Richard Gage on the Pentagon and CIT: Our reply to his recent statement

Citizen Investigation Team
February 11, 2011

As long time readers of our blog and websites know, there has for years now been a concerted campaign by a relatively small clique of individuals who purport to be members of the "9/11 truth movement" to marginalize and vilify Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) and dismiss our findings.

It seems that the more evidence we obtain and publish proving that the official story is a farce and that the Pentagon attack was a black operation the more aggressive and brazen their campaign becomes.

These same individuals have also worked very hard to convince people who have offered formal praise for our work and our presentation National Security Alert to not only retract their statements of support and praise but to publicly denounce us. This targeted campaign has been largely unsuccessful until the other day.

We will get into that momentarily, but first, briefly:

Around the very beginning of January 2011, David Chandler and Jonathan Cole published a very shoddy essay attacking us, which was heavily promoted and praised by the usual clique of CIT attackers.

On 911Blogger, Chandler explained his motive for writing this shoddy attack piece:

"I literally went to bed one night wanting ------- to make a bold statement that would be a definitive rejection of the conclusions, methodology, and divisive tactics of CIT. I was at a loss for how to persuade him to do this. It occurred to me as I got up the next morning that I was wanting him to do something I had not done myself. I have never made a public statement on this subject, so I decided it was time to "come out." So I discussed it with Jon Cole (since we share a website in common) then called ------- and told him I was going to be making this statement and urged him to use it as an opportunity to make a move on it too."

Although he blanked out his name in that post, it was clear that "-------" was "Richard" (Gage), and Chandler also made this clear in an interview with John Bursill, where Chandler did use Richard's name and described how he (Chandler) had been part of a concerted effort to "influence" Gage in such a way. (This campaign has been on-going since 2009 by the "usual suspects", long before Chandler entered the fray.)

On February 3rd, 2011, we published a very detailed response to Chandler and Cole's essay. In the preface posted to our blog and website, I explained:

We've been put in the difficult position of having to defend ourselves against people whose work regarding the destruction of the World Trade Center we respect and appreciate. Although we had never spoken to David Chandler or Jonathan Cole prior to the publication of their "joint statement" on the Pentagon attack, we had always considered them natural allies, had never badmouthed them or had any inclination to do so, and had even praised their work. Unfortunately they did not have the courtesy or sense to get in touch with us to see if we had any responses to their apparent serious issues with our work before publicly denouncing it. The result, as we have now documented in great detail, was a simplistic, horribly sloppy, and defamatory essay which reveals that, at best, they had barely spent any time at all on our website, let alone bothered to view our extensive catalog of video presentations to familiarize themselves with the full scope -- or even many of the basics -- of the evidence we present, or us personally, before rushing to judgment and aggressively attacking us.

In the Conclusion of our Chandler/Cole response I said:

I would like to formally challenge both David Chandler and/or Jonathan Cole to debate the issue with me in person and on video. I will come to them on my own dime. I will assume for now that when presented with the information in full, and when all of their questions/concerns are directly addressed, that they will revise their opinions and realize that they have had a hasty a reaction and have severely misjudged the situation here. If they refuse to debate the subject with me directly, yet also refuse to retract the many untrue and in some cases defamatory things they have said and insist on leaving this extremely inaccurate essay up, I think this will speak very negatively to their honesty, sincerity, honorability, and forthrightness on this issue, especially given their calls for "intellectual rigor" and internal self-"policing" of the movement. Here's hoping that such refusals do not take place. Given the quality and importance of their WTC work and its synergistic nature to the evidence we have uncovered during our Pentagon investigation, we have no desire for the adversarial relationship they have chosen to initiate to continue.

The positive feedback and outpouring of support we have gotten as a result of that response article has been amazing.

However, in a very interesting and bizarre turn of events, on Februrary 8th, just five days after we published our response to Chandler and Cole (and seemingly in response to it due to the timing), a statement appeared on 911Blogger signed by Richard Gage of AE911Truth and posted under his account stating that he was completely withdrawing his support for our investigation and our video National Security Alert. Read the full statement here.

We have received e-mails and calls from people who are supportive of our work expressing a wide range of emotions in response to this -- confusion, disappointment, shock, outrage, disgust, sympathy, solidarity (with us), etc.

Some have asked how they can be of assistance. One such person was Josef Princiotta, who wrote us a very nice and encouraging message.

Here is a great interview with Josef if you are unfamiliar with him and his work fighting for 9/11 truth and justice:

Mr. Princiotta has agreed to our request to publish his letter. So, for the record, and for sake of those who have been curious about our thoughts on the recent Gage statement, we are publishing it below, along with our response to him. David Chandler and Richard Gage were copied (CC'ed). E-mail addresses and phone numbers have been removed.

From: Josef Princiotta
Date: Wed, February 09, 2011 2:02 pm
Cc: David Chandler, Richard Gage

Hello CIT People
I like your work!

Well these are tough days.

How may I be of some help?
Let's talk as your time permits.
(907) XXX XXXX

Here is some info on me and my distant cousin
Vincent Princiotta FDNY Killed in the South Tower's destruction on 9/11.

Please note, I toured Japan with Richard Gage (AIA) in early December of '09
speaking in several cities and at the 3rd international conference on 9/11 in Tokyo.

(FYI) I am concerned by Richard's abandonment of you and your efforts.
I feel this is more of a reaction than a planed, well thought out, action on his part.
I have not had the opportunity to communicate my feelings to Richard so I Cc'ed him and David here.

Last December I assisted in presentations at the Diet in Tokyo (Dec 8th.) to an assembled group of members
(Senators and Representatives) of the Japanese government.

Additionally, after Richard left Japan on December 14th.,
I spoke independently to various Japanese groups.
All told I spoke in 9 cities, 15 presentations in 30 days.
Here are some links.

I am a friend of David S. Chandler.
I think his approach here is heavy handed.
I have communicated my concerns to him.
I don't want to muddy the waters.
"We all work for the same objective."

Josef Princiotta

NOTE I am associated with A&E for 9/11 Truth.
I do not speak for them here.
I do not speak for them when I give my presentations.
My presentations do contain information on the Pentagon.

I support NO conspiracy theory.
My interest is focused on Math and Physics, Weights and Measures.


Here was our response, which was a "reply to all", meaning that, like Josef's original message, Richard and David were again CC'ed

Subject: RE: Looking for answers on the way to the Truth.
Date: Fri, February 11, 2011 12:00 pm
To: "Josef Princiotta"
Cc: "David Chandler", "Richard Gage"


Thank you so much for your supportive words! It means a lot to us right now since we are being assailed by individuals who have chosen to publish false and defamatory information about us, our work, and the Pentagon attack, yet refuse to discuss this matter with us directly.

Deflecting bogus attacks is a time-consuming endeavor, as it takes much less time to compose a few paragraphs filled with false and unsupported/unsourced claims than it takes to "debunk" them with accurate information backed up with sources, quotes, etc, but I will give you a call as soon as I get a little free time. Looking forward to it!

In the meantime, if at all possible, it would be extremely helpful if you could do the following (I know you have likely done at least the first few already):

1. Read our full response to David Chandler, which is linked to here after a relatively short introduction:

2. Implore David Chandler to rescind his false, misleading, and/or defamatory claims about myself, Citizen Investigation Team, our work, and the Pentagon attack and accept my challenge to discuss this topic with me directly, in public, and on camera, as any honest, sincere, honorable person would, and as I formally and publicly call on him to do here:

3. Read the recent statement published in Richard Gage's name stating that he completely withdraws support for our investigation. (obviously you have done this already)

4. Inquire as to whether or not Richard is the sole author of this statement. If not, inquire about who wrote it/co-wrote it instead of or along with him. Inquire as to when exactly the piece was composed by and/or approved by Richard.

