| Dear David Chandler,
Since I follow your scientific explanations on the collapse of the Twin Towers in NYC closely, I became one of the many who show special interest in your ongoing investigation. Feeling comfortable with your kind of scientific attitude I try to be of any significance by spreading your work, using the largest website on 9/11 based on Dutch language and by using the 9/11 newsfeed - W911 - on Twitter (English). I'm just asking you: Pardon my English...
Like you, I don't feel comfortable with the polarizing discussion within the truth movement about the attack on the Pentagon. I read your article and interview on this matter carefully. On most parts I agree with you. On some essential parts I do not.
I agree, due to all the open questions that are left, that the Pentagon is a dead end for research (regarding to final conclusions). Also considering the hard evidence we already have on other issues, like the tower collapses in NYC. So why fighting each other on such uncrystallized matter? Having said that, it doesn't seem to stop both of disagreeing parties from drawing harsh conclusions.
You, and other investigators before you, are summing up facts that are difficult to ignore by the studious mind. I’m referring to the facts that are even testing your own assumption about a collision between the Pentagon and a Boeing 757.
Like the question of difficult and risky maneuvers performed by untrained pilots, or the guarantee from professional pilots that a Boeing 757 isn't physical capable to perform such complex maneuvers and still manage to level off by such a speed and attitude without falling apart or being lifted from the ground to a higher impact location in the building.
Or see the section about Witness disbelief on Jim Hoffman's 911Review.com - Hoffman, who is a longtime ambassador for the account that indeed a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.
In "A theme of the accounts is a sense of disbelief", 911Review describes witnesses who saw the plane crashing into the Pentagon, but still couldn't belief what they saw. Not just because of psychological obstruction, but also because of the lack of the most obvious visual evidence. This sounds as if even witnesses felt as being tricked. At least tricked by their own eyes.
It seems especially the tone of the discussion that prevents a healthy exchange of ideas on this matter. I return to your previous remark about the (kind of) necessity for playing hard ball on this very subject, due to the many questions that can't be answered because of secrecy by the official authorities.
But why not letting people freely work out their private investigations until we can really proof what has happened? Perhaps some of the outcomes can be valuable to finalize the puzzle. Outcomes tend to find their own way via the many websites en forums. People with different backgrounds and convictions will usually end with their own label. They don’t stop doing what they do because people order them. Websites or forums with a highly rational input will correct eventual attacks on the common sense. I expect those websites to have an open policy and a good answer when they refuse healthy discussion.
I see, for instance, hardly any debunking on CIT's puzzling footage about cabdriver, Lloyde England. His remarks on the light pole that hit through his windshield (after being hit by a Boeing 757 flying 530 m/h, the car driving 40 m/h in opposite direction), later removed by Lloyde and an anonymous guy from the inside of the car. Without leaving any scratch or dents on the hood!
And what about Lloyde England’s apologetical words - off the record but not really - that he was used as part of the plan? Not very scientific and sensitive to fool the man, but not less significant. It's a different approach, but not necessary unproductive. A lot of police work is basically unscientific too. Science can reinvestigate the outcome of lower degree research. I didn’t see that happen.
I do not agree that theories with assumptions without a reasonable or logical foundation will harm the truth movement. Not anymore. Of course, the media will always try to use these utterances, but will find ammunition anyway. But it will not affect the strong scientific base of the movement, unless its response on such views will be excessive.
What Really Is Harmful For The Movement
I consider the tone to each other as more harmful for the movement than the fact that we have disagreements. Belief me when I say (you can verify) that the tone towards CIT and those who endorsed their theories has been dreadful, sometimes emphasized with appalling video messages. This tendency has been seen on 911Blogger, 911TruthNews, Visibility911 and others. Indeed, some of the most visible 9/11 locations for the new audiences we need.
I agree with the critics on CIT that their methods are not necessary scientific proof. There are many flaws and I personally think that their style isn't contributing to a healthy conversation. What doesn't help either is the amount of two investigators and calling yourself Citizens Investigation Team. They’re not the most regular guys (understatement). But I do respect them and the product they made. I do not consider their work lazy or sloppy.
After their Pentacon presentations they severely improved their skills of putting information in a proper framework. A tone of arrogance and certainty didn’t help them to get their ideas adopted by other investigators, but that still doesn’t affect the substantial parts of their work.
