Truther No More, David Chandler Embraces Official Pentagon Story

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” –

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
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 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.”

Ranke replies:

“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.


By Onesliceshort

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


47 thoughts on “Truther No More, David Chandler Embraces Official Pentagon Story

  1. Mock Aircraft 9/11
    Both the military and Dov Zakheim, Pentagon Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense had Boeing 757’s, 767’s, 747’s, & 737’s. Zakheim was CEO of SPS International, part of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor majoring in electronic warfare technologies, including remote-controlled aircraft systems, and the notorious Flight Termination System (FTS) technology that could hijack even a hijacked plane and land or crash it wherever.

    Zakheim then has, means, motive, MO, and Cui Bono, ei; he would benefit directly in the crime of conspiracy to commit mayhem, conspiracy to defraud the government , conspiracy to murder, and conspiracy to wage a war of aggression.

    Only with subpoena power can this most reasonable suspicion be proved conclusively. And Zakheim has impunity because of his positions of political power and finance So no court proceedings ,nor criminal charges will be filed while the present system is manifest, and longer this system remains in power, the less likely is there a chance the system can be overthrown. A grave dilemma for the human race.

    “Experts”? The two most qualified & reliable experts I know of are my own eyes.


    • I have no control over whether advertisements are shown on this site or not:
      About These Ads
      The site you just visited is part of There are two reasons why you might see ads on a site:

      The site is part of the WordAds program and has elected to show ads to earn money from their site.
      The site is one of the sites hosted on that is on our free plan. We run ads on these sites to help cover costs but these types of ads are run sparingly in an attempt to interfere as little as possible with the experience of reading a site.
      In both of the above cases, the ad you saw could be coming from a number of ad partners. The ads change depending on factors like your location and the type of site you are visiting.

      If you are a user and you would like to permanently remove all ads from your site, please take a look at our paid plans.

      If you saw an inappropriate ad, please report it to Please include the address of the site (e.g.,, the date/time the ad appeared, and a screenshot of the ad.

  2. National Security Alert – 9/11 Pentagon Event
    Original release: 15 Jun 2009
    Runtime: 81 min
    “In 2006 Citizen Investigation Team launched an independent investigation into the act of terrorism which took place at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. This exhaustive three-year inquest involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day.

    Be forewarned: Our findings are extraordinarily shocking and frightening. They are also deadly serious, and deserving of your immediate attention. This is not about a conspiracy theory or any theory at all. This is about independent, verifiable evidence which unfortunately happens to conclusively establish as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a false flag “black operation” involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception.

    If you are skeptical of (or even incensed by) this statement we do not blame you. We are not asking you to take our word for it, nor do we want you to do that. We want you to view the evidence and see with your own eyes that this is the case. We want you to hear it directly from the eyewitnesses who were there, just as we did.”
    ~Craig Ranke of Citizen’s Investigations Team

  3. Frank Legge 9/11 Mole

    I was conversing with Frank Legge at the time he wrote his infamous screed attempting to debunk the NOC evidence [see link below]. I saw first hand how he would disingenuously force testimonies to fit his agenda. Take the testimony of Hemphill as an example. Hemphill was in the Navy Annex top floor offices, his window was located just a few windows from the far northern end of the Annex.
    In his testimony Hemphill explains that he heard the rumble of an airplane directly over him and as he looked out the window he could see “over his right shoulder” a large aircraft directly above him. As he continued to watch the plane flew on towards the Pentagon passing above the Citgo station just about directly in front of him, later clarifying that the Citgo was slightly to the right of his position, and the airplane flew just to the left of the Citgo from his vantage point.

    Hemphill is clearly describing a NOC trajectory for the aircraft in this clear and rather precise testimony. But Legge insisted that Hemphill was a SOC witness because he saw the plane “over his right shoulder” claiming this meant the plane was clearly to the south of Hemphill’s position. this is clearly ‘begging the question’ on the part of Legge, as Hemphill specifically states that the plane went right over him, and his position was not mid-line Naval Annex, but on the north corner of the building. Hemphill’s further remarks as to the plane going just north of the Citgo make it obvious that he is describing the north path trajectory of the airplane.
    We had the google view maps and photos of the Naval Annex showing Hemphill’s north corner position in the building before us as we argued this out.

    I argued these points with Legge to no avail. He would not see to reason, he was convinced that he was correct despite clear evidence that he was forcing Hemphill’s testimony to fit his scurrilous agenda. This same technique was applied to every witness that Legge would address.


    Having this firsthand experience with Legge left me convinced he is a willful prevaricator and insincere in his efforts.

  4. Well, I have gotten so many hits on this thread that I think it is a fair guess that one or more of the Chandler & Cole contingent must have seen this. If so they haven’t chosen to comment here either. I would certainly accommodate such a comment by getting it out of the moderation bin as quickly as I discover it, and post it with all due haste.
    I am still curious as to why they would remain silent in the face of this blooming and expanding criticism of their position. They are certainly forthcoming on sites where they have the moderation buttons.

  5. “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.”

    I would reword this if I were in your shoes – it is not CIT who are “their detractors.” It’s the Chandler-Cole group who are the detractors, of CIT and the NoC evidence they uncovered.

  6. The Criteria for Assessing the Reliability of Witness Testimony

    The most critical would be:

    1. — POV — and Distance from event witnessed

    2. – Consideration of obstructions a witness’ position would encounter

    3. – Human perception of events that occur in a matter of seconds and less – the likelihood of a duck response to a nearby explosive event.

    We might add to these:

    4. — Possible conflict of interests

    5. — Obvious conflict of interests

    6. — Internal conflicts of a single witness’ testimony, and a detailed analysis of how this might be (see 3rd critical criteria point)

    7. — Established history of lying

    8. — Conflicts with known and established empirical evidence.

    Plus; particular circumstances of specific witnesses, that could effect the reliability of a certain witness.

    • 3. – Human perception of events that occur in a matter of seconds and less – the likelihood of a duck response to a nearby explosive event. — from; The Criteria for Assessing the Reliability of Witness Testimony

      As this pertains to the Pentagon witnesses; It doesn’t matter if the witness recalls ducking or not. The fact that they saw the airplane approach from the North Path, is the point of the essence. Such a ducking response is a built-in human reaction to a nearby life threatening event, and may be buried subconsciously, especially due to the traumatic nature of such an event.

  7. United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash – According To ATC/Radar

    04/28/09 ( – Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it’s alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by “Coast Mode” radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.
    Full article here:

    Flight Data Recorder Analysis — Flt 93

    January 5, 2008 – We now have the additional Flight Data Recorder information in full which we obtained May 2007. We have analyzed this newly obtained csv file data (excel spread sheet) and animation provided by the National Transportation Safety Board thoroughly in our new documentary recently released, Pandora’s Black Box – Chapter Three – Flight Of United 93. Click here for your personal copy. The associated press release can be viewed here.

    National Transportation Safety Board PDF Documents

    Sept 23, 2006 – We have the pdf’s for UA93 FDR via NTSB. I noticed the FDR shows UA93 at 40 degrees pitch down and -5 degrees Angle of Attack at impact (FDR shows -15 as level throughout flight, -20 at impact). If that was the case, it would seem UA93 would be making a long ditch along the flight path while impacting the ground and spreading wreckage at close to a 35 degree flight path. The pictures of UAL93 impact crater shows a vertical, straight down crater (~90 degrees vertical), not a 35 degree impact creating a long ditch. Remember, the ground here is reported to be very soft.

    Also interesting to note, GPWS, “Sink Rate”, and “Pull Up” was not activated at any time during approach to impact according to the Flight Data Recorder pdf.

  8. “growing group of trained professionals” who have “a growing body of scholarly papers.” ~Ken Jenkins

    That sounds very much like a cancer going viral to me. Compounded absurdities are no less absurd, they are just compounded. Thus more dangerous.

    Where is the funding for this small splinter group who are pushing the official story coming from? This doesn’t sound like the shoe-string operation that it is trying to appear as.
    I still suspect the g-men are behind this is some way.

