CIT responds To
An E-mail Re: Richard Gage's Recent "Complete Withdrawal of Support"
February 11, 2011
As long time readers of our blog
and websites know, there has for years now been a concerted campaign
by a relatively small clique of individuals who purport to be
members of the "9/11 truth movement" to marginalize and vilify
Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) and dismiss our findings.
It seems that the more evidence we obtain and publish proving that
the official story is a farce and that the Pentagon attack was a
black operation the more aggressive and brazen their campaign
These same individuals have also worked very hard to convince people
who have offered formal praise for our work and our presentation
National Security Alert to not only retract their statements of
support and praise but to publicly denounce us. This targeted
campaign has been largely unsuccessful until the other day.
We will get into that momentarily, but first, briefly:
Around the very beginning of January 2011, David Chandler and
Jonathan Cole published a very shoddy essay attacking us, which was
heavily promoted and praised by the usual clique of CIT attackers.
On 911Blogger, Chandler explained his motive for writing this shoddy
"I literally went to bed one night wanting ------- to make a
bold statement that would be a definitive rejection of the
conclusions, methodology, and divisive tactics of CIT. I was at
a loss for how to persuade him to do this. It occurred to me as
I got up the next morning that I was wanting him to do something
I had not done myself. I have never made a public statement on
this subject, so I decided it was time to "come out." So I
discussed it with Jon Cole (since we share a website in common)
then called ------- and told him I was going to be making this
statement and urged him to use it as an opportunity to make a
move on it too."
Although he blanked out his name in that post, it was clear that
"-------" was Richard Gage, and Chandler also made this clear in an
interview with John Bursill, where Chandler did use Richard's name
and described how he (Chandler) had been part of a concerted effort
to "influence" Gage in such a way. (This campaign has been on-going
since 2009 by the "usual suspects", long before Chandler entered the
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.
Conclusion of our Chandler/Cole response I said:
I would like to formally challenge both David Chandler and/or
Jonathan Cole to debate the issue with me in person and on
video. I will come to them on my own dime. I will assume for now
that when presented with the information in full, and when all
of their questions/concerns are directly addressed, that they
will revise their opinions and realize that they have had a
hasty a reaction and have severely misjudged the situation here.
If they refuse to debate the subject with me directly, yet also
refuse to retract the many untrue and in some cases defamatory
things they have said and insist on leaving this extremely
inaccurate essay up, I think this will speak very negatively to
their honesty, sincerity, honorability, and forthrightness on
this issue, especially given their calls for "intellectual
rigor" and internal self-"policing" of the movement. Here's
hoping that such refusals do not take place. Given the quality
and importance of their WTC work and its synergistic nature to
the evidence we have uncovered during our Pentagon
investigation, we have no desire for the adversarial
relationship they have chosen to initiate to continue.
The positive feedback and outpouring of support we have
gotten as a result of that response article has been amazing.
However, in a very interesting and bizarre turn of events, on
Februrary 8th, just five days after we published our response to
Chandler an Cole (and seemingly in response to it due to the
timing), a statement appeared on 911Blogger signed by Richard Gage
of AE911Truth and posted under his account stating that he was
completely withdrawing his support for our investigation and our
video National Security Alert. Read his full statement
We have received e-mails and calls from people who are supportive of
our work expressing a wide range of emotions in response to this --
confusion, disappointment, shock, outrage, disgust, sympathy, solidarity
(with us), etc.
Some have asked how they can be of assistance. One such person was
Josef Princiotta, who wrote us a very nice and encouraging message.
Here is a great interview with Josef if you are unfamiliar with him
and his work fighting for 9/11 truth and justice:
Mr. Princiotta has agreed to our request to publish his letter. So,
for the record, and for sake of those who have been curious about
our thoughts on the recent Gage statement, we are publishing it
below, along with our response to him. David Chandler and
Richard Gage were copied (CC'ed). E-mail addresses and phone
numbers have been removed.
From: Josef Princiotta
Date: Wed, February 09, 2011 2:02 pm
Cc: David Chandler, Richard Gage
Hello CIT People
I like your work!
Well these are tough days.
How may I be of some help?
Let's talk as your time permits.
(907) XXX XXXX
Here is some info on me and my distant cousin
Vincent Princiotta FDNY Killed in the South Tower's destruction
Please note, I toured Japan with Richard Gage (AIA) in early
December of '09
speaking in several cities and at the 3rd international
conference on 9/11 in Tokyo.
(FYI) I am concerned by Richard's abandonment of you and your
I feel this is more of a reaction than a planed, well thought
out, action on his part.
I have not had the opportunity to communicate my feelings to
Richard so I Cc'ed him and David here.
Last December I assisted in presentations at the Diet in Tokyo
(Dec 8th.) to an assembled group of members
(Senators and Representatives) of the Japanese government.
Additionally, after Richard left Japan on December 14th.,
I spoke independently to various Japanese groups.
All told I spoke in 9 cities, 15 presentations in 30 days.
Here are some links.
I am a friend of David S. Chandler.
I think his approach here is heavy handed.
I have communicated my concerns to him.
I don't want to muddy the waters.
"We all work for the same objective."
NOTE I am associated with A&E for 9/11 Truth.
I do not speak for them here.
I do not speak for them when I give my presentations.
My presentations do contain information on the Pentagon.
I support NO conspiracy theory.
My interest is focused on Math and Physics, Weights and
Here was our response, which was a "reply to all", meaning that,
like Josef's original message, Richard and David were again CC'ed
Subject: RE: Looking for answers on the way to the Truth.
Date: Fri, February 11, 2011 12:00 pm
To: "Josef Princiotta"
Cc: "David Chandler", "Richard Gage"
Thank you so much for your supportive words! It means a lot to
us right now since we are being assailed by individuals who have
chosen to publish false and defamatory information about us, our
work, and the Pentagon attack, yet refuse to discuss this matter
with us directly.
Deflecting bogus attacks is a time-consuming endeavor, as it
takes much less time to compose a few paragraphs filled with
false and unsupported/unsourced claims than it takes to "debunk"
them with accurate information backed up with sources, quotes,
etc, but I will give you a call as soon as I get a little free
time. Looking forward to it!
In the meantime, if at all possible, it would be extremely
helpful if you could do the following (I know you have likely
done at least the first few already):
3. Read the recent statement published in Richard Gage's name
stating that he completely withdraws support for our
investigation. (obviously you have done this already)
4. Inquire as to whether or not Richard is the sole author of
this statement. If not, inquire about who wrote it/co-wrote it
instead of or along with him. Inquire as to when exactly the
piece was composed by and/or approved by Richard.
5. Inquire as to when Richard became aware of our response to
Chandler/Cole, and whether or not he has read it in full. If he
has, inquire as to when he first did so. If he has not, inquire
as to why not, whether or not he plans to, and if so, when; and
if not, why. (We know that it was sent to him by multiple people
days prior to the publication of his recent statement.)
9. Inquire as to why Richard would publish this highly aspersive
statement about us without first contacting me with his apparent
concerns. During the weekend of 9/11/09 we had a long, friendly,
face-to-face, man-to-man conversation in NYC about all of the
misinformation and disinformation he was being fed behind the
scenes by a relatively small group of individuals who were
aggressively pressuring him to denounce us. By the end of the
conversation he indicated that his concerns had been put to rest
and that his statement of support would stand. He promised me
that in the future he would promptly contact me if anyone
started raising questions about us or our work again so that I
could address their accusations directly. He shook my hand and
gave me a big hug. He violated that promise once before* and
privately apologized afterward for doing so. Why then would he
do it again, and in a much more flagrant fashion no less?
10. Inquire as to why Richard would publicly claim in an
accusatory way that we have "continued to publish [his] original
statement" when he had never asked us to remove it. In addition
to having met me twice in person, Richard has had my personal
cell phone number and e-mail address since 2009. We have
corresponded by phone and e-mail numerous times in the past,
such as when he personally contacted me to tell me that he was
very impressed with our work and was willing to provide a formal
statement of approval. Richard is well aware that he has always
had an open invitation to contact me at any time, and, again,
promised to do so if anyone began whispering in his ear again so
that we could respond to their allegations.
11. Inquire as to why Richard would claim that we have
"continued to... characterize [his original statement] as an
endorsement of [our] flyover conclusion" even though we have not
to my knowledge/recollection ever done this, neither recently
nor in the past. I received word a couple of months ago that a
rumor to this effect was floating around inside of AE911Truth,
and as a result I called Richard in December, left him a
voicemail telling him that it was untrue and asking him to
please call me to discuss it, to tell me who was making this
claim, and to tell me when and where we had supposedly
characterized his statement in that way. He never called back.
Why would he not call me back, explain the origins and basis of
this rumor, and discuss it (as per his previous promise, my
explicit request, and common sense/decency), yet go on to make
this same accusation publicly weeks later, and still without
bothering to provide any examples or substantiation?
