CIT publishes response to David Chandler & Jonathan Cole's Joint Statement about the 9/11 Pentagon Attack

Editor Note: The following is a summary of an attack by David Chandler & Jonathan Cole. (Frank Legge has made his own attacks on CIT). However new attack papers just keep on rolling in...but I am pleased to report that CIT can certainly defend themselves.

One wonders if those who appear to have recently signed on to marginalize, ridicule, misrepresent and attack CIT, refuse to debate why they support the official govt. official story of the Pentagon... might possibly be part of an intelligence infiltration team?

Some of these people were considered "heros" for telling the truth about the WTC attacks and they would make great agents for the "official govt story regards the Pentagon".

Unfortunately they fool a lot of truthers who have come to trust them. The group that now controlls 911blogger has also "gone over to the dark side" I wonder how much the government cover-up department pays for this kind of work? I assume it is plenty.

"We've been put in the difficult position of having to defend ourselves against people whose work regarding the destruction of the World Trade Center we respect and appreciate. Although we had never spoken to David Chandler or Jonathan Cole prior to the publication of their "joint statement" on the Pentagon attack, we had always considered them natural allies, had never badmouthed them or had any inclination to do so, and had even praised their work.

Unfortunately they did not have the courtesy or sense to get in touch with us to see if we had any responses to their apparent serious issues with our work before publicly denouncing it. The result, as we have now documented in great detail, was a simplistic, horribly sloppy, and defamatory essay which reveals that, at best, they had barely spent any time at all on our website, let alone bothered to view our extensive catalog of video presentations to familiarize themselves with the full scope -- or even many of the basics -- of the evidence we present, or us personally, before rushing to judgment and aggressively attacking us.

Due to the frequent and extreme falsity of their claims, a very lengthy response was necessitated. Sometimes a single sentence would have multiple false and/or misleading claims requiring several paragraphs to untangle. We'd have preferred a shorter rebuttal, but there was no other way to do it if we were to remain accurate and thorough, as we strive to do in everything we publish.

While it was frankly quite obnoxious to have to spend so much time refuting a such a simplistic and shoddy essay that these two men clearly did not put much time into at all, the silver lining is that it gave us an opportunity to address their essay in the context of the dishonest and dishonorable campaign being waged against CIT by a relatively small clique which has gained control over, where we are not only "censored", but more importantly, attacked on a virtually daily basis with misinformation and disinformation and denied a "right of reply". For some reason David Chandler apparently has no problem with this situation considering that he published the "joint statement" by him and Jonathan Cole there and then further badmouthed us and our work in the comments section.

Given these circumstances, and the wide-ranging nature of our response to David Chandler and Jonathan Cole, we ask you to please set aside AT LEAST an hour or two to read our response in full so that you can hear our perspective. Unlike Chandler and Cole's essay, our response is heavily sourced, so if you can set aside extra time to REALLY dig into its contents and follow the links and sources, even if you do so over the course of several days, this will give you a MUCH more detailed look at the intricacies of what is going on here, and we feel that the reality of the situation will become that much more clear to you. This is an especially important thing for you to do if you are a regular reader of 911Blogger, since this means that you have likely spent hours over the past months or even years reading the frequent bogus attacks against us which we are forbidden from responding to.

I'd like to thank our webmaster for his critical help with writing this response and putting it together. Please pass it along to anyone you can and encourage them to read it. Thank you for paying attention to both sides of this manufactured controversy by reading our entire response":

Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team

CIT Controversy for Dummies

This isn't rocket science folks. It's pretty simple:

THE OFFICIAL GOVT STORY: The Red Line indicates the path of a "hijacked" plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. As it flew on a path to the South of the Citgo Station, it hit and knocked down five light poles (yellow lines).

One of the light poles that got knocked down by the airplane went through the windshield of cab driver, Lloyde England.

CIT EVIDENCE (Blue Line) PROVES THE OFFICIAL STORY TO BE A LIE: Citizen's Investigation Team (CIT) went to DC and found dozens of eye-witnesses to the Pentago attack who had been standing at the nearby CITGO gas station and Arlington National Cemetery on the morning of 9/11.

All of these eye-witnesses independently confirm the (blue line) flight path to the North of the Citgo Station.

