The following is a response to the
"joint statement" about The Pentagon issued by David Chandler and
Jonathan Cole around January 1, 2011. The text of Chandler and
Cole's essay appears in full in black. Comments from Craig
Ranke of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) appear in bold red font.
Published February 3, 2011.
(If you have not yet done so, please read the short preface
here before continuing.)
A joint statement by
David Chandler and Jonathan Cole
Overwhelming Evidence of
If you watch our videos and read the links on
this site you will understand why we assert that the weight of the
evidence points to the fact that 9/11 was orchestrated by insiders…
with access to
high tech military-grade nano-energetic materials (aka
with access to
the infrastructure of some of the most highly secure buildings
in New York over an extended period of time
expertise to accomplish the most difficult demolitions in
ability to manage public perception of the event despite
numerous contrary contemporaneous eyewitness reports
ability to coordinate the take-downs of the twin towers with the
ability to coordinate with the military to not intercept the
ability to stage a highly coordinated cover-up, starting on the
day of 9/11 itself
ability to prevent ANY investigation for many months
with the ability to stage-manage
fraudulent investigations once the demand grew too loud (the
9/11 Commission report the NIST reports)
All of this evidence comes from the
investigation of the World Trade Center, based on public evidence
and the laws of physics. The evidence is overwhelming, consistent,
persuasive, and broadly agreed upon by the “scientific wing” of the
9/11 Truth Movement. The concrete physical and video evidence
leading to these conclusions narrows the field of possible
While I have been convinced for years that
the towers and Building 7 were brought down by controlled
demolition, I don't feel that I have personally looked closely
enough at the research to say for sure that nano-thermite was used.
I have frankly become a little skeptical of it simply because a few
of the main proponents have launched unprovoked, sustained, and
extremely dishonest attack campaigns against CIT, Pilots for 9/11
Truth, and our work, most
Jim Hoffman and
Frank Legge. But again, I simply have not had time
to go over all of the sometimes-pretty-technical research closely
enough to have a strong opinion on it one way or the other. We
praised people like Jonathan Cole for their work in this area.
with everything else stated here. The Pentagon
There are also anomalies in the events at the
Pentagon. The biggest anomalies, in our opinion , have gotten some
of the least attention.
How could the
Pentagon, the hub of the US military, have been so poorly
defended that it could be hit in the first place, after the
buildings in New York City had already been hit and other
hijacked planes were known to still be in the air?
Why was Norman
Minetta’s testimony about Cheney’s response to the approach of
the aircraft discounted in the 9/11 Commission report?
Why was the
target the newly reinforced west face of the building, occupied
primarily by accountants that were tracing down what happened to
the missing trillions of dollars announced just a few days
Why would the
purported hijackers perform a difficult spiral descent to hit
the face of the Pentagon that had the least number of people in
it, and was opposite from the offices of the Pentagon high
Why would the
purported hijackers risk mission failure by choosing a difficult
ground level approach when they could have simply dived into the
How could an untrained pilot have
performed the difficult maneuvers? Was the plane flown by some
kind of automatic controls and/or guided by a homing beacon?
I don't agree that
these “anomalies” have gotten “some of the least attention”. These
issues are pretty much common knowledge among people who have looked
into 9/11, from “truthers” to “debunkers”. They are featured
prominently in many of the most popular “9/11 truth” documentaries,
books, and websites, and have been for years. We have never tried to
stop people from exploring these issues, and in fact our work (as
well as the work of others) makes it clear what the answer to most
of these questions is: Because the Pentagon attack was a false flag
in the vein of Operation Northwoods, involving a plane
swap and simulated plane crash.
Instead of these
important questions, from very early on the focus has centered on
what hit the Pentagon.
It is true that from “very
early on” many people looked at the photographs of the Pentagon
shortly after the alleged impact and felt that the damage was
inconsistent with a 757 crash. It is also true that many
people in this category jumped to the conclusion that some OTHER
airborn craft/missile/etc must have hit instead, and thus theorized
about “what hit”.
However, "what hit" is not a question that
CIT has ever focused on or promoted. We have only found
evidence for a single low-flying craft on the scene at the moment of
the explosion: a large commercial-looking aircraft that was banking
to its right on the north side of the gas station and therefore
could not have hit the light poles or the building.
The very question of "what hit" the Pentagon assumes that
did, while it is well known that we are convinced from our
investigation that nothing (i.e. no airborn object/craft including
the one seen by the witnesses) "hit" at all, and that the damage was
caused by pre-planted explosives. We have been very explicit
about this for years. (Chandler and Cole basically acknowledge
that this is our view later in the essay.)
In fact, we feel that
the Department of Defense purposely tried to lead 9/11 skeptics who
were already correctly questioning the damage to the building down
this incorrect "what hit" path. For example, we do not think
that the alleged "leak" of the
dubious five frames video was a real "leak" at all, but
rather a deliberate disinformation campaign to get people to focus
on missile and drone theories of "what hit". Likewise for
Donald Rumsfeld's supposed slip of the tongue during an interview
Parade Magazine shortly after 9/11, where he is quoted as
mentioning "the missile" which "damaged this building" (the
Pentagon). The DoD itself
mirrored a copy of this interview where Rumsfeld made this
supposed gaff on their own website, and they have kept it
online there for years, even to this day, helping to fuel the
proliferation of missile theories.
unanimous testimony of over a hundred eyewitnesses, is that a large
aircraft, consistent with a 757, flew very low at very high speed,
clipped several light poles, and crashed into the face of the
Pentagon at ground level. Still, speculation persists that the
Pentagon was hit by something else, such as a Global Hawk or a
cruise missile. The eyewitness testimony
is consistent with the pattern of damage
both inside and outside of the Pentagon. Read
the many eyewitness accounts.
Let's take this section a little
out of order. They say:
persists that the Pentagon was hit by something else, such as a
Global Hawk or a cruise missile.
It is true that "speculation
persists that the Pentagon was hit by something else, such as a
Global Hawk or a cruise missile".
However, again, CIT does not promote these theories, and we have
been vocal for years about the fact that we have found no
independent, verifiable evidence to support them. Confirming
or refuting these theories (and all theories) about what happened at
the Pentagon on 9/11 was the whole reason we launched an independent
investigation in the first place.
But let's look at the rest
of this section. Again, Chandler and Cole say:
The nearly unanimous testimony of over a hundred eyewitnesses, is
that a large aircraft, consistent with a 757, flew very low at very
high speed, clipped several light poles, and crashed into the face
of the Pentagon at ground level. [...] The eyewitness
testimonyis consistent with the pattern
of damage both inside and outside of the Pentagon. 
Read through the many eyewitness accounts .
arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html [Note from Craig/CIT: In the original Chandler/Cole essay, the two bold
and underlined phrases are hyperlinks to these URLs. I have
changed the format to footnotes here]
Absolutely false. Cole
and Chandler do not even TRY to make a case for this. They do not
even cite a single witness in their article, let alone quote any and
explain how those witnesses supposedly support their claim.
Instead, they simply link to a blog entry by “Arabesque”, an
anonymous blogger who appeared on the scene (internet) around the
time that we launched our investigation and released The PentaCon
(so circa late 2006/early 2007) and promptly began writing
dishonest, convoluted attack articles against us, and who has been
conspicuously absent from blogging for about a year and a half now.
In actuality, the "many eyewitness accounts" presented by
Arabesque in the blog entry that Chandler and Cole cite are not full
or even remotely full "accounts" at all, but snippets, and they are
often unsourced, out-of-context, misleading, misattributed, and/or
even doctored. The compilation of snippets has 659
footnotes to give it the appearance of thoroughness, but when one
actually views the reference section they will notice that the vast
majority of the footnotes are simply the name of a witness (or
alleged witness) with NO
link to, or even the name of, the source document so that the reader
can easily view the snippet in context and verify what "Arabesque"
provides. In some cases the people named are not witnesses at
all, or the quotes attributed to them were actually written or
uttered by someone else. To better understand what I mean, see
this thread where we analyzed his section of supposed "light
We have repeatedly pointed these
"errors" out to Arabesque and his/her/its promoters such as Chandler
and Cole's Pentagon attack co-mentor Victoria Ashley (Jim Hoffman's
wife) in the past, and yet "Arabesque" has failed to correct this
disinformation for years, and they still promote it heavily to this
What is very clear is that there
is a consistent and blatant ongoing cover-up at the Pentagon.
Yes, this is very clear. Why would they go
to such great lengths?
Why did they confiscate and sequester
ALL videos of the attack within the first hours, or in some cases
even minutes, of the attack?
Why have they refused to release
the majority of the videos?
Why have they denied that they even have any other clear videos
of the impact, even though this is transparently absurd on its face,
and there are even images from 9/11 showing cameras on top of the
Why have they released fraudulent data allegedly from a Flight
Data Recorder (FDR) allegedly found inside the Pentagon which shows
too high to be physically capable of diving down to hit
light pole #1 and level off to impact the generator trailer and
enter the building low and level as required by the physical damage?
Why have they released
fraudulent 84 RADES data which misrepresents where both
the attack jet and the C-130 flew and when?
Why have they not
acknowledged the location of the light poles in any official
Why does the Virginia Department of Transportation
claim that they have no documentation of the location of the light
poles that were down on 9/11 and later replaced?
Could it be because the plane flew north of the
Citgo gas station, as independently confirmed by all known witnesses
who were in a position to see the station and judge this (over a
dozen), including ALL known witnesses ON the gas station property,
did not hit the light poles, and did not hit the Pentagon?
Chandler calls this notion "bizarre", "totally out of left
field", and "not even remotely plausible"(Jan 2011 interview with
Instead, he suggests that perhaps this is all part of a
deliberate plan by the perpetrators to convince us that the plane
didn't hit when it actually did. What luck for those
perpetrators that all of these witnesses had the same false memory
of where the plane flew in the final seconds just dozens of yards
from them, and that so much of the physical evidence ended up
suggesting that their matching "false" memories are right too (see
Those INSIDE the Pentagon have all the physical evidence and all
the confiscated videos.
misleading. Yes, they do have control of the physical evidence and
the confiscated videos, but this does not mean that none of the
physical evidence is documented. For example, there is
photographic and/or video evidence establishing/documenting:
the location of the
downed light poles, and thus
the south of Citgo (SoC) flight path required for the
AA77 light pole and Pentagon impact theory that
David Chandler and Jonathan Cole find so plausible and
well-supported by the evidence. (The one that is independently and unanimously
contradicted by eyewitnesses in a position to see where the plane
flew in relation to the Citgo.)
that the light poles, trees, and other obstacles on the north side
flight path were
completely in tact.
lack of damage to Lloyde England's hood, despite the fact
that his windshield was allegedly speared by the bulk of a 40+ foot
light pole which was allegedly hit by an 82 ton Boeing jet traveling
530 miles per hour while England was traveling about 40 miles per
hour in the opposite direction.
They undoubtedly have the definitive proof of what hit the Pentagon,
and how it was done, but they are not saying.
The statement presupposes that something hit the Pentagon.
As I have already explained, I do not agree with this premise.
We were only able to find independent, verifiable evidence for one
low-flying object on the scene at the moment of the attack/explosion
– a large commercial-type plane. We have
conclusive evidence that this plane did not hit the
The problem with focusing on a protest of the
Pentagon cover-up is that the population at large attributes to the
military the right to keep secrets. Secrecy in wartime is
understandable, if it is in furtherance of military objectives. It
is not reasonable that the military should be allowed to extend this
privilege to the cover-up of evidence of a monstrous crime, but the
fact is, they can get away with it. The population is not
willing to second guess military prerogative in matters like this.
Therefore despite the absolutely blatant cover-up of the facts of
9/11 at the Pentagon, there is no public outrage, and there is no
reasonable possibility that the public can be aroused on this issue.
Considering that the vast majority of the "truth
movement" does NOT support the theory that AA77 hit the Pentagon, I
think it is safe/fair/accurate to say that there is, in fact, just
about as much public outrage about the Pentagon cover-up as there is
the WTC cover-up (Chandler and Cole themselves
admit later in the
essay that it is "popular belief" that AA77 did not hit). But also, contrary to how Chandler and Cole
frame things here, it is not just the "absolutely blatant cover-up
of the facts of 9/11 at the Pentagon" which outrages millions around
the world -- it is the evidence that we DO have which indicates that
it was in fact a false flag operation. In fact, it is clear
that more and more people are "aroused on this issue" each day by
this evidence. This is why their next statement is so wrong...
