new witnesses contradict the official account.

It thus becomes apparent that the official theory
of the Pentagon has been refuted by the available
evidence and appears to be no more than a fantasy.

Sections:

Part I: The Official Account

(a) The Missing Debris

(b) The Impossible Trajectory

© The NTSB Contradiction

Part II: The Witnesses

(a) The official witnesses

(b) The Mike Sparks' Critique

© CIT's New Witnesses

The best supported account involves a fly-over
coordinated with explosive demolitions in order
to created the impression of a causal relation.

The complete flight path of this plane has not
been finally determined, but the new witnesses
confirm that it passed north of the Citgo station.

Their testimony thus provides empirical proof
that it did not approach from the south, did not
hit any lampposts, and that debris was planted.

It is my belief that CIT's new witnesses strengthen the case for an alternative account and that Mike Spark's critique weakens the case for the official trajectory, which is inconsistent with the debris and aerodynamically impossible, in any case. Studies from Pilots on this issue carry more weight than ones coming from Scholars and me.

I therefore recommend that Pilots consider adopting this course of action. While there may be difficulties in sorting out the complete trajectory based upon conflicting reports, there appears to be agreement that it came toward the building north of the Citgo station. It would be perfectly appropriate to emphasize that crucial data point.

I am sure that there are members who believe that Pilots should do nothing unless it can explain everything. The problem with that approach, however, is that, in all probability, we will never be able to explain "everything". I believe you have enough evidence at your disposal to make a decisive contribution to the Pentagon debate.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 11 2011, 02:52 PM) *
Off topic posts have been split and moved here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21084

STAY ON TOPIC PLEASE!

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Feb 11 2011, 07:34 PM

illustration of the above

even with the very bad picture which I took to show whole situation, one clearly sees the divergence with bare eye. Red line the heading/groundspeed flightpath representation taken backwards from the alleged point of impact with the transversal/longitudinal exactitude of <1 meter/1 second of flight where the point "1" is the beginning of the subframe 151368 from the WStutts FDR (testing his assumption the end of the subframe is the impact). Important to say, to avoid silly questions that between point 6 and 7 there is four times identical heading value 59.4 in FDR, so I didn't waste time to put nodes inbetween (as measuring in GE in centimeters needs firm hand). FDR-blue, DCA-yelow, AWR green, PLA-pink
.

Posted by: mrmitosis Feb 11 2011, 09:20 PM

Craig and Aldo - firstly, congratulations on producing such a compelling presentation in 2006. I'm embarrassed to admit that I only watched National Security Alert for the first time yesterday. You put together a very persuasive case which dovetails quite nicely with the NTSB data analysis done by Rob Balsamo and other aviation professionals.

And - ironically - it seems Legge's and Stutt's recent paper has done a better job of corroborating the work of CIT and P4T than it did to debunk it.

If your counter-response fails to ellicit a properly considered counter-counter-response to the statement made by Chandler and Cole, then the situation could be quite damaging for their credibility. This is a shame, because although I am unfamiliar with anything done by Jonathan Cole, I have had a deep respect for David Chandler for quite some time. But it seems they have shot each other in the foot this time, with what can only be described as a sloppy and unwarranted hatchet job. In particular, I find their willingness to endorse Jeff Hill's "research" into the Pentagon attack - while in the same breath, lambasting the work of CIT - totally confusing.

I stumbled across this video earlier -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeR_KoXOXZ8&feature=related

Perhaps you're already aware of it (although apparently it was uploaded only a couple of months ago). But for those who haven't watched it yet, it would have to be the most schizophrenic and irrational presentation I've seen in my life. What's even worse is the gratuitous inclusion of animated snowflakes and a horrific MIDI saturated version of Auld Lang Syne.

thumbdown.gif

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Feb 12 2011, 05:47 AM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Feb 11 2011, 02:20 PM) *
And - ironically - it seems Legge's and Stutt's recent paper has done a better job of corroborating the work of CIT and P4T than it did to debunk it.

If your counter-response fails to ellicit a properly considered counter-counter-response to the statement made by Chandler and Cole, then the situation could be quite damaging for their credibility. This is a shame, because although I am unfamiliar with anything done by Jonathan Cole, I have had a deep respect for David Chandler for quite some time. But it seems they have shot each other in the foot this time, with what can only be described as a sloppy and unwarranted hatchet job. In particular, I find their willingness to endorse Jeff Hill's "research" into the Pentagon attack - while in the same breath, lambasting the work of CIT - totally confusing.

I think that statements like:
"...the Pentagon is a dead-end for research. The puzzle of the Pentagon might be fascinating or intriguing, but as an avenue to determining the truth, it seems doomed to failure. The ones who want it covered up literally hold all the cards." (Cole/Chandler) are really disgrace regardles whether CIT is right with NoC or not.

To me it still looks like CIT is right (although I would be very reluctant to make conclusions just based on witness accounts) and the Stutt/Legge paper only shows how pathetic can be the attempts to infirm what the CIT witnesses say, respectively confirm the official account. (Btw how something about very nontrivial aviation problem written by laymans can be proclamed "peer-reviewed" when no aviation professional with expertise and credentials approved it whatsoever, isn't it outright fraud? - not from the side of authors, but from the side of publisher.)

I think the campaign against CIT is also disgrace because what CIT should do anyway? Should they say something like, no, we didn't interviewed anybody and if we did they lie...or what? Just because some people publish some barely researched articles backed by notorious gatekeepers of the informations or with history of misinformation dissemination? One wonders how is possible people buy into their stuff. In this respect I'm paradoxicly even more convinced this is more about some politics not about a truth, when I've for example now found out the 911blogger again censored my article (published http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21076) which thoroughly rebutted one of the Stutt/Legge presumption in their paper and also the above Cole/Chandler silly "conclusion". (Fair to say Warren Stutt in our personal communication looks like he backed off from the presumption in question after confronted with evidence to the contrary, which would indicate some intelectual honesty from his part).

I think real disgrace is not the Legge/Stutt paper - everybody has the right to publish his views, just must count on that it would be closely scrutinized and maybe rebutted (- this is the real scientific method all about - it is based on fasification, not on confirmation bias.) The disgrace is that it is socially used for silly attacks against certain people for their work by some who apparently barely understand what it is about. Even if the CIT wouldn't have point -need to say supported by many witnesses not wild speculations- what authorizes others to lead a public denunciative campaign against them? There must be something more in it...and as I look into the officialy released data (and their absolutely clearly tampered with and outright fabricated outputs), including the data redecoded by Warren Stutt, to me it looks like the Pentagon is paradoxicly hot candidate for breaking the OCT into pieces and already now it brought out some evidence from multiple data sources mutually corroborating each other, which would very likely rewrite the official account of the 911 Pentagon attack including 911 Commission report conclusions.