    This 9/11 constabulary cannot have simply begun by miraculous conception. There is official spermatozoa swimming through the channels somewhere.

    • The Scholarly Scrotum Of Frank Legge

      Mazzucco, in researching his film, says he examined all the “scholarly papers” by the group very carefully but did not find anything persuasive in them.

      “I discarded immediately the Legge/Chandler paper because of course the first thing I did was go and check the sources they used for that list of witnesses, and when I got down to 20 and I couldn’t find anyone I said something is wrong with this. That’s why I call it junk. And I don’t use the word “junk” very easily. In terms of a researcher, unsupported and undocumented witnesses are junk. And Craig Ranke (of CIT, which made the film National Security Alert) has done the opposite: he’s put name and last name of people and what they say. It’s on the spot, and it’s on camera.”


  9. Oh no!!! … now the real nutball parade starts! The master mole just joined the party at T&S…

    “But this kind of subversion of the 9/11 Truth movement must end.”~Fetzer


    That is hilarious coming from one of the biggest charlatans in 9/11 the business, “Professor” James Fetzer, master mole of the 9/11 movement.
    As well as:

    • “True” in architecture is one straight line from point A to point B.

      It is the same in philosophy, logic and reason. Any variation in the straight line is a falsehood.


    I think one needs a long memory to put together how this whole Pentagon divide came about.
    It began with what some felt was a real concern of what they termed a “Honey Trap”; in our context, a technique to get a large group committed to a proposition that could later be devastated by the release of clear and conclusive evidence in the form of clear and distinct videos of a plane hitting the Pentagon. It seems that Jim Hoffman was seduced into this idea by a real honey trap set by Victoria Ashley the Siren of 9/11 disinformation, a harpy of unfounded paranoia over a highly unlikely scenario.

    This idea caught on and was spread by other moles digging in the earthworks that the foundation of the budding Truth Movement was being laid. But it was spread underground and not articulated openly, while the sheep dipping process was going on.

    Hoffman had done some of the great early work in destroying the NIST reports, thus becoming a target for a deep cover mission of disinformation. Thus the attachment to him of Mata Hari Ashley. This was also around the time the Steven Jones was first stirring in his awakening to the anomalies of the WTC event. When his first paper was written it was discovered by another of the waiting moles all clean-wrapped in sheep-dip, Jim Fetzer, who contacted Jones with the proposition to put together an organization of scholars to study 9/11. Of course Kevin Ryan was outspoken about Underwriters Labs covering up early involvement in certification of steel assemblies for the WTC, and he became involved with this core group of ‘scholars’

    At this point it seems no mention was circulating of confronting the Pentagon situation, as WTC was the main focal point of all concerned. There seems only to have been Hoffman’s warning of the “Honey Trap” possibility/likelihood. Frank Legge was an early volunteer to this new scholars group, offering many papers on the WTC events, and his legitimacy seemed viable. He was mum openly about anything Pentagon in this early period as well.

    A major blowout in this set up that had become “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” was the proposition by Judy Wood, of an exotic beam weapon being responsible for the destruction of the WTC. She seems to have been promoted by Morgan Reynolds and ushered into the group on his suggestion.

    It seems that Jones and others were appalled by this DEW proposition, while Fetzer embraced it, insisting that the group must be “open minded”. At the time that Jones began protesting the Wood hypothesis, Reynolds initiated an attack on Jones using Judy Wood as a coauthor on a slanderous published paper against Steven Jones.

    >Now to digress here a bit; it is my opinion that Judy Wood didn’t originate much of any of the DEW proposition I think she is mentally handicapped and barely capable of remembering her lines in interviews. She seems to be handled by one, Andrew Johnson, who is the likely author of most of her written work.

    So, without recalling exact dates for any of this, we come to the point where Jones and Fetzer have a blowup and Jones splits off and begins Journal of 9/11 Studies. Most of the genuine scientists join him in the split. Fetzer is left with “the loonies” as I would put it. He goes on to promote the “Dew” idea, then the “No-Planes” concept, the “Video Fakery” concept, the “Hologram Planes” idea, and then the “Nukes at WTC” concept. In my opinion, all being pseudoscience drivel, and willful disinformation.