Therefore the Pentagon is a dead-end for
research. The puzzle of the Pentagon might be fascinating or
intriguing, but as an avenue to determining the truth, it seems
doomed to failure. The ones who want it covered up literally hold
all the cards.
This is not true. There is an abundance of
credible evidence in the public domain,
some of which we have personally obtained and published,
which establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a large
plane on the scene, that it flew over the Navy Annex, north of the
Citgo gas station while banking to its right, did not strike any
light poles, did not hit the Pentagon, continued on, and was seen
flying away by multiple eyewitnesses. "The ones who want it
covered up" did not hold these "cards".
evidence at the World Trade Center makes the investigation at the
Pentagon almost irrelevant.
By that logic I could say the same of the
World Trade Center evidence in light of the overwhelming evidence
proving that the Pentagon attack was a false flag operation, but it
would be foolish for me to do so, because there is clearly a strong
synergy. Any evidence which proves a key element of the “official
story” false only lends more credibility to other such evidence. The
evidence we have uncovered doesn't make investigation into the World
Trade Center “almost irrelevant”. It bolsters it and makes it
even more important. And vice versa.
If anything essentially new (and verifiable) can be discovered
at the Pentagon, fine, but the sparseness of information and the
thoroughness of the cover-up at the Pentagon makes it an unlikely
venue for significant new findings.
CIT has made "significant
new findings" since the launch of our investigation which
prove that 9/11 was a false flag black operation, and David Chandler
and Jonathan Cole do not demonstrate otherwise in this ridiculous
essay. That is why it is "very popular" for people to support
David Chandler himself admits.
On the other hand the mystery that surrounds
the Pentagon makes it an attractive target of speculation and the
subject of truly wild conspiracy theories.
This is a true statement,
but also an empty one. The same is true of other aspects of the 9/11
attack as well. For example, “the mystery that surrounds” the
WTC attack makes it “an attractive target of speculation and the
subject of truly wild conspiracy theories”, as Cole and Chandler
themselves note in the next breath. The fact that some people
out there espouse unsubstantiated alternative theories does not
discount ALL alternative theories. This is simple logic which one
would think people like Cole and Chandler would be easily capable
of. What matters is what the evidence proves.
kind of attractive diversion is sometimes called a “honey pot,” a
“setup” to be discredited at a later time.) This is not the
only instance of theories that seem designed to be easily
discredited. There are groups that insist the towers at the World
Trade Center were taken down by space lasers. Others claim no planes
hit the Twin Towers at all: they were just holograms..
Right. See above.
better way to tar the movement than to seed it with absurdly false
theories that fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look
Sure, this is a good strategy for opponents
of "the Movement" (including "the perps" themselves), generally
speaking. However, since we have
that the plane did not hit the Pentagon, the north side approach
and flyover "theory" --
and the more general "theory" that the damage at the Pentagon was
not caused by the impact of a large plane including AA77 -- are
not examples of this. Far from being "absurdly false", they
demonstrably true. Not to mention widely accepted by
the 9/11 truth movement (see next section). Despite popular belief, the physical evidence does
not rule out that possibility that it was American Airlines Flight
77 that actually crashed into the Pentagon.
Note how Chandler and
Cole are admitting here that it is a "popular belief" that AA77 did
NOT crash into the Pentagon. Presumably they mean within the
"9/11 Truth Movement". I agree, this is clearly the case.
Confidently asserting otherwise, then being proven wrong and
discredited for sloppy research, would be disastrous for the
credibility of the solid science-based research at the World Trade
It's really hypocritical for
Chandler and Cole to be warning of "sloppy research" in the context
of this particular essay, which is riddled with false and/or
misleading statements, if not outright lies, and is in some places
sloppy to the point that it is almost unbelievable that they could
publish something so ignorant or dishonest.
I agree that
"sloppy research" hurts credibility, but in the case of this
particular essay/"joint statement", David Chandler and Jonathan
Cole's sloppy research into the Pentagon attack mainly hurts the
credibility of David Chandler and Jonathan Cole, not the body WTC
research at large. Fortunately I don't think it really even
undermines most of their own work on the WTC, which from what I have
seen is, like our Pentagon research, largely "open-source" (i.e.
does not require one to "take their word for it").
Regardless, there isn't
a shoddy hit-piece that they can write which will make the towers
and Building 7 seem to have fallen down as the result of a purely
Why, then, the strenuous push to focus the
attention of the Truth Movement onto the Pentagon? Does it
sound too cynical to suggest that we are being intentionally set
There seems to be a much more
"strenuous push" to encourage, manipulate, and browbeat people into
ignoring the Pentagon. For example, in this very essay, even
though they state that there are "important questions" regarding the
Pentagon attack, they go on to call investigation into the Pentagon
attack an "almost irrelevent" "dead-end for research"
that is "doomed to
failure". In his recent interview with John Bursill,
he called it "a distraction". To the same end, Chandler and Cole's cohorts (and
recently Chandler himself) attack CIT and others who reject the
notion that the plane hit the Pentagon pretty much daily on sites
like 911Blogger while
denying their targets "right of reply", and indeed
banning or censoring virtually anyone with
the knowledge and inclination to defend us from the constant lies
and distortions, or even just repeatedly expresses strong
support for us.
On the other hand, we
sure as hell are not trying to stop people from investigating the
WTC -- or Shanksville or other facets of 9/11 -- and exposing the
evidence. Nor COULD we even if we did want to in the
case of the WTC (which we don't). NO ONE could. The
"Truth Movement" will NEVER ignore the WTC, nor should "it".
We must remember that we are in a situation where nearly 3000 people
were murdered in a day not counting the thousands who have died
since, and millions killed in the resulting wars. If agencies
of the US government really are complicit, which the evidence shows
to be the case, then the people who really know what happened are
playing for keeps. Any movement with real potential for
arriving at incriminating truth will certainly be highly
infiltrated. This is not paranoia: it is a simple fact.
The 9/11 Truth Movement must respond by policing itself and holding
itself to the highest standards of intellectual rigor..
I couldn't agree more. We have much
higher standards of intellectual rigor on this subject than the
relatively small but aggressive clique of CIT detractors who purport
to be part of the "The 9/11 Truth Movement". We also have
higher levels of honesty, forthrightness, sincerity, and conviction.
This is why we have challenged many of the people who have written
fraudulent attack pieces against us to debate us directly. It
is no surprise that most, such as
Jim Hoffman (an apparent Pentagon mentor to Chandler and
911Blogger moderator Erik Larson,"Cosmos",
"SnowCrash" aka Michiel de Boer, etc., fail to debate us
when invited, opting instead to launch dishonest attacks on websites
where they know that we
cannot respond directly. If they were
"intellectually rigorous" and sincere they would have jumped at the
opportunity to get to "expose" us and corner us in our supposed
"con" artist lies. Common sense will tell you this.
It is no coincidence that after becoming the first of the
aforementioned clique to agree to a public debate after months of
sustained attacks against us online, John Bursill
conceded pretty much every major point, and ultimately defeat
in that debate. Of course, not long afterwards he went right back
to attacking us, despite his promises to stop and his admissions
that he and his comrades were out of line.
Later in this rebuttal I will challenge
David Chandler and Jonathan Cole to have a public debate/discussion
with me. Do readers think they will jump at this opportunity
to "police" us and expose our "foolish theory" while demonstrating
their superior "intellectual rigor"? CIT (Citizen Investigation Team)
It is sometimes hard to tell the difference
between simply foolish theories and intentionally planted foolish
theories. The difference is generally speculative. The wisest policy
is to avoid foolish theories altogether.
I agree with these statements generally speaking, but as the rest
of their essay reveals, Chandler and Cole are making these
statements in the context of attempting to characterize the north
side approach and flyover as "foolish" when it is nothing of the
I'd also like to note here how Chandler seems to be trying to play both
sides of this issue. He is implying here that the flyover
"theory" is "foolish", and in recent interview with John Bursill he
called it "bizarre", "totally out of left field", and
"not even remotely plausible". Meanwhile, he (falsely/misleadingly) claimed above
that "The nearly unanimous testimony of over a hundred
eyewitnesses, is that a large aircraft, consistent with a 757, flew
very low at very high speed, clipped several light poles, and
crashed into the face of the Pentagon at ground level... The
eyewitness testimony is consistent with the pattern of damage both
inside and outside of the Pentagon." Yet in the same interview with Bursill he said:
"what happened at the
Pentagon is a mystery" (59:04)
"it appears that the
damage to the light poles is consistent with the kind of plane
that American Airlines Flight 77 was all about. So in other
words it seems plausible and I'm just arguing on plausibility
here I'm not saying 'this is what happened" (1:06:23)
"My position in this
is not that I am trying to say exactly what happened, I'm trying
to say it is plausible for a plane like Flight 77 to actually
hit the Pentagon and do the damage that's seen" (1:15:20)
Only arguing plausibly? Not trying to say exactly what happened?
"A mystery"? Does he accept that there was in fact
a large, low-flying plane on the scene, and that a large explosion
occurred at the time that it reached the building, as reported by
scores of witnesses? It seems clear that he does. If he
doesn't, I'd love to hear why. If he does, there
are really only two options
here: it flew over or it didn't. If the notion of a flyover is
"foolish", "totally out of left field", "bizarre",
and "not even remotely plausible" then what's left? Seems
like he is simply trying to pander
to the overwhelming majority of the truth movement who don't buy the
notion that a large plane (which was on the scene), let alone AA77,
hit the building, while simultaneously acting like they're crazy.
The generally accepted story regarding the
Pentagon is that American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked and flown
to Washington DC, did a very difficult downward spiral maneuver,
approached the Pentagon flying essentially eastward along Columbia
Pike, descended to very low altitude, knocked over several light
poles, damaged a generator sitting on the Pentagon lawn, crashed
into the west face of the Pentagon at ground level, at very high
speed, and created a trail of damage inside the outer three rings of
the Pentagon in perfect alignment with the exterior trail of
Here Chandler and Cole are simply repeating the
official impact narrative (adding in that the "downward spiral
was "very difficult"), but who are they suggesting it has been
"generally accepted" by? Earlier in the essay they state that the
notion that AA77 did NOT hit is "popular belief", and in a recent interview with John Bursill Chandler
said that it was "very
popular" to "jump on board" with CIT. That can only mean that
now they are stating the official impact narrative that they just laid out is
"generally accepted" by the public at large, who obviously support the
official story in all aspects, including the notion that the WTC towers
simply collapsed. What's the point?
Enter CIT, the Citizen
Investigation Team. This grass-roots-sounding organization....
Calling us a “grass-roots-sounding organization” is clearly meant to
falsely imply that we really aren't one, or else at least plant that
idea in the readers head. This kind of innuendo is repeated within this unprovoked mis-or-dis-information-filled
assault. This particular line (calling us “grass roots sounding”)
was devised by Jim Hoffman, whose attacks against us Chandler and
Cole repeatedly parrot elsewhere in this hollow attack piece as
This highly abridged narrative told by Chandler and Cole,
which jumps right from what is essentially a re-telling of the
official impact story to CIT's "entrance", ignores the fact that
for years millions of people around the world were already strongly
doubting that AA77 or any large plane had struck the Pentagon on
9/11. In fact, many people were already fully convinced that
this was not the case. As a result of the evidence that was
already available raising these questions, we were driven to know
for sure what the truth of the matter was, which is why we launched
our investigation and traveled to Arlington. We did not simply
come out of nowhere questioning an otherwise universally accepted
AA77 impact story. People like Chandler who believe that a
large plane which may well have been AA77 hit the Pentagon (as he
clearly implies, despite his efforts to play both sides of the
issue) have been in the extreme minority for years within
the "Truth Movement", and still are to this day.
consists essentially of two individuals from California who fly back
to Washington, conduct interviews with a number of witnesses on
video who reconstruct the flight paths (from memory, years after the
event) as being significantly further to the north than the
generally accepted flight path.
is true, but Chandler and Cole's attempt to downplay the credibility
of the north side flight path described and illustrated by the
witnesses seen in National Security Alert and others by noting that
we conducted our interviews with them "years after the event" is #1
misleading (i.e., it's either a deliberate lie by omission or
inexcusably ignorant) and #2 hypocritical. In a similar vein,
they later state that "the
witnesses accounts [that CIT presents] are far from contemporaneous
with the events".
National Security Alert at the 16:08 mark we clearly explain
that: "Many of these same witnesses were officially recorded by
the Center for Military History or the Library of Congress only
weeks after the event placing the plane in the same location. This
eliminates the notion that their accounts are inaccurate due to
faded memory due to the amount of time between the event and their
recorded independent interviews a few years later."
