Col. Jenny Sparks: C. I. T. goes to Washington

Well, Arlington, Virginia actually

Deconstructing the 9/11 Pentagon Attack
With Citizen Investigation Team and Pilots for 9/11 Truth
Sponsored by The Wisdom Fund — TWF.org

I'm not a fan of CIT. It's a pity because they could be making a useful contribution. Instead their research is rife with shoddy work, sloppy errors and woe be unto anyone who points these out--they will be misquoted or, worse, snitchjacketed as a "cointelpro operative". They seem to spend much of their time stirring up unnecessary arguments--or even complaining if someone explicitly says lets just agree to disagree--with very some silly and entertaining results:

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=20000#20000

Col. Jenny Sparks wrote:

Yes--with a new independent investigation.
Now we agree to disagree.
Live and let live. Can you do that?

Craig Ranke CIT wrote:

You bet luv!
Enjoy your "big fence".
I have a feeling others here are interested in the
important evidence we have uncovered.

Peace!

Craig

Col. Jenny Sparks wrote:
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4144

Craig Ranke CIT wrote:

atta girl!
That thread is a fence within a fence!
You are so safe!
Luv ya guv.
See ya 'round.
(if you venture outside that is)

Col. Jenny Sparks wrote:

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4144

Craig Ranke CIT wrote: Col Sparks,

Back so soon?
Gosh!
I'm flattered.
Any comments on the OP?

Or how about the notion that we have 13 first-hand witness accounts independently corroborating the north side approach complete with a Pentagon police officer who saw the plane flying away immediately after the explosion?

How does that tickle your fancy?

Have you even viewed any of this evidence yet or are you choosing to remain in your big fence when it comes to evidence while venturing out only for irrelevant quips and off topic links?

Col. Jenny Sparks wrote:

You know it's gotta be a slow Friday night...

Pure farce. Now as much of a laugh as that was, that's how these people treat someone who plans to agree to disagree--they try to bait them into a fight. Someone who actually starts debating them in good faith, this is what happens:

A Response to Misleading Claims About the CIT Flyover Debate

It has come to my attention that several misleading arguments and claims have been made about my commentary on CIT. A witness at the Pentagon saw the light poles on the ground after the attack. Later in an interview, he gave the incorrect location of where they were placed. Completely ignoring this fact, it is alleged that:
“Arabesque deliberately omitted Lagasse’s explicit statement that he didn’t the see light poles hit.”
This statement is misleading as I have never claimed Lagasse saw the poles get hit.

For more CIT fun and games:

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/search/label/CIT

Their problem in a nutshell:

The CIT researchers frequently and falsely interpret criticism of their theory as a personal attack along with accusations of government sponsored “neutralization”.

This is exactly the excuse used by Killtown to ban so many people from his forum it should be called Ghosttown--that critizing a theory is bad but attacking people as agents or "perps" for critizing a theory is okay.

Let's see some of this action by CIT fans at 911blogger:

"They put their lives on the line for the sake of truth."

Exactly.

Completely the opposite of the anonymous spook, "Arabesque."

Writes the anonymous user known as kameelyun.

This is out of line. Full stop. If you disagree with someone you're a spook? Give me a bloody break.

Newsflash for the adult children out there: no one's personal information is any of your business unless that person publishes it and the connections to activism themselves or you have a legal complaint against them. Then your course is through propper channels, not making wild accusations on public forums. They also seem to forget--or maybe never knew--many influential writers were anonymous in their time--examples being George Orwell and Mark Twain. Don't recall anyone whinging they "didn't use their real names". No, people did the intelligent thing and debated their ideas, not their criminal free personal life.

An aside: I also sincerely doubt CIT's lives are on the line. One peculiarity I've noticed in 911truth is the people the most free with all their personal information--something no Internet security expert recomends-- are almost never targeted for harrasment. Something to mull over.

A reponse to kameelyun:

"anonymous spook"

Why are you repeating this phrase on multiple threads? It's almost like you're attempting a smear job. Calling other users agents (or any other kind of ad hom attack) used to be against the rules on this site

Its true--he is repeating this:

http://911blogger.com/node/20571#comment-211383

Sorry, Victronix

but the anonymous spook "Arabesque" has NOT debunked the admirable work of two men who have taken an enormous amount of risk by putting their real names and faces to their investigation and activism.

Okay, I wasn't going to dredge up the Killtown/Ozzywat/wq2rx/Fetzer/Barrett internet stalker connections, but if Kameelyun is going to go on and on about risks Craig Ranke is braving, I'll take these risks seriously when I start to see Mr. Ranke the target of psycho porn psyop stalking videos spread by Larouche fans, past and present:

http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2008/05/attacks-on-truthmove-return-of-wq2rx.html

http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2008/05/there-is-no-excuse-to-threaten-harass.html

http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2009/02/lying-with-dogs-at-waterloo.html

If fact with some of these wankers, you don't even have to be part of 911 truth to be attacked:

http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2009/05/mark-humphrey-is-not-harley-guy.html

To be clear--in no way to I wish Mr. Ranke to be targetted for a stalking, harassment, slander campaign. But considering Arabesques has been target ted for harassment--by Larouche giant Webster Tarlpley no less:

http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2007/10/webster-tarpley-your-services-will-no.html

--it would be completely illogical for Arabesque to not continue to use a screen name. It's almost as if people are trying to manipulate 911 activists to put themselves unnecessarily at risk...

CIT and their fans do not sound like the best people to represent 911truth in any public venue.

One fan admits their approach is less than productive:

I stand by Sheila's and CIT's work.

Not only am I a rational researcher, I am someone who is regarded by people who know me in person as unusually smart.

Do the CIT boys perhaps have a 'tude and get angry with those who don't accept their findings? Probably so. I bet I would too. They're young. They'll mature. I used to have a juvenile attitude in my early truthing days 4 years ago, sometimes making comments online like "If you can't see WTC7 was a CD, you're a fuckin' idiot!" Then I learned that such an approach can only serve to alienate and so I toned it down and learned how to be civil, all the time.

They're young? Craig Ranke is almost 40 years old! When's he going to mature?---When he's 60 something? 70 something?

I'm not seeing CIT deconstructing anything--much less the Pentagon-- as a benefit for 911truth. The irony is I wouldn't mind hearing them out if I didn't have to wade through their dishonest arguments. I know outright no-planes advocates who give me less of a headache. I don't agree with them, but they don't witter away at me if I'm not bothering them. And because their arguments are honest, I can respect them.

Unfortunately, with their history of personal attacks and manipulative behavior, I can't say the same about Craig Ranke and CIT--or their event.

Go at your own risk.

EDIT: in a bizarre twist kameelyun is no longer anonymous--the link to his screen name now goes to this profile: