Sounds like you have close personal experience with this concern. I see why you have a distinct opinion and I certainly respect your awareness of basic scientific behavior. More rare than it should be in a movement that demands it.

To cut to the chase, your comments suggest that you may not be as familiar as others with the negative behavior or those who RUN CIT. Advocates off the table. In my opinion they are downright shady. I’m some kind of an adept with non-verbal communication, writing included, and it makes me a bit of a human lie detector.

I don’t let that ability pull my life apart as it could, but in this context it’s in full effect. Craig Ranke is a fraud. Period. I’m quite a bit more certain of that than my assumptions about 9/11. But, OF COURSE, don’t take my word for it. Everything you need to know is on the Truth Action forum.

Speaking of which, I would like to encourage you to back off expression of certainty regarding the nature of the 9/11 attacks. If I were better educated I feel I could quickly convince you that the most scientific orientation is what I expressed above. We have a winning case for a cover up and well founded probable cause to suspect some kind of complicity at some level. (Keeping in mind that this has little resemblance to what I believe happened.)

In other words, the cover up should compel an investigation. That’s LIHOP, gatekeeper talk to big tent folks. To me that’s knowing what we’ve got and who we are trying to reach. Marketing.

Finally, I’d like to you honestly consider for just a moment that someone out there would like you focused on physical evidence more than documentary evidence. CD has legs. I’m not denying it. But without the rest of the argument, CD is easy to marginalize.

Like Richard Gage, I too was impressed by CIT’s assemblage of witnesses asserting an approach path of Flight 77 at odds with the official version, and said so. I have never believed that the 757 flew over the Pentagon, and have never stated that I did.

In the light of what Gage has learned about CIT’s methods, I wish, like him, to withdraw my original endorsement of the CIT video.

Sincerely,

Peter Dale Scott

I’m curious about what behavior suggests that to you. I haven’t found any of those I listed remotely sincere in their communication online or behavior toward other movement participants.

I think we are all trying to be kind to those who have been fooled, as I believe your friend has been. After all, most of us have been fooled before. I thought the plane pods were fascinating for a couple weeks. Then I realized it was just crap. And, in fact, this movement is very specifically about reaching people who have been fooled. We do what we can not to insult them or push them away. And that can include playing along with people’s assumptions in order to build a bridge. But that doesn’t mean it’s alright for them to believe in fallacies, otherwise we wouldn’t be doing this.

‘Flyover’ is more convincing on it’s face to many that plane pods. But it really is total fallacy. Gage lays that out very clearly. As many of us have been saying for years, their evidence actually directly contradicts their conclusion. That means your friend is wrong. And telling people they are wrong isn’t disrespectful.

Another disagreement I have with your post is that while we may be respectful to those who have been fooled, those doing the fooling are NOT acting in good faith. That is far more clear to me than what I believe about what happened on 9/11. If you aren’t familiar with all of the negative behavior, I encourage you not to ignore the many long-time movement participants who have been paying close attention and keeping track of it. And you should trust that none of us enjoy it or would be paying attention if we didn’t think it was in the movement’s best interest.

I have no respect for Ranke, Marquis, Ruff, or Syed as they very clearly have no respect for the truth. And, honestly, it’s very easy to tell when someone is actually debating you or just pushing a line. I’ve had direct contact with these people and they have NOT argued honestly. In addition they have now called me and others, such as the editors of this site, disinformation agents.

I’m not going to try to peg them or their motives, but I know they have lied on a regular basis. And that’s not something anyone involved in 9/11 truth should feel they need to compromise about or respect.

I find the January 2011 article by Jim Hoffman http://911truthnews.com/the-pentagon-attack-what-the-physical-evidence-shows/ to be persuasive. For me, this analysis of the physical evidence outweighs CIT’s eyewitness testimony. I’m not saying CIT might not be right, but we cannot affort to bet our 9/11 credibility on it.