Why do we tolerate a ‘truther’ cabal that constantly props up almost all the 9/11 Pentagon official story?

England says it was the “long end” of the pole that penetrated his cab.

So much is false in the Pentagon story – why would some ‘truthers’ spend years describing what they think is true?

September 4, 2018

By Craig McKee

What would you think if a group of truth activists, known for other areas of 9/11 research, turned their attention to writing papers, making videos, giving talks, and doing interviews telling us all the ways they thought NIST’s analysis of the World Trade Center destruction was correct?

What if they almost never questioned NIST’s findings but instead did everything they could to undermine any challenges to NIST from members of the Truth Movement? What if they told us they did this to keep the movement from losing credibility, to keep us from looking like crazy conspiracy theorists with wild ideas about government agents planting explosives in the towers?

Of course, this group would also make it clear they don’t believe the whole NIST report, and they don’t believe al-Qaeda was behind 9/11 – so they couldn’t be accused of supporting the official story. But virtually all the information they presented on the WTC destruction concerned what they thought NIST had gotten RIGHT – with next to nothing about what it got WRONG.

What would you think of such a group?

For how many years would you politely accept their support for one aspect of the official narrative after another? Would you be concerned when they made many statements that seemed almost identical to those made by Popular Mechanics or any number of other 9/11 “debunkers”?

This is just what is happening with respect to what took place – or didn’t take place – at the Pentagon on 9/11. The cabal supporting numerous elements of the Pentagon official story is not hypothetical; it is very real. Its members want us to think that the government is telling the truth about a 757 hitting the Pentagon. They’re also big believers in the authenticity of virtually all the evidence provided by the government. They dismiss as “outlandish” the idea of a staged “crash” scene, and assert that this idea results from speculation and confirmation bias.

The cabal, which I have been writing about almost since this blog  began in 2010, features names like David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, Ken Jenkins, John Wyndham, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, the late Frank Legge, and the newest Energizer Bunny of debunking, spin, and misdirection, Wayne Coste. They want us all to disregard some of the very strongest evidence we have that 9/11 was an inside job – under the guise of simply seeking “the truth.”

For years, this group has been writing papers and making presentations that push something that is almost indistinguishable from the official story of what happened to the plane that was seen approaching the Pentagon. They use spin and repetitive talking points to gain support, suggesting that they alone are using “the scientific method” and that the same people who brought you controlled demolition of the towers have now turned their attention to the Pentagon. They tell us that they have “brought closure” to the debate even as they continue producing large amounts of supposedly “new” material.

As far back as 2011, Chandler and Cole were telling us (in their “Joint Statement on the Pentagon,”) that “foolish theories” like the one that says there was no plane crash at the Pentagon might well have been “planted” to discredit the movement, implying that Citizen Investigation Team (the group that revealed through their research that the plane that approached the Pentagon was not on the official flight path) could be government agents. For some reason, Chandler and Cole have not widely been condemned for this accusation. Nor has Chandler taken the criticism he should have for his latest dishonest attack on CIT from December 2017, which I deconstructed here.

Chandler and Cole also wrote that the movement should abandon Pentagon research because the government holds all the cards. But all they and other members of their team have done since 2011 is produce more and more “research” claiming that a large plane did hit the Pentagon. Why did they tell everyone else to stop researching this while they continued?

They don’t see a problem in putting literally years of effort into pushing this one aspect of the official story. When the government gives us evidence that undermines its own narrative, this group rushes to “fix” the evidence so it aligns, or appears to align, with the official impact scenario. The result is division and understandable anger from the members of the majority who are paying attention. Another result is that some look at the familiar and “respected” names behind the pro-impact material and automatically give it much more weight than it deserves.

Coste has been pumping out PowerPoint presentations since late 2015 on the 9/11 and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference. I have endured every one. Adam Ruff and I debated Coste in January 2016, and participants voted 17-1 that Adam and I had made the stronger case. Barbara Honegger debated him and won 20-3. This means that almost 90 percent of those who decided to vote in the two debates did not find Coste persuasive.

But that was just the beginning for him. His output since then amounts to an avalanche of speculation, assumption, and manipulation as he bends and twists the facts until he thinks they support his “hypothesis.” Now he has a produced a more than five-hour PowerPoint presentation (a revised version is separated into “chapters” and narrated by David Chandler). I will be responding to this in detail in the near future.

But in the meantime, here are some samples of Coste’s “scientific” claims from previous presentations:

He assumes that the odd shape of a tree next to Route 27, near the Pentagon, must be the result of its branches being stripped by the blades of a 757 engine (that originally came from Chandler).

Proof of this?


He sees a dark shape on a surveillance video from the former Citgo gas station and proclaims with certainty that it is the shadow of a 757 flying overhead on the official flight path right before hitting the Pentagon. Same with the quick “flash” reflected in the gas station canopy, which he says is the reflection of exploding jet fuel.

Proof for these contentions?


We know the official flight path is impossible because there was a VDOT tower that would have been in the plane’s path. But, no problem for Wayne; he just moves the path so it goes beside the tower. Problem solved! Well, it’s solved if you ignore the fact that he has offered us multiple versions of the flight path that are distinct from each other. Each time he comes up with a new one, he is confident that it is “supported by the evidence.” At least until the next one…

Proof that a plane actually followed any one of these proposed paths?