Posted by: 9elevened Feb 12 2011, 04:34 PM

<Did you see how SnowCrash replied to my queries over at 911blogger?>

SnowCrash bwahahahaha. what a waste.

for what little time I was allowed on 911blogger belittled me as a "newbie" who had not spent enough time on research, then referred me to his own research, with just one glance at it I saw he was still presenting "faces in windows" Cissell as fact when a furious Cissell himself came forward FOUR YEARS AGO to say he was misquoted (faces in windows at that speed would have been physically impossible to see) and that the event happened so quickly he did not even see what airline it was

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/300606flight77.htm


Once I was banned I sent the above and other rebuttals to snowcrash directly by e-mail but no response. I've also sent 911blogger e-mails asking why they do not allow the courtesy of public rebuttals on their website and in fact have closed themselves off (as has already been stated here) to just one side of the debate. No answer there either.

Who is actually "dividing the 911 community" on this issue? why 911blogger, of course

Posted by: 9elevened Feb 12 2011, 04:48 PM

<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 what's so hard to understand about an Operation Northwoods style-plot that would have planted witnesses, Frank Probst being the most potentially obvious

tho I personally think that Patterson/Khafkin/Knowles were merely reporting what they saw on the day of and are not planted witnessse. . .Patterson apparently interviewed before the announcement that it "was" Flight 77.

Khavkin's POV has come under question but even if she ultimately elaborated on what she saw, what she did note about the noise of the small plane could have come from the necessity of "souping it up" and the plotters knowing they would have to provide some visual evidence of a plane attacking the Pentagon after already knowing it would be physically impossible to do it with a 757 or similar, whether a remote-controlled Flight 77 or "other"

and there is absolutely no reason for the plotters to be planting stories about a small plane. That's notching paranoia up to a whole new level hahaha

and the point about Kevin Ryan not doing the same research on the Pentagon is spot on. It would have been even easier to plant explosives at the Pentagon, and indeed we have the witnesses to explosions and the smell of cordite at just after 9:30, while NORAD maintained for two years that the Pentagon was hit at 9:45 (quite a time gap), and outside witnesses put the outside explosions at after 9:40.

To me this suggests bombs planted to destroy the comptrollers office, the smaller plane sent in to "cover" once it was assured the comptrollers offices were destroyed (or possibly arriving late), the "missile" being what Cheney was advised of (the plane is 50 miles out, 25 miles out, do the orders still stand)

especially as NORAD stated of all the four planes Flight 77 could not be tracked, so how was Cheney being advised of it, and how was the C-130 pilot put on to it?

Posted by: 9elevened Feb 12 2011, 05:49 PM

<the plotters knowing they would have to provide some visual evidence of a plane attacking the Pentagon after already knowing it would be physically impossible to do it with a 757 or similar, whether a remote-controlled Flight 77 or "other">

or at the very least completely unreliable no matter which side of the argument you are on related to ground effect, for which none of the terrorists were trained for, and assuming you think Hanjour could have hit a blind target on the ground from that altitude anyway

and Hanjour etc definitely unreliable if the plotters wanted these targets hit (for example what if they had chickened out at the last moment, etc), and especially if they wanted the comptrollers offices hit, when Hanjour could have simply dumped Flight 77 on top of the Pentagon on the first passover based on the govt story

(which actually tho was the fighter pilot sent to investigate after the first INSIDE explosions reported at just after 9:30, made the high speed turn and dive to observe the Pentagon at 9:37-9:38 and REPORTED NO OUTSIDE DAMAGE and immediately left the scene)

Posted by: jfetzer Feb 12 2011, 06:59 PM

Check out this video surveying damage to the interior of the Pentagon
after damaged portions had been removed. No fire damage is present:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cva3756BA_U

This reinforces the conclusion that those four "fireball" frames were faked,
and, with fraud in the evidence, there is no reason to trust official evidence.

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 11 2011, 07:17 PM) *
Assuming this is "on topic", I recall having no particular problem with CIT's interviews in the past and, while I have not reviewed them again, I expect I will still feel fine about them. My suggestion about someone who is an expert in the psychology of interviews and the subtle introduction of bias was on the order of "trust but verify".

I am active on too many forums and debates, alas, so I want to offer my suggestion for Pilots as to one way the society might proceed. I published an earlier piece, "New Study from Pilots" (in 2007) and, more recently, "What didn't happen at the Pentagon" (first on rense.com in 2009 and later on jamesfetzer.blogspot.com 2010).

While my press release from Scholars, "New Study from Pilots", may have gone further than the society was willing to go at that time, with the additional information provided by CIT, on the one hand, and by Mike Sparks, on the other, now might be the right time for Pilots to publish a more definitive study along roughly these lines:

Tentative title: "No Boeing 757 Hit the Pentagon"

The official account is not supported by the debris,
violates the laws of aerodynamics, and has been
contradicted by the government's own FDR data.

The witnesses the government cites to support its
account are far less impressive than advertised,
and new witnesses contradict the official account.

It thus becomes apparent that the official theory
of the Pentagon has been refuted by the available
evidence and appears to be no more than a fantasy.

Sections:

Part I: The Official Account

(a) The Missing Debris

(b) The Impossible Trajectory

© The NTSB Contradiction

Part II: The Witnesses

(a) The official witnesses

(b) The Mike Sparks' Critique

© CIT's New Witnesses

The best supported account involves a fly-over
coordinated with explosive demolitions in order
to created the impression of a causal relation.

The complete flight path of this plane has not
been finally determined, but the new witnesses
confirm that it passed north of the Citgo station.

Their testimony thus provides empirical proof
that it did not approach from the south, did not
hit any lampposts, and that debris was planted.

It is my belief that CIT's new witnesses strengthen the case for an alternative account and that Mike Spark's critique weakens the case for the official trajectory, which is inconsistent with the debris and aerodynamically impossible, in any case. Studies from Pilots on this issue carry more weight than ones coming from Scholars and me.