5. Inquire as to when Richard became aware of our response to Chandler/Cole, and whether or not he has read it in full. If he has, inquire as to when he first did so. If he has not, inquire as to why not, whether or not he plans to, and if so, when; and if not, why. (We know that it was sent to him by multiple people days prior to the publication of his recent statement.)

6. Inquire as to why Richard would, five days after we published an extremely detailed and well-sourced rebuttal to Chandler and Cole's shoddy attack article against us (and seemingly in response to it due to the timing), publish a statement containing a number of the same basic talking points and recommendations that we had just addressed.

7. Inquire as to why, for example, Richard would recommend that people read "What hit the Pentagon?" by Frank Legge and call it "peer reviewed", even though the supposed "peer review" process given to the paper was proven to be a total sham, as we just explained (yet again) five days ago and have thoroughly documented. Inquire about what kind of "peer reviewed" paper needs to be revised over and over again after publication to correct "errors", and yet still contains false and/or misleading information even after the EIGHTH version is published.

8. Inquire as to why Richard's statement would recommend and link to the libelous Chandler/Cole piece and not even link to our extremely detailed and well-sourced rebuttal, which, again was published five days earlier and sent to him by multiple people shortly thereafter.

9. Inquire as to why Richard would publish this highly aspersive statement about us without first contacting me with his apparent concerns. During the weekend of 9/11/09 we had a long, friendly, face-to-face, man-to-man conversation in NYC about all of the misinformation and disinformation he was being fed behind the scenes by a relatively small group of individuals who were aggressively pressuring him to denounce us. By the end of the conversation he indicated that his concerns had been put to rest and that his statement of support would stand. He promised me that in the future he would promptly contact me if anyone started raising questions about us or our work again so that I could address their accusations directly. He shook my hand and gave me a big hug. He violated that promise once before* and privately apologized afterward for doing so. Why then would he do it again, and in a much more flagrant fashion no less?

10. Inquire as to why Richard would publicly claim in an accusatory way that we have "continued to publish [his] original statement" when he had never asked us to remove it. In addition to having met me twice in person, Richard has had my personal cell phone number and e-mail address since 2009. We have corresponded by phone and e-mail numerous times in the past, such as when he personally contacted me to tell me that he was very impressed with our work and was willing to provide a formal statement of approval. Richard is well aware that he has always had an open invitation to contact me at any time, and, again, promised to do so if anyone began whispering in his ear again so that we could respond to their allegations.

11. Inquire as to why Richard would claim that we have "continued to... characterize [his original statement] as an endorsement of [our] flyover conclusion" even though we have not to my knowledge/recollection ever done this, neither recently nor in the past. I received word a couple of months ago that a rumor to this effect was floating around inside of AE911Truth, and as a result I called Richard in December, left him a voicemail telling him that it was untrue and asking him to please call me to discuss it, to tell me who was making this claim, and to tell me when and where we had supposedly characterized his statement in that way. He never called back. Why would he not call me back, explain the origins and basis of this rumor, and discuss it (as per his previous promise, my explicit request, and common sense/decency), yet go on to make this same accusation publicly weeks later, and still without bothering to provide any examples or substantiation?

12. Inquire as to why Richard would withdraw his support for our investigation, yet at the same time endorse the efforts of an individual who, as we have documented in detail, is on a brazen disinfo and smear campaign against CIT and in support of the official impact narrative, and who just a few months ago was publicly calling Richard and his organization "crap" and saying that neither he (Richard) nor anyone else have any proof that the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition or that 9/11 was an inside job at all for that matter. For years prior to that he was one of the most vocal WTC "no plane theory" advocates in the world, and he is on record drunkenly and belligerently harassing a WTC attack witness at 1am with his no plane theories in some of the most disturbing recorded phone calls I have ever heard.

13. Inquire about how Richard could possibly claim that he was "surprised to learn" that several of the witnesses we interviewed were able to see the Pentagon and were convinced that they saw the plane hit (while placing it on a flight path which makes an impact impossible) when everyone who watches National Security Alert easily understands this AND we have repeatedly discussed this fact with him in person as well as on the phone as far back as 2009.