Coste speculates that the wings were pulled into the building through a hole not large enough to accommodate a 757. I’m not sure he uses the word “folded” but since the hole isn’t big enough for the wingspan of the plane and he doesn’t state the wings remained outside, I don’t see what else he could mean. (Here, he seems to disagree with Chandler who thinks the wings were smashed into confetti outside.)

Apart from a few highly photogenic pieces of crumpled metal with parts of red letters on them, the bulk of the unidentified “debris” seen in photos appears to be small enough that you could collect it using a rake and some heavy duty trash bags. Coste describes the familiar photo of a piece of alleged “fuselage” in the middle of the lawn as a “large piece” of the plane.

Proof that the entire plane, including the wings, ended up inside the building?


Yes, this is the hole Coste tells us was made by the flying pole.

Coste speculates that when Lloyde England described the pole he claims penetrated his cab, he was not referring to the long section of pole 1 but the top section of pole 2 (slightly farther north along Route 27) even though England repeatedly referred to the “long section” of the pole that was attached to the ground (which could only have been pole 1). The long section of pole 1 ended up on the road, right in front of Lloyde’s cab, as you can see in the photo at the top of this article. Coste also wants us to believe that the damage to the rear seat of the cab is exactly what you would expect from the penetration of a pole hit by a plane going 530 mph. But the damage he refers to is a hole that barely looks big enough to accommodate someone’s fist. (See photo)

Proof that the top part of pole 2 hit the taxi? Or that a flying pole created the small hole in the upholstery?


It would be one thing if Coste and his fellow team members simply cautioned us to avoid putting bad evidence forward but then turned their attention to what they agree are vulnerable points in the official story. But they don’t. They just attack truthers and the no-757-impact position. Endlessly. And they keep steering us towards their assertion that the burden of proof is on us to show exactly what happened rather than on the government to prove what it says happened. For some reason, they don’t want us to focus on proving that elements of the Pentagon official story are wrong. Instead, they want to chip away at all the powerful Pentagon evidence reported over the years by David Ray Griffin, CIT, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and others.

The Pentagon is the key to 9/11 in many ways. The “attack” on this symbol of American power was painted as an act of war – conveniently justifying the initiation of an actual war in response. Make that several wars and a global assault on freedom and privacy.

Further, the fact that the event occurred at a location that was under the complete control of the American military reveals how important the evidence of deception really is. If any of the evidence from the Pentagon can be shown to have been staged in any way, then it can only be the military that was responsible for the deception. That means 9/11 is proven to be an “inside job.”

This is why the Pentagon is so crucial to the case we as a movement must make to the world. It represents, in fact, an opportunity that is too good to pass up. And yet, some who purport to be part of the 9/11 Truth Movement are determined to focus their efforts – and ours – on supporting element after element of the official story of what happened, or did not happen, at the Pentagon. They ridicule the idea that evidence could have been staged in any way.

It goes without saying that we, as truth activists, don’t have to disbelieve everything in the official story. We can accept that some of the details are correct. But whatever we think about the details of the 9/11 deception, it seems to me that our collective task is to expose to the world the massive holes (lies) in the government story. Once exposed, the story crumbles to a pile of nothing.

Much of the world takes for granted that the official scenario is true, so we don’t have to help reinforce that position. Even if we agree with some details, our focus should be on the lies. But for some reason, this group doesn’t want us to focus on those.

And what have all their efforts achieved? They have caused enormous rancor and have distracted the Truth Movement from objectives that may actually bring us some success. Regardless of their motives, they are the primary cause of division within the Truth Movement, as they have been for a number of years.

This reality becomes more disturbing as each year passes.


Late last year, I undertook an initiative called the “No 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11” list to find common ground among the vast majority of truthers who do not believe a 757 hit the Pentagon. You can join our Facebook group and add your name to the list here or by going to the post where the list itself is contained at Truth and Shadows here.


  1. I only have time for a very brief comment now but I do want to say great job once again Craig, as usual. You have lots of stamina to keep doing this for a good solid decade has you have been and I admire that immensely.

    When I get home I will be at the desktop computer and will offer more detailed thoughts but for now, remember the song The Farmer in the Dell? Farmer —> Wife —> Child —> Nurse —-> Cow —> Dog —> Cat —> Mouse —> Cheese —> “The cheese stands alone.”

    Consider the more recent batch of people in this pentagon cabal, particularly Coste, as being at the top end of that list. The further back in time we go, the further we get to the cheese.

    The cheese was an anonymous blogger called “Arabesque.” No one that I know of in the truth movement knows this person’s identity and I have been a dedicated truther since the pre Loose Change days.

    Hoffman and Ashley cited Arabesque as a source of excellent research in the early days and they were the first two people with real names and faces to put their identities to the Pro Impact position as controlled demolition supporting truthers. The rest of the cabal over the past decade has built on all this.

    As Massimmo Mazzucco said to me in an email several years back when I wrote him about this subject, “the Arabesque witness list is unsourced, rendering it worthless.”