I therefore recommend that Pilots consider adopting this course of action. While there may be difficulties in sorting out the complete trajectory based upon conflicting reports, there appears to be agreement that it came toward the building north of the Citgo station. It would be perfectly appropriate to emphasize that crucial data point.

I am sure that there are members who believe that Pilots should do nothing unless it can explain everything. The problem with that approach, however, is that, in all probability, we will never be able to explain "everything". I believe you have enough evidence at your disposal to make a decisive contribution to the Pentagon debate.

Posted by: 9elevened Feb 12 2011, 07:51 PM

I think I can put it even more simply

SOME PEOPLE have decided that compared to some aspects of the WTC, the Pentagon aspect is inherently unprovable (even though Chandler at least lists some of the more obvious problems with the official Pentagon account before launching into the attack on CIT)

and so talking about the Pentagon hurts the 911 movement overall, and as a result the (so far quite shoddy) attempts at closing down debate.

Conversely, though I don't think this will ever happen, I believe that if the majority of the public somehow comes to understand the inherent physics problems at the WTC they will become that much more curious and inquisitive about the inherent physics problems at the Pentagon.

Posted by: 9elevened Feb 12 2011, 08:01 PM

<This reinforces the conclusion that those four "fireball" frames were faked,
and, with fraud in the evidence, there is no reason to trust official evidence.>

I've lost the links and have been wrecking my brain trying to remember the videographer's name, but he gives a step by step case on how the Pentagon frames were altered, including

A) painting on a (larger) tail

B) whoever altered them had no training in 3D construction (i.e., white exhaust must enter the ground not overlay it -- unless I have that backwards haha)

C) even accounting for a last second burst of speed, 2-3 frames must be missing before the explosion

I still lean to a small plane being sent in to "cover" for the earlier explosions (possibly arriving late), the smaller plane being seen by I think about 9 witnesses and almost all of them from their apartments with the best vantage points. Since it was either impossible (and if not impossible completely unreliable) for a large plane to be used, they would have substituted a smaller one for the visual effect and denigrated any witnesses to it (as has happened) as mistaking a large plane for a small one based on the distance. But in fact we also have the USA Today reporter who initally said "no engines under the wings" before amending it to "I'm sure it was Flight 77."

Posted by: 9elevened Feb 12 2011, 08:18 PM

all of that said there is an inherent problem with eyewitness testimony, and nothing is more illustrative of it than 911

juries are routinely instructed by judges that circumstantial evidence is to be given more weight in a trial than eyewitness testimony, because eyewitness testimony can be notoriously contradictory when numerous witnesses are involved, and faulty even involving just one witness

and in the case of 911, there was always the opportunity for the plotters to supply false witnesses as was planned by the Joint Chiefs for Operation Northwoods, including fake relatives of the faked dead to be paraded in front of the media. In this case even Todd "Let's Roll" Beamer becomes questionable as he worked for possible 911 collaborator Ellison, the owner of Oracle, which has been revealed to be a thinly-veiled CIA front.

Posted by: aerohead Feb 12 2011, 10:31 PM

QUOTE (9elevened @ Feb 12 2011, 07:18 PM) *
all of that said there is an inherent problem with eyewitness testimony, and nothing is more illustrative of it than 911

juries are routinely instructed by judges that circumstantial evidence is to be given more weight in a trial than eyewitness testimony, because eyewitness testimony can be notoriously contradictory when numerous witnesses are involved, and faulty even involving just one witness

and in the case of 911, there was always the opportunity for the plotters to supply false witnesses as was planned by the Joint Chiefs for Operation Northwoods, including fake relatives of the faked dead to be paraded in front of the media. In this case even Todd "Let's Roll" Beamer becomes questionable as he worked for possible 911 collaborator Ellison, the owner of Oracle, which has been revealed to be a thinly-veiled CIA front.



Thats good to know, thank you 9elevened.
I am very familiar with Northwoods and to me it
explains everything about the 9/11 puzzlebox.



I watched some video yesterday of the towers coming down, live
footage. And as i heard the people screaming in horror, i remembered
how "gut-punched" i felt that day.

Now all i feel is rage.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 13 2011, 12:03 AM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Feb 12 2011, 01:20 AM) *
Craig and Aldo - firstly, congratulations on producing such a compelling presentation in 2006. I'm embarrassed to admit that I only watched National Security Alert for the first time yesterday. You put together a very persuasive case which dovetails quite nicely with the NTSB data analysis done by Rob Balsamo and other aviation professionals.

And - ironically - it seems Legge's and Stutt's recent paper has done a better job of corroborating the work of CIT and P4T than it did to debunk it.


Thank you so much MrMitosis. And nobody is perfect. You may want to watch our other presentations as well:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/morevideos.html

As for the other stuff, you just have to realize when you are watching a video by an infiltrator bent on ridiculing and giving the impression that there is something to ridicule and not take seriously.

Well, as you know there is something to take seriously and not ridicule.

Lloyde England is implicated by the north-of-Citgo flight path and cryptically and virtually admitted involvement in the staging of the event. Of course the intelligence agencies behind this operation AND that handled or are handling him want to try and paint him as the victim and us as the clowns that should be ridiculed and persecuted.

HIS cab was damaged. HE smiled and talked of it being planned by the people with the money. He said when it comes to him it will be so big he can't do anything about it. The plane was NOWHERE near that pole or any of the poles. The charade is up.

Posted by: 9elevened Feb 13 2011, 04:05 AM

thanks. I don't know how much I would've gotten into this without the Operation Northwoods doc. Very chilling reading the Joint Chiefs planning matter of factly to attack their own country in order to start a war. JFK and McNamara forbade it, did Bush/Cheney or very definitely Cheney/Rumsfeld who are at the very center of all this okay "Operation 911"? Rumsfeld's June 2001 stand down order definitely had the effect of stopping fighter pilots who normally would have arrived in time to if nothing else observe the "airliners."

Funny thing about Gage over at A&E, he appears to have no problem with the idea of remote controlled planes hitting the WTC.