14. Inquire as to whether or not Richard understands that the north path and impact are mutually exclusive, and that the witnesses being incorrect about the former would require simultaneous matching hallucinations while the latter would require deliberate deception on the part of the same perpetrators who deliberately deceived people around the world into thinking that the towers weren't being blown up before their very eyes. Remind him that even our biggest detractors from Jim Hoffman to Frank Legge to "Arabesque" to John Bursill all readily acknowledge this scientific fact which is obvious to laymen everywhere.

15. Inquire as to whether or not Richard realizes that his actions, in addition to being dishonest, dishonorable, and frankly downright bizarre, are, like David Chandler's, extremely divisive and detrimental to the worldwide campaign for 9/11 truth and justice. As you know AE911Truth and Citizen Investigation Team are both very popular organizations presenting very different yet highly synergistic evidence proving that 9/11 was a deceptive false flag attack/black operation of the "MIHOP" variety. Given this fact, why -- even if he had become convinced by the people whispering false information in his ear that our case was unsound -- would he take the most inflammatory action possible, initiating a public feud between the organizations and throwing his weight behind what many people, including many of his own supporters and colleagues, already (properly) regard as a concerted disinformation and smear campaign against us? Why would he do that instead of simply contacting me privately so that, if he wished to part ways, we could do so in the most peaceful terms possible? As with Chandler and Cole, CIT has never attacked nor wanted to be anything but allies with AE911Truth due to the quality and importance of their work, and its synergistic relationship to ours.

16. Urge Richard to personally contact me by phone to address these questions, especially if he really does want me to remove his statement of support (that was vetted by his board of directors prior to publication a year and a half ago) from our website. He had, again, never previously asked me to remove it. I need to get a better sense of what is going on here by speaking with him directly and over the phone. This will also, as I said, hopefully enable us to come to the most peaceful resolution possible moving forward, which I would have thought would have been his desire in the first place. I cannot cooperate with someone who is attacking us publicly from afar over the internet with false claims and publicly promoting disinformation attacks against us. I can cooperate with someone who approaches me with respect and common decency in a non-destructive way to express his concerns and requests, as an honorable and reasonable person in his position who cares about the future of "the movement" would do. Even if he wants to believe the lies he's being told by the dishonest people who have surrounded him without seeking my response as promised (and as a reasonable, objective, careful truthseeker would), an on-going public feud between our organizations will divide the "movement" and benefits no one except the bad guys.

17. Study our work and all Pentagon attack research extremely thoroughly yourself (and urge others to do the same). This will inoculate you against shoddy hit-pieces and false information whispered in your ear by dishonest individuals hell-bent on making false claims to defend the government's impact narrative, vilify Citizen Investigation Team, and cast doubt on the overwhelming eyewitness testimony (and other evidence) we have presented proving that 9/11 was an inside job/false flag operation. Contact me directly if you have any questions.

18. Send the link to our Chandler/Cole response to your peers and encourage them to do all of the above. Share your sincere thoughts and concerns on the matter with them.

Thanks again Josef, and talk to you soon!


Epilogue: Richard never responded to this e-mail or called us.

Seven months later, in September of 2011, we were scheduled to be in Toronto for five days for a presentation we were giving at The Royal on Sunday, September 11th, sponsored by Barrie Zwicker. Gage, Chandler, Cole, and a number of their cohorts were also scheduled to be in Toronto during this same period for a separate event just a short distance away.

Prior to departing, we publicly issued invitations to all of these individuals to have a civil, on-camera debate with us regarding what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. We published this invitation on our website and blog, and sent e-mails to each of them personally to make sure that they received them.

As we explained at the time: "There is no reason that the people who apparently have such strong concerns with our work and who have attempted to publicly paint us as dishonest shouldn't be able to set aside a couple hours to take us up on this offer, "expose" our supposed dishonesty, and refute the evidence we present proving the plane did not hit the light poles or Pentagon. We will work with them to find a mutually convenient day and time."

None of them accepted.