Throughout the presentation we cite the specific Center for Military
History (CMH) catalogue numbers for each witness who was interviewed
by one them, and the date that their official interview
We also explain that Sgt. Lagasse is on record
as far back as 2003 stating in an interview to Dick Eastman that he
was on the "starboard" side of the aircraft, which means it was on
the north side.
Did Chandler and Cole even pay attention to
the video that they are so harshly attacking??
even have an entire page on our website where we provide the names,
interview dates, and links to read or listen to the official
interviews, as well as witness quotes from the these official
interviews where they describe the north side flight path just weeks
after the event.
This is not
buried or hidden on our site at all. It is linked to right on
the Evidence page with the heading "Official Interviews" and an
explanation of the page's contents. Go to our site and see how
long it takes you to find it:
Didn't Chandler and Cole saying something about "sloppy
Furthermore, despite the fact that Chandler and Cole seem to be
trying to cast doubt on the credibility of our interviews with
eyewitnesses by noting that we conducted them "years after the
event" and "far
from contemporaneous with the events",
they hypocritically go on to promote a website
containing interviews conducted several years AFTER our interviews,
calling it "a great witness resource".
A north flight path is inconsistent with the trail of damage,
both inside and outside the Pentagon, so this flight path would
require that all the damage was intentionally and elaborately faked.
CIT then asserts that since the north flight path is inconsistent
with the damage in the building, the plane did not actually hit the
building. Instead it pulled up and flew over the Pentagon perfectly
timed with an explosion set off in the Pentagon.
This has been readily admitted even by most of our most staunch
detractors over the years as well, from alleged "truth movement"
members to JREFers, including Chandler and Cole's apparent mentors
on this issue like
Frank Legge, Jim Hoffman, and the anonymous Arabesque.
However, just to be clear, one thing I do want to address here
is the notion that the damage was "elaborately faked". This
isn't totally accurate language. Not all of the damage was
"faked", especially the damage to the Pentagon itself. There
was a massive explosion and fireball which killed 125 people on the
ground and damaged the building. The operation was designed to
deceive people about the cause of the damage, but the damage
itself was real. Much like at the WTC.
plane was hidden by the explosion as it flew off and blended in with
general air traffic. (How the passengers were disposed of is a
question they don’t consider.)
Chandler and Cole are simply telling the reader what we allegedly
have or haven't considered without bothering to ask us or to even
peruse the Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) section on our website.
Indeedthe very first FAQ on our page
addresses this question as best as we can and cites the Operation
Northwoods documents as a precedent. It's very disappointing
that they would actually speak for us without ever having the
courtesy to reach out to us and ask us a single question at all, or
even browse our website apparently. Either they felt they
could read our minds, they had an agenda to smear us even if it
meant making things up, or they have simply made reckless
assumptions while failing to research them. I'd prefer to believe the latter, though none of these options are particularly
encouraging given that these people are supposed movement leaders
warning against "sloppy research" and calling for "intellectual
Interestingly, nearly all of the people they
interview are certain that the plane hit the building and none
directly confirm the flyover hypothesis.. First, as Chandler and
Cole agreed earlier in the essay, it's
impossible for a plane on the north side to cause the physical
damage. Since physics (science) proves that this is
the case, anyone who places the plane on the north side implicitly
confirms a flyover, much like how the freefall of WTC7 confirms that
it was brought down in a controlled demolition, even without direct
testimony to the bombs being planted.
Second, we present at least one witness on record (Roosevelt
Roberts Jr) who saw the "commercial aircraft" flying away
"like it missed the wrong target" at "less than 100 feet" altitude
"ten seconds tops" after the explosion, as well as evidence that
others reported this immediately after the explosion (as attested to
Erik Dihle). This certainly does "directly confirm
the flyover", even if Roosevelt himself did not understand the
implications of what he saw at the time.
and Cole's statement that "nearly all of the people [CIT]
interview are certain that the plane hit the building", they
acknowledge the fact that the
north side approach and impact are
mutually exclusive claims. All of them being
independently mistaken about the north side approach given their
various excellent vantage points would require simultaneous
matching hallucinations. All of them being deceived
about the plane hitting the building 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. This isn't rocket
science, or even high school physics.
Furthermore, while they
each had an excellent view of the plane as it passed by them at
treetop level, many of the witnesses in question did not have a
clear view of the impact point, or in some cases any view of the
Pentagon at all, and/or they admit to running, flinching, or ducking
for cover. This is explained and documented very clearly in
National Security Alert.
"No one was
really trying to look see if it actually was gonna hit the building
or not hit the building. So everyone was running in the
opposite direction for their lives" -
Darius Prather, ANC maintence worker
sent our DVD The PentaCon to Sgt. Lagasse and Sgt. Brooks,
and they stuck by the north side flight path, even AFTER being made
aware of the implications. Sgt. Brooks called our video an
"eye-opener", and admitted that "anything is possible" in terms of
him being fooled about the impact. (This too is explained in
National Security Alert). We also sent Arlington National
Cemetary worker and eyewitness Darrell Stafford copies
of The North Side Flyover and National Security Alert, and we know
recent CNN piece that Mr. Stafford is sticking to the
north side approach as well, which is not surprising because he is
on record saying the same thing since 2001 and is
corroborated by the witnesses in the absolute best locations to
confirm or refute this detail out of the entire witness pool,
proving that 9/11 was an inside job.
The best they can do is elicit
sketches of northerly flight paths that actually differ
significantly from each other.
There is so much wrong with this small
sentence that it's hard to know where to start. The fact that
Chandler and Cole failed to source these "sketches" or provide an
image to support the assertion that they "differ significantly from
each other" speaks volumes. A lack of quotes, links, sources,
or substantiation for their claims is commonplace throughout this
Here are the "sketches":
As seen in our video
National Security Alert, these
were drawn by eyewitnesses themselves on camera during our
interviews with them, as they stood in the exact locations from
which they witnessed the plane on 9/11.
These are not just
any witnesses, however. These sketches were drawn by witnesses
who were in key locations to judge where the plane flew in relation
to the Navy Annex and Citgo station -- areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the
As explained in National
Security Alert, it would be very difficult for any one of these
witnesses to get the location of the plane in relation to the Navy
Annex and/or gas station wrong given their vantage points,
especially the witnesses who were actually on the station
property, who were in the best location out of the entire
witness pool to judge which side the plane flew on with accuracy.
The notion that they are all simultaneously incorrect about
this general detail in the same way is not even remotely
conceivable. And again, some of them are
on record just weeks after the event placing the plane in
the same location.
Here is a composite of the various
"sketches" above, which, again, Chandler and Cole fail to supply
(click image to open larger version in a new window):
Despite Chandler and Cole's claim that
the paths drawn by the witnesses "actually differ significantly from
each other", the illustrations are all well within a reasonable
margin of error of each other considering the witnesses' different
vantage points. What is clear if you
their on-location interviews is that even if they
understandably aren't able to nail the planes exact flight
path down to the foot, they are not incorrect about the general
placement of the plane on the north side of the station.
Sgt. Lagasse explained:
and Cole's statement that "elicit[ing] sketches" is "the best [we]
can do" is so obviously false that we can only marvel at the
extremely level of dishonesty or ignorance necessary to make it. We did not simply "elicit sketches" from these
witnesses: We interviewed most of them in great detail on camera in
the exact location from which they witnessed the plane on 9/11, and
released the interviews in long form. Everyone
knows this. The "sketches" simply further clarify the flight
path as described by the witnesses on-location in these very
They compile their thirteen interviews
in a feature-length video called “National Security Alert” (with an
eyebrow-raising acronym shared with the National Security Agency:
NSA), then further cherry-pick their witnesses and present the four
who are most in agreement with their own views, and add a musical
sound track for a second video they call their “Smoking Gun”
innuendo isn't remotely subtle here. They are falsely implying
that we have connections with the government simply due to fact that
the initials of our video match with the initials of a government
agency. The reality is the opposite: We deliberately chose
that title to reclaim the phrase "National Security Alert" from
those in government who have used it to terrorize Americans, and
we'd be happy if we could reclaim the NSA acronym from them as well.
We are not the first to do this kind of thing. For example, a
few years ago there was the
Project for a New American Citizen (PNAC), which
hosted lectures from people like Steven Jones. Is
that name and acronym "eyebrow-raising" as well? Please.
What's worse is they are mangling the very well-known timeline of
the release dates of our presentations (release years, actually).
In doing so they once again demonstrate astounding ignorance of --
or dishonesty about -- the evidence we have released. "The
PentaCon (Smoking Gun Version)" was our initial
presentation released in February of 2007. This is why it only
included four witnesses. Our investigation continued, we spoke
to more and more witnesses, and over the next couple years we
numerous full-length videos and video shorts centered around
these newer interviews. Eventually, in June of 2009, almost 2
1/2 years AFTER
The PentaCon, we released National Security Alert,
which is a concise presentation pulling together much of the key
evidence we had obtained proving a north side approach and flyover,
including some of the older and newer interviews.
this means that the premise that we "further cherry-pick[ed]" the
four witnesses from National Security Alert who "are most in
agreement with [our] own views" for The PentaCon is a total
falsehood. Furthermore, we did not "cherry-pick" witnesses who
were "in agreement with our views" for National Security Alert in
the first place. "Our views" about the north side approach
came after and as a result of our on-location interviews, and
as explained above: "...it
would be very difficult for any one of these witnesses to get the
location of the plane in relation to the Navy Annex and/or gas
station wrong given their vantage points, especially the witnesses
who were actually on the station property, who were in the
best location out of the entire witness pool to judge which side the
plane flew on with accuracy. The notion that they are all
simultaneously incorrect about this general detail in the same
way is not even remotely conceivable. And again, some of
on record just weeks after the event placing the plane in
the same location."
Think about it
just for a minute. The Pentagon is completely ringed by major
highways, including Interstate 395 which had stand-still traffic
that morning. Any flyover of the Pentagon would have been
witnessed by hundreds of people from all directions. If a
plane flew over the Pentagon at low altitude leaving a major
explosion in its wake, anyone who saw it would certainly think they
were witnessing a plane bombing the Pentagon. Yet there were
no such reports, and some who were questioned later, who were in a
good position to see any flyover, said they did not see any such
We present firsthand audio
testimony obtained from the Center of Military History fromErik Dihle, who specifically stated on record in 2001 that immediately after the
explosion "some people" (plural) were yelling that "a bomb had hit
the Pentagon and a jet kept on going." His words. It's
in National Security Alert.
We also present the testimony of Pentagon police officer
Roosevelt Roberts Jr. who, although he did not see the plane
approach due to being just inside a loading dock on the other side
of the building, reports seeing a "commercial aircraft" with "jet
engines" flying away "10 seconds tops" after the explosion at "no
more than 100 feet" altitude "like it missed the wrong target, like
it missed the landing zone".
Given these facts (and
more) it's reasonable to conclude that others saw the plane fly away
as well but that this information was either covered up or simply
written off as anomalous and incorrect and not reported.
Chandler and Cole say that
"some who were questioned later, who were in a good position to
see any flyover, said they did not see any such thing", but
as usual provide absolutely zero names, quotes, or analysis.
The plane was on the north side, and this is mutually exclusive
with impact. We provide testimony from a witness who
saw the attack jet flying away seconds after the explosion.
The CIT videos don’t qualify as scientific
studies.. Our videos present evidence we have obtained from an
independent investigation conducted by regular citizens over the
course of several years. Science is utilized when needed, but
crime investigations cannot rely on science alone. Because of
this fact there are many other aspects of the on-going, worldwide,
grassroots 9/11 investigation which "don't qualify as scientific
studies" simply due to the nature of the inquiry, from
study into the identities of the alleged hijackers to
analyzing the contradictions, omissions, and distortions in the
9/11 Commission Report. That does not make such
studies invalid or devoid of a logical methodology, and our
investigation is likewise neither of these things.
unsupported blanket statements below are apparently what they cite
as their reasoning for making the accusation that our investigation
is allegedly not "scientific"...
are not representative of the overall eyewitness pool, the witnesses
accounts are far from contemporaneous with the events, and the
conversational style of the interviews frequently leads the
These are all very
reckless and serious accusations that they have failed to back up
with a single example, so I'm going to take them one by one.
1. "Their witnesses are not representative of the overall
Really? Why not? Which
witnesses would be, how many would it take and why? Of course
Chandler and Cole don't bother to even attempt to provide these
relevant details because they are simply making unsupported
accusations in a transparent attempt to cast doubt on our findings.