    Jones seems to have been very effected by all of the intrigue and backstabbing that had gone on, and was attempting to simply see his project through of investigating why and how the towers did indeed collapse. And of course his keen eye for detail caught the visuals of the molten metal pouring from the first tower to “collapse” just prior to the initiation of such.
    When Jones found fruition in his thermate hypothesis in the paper published on that subject, I think he felt his contributions were sufficient, and he wanted to return to his attempts to prove cold fusion. This is the point he decided to retire from active engagement at Journal, and he handed the reigns off to Kevin Ryan, who chose Frank Legge as his assistant in managing the online site. This is the proximate moment of the sudden move to spring on the Pentagon issue perpetrated by Legge. Just as Jones is leaving, Legge is preparing his first drafts promoting the “likelihood of a large aircraft hitting the Pentagon”; a literal coup d’etat at Journal.

    Fast Forward to today, and this is the mess we have inherited, largely due to the machinations of Legge, and his influence on the others, with certain input by shadowing individuals on the side; the Hoffman, Arabesque, Ashley click – Wyndham teaming up with Legge, and other intrigues that we can only guess at.
    How Cole and Chandler were influenced and brought into this operation is still mysterious to me. But here they are. And here we are…all looking at one another thinking, WTF? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  11. Asintotic is borrowed from the geometry of the hyperbole, that is, of a curve whose shape approaches ever nearer to a right angle. Its ‘asintotic’ if it never reaches the zero base of the curve.


  12. The 9/11 Truth Movement is predicated on the proposition that forensic investigation of the events of 9/11 will reveal the truth of what actually happened that day. After 14 plus years those findings are conclusive, that the events were perpetrated by the State as a false flag psychological operation to instill trauma into the population as a strategy of tension. And to manipulate them into a fearful mindset for the agenda of full spectrum dominance domestically and abroad.

  13. Officer fired for violating policy in S.C. classroom arrest | 28 Oct 2015 | The white sheriff’s deputy caught on video flipping a black high school student out of her classroom chair in Columbia, South Carolina, has been fired, a sheriff said on Wednesday. Deputy Ben Fields violated agency policy when he picked up the teenage girl and threw her across a classroom as he attempted to make an arrest, Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott told a news conference. Videos filmed by students showed Fields, 34, slam a 16-year-old girl to the ground and drag her across a classroom at Spring Valley High School on Monday after she apparently refused to hand her mobile phone to a teacher or leave the room.
    The son-of-a-bitch should be arrested and charged with violent assault with additional charges for acting under color of authority. The fucker should have the book thrown at him — one of these thug cops needs to be made an example of. This is not an isolated event in Amerika, police brutality like this is pandemic now after the so-called PATRIOT ACT, The Military Commissions Act, supporting legislation and Presidential Findings. All of this has its proximate beginnings from the PSYOP of 9/11.

    And you fucking shills don’t get why we call this a police state…WTF?

  14. BENTHAM AFFAIR – Jones-Harrit Paper
    Philip Davis submitted a fake manuscript to another Bentham open access journal , The Open Information Science Journal. The paper was created by a computer program named SCIgen and contained nonsensical statements. This paper was allegedly accepted after undergoing peer review. Obviously the peer review process appears to have been conspicuously absent in this particular case. Which would seemingly be a valid reason for her to pack her bags and leave.Marie-Paule Pileni, the former Open Chemical Physics Journal editor in chief did not quit due to this affair.Rather she quit on provably spurious grounds over the publishing by Bentham of; “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” and was published in the The Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3, 2009.