    Arabesque is the cheese. The cheese stands alone.

    This cheese is the foundation. And there’s something rotten in the foundation.

      1. Mr. Chandler, have you done any research on the alleged pilot, Hani Hanjour? If so can you tell me why he failed two check rides when he tried twice to rent a two seat Cessna trainer at two different airports but was turned down both times for “poor flying skills?” How then was he able to manage a 270 degree corkscrew descending turn from 7000 feet, above the designed safety speed of a Boeing 757, with full fuel tanks, then fly the last leg straight and level,10 ft. or so above the ground, meaning that the bottom of the engines would be a couple of feet above the ground. Yet the plane never touched the ground [the Pentagon lawn was undamaged].This feat was executed to perfection by a man who could not take off and land a two seat Cessna trainer?

        Is it possible Hanjour could have flown a jumbo jet in that manner? I am a former pilot with many more hours of flight time than Mr. Hanjour. It would have been impossible for me. Does that rule out the possibility that Hanjour could have turned into Chuck Yeager overnight? No, but if you knew anything about aviation, you would be laughed out of a courtroom trying make a case that he could.

        You are on the wrong side of this argument, sir.

          1. Scott, I agree with you that it is noteworthy that Chandler did offer a bunch of comments here, but the problem is that what he likes to do is drop comments and then disappear. This does not allow people to discuss the issue with him. You have to go to his turf, the “9/11 Truth Movement” Facebook page, which is troll central on the Pentagon.

  2. Didn’t you see bin Laden’s televised video where he admits responsibility for 9/11?
    There are many witnesses and photos revealing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon, including body parts. The black box was also found. Why did all the people on board cease to exist after that 757 crashed? You are a rather lost and pathetic bunch. It is no wonder why you can never be taken seriously.

    1. Eric,

      The bin Laden “confession” video is an obvious fake. It’s not even the same person.

      There is a relatively small amount of debris that appears that it could have come from a plane. Where is the 100 tons that should have been there? Where were the wings and the tail? The engine cores?

      And the black box could not even be linked to that flight.

    2. Eric, perhaps you know a VIP at the Pentagon. If so, you could you ask him to release one video of the many that must exist, of a jumbo jet crashing into the side of the buiding? You would be doing us all a great favor. Not much fun, at least for me, living in a rabbit hole.

    3. Eric, if the bin Laden video was authentic don’t you think the FBI would have used it on bin Laden’s “Most Wanted Page” as evidence of his guilt? They did not. In fact they never cited bin Laden for 9/11 because as Rex Tomb, spokeperson for the FBI said, we have no hard evidence of bin Laden’s guilt. Google Rex Tomb, read for yourself.

  3. ‘The chapter that got me onto the REAL story was that tree’s course made all those other possibilities elementary failed logic: 1) Only a large airliner could move that tree and create that air current. 2) The plane wafted north as confetti on air currents or 3) disappeared into the empty 1st floor, which has only two layers of brick that would allow the whole plane to enter. 4) apparently some entered and some became confetti – not clear – the engines and wishbone and bodies and luggage went inside, the tail, wingtips, rudder, etc. must have turned to confetti and floated north. 5) The video analysis is tea leaf reading and that gets us to Orwell, —— again.

    The REAL STORY; These guys are titled and trained and revered experts in this study of all things 9/11, the hobbies’ run a little long in the tooth, Coste comes up with some energy and the esoteric science of 9/11 wakens without a shower, clean clothes or a good teeth brushing. Up and at em! Up and at what? Videos, gossip, noise, emails, and a little interest. Oh Geez – shit we don’t know but we’re working again and it feels good. Going nowhere but making good time.

    I went thru that Coste/Chandler stack of videos 5 times and could not find a single thing of value – NOTHING! Is the effort an encore after a play? Felt like it. As a sailor and into winds and currents I went around and around about that tree and could not for the life of me get what he got about its movement and SIGNIFICANCE. – but, I ain’t a PE. Also wish I knew what kind of tree, I also know trees. I still wanna know why those early fire trucks used water on 10,000 gals of burning Jet Fuel, and if that was jet fuel and that was water why we don’t see the fire wildly and rapidly spread like we see when water is sprayed on Jet-Fuel. The easy answer is no jet fuel, or very little. But that simply cannot be, if it was a big airliner there was fuel and lots of it – there’s an explanation here someplace – not by Coste but certainly someplace, NIST? Pentagon? NTSB? “Truth and Shadow”?

    If we accept any part of AA-77 along comes Barb, cell calls, box cutters, Burlingame needing advice from an D.C. attorney, Hanjor and that perfect high speed turn.

    The planes are the pretty girl dancing across the stage so we don’t notice the magicians wires, doors, rabbits, etc. Planes and more planes – the CIA calls these folks the “compatible left” – so damn smart in their esoteric field, they are very easily manipulated.

    Personally, I thing the same pattern of deception used in NY was used in VA. The magician ain’t coming up with a whole new act when a perfectly good stunts been worked up, backed up, cover up planned. Nope, the same stunt in NY and the same stunt in VA.