The reality is that -- while we have spoken with several dozens of
witnesses firsthand -- with regard to the critical question of what
side of the gas station the plane flew, the body of witnesses we
present is not only overwhelmingly strong but also comprehensive
with 100% of the known witnesses to the plane who were on or
immediately near the gas station's property represented, as well as
witnesses who were, we contend, in the next best locations to answer
this question, namely the ANC workers and Sean Boger. There
are no witnesses on record who could see the gas station and say
they watched the plane fly past the south side of the station, so
it's not surprising that Chandler and Cole do not name or quote a
single witness in this entire essay.
2. "the witnesses
accounts are far from contemporaneous with the events"
I already explained and documented in
greater detail earlier , we make it extremely clear in both
National Security Alert and on our website that a number of the
witnesses are on record much earlier reporting the same flight path.
Once again Chandler and Cole have demonstrated that they have, at
best, not bothered to pay attention to the presentation they are so
harshly attacking. In the same earlier section I also
pointed out the hypocrisy of them making this charge, yet
going on to promote a website containing
interviews conducted several years AFTER our interviews and calling
it "a great witness resource".
"...and the conversational style of the interviews frequently
leads the witnesses."
Surely readers will agree
that the least Chandler and Cole could do is provide a single
example to support such a lofty accusation. Actually, numerous
examples would be appropriate given that they claim we "frequently"
do this. Yet they failed to provide one. That is not to
say that it would necessarily be impossible to find any examples
where we could have worded a question better, but if so, it is the
exception to the rule, not something that we do frequently at all,
as we make a genuine effort to ask non-leading questions. I
address this charge in more detail later in this response.
Who knows what conversations preceded the videotaped
interviews to either shape or filter the testimonies? The notion that we would be able to "shape
or filter" the very detailed testimonies of these people in any
significant way is pretty absurd, particularly since the
witnesses were all in essence strangers to us until shortly before
the on-camera interviews began. We are not capable of leading
witness after witness to describe the north side flight path in such
great detail and with such conviction. I think this is obvious
to the overwhelming majority of people who watch the interviews.
Another big problem with this theory is that, again, as explained
clearly in National Security Alert and
on our website, a number of these people are on record
placing the plane in the same place years before we ever interviewed
them; in some cases just weeks after the event.
Moreover, we have provided the witnesses with copies of our
presentations and none of them have accused us of misrepresenting
their claims, while some have openly affirmed that we represented
their accounts honestly and fairly.
The “researchers” ignore the fact that none of their witnesses
directly confirms their primary hypothesis: a Pentagon flyover.
It is also very ironic for them to put "researchers" in scare quotes
in the context of such a stunningly shoddy article.
Some of the witnesses contradict themselves, but this does not count
against their credibility.
As usual Chandler and Cole provide no
examples of witness contradictions to support their statement, so
there is nothing specific for me to address here. We supply
recordings of the detailed interviews so that people can determine each
witnesses' level of credibility for themselves. We think the
north side flight path is credibly established well beyond a
reasonable doubt. It has been our experience that most people
who view the interviews agree.
is no mention of the voluminous eyewitness testimony that supports
the conventional path in line with the path of destruction..
this is a doozy right here. I understand that they have not
bothered to support virtually any of their claims so far in this
entire essay, but this one? Come on. How could they NOT
at least cite SOME examples of this alleged "voluminous eyewitness
testimony that supports the conventional path"?
are really only two possible answers: Chandler and Cole are simply
repeating what they have been told/misled to believe without
bothering to research it in any real depth themselves, or they are lying.
I'd prefer to believe the former.
David, Jonathan, since your
friends Jim Hoffman and his wife Victoria apparently hung you out to
dry on this, let me speak to you directly and explain:
There are ZERO eyewitnesses on record who could see the Citgo
station as the plane flew past it and place the plane on the
"conventional path", i.e. south side of the station, where it
had to be in order to hit the downed light poles, generator
trailer, and building as already admitted by you. On
the other hand, there are now over a dozen on record who could see
the Citgo gas station and place the plane on the north side flight
If we were "cherry-picking" witnesses then the
witnesses who "erroneously" place the plane on the north side would
be greatly outnumbered by the witnesses who "correctly" place it on
the south side. It would therefore be much easier to
find south side witnesses than north side witnesses. And yet,
in nearly four years since the release of The PentaCon and
our four initial north side witnesses, which Jim Hoffman
baselessly called a "hoax" at the time, none of our
detractors, who have spent a combined total of countless thousands
of hours arguing against the north side approach online, have been
able to locate and interview a single one. Meanwhile, every
person that we have interviewed since releasing The PentaCon
who could see the Citgo gas station corroborated the initial north side reports
that Hoffman had quickly branded a "hoax". Why do you think this is?
Furthermore, all witnesses are not created equal regarding their
ability to answer the question of which side of the gas station the
plane was on. The majority of the witnesses could not see the
Citgo as the plane flew past it. We have interviewed the
witnesses who, out of the entire known witness pool, were in the
absolute best locations to judge where the plane flew in relation to
the Citgo, and they consistently said that it was on the north side.
Why are you and especially the people you are parroting so willing to make
false statements to defend the "conventional flight path" and the
theory that the plane (which you suggest also may have been AA77)
hit the Pentagon, which has long been (justifiably) widely-rejected
by the 9/11 Truth Movement?
Rather than subject their work to peer review, even internal peer
review within the 9/11 Truth Movement, they simply disparage any who
take issue with their methods or their results, and instead rely on
a list of questionable endorsements.
Subject our work to "peer review"? We have published our work.
It's there for all peers to review. Our findings are more
suitable for a citizen jury than scientific peer review, as it does
not take an expert or scientist of any sort in a court of law to
determine the veracity and strength of eyewitness evidence.
This is explained in detail in
this thread, where it is also
demonstrated that the alleged "peer review" process given to Frank Legge's dishonest opinion piece titled "What Hit The Pentagon?",
which was published in the Journal of Nine Eleven Studies, was a
The notion that we "simply
disparage any who take issue with" our "methods" or "results" is
incorrect as this very rebuttal shows. We are not "simply
disparaging" David Chandler and Jonathan Cole - we are specifically
explaining why so much of they say is false and/or misleading.
Although we are proud of the more formal
statements of support and praise that National Security Alert has garnered from some of our peers who have
reviewed it, the validity and strength of our work does not
"rely" on them.
They posted a literal “enemies list” on the internet in which
they attacked the character of those who disagree with them.
[Ed. Note: we are not yet on that list, but after posting
this essay we will surely qualify.]
This is yet another false accusation by Chandler and Cole that they
have once again failed to source.
They are referring to a thread titled "Face to the Name" where
we invited people to post public photos of some of the shady
characters on the ferociously anti-truth/pseudo-skeptic website JREF,
who were publicly attacking us, and indeed pretty much ALL figures
of the 9/11 truth movement, from behind anonymous usernames.
Even though it went beyond the original scope of the thread, we did
eventually end up including several already-public images of the
otherwise rather elusive faces of a handful of individuals who claim
they are members of the 9/11 Truth movement yet, like the JREFers,
have launched dishonest, unprovoked attacks against us and the
evidence we have presented, in some cases even working directly with
JREFers in the process. Certainly it was our right to do so,
and unlike Chandler and Cole, I will link to the thread for you
The thread has always
been titled "Face to the Name" and had simply been given the
subtitle of "know thy enemy" when it was first created as a
repository for public JREFer images. The phrase "enemies list"
was never used by us, so the fact that Chandler and Cole used the
word "literal" and then included the phrase "enemies list" in quotes
once again proves that they have utilized extremely sloppy research
techniques for this extremely harsh attack piece, or else they are
purposely trying to mislead their readers. I'd prefer to
believe the former.
"a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against,
or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary
or opponent". You can judge the aptness of this word for
yourself, but regardless, we changed the subtitle to "images of CIT
attackers and detractors" long ago because it was more consistent
with the obvious premise of the thread, and also because
propagandists who cannot refute the
evidence for a north side approach and flyover were
attempting to manufacture a scandal and conjure up images of Richard
Nixon based around the simple use of the word "enemy".
Chandler and Cole apparently consider themselves our "enemies" by
stating that they would "surely qualify" for inclusion on an
"enemies list". However, since the "Face to the Name" thread
is not an "enemies list" and has not even included the phrase "know
thy enemy" in the subtitle for a long time, and since we have not
posted in that thread in almost a year and a half, and since we
never wanted to be "enemies" with Chandler or Cole, whose
WTC work we respect, in the first
place, and since Chandler and Cole's full names and faces are
already relatively well known anyway, we have no inclination to add
them to that thread. I commend them for being wiling to at
least take credit for what they say instead of hiding behind
internet usernames. However, why they would want to sign their
names to this ridiculous essay is a mystery. CIT has even gone so far as to disparage their own
witnesses, accusing the driver of the taxi that was hit by a light
pole of being a co-conspirator with the perpetrators of the crime.
Logical skeptics who have seen
National Security Alert understand that Lloyde England's
account has been proven false, and that the plane flew nowhere near
the pole which allegedly speared his windshield
while leaving his hood pristine after being hit by a 757
going 530 mph in the opposite direction.
We went back to Lloyde's house in 2008 to discuss this evidence with him directly
and to give him a chance to respond publicly. Despite the fact
that he was well aware that we had publicly stated that he was an
accomplice to the crime ("whether willing, manipulated, or coerced",
as we put it), he did not express outrage or tell us that he felt we
had "disparaged" him, and as a matter of fact his
FBI-employee wife Shirle AGREED with our statement that the
plane "didn't hit the Pentagon and just kept on going" (which is
mutually exclusive with Lloyde's story being true, and thus mutually
exclusive with him NOT
being an accomplice).
As for Lloyde, he spoke with us, took us
to see his cab, and even made some rather revealing candid
statements to us. We released a very thorough 95 minute
presentation entitled "Lloyde
England and His Taxi Cab - The Eye of the Storm" documenting
this experience, clips from which appear in
National Security Alert as well. People can watch that
for themselves and see whether or not we are behaving in a
reasonable manner. The majority of the feedback we have gotten
has been extremely positive.
Saying that we accuse Lloyde of being a "co-conspirator" is
misleading, because we have always made it clear that we are not
blaming Lloyde for 9/11, and that he is not even remotely on the
same level as the true perpetrators, planners, and executors of a
crime of this magnitude.
If Chandler and Cole are actually
professing their support and belief in the cab driver's story they
certainly aren't attempting to make a convincing case for it.
CIT has gone out of its way to make themselves a highly divisive
issue in the 9/11 Truth movement.
Wrong again. We have no desire to be divisive, and the notion
that we have "gone out of our way to make ourselves a highly
divisive issue" is even more grossly inaccurate. Unlike
Chandler and Cole we have not published attack pieces against anyone
"in the 9/11 Truth movement" and have merely responded
to the voluminous attacks which have been leveled against us by "JREFers"
and a relatively small but aggressive group of people who claim to
be part of the "Truth Movement". Otherwise we prefer to stick
to investigating 9/11 and providing evidence which further proves
that it was a false flag operation.
The “Flyover theory” had recent success in getting main stream media
coverage on the Jesse Ventura “Conspiracy Theory” show Jesse Ventura
“Conspiracy Theory” show. Yes, it was mentioned in passing during the course of the hour
long episode, but the primary evidence supporting it was not
included. No interviews with eyewitnesses to the plane were presented at all.
Whether CIT in fact represents an orchestrated
attempt to splinter the 9/11 Truth Movement or not, it is having a
splintering effect. CIT represents no
such thing. We are conducting an investigation into the
Pentagon attack, and have obtained and published overwhelming
evidence that it was a false flag operation. Chandler and Cole
admit that it is already "popular belief" that AA77 did not hit the
building, and we provided hard evidence to prove it, which has been
very well-received and supported, by Chandler's own admission.
If anyone is attempting to "splinter the 9/11 Truth Movement" it is
the relatively small clique of individuals who devote so much of
their time and energy to attacking us or spreading false information
in support of an impact when they could be working to uncover more
evidence exposing 9/11 as a false flag event or getting the word out
about the evidence we, as a "movement", do have.
“Divide and Conquer” has a long history, going
back to Caesar in the Gallic Wars, and Alexander the Great before
him. CIT is attempting to become the public face of the 9/11 Truth
Movement. If it succeeds, the 9/11 Truth Movement will be seen
as vicious, mean spirited, crazy, and ultimately discredited. It's not true that we are attempting to become "the" public
face of the 9/11 Truth Movement. We are, again, simply conducting an
investigation into the Pentagon attack and publishing our findings.
