March 19, 2008

Citizen Investigation Team: Arabesque Cartoon

Citizen Investigation Team: Arabesque Cartoon

Today, I received this cartoon from Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT):

It was followed by this explanation by Marquis:

"Arabesque, I found a photo of you at a 9/11 conference... Oh the way[...] the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo."

Unfortunately, CIT is not limited to attacking people in the 9/11 truth movement for being "anonymous", as this message also included a personal attack against Pentagon researcher John Farmer. CIT hardly needs any excuse at all for these sorts of personal attacks at all as I have prolifically documented.

Personal attacks requires motive and intent. In my experience, personal attacks and irrelevant commentary are used to intentionally create hostility within the 9/11 truth movement, possibly with the intent of distracting attention away from facts, evidence, and legitimate debate. Personal attacks are a diversion and distraction similarly exploited by FOX propaganda specialists like Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin. Likewise, the 9/11 truth "debunker" site "Screw Loose Change" strongly emphasizes personal attacks against 9/11 truth advocates instead of debate. As Jim Fetzer explains (note: see this article for my observations on Fetzer and his definitions of disinformation), Ad hominem attacks are disinformation:

The third level of disinformation occurs by abusing the man (AD HOMINEM) in attacking the author or the editor of a work on irrelevant or misleading grounds that have little or nothing to do with the position the author or editor represents.
Jim Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation

As for CIT's claim that the plane flew "north of CITGO" gas station, this has long been debunked. Among the witnesses that CIT cites as "evidence" include witness accounts (5 years later) who said the plane hit the Pentagon (implicitly debunking the north flight path), appeared to show up on different location on the CITGO gas station video from where they claimed to be (CIT claiming that the perpetrators purposely altered the video), with another witness claiming that light poles were "not knocked down" where they were in fact, knocked down.

Disingenuously, CIT claims that these witnesses are somehow "smoking gun" evidence of a "military slight of hand deception" that "fooled" witnesses into somehow thinking that a plane hit the Pentagon despite the above and other glaring problems with the theory.