By David Chandler
I have often been asked why I reject the research of CIT (Citizen Investigation Team), which proposes that a large plane approached the Pentagon from a northerly angle incompatible with the external and internal damage path. The plane, they say, flew over the Pentagon, masked by the explosion and smoke cloud, and all the damage was faked. There is much that is wrong with their theory and conclusions, but here I am looking at what is wrong with their methods.
CIT’s analysis is based on interviews with a number of eyewitnesses using a fundamentally flawed methodology that invalidates the entire process. I have spelled out my critique here.
Why the CIT Analysis of the Pentagon Event on 9/11 Should Be Rejected Outright
The critique is based on three telephone interviews of Albert Hemphill, one by Craig Ranke of CIT, the other two by Jeff Hill, an independent researcher living in Canada
- Craig Ranke – Hemphill Phone Interview,
- Jeff Hill – Hemphill Phone Interview,
- Jeff Hill – Second Hemphill Phone Interview.
Attempted transcripts of these recorded interviews
(When in doubt, refer to the interviews themselves.)
- Craig Ranke – Hemphill Phone Interview (pdf),
- Jeff Hill – Hemphill Phone Interview (pdf),
- Jeff Hill – Second Hemphill Phone Interview (pdf).
In the article I make reference to the Asch Conformity Experiment. Here is a video of the experiment itself with an explanatory introduction.