The Art of Debate - CIT

It's improper to suggest that the following characteristics of debate that CIT employs are exclusive to them. Many of the debating techniques, if it can even be called "debating", can be applied to anybody promoting false information. However, I recently had an exchange with CIT which will make it easier to use as an example.

CIT, or Citizens Investigation Team, is the group which produced The Pentacon, a film which suggests that the plane flew over The Pentagon, and the damage was caused by something else. Whether that be explosives or a catapult or a goddamn chisel is pretty irrelevant. It's a terribly-constructed argument, and CIT, along with their followers, refuse to acknowledge the most basic of problems with their argument.

Anybody else who's had an exchange with them will know what I mean. CIT is probably the best example of circular logic I can think of. In The Pentacon, they interview four witnesses who recall a different flight path. They use that testimony to determine that the plane flew over the Pentagon and anything that opposes that conclusion is faked.

If you have trouble following that logic, you're not alone.

It all started when I took a trip to the Loose Change forums and, in my introduction post, noted my opposition to no-plane theories. The next reply introduces me to the Pentacon film. I, in all my good will, say that I'd be willing to recant any conclusion of mine with adequate evidence. Thus, I watched every lasting minute of The Pentacon. I got one of the most poorly-constructed arguments I've ever seen. Not just in 9/11, in general. Using only a few witness statements (all of whom are less reliable than other witnesses anyway, since the interview occurs FIVE YEARS after the attack) they ignore the myriad of other testimonies that argue against them. One of their own witnesses even notes that the people on Interstate 395 would have had a great view of the attack. Sure enough, it is not that difficult to find witness statements from I-395 that confirm a plane impact.

What's even more preposterous is that they only use their obtained testimony when it suits them. 3 of their 4 witnesses (the remaining one of whom was nowhere near the Pentagon and only saw the plane) all told them that they saw the plane HIT! They saw the impact! But does CIT care? No. They use this "devastating eyewitness testimony" to conclude that a plane did NOT impact the Pentagon.

I relay they criticisms, along with the fact that all the physical evidence points to a plane impact, and the response I get is "You're using media-whore information!" like I'm insane for analyzing any evidence other than theirs. Most of the 9/11 Truth Movement talks about getting a trial. If such a selective thought process is to be used in a trial, then the movement might as well kiss itself goodbye, because that will lead to nothing. Court does not work that way! Can you imagine this in a real-life scenario?

Defendant: And I would like to bring on...the physical evidence!
Plaintiff: OBJECTION!
Judge: On what grounds?
Plaintiff: Because it's devastating to my case!
Judge: ...overruled...
Plaintiff: What!? You're going to listen to the defendant's information!? I AM THE ONLY ONE WITH THE REAL EVIDENCE!
Judge: Can you prove this evidence is, in some way, invalid?
Plaintiff: It's the defendant's information! What more proof do you need?

I respond telling the CIT followers these criticisms, only to get the same "Nuh uh, our witnesses are better than yours" argument. Eventually, Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke, the CIT members who created The Pentacon, decide to grace me with their presence...as well as the same damn arguments. It is not long before I am suggested to be a disinfo operative or COINTELPRO agent of some kind. Under no real basis, mind you, other than that I disagree with them. Whenever I talk about contradictory eyewitness statements, I get "FAKED!". When I bring up light pole damage, "FAKED!". Anything that opposes their theory? "FAKED!"

(On a side-note, I've never actually heard a reason for WHY the government would even fly the plane over. Why not just let it hit? It's not even a reasonable operation. Why take such a huge risk in having the plane seen and having your whole operation blown wide open? It would be like they were trying to get caught.)

After a while, I realized just how cult-like this group was. They had literally blinded themselves to anything that opposed their claims. Furthermore, CIT acted like cult leaders themselves, with this all-knowing approach, often saying "After a few months you'll be kicking yourself when you realize just what it is what we've done!" and other such delusions of grandeur.

Oh, and let's not forget the disinformation-promoters' favorite: Ad-hominem! I got plenty of those too. What started out as a kind introduction thread resulted in a debate between fact and religion. Proof and belief. Eventually, I left, because it was clear that there was no arguing with these people, and I had better ways to spend my time than repeat the same arguments over and over.

This is how hoax-promoters often work. Come up with a pre-conceived conclusion, find evidence for that conclusion, deny any opposing evidence, including evidence that opposes your own evidence, assert your conclusion's dominance, and throw in a couple ad-hominem attacks every now and then.

In my last "Art of Debate" post, I mentioned how I do not believe Louder Than Words, the creators of the Loose Change films, are disinfo operatives. Why not? Because they've had the decency to fix their errors. They're willing to look at criticism and correct their mistakes. CIT, however, refuses to acknowledge so much as the POSSIBILITY that they are wrong. Even I, who am so heavily determined to erase the hoaxes among the movement, would be willing to recant with adequate evidence (and since there is no adequate evidence which supports hoaxes, I don't have to worry too much). CIT, however, will simply spout excuses and blatant speculation when confronted with facts and basic reasoning. Perhaps they started out with good intentions and were simply promoting misinformation. But when you are confronted with an argument that you cannot beat using any reasonable kind of critical thinking, and you do not recant your argument, you have turned into a disinfo operative. When you spit in the face of real evidence and offer the weakest, most unreliable "evidence" of your own, then you are participating in disinformation. When you care more about making a name for yourself and being perceived as right over actually BEING RIGHT, then you have lost the right to associate yourself with The 9/11 Truth Movement.

Because we stand for TRUTH! NOT PRIDE!