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.

[Atomicbomb]

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

[jfetzer]

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

. . . .

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

[jfetzer]

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

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