    1. Incidentally, if we accept AA-77 we must accept Barb Olson – direct from Law School in LA to a job in D.C. with “Wilmer/Culter/Pickering et al” who had partners like Mueller (FBI Director a week before Barb’s last flight), Jamie Gorlik (911 Comm), and a few others directly mixed up with AA-77. Oh yeah! I can believe a 757 went into the 1st floor of that building – Geez, look at that tree – nothing else can explain the tree’s demise but a 757 – and air currents?

    2. The significance of the tree: The tree could not have been broken off and thrown to the north by an internal explosion. It shows a clear sign of an impact coming from the SW, giving it a northward component of motion. The fact that light debris was carried so far to the NW (past the heliport) is consistent with the trailing air mass following a large plane. An internal explosion would have distributed it more symmetrically.

  4. It seems that we lived a period similar to when they said that the earth was flat.
    Truth answers all the questions.
    Thanks Mr. Craig

    1. Thank you. Interesting how the notion that the Earth is flat has made a comeback in the past three years, just in time so it can be used to denigrate “conspiracy theorists.” I have no doubt that this is a psy op. We might want to keep an eye out for those who claim to be truthers but who mock conspiracy theorists by referring to the flat Earth idea. It’s no accident.

  5. I’ve always thought the objective of the so called Truther Movement was the truth. It should be obvious to anyone that a plane could not have penetrated the outer ring never mind the inner rings of the Pentagon ipso facto:

    Anyone who argues otherwise is either working for the other side (those who continue to perpetuate the lie) or is ignorant of basic physics, especially the laws of inertia.

      1. Indeed not, but people on your side of this question seem to love comparing the alleged plane impact to the Sandia test. Dwain Deets is among them. And didn’t you refer to Sandia in your 2015 presentation in Oakland?

  6. Your truth movement is over because you reject opportunities for new and important evidence that would make a huge difference.

    Good luck anyway.

    1. Hey POS! The Truth and Shadows crew would desperately like to be seen as the heart of the Truth Movement, but they aren’t. There is a lot of flaky crap circulating around here, but there is a solid scientific core of evidence that constitutes real progress. It is important to clean up our act. Otherwise heaven help us if this ever gets real traction, like a grand jury that takes this on as a serious issue. We would get thrown out of court faster than April Gallop’s lawyer.

      1. This is a typical fabrication on your part, David. I don’t want to be the heart of anything. I just want to be part of a movement of people who are not afraid stand up for unpopular truths and who want to spread the word that the story we were told on 9/11 is a lie. I know how much you like to remind people about your “solid scientific core.” But “flaky crap” isn’t exactly a scientific term, is it?

        To call your relentless campaign on behalf of most of the Pentagon official story “real progress” is Orwellian and pompous.

  7. The Disruptive Agent:
    Disruptive agents can self-identify themselves by their actions. These people will often volunteer for jobs in the organization that will give them some influence in the 911 Truth organization.
    They will do several things like:
    They will try to create division, discord and hostility within the group.
    For example: Two disruptive agents will join a group and then pick a fake fight with one another at the same time trying to get other members of the group to join in the fight. Their goal is to create a situation where there is disruptive conflict within the group.
    They will try to set up one person against another person or one group against another group.
    They may use flattery to set up one person against another.
    They will accuse other people of being agents.
    They will try to divert the attention and energy of the group toward non-911 issues. In doing this, they may pose as left-wing or right-wing individuals.
    They will try to get the group to spend energy on projects that are not cost effective.
    One technique to disrupt a meeting is to talk incessantly in order to waste as much time as possible in the meeting so that little or nothing will be accomplished.
    They will try to persuade the group to do something illegal. If they are successful, this will be a set up. The authorities will be waiting with handcuffs.
    They will try to insert disinformation into the 911 Truth Community to create division and disruption in our movement and make us waste valuable time responding to absurtities. Many believe the “Large Plane hit the Pentagon Theory” is an example. This comes under the subject of “cognitive infiltration”. For more information on “cognitive infiltration”, please see the 2008 paper “Conspiracy Theories” by Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule. It is available on the internet.

    1. “Many believe the “NO Large Plane hit the Pentagon Theories” are examples.” How does this little essay distinguish between these possibilities? It doesn’t. Rather than labeling those who disagree as infiltrators, engage with them as people who have different opinions. Find out why and carry on real dialogue.

      When there are conflicting theories you have to look behind the theories to the evidence. Question: How do any of the “no large plane” theories explain all the evidence? (What evidence, you say? Start here: http://911speakout.org/wayne-coste/) And just saying “it was all faked” doesn’t cut it.

      How many of you on this list have actually watched the Explaining the Evidence videos rather than taking someone else’s pre-digested version of it?

      1. David Chandler said:

        “When there are conflicting theories you have to look behind the theories to the evidence”

        That’s funny, coming from you, since you’ve basically built a career on ignoring evidence.

        There WAS a large plane at the scene on 9-11….. Craig doesn’t deny that.
        What we affirm, is that “No plane hit the Pentagon” on 9-11.

        There is not a scrap of evidence that a 100 ton aircraft crashed there.