CIT found and interviewed the cab driver on tape. If you watch it, anyone can see that Lloyde England’s account is not at all credible and he is unable to offer a remotely plausible story (i.e., he is lying - and did it badly).

So what does the CIT evidence suggest?

The plane passing to the north side of the Citgo Station proves the light poles could not have been knocked down by an airplane* and that the Pentagon was an inside job.

All of the witnesses prove the North path - namely the officers at the Citgo, stood by where they saw the plane even after learning the implications. Ditto federal employees at the Cemetary.

The witnesses CIT interviewed would have a better idea than any others to tell us where the plane flew in relation to the gas station....and all agree that it was a North path.

About those five downed light poles:

With the CIT proof of a North path plane, these light poles could not have been knocked down by the plane as claimed in the official story.

Planted debris could have been in there before the explosion. Remember the section that was “hit” was under “renovation” and much of he area was unoccupied. This has been covered over and over.

Again absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don’t need to find witnesses who saw light poles being planted as we have proof that they WERE planted (thanks to Lloyde England's lies).

Again, it was likely done in the middle of the night using vans or trucks under the guise of securing the area for the presidents arrival scheduled sept 11 afternoon. The foundations were likely busted when they took down the original light poles. Not hard to do. Light pole removal accomplished over weeks or months would go unnoticed as it would appear to be normal highway work. Nothing that would be memorable.

Why is CIT controversial?

It isn't controversial. It is rock-solid evidence.

So why the big flap over CIT?

For starters, no genuine 9/11 truthers would fight to suppress these eye-witness accounts, especially when many of these witnesses including police officers, would testify to it.

It is interesting to note that no detractor of CIT will agree to a live debate (and what does that tell you)? It is also interesting that CIT and all of its supporters have been banned from 911blogger.

Those who marginalize and ridicule and misrepresent CIT, and minimize the importance of their evidence are most likely part of an intelligence infiltration team.

So what can you do about it?

You have to ask yourself why these so called truthers won’t let the witnesses speak for themselves and let the chips fall where they may.

Look at the CIT evidence for yourself and decide. If you want the truth about 911 to come out, don't "go along to get along" in this effort to marginalize CIT.

What Happened to Russell Pickering's Website

* Editor note:
Both Craig Ranke and Also Marquis deserve to be "rock stars" - but they stumbled onto some "truth" that a bunch of people deeply embeded in the truth movement do NOT want you to consider. Their rock-solid evidence completely destroys the entire "official story" about the Pentagon attack (continued at the bottom of this post)...

Russell Pickering is a former 9/11 Pentagon event researcher who was present with Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) on their first research trip to Arlington, VA in 2006.

Craig Ranke, CIT: "This bit of history explains how he eventually let it slip that he initially withheld from us the information about the north of the Citgo witness account of station employee Robert Turcios.

When he realized we would likely find out about Robert on our own when we visited the station the next day, Russell hastily informed us of the witness at the last minute but tried casting doubt on the source (the station manager) by falsely suggesting she bizarrely changed her story within minutes, having allegedly claimed Robert was a female at first."

For some more interesting details, please read the following article by Citizen's Investigation Team,
January 27, 2012 (also reprinted below):

What Happened to Russell Pickering's Website

Russell Pickering was arguably the most well known 9/11 Pentagon event researcher for a few years prior to December 2007 when he dramatically "quit" the truth movement as documented here. He was the creator and owner of the now defunct website that is cited numerous times in David Ray Griffin's book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking". An archive of his site from February 2007 can be found here: -cached backup

Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) spent a few days with Russell in person during our very first research trip to Arlington, VA in late August 2006 while we were volunteering as research consultants to the 9/11 documentary "Loose Change Final Cut" by Dylan Avery.

We respected some of Russell's work that he had already published at the time even if we disagreed with his conclusions. The relationship started out amicable but turned progressively ugly after we returned to Arlington a second time (without him and Dylan) in November of 2006 to obtain the witness interviews at the former Citgo proving that the plane flew north of the gas station and therefore did not hit the light poles or Pentagon.

