CIT Groupies Continue to Harass David Chandler, Who Continues to Be Led Down the Path to LIHOP by Wolves in Sheep's Clothing

gretavo's picture

From: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1P4ZYCITNJOZ3

Adam Ruff says:
Ryan's book promotes an absurd and provably false scenario of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. His theory shared by you Mr. Chandler will not withstand public debate vs. the North of Citgo evidence compiled by CIT and P4T. You and Ryan have been debunked decisively regarding the Pentagon and you have both utterly failed to issue the proper retractions and failed to debate the issue in an open public venue with the real experts on the Pentagon event. Ryan's book and your paper Mr. Chandler are both provable hogwash regarding the Pentagon and therefore the book may actually do more harm than good to the truth movement. It is just too bad that so many so called truthers engage in hero worship of figures like Ryan instead of engaging in critical thinking. If they did use critical thinking they would quickly discover that Ryan's book may not be worth the paper it is printed on.

Of course you or Ryan himself can debate the Pentagon issue at the Truth and Shadows blog with me or any number of real truthers or you can simply accept the challenge to debate CIT on the issue which would be the very least any honorable person would do after the attacks you launched against them. Considering that you have not acted honorably to this point I do not expect you or Ryan to man up now but I wanted it on the record here that you were fairly and honorably challenged to debate the issue by CIT and you refused. It is easy to attack others from the safety of your home keyboard it is quite another thing to face those you attack in the open, eye to eye, and debate it for all to see.

RT says:
I too find Mr. Chandler's unqualified endorsement of this book disappointing, as I do his insistence that we should not doubt that the crash of a large passenger jet is what caused the damage to the Pentagon on 9/11. Despite these disagreements I would never question his sincerity in his beliefs or his contributions to the truth movement, that are rivaled only by those of David Ray Griffin. Mr. Chandler can of course speak for himself on the subject, but it is likely that his increasingly entrenched position on the subject of the Pentagon was motivated at least as much by his analysis of the facts as it was by a seemingly coordinated campaign by the Citizen Investigation Team to engage him, among others (myself included) in an extremely vitriolic debate in which if you did not agree that their work was iron clad, let alone correct, you were publicly lambasted in ways echoed by the above comment by Mr. Ruff. Kudos are owed to Prof. Griffin, who does not believe AA77 flew into the Pentagon, for rising above the fray to form the 9/11 consensus panel to attempt to undo the harm done by the kind of factionalism exhibited by CIT and others. All that we of good faith and conscience can do is hope and pray that others like Griffin and Chandler will continue their good work with the least amount of interference by those characters of less than good faith who vastly outnumber us in the organized movement for 9/11 truth.

Adam Ruff says:
RT,

Chandlers paper on the Pentagon was carefully and fully responded to by CIT. They tore his sloppy paper to shreds and Chandler failed to address in any way the gaping holes in his logic and his argument that were exposed. If there was any real merit to his paper he could have and would have responded decisively. Also your comparison of Chandler to DRG is ridiculous. DRG has by far outdone Chandler in every way. Let us keep in mind that Chandlers main contribution was proving step by step what the truth movement already knew and was saying long before Chandler ever got interested in 9/11, namely that WTC 7 came down at free fall speed. I commend Chandler for that but it was hardly an original concept. As to your suggesting that challenging bad information and it's purveyors to a debate equals a "coordinated attack" I say you and Chandler both need to grow some back bone and face your critics in a real debate and hash it out until the truth emerges. Frankly I have no respect for people who will not defend their position vs. critics especially in the truth movement. If he had a valid Pentagon position he could articulate it and defend it in public. Same goes for you RT, if you have a valid position about the Pentagon you could articulate what it is and defend it decisively against critics of it. Your hero worship of Chandler has clouded your judgement of his Pentagon work which is sloppy and wrong.

RT says:
I came to the conclusion long ago that neither CIT nor the core (not including Chandler who was dragged into the mud) anti-CIT crowd at 911blogger are sincere. Much more likely to me is that they are yet another example of a manufactured false choice dilemma whereby the CIT makes a hash of defending a reasonable proposition (flyover) in order to push people into the camp of the anti-CIT crowd, who while wrong in insisting a jumbo jet must have hit the Pentagon, at least do so in a slightly more civilized manner. The real problem with CIT's work is that it could easily have been faked by simply enlisting through bribery or other methods the services of a group of people who could claim to have witnessed a specific flight path from their vantage point. Does it not seem odd that among their witnesses are Pentagon police officers who apparently were cooperative enough to not just contradict the official story to a couple of random guys on camera but also to then allow said guys to use the footage in their movies? Please. Add to the weirdness their obnoxiousness and that of their fanboys in spreading their "with us or with the perps" gospel, and the ensuing coordinated response from the controlled crowd over at 911blogger, and the whole thing starts to become as painfully obviously fake as a pro-wrestling rivalry. It's the 'big lie' at work over and over--the bigger the spectacle, the more players involved in the farce, the less likely any given person is to believe it really is all a huge piece of theater. But theater it most certainly is.

