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.

[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.

[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.

[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