As for the Pentagon, the plotters would have known they could not reliably hit the comptrollers office with a 757, so I see the timeline as this (largely Barbara Honegger's):

Just after 9:30: bombs go off INSIDE the Pentagon, destroying the comptrollers offices and killing most of those attempting to trace the $2.3 trillion. Witnesses including those injured notice smell of explosives. No damage outside as of yet. I think one of Honegger's injured witnesses whose watch was broken at just after 9:30 by the explosions is the same one who is currently suing Cheney/Rumsfeld. (remember NORAD maintained for two years that the Pentagon was hit at 9:45. That's almost 15 minutes between the first reports of explosions and the arrival of a plane)

9:37-9:38: the patrolling fighter pilot (remember NORAD said Flight 77 could not be tracked) ordered to observe the Pentagon after the reports of the 9:30 explosions arrives. THIS is the high speed turn and dive plane observed by ATC. The pilot reports no OBSERVABLE damage (nothing outside) and immediately leaves the area.

just after 9:40: the time described by outside witnesses for the plane hit/OUTSIDE explosions. The plane sent in to cover for the earlier explosions, perhaps arriving late.

Again, the plotters would have known they could not send in reliably a remote-controlled big plane to hit exactly where they wanted because of the potential ground effect. Did they instead supply a small, souped-up plane mocked up to resemble an AA jet (not unlike the phony Cuban MIG suggested for Operation Northwoods)?

was this smaller plane sent in by remote control, even guided by the C130 or the Boeing E4 govt command and control plane that the govt has admitted was also over the Pentagon that morning? The C-130 pilot also most curiously was the first to see the smoking remains of "Flight 93."

The Boeing E4 with its blue stripes running along the sides (at least in the version pictured on govt etc websites) is a good candidate as a "double" for Flight 77, a AA Boeing 757. Such as the retired general on the freeway describing Flight 77 as loitering in the air instead of coming in like a bullet. The E4 obviously could have arrived first at a much slower speed, circling and flying low over the Pentagon as it was guiding the smaller incoming craft (which would also have been filled with explosives).

We have several witnesses to a small plane including it hitting the Pentagon (tho it seems Khavkin for one exaggerated about what she could actually see, but she may also merely have made assumptions about the outcome once the small plane left her POV. I for one find it extremely doubtful that the plotters would see fit to plant stories about a small plane, it's just unnecessary as far as they would be concerned even if you're talking merely flyover/bombs.).

We also have several witnesses to two planes flying low, one hitting the Pentagon and the other flying off. Could the notorious black box be from this other plane (assuming the E4), flying 100 feet above the Pentagon, knowing there was no real danger to the country, its flight deck door never opened, controlling the smaller "missile"? The damage to the Pentagon is definitely suggestive of a smaller, explosive-laden plane that could have hit the generator where the higher wings of a 757 couldn't, especially if it was banking to the left as according to the NIST at time of impact. There is also the (ultimately burning) tree that should have been bisected by the wings of a 757.

Tho I think this CIT interview with the cab driver is certainly interesting. It would definitely help CITs case if this guy was to suddenly "disappear"

Posted by: KP50 Feb 13 2011, 04:47 AM

9elevened,

You seem to be musing aloud here on the forum, which is all very interesting. However - eyewitness evidence is very, very unreliable if you read it from mainstream media reports which often turn out to contain "facts" that the witnesses never stated when the witnesses are interviewed later.

I wonder if you have watched the video National Security Alert (produced by CIT) yet and if not, why not? It contains detailed statements of witnesses on location and their statements point to a flightpath discrepancy such that the plane could not have struck the lightpoles. Examining all witness testimony, it is very difficult to find a single witness who supports the official flightpath, in fact Lloyd England is pretty much the only one - and nobody corroborates his tale.

Please watch the video before commenting again as it may change your views on the Pentagon substantially.

Thanks,
KP

Posted by: amazed! Feb 13 2011, 12:04 PM

9elevened

Good posts, and plausible.

Posted by: 9elevened Feb 13 2011, 03:36 PM

<I wonder if you have watched the video National Security Alert (produced by CIT) yet and if not, why not? It contains detailed statements of witnesses on location and their statements point to a flightpath discrepancy such that the plane could not have struck the lightpoles. Examining all witness testimony, it is very difficult to find a single witness who supports the official flightpath, in fact Lloyd England is pretty much the only one - and nobody corroborates his tale. >

I do plan to watch it tho I think I've read enough here including the various CIT member and other posts to "get it" (including posts on other threads, not just this one). I've already posted some of those discrepancies myself, such as Cissell the faces in windows guy coming forward to say he was misquoted. Whatever these witnesses were seeing, it wasn't Flight 77. Also so far I've read most of the way through the CIT rebuttal to Chandler.

as I tried to point out with that judge/jury post (circumstantial evidence is given more weight than eyewitness testimony), Balsamo etc have proven what COULDN'T have happened and that alone (like the physics at the WTC) is really sufficient.

So really the point specifically on this thread is that Chandler and cohorts are wrong for discounting both Pilots and attacking the CIT investigations, especially as the whole Pentagon thing would have been even easier for the plotters to pull off.

However it was done, whether small guided plane (Rumsfeld's "missile") covering for earlier bombs or just flyover/bombs, they still needed a double for Flight 77. . . or basically a "visual" of a plane attacking the Pentagon. The govt Boeing E4 as a lookalike for an AA jet (even if just govt lettering obscured and blue stripes left intact) fits perfectly.

I read CIT's categorized list of witnesses on another thread and apparently about 9 people still say they saw a small plane (Khavkin discounted since she won't respond, but I don't think that's necessarily "suspicious," maybe she just does not want to be involved especially as it appears she made some assumptions after the plane left her POV).

And there are still three "hard" witnesses to two planes.

Since I see no logical reason for the plotters to plant stories about a small plane (it simply does not fit their purposes), I merely state there is no reason to discount what those witnesses saw, unless you argue they merely mistook a big plane for a smaller one because of the distances.

You could just as easily argue that those who saw a big plane flashing over their heads at nearly the speed of a bullet mistook a small (and I would think somehow supercharged) one for a big one (Cissell says he never saw faces but still says "big plane"). The engine or engines we've been shown are simply too small to be Boeing 757 Rolls Royce engines. Why not "plant" Rolls Royce engines? Somebody saw fit to plant 3 terrorist passport/identifications. If they took down the lampposts with explosives, they apparently forgot the trees. And then there's the USA Today reporter who initially said, on camera or definitely recorded I think, his first impression was there were no engines under the wings.

One of the things that really sticks in my mind about 911 was how many pilots all over the world including military pilots came forward to immediately say they could not have duplicated Hanjour's feat. Again, Mr. Chandler and cohorts (tho I do respect your work on the WTC), what more "evidence" do we really need . . .