Russell had a reputation for being professional, logical, and even-tempered, but after we obtained this evidence he started emotionally spiraling out of control while desperately working to cast doubt on our findings with an aggressive campaign against us personally.

Before we met Russell in person on our first research trip he had already proclaimed to us his belief that a large airplane hit the Pentagon. He suggested that it was not piloted by alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour as claimed by the government but that it was likely "remote controlled" into the building. He had no evidence to support this claim and merely asserted it as his unsubstantiated belief.

During this 2006 research trip Russell started expressing concern and frustration with his research as he states in the following two minute video:

Listen to audio here (1.81 mb).

Download video here (28.5 mb).

Despite this dramatically expressed extreme uncertainty with his findings and conclusions, only a few days after we returned he was all of the sudden more sure than ever of a large plane impact. September 18th, 2006 he said:

"My official statement now on the Pentagon is that something with a wingspan of greater than 100 feet but less than 140 hit the building. [...] If I were asked what my belief is, it is that a 757 hit the building..."

-original source -cached backup

Notice how Russell does not cite anything new to explain what lifted the frustration he expressed in the video less than 30 days prior. His certainty in the official impact narrative only continued to grow as we proceeded to uncover overwhelming evidence proving otherwise. Instead of providing counter-evidence, he responded with steadily increased personal attacks against us, a reaction that discredits him as a logical 9/11 truth seeker.

He was further discredited in August 2007 when he let it slip that he found out about the north side witness a day before we all visited the Citgo station together. This is explained and sourced here. This is significant because all of us (including Dylan) remembered that Russell first mentioned the witness after we arrived at the station.

This means he withheld that information for a day until he knew we would likely find out about it ourselves and he felt he had no choice but to tell us. We were supposed to share all of our findings with each other as the trip progressed in order to keep each other honest, yet Russell withheld key information likely hoping that we would go home the next day without ever discovering it.

Russell was well aware that a plane on the north side could not possibly have created the damage trail, obviously making this critical information that he should have immediately shared with us.

Pickering eventually removed his entire website with all of his "research" from the internet and, as already mentioned and sourced in the beginning of this essay, he quit 9/11 research all together. The only thing we are aware that he has published regarding 9/11 since then was titled "My Pentagon Manifesto (In Retrospect)" which was published in the beginning of 2011 at a variety of websites (archived here).

If you search the title you may notice that in some places his name has been removed. It seems as though Russell has made an effort within the last few weeks to erase his name from the internet in an attempt to hide his significant history with the 9/11 truth movement.

In light of this effort, this essay is meant to document for the historical record our experience dealing with his subversive behavior. As made clear in his "manifesto", Russell authoritatively states that be believes with "100% certainty an aircraft hit the Pentagon" and even goes so far as to call it a "physical fact".

Of course he ignores the fact that we have continued our investigation and have provided an overwhelming amount of additional evidence validating our initial findings since he "quit" at the end of 2007.

Since Russell has removed himself from the discussion we have had to deal with several other entities who claim to be part of the 9/11 truth movement but dedicate a significant amount of energy to fraudulently casting aspersions on our findings and our characters.

Details regarding much of that and responses to their arguments are provided in a comprehensive essay that can be found here. We highly recommend that everyone who may have heard about these accusations takes the time to read that essay in full in order to get both sides of the argument. This will help you to understand the scope and context of the numerous attacks against us from those who have followed Russell Pickering's lead.

The fact that CIT is still around exposing the 9/11 deception while our detractors keep falling by the wayside only to be replaced by other shadowy entities says it all. Respected media critic Barrie Zwicker put it best in his endorsement of our work:

"Arguably no single group is being targeted more toxically than the honest citizen detectives of CIT. That this disinformation campaign is being waged is a signal tribute to the historic importance of CIT’s work -- work that must be supported unflaggingly."

*Editor note continued: The thing we find bizarre is that many of CIT’s detractors support the official government claim that a 757 did hit the Pentagon on 9/11. This ignores most of the physical evidence: Where’s the wreckage? Where’s the damage caused by the wings hitting the building? Where are the wings? What caused the punch-out hole? What caused the destruction and deaths in the Pentagon’s innermost ring?