      2. “Carry on real dialogue” That is rich coming from you. You have dodged a real debate for over a decade now. At least Coste had the guts to debate Craig and I. He got trounced but at least he showed up to try. You are a hypocrite sir. CIT has had a standing debate offer for years and you have never responded to their detailed and damning rebuttal of your paper. You are the one who has prevented dialogue all these years. You want to be taken seriously again? Stand up like a man and debate Craig Ranke.

  8. Thanks Craig. I am really surprised about Chandler. Are these guys CIA plants? In my view the official narrative about the Pentagon is more absurd that the twin tower narrative. As you know, the Pentagon never released a video of the crash though several must exist with all the security surrounding the Pentagon. One video does exist however of a CNN reporter, on the scene, soon after the crash, with his back to the camera telling the world “No plane crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.” If you look behind him, there is no wreckage and the lawn is pristine.

    Ah but, don’t believe your eyes and ears folks, believe the U.S. government. They lie all the time to justify war but would never lie about 9/11!

    Great writing Craig.

    1. Thanks, Geoff. I agree that the story is impossible to believe. As to why some in the Truth Movement want us to focus on what they think is correct in the official story, your guess is as good as mine.

      1. How about out of a concern that we “get it right” and don’t get swept up with emotional arguments. We were not attacked by Osama bin Laden. I don’t back the official story. Your saying large plane impact equates to the official story is a distortion for emotional effect. Why not look at the evidence and see if large plane impact might be the truth?

        1. David, this very statement is a distortion. I do not say “large plane impact” equates to the official story. But it is certainly part of that story. My point is that when you try to help us “get it right” on the Pentagon, you restrict yourself (almost entirely) to telling us what you think is CORRECT in the official story and not to what you think is wrong. Why is that?

          Why did you tell the movement in your “Joint Statement on the Pentagon” in 2011 that it was pointless to continue with Pentagon research because the government “holds all the cards” when you had no intention of stopping your research? Did you announce that you changed your mind? Did I miss that?

        2. Mr. Chandler, Lt. Col.George Nelson, United States Air Force [ret.] a member of Military Officers for 9/11 Truth, was a former Air Force accident investigator and an airplane parts authority. He said this. “With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged.” He added this, “The goverment alleges that four wide body ailiners crashed on the morning of September 11, 2001, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to identify ANY of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems that ALL potential evidence was kept hidden from public view.”

          Sir, it is not Craig McKee’s job or my job to prove what happened at the Pentagon. it is the governmen’ts job. They have not done that. They have not produced a video or ONE airplane part with a serial number that identifies that plane with any of the 4 planes that crashed that day. Try to explain that please. Titanium engines don’t vanish, yet eight vanished that day? Please.


    2. OK, now watch the full interview with the context. Jaime McIntyre was arguing against the idea that the plane crashed on the lawn short of the Pentagon. He is affirming that it hit the wall directly and mostly went inside. This is discussed in Wayne Coste’s presentation, Chapter 2, here: http://911speakout.org/wayne-coste/. Thank you for bringing this up. I hope this sets the matter straight.

      1. David Chandler said:

        “OK, now watch the full interview with the context. Jaime McIntyre …..”

        It doesn’t matter what Jaime McIntyre or Dan Rather said after they were told to keep their yaps shut.
        What matters is what they spontaneously reported without coercion.

        Jaime McIntyre said there was no evidence that a plane crashed “anywhere NEAR the Pentagon”.

        Twist it to fit your agenda all you want.

  9. “The Pentagon is the key to 9/11 in many ways […] This is why the Pentagon is so crucial to the case we as a movement must make to the world.” The Pentagon 9/11 attack may indeed be the key to “war,” ”a global assault on freedom and privacy,” ”evidence” that ”it can only be the military that was responsible for the deception.” However, it bears repeating that these are minor aspects of the 9/11 conspiracy. The bulk of the 9/11 work and by far the boldest, largest and most successful achievement of the Master 9/11 conspirators is the censorship thereof by all opinion-makers who would have a vested interest in informing their audiences of 9/11’s essence as an amateurishly covered false flag. This censorship has been worldwide and permanent. It has been very tight, even self-healing. It has encompassed highly variegated opinion-makers, from structural engineering associations to Muslims to pacifists to human rights activists to socialists to etc. It so happens that the Pentagon does not lend itself to demonstrating the censorship nearly as well as the Twin Towers’ controlled demolition, thanks to the existing video record thereof and its massive broadcasting.

    Therefore, while Chandler, Coste, and others may be harming activism against “war,” ”a global assault on freedom and privacy,” ”evidence” that ”it can only be the military that was responsible for the deception,” they are not harming activism against the much more disturbing 9/11 censorship, nor the search for a putative still bigger and still more alarming mother conspiracy that the 9/11 censorship would be a manifestation of and whose resolution may accordingly bring humanity larger benefits. Discerning 9/11 analysts and activists have bigger fish to fry than Chandler, Coste and others’ qualms over the Pentagon and may even try to use them as allies.


    1. Daniel Noel said:

      “Discerning 9/11 analysts and activists have bigger fish to fry than Chandler, Coste and others’ qualms over the Pentagon and may even try to use them as allies”

      So, what are you doing here, on this particular thread which is about Chandler, Coste and others’ qualms over the Pentagon, Daniel? …. I don’t get it.