If David Chandler or Jonathan Cole had bothered to speak with us or
learn anything about us and the origins of our investigation before
attacking us they would know that we did not go into our
investigation with the goal or even desire to become public figures
or even film-makers.
Even after we ended up uncovering a critical "smoking gun" in the
north side approach, we offered any and all of our footage and
research to Dylan Avery, who had accompanied us to Arlington during
our first trip, for inclusion in Loose Change: Final Cut for
free. We would have preferred to stay behind the scenes as fairly
unknown researchers and private citizens while others were "the
face". However, even though we were ultimately shown and
credited as two-thirds of the "Arlington Crew" in the credits for
that film, the material was not covered in an honest or appropriate
way. Most notably, the north side approach evidence, as well
as the other corresponding evidence for the falsity of cab driver Lloyde's
story, was completely omitted. It had become clear to us several
months before Final Cut was released that this was going to
happen, so at that point we had no choice but to compile it into a
film ourselves and publish it using our real names to get it out
into the public domain and in the hands of people fighting for 9/11
truth and justice.
As our investigation continued we kept getting additional
corroboration for the north side approach and flyover, as well as
uncovering other key information that debunked the "official story"
on many other levels, so naturally we published that as well.
The information got more and more attention, and thus we did
personally as well, especially from people who were unable to refute
the evidence, and who instead found it easier attack us personally.
that the evidence for a north side approach and flyover is some of
the most clear, easy-to-understand, compelling evidence proving that
9/11 was a false flag operation of the "MIHOP" variety out there, if
not the clearest, so we created National Security Alert in 2009 as a
concise presentation of the key evidence so that the information
could reach a wider audience. This is very similar to what
David Chandler has done with his new DVD "9/11 Analysis",
"a compilation of the many short analysis videos David
Chandler has produced and uploaded to the internet over the last few
years, woven together with an interpretive narrative."
Chandler, we naturally want the information on our DVD to reach the
widest possible audience because of our conviction in its strength
and importance. Unlike David Chandler and Jonathan Cole,
however, we are not launching unprovoked, and more importantly
mis-or-dis-info-laced public attacks to try to tear down other
researchers or "public faces of the 9/11 Truth Movement", so if
anyone is trying to become "the" public face of the "9/11 Truth
Movement" it is Chandler and Cole, not us. I have personally
met or communicated with many other "public faces of the 9/11 truth
movement" over the years and consider them friends and allies in the
fight to expose the truth about 9/11. Many of them have
praised and supported our work, some
publicly and formally, some privately or less formally. I
support much of their work as well.
My concern, as well as Aldo's, has always been the evidence.
This isn't about Craig Ranke or Aldo Marquis, and it never was.
If anyone has a problem with our personalities, fine. But this
evidence cannot be denied. If others who understand this want
to take the time to become experts on it and become "spokesmen" for
it in their own right, great. I know of a few people who have
already done this, and we'd love to see that happen a lot more.
Finally, hopefully by now I don't
have to point out the irony and hypocrisy of them warning that "the
9/11 Truth Movement" will be seen as "vicious, mean spirited, crazy,
and ultimately discredited"
in the context of an essay filled with false information presented
in a rather "vicious, mean spirited" way, and which
vitriolic hit pieces with titles like
"Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing
PentaCon (Smoking Crack Version)" and "To Con A Movement",
and praising Jeff Hill.
If the Pentagon issue intrigues you, we highly recommend
that you balance your reading with the literature that sets Pentagon
theorizing into perspective.
irony and hypocrisy of David Chandler and Jonathan Cole recommending
that people "balance [their] reading" on this issue is amazing.
Throughout this essay they are clearly parroting what they have read
and heard from a handful of extremely dishonest CIT detractors, and have not taken
any significant time to study our work for themselves or even check
to see if the claims being made by their mentors were true.
Either that or they are just dishonest themselves. I'd prefer to believe the
Here is a short recommended reading list.
(All of the authors are on CIT’s enemies list, but read them and
decide about their credibility for yourself.)
Again, we never had an "enemies list" as Chandler and Cole claim.
Also, assuming that they aren't purposely lying, they must not have
even read the "Face to the Name" thread that they failed to link to
and are once again mischaracterizing here, because Jeff Hill does
not appear there. Nor does anyone associated with the
"American Memory Project of the Library of Congress".
Furthermore, although we briefly mention "Arabesque" in two short
sentences in response to a question from a forum member explicitly
asking us whether or not we have any photos of "Arabesque", no such
photos appear in the thread, since he/she/it is a completely
anonymous (former) blogger with no public photos associated with him
In conclusion, we urge you not to be taken
in by divisive speculation masquerading as research.
We know that Chandler recently met with Victoria Ashley and her
husband Jim Hoffman in person, and it is obvious that throughout
this essay Chandler and Cole echo their disinfo pieces against us,
so I've addressed a number of her bogus claims already.
This particular essay, "To Con A Movement", is so long
and so dishonest that it would require a response 10x
longer than this Chandler/Cole response to untangle the mess line by line. The very first sentence
alone for example has at least three lies in it. She writes:
"This essay examines the work of the Citizen Investigation Team
(CIT), a team of two people who claim to prove that a complicated
"magic show" occurred during the Pentagon attack on 9/11/01, fooling
all of the witnesses and surviving victims of the event into
believing that American Airlines Flight 77 (AA77) hit the Pentagon,
when instead, it flew just over the building, obscured by a
simultaneous explosion, and then somehow flew away, unnoticed by
anyone in the area (the "flyover" theory)."
deception did not "fool all of the witnesses and surviving victims"
and Ashley knows it. See April Gallop, for example. 2. We
do not claim that "AA77" flew over the building. Ashley
knows this, and it has been right in
the very first FAQ question on our webpage since before
she ever wrote this essay: "Also, let us be perfectly clear: we
have never claimed that the low-flying plane seen by all of the
witnesses that we interviewed was actually Flight 77, nor do we
believe that to be the case." 3. We do not claim that the
plane "flew away, unnoticed by anyone in the area", and Ashley knows
it. We know people saw it, have always said so, and we provide
direct evidence of it. 9/11 and the Pentagon Attack:
What Witnesses Described
A Critical Review of ‘The PentaCon – Smoking Gun Version’
These two blog entries are
both by anonymous blogger "Arabesque". I touched on the first
one earlier. A lot of the same issues apply to the second one.
Go ahead and try to read it after watching
Alert in full and viewing our
other videos and research and see
if it debunks anything. Remember to check the footnotes and
you'll see that "Arabesque" once again he fails to provide sources
for his/her/its out of context snippets for the reader to check out,
only names of alleged witnesses. Meanwhile, he/she/it once
again trots out his
bogus alleged "light pole" witnesses, for example.
Also, in his/her/its "Review", "Arabesque" writes: "The PentaCon
argues that if the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station it
couldn’t account for the damage at the Pentagon. While this is true,
it assumes that the eyewitnesses correctly remembered what
That was May of 2007. We have since released many
interviews with witness after witnesswho corrborate the
supposedly incorrect memories of the four eyewitness in The
PentaCon, who saw the plane on the north side, which, if true, means it
"couldn't account for the damage at the Pentagon" by Arabesque's own
Yet Hoffman and Ashley still promote Arabesque's discredited work
and make many of the same claims themselves, and Chandler and Cole
are now following the pied pipers.
As a side note, for all we know "Arabesque" could actually be Jim Hoffman, or Jim Hoffman working in
conjunction with others such as his wife Victoria Ashley and/or Gregg
Roberts. This certainly cannot be ruled out given that
"Arabesque" is totally anonymous and has been heavily
promoted by Hoffman and Ashley since shortly after he appeared on
the scene (internet). They do make a lot of the
same bogus and/or deceptive arguments, and it's interesting to note
that "Arabesque" disappeared from blogging the exact same week that
Hoffman began publicly attacking us. However, we simply do not
know for sure.
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon (Smoking Crack Version)
by Jim Hoffman
Prior to the release of National Security Alert, Jim Hoffman
had only a brief mention of our work on his website, where he
labeled our video The PentaCon "hoax-promoting" with a link
to Arabesque and no original analysis. In 2007 I
sent him an e-mail with the heading "hoax?" which ended
We are not disinfo and we are not pushing a 'hoax'. Arabesque's
simplistic and naive 'debunk' falls flat and doesn't begin to
counter what we have presented. We will debate you any time over the
phone or on a radio show but hopefully you will objectively look at
the data that we present in relation to the anomalous FDR and
realize that we are on to something important here. I respectfully
request that you remove us from your 'hoax' page and if you refuse I
formally challenge you to a public debate or even invite you to
civilly discuss the evidence with me privately over the phone."
Hoffman ignored this e-mail, as well as e-mails from others
supportive of our work who made similar pleas (example),
yet continued to label us a "hoax" on his website for years, even
after we kept finding and publishing witness after witness who
confirmed the north side approach.
We released National
Security Alert on June 15, 2009, and it quickly received quite a bit
of praise and attention. Six weeks later, Hoffman and Victoria
Ashley, who are reportedly now married, released their his-and-hers
hit pieces simultaneously on the same day, July 26, 2009. As
with Ashley's article, the title of Hoffman's article is indicative
of the tone. Ashley suggests that we're pushing a
massive "con" job while Hoffman associates us with "smoking crack".
Note the dichotomy: Ashley's article implies that we're evil genius
con-men who are cunning and skillful enough to have conned a
substantial portion of the truth movement while Hoffman's article
suggests that it would take a delusional nutcase akin to a crack or
PCP smoker in order to "take the flyover seriously". He explains his
reference to "crack" in the title by claiming, "The level of
disconnection from the reality of the situation needed to take the
flyover seriously is such that, perhaps a more fitting title for a
detailed defense of the flyover theory would be: 'PentaCon (Smoking
Wack Version)' -- a reference to the dissociative drug PCP
How can we have masterminded such an effective and
significant "con" job if someone would need to be disconnected from
reality like a strung out drug addict in order to "take the flyover
seriously"? Obviously if this were the case our work wouldn't be, by
Chandler's own admission and his own words, "very popular", and we
wouldn't have gotten and be continuing to get so many statements of
praise from researchers, activists, scholars, engineers,
A full response to Hoffman's article is beyond the scope of
this rebuttal and will have to wait for another time, but one of the more egregious things wrong with
is the fact that he relies on unrealistic-looking, computer
generated images (CGI) of the area around the Pentagon created from Google
Earth that do not remotely represent the true point of view (POV) of
someone driving on the highways. All trees, landscape, and
even other structures in the area are removed. He claims that
these images "show what would be seen at each vantage point for
each of the five points in time", yet in the next sentence he
contradicts himself and admits that this is not the case at all
since "[Google] Street View shows visual obstructions such as
trees and small buildings that are not realistically rendered in
In spite of this admission, he embeds the deceptive computer
generated "snapshots" in the article, not the much more realistic
images from Google Street view which DO show "visual obstructions
such as trees and small buildings" (and walls, overpasses,
fences, street signs, etc).
Furthermore, even though they are
an improvement over his deceptive CGI, Google Street view images are
also inaccurate because they were taken from a camera
mounted several feet above the roof of a car.
For more accurate POV shots from the surrounding highways you would
have to provide images/video from
inside a car as we have in our presentation
"CIT Jettin' Crosstown".
promoting his deceptive hit piece article and CGI animations in a 2009
interview with Michael Wolsey, Hoffman referenced "CIT
Jettin' Crosstown" by name (he calls it "Jetting Around Town"),
and he went off on a rant calling it "deceptive", even though it's
just a video of us driving around on the highways surrounding the
Pentagon with no narration or analysis at all.
"...so I encourage people to take that tour [i.e., watch his
inaccurate CGI animations -CR], and see what things actually look like.
According to CIT, people cou-- I mean, just as an illustration of
how deceptive this is, if you just read their material, you would
think the only observers are ones that are on a very small portion
of- of um- of twenty- of Route 27, the route to the west of the
Pentagon, as if all these other sides of the Pentagon exist. And you
don't get a sense of what the viewscapes are like or anything by
taking THEIR guided tour, because it's-- it's so deceptively
Watch the video yourself and you will see Hoffman's
stunning dishonesty. We absolutely do include the other
highways around the Pentagon, including Route 27, I-395, Route 110,
and Columbia Pike, and again, unlike Hoffman, we provide real
video images filmed from inside a car with no narration or
analysis at all, as anyone who has seen the video knows. This
is one of the many examples of Hoffman spreading disinformation
about us, our research, and the Pentagon attack that is primarily geared
toward people who will not actually check out his claims and sources, but will just take his word for it because he has
gained their trust.