Adam Ruff says:
RT,

Make whatever excuses you want for refusing to debate the Pentagon evidence but know this: that they are excuses that don't hold any water at all. Paranoia like yours takes a long time to get this bad but once it does all attempts at reason are doomed to fail so I will not bother to explain why this fantasy of yours that everyone but you is an operative is so ludacris. It is ridulous to imagine CIT as operatives simply because they have exposed the most dangerous (to the perps) evidence that there is, namely the staged crime scene at the Pentagon. Why paid operatives would ram a dagger into the heart of the perps is beyond me but whatever man you are going to believe what you are going to believe. I think you are disingenuous though and using your own paranoia as an excuse to avoid real debate which will expose how untenable your position on the Pentagon really is. Simply put the correct position which is supported by the most evidence will rise to the top in a debate and win the day. You and Chandler and Ryan cannot handle the fact that you are wrong and that someone else uncovered such important and damning evidence. It is an ego problem for Ryan and Chandler and somewhat for you as well mixed with extreme irrational paranoia. I feel sorry for you RT because for whatever reason the fact that you do not personally like the CIT guys has caused you to take yourself down this irrational path where everyone and everything is a lie. I recommend you swallow your pride and embrace the truth that the plane flew over the Pentagon as CIT and P4T have proven. Admitting your mistakes does not make you look smaller it makes you more of a man. Good luck to you. I will refrain from "attacking" you by challenging you to debate your position. What is your position anyway? Oh yeah I forgot "everyone is a liar" is your position.

RT says:
No, I've already made clear that there are a few people I believe are sincere: David Chandler and David Ray Griffin are two. Graeme MacQueen, Enver Masud, Richard Gage, and a few others have never given me much reason to doubt their intentions. That said I don't place blind faith in anyone--not even myself. Why don't you address my question about the Pentagon police officers? They obviously agreed to be videotaped--did they agree to have that footage used in a documentary? Have they tried to have their testimony removed from what I imagine they must believe to be a shockingly distasteful video? Fill us in!

David Chandler says:
My general policy is not to feed the trolls. However I would like to apologize to the unsuspecting general public that may have wandered into this inappropriate, off-topic, venomous, one-way flame war. The CIT and Judy Wood groupies have a long history of sowing disruption in the 9/11 Truth Movement. You are witnessing the kind of behavior we have to put up with all the time. Please don't respond to them, or if you feel you must, please do it elsewhere. This should be a forum about Kevin's book.

Adam Ruff says:
RT,

The officers were aware that they were on camera during the interview. Their perspective might not be skewed like yours into thinking the video is "shockingly distasteful" in fact they may be proud of what they did by telling the truth. Secondly they were NOT aware of the implications of the NOC (north of Citgo) flight path at the time of the interview. I find their testimony to be authentic AND it matches up perfectly with the other testimonies as well. Why don't YOU answer a question now RT about Chandler who you clearly regard as some kind of guru who has intentions pure as the driven snow. Why is it that Chandler has not responded in any way to anyone to the absolute dismantling of his garbage pentagon paper. A genuine truther after having been shown massive errors in his logic like that would issue retractions at least so as to maintain his credibility in the truth movement. DRG issued corrections to his work when he was shown errors and my respect for him increased as a result. Chandler issued no retractions/corrections or apologies for presenting a sloppy misguided attack paper full of factual errors. Why? Answer that RT since I have answered your question.

Adam Ruff says:
Mr. Chandler,

First of all the time line will show clearly that it was in fact you and Ryan and the anti-CIT crowd at 911Blogger who did the attacking FIRST in each case. Your attempt to paint CIT as the aggressors falls flat on it's face. You and Ryan both choose to attack CIT and their work and they defended themselves very well which you obviously find troubling. Your Pentagon paper was responded to respectfully and in great detail by CIT and they ripped your sloppy attack piece to shreds. You know it and I know it. You have refused to address the massive errors in your paper in any way shape or form which in my estimation makes you dishonest sir. This whole meme you are using as an excuse to avoid a legitimate discussion/debate is bull. Just because someone disagrees with you that does not make them a troll and you have no excuse whatsoever for refusing to address CIT's careful and detailed response to your paper. I find it very hollow indeed that the only defense you seem to have for your bogus Pentagon paper is to call anyone who disagree's with it a troll and refuse to debate the real issues with it. Your second line of defense seems to be to lump CIT in with the Judy Wood crappola which is dishonest of you to do. Neither CIT nor myself endorse or accept ANYTHING from Judy Wood. That is a guilt by association disinformation tactic you just used Mr. Chandler and it stinks. So if you consider a challenge to debate an "attack" then you need to find some back bone and either stand behind what you said in a public debate or retract it. Oh and as to suggesting to have this discussion elsewhere, I find that to be a hypocritical statement since neither you nor Ryan nor any of the other anti CIT crowd will step forward to debate the issue AND all the CIT supporters have been systematically blocked from posting at that cess pit of censorship 911Blogger. I say this is the only venue where you cannot gag us so it is the perfect venue to have the discussion. A discussion by the way which has everything to do with Kevins book and the factual errors in it related to the Pentagon. This discussion is on topic and on target sir.

[From here on, out of respect for the wishes of Mr. Chandler, I have moved my responses to the comments below]