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

[SanderO]

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.

[tnemelckram]

Bump to keep this important thread on top.

[aerohead]

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.

This post has been edited by aerohead: Feb 6 2011, 12:54 AM

[Michael Morrisse...]

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.

[Lasthorseman]

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=...b15e1a9e1579b3b

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

[GroundPounder]

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?

This post has been edited by GroundPounder: Feb 6 2011, 09:12 AM

[DoYouEverWonder]

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

[jfetzer]

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/2011/01/91...arlor-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/mi...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.

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.

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Feb 6 2011, 12:41 PM

[amazed!]

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.

[jfetzer]

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.

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.

[SanderO]

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...

This post has been edited by SanderO: Feb 6 2011, 05:09 PM

[DoYouEverWonder]

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.

[DonM]

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

[SanderO]

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

This post has been edited by SanderO: Feb 6 2011, 05:14 PM

[jfetzer]

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

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.

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Feb 6 2011, 03:02 PM

[aerohead]

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........ (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/bs_flag.gif)

[jfetzer]

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?

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........ (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/bs_flag.gif)

[aerohead]

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...... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/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.

This post has been edited by aerohead: Feb 6 2011, 04:27 PM

[jfetzer]

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.

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...... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/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.

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Feb 6 2011, 04:51 PM

[mainer]

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.