It's important to understand that most of the genuine potential
witnesses in the area would be looking straight ahead and paying
attention to the road and/or preoccupied listening to their radios
about the events in New York, and that many who would have been in
the best locations to potentially see the plane flying away would
not have been alerted to the event until after the explosion.
People weren't staring at the Pentagon completely unobstructed
waiting for the plane to come in and then slowly stepping through
the event one frame at a time as a tiny translucent fireball
occurred, as seen in Hoffman's images.
Interestingly, Hoffman himself does basically acknowledge a lot of
this in the text of the article, even though his images
create the opposite impression. He says (underline added):
"The normal human reaction to hearing a blast is to
immediately turn to look, and that reaction typically
takes less than a second. Even considering the time it takes
sound to travel from the explosion's center to the various vantage
points, most bystanders and drivers alerted by the sound
would look up to see the unforgettable sight of a jetliner
fleeing the explosion as if it had dive-bombed the Pentagon. "
Notice that he is acknowledging that they would be alerted to the
event "by the sound", which would take time to travel to them, and
that their reaction of turning "to look", or "look[ing] up", would
not be instantaneous -- there would be a natural reaction time,
which Hoffman sets at "typically.. less than a second".
The speed of sound at sea level on an average day is 741 mph
NASA, Wikipedia). That's 12.35 miles per minute, 0.206
miles per second.
The table below shows the approximate distances from the
"explosion's center" to each of Hoffman's vantage points on highways
395 and 110, derived using Google Earth's measuring tool.
By dividing the distances by 0.206 miles per second, we get the
number of seconds that it would take for the sound to reach them.
Hoffman says that it would take "typically... less than a second"
for them to react to the sound, so let's just add 0.5 seconds for
reaction time then -- a very fast reaction if you're preoccupied
driving a car and watching the road and/or listening to the events at the WTC unfold live
on the radio.
Hoffman's CGI images show the plane at five points in time:
This means that ALL of Hoffman's images show the plane during a time
period when anyone at any of Hoffman's vantage points on 395 or 110
who was "alerted by the sound" would NOT yet be looking at the
Even for the two vantage points he gives on Route 27 to the north of
the Pentagon, the total times (speed of sound + reaction) for
locations 27_1 and 27_2 are 2.73 seconds and 1.66 seconds,
(The final vantage point that he shows, 27_7, is the closest of all,
but it is immediately west of the Pentagon, and even Hoffman himself
admits that anyone "positioned on the west side of the Pentagon
close to the plane's flight path so that the explosion could obscure
its escape" would be in the best location to be deceived.)
This is also taking for granted Hoffman's assertion that "the
normal human reaction to hearing a blast is to immediately turn to
as opposed to instinctively ducking or flinching first. For
anyone who did that, the times would obviously be greater.
With all of this in mind, it's interesting to note the language of
this sentence in his "Conclusion" (underline added):
The thunderous sound of the explosion would have guaranteed that
most of the people in a position to see the event would have turned
their heads to see the explosion and the plane in close proximity.
First, notice that he once again indicates that people would NOT be
looking at the Pentagon at the time of the explosion, and that they
would turn their heads as a result of the sound.
But more importantly, notice his choice of words: after they "turned
their heads" they would see the plane "..in close proximity".
Not "flying through the fireball" or even "flying OVER the
Pentagon". Yet that is what he shows in his CGI.
In light of this, it's interesting to note that Hoffman also fails to adequately impart to his readers
how utterly ubiquitous large, extremely low-flying commercial
aircrafts are around the Pentagon -- a key piece of information that
we cite as critical to the success of the operation. Planes are
approaching and departing in the immediate airspace around the
building every 2-4 minutes all day every day. A plane "in
close proximity" is not the least bit unusual.
The proximity of planes to the Pentagon was explained as follows by
approach witness Sean Boger, the Air Traffic Controller who
was in the heliport tower right next to the alleged impact spot at
the time of the attack, in his interview with the Center for
Military History in November of 2001:
And [redacted] and I were talking, and I was like, I'm surprised
that nobody has ever flown into the Pentagon, and I am not even
talking about terrorists. I am just saying that Washington's airport
is right on the other side of the Pentagon, and she said that you
have been saying that for 3 years... And I am not even saying
terrorists. I am just saying about aircraft that makes a mistake and
actually flies into the building, because it is so close to the
Pentagon... I mean, you can look up every day and you can
actually see the landing gear on the aircraft. You can read the
numbers on the aircraft and so it is that close. And she said
you have been saying that for like 3 years.
Here is the same sentence from the "Conclusion" of Hoffman's
article again, with the sentence that follows it included as well.
The thunderous sound of the explosion would have guaranteed that
most of the people in a position to see the event would have turned
their heads to see the explosion and the plane in close proximity.
The same witnesses would have been riveted to the action as the
plane departed from the scene, whether it made a spectacular banking
turn to land at National Airport, or made an equally spectacular
climb away from the Pentagon over the Potomac.
Again, as seen above, a plane in "close proximity" to the
Pentagon is not an unusual sight at all, and there is nothing
"spectacular" about a plane making a "climb away from the Pentagon
over the Potomac". It is happening constantly, as all the
locals know. They are very accustomed to it.
The "action" that people would have been "riveted" to would have
been the massive fireball as the Pentagon exploded, not the
extremely common sight of a low flying aircraft in "close proximity"
to the Pentagon.
Furthermore, even if someone on the southeast or east side of the
building did find a plane "in close proximity" odd, they would,
within minutes, be inundated with media reports and eyewitness
interviews claiming that a plane had flown into the west side of the
Pentagon and caused the explosion. Before long they would see
debris on TV or the internet. Many would also see
pictures of or hear about light poles that were on the ground that
were allegedly hit by the plane.
They would then have to choose between:
1. Believing the truth, which is that most of these witnesses from
the west side of the Pentagon were deceived by an amazingly brazen
false flag black operation; that a handful were complicit and
fabricated stories to help sell the deception; that the
plane they themselves saw on the east side of the building was
actually the same plane that those witnesses saw approach; that the
light poles were
staged in advance and not hit by the plane. Etc.
2. Accepting that the plane they saw must have been a different
plane, like the ones constantly seen in "close proximity" to the
Given the massive psychological hurdle and tremendously horrifying
implications of accepting option number one, it's easy to see why
option two would be the natural choice, especially considering how common low-flying
commercial planes are in that airspace, and how fast the whole event
went down for them. (In fact this is exactly how
Roberts reconciled what he saw. He assumed the "commercial aircraft"
he saw flying away "ten seconds tops" after the explosion at "less
than 100 feet" altitude was "another plane".)
This choice was further facilitated by
fraudulent media reports which tried to make it seem like there WAS
another plane on the scene at the time of the explosion which veered
away at the last moment, when in reality the next plane to arrive
was a C-130 several minutes later at a much higher altitude.
For much, much more information on this, see our video:
The Pentagon Flyover: How They Pulled It Off.
American Memory Project of the Library of
Congress— Interviews shortly after 9/11 by
witnesses to various aspects of the Pentagon events. Note in
particular the interviewing style compared to the CIT interviews.
There is no leading the witness. There is no agenda to prove a
particular point. The interviewees are allowed to express
themselves freely and fully with no coaching. Several of the
witnesses interviewed here are also on the CIT videos. Notice
the differences in the overall tone as well as the details of their
If one listens to
the Library of Congress (LoC) interviews and views our interviews it
most certainly will be clear that there is a very significant
difference in "interviewing style", but also that it is nothing like
what Chandler and Cole describe.
The LoC interviews are
mostly of Pentagon police officers because they were conducted by
Jennifer Brennan, who is the daughter of police officer Donald
Brennan. It's clear that she approaches the interviews from a
human interest level as opposed to an investigative level as we have
For example, unlike CIT she
rarely if ever does any of the following:
Nail down the
witnesses' PRECISE locations at the moment of the attack
specific questions about the flight path of the plane or its
location in relation to critical landmarks
Nail down specifics
about the appearance of the plane
Ask about the plane's
altitude at various points in the flight path
Ask about the
plane's speed and how long it was in their field of view
whether or not the plane was flying straight or banking, and if the
latter, at what point, and to what degree
Ask the witnesses
whether they personally saw the light poles get struck by the plane,
or if they simply saw them on the ground after the fact
Determine whether or not the witness could actually SEE
the impact point and claims to have literally watched the alleged
impact, or if they simply saw the plane en route toward the building
followed by a large explosion and fireball while not literally
watching what happened at the instant the plane reached the building
Ask if they saw any other planes in the area, and if so, what they
looked like, when they saw them, where they flew and at what
This is not to fault Jennifer Brennan,
because, again, she was not conducting an investigation, and was
simply documenting the interviewees experiences on a human interest
While I won't claim 100% perfection given the sheer
volume and scope of interviews we have conducted, we overwhelmingly
ask non-leading questions, and unsurprisingly Chandler and Cole
provide zero examples of us "leading the witness[es]", let alone
"coaching" them. Earlier they claim that we do this
"frequently". We feel it is very obvious when watching
our videos that we do not do this to any significant degree, and
certainly did not and COULD not "lead" them to independently
describe the north side approach in such detail and so emphatically.
We have always hoped as many people as possible would
watch our interviews in long form so that they can see
for themselves that this is the case.
Furthermore, any honest
person who actually does so will see that the notion that we do not
"allow" the witnesses to "express themselves freely" is another
blatant falsehood. We typically started by having them stand
in the exact location where they were when they saw the plane on
9/11 and open-endedly asking them to describe what they saw.
We ask for clarification on certain important details to make it
clear what they purport to have seen and what they admit to having
deduced. We then ask specific, overwhelmingly non-leading
questions to try to determine the answers to questions like the ones
On our website we link directly to the LoC
interviews with the witnesses who were interviewed by us as well.
By all means, listen to the interviews in full, compare, assess the
"interview style" and content, etc. That is what they are
there for. You will likely find yourself wondering what the
heck Chandler and Cole are talking about.
We sent our DVD
The PentaCon to Sgt. Lagasse and Sgt. Brooks, who were also
interviewed by the LoC. Both agreed that we presented
their account fairly and accurately. They did not accuse us of
having led them or forbidding them from "expressing themselves
freely". Furthermore, they stuck by the north side flight
path, even AFTER being made aware of the implications. Sgt.
Brooks called our video, which featured our detailed interview with
him, an "eye-opener", and admitted that "anything is possible" in
terms of him being fooled about the impact.
Another great source for eyewitness testimony is
Jeff Hill’s website, pumpitout.com. He has made a
project of locating and calling witnesses and letting them speak for
There is so much hypocrisy and
absurdity behind making a statement and recommendation like this,
particularly in the context of this essay, that it is once again
hard to even know where to begin.
Earlier in this essay
Chandler and Cole complain that our interviews were filmed
"years after the
event" and that the accounts are "far
from contemporaneous with the events", yet they are now calling a
website containing interviews conducted 2-4 years AFTER ours a
"great source for eyewitness testimony".
Chandler went even
further on 911Blogger shortly after the publication of this essay.
On 1/3/2011 he gushed: "I urge you to listen to the recordings
made for the Library of Congress in 2001 and contrast both the tone
and content with the patently offensive, manipulative, so-called
interviews conducted by CIT. I also ran across the telephone
interviews of witnesses conducted by Jeff Hill, for the first time.
(I have links at the bottom of the essay.) These interviews are
amazing! Just listen to them!!!"
I've lost track of how
many times throughout this essay Chandler and Cole fraudulently
project the attributes and behavior of themselves or their cohorts
onto us, and based on this 911Blogger post it appears that this M.O.
is a regular thing for Chandler, at least when he is engaging in his
libelous attacks against CIT. Jeff Hill's interviews with
Pentagon witnesses are far from amazing, and more importantly
exhibit ALL of the characteristics that Chandler falsely ascribes to
ours. As a matter of fact it has been very obvious since
shortly after he suddenly began calling witnesses that Hill is
engaging in an all out disinformation campaign in support of the
disproven notion that the plane hit the building, and also in an
effort to malign myself, Aldo Marquis, Citizen Investigation Team,
our supporters, and really ANYONE who knows that the Pentagon was
not struck by AA77 on 9/11, meaning the majority of the 9/11 truth
movement. He is very blatant about it.
Before I elaborate on that, let's first ask the question: Who is
this person Jeff Hill?
