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

[Craig Ranke CIT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team


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

Index and "jump to" links for our response:

• Pentagon Questions (What Hit?)
  
• The Honey Pot Theory
  
• Citizen Investigation Team
  
• Recommended Reading/Victoria Ashley
  
• Arabesque
  
• Jim Hoffman
  
• Library of Congress
  
• Jeff Hill
  
• Legge/Stutt FDR Paper
  
• Sandia F-4 Crash Test Analogy
  
• Conclusion/Debate Challenge

Originally published here.

[jfetzer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Feb 4 2011, 11:38 PM