      Maybe, one of these days, Craig will become a “Discerning 9/11 analysts and activist” and realize that he has “bigger fish to fry” ….. I don’t know, but we can always hope ….. huh? 😉

  10. What I have wondering about for many years is: After two planes(?) crashed into the WTC and everyone claimed (knew) this was a terrorist attack, and about 40 mins later another plane waltzed it’s way from Ohio right to the fucking Pentagon unmolested. What the fuck was the Pentagon doing? The most sophisticated and expensive monstrosity on the planet was not even able to defend itself from a passenger plane piloted by crazy Muslims who couldn’t even fly, even though they were tracking it, according to the testimony of Norman Mineta. Oh well, mistakes were made.
    Gary Walker

    1. I agree Gary. I think there was a screw-up and the Pentagon event occurred too late, it was supposed to precede the WTC explosions. They know it’s their Achilles heel and so have dedicated most of their dis-info agents to this topic.

  11. No mistakes were made… just lies that were accepted..NIST is a waste of time and they are doing what they were intended to do…NOTHING…

      1. Fabricated, imaginary, fake “evidence”. All your claims of having “evidence” where there really is none is minimally laughable. Maximally, complicit with the fabricators of “the Official Story”. All I’ve heard from your group is conjecture labeled as “evidence”.

      2. David, you violate your own guideline by speculating all over the place. The tree “notch”? The several tree at the Pentagon, the wings turned into “confetti”? All speculation.

  12. I cannot find a single word in your article Craig that I disagree with. In a lot of ways I guess I am the same as “the cabal” when it comes to your article, they can’t find fault with the official lies regarding the pentagon, I can’t find fault with your analysis of them.

    1. There’s one big difference, Adam!

      Your position is sincere, while their position is hypocritical.
      They don’t really believe the rubbish they are promoting.
      For proof of this ….. consider:

      It is IMPOSSIBLE to be as stupid as “the cabal” is pretending to be ….. it is simply IMPOSSIBLE!

  13. Following up on Daniel Noel’s contribution, very relevant and large canvas as usual: As he writes, we’ve endured 17 years of mainstream media complicity, via radio silence about evidence of an inside job—a false flag op—on all aspects of 9/11, including its cover-up.

    Not just silence. But mainly silence. In addition there’s been complicity through denigration of those asking questions about the evidence, those trying to bring the evidence to larger public attention. Marginalization of those who have researched the physical evidence. How many books examining the physical and other evidence have been reviewed in mainstream media? There’s an answer. The answer is virtually none.

    I’m thinking mainly of mainstream media, which despite their decline still are a major factor in Earth’s infosphere. The largest source for most people, most of the time, on most subjects. Remaining daily newspapers of note, such as the New York Times and Washington Post in the USA, The Times of London, even The Guardian in the UK, and in Canada The Globe and Mail and Toronto Star, still do most of the agenda setting along with broadcasting organizations such as the BBC, CBC in Canada and the Amnets. These are not yet down and out and may not be for a long time (and they pursue some worthy purposes).

    But Dan is hitting a big nail squarely. The silence. It can be called misdirection. It can be called denial. It can be called abdication. It can be called inattention. It can be called failure.

    By any name how could the world media be silenced and kept silenced? To expect a simple single answer would be foolish. But it is not foolish to point out a very likely major contributor to the explanation.

    That is gatekeepers. Gatekeepers insinuated and installed at a very large number of mainstream media outlets—probably every one. It was the plan of the CIA from the outset. Plants, paid by “intelligence agencies” to do normal executive editing most of the time but turn into eagle eyes with talons as soon as information threatening the Deep State’s best kept secrets shows up. Their job then is to squelch, by any and all means, such threatening information, and do all possible to divert or undercut its sources.

    As Dan states: “The bulk of the 9/11 work and by far the boldest, largest and most successful achievement of the Master 9/11 conspirators is the censorship thereof by all opinion-makers who would have a vested interest in informing their audiences of 9/11’s essence as an amateurishly covered false flag. This censorship has been worldwide and permanent. It has been very tight, even self-healing.”

    There’s much more to the censorious monolith of obfuscation, burying and propaganda, of course. Witness the pathetic trolls. But The Big Silence paradoxically speaks for itself, for those with ears to hear.

    “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” said Donald Rumsfeld, thoughtfully. The absence of evidence of the army of gatekeepers is not evidence that the army is absent. The silence they impose, on the contrary, is the evidence of silence makers effectively at work. Silence instill fears in some, frustration in many. All the rest, it fools, creates a “nothing to see here, let’s move on” illusion. Firmly in place, 17 years after the most blatant false flag op in history. Impressive, if you like the tyranny of silence.

    1. Hey Barrie. You’re a journalist. Fran Shure tells me she believes you are a straight-up guy and not a shill. If that is the case, how about a little direct dialogue on the evidence that Wayne has put so much time and energy into compiling? You might debunk it if you have better information, but it is due a better response than just decrying the fact that it contradicts prior beliefs. Are you open to having your mind changed by persuasive evidence? Have you watched the videos of the presentation? If not, let me know when you have and we can talk about it. I don’t want to waste my time until you have done your homework.