Earlier in this essay, Chandler and
Cole discussed what is known as the No Plane Theory (NPT), according
to which the World Trade Center was not actually struck by planes on
9/11, and all of
showing this were faked, including the ones broadcasted live. They called it an "absurdly false claim" which "seem[s]
designed to be easily discredited", thereby "fuel[ing] a media
circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous".
of this, and their comments about how the 9/11 truth movement is
"highly infiltrated", wouldn't you think that Chandler and Cole
would therefore view the main promulgators of NPT with great
Well, for YEARS Jeff Hill was one of the most staunch,
vocal, and belligerent NPT promoters on Earth.
His website, pumpitout.com, the very website which Chandler and Cole
are now promoting, was until not very long ago a major portal for NPT, as seen in
this archived copy of the site from 2008 (screen
shot). He also made an entire documentary that
focused on and promoted NPT called "Continuous Pieces". Click
for a screen shot
showing that he uploaded this NPT-pushing documentary to the
popular BitTorrent site The Pirate Bay as recently as March 12, 2009, where it
remains as of this writing. (He
has more recently released "v2.0", but that is not the one he
uploaded to The Pirate Bay -- it is the original NPT one,
which several people also
up on YouTube if you want to see it.)
Here is a particularly disturbing
recording of Jeff Hill harassing WTC attack witness Jay Maisel at
1:00 in the morning with his no plane theories:
This is the person that Chandler and Cole are promoting right
after expressing their concern that "the 9/11 Truth Movement will
be seen as vicious, mean spirited, crazy, and ultimately discredited"
and also their view that NPT was and is basically disinformation
"designed" to discredit "the Movement".
After his long stint
as a "no planer" helping to, in the words of Chandler and Cole,
"fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous",
Jeff rather suddenly renounced his long-held NPT beliefs, and began calling
Pentagon witnesses not long after that.
It quickly became
obvious that he was doing so with the blatant goal of trying to
obtain statements which he and others could use in
propaganda and/or disinfo videos, articles, and forum posts to support an
impact of the large plane at the Pentagon and to smear CIT.
Hill himself even openly stated in his
call to Daryl Donley that he was
"just hoping to find a way to uh, like, discredit them 100%"
-- "them" being people who think that the plane did not hit
Pentagon, most specifically myself. (Hill identifies me by my full
name to Donley within about 3 minutes of getting him on the phone
and tells him that I am "going around saying that no plane hit
the Pentagon... and that it flew over the Pentagon"). So,
the fact that Chandler and Cole would falsely accuse us of "leading"
and "coaching" the witnesses with an "agenda to prove a particular
point" while praising someone like Hill who openly DOES do that is
yet another example of their hypocrisy.
had only called three Pentagon plane witnesses (Penny Elgas, Lincoln
Leibner, and Alan Wallace) before we approached him to ask if he
was familiar with our work and to assure that if he made any future
calls that he would consider the evidence we had uncovered fatally
contradicting the official story. That conversation at the Pilots
for 9/11 Truth forum, which started May 2nd 2010, is documented
here with a link to the original thread.
can see if you
read that discussion from May 2 through May 13, we
already had reason to believe just from his Wallace and Leibner
calls that Jeff might be up to no good, and as it turned out he was
very evasive, refusing to answer important and honest questions in
any detail and contradicting himself within the few very brief
answers that he did give. Instead, he waited a week and then
made a few more sloppy and even more blatantly agenda-fueled phone
calls, which he antagonistically posted saying "Here are two
people that could possibly help your story if you twist it enough".
This behavior pointed strongly to a lack of honesty, sincerity,
objectivity, and forthrightness on this issue, as explained and
backed up in detail in the two posts which followed that one in
In this debate he admitted that he just started looking into the
Pentagon but indicated that he was well aware of our findings prior
to calling any Pentagon witnesses. At the
2:44 mark he said. "But I started to look into the Pentagon and I
watched your videos you know I watched them when they came out
before I've watched all of Rob Balsamo's videos. I watch every video
I can find when it comes out. As soon as something comes out I like
to watch everything."
dialogue on the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum which
preceded and prompted the debate, we
had clearly explained (or rather reiterated) to Jeff that the question of whether the plane
was north or south of the Citgo is (and has been for years) central
to the Pentagon attack discussion since this is make or break for
the official story.
Despite claiming to have already seen our videos, he stated in
the debate that the north or south of the Citgo question wasn't a
concern of his until we had brought it up to him on the Pilots
forum, but that he now considered it an "important factor".
At 8:33 he said,
"I gotta admit that actual issue of which side of the gas station
never really crossed my mind until you brought it to my attention
again I realized ok this is an important factor."
12:18 he admitted that we provide enough evidence proving the plane
was on the north side when he said, "I think there's enough
witness testimony to say that it was coming from the north like Sgt
In spite of this, he still failed to
focus on the primary question that would corroborate or contradict
the information we provide in most of his subsequent calls, opting
instead to focus on fishing for pro-impact, anti-CIT propaganda fodder.
In fact, Hill has recently begun calling the north of Citgo vs south of Citgo
question "irrelevant". Meanwhile, he has spoken with
multiple witnesses who have contradicted the required official
flight path. Hill sometimes pretends to be
an impressionable and somewhat dimwitted "nobody from Canada" (his
words) who is confused by "some stuff he read on the internet" and
just needs to be disabused. See the deconstruction of his call
with Lincoln Leibner and others
here for example.
But more often, especially
recently, he will quickly tell them about the flyover (usually in
mocking tone while laughing, and without mentioning the evidence
which supports it) and establish himself as someone who hates such
"conspiracy theories" and those who subscribe to them, and who seeks
to "discredit them 100%" (his words). When this is done at the
beginning of the call it tips the witness off as to the kinds of
statements and in some cases the "correct" answers he is looking for
in order to "debunk" and cast doubt on these "theories".
Both approaches are different ways to encourage the witness to
support the intended part of the official story (impact) and bad
mouth so-called conspiracy theorist/theories. It is much like
someone calling a witness to the WTC destruction who is unfamiliar
with the evidence for controlled demolition and telling them that
there are "people going around the internet" with "conspiracy
theories" about that. Does an emotional or even irate
response from such a witness insisting that this controlled
demolition theory is bullshit and disproved by "their own eyes"
somehow negate the evidence contradicting their belief in a purely
gravity-driven collapse? Or is it simply a predictable and
understandable response for someone who was deceived as intended by
this sophisticated, deceptive black operation/psyop and is
unfamiliar with the evidence in question? The answer is clear:
Hill also likes to
specifically give the witnesses our full names and ask if they have
talked to us. If they say yes, he attempts to get them to talk
badly about us and "conspiracy theorists"/"theorists" in general.
If they haven't talked to us or don't remember us, he at least makes sure to "poison
the well" in the hopes that we will then not be able to call
them back ourselves and ask any important questions that he
deliberately failed to ask, or failed to ask in an honest,
non-leading, and thorough way.
Another revealing characteristic of Hill's approach to
interviewing Pentagon witnesses is his regular failure to take even
a small amount of time to carefully read, let alone study and
analyze, whatever previously-published accounts are already out
there from the witnesses before calling them.
As real truth-seekers conducting a serious investigation, this is
something we do all of the time in preparation for our interviews so
that we have a basis to start from and know what details in their
account are in need of clarification or confirmation. It also
enables us to notice if they contradict what they previously said or
were alleged to have said, and to question them about the
contradiction. This is a crucial thing to do for obvious
reasons, yet Hill has no problem missing these discrepancies since
his goal is simply to create propaganda, not to conduct a real investigation in search of the truth.
For instance, as
here, Henry Ticknor is on record since 2005 stating that
he was on Rt. 50, miles from the Pentagon, at the time of the
attack. All Hill had to do to find this out was take one
minute to Google his name or search the CIT forum before making the
call, yet he didn't. Ticknor even told him directly "I believe I was two miles from the Pentagon",
and yet just 33
seconds later, Hill asks: "So you were on like-- you were on that
highway between the Pentagon and, like, that gas station?"
Ticknor responds, "No, I was on Arlington Route 50."
which Hill -- who, in addition to not bothering to read his
extremely easy to find previously published accounts had apparently
not even ever bothered to study a map of the area -- responds:
"So would you be able to see it coming by the Citgo gas station?".
(This is one of the rare occasions where Hill actually asks this.
Ticknor predictably replies: "I don't know what Citgo gas station
you're talking about.")
Another example: In his call to
Allen Cleveland just this past month, Hill said to Cleveland: "see I'm not
familiar with the area at all - I just look liked at a couple of
pictures on google maps and stuff". This is after months
and months of calling witnesses and trying to position himself as
some kind of Pentagon attack truth-seeker. Why would he have
not taken the time to familiarize himself with the area "at all"
before calling witness after witness? Hill continued, "So I don't even really know where you were or where you saw the
plane and all that stuff", even though it's plainly stated right in
previously-published account. Even AFTER Cleveland gives him a
very detailed run down of his experience seeing the plane and
explosion in the distance while riding the metro rail, his
interaction with other passengers, getting interviewed by the
Washington Post shortly after getting off the train, etc., Hill asks him,
"Are you the one that had
the video of driving in your car or something?", indicating that
he was barely even paying attention to Cleveland's story while fishing for statements he
could use in his propaganda.
We could (and probably
will eventually have to) write a much longer essay documenting his
machinations, but in the interest of not making this already
gigantic response any longer, maybe a few more examples will
EXAMPLE 1: STUART ARTMAN
On 7/7/10, Hill called previously-published witness Stuart Artman (mp3).
It is clear from Artman's previously published account that he was
not in a position to confirm or refute an impact or flyover, as he
was on foot near the Washington Monument which is about a mile and a
half away from the Pentagon in Washington DC on the other side of
the Potomac River, and he is quoting as saying that he saw the plane
fly "behind some trees" before seeing (according to the reporter)
"the smoke from the Pentagon".
Artman indicated to Hill that
he couldn't see the Pentagon, didn't see the alleged impact, wasn't
even looking over that way at the time because he had "divert[ed
his] attention to something else", and talks about seeing the "smoke
plume", not even seeing the fireball, even though Hill tries to lead
him to saying he saw the fireball.
ARTMAN: I was standing at the Washington Monumentt
HILL: Okay! Uh, like when you-- when you were at the Washington Monument, did you-- you saw the fireball come from the Pentagon and everything??
ARTMAN: Well, I saw the plane -- or A plane -- and if you just look around the sky you see planes all the time, so
divert my attention to something else. And then it was only a mere-- few min-- seconds later if you will that I saw the
smoke plume if you will coming from the Pentagon. Cause you can't see the Pentagon directly from the Washington Monument.
And yet Hill went around to
Prison Planet Forum and
911oz announcing his call to Artman and saying:
"Stuart never actually saw the plane impact the Pentagon, but guess
what? He never saw a flyover and if anyone would have seen the
'CIT flyover' it would have been him!"
When researchers on the
911oz forum explained the absurdity and dishonesty of Hill's
statement in detail, he responded: "Reach for any excuse you
want! Stuart saw the plane approach, a few seconds later he saw the
smoke plume and no plane flying in the airspace of the Pentagon! the
CIT flyover is garbage end of story :)"
EXAMPLE 2: ALLEN CLEVELAND
repeated this exercise again recently with Allen Cleveland, who I
mentioned a moment ago. It is clear from Cleveland's
previously-published accounts that he was not able to literally see
the plane as it reached the building, since he was over a mile from
the Pentagon on a train "just pulling in on the subway station at
national airport" with view obstructed by Crystal City highrises.
He himself says: "I watched as the plane disappeared behind
the line of buildings that make up Crystal city and watched as
an incredible mushroom cloud
appeared on the horizon."
Cleveland of course confirmed this to Hill right off the bat, 23
seconds into the call (mp3):
HILL: I was reading a report, uh, there's some little blurb from the
Washington Post-. From what I get out of it, like, you didn't
actually see it hit?
CLEVELAND: No. Cause you can't actually see it from Washington--
well-- from National Airport. Uh, I-- I saw the plane come in.
And I see-- I saw it go behind Crystal City and I just tracked it
with my eyes as it, you know, went behind the buildings and
then I saw the explosion.
Here is the view facing the Pentagon from the Reagan Metro
Station which he was "just pulling in on" (from the south, behind
where the cameraman is standing). We posted it on our forum
years ago and it is still there. As you can see, the Pentagon
is not visible at all because it is over a mile away, beyond the
visible buildings, as Cleveland himself indicated.