Posted by: 9elevened Feb 13 2011, 05:20 PM

<Whatever these witnesses were seeing, it wasn't Flight 77. >

unless Charles Burlingame obviously an "insider" who had participated in planning against a terror attack on the Pentagon agreed to overfly the Pentagon and land the plane elsewhere. Presumably any innocents aboard would have been taken care of after the flight, or detained at the airport before boarding. Note we don't have any security footage from departure lounges, that would identify passengers if not hijackers.

The Dulles footage of Hanjour and crew is obviously bogus (no date or time stamp) and was publicly released by a judge over the objections of the govt in a civil suit. It is obviously surveillance footage made by an intelligence agency as Hanjour was lured around the country under false promises of an airline career.

Michael Chertoff was named to head the FBI investigation of 911. When the 911 Commission asked for the actual impounded plane/passenger phone records, Chertoff refused and instead provided his own written "summary" of the calls. According to a German researcher, an AA spokesman has confirmed that the plane operating as Flight 77 that day did not have back of seat phones. No one has been able to successfully complete a cell phone call from Flight 77's stated altitude and speed

There is also the suggestion of remote control (which ultimately becomes part of Gage's WTC presentation at least as presented on Coast to Coast radio). Raytheon defense contractors related to pilotless flight, DOD personnel etc were aboard three of the four planes. Were they lured aboard to take control of the planes as part of Cheney's war games to stage an international incident, not knowing it would actually end in their deaths? One's wife (not a 911 Truther) stated he was unusually nervous as he waited for the limousine to take him for the weekly trip to the airport.

Flight 93 was 45 minutes late taking off. Maybe they couldn't get the remote control to work (and so was ultimately shot down)? Beamer worked for Ellison at Oracle, a potential 911 conspirator. Was Flight 93 arranged as the patriotic/ray of hope plane?

any or all of the above could obviously have been elements of an Operation Northwoods type plot

in other words, Chandler and crew are ignoring A LOT of circumstantial evidence

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 13 2011, 05:39 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 13 2011, 05:04 PM) *
9elevened

Good posts, and plausible.


Hi Amazed!

Each of the points 9elevened raised regarding the Pentagon op itself are almost a carbon copy of what I once considered viable. "Missile", Honegger, "small second plane", etc but having watched CIT's presentations (which I recommend 9elevened to do, especially the extended versions - The Pentacon and Northside Flyover Part 1) and went through the other much touted available (alleged) testimonies and I personally ruled each of them out. Why?

Because for one to conclude that there was indeed a "second smaller plane", you first need to find somebody who saw both the "smaller plane" and simultaneously witnessed the commercial sized jet many witnesses did describe (whether a souped up version disguised as an AA jet as per Operation Northwoods - that I can believe).

As for the "predetonated explosives" at 09:32 that Honegger suggests, there simply aren't any witnesses that I know of that describe this. April Gallup did say that her watch stopped at 09:32(?) and the famous Pentagon clock image suggest this but how could they possibly detonate internal explosives even a minute before the attack plane entered the area, never mind 6, 7 or 8 minutes prior without Pentagon staff or people in traffic on Route 27 or Boger not be aware of this? Sorry, not buying it.

The "missile" theory IMO was purposely planted. CIT has http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=531 as far as I'm concerned. I personally believe that a projectile was fired from the generator trailer in mortar form but that's my personal opinion given that the aircraft wasn't on the trajectory necessary to "strike" it.

Speculation is all well and good but having been down this road, I believe the best course of action is to leave it up to the relevant authorities to explain what happened. The evidence is there. Why not hold their feet to the fire to explain just wtf happened instead of well intentioned individuals like the good people who post here bickering over theories?

Just my 2cents.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=2

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=269

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=844

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq.html

http://thepentacon.com/videoshorts.htm

Posted by: SanderO Feb 13 2011, 06:34 PM

I am curious about the cell phone matter.

Why is the speed of the plane a factor? At what speed would a cell phone have to be moving to have its signal dropped?

Since a cell phone is a low energy radio signal which is sent and received from ground based repeater antennas... isn't the issue, signal strength and signal to noise ratio and not speed of the phone?

I would like some one explain the speed which is often mentioned as being the reason a cell phone could not work on a plane.

Posted by: paranoia Feb 13 2011, 08:24 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 13 2011, 05:34 PM) *
I am curious about the cell phone matter.

Why is the speed of the plane a factor? At what speed would a cell phone have to be moving to have its signal dropped?

Since a cell phone is a low energy radio signal which is sent and received from ground based repeater antennas... isn't the issue, signal strength and signal to noise ratio and not speed of the phone?

I would like some one explain the speed which is often mentioned as being the reason a cell phone could not work on a plane.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handoff
http://it.toolbox.com/wiki/index.php/Handoff

see also:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9492&view=findpost&p=10413405
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9492&view=findpost&p=10430448
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9492&view=findpost&p=10432026

Posted by: SanderO Feb 13 2011, 10:15 PM

I quickly read the references about hand off and so forth, but I don't understand or didn't read anything that would determine why traveling a 300-400 mph would be too fast.

Can you explain or reference the maximum speed limit for a moving cell phone.

Posted by: albertchampion Feb 13 2011, 10:39 PM

depends upon the spacing of the towers, but 100mph is a good, rough figure.

as i have written[and many others too, i suppose] a connection cannot be sustained because the speed of an aircraft cruising at 200+ nautical miles per hour will be moving too fast. everyone in the telecom industry knows this by the way.

and it is as true today as it was ten years ago.

as i wrote some months ago, altitude is no longer the problem that it may have been in 2001. new, taller towers erected east of el paso and east of palm springs[along the interstate 10 sprint corridor] were able to connect with my top of the line samsung cell phone in a port side window seat, first class, continental 737-800 at 33,000 ft. but, even though i immediately responded to the call so as to pick-up the voice mail msg that i had my secretary leave just before my flight departed iah, the connections were lost. because of the aircraft's speed, we had flown beyond the tower's range[so a connection could not be cemented].

what was of even greater interest to me was the inability to even find a connection during the descent from palm springs into lax. consider, descending from 33,000 ft to nominal sea level, over one of the most cell towered metropolises in north america, i could find no signals. in all my many efforts since september 2001, and until the last two years, i was traveling iah-lax, lax-iah 4-8 times a year, i was never able to find a signal until after crossing I405 on virtual touchdown.

finally, now let us go back to all the purportedly commercial airliners on that day. i had sales engineering personnel who traveled in those areas. via automobile. with no exceptions, in 2001, those areas were virtually cell dead zones. there was virtually no cell coverage. and that was specifically the case with the area involving todd beamer's and barbara olson's flights.

and once again, everyone in the cell phone industry knows this.

capiche?