      1. How dare you say to Barrie Zwicker “if you are not a shill.” That’s a really slimy insinuation. You manipulate with language, using words like “belief” to put down positions you don’t agree with.

        It is ironic that you don’t want to “waste your time” while you waste the time of the whole Truth Movement.

        1. Craig,

          I’m sure Chandler would respond about a double standard, remarking that our side regularly accuses people of being shills, and point to some of the comments here as proof. This is where I would remind everyone that Chandler was the one who initiated this trend with his and Cole’s joint statement in 2011. See this comment of mine at the bottom of the thread:


  14. Just because people give wrong information doesn’t mean they are being intentionally deceptive. But I’ve had enough exposure this cabal to have witnessed incident after incident where they are undoubtably lying, not simply misinformed.

  15. How do I enter a paragraph break without posting? I guess I’ll just make it one big paragraph. This cabal nurtures the fallacy that reasonable people can disagree about the Pentagon. This is ridiculous. No one who spends any time at all looking into the evidence will believe the things that Coste believes. He indicts himself further with every powerpoint he creates, because we know that he knows the truth but is deliberately promoting a lie. Some things are just too obvious for an intelligent person to miss. It’s a question like “what color is the White House?” It’s just not possible to get it wrong unless you are either too lazy to look into it or are being deliberately deceptive.

  16. If you want to understand me and why I believe what I do, read my writings and watch my videos, not what someone like Craig McKee says about my writings and videos.

    If you want to understand Craig McKee, read my writings and watch my videos, then read what Craig McKee says about them!

    For Pentagon evidence, see http://911speakout.org/wayne-coste/
    For my analysis of CIT, and why you should not rely on their interview evidence, see http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/Critique-of-CIT-Rev-4.pdf
    If you want to see what hit the Pentagon, see http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/BlinkedPentagonPlane.html

    Dig for the truth yourself before you go skulking around in the shadows.

    1. Ooh, that sounds ominous. If people want to understand me… Ultimately, that’s an empty and meaningless insinuation.

      We know all about your assessment of CIT. You have attacked them and said we should reject all their research based on their “methodology.” But I show how it’s your methodology that is fraudulent. And your preference for the interviewing habits of Jeff Hill shows exactly how biased you are. You have suggested CIT are government agents based on nothing. But in fact, their contribution to Pentagon research has been game-changing.

      Here is my thorough deconstruction of Chandler’s bogus hit piece against CIT:


      David, you guys continue to reveal yourselves with how you deal with criticism. Coste has tripped over himself in his anxiousness to mock the use of “shadows” in the name of this blog. You’ve repeated that here. So clever! Either you are both being deliberately slippery or you don’t get why I use the word.

  17. I just wonder why they don’t release all the videos to show a clearer shot of the event in order to settle the question once and for all. We all know that there are more videos than what has been given to us. That would give us a more definitive image of what happened.

    1. Andy, Chandler will tell you the video we got from them perfectly shows an American Airlines 757 crossing the lawn on the official flight path. Any doubts or questions we in the Truth Movement raise about the official claim of a plane crash, Chandler and his team will be there to tell us it all happened (with respect to the plane at the scene) just like the government said.

      So Chandler is ready to dismiss even your very modest and reasonable demand that we be shown all the video. He’ll say we have all we need!

    2. Andy, when the videos are finally released (if there ARE any still in existence) I’m very confident that they will show what DID attack the Pentagon. I’m not holding my breath. I’ll be presenting a viable scenario on the next 9/11 conference call. This is a link to a website (wix) We’re assembling to address the Pentagon Airborne Sortie and other events that occurred on 9/11. Your comments and criticism will be appreciated:


  18. Chandler, most serious truthers, like most people generally, have a life. We have families and jobs, and our free time is limited. Now I will freely admit that I am not a scientist, formally trained or otherwise, but I am a well-educated person (Phillips Exeter Academy, Columbia College, University of Virginia Law School), and an independent thinker, beholden to no one. And I have spent many, many hundreds of hours studying 9/11 since I woke up to the monstrous reality in the Spring of 2009. But because my free time is limited, I am unlikely to spend additional hours watching videos made by you or Coste or anyone else who supports the idea that a large airliner hit the Pentagon. The idea is obvious bullshit, and that is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by CIT’s work and by many pieces of circumstantial evidence. I stand firmly with Craig and Adam Ruff and Adam Syed, and every single other truther that I know personally in the State of Maine feels the same way. Now back to my original point: most people have a life. I have a life. So what about you, Chandler? WHY the f*** are you spending so much time and effort supporting the large impact bullshit and trying to discredit Craig and this site, the single best 9/11 information source on the entire internet? I believe I know why, and Craig has made it pretty clear. You and the others in your cabal are on a mission to disrupt and fracture the truth movement on behalf of nefarious forces. See David Ray Griffin’s Cognitive Infiltration. In conclusion, Chandler: suck it – no intelligent truther is buying your crap.

    1. David (Bauer), thank you for powerful statement, which is notable for its clarity and its absence of misdirecting fog, which so characterizes the claims of Chandler and company.