We have strong evidence that explosives were planted inside, and, according to the Flight Data Recorder that was supposedly found inside the building, the plane would have been too high to hit the building and its trajectory would also have had it missing the five downed light poles.

Both Ranke and Marquis (CIT) have turned up numerous credible eyewitness testimony that proves the "official story" wrong - and consequently they have been banned from 911Blogger so they can never answer the constant stream of attacks (many personal) levelled at them.

Is this criticism out of proportion with the facts? Does it ring true? Or is there another agenda? Who are the CIT detractors really working for? It does not appear to be the TRUTH.

This is an excellent video that explains how CIT began (and thank heavens it did).

"Confession of a 9/11 Conspirator" - A Feature Film in Development

Take a look at this video by Ed Asner who plays the new investigation's Chairman:

Confession of a 9/11 Conspirator is a dramatization of the first day of the President's New Investigation of 9/11.

The movie will show that the Bush-Cheney administration is guilty of conspiring to cover-up the truth about 9/11 - whatever it is.

This includes making false and misleading statements in their official reports - and misusing government agencies - for the purpose of deceiving the public - and the Congress - into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted.

For leaders of the Bush-Cheney administration to have been involved in such a cover-up is treasonous.

The film simply proves the official reports aren't true. It does not speculate as to what might have really happened.

That's for a REAL new investigation to find out.

WTC- Collapse FOIA Release

This is a good video of the lower destruction wave....pulverized concrete being box column structure blown outward....repeated all of the way down:

FOIA Release January 5, 2012

News on the Day BEFORE 9/11/2001: $2.3 Trillion Dollars Missing from Pentagon

Its been 10 years since the 9/11 tragedy and still so many unanswered questions remain.
Whether you are a 9/11 conspiracy theorist or not most educated people will admit that there are flaws & inconsistencies in the "official" 9/11 story & anyone that has done their research understands that the 9/11 commission was hindered from finding the truth from the very outset.

This video covers an issue related to 9/11 that many people are unaware of:

The fact that Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech to a large group of Pentagon employees on Sept. 10th, 2001 basically declaring war on the institution of the Pentagon itself. He also spoke about the fact that $2.3 TRILLION in pentagon spending could not be accounted for.

The very next day on 9/11/2001, the section of the Pentagon that was destroyed housed ALL the computers & accounting documents containing information relating to the Pentagon's "financial mismanagement" of those missing funds.

Of course after 9/11 missing money was the last thing Americans were concerned about.

And not long after that Bush increased DOD spending by billions of dollars to fund the "War on Terror."

FAKING IT: HOW the Media Manipulates the World into War

As the US and Iranian governments escalate tensions in the already volatile Straits of Hormuz, and China and Russia begin openly questioning Washington's interference in their internal politics, the world remains on a knife-edge of military tension.

Far from being a dispassionate observer of these developments, however, the media has in fact been central to increasing those tensions and preparing the public to expect a military confrontation.

But as the online media rises to displace the traditional forms by which the public forms its understanding of the world, many are now beginning to see first hand how the media lies the public into war.

Ron Paul Claims "Israeli Mossad Behind 1993 World Trade Center Bombing"

ED NOTE: We found the source of the persistent rumors that the Israeli Mossad attacked the WTC. It is from an old Ron Paul newsletter published in April 1993.

He made this and many other extreme homophobic, racist and anti-semitic claims over a period of 25 or so years...and currently says that (after making millions off of these newsletters) "I don't know who wrote my newsletters."

From the Ron Paul Survival Report, April 1993 (PDF):

TRANSCRIPT: "It was only a few days after the World Trade Center bombing before Mohammed A. Salameh was arrested. Is he guilty? Who knows? Some people think this a frameup by anti-Arab interests. Recall that shortly after the Kennedy assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald was apprehended and accusations were made. We're still sorting that one out. From my point of view, it's hard to believe the perpetrators could be as stupid as the authorities maintain.

We now know what one homemade bomb can do to a large city—one billion dollars of damage. Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little. The cities have become centers of violence, whether through the daily and routine terrorism of crime, political bomb terrorism, or the terrorism of mob behavior as in Los Angeles."

New York City renamed "Rapetown," AIDS spread by a "malicious gay," how to gun down an "urban youth," and more.