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 13 2011, 11:22 PM

And we're talking 2000-2001 mobile phone "technology".. biggrin.gif

http://k-tai.impress.co.jp/cda/static/image/2002/06/13/ippin01.jpg

http://jamesoff.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/dsc_4159.jpg

http://jamesoff.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/dsc_4160.jpg

I used to have to go to my front door to get 2 bars of reception so I can't imagine travelling a couple of thousand feet AGL at 540 mph inside an aluminium aircraft (one alleged mobile call was from inside the toilet on "Flight 93"!)

Posted by: SanderO Feb 14 2011, 01:47 AM

I am not an electronics person by any means. But my hunch is that it has little top do with velocity. The antenna repeaters are likely set to restrict the angle they aim their single.

Think of a light house.. it's does not illuminate upward and all the radiation of light is focused at the horizon where ships can see it.

Radio towers need to not waste energy... or maximize what they have so I suspect they transmit in narrow beam like a lighthouse fairly "close" to the ground. Since it radiates from a "point" there is spread and perhaps signal loss as the beam spreads out.

If the cell connection requires a hand shake in the both send and receive have to meet a minimum threshold the fixed stations may receive a signal but the cell phone cannot as it above the focused beam of the tower.

I am almost certain this has to do with beam width in the vertical axis and little to do with velocity. I'd guess that sat phones DO NOT have a velocity problem.

There may be other signal interference issues from the aluminum enclosure of the plane as well. But again this is not a velocity issue.

Since electronics and cell phone switching is not mechanical it takes place at almost the speed of light and so the velocity of the phone should have little bearing as long as it remain in range of a tower.

Posted by: paranoia Feb 14 2011, 02:59 AM

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=375

QUOTE
Written by Brad Mayeux
05 May 2005 01:37

I am a senior design RF cell phone engineer (cellular/CDMA engineer) and have designed systems for Sprint, Verizon and Alltel. I have 2 FCC licenses and have worked in the industry for 13 yrs. That out of the way...

OK all of the new handsets are .6 to 1 watt max.

From what i read several calls were made on flight 93 some were reported to last as long as 20 minuits. NO WAY ! We design these systems to work on the ground, ususally providing "downtilt" to the antenna, so the signal gets pointed downward.

There are calculations to do this. The range for a call site is 5 to 20 miles max, but that is on the ground. The handshaking is now refered to in digital as soft handoff, or hard handoff if you are going between systems, or in an analog mode. most phones today are now digital, though some can do both. for a handoff to occur (going from one cell to another) the system needs to have a neighbor list setup, telling the phone which cell is next on the list( i have made around 100 of these). at 500mph, the phone would have passed several sites and it would try to handoff to a site already passed. The phone can be in handoff with up to 3 sites at one time, but generally this can make things worse as it will degrade the signal.

Also inside of a metal plane, the signal degrades (it does in a car, or building by 3 to 6 db or more). I have done in building testing for years. each 3 db means 1/2 power. inside a metal plane i would guess it would be about the same, if you stick the antenna next to a window, MAYBE only 1 to 2 bd loss, but still a loss. i havent tested it, but i have a lot of experience in this area. Note there is a lot of messaging between the phone and the site, and at that height the signal would be quite low and the phone would get confused as to which site it is on.

I dont know the height the plane was at at that time, but the higher it is, the more signals come in, which degrades the quality and confuses the phone more, not to mention lowering the signal level.

One more thing, in remote areas, where these calls were made i believe, these companies do not build many sites. The sites cost 1/2 million a peice or so.

Just try driving from 1 city to another through a very rural area and see if your phone works, we point the antennas down the highways to get the most out of each site. Planes do not fly along highways
.

Posted by: SanderO Feb 14 2011, 07:27 AM

Thanks for the article about cell phones. If it is true it explains the factors which would make cell phone calls quite impossible. But his speed explanation as a factor doesn't wash. At 500 mph it takes a plane 1 minute to travel about 10 mpiles. It seems that one minute is ample time for the system to "set up" hand offs. But perhaps this is not true.

Posted by: amazed! Feb 14 2011, 12:12 PM

SanderO

In order to understand the cell phone issue, one must understand the design and details of the cell system. I am an inactive though licensed Ham Operator, and I have studied those systems.

As a matter of practical experience in flying both airplanes and helicopters, I'm here to tell you that altitude and airspeed of any aircraft in which a cell phone is used is very important, and of course it all depends upon the design of a cell system in any given geographical area.

Posted by: animaldoctor Feb 14 2011, 09:22 PM

Hi Craig and Aldo,


Your evidence is essentially flawless. Stop casting pearls before swine; you don't need the approval of Richard Gage or anyone else. F them. Get out there on your own and publish your findings before it is too late..... what are you waiting for? You have enough... go for it! Make a tight, concise, masses and academia-friendly presentation loaded with irrefutable facts - how could you possibly lose?

I may be naive, but have you approached SBS in Australia?

If you need funds, I'm more than happy to contribute to a specific end.

AD

Posted by: animaldoctor Feb 15 2011, 12:13 AM

....and there MUST be other news outlets that see this as a coup. The world is changing (momentarily) and your time starts NOW...... PLEASE GET YOUR INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE OUT THERE -- WHY ARE YOU WAITING? FOR WHAT ARE YOU WAITING? WHAT IS STOPPING YOU FROM GOING MAINSTREAM RIGHT NOW?

Posted by: consequential Feb 15 2011, 12:20 AM

QUOTE (animaldoctor @ Feb 14 2011, 11:13 PM) *
....and there MUST be other news outlets that see this as a coup. The world is changing (momentarily) and your time starts NOW...... PLEASE GET YOUR INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE OUT THERE -- WHY ARE YOU WAITING? FOR WHAT ARE YOU WAITING? WHAT IS STOPPING YOU FROM GOING MAINSTREAM RIGHT NOW?


A possible answer to your last question: CIT's many loud, vocal detractors, i.e. Chandler, Cole, Legge, Bursill, Hoffman, Ashley, Larson, Keogh, etc. etc. While they continue to occupy the mainstream of the "Truth Movement", it has/is/will be hard for this evidence to penetrate into mass media, and you could argue, that's just the point.