    2. Very well said David Bauer! I agree 100%. I have a life too, and an important part of it is waiting for me right now while I write this, so that’s it for now.

  19. Hasn’t most of the evidence in its various forms been supplied by the very perpetrators and collaborators of this monstrous crime?

  20. I would absolutely agree with David Chandler on one thing. To find out what someone actually claims, go to the source! I wholeheartedly agree that one should not go to a source’s opposition to get the “lowdown” before checking out the source that’s being critiqued.

    Chandler’s foray into the Pentagon was in January 2011 with his and Jon Cole’s “Joint Statement on the Pentagon.” It is flawed to the point of saturation. CIT’s Craig Ranke deconstructed it point-by-point. You can see the Chandler/Cole original text (in the light brown boxes) as well as the critical response (white background), so anyone can judge for themselves by seeing what Chandler/Cole wrote, whether the critical response is on the mark or just a “rant,” which has to my knowledge been the only instance in which Chandler has addressed it.


    Mr. Chandler,

    The criticism of CIT and why their work should be “rejected outright” (provided by you in your above comment) is absolute hogwash, a nonsense attack. I just re-familiarized myself with your PDF. It’s a nonsense attack against CIT generally, and a misrepresentation of this very interview.

    “–The plane came in over his right shoulder, i.e. to his south, therefore to the south of the CITGO station.”

    NO! This has been explained to you and others many times; conflation of his right shoulder with “south of the gas station.” You simplify the alternative flight path down to this. The entirety of the official flight path is (1) south of Columbia Pike at all times (2) south of the Navy Annex at all times and (3) south of the Citgo and over the Rt. 27 overpass bridge.

    His office was at the north end of the building. He actually says it came over the Navy Annex, which already contradicts the official flight path of being south of the Annex at all times.

    “Having answered that to the best of his recollection the plane flew over the top of the CITGO station, Ranke continues pushing, “OK, but would you say if you had to say if it was leaning towards one side or the other of the gas station, perhaps a portion of the plane, or did it look directly over the top? Or what do you think?” He is clearly telling Hemphill he is unsatisfied with his previous answer. Finally Hemphill answers, “Yeah, I would say more towards the cemetery side.” It is troubling that Ranke ignores Hemphill’s first answer and persists in digging for a different answer. “…if you had to say,” “…if it was leaning towards one side or the other,” “…perhaps a portion of the plane.” This is leading the witness, if not badgering the witness. Such questioning is bad practice because it distorts the testimony. It has no place in scientific data gathering interviews since the goal is to get at true memories uninfluenced by the questioner.”

    Come on, really? Ranke is not “clearly” or even ambiguously telling Hemphill any such thing. He even re-emphasizes “or did it look directly over the top?” So, he’s giving Hemphill another chance to re-emphasize, or modify. He chose to go with “cemetery side.”

    But what is really telling is the fact that you’d use this interview at all as a source. It was not part of an official release and was conducted AFTER all of CIT’s major presentations had been publicly released.

    (And, most suspiciously, certainly bizarrely at the very least, Jeff Hill’s phone call to the same witness occurred roughly an hour after Ranke made his call.)

    Your nitpicking at trivia regarding the exact words of the Hemphill interview do NOTHING to negate two Pentagon police officers who were at the station. Lagasse clearly said that the fact that the plane flew NoC was not up for debate, and that the only possible detail for debate is just exactly how far north from the station the plane was; he understands that no two memories would be identical and no two people would draw the absolute exact same line on the map with the marker CIT gave them. But as he said, there’s no way the plane was SoC… unless he has eyes in the back of his head.

  21. Chandler says we should not be driven by emotional arguments. We should not have pre-conceived biases, and we should seek out the facts with no agenda but the truth. And we should especially be civil and not accuse or imply that other truthers are infiltrators.

    But his very first public statement on the Pentagon was loaded with rhetoric that violates all of these. This was in 2011. Here are some examples.

    “Therefore the Pentagon is a dead-end for research. The puzzle of the Pentagon might be fascinating or intriguing, but as an avenue to determining the truth, it seems doomed to failure. The ones who want it covered up literally hold all the cards.”

    As has already been pointed out by another reader here, Chandler was saying 7 years ago that the Pentagon was a “dead end” for research. Yet he has spent hundreds if not thousands of hours over the past 7 years attempting to save the truth movement from its own folly by trying to convince us that a plane did hit the Pentagon.

    “Fortunately the evidence at the World Trade Center makes the investigation at the Pentagon almost irrelevant.”

    Well heck, the info we already have about the WMD lies used to invade Iraq, combined with the LIHOP evidence re 9/11 itself, is enough to indict Bush and Cheney for treason even without all of that crazy-sounding controlled demolition inside job stuff!!

    “It is sometimes hard to tell the difference between simply foolish theories and intentionally planted foolish theories. The difference is generally speculative. The wisest policy is to avoid foolish theories altogether.”

    So, far from coming into the fray with a neutral, objective stance, you declared from the get-go that it should be obvious to anyone that the ‘flyover’ is a foolish theory. The only question left up for debate, in