Truther No More, David Chandler Embraces Official Pentagon Story
“Chandler and Cole, in their 2011 Joint Statement on the Pentagon, try to convince us we should forget about Pentagon research because it is a “dead end.” And yet ever since they published it, Chandler and the Team have been busy doing the opposite, supposedly because of “new information.”
Foolish and paranoid is just how “debunkers” would describe us. And the common ground between Chandler and the “debunkers” doesn’t end there. Here he is talking about the “flow” of material through the Pentagon after the alleged plane impact…”~Craig McKee on Truth & Shadows — October 3, 2015
“At the very end of the “Joint Statement” page, Candler and Cole have this remarkable thing to say:
“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” –http://911speakout.org/?page_id=219
This indicates to me that not only does this ‘Dynamic Duo’ think the Pentagon was hit ala Official Narrative – but that Shanksville is essentially the same, and 93 did actually crash directly into that old strip mine. That is as incredibly naive as their Penatagon views.”~Hybridrogue1 — October 3, 2015 at 6:51 pm
So Chandler bundles CIT (& us & Pilots) together with Honegger, Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, etc.
If he cannot distinguish our actual position from those he mentions then he is totally ignorant of what we and CIT are saying.
“I believe it is important for the 9/11 Truth Movement to police its own ranks…” Lol,
So now Chandler et al are the 9/11 Truth Movement Cops!!! Didn’t we discuss arrogance & hubris here at some point? grin
I am afraid I must inform Chandler that his jurisdiction does not reach this far. When he can produce some “solid evidence” we can resume the dialog.
A joint statement by David Chandler and Jonathan Cole
“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 earlier?
>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 command?
>Why would the purported hijackers risk mission failure by choosing a difficult ground level approach when they could have simply dived into the building?
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?”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
The least attention? This is 9/11 Pentagon Basics! These are the ground starting point for all who have been arguing against the Official Narrative.~ww
As Craig Ranke points out in his response:
“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 operation in the vein of Operation Northwoods, involving a plane swap and simulated plane crash.”
. . . . .
Chandler-Cole – Next point:
“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 something 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.)”….
So this is how it begins, a thorough point by point rebuttal by CIT. See:
So what could be the cause of Chandler & Cole’s reticence? After-all these two have been energetic and dynamic in their efforts, and should be prepared and willing defend what they assert without the slightest qualms, but Ranke-CIT, us on T&S, and the entire movement is met with this uncharacteristic silence. WHY?
This seems to be the movement’s current “64 Thousand Dollar Question”.
This is a question I guarantee will not go away with time. Rather it will fester and boil.
Constable Chandler, who seems to be engaged somewhat on Facebook, is wasting his time with further twaddling and trite prattle that doesn’t address the actual issues we have presented. He needs to explain how a plane on the trajectory of the one seen approaching the Pentagon could have possibly caused the known damage path within the Pentagon.
What is the criteria for choosing the the reliability of witness testimony?
POV – distance from event witnessed – consideration of obstructions a witness’ position would encounter – human perception of events that occur in a mater of seconds and less – the likelihood of a duck response to a nearby explosive event… to name a few.
All of these criteria are examined in the work of OSS at the P4Tblog, and have been addressed here as well. Using this reasonable criteria, it is found that few of the so-called hundreds of witnesses to the event at the Pentagon fit the requirements. Those that do, are examined in minute detail,
That this analysis has not even been seen by the detractors of this work, and is hand-waved in a state of sublime ignorance seems of no concern to them whatsoever. But until it is addressed they will fail in their attempts at refutation as they have up to this point.
They have claimed they “have the evidence on their side,” when in fact they have the lack of evidence on their side. All of this so-called evidence is produced by the perpetrators of the 9/11 events, without reference to chains of custody, nor details on the forensic tests, nor serial numbers of plane parts. None of these crucial pieces of evidence are in the public record. We may see some parts of plane hanging in a display, but too far from the POV of a visitor to the display to see any serial numbers. In other words the so-called ‘evidence’ must be taken on the word of the authorities who control it.
The final results of this circumstance is that our opponents entire argument ends up a massive appeal to authority.
ANALYSIS OF PENTAGON WITNESS TESTIMONIES
Be prepared to study this it is quite complete:
It has been close to a Week now, and not one of the people mentioned in the article has had the nerve to make an appearance here. While this is not really surprising knowing their penchant for avoiding debate with knowledgeable researchers who take issue with their tissue, it is nevertheless quite telling.
Despite their desperate wishes, this issue is not going away until the Chandler-Cole clan has the honor to engage in a meaningful debate with their detractors. They cannot ride on their past laurels indefinitely. There will be truth toll booths ahead. ~Willy Whitten — 10/15/2015