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 15 2011, 12:23 AM

QUOTE (animaldoctor @ Feb 14 2011, 11:13 PM) *
....and there MUST be other news outlets that see this as a coup. The world is changing (momentarily) and your time starts NOW...... PLEASE GET YOUR INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE OUT THERE -- WHY ARE YOU WAITING? FOR WHAT ARE YOU WAITING? WHAT IS STOPPING YOU FROM GOING MAINSTREAM RIGHT NOW?



animaldoctor,

How many media outlets have you walked into handing them a DVD of "National Security Alert"?

CIT has published their work. Unfortunately, they are human and cannot be omnipresent.

That is where people like you come in...

Get their DVD, make lots of copies.. hand them out.

It's just that simple.

Posted by: animaldoctor Feb 15 2011, 01:07 AM

Hi Rob,


I have been spouting facts about 9/11 since I saw video of WTC7 and have been marginalised by many friends- One of my best friends' father is (if I understand her correctly) ex-Canadian CIA equivalent (Surname=KEUHN)/KUEHN), a highly intelligent woman; ridicules me every time I raise the subject. I have pointed out to her that OF COURSE her father would tow the OCT line, to no avail. Next i'll tackle the disconnect with her in regard to how she thinks I rock at my job, and yet a pyschopathic conspiracy nut

I have just ordered the DVD 5 pack. Can't wait. Best wishes to Craig and Aldo - you guys seriously have it in the bag. Let it out. x

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 15 2011, 01:26 AM

QUOTE (animaldoctor @ Feb 15 2011, 12:07 AM) *
Hi Rob,


I have been spouting facts about 9/11 since I saw video of WTC7 and have been marginalised by many friends- One of my best friends' father is (if I understand her correctly) ex-Canadian CIA equivalent (Surname=KEUHN)/KUEHN), a highly intelligent woman; ridicules me every time I raise the subject. I have pointed out to her that OF COURSE her father would tow the OCT line, to no avail. Next i'll tackle the disconnect with her in regard to how she thinks I rock at my job, and yet a pyschopathic conspiracy nut


Send them this...

http://patriotsquestion911.com

Then tell them to watch the above lists grow.

QUOTE
I have just ordered the DVD 5 pack. Can't wait.


Thank you for your support!

QUOTE
Best wishes to Craig and Aldo - you guys seriously have it in the bag. Let it out. x


We are "letting it out".

Posted by: animaldoctor Feb 15 2011, 01:39 AM

handsdown.gif

Posted by: animaldoctor Feb 15 2011, 01:52 AM

Showed her the patriots list and she blew it off.

What else can you do except wait for the passage of time?

In kindred,

AD

Posted by: amazed! Feb 15 2011, 10:22 AM

AD

In many cases intelligence is not the controlling factor in a person's ability to understand the issue of 911.

IMO it's something the head doctors talk about--cognitive dissonance. One can be quite smart, and I've met many in real life, but the human psyche has built in defense mechanisms that will simply not allow threatening facts to be recognized and reconciled.

And of course some folks in this cyber world are IN FACT agents of disinformation and working for the coverup.

Posted by: wilddaddy Feb 16 2011, 12:28 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 14 2011, 11:23 PM) *
animaldoctor,

How many media outlets have you walked into handing them a DVD of "National Security Alert"?

CIT has published their work. Unfortunately, they are human and cannot be omnipresent.

That is where people like you come in...

Get their DVD, make lots of copies.. hand them out.

It's just that simple.


Rob,

How would one actually do that? Do I go to a local news station here and ask for an editor? Same with the papers. Do I ask for an editor? If they refuse do I just drop the disc off with the secretary? This is a serious question. I am going to do this perhaps with my kids and would like some input on what you (and others) think would be the best approach.

Thanks.

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 16 2011, 12:54 PM

QUOTE (wilddaddy @ Feb 16 2011, 05:28 PM) *
Rob,

How would one actually do that? Do I go to a local news station here and ask for an editor? Same with the papers. Do I ask for an editor? If they refuse do I just drop the disc off with the secretary? This is a serious question. I am going to do this perhaps with my kids and would like some input on what you (and others) think would be the best approach.

Thanks.


Hi WD,

I actually tried sending the NSA video to all of the local and national newspapers, and local TV stations (I actually got a reply from Channel 4 (UK), who told me that I needed to find somebody to produce ($$$$$) the idea...others marked me as spam.
Now I simply make the odd copies and give them to my friends (I'm in Spain now so it's a little more complicated lol) and family. Or supply the links on your facebook or whatever. Some refuse to "wake up" but others take a deeper interest now and don't accept TV news/ propaganda without checking it out for themselves.

That was the most fulfilling way to go about it for me personally. Tell a friend..

2cents

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 16 2011, 03:28 PM

QUOTE (animaldoctor @ Feb 15 2011, 04:13 AM) *
....and there MUST be other news outlets that see this as a coup. The world is changing (momentarily) and your time starts NOW...... PLEASE GET YOUR INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE OUT THERE -- WHY ARE YOU WAITING? FOR WHAT ARE YOU WAITING? WHAT IS STOPPING YOU FROM GOING MAINSTREAM RIGHT NOW?



Thank you for your words of support from earlier. Rob, did pretty much sum it up. But just so you know, we have a step by step accountability strategy:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/strategy.html

But seriously, put yourself in our position. I want to get this information in front of the right people too. But I feel at times, I have pushed enough. Craig and I have been lucky that they haven't done anything to us other than try and sully our names and reputations. Try being the operative word. We have given you guys the golden egg. This evidence will not go away. The fact is they can get to Craig and I, but they can't get the rest of you and all the witnesses. You have to shout about the north side witnesses/Lloyde England and don't stop talking about it. This evidence should presented right along side the WTC evidence. If anything our evidence is a slam dunk, because all the witnesses are in opposing vantage points and didn't know they were PROVING an inside job. Some said they would even testify to it.

There will always be more developments, believe that.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 16 2011, 03:36 PM

QUOTE (wilddaddy @ Feb 16 2011, 04:28 PM) *
Rob,

How would one actually do that? Do I go to a local news station here and ask for an editor? Same with the papers. Do I ask for an editor? If they refuse do I just drop the disc off with the secretary? This is a serious question. I am going to do this perhaps with my kids and would like some input on what you (and others) think would be the best approach.

