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 clicking the following link and reading our entire response:
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/reports/cit-response-to-david-chandler-and-jonathan-cole-pentagon-statement
Sincerely,
Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team
8 comments:
Hi Craig
I'm writing from France.
I just read most of your lengthy article.
Like you, I've been for many years trying to find out the truth. But unlike you, I've not personnaly investigated at all, though I've watched dozens of videos and read hundreds of articles about 9/11.
It's always good to step back a little and try to have a passionless, unbiassed views on things, and I'm absolutely amazed by the attacks that are made against you. Chandler and Cole's arguments, objectively, are pathetic and ridiculous, and your case is watertight. You 're obviously devoted to finding out the truth, you're precise and your investigation is thorough and most apparently unbiased, well supported and honest (your good command of English also shows you're seriously commited to your work). You provide solid evidence where they don't provide anything and keep contradicting themselves. Their attitude is absolutely, amazingly ridiculous, and I'm not saying that out of passion, but after a quite thorough reading of your article (and of course I had watched all of your videos earlier).
I thought it was a good thing to let you know what other people think of CIT, that you're NOT deluding yourself at all, in case you had even a tiny doubt (!). I know how one can feel when they're criticized regularly (I myself work on quite non-academic research but always try to have a scientific approach), even by people (like them) who should support you, sometimes you start wondering whether what you're doing is really useful and/or unbiassed. I can assure you your methods are as scientific as they can be, and in the end your ideas will be vindicated.
Keep up the good work and don't give up!
Peace
Max
Hi Max,
Thank you so much for the kind words of support. It means a lot to know that people can see through all the layers of mis and disinformation out there. I had a great time visiting your lovely country last year. Thanks again and keep spreading 9/11 facts!
Peace,
Craig
That was an excellent response to Chandler and Cole, and a good expose of Jim Hoffman and associates as disinfo(not misinfo) agents!
Since researching your website, and watching all of your videos, I've been trying to think of ways to refute the evidence of a "False Flag Operation", and I think I've come up with a couple of possible scenarios; to wit:
Scenario A:
Everyone knows that Muslims have "magic passports"; so, it's not unreasonable to assume that they have other Paranormal abilities.
Ergo - Perhaps Osama Bin Laden "astrally projected" himself into the minds of all the NoC witnesses, and created the illusion of a North of Citgo flightpath!
BAM!!! - CIT, and NSA:911 Pentagon Attack is shot to Hell in one fell swoop!
Scenario B:
Perhaps all of the NoC witnesses are left-handed; in other words, they are "south paws".
So, when they said: "I saw the Plane over HERE"; what they actually meant, was: "I saw the Plane over THERE"!
This is not as unreasonable as one might think, for the following two reasons:
(1) - Ten percent of the population is left-handed(OBL was left-handed), so the odds of picking fourteen people at random, who are all left-handed is only 1 in 100,000,000,000,000.
Although the chances are slim, it's not impossible(science doesn't count anything as impossible, unless the odds are greater than 1 in 10 to the 43rd power).
(2) - I noticed in the video that some of the witnesses were pointing with their left hand; and keep in mind that Craig Ranke cleverly neglected to ask the witnesses if they were left-handed(evidence of biased investigation to say the least!).
I consider my own debunking of CIT at least as reasonable as Jim Hoffman's, or Chandler & Cole's!
So, keep an open mind, people; and explore all possibilities, like I do.
Hi Craig. I found your rebuttal to Chandler and Cole's article tightly reasoned and thoroughly documented. You strengthened your arguments and credibility significantly.
Given the high quality and obvious veracity of the eyewitness accounts of a flight path to the North of the Citgo gas station that you have documented, and the lack of any damage to the Pentagon consistent with that flight path, the only conclusion reachable is that the plane did indeed fly over the Pentagon.
Coordinating a fly over with an explosion is not that hard to do. How often do we see military jets flying over a stadium as we hear "... O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave!"
Carry on your important research!
paul
Thanks for the support Paul and for the laughs Steve!
We'll keep finding more left handed witness!
You're welcome for the laughs, Craig.
Even though it's important and necssary for you to respond to your detractors, and disinfo agents; I can't help but think that it would have been more appropriate to tell Hoffman, Cole, and Chandler: "Thanks for the laughs"!
Before I saw your video, and your website, I thought nothing could be more of a "smoking gun" than Building 7; but the evidence that you have presented for a "fly-over", is far beyond a "smoking gun"!
It's not just beyond a reasonable doubt in the legal sense; it's even beyond an unreasonable doubt!
I think you have closed the book on the Pentagon, and given the 911 Truth movement the perfect disinfo litmus test.
Only three types of people would reject evidence this conclusive:
(1) A brain dead idiot.
(2) A disinfo agent.
(3) The perpetrator's lawyer.
Good work, Craig, and Aldo!
Carry on.
Hi all,
I was surprised to see this entry on the CIT blog, because I recently discovered the youtube videos done by David Chandler and they are by far the most damning evidence that 9/11 was done in part by the US government.
The CIT video is what really got me into the 9/11 truth movement, so I have serious respect for your hard work. I just read the statement co-signed by David Chandler and I was surprised to see that they were not supporters of your video. I do, like you, encourage them to watch the video again in its entirety and consider the implications of a different flight path, etc.
Having said this, it is my opinion that, although working together would be ideal, it is the David Chandler and the ae911truth "team" that has the most compelling forensic evidence. The videos of the "collapse" of WTC 1, 2 and 7 are high quality and they come from different angles. In addition, there is chemical evidence that explosives were involved.
For this reason, I stress that you do your absolute best to remember that you are both working toward the same thing: a real investigation into 9/11 - this obviously includes the WTC AND the Pentagon. But in terms of who has the most evidence for a government cover-up, even though your evidence is valuable to a certain extent, it's David Chandler & team who have the real, jaw-dropping smoking guns.
Keep fighting for the truth!
Peace to all,
Bryan Martin
Hi Bryan,
Thanks for your comments. What should be clear here is that we have not attacked David Chandler or AE911truth. Quite the opposite. So personally I feel that they are who needs to be reminded that we are "both working toward the same thing".
Point being that we are not competing with AE911truth so we are happy to work with them even if you think that evidence for controlled demotion of the WTC is "the most compelling forensic evidence".
It's not a problem with me if you think that the north of Citgo evidence is the second most compelling, or even the third, fourth, fifth, or sixth. The point is that ANY compelling evidence is important.
As you said we should be working together which is all that CIT has ever wanted and is exactly why we were happy to accept Richard Gage's statement of praise for National Security Alert back in 2009.
If as you said "The CIT video is what really got [you] into the 9/11 truth" then it would stand to reason how you would understand how effective and important our findings are, even if you no longer think it is the most "jaw dropping" evidence that exists.
If it convinced you it can convince others. Agreed?
The north side evidence does not require a scientist or physicist to sort it out. I feel this is the primary reason why we are so heavily targeted.
Thanks for paying attention and staying in the fight.
Peace,
Craig
Post a Comment