What To Make of the CIT/Pentagon Controversy?

gretavo's picture

Full disclosure here--I am utterly skeptical of the official conspiracy theory's claims that AA77 was what caused the damage at the Pentagon. To the extent that I have studied CIT's work and their flyover theory I think their evidence is compelling--it certainly makes more sense than the OCT.

What I find disturbing is the elaborateness of their project and what has become their centrality in the debate about AA77 and the Pentagon. I can also say that they have unfortunately provided a fair amount of ammunition to their critics, especially with their "face to the name" thread, which seems to me to be intended to intimidate their critics. Now, some of their critics don't deserve any kind of courtesy--I'm not criticizing them on that score. I will though point out that however much their critics may malign them, sinking to their level is hardly becoming of a pair of investigators who, if sincere, have every reason to present themselves in as serious a manner as befits the importance of their work.

Now I know that people will say "But Gretavo, you of all people telling someone to be serious and take the high road? Come on!" And they will have a point, to some extent. Do we mock people? Yes, indeed. But we draw the line at posting people's pictures along with their real names. Why? Because it serves no good purpose and creates a precedent where it can be done to anyone, even honest real truthers. If no one did it, and real truthers agreed to leave tactics like that to the perps and their apologists, we would maintain the focus on facts and ideas instead of on the people promoting them.

We also understand here at WTCD that our level of brutal honesty is not something that we can expect will be endorsed by movement leaders like David Griffin, whereas CIT must understand that DRG's endorsement is valuable to them and that they should not put DRG in a position where he must defend the work AND the individuals who put it together.

What I hope is not true is that CIT is yet another form of controlled opposition, couching their very legitimate work on the Pentagon controversy in terms that deliberately facilitate rebuttals by fake truthers. I have no desire to be compelled to defend anyone just because they are being attacked by fake truthers based on the fact that their work does indeed reveal "too much". Unfortunately it seems that the existence of CIT, in addition to giving us more data than we had before in the form of seemingly credible eyewitness interviews and analysis, has also obscured the real debate that should be taking place behind allegation and counter-allegation about CIT's methods and tactics. By design? I can't say, but just in case I urge everyone to keep the focus on the facts and not on the messengers. The (real) no-planers like Nico Haupt and Killtown were easily sussed out not because they are creepy individuals but because the facts simply did not fit their claims. Likewise the debate about the Pentagon should not center around whether Aldo and Craig are naughty or nice, but on the validity of the facts they have brought to light.