Thanks.


Wilddaddy,

I would also recommend you go in there knowing the evidence inside and out. Knowing what to counter with when they say something incredulous or when they try and google up some supposed impact witnesses. You have to know how to counter their arguments. They will likely brush you off. However, if you simply politely persist on them addressing the north side witnesses/flight path and it's implications, you will get somewhere. You have to work like a lawyer and force them answer questions that slowly reveal their honesty and integrity or lack thereof.

Posted by: Bruce Sinclair Feb 21 2011, 04:19 AM

Here is a copy of an e-mail that I sent to Richard Gage. Awaiting a response...

Hello Richard:

I am one of you ardent supporters and also a monthly financial contributor to Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.

I am saddened and dismayed to see the division that has occurred between two of the research groups that I admire most. This is especially disconcerting to me because I see people such as yourself, David Ray Griffin, Barry Zwicker, Pilots for 911 Truth and CIT as heavyweights in the 911 truth movement.

I fervently request you review ALL of the research material available on the CIT website. This is critically important if you intend to remain steadfast in your current position.

I strongly encourage you to contact Craig Ranke directly to resolve your differences.

Thank-you in advance for your time and concern.

Fondest regards,

Captain Bruce Sinclair, Edmonton 911 Truth, Pilots for 911 Truth

P.S. We were on street corners over 30 times last year handing out DVDs and AE911truth literature and proudly flying our new AE911truth banner. 911 truth is alive and well in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada!

Posted by: 23investigator Feb 21 2011, 09:42 AM

QUOTE (Bruce Sinclair @ Feb 21 2011, 06:49 PM) *
Here is a copy of an e-mail that I sent to Richard Gage. Awaiting a response...

Hello Richard:

I am one of you ardent supporters and also a monthly financial contributor to Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.

I am saddened and dismayed to see the division that has occurred between two of the research groups that I admire most. This is especially disconcerting to me because I see people such as yourself, David Ray Griffin, Barry Zwicker, Pilots for 911 Truth and CIT as heavyweights in the 911 truth movement.

I fervently request you review ALL of the research material available on the CIT website. This is critically important if you intend to remain steadfast in your current position.

I strongly encourage you to contact Craig Ranke directly to resolve your differences.

Thank-you in advance for your time and concern.

Fondest regards,

Captain Bruce Sinclair, Edmonton 911 Truth, Pilots for 911 Truth

P.S. We were on street corners over 30 times last year handing out DVDs and AE911truth literature and proudly flying our new AE911truth banner. 911 truth is alive and well in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada!


Dear Captain Sinclair

It was very generous of you to post your obviously 'heartfelt' letter.
I took a peep at your 'profile' and followed through with listening to a very small part of the recent radio broadcast. intending to listen completely as soon as time permits.
The concern held in Canada, and the dedication of the 'radio programme' is very encouraging, I am sure you appreciate.
For what it is worth, perhaps this is the area we all should be directing our positive energies to, it seems the climate is becoming more and more ripe.

Some times, in fact, in most cases in my own experience, it is better to step away from 'warring parties'.
If it is right they will sort themselves out for the future, or take their own course, learning to leave others alone to get on with theirs.
At the end of the process, a lot less energy is expended, "wasted", which is to every bodies benefit.

This is not a letter of chastise, most certainly not meant that way at all, perhaps just a considerable amount of experience 'bubbling to the surface'.

My admiration stands with anybody with right intentions, which you most certainly seem to have.

Best regards

Robert

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 21 2011, 03:14 PM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Feb 21 2011, 01:42 PM) *
Some times, in fact, in most cases in my own experience, it is better to step away from 'warring parties'.
If it is right they will sort themselves out for the future, or take their own course, learning to leave others alone to get on with theirs.
At the end of the process, a lot less energy is expended, "wasted", which is to every bodies benefit.


Robert,

It seems as though you have a serious misconception regarding what's going on here. It's not fair to suggest there are "warring parties" as CIT has always been in support of AE911truth which is why we asked Richard Gage for a statement regarding National Security Alert in the first place. In fact we are quite clear about that in the introduction to our response to Chandler & Cole that this very thread is about.

QUOTE
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.


We are fighting for the same cause and therefore not at "war" with them.

The aggressive and divisive action on Richard Gage's part (as well as Chandler/Cole) against us was completely unprovoked and is solely the result of lies he has been told about us. Lies that he has assumed are true while admitting he has not researched it in depth and while failing to bother to communicate his concerns to us directly to hear the other side before making the rash decision to publicly attack us, which can obviously only be damaging to the movement as a whole.

Bruce's email was rather respectful and entirely appropriate given the circumstances and I am quite certain that Richard has received a slew of similar emails from those who are perplexed by his behavior including from others within AE911truth as our http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/2/CIT-responds-To-An-E-mail-Re-Richard-Gages-recent-Withdrawal-of-Support-statement.html reveals.

The fact that Bruce was compelled to write and share his letter here makes perfect sense while I find the fact that you were compelled to respond to him by implying that he should not have written the email to be rather odd.

Craig

Posted by: SanderO Feb 21 2011, 04:02 PM

Here are my 9/11 Truth Postulates:

9/11 Postulate 1

Understanding begins with accurate observations and the technical knowledge to describe those observations.

9/11 Postulate 2

Noting errors in others' observation, statement of fact, science or logic is not indicative of a hostile motive

9/11 Postulate 3

Making a mistake in one area of research does not undermine all the other work of the researcher. It may require that all his other work be revisited and error checked.

9/11 Postulate 4

Debate can be used to sharpen our understanding or it can be a useless distraction.

Posted by: Quest Oct 2 2011, 01:16 PM

Rob, Craig, Aldo, thanks for the efforts of the CIT for keeping up with the Pentagon neysayers. If discussion were only limited to the WTC, that issue could in effect become a strawman by default in that there are MANY aspects of of 911 and the ensuing coverup that would not otherwise be considered had politcal correctness in the truth movement reign supreme. Politcial correctness has no place in science. By taking in consideration ALL of the 911 events it can the be seen what exactly we are dealing with in regards to the 911 crime, the perpetrators and the coverup. By looking at all of the events we also spread the truth that much further and therefore bringing into the fold new and valuble prospects along with expertise in various fields to help peel back the layers of deception and spread the truth.

thumbsup.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)