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

[amazed!]

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.

[aerohead]

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.

This post has been edited by aerohead: Feb 6 2011, 05:18 PM

[DoYouEverWonder]

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.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

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.

[DoYouEverWonder]

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

[Craig Ranke CIT]

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

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Feb 6 2011, 10:45 PM

[SanderO]

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.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Feb 6 2011, 06:41 PM

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

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,..

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/

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

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. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/yes1.gif)

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

[tnemelckram]

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.

[rob balsamo]

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/CI...agon-Statement/

[jfetzer]

amazed,

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

Jim

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.

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Feb 7 2011, 03:52 PM

[Atomicbomb]

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

This post has been edited by Atomicbomb: Feb 8 2011, 09:18 AM

[jfetzer]

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.

[GroundPounder]

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?

[DonM]

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

[onesliceshort]

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.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

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?

[DonM]

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

[jfetzer]

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.

What do you think this thread is about?