Hill of course focuses on telling
Cleveland all about the people "on the internet" like
"Craig Ranke" who are "going around" saying that the plane didn't
hit the Pentagon. He gets Cleveland to agree that he would
have seen the flyover, but given his location this is clearly not the case just because
he saw the massive fireball, which has been described by some
witnesses as several times the height of the Pentagon. (This
is not to call Cleveland a liar - he has not studied our work; Jeff
As a matter of fact, he
made the same basic announcement on 911Blogger right in
Chandler's Pentagon "Joint Statement" thread: "Just
got off the phone with Allen Cleveland who was at the National
Airport subway station and would of had a perfect view for a
flyover. The only problem is he didn't see no flyover!" (screen
EXAMPLE 3: THOMAS TRAPASSO
Thomas Trapasso is another previously-published alleged witness who claimed
to have seen the plane on its way to the Pentagon, but he has never
claimed to have literally watched the impact. We mentioned Trapasso's account in our presentation "Flight
77 The White Plane", showing images from his complex on S
Barton and explaining how he would not have been able to see the
Pentagon at all from that location, which is over a mile away from
Trapasso reaffirmed his already-published location to Hill directly
over the phone (mp3), and also explained to him that you can't even see
the Navy Annex from there (which is much closer to him than the
Pentagon). Hill asked, "Did you see it go past the Navy
Annex or anything?" Trapasso replied, "Well no I can't
see the Navy Annex there because it's a wooded area with trees and
Nevertheless, Hill went on to fraudulently cite him as an impact
witness by including him in a video he made entitled "9/11
Pentagon Eyewitnesses - They Saw The Plane Hit!", which
he and his friends post everywhere they can, including frequently
embedding it on 911Blogger any time the Pentagon is discussed.
(For example, Jeff "shure" Hill himself
embedded it in the thread for this very Chandler/Cole
Also, during this relatively short call, as he has done with several
other witnesses, Hill tried to dig up dirt on us and/or poison the
well/bias the witness against me personally. He asked, "Did
you ever uh get contacted by some guy named Craig Ranke? [...] He
says he's part of the Citizens Investigation Team and he was uh
looking into the Pentagon on 9/11". Once he realized
that he was not going to be able to get any dirt because Trapasso
did not know who I was, Hill then went into a speech about witness
Roosevelt Roberts Jr. and said,
"They're (CIT) making it sound like he said that the plane never
hit the Pentagon and it flew over the Pentagon and anybody that saw
it hit the Pentagon was deceived into believing that." This is
not only a misrepresentation of what we have reported about what
Roosevelt Roberts Jr. said, but there is no reason for him to bring this up at all to
a witness who does not know Roosevelt, was not near Roosevelt, and
wasn't even in a position to see the Pentagon at all. The only
point would be to either poison the well against CIT or provoke the
witness into making emotional denouncements of the flyover which
could later be taken out of context by propagandists such as himself
to make it seem like Trapasso would have been able to see the
flyover when this is obviously not the case.
On June 19, 2010, Jeff Hill called previously-published alleged
eyewitness Steven Storti, who we had previously spoken to ourselves.
In the call with Hill, Storti made a number of demonstrably false
and libelous statements about us. The very next day, Jeff took
his recording of Storti's misrepresentations and lies and edited it
into a YouTube video, which he titled "Craig Ranke's CIT Flyover
Theory and Credibility Busted", including a picture of my
face as the thumbnail. He and a number of other people then
posted and promoted it at various websites (example)
as proof of our supposed dishonesty and shady behavior.
Among Storti's claims
was that we had published a statement on our website or forum
stating that we have "never been able to track [him] down"
and that "after repeated attempts nobody was-- NOBODY among [our]
research group was able to find [him]". This claim is
patently false, which is why when Jeff Hill published this
accusation the next day he did not QUOTE US saying any such thing to
back it up, despite the fact that if such a statement existed it
could have easily been found through one or two minutes of searching
our forum/site. Considering that Hill waited until the day after
speaking with Storti to publish the call (he usually publishes
immediately), he probably did do this, came up empty handed, and
then went ahead and shamelessly published his false claim anyway in
a blatant attempt to demonize us.
More importantly, we published an
open letter to Steven Storti on June 22, 2010, two days
after Jeff published his Storti call and YouTube disinfo video.
In this open letter we meticulously document our interactions with
Steven Storti and very clearly demonstrate the falsity of his
allegations in great detail with recordings, transcripts, copies of
e-mails, etc. This open letter is an absolute must read for
anyone who wants to understand our methodology for dealing with
witnesses, and the absolute brazenness of Jeff Hill's disinformation
campaign. Again, here is the link:
was made fully aware of this immediately, and yet he refused to take
the video down. To this day he keeps his video online as
deliberate disinformation against us. He will not even link to
my response/open letter in the description.
In fact, a month or so ago someone tried to post a link to it in the
comments section, and Jeff deleted the comment, banned the user from
posting comments on the video, and then shortly thereafter
completely deleted and disabled ALL comments on the video to assure
that anyone who stumbles onto it while searching YouTube, Google, a
9/11 site, or his forum, or is simply sent the link, will most
likely NOT find out that we had thoroughly set the record straight
and proven Storti's allegations false.
He has now changed the title to "CIT - Craig Ranke's No
Planer Flyover Theory Busted". This disinfo video has been
repeatedly posted/embedded on sites like 911Blogger.com (example),
despite the fact that the majority of the clique of users on there
who obsess over us, attack us, and lie about us constantly with
impunity on the site are undoubtedly aware that we proved it to be
disinfo two days after it was created. It was even
embedded in the comments section of the very
Chandler/Cole piece that I am responding to. In the two
instances that I just gave not a single person posted our rebuttal,
and this is par for the course. This is, by the way,
exactly why we are
forbidden from posting there -- so that we cannot
refute this kind of disinformation and fraudulent vilification,
which is posted about us on a nearly daily basis on the site.
A final note regarding Hill, and Chandler's bizarre endorsement of
After he renounced his WTC No Plane Theory (circa mid to late 2009 I believe) and began
his Pentagon disinfo campaign, Hill was not only publicly attacking
CIT, but also AE911Truth and others. In September 2010, just a few months ago, he was
proclaiming on his "radio show" (podcast) that after years of looking closely at 9/11 there is in
his opinion no proof of an inside job, suggesting that the towers
may have come down due to fire after all, calling the work of Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) "crap", stating
that Richard Gage and others are "corrupt" and have no
proof, proclaiming that the 9/11 truth movement could just be
"disinformation all over the board", and so on.
However, it seems that when Steven Jones' associate Frank Legge --
who had already published brazen
anti-CIT/pro-impact disinfo -- began
incorporating misleading, out of context witness statements
garnered by Hill through deception and manipulation into his
propaganda, and then Chandler
and Cole praised his Pentagon witness calls, Hill, being the
opportunistic chameleon that he is, realized that if he stopped
attacking Gage, Steven Jones, AE911Truth, etc., and tried to blend in
more with the "9/11 truth movement", he could, with
Chandler and Cole's weight behind him, and with the help of the
of alleged "truth movement" members, gain a bigger
and better soapbox for his extremely vitriolic disinfo attacks
on CIT, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, David Ray Griffin, etc. so that appears to be his new
Now, just a few months after he was publicly calling
AE911Truth (and Steven Jones) "crap" and saying that there is no
proof of an inside job on his podcast, the most recent episode of
that very same podcast (attacking CIT of course) is featured on the
front page of 911Blogger.
Right, thanks. Although
they have shown that they are aware of where the "various CIT web
sites" are located on the internet, their statements prove that they
have not spent much time there bothering to research before
publishing this shoddy attack.
Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the
Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
By Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.)
Since our joint statement was written Frank Legge and Warren Strutt
have published a new analysis of the data from the American Airlines
Flight 77 FDR (Flight Data Recorder). The previously published
analysis omitted the last records and so appeared to be inconsistent
with the official narrative of the flight path of AA77 into the
Pentagon. This new analysis is consistent with the path of damage
inside and outside the Pentagon and the vast majority of eyewitness
testimony. The article is published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
As usual Chandler and Cole speak in extremely general terms about
"the vast majority of eyewitness testimony" with no names, quotes,
or analysis at all.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals
and pilots from around the world who are committed to seeking the
truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001.
See the names and credentials of their members
These pilots analyzed the data released by the NTSB, allegedly from
the "black box" of Flight 77, and concluded that it does not support
the government's story.
This paper that Chandler and Cole are recommending,
co-authored by Frank Legge, is being touted as a "peer-reviewed"
paper debunking the analysis and findings of these pilots.
here, this same "peer-review" claim was made last time
Frank Legge published an article about the Pentagon in the Journal
of 9/11 Studies, even though it contained a considerable amount of
false and/or misleading information. After the initial publication
of this supposedly "peer-reviewed'" paper it subsequently underwent
multiple revisions to correct errors, and yet even after those
revisions it still contained key misinformation (more properly
called disinformation since it was pointed out to him after Version
2, and he is now on Version 8) which remains to this day.
Read all about that episode here.
Although this new paper concerns the NTSB-released alleged black box
data none of the authors have expertise in avionics at all.
Credentialed people at Pilots for 9/11 Truth have already (just like
last time) uncovered several errors and demonstrated why the
conclusion is based on a faulty premise to begin with.
here for a short explanation by FAA certified pilot Rob
Balsamo of some of the errors he noticed right away, and see
here for much more thorough analysis and commentary by an
actual FDR expert and others.
This is what happens to a plane (F4 Phantom jet)
striking an impenetrable barrier at 500+ mi/hr. A plane moving at
this speed has 25 times the kinetic energy of a plane moving at 100
mi/hr. All that kinetic energy must be dissipated by the time it
comes to rest. The results are not intuitive. In the case of a
passenger plane hitting the pentagon, or a plane hitting the ground
at Shanksville PA, if it is traveling at the same speed it has the
same kinetic energy per kilogram of mass. Therefore the same degree
of destruction is to be expected. This is the major fallacy of
exercises such as “Hunt the Boeing” at the Pentagon. Look at this
video then I invite you to “Hunt the Phantom”
This faulty analogy based on this Sandia test has been made for
years by JREFers and Jim Hoffman.
To begin with, we as viewers can't "Hunt the Phantom" because the video does
not show any aftermath photos. The videos all cut off as the dust
cloud is growing, so we don't know what exactly remains after the
dust has settled.
Nevertheless, in a recent interview with John Bursill, Chandler said
that the plane "literally turns into confetti" and "goes
up in dust", and that the pieces that remain "are a few
inches across perhaps at most".
Chandler's one paragraph long analysis does not take into account
numerous variables like the thickness and composition of the targets
and impact orientation. It's also predicated on the plane
"traveling at the same speed" as the F-4 Phantom in the test.
However, this would require the plane to have been flying 68 knots
over the max operating speed limit (Vmo) for a 757 at sea level.
The government claims that the plane was flying even faster than
that, 460 knots, which is 110 Knots over its Vmo. Professional
pilots have been willing to put their careers and/or distinguished
reputations on the line to come forward saying this it is virtually
if not totally impossible for the plane to achieve such speeds with
the airframe staying in tact all the way to the wall, let alone
controllable. Also, remember that the plane would have to hit
five light poles at that virtually if not totally impossible speed
and pull up to hit the building at ground level without damaging the
lawn on the way in, or causing any significant damage to the
Why does Chandler apparently have no skepticism about the physics of
this (or, for example, Lloyde's story, for that matter) while
arguing in support of the disproven official impact narrative?
His bias on this issue is very apparent.
We will be publishing a much more thorough analysis of this Sandia
test analogy soon, so stay tuned for that.
Ultimately and more importantly though, even if this wasn't a faulty
analogy, it is not very relevant anyway because
overwhelming eyewitness testimony and other evidence proves
that the plane flew on the north side of the Citgo station,
could not and did not hit the light poles, generator
trailer, or building, and was seen flying away by multiple
eyewitnesses. We do not cite a lack of plane debris as proof
in and of itself, or even the primary proof, that the plane did not
I will conclude by saying that I have seen examples of both David
Chandler and Jonathan Cole's research into the destruction of the
WTC and found it to be excellent, professional, and certainly "scientific". This is what makes it so
surprising and disappointing that they would resort to such a sloppy,
unprofessional, aggressive, and libelous approach regarding the Pentagon attack, and
specifically the findings of CIT. It's particularly
disappointing that they would resort to this without bothering to
reach out to us even once for a dialogue, or spending much time at
all studying our material (assuming that they actually believe the
many fallacious things they wrote in this paper).
The content and simplistic nature of their essay leads me to believe
that it was most likely written, above all, as rather emotional and
off-the-cuff reaction to false information about Citizen
Investigation Team, our work, and the Pentagon attack in general
that they have been fed by people like Jim Hoffman and his wife
Victoria. I prefer to hold that opinion before writing them
off as deliberately dishonest like their apparent mentors on this issue.
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.
Citizen Investigation Team
February 3, 2011