In fact, beside the question if the fly-over theory is correct (I leave that question open) they raise very interesting problems. Even their witnesses can't be dismissed that easy as I often see in the furious waves of correcting efforts. Those efforts are quit sloppy in itself, sometimes product of great personal aversion and distrust. Is this what we call scientific falsification?
Damaging Our Best People
Aren't we damaging our own good people who DID endorse CIT in the first place? I mean basically respectful and intelligent truthers, like Barry Zwicker, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage (before he became cautious due to the internal blast within the movement) and many others within the truth movement.
Witnesses interviewed by CIT differ from many other witnesses for the fact that they saw the plane extremely close above their heads, in an environment that made it impossible for them to see the plane if the flight path was a little more to the right or the left or according to the official account. Witnesses used by official explanation were mostly surrounded by a more open space, which makes it harder to judge the exact flight path.
That these CIT witnesses thought the plane had crashed into the Pentagon has no scientific significance whatsoever, since they were not able to see the Pentagon's impact zone. Of course they thought the impact was from the plane, since the whole world is telling us the official account. That doesn't make these specific witness accounts unreliable! It doesn’t contradict their words, because they never knew about the specifics of the flight path. By saying that the plane crashed into the Pentagon they followed mainstream, which even contradicts the suggestion often made that witnesses were brainwashed by the CIT (which, of course, doesn't take away critics of a scientific lack of transparency either).
Your remark that CIT’s witnesses are not reliable due to a lack of good memory after all these years, is not accurate, since for a number of these witnesses the same testimonies where made in late 2001 [and perhaps the years following, I didn’t watch the movie all over again]. At that time interviewed for the Library of Congress.
It's not my purpose to repeat the same old discussion. What I try to make clear is that each other’s debunking was never done with an unbiased mind eager to solve the intrinsic questions. Debunking was instead based on distrust and a wish of making a fool of the opposite. That’s what harms the truth movement! Substantial and unbiased discussion never harmed any movement, since healthy movements may be expected to serve their higher goal and not contrariwise serve their own existence in the first place.
My Final Point...
Working With A Wrong Assumption
Under the caption: CIT (Citizen Investigation Team) - I read your opinion and explanation on the Pentagon and "simply foolish theories and intentionally planted foolish theories." It confirmed me again that we treasure the wrong paradigm when talking about 'the truth movement'.
According to Barry Zwicker, the World-Wide 9/11 Truth movement is currently the largest investigative journalism project on the planet. I think he has a point. We started as fools, later we became homegrown terrorists. As unanimously non-violent truthers, even when disagreeing with each other, we became very dangerous in the eyes of the powers that be. Why?
Did we miss our own process of growing because we are so conditioned to investigate our external world? Did we miss the fact that we are grown up and mean something?
We Are Marginalized, But Far From Marginal
We are big! How can we expect to speak with one mouth? We as a movement are an open society. Why do we need to avoid internal discussion? Why is it even considered to be harmful? So harmful that we created taboos on well argued topics. We tend even to fear openness, thus using the same tricks and ugly behavior as being used in MSM. I'm not saying nor implying you're doing this. It is what I saw many times on 9/11 websites.
I think our biggest actual problem is our fear for being odd and small. Fear for being thrown back to the fools level that we started with. We started to fear our biggest criticasters for being right about us. But we overcame that situation. The 9/11 Truth Movement is an ad hoc movement. Its diversion is natural, nobody is able to control it, it's growing like a monster (in the official perspective).
Why fighting nature? Just trust on what we already achieved in the form of scientific reliable information! That's still the hard core, the spine of the movement. Spines suppose to act strong and high-spirited, not fearful. Let's just be confident on the strong scientific part, and relativistic but curious and cautious on the other parts.
As 9/11 information hunter for the @W911 Twitter newsfeed I see the most stupid journalistic products, even in so called quality papers. I'm not afraid for MSM nonsense anymore. But we can still harm ourselves by copying the tactics of the media we criticize. We grew up and internalized these structures and tend to use them, even when we despise them. I'm talking about MSM and its corporate forces that do not embrace honesty and truth in the first place.
Let's just be open and respectful with differing arguments. Relativistic on issues that still has open questions (but debunk the official account anyway) and confident on other important issues like Shanksville, Flight 93, foreknowledge and especially: the first total collapse of three towers due to fire on one terrible day.
With respect for your important work regarding 9/11,
Amsterdam, January 18, 2011
Previous on this matter: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/80435g