    Marie-Paule Pileni resigned saying she was not aware it was published in her journal and that it had nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics. She also claimed she cannot judge the paper because the subject matter is outside her field of experience.”The paper does in fact deal with physical chemistry. Physical chemistry involves among other things, reaction kinetics on the rate of a reaction and the identity of ions on the electrical conductivity of materials.In the paper they documented the reaction rates of the chips in relation to thermite and paint chips. They also subjected the red/gray chips to an electron beam and noted the poor conductivity of the red layer. Chemical physics is the branch of physics that studies chemical processes from the point of view of physics. This would involve things like studying the dissolution of chemical bonds as they did when they soaked red/gray and paint chips in MEK. Chemical physics also involves the study of nanoparticles which is what the whole paper is about.

    Marie-Paule Pileni, the former Open Chemical Physics Journal editor in chief, in fact has the ideal background to judge this paper. She has a thorough background in physical chemistry and chemical physics, as well as with explosives. She also has extensive connections to the defense industry. These facts suggest more of her stretching the truth and resigning under pressure than due to incompetence or indignation. This paper leads to the undeniable implication that some of the most powerful people on Earth lied about what happened on 9/11 and were even possibly involved in the WTC tower demolitions. This would be a massive potential source of political pressure. Certainly enough pressure for the editor to lie and resign.“Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.”.

    Strangely, her areas of research flatly contradict that. I’ll quote you an excerpt of her resume:

    1990-1992: Chairperson on workshops related to the French Defense research.
    1989-1992: Consultant at the Minister of Recherche concerning the National Defense 1989: Member of the “Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Européenne”.
    1987-1988: Member of the ’“Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Nationale” (IHEDN)1984-1986: Member of National exam in ChemistryEDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERSHIP
    2006: Accounts of Chemical Research, American Chemical Society.
    Journal of experimental nanosciences, Publisher Taylor&Francis.
    2002: Journal of Physical Chemistry, Board member, American Chemical Society.

    1990-1994: Société Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs, SNPE, France (Literally translated: National Society of Powders and Explosives)LABORATORY
    2001: Laboratoire des matériaux mésoscopiques et nanomètriques, LM2N.
    1992-2000: Structure et réactivité des systèmes interfaciaux, SRI. (Literally translated: Structure and reactivity of interfacial systems)Interesting. Firm ties with the French/European military industrial complex. Experience with explosives and nanotechnology. It’s reasonable to assume Ms. Pileni is familiar with nano-explosives. So Ms. Pileni’s contention that “the topic lies outside my field of expertise” is false. Why would a nanotechnology expert and former consultant for the SNPE not want to comment on a paper discussing nano-thermitic explosives? A paper which caused her to resign? Puzzling.

  15. D Chandler — October 28, 2015 at 8:12 pm
    “You got the wrong John Wyndham. The science fiction author died in 1969. This John Wyndham is a retired astrophysicist who was in on the discovery of neutron stars.”
    . . . . . . . . . .
    hybridrogue1 — October 28, 2015 at 10:21 pm
    D Chandler,
    Well as I surmised previously we weren’t seriously asserting it was the same John Wyndham.

    So being a retired astrophysicist is supposed to give him some special authority as to the event at the Pentagon? Your own work, well admired and appreciated, still doesn’t give you the authority to challenge the findings of facts as discussed here.

    As much as I appreciate your earlier works, I still am baffled at your position. How is it that you dismiss the findings of CIT and Pilots4Truth? Why don’t you answer with a point by point rebuttal the counter argument Craig Ranke put together? Why do you avoid this debate here?

    Does your sudden appearance today mean you ARE willing to discuss these matters now, or is this to be a drive by shooting?

    Or is this a case of mistaken identity and you are NOT the David Chandler I assume you are?

    ~Willy Whitten \\][//
    . . . . . . . . . .
    D Chandler — October 29, 2015 at 1:00 am
    “…just a drive-by. If you want to know what I think, read what I have written.”
    . . . . . . . . . .
    hybridrogue1 — October 29, 2015 at 1:16 am
    But Mr Chandler, I have read what you have written. I am speaking to the Pentagon event. I am disputing you directly on your position on that matter.
    As mentioned Craig Ranke has written a scathing rebuttal of your position, one that tears your position apart with laser sharp accuracy.
    What we are all looking forward to is your response to both Ranke, the witness assessements by Onesliceshort on Pilots4Truth, as well as the FDR data analysis for the airplane alleged to be Flt 77 by Pilots.
    You have left this meal in your plate to get cold. I know how difficult it is to eat cold crow. But you must have out with it sooner or later. Your past laurels will wither brown and leave you naked in the eyes of posterity otherwise.
    As you may know, I was having a long email discussion with Frank Legge while he was writing his infamous paper meant to debunk the CIT position. I am well aware of his tendency to force square pegs into round holes. Perhaps you have missed the fact of how disingenuously he treated the witness testimonies of the confirmed North of Citgo witnesses?

    You will have nothing further to say here? No response to Ranke? I find that a tragic stance for you to take Mr Chandler. You are splitting the movement you claim you want to heal. It may dawn on you one of these days what a dire mistake you have made.

    • In a web search for Chandler’s pal John Wyndham, this is the one and only entry:
      . . . . . . . .
      John Wyndham · Scientists for 9/11 Truth
      About myself:

      I have not worked in the field of Radio Astronomy since leaving Caltech in 1967.

      My purpose in joining ResearchGate was to feature my recent researches into the Science of 9/11. A paper presented at the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Ethics in Science, Engineering etc (May 23-26, 2014, Chicago) is awaiting publication in the IEEE proceedings for this conference. The title of the paper is “Ethics and the Official Reports about the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11: A Case Study” by John D. Wyndham, Wayne H. Coste, and Michael R. Smith.
      . . . . . . . .. .. .. …

      • From Wyndham paper above:
        Eyewitness Testimony
        There are a large number of recorded eyewitness testimonies to the event at the Pentagon and its aftermath. The vast majority describe a large plane approaching the Pentagon, hitting the Pentagon, resulting in damage and debris after the strike. These testimonies are on the whole remarkably consistent, as can be seen by dividing the Pentagon event into three sub-events:
        A. Plane approaches Pentagon from Sheraton hotel (6.5 sec). [gotcha]
        B. Plane travels across Pentagon lawn from highway and hits the West wall (1 sec or less).[simply an assumption]
        C. Damage and debris are inspected at the Pentagon (several hours to a few days).[wrong trajectory of damage as per plane flying over the Sheraton]

      • A. Plane approaches Pentagon from Sheraton hotel (6.5 sec). [gotcha]

        This is a “gotcha” for the simple reason that the Sheraton hotel where Deb & Jeff Anlauf were, is due east of the Naval Annex & Pentagon, and Deb Anlauf says the plane flew directly over her and then over the Naval Annex, before she saw the explosion that she assumed was caused by the plane hitting the Pentagon. Clearly she is a North of Citgo witness.

  16. “Why havent the ‘thousands of architects and engineers’ for ‘9/11 Truth’, in 14 years, for the hundreds of millions of donation and merchandise dollars, with their pool of alleged expertise, produced one, single, solitary industry peer reviewed article or one single solitary engineering physics computer model to demonstrate the ‘Truth’ or simply prove wrong the NIST findings?
    I havent asked you that one before, but since you feign ignorance of my previous statements, Ill give you a new one to reset the field to a Zero Sum. If you dont know what that means, it means answer the question, with links, or STFU.”~Dangler
    . . . . . . . . . . .
    My reply:
    Willy Whitten 2 hours ago
    Dangler, “The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST’s tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, there are several examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its findings based upon the inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.
    NIST’s physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly
    modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST’s conclusions and the latter fell far short of testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions. The workstation burn tests showed that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11.
    There were also flaws in NIST’s computer simulations, including its impact simulation, its fire loading simulation, its temperature mapping simulation, its thermal/structural component simulations, and its global simulation. The LS-DYNA simulation showed that the aircraft would have done much less damage than NIST assumes, and NIST’s subsequent “scenario pruning” was confused and unsubstantiated. The decision to exclude the hat truss from the structural/thermal response simulations was a significant omission. The sequence of failed truss seats leading to pull-in forces on the exterior columns is central to NIST’s theory but not explained or supported by simulation.
    This paper will conclude that the findings of the NIST investigation, although not necessarily incorrect, are not
    inherently linked to the reality of the failure mechanisms that took place in WTC buildings 1 and 2. The author calls on NIST to explain the discrepancies in its reports, admit the level of uncertainty in its findings, broaden the scope of its investigation, and make its raw data available to other researchers.” ~A review of NIST NCSTAR 1
    By Eric Douglas, R.A. December 2006
    Also available at:

  17. I just left the comment below on this video at YouTube:

    It is a most curious thing, this talk about “divisiveness ” & “scientific method”, when the truth is the stand that Chandler himself is taking as per the Pentagon evidence is divisive and unscientific. It is most troublesome for him to mix the earlier works to do with the WTC, and the Jones-Harrit paper in with this renegade position on the Pentagon.
    The work of both CIT and the Pilots for 9/11 Truth have the most rational and scientific approach to the Pentagon event.
    Barbara Honegger’s theories are utterly debunked by both of these organizations research. So too is Legge and Chandler, and Cole’s position utterly destroyed by CIT & P4T.
    We have been illuminating this work at Truth and Shadows blog for quite a few years now. We have invited the Chandler group to debate us there — to no avail. We have demanded that Cole and Chandler make a point by point response to Craig Ranke’s rebuttal to their initial challenge to the CIT revelations – to no avail.

    Most disturbing is that any group presuming to be “leaders” in the 9/11 Truth Movement would now embrace the official narrative in such a fashion as Cole, Chandler, Legge, and Ryan. They have held debate hostage by being members of the Consensus Panel begun by David Ray Griffin, blocking any consideration to have the Pentagon event addressed in that venue.

    In closing, many of us who have been core members of said movement feel betrayed by this click of researchers pretending to speak for the movement as a whole, and attempting to sway the gullible into their scurrilous position.

    ~Willy Whitten \\][//

  18. Willy Whitten 1 second ago to Chandler video above:
    “The no planes frenzy”…Lol No subtle digs here aye? So one might wonder how it is that the plane flying from a point west of the Pentagon, flying directly over the Arlington Hilton, continuing directly over the Navy Annex, and to the north of the Citgo station, from there it flew straight toward the Pentagon. Banking only slightly on its way towards the building. There would be no way to jog it’s course to the angle and trajectory of the alleged impact point, at the angle alleged by the official story — now being parroted by Chandler in this video. The major problem with this scenario is that the damage path within the Pentagon follows this same impossible trajectory. And that is also why there is no alternative but the plane flew over the Pentagon, through the thick smoke just a split second after planted charges went off within the building itself.
    What we have at the Pentagon on 9/11 is a magic trick. And this is all explained by T&S, Onesliceshort, CIT and Pilots fro 9/11 Truth.

    • They are removing comments from the thread to this video that they do not like. I have 6 comments up there. It is being reported to me from T&S that only a single comment is up for them to see.
      This type of underhanded chicanery is becoming standard procedure for the Chandler cabal.
      It stands to reason after all the years they have been hiding from the Craig Ranke response to Cole and Chandler. Despicable in the most tacky manner.

    • I see:
      unspunnewz 15 minutes ago
      “For the record I am capturing screenshots of my comments in case they disappear. I will post those if these comments do disappear as I have been told that other comments have vanished already. It is cowardly and extremely deceptive to censor one side of a debate Ken and then pretend that other side doesn’t exist and that there is no debate.”

      But I don’t see Adam Syed or Sock’s comments there.

  19. From another Youtube debate:

    Willy Whitten 1 second ago
    Nathan Stirling says, ” Logic is a subset of what I teach. So you aren’t qualified to judge me on it.” – Hahahaha!!
    Sure Stirling, you have a piece of paper with fancy scroll writing on it, a ribbon and a gold stamp (if you have a fancy enough one), and that makes you an “authority” on the matter. All a diploma means is four more years of indoctrination. So you are a very well indoctrinated shill. That is quite impressive for those who go in for Argument from Authority, and Argumentum Verbosium, ie: an argument of intimidation.

    Style and Form are everything, Substance arises in their wake.

    Stirling has the tepid style of the animic academic, a rather ‘pablamatic’ way with words. He relishes in his lack of imagination as if all imagination produces is fantasy, when in fact it is the genesis of all of mankind’s creations & inventions. Imagination is what differentiates us from the pithecoids. Stirling’s dreams are as dim as his commentary here.

  20. Willy Whitten 1 second ago
    Ken Jenkins says, “I didn’t know about this paper from CIT. I just asked David about it.” — And so what is David going to do about it? Just dismiss it as he has so far? Is that good enough for you? I am curious as to how this aligns with the standard method of sincere debate.
    Even when I wrote my critiques of ‘Video Fakery’ and the real “No Planes” theory, I took the time to address the issues point by point. My critique against ‘Nukes at WTC’ is equally as complete as a counter argument.
    I Even took the time to explain why projected holograms are science fantasy.
    If one truly knows their subject, one need not be concerned about facing an adversary toe to toe.


  21. David Chandler 18 minutes ago (edited)
    “Ken Jenkins Here is the pentagon statement by Jon Cole and myself on our web site:
    Here is Craig Ranke’s response, which unspunnewz characterizes as an in-depth and thorough debunking, but which I would characterize as a rant. Anyone is free to read both and make up their own minds. I have no intention of engaging with them further:

    My reply just under Chandler’s remarks:

    David Chandler, Aside from the fact that my last comment here was deleted. I think you should be aware that all of those urging you to make a genuine response have already read you original Pentagon Statement, as well as Ranke’s detailed response. You referring to it as a “rant”, is already known to be a misrepresentation of what Ranke actually says. And I do indeed hope all will read both your original statement and Ranke’s response, because it is blatantly obvious that Ranke makes a detailed analysis without the use of ad hominems, such as calling someone’s considered and careful evaluation simply a “rant”.

    • Ken Jenkins 22 minutes ago
      “+unspunnewz OK, you have your answer. You were mistaken in saying that there has been no response. You now have the link (below). Given your lengthy false accusations and your ad hominem attack on him, I think you owe David an apology.”

      My Reply:
      1 second ago
      Hahahaha! Preposterous Jenkins, both you and Chandler owe the complete readership of this thread an apology for your heavy handed censorship. I don’t expect this will last either, and I don’t give a shit.
      You are both disingenuous cowards and charlatans.

      • Jenkins & Chandler are such scurrilous pricks. And this is going to be revealed on a larger scale as time goes by. They are fools to think they can get away with such blatant bullshit.

    • “there are several easy-to-find websites with those testimonies.”~Ken Jenkins,

      Of course there are, there are many such lists and they very in number and names. You may not know, but should by now that I was in touch by email with Frank Legge as he was writing his infamous opus on the Pentagon event. That at first had a working title of, something like; ‘Debunking the No Plane Theory At the Pentagon’. Legge sent me three working drafts as PDFs as his work progressed. He sent me his modified spreadsheet of the Witness List he had compiled. We were back and forth by email constantly during that period. Both looking at GoogleMap shots of the area, and photo’s of views of the Pentagon and the Sheraton, Naval Annex, and Citgo station.
      I watched as Legge desperately forced square pegs into round holes. We had heated arguments at this point. especially when he began insisting Deb Anlauf was in this new category called a “South Approach Witness”.

      You don’t seem to realize there was no such designation as North & South approach witnesses until the CIT information came out. There was just a hodgepodge of names, sometimes with exact quotes, sometime with exact locations, sometimes first hand, sometimes not.
      We now have, through the hard work of Onesliceshort, a breakdown of which witnesses were in a viable position to witness the approach, and were close enough and had an unobstructed view to tell if the plane flew North or South of Citgo. We find that ALL of the witness in the position to make that call are North of Citgo witnesses.

      The Onsliceshort witness analysis is by far the most complete and detailed assessment so far. Anyone who hasn’t studied this work simply cannot know what they are talking about as far as Pentagon witnesses are concerned.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s