12. Inquire as to why Richard would withdraw his support for our
investigation, yet at the same time endorse the efforts of an
individual who, as we have documented in detail, is on a brazen
disinfo and smear campaign against CIT and in support of the
official impact narrative, and who just a few months ago was
publicly calling Richard and his organization "crap" and saying
that neither he (Richard) nor anyone else have any proof that
the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition or that
9/11 was an inside job at all for that matter. For years prior
to that he was one of the most vocal WTC "no plane theory"
advocates in the world, and he is on record drunkenly and
belligerently harassing a WTC attack witness at 1am with his no
plane theories in some of the most disturbing recorded phone
calls I have ever heard. http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/CIT-Response-to-David-Chandler-and-Jonathan-Cole-Pentagon-Statement/#hill
13. Inquire about how Richard could possibly claim that he was
"surprised to learn" that several of the witnesses we
interviewed were able to see the Pentagon and were convinced
that they saw the plane hit (while placing it on a flight path
which makes an impact impossible) when everyone who watches
National Security Alert easily understands this AND we have
repeatedly discussed this fact with him in person as well as on
the phone as far back as 2009.
14. Inquire as to whether or not Richard understands that the
north path and impact are mutually exclusive, and that the
witnesses being incorrect about the former would require simultaneous matching hallucinations while
the latter would require deliberate deception on the part of the
same perpetrators who deliberately deceived people around the
world into thinking that the towers weren't being blown up
before their very eyes. Remind him that even our biggest
detractors from Jim Hoffman to Frank Legge to "Arabesque" to
John Bursill all readily acknowledge this scientific fact which
is obvious to laymen everywhere. http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.html
15. Inquire as to whether or not Richard realizes that his
actions, in addition to being dishonest, dishonorable, and
frankly downright bizarre, are, like David Chandler's, extremely
divisive and detrimental to the worldwide campaign for 9/11
truth and justice. As you know AE911Truth and Citizen
Investigation Team are both very popular organizations
presenting very different yet highly synergistic evidence
proving that 9/11 was a deceptive false flag attack/black
operation of the "MIHOP" variety. Given this fact, why -- even
if he had become convinced by the people whispering false
information in his ear that our case was unsound -- would he
take the most inflammatory action possible, initiating a public
feud between the organizations and throwing his weight behind
what many people, including many of his own supporters and
colleagues, already (properly) regard as a concerted
disinformation and smear campaign against us? Why would he do
that instead of simply contacting me privately so that, if it
was his will to part ways, we could do so in the most peaceful
terms possible? As with Chandler and Cole, CIT has never
attacked nor wanted to be anything but allies with AE911Truth
due to the quality and importance of their work, and its
synergistic relationship to ours.
16. Urge Richard to personally contact me by phone to address
these questions, especially if he really does want me to remove
his statement of support (that was vetted by his board of
directors prior to publication a year and a half ago) from our
website. He had, again, never previously asked me to remove it.
I need to get a better sense of what is going on here by
speaking with him directly and over the phone. This will also,
as I said, hopefully enable us to come to the most peaceful
resolution possible moving forward, which I would have thought
would have been his desire in the first place. I cannot
cooperate with someone who is attacking us publicly from afar
over the internet with false claims and publicly promoting
disinformation attacks against us. I can cooperate with someone
who approaches me with respect and common decency in a
non-destructive way to express his concerns and requests, as an
honorable and reasonable person in his position who cares about
the future of "the movement" would do. Even if he wants to
believe the lies he's being told by the dishonest people who
have surrounded him without seeking my response as promised (and
as a reasonable, objective, careful truthseeker would), an
on-going public feud between our organizations will divide the
"movement" and benefits no one except the bad guys.
17. Study our work and all Pentagon attack research extremely
thoroughly yourself (and urge others to do the same). This will
inoculate you against shoddy hit-pieces and false information
whispered in your ear by dishonest individuals hell-bent on
making false claims to defend the government's impact narrative,
vilify Citizen Investigation Team, and cast doubt on the
overwhelming eyewitness testimony (and other evidence) we have
presented proving that 9/11 was an inside job/false flag
operation. Contact me directly if you have any questions.
*** Epilogue/Update: Richard never responded
to this e-mail or called us.
Seven months later, in September of 2011, we were scheduled to be in
Toronto for five days for a
presentation we were giving at The Royal on Sunday, September
11th, sponsored by Barrie Zwicker. Gage, Chandler, Cole, and a
number of their cohorts were also scheduled to be in Toronto during
this same period for a separate event just a short distance away.
Prior to departing, we publicly issued
invitations to all of these individuals to have a civil,
on-camera debate with us regarding what happened at the Pentagon on
9/11. We published this invitation on our website and blog, and sent
e-mails to each of them personally to make sure that they received
explained at the time: "There is no reason that the people who
apparently have such strong concerns with our work and who have
attempted to publicly paint us as dishonest shouldn't be able to set
aside a couple hours to take us up on this offer, "expose" our
supposed dishonesty, and refute the evidence we present proving the
plane did not hit the light poles or Pentagon. We will work with
them to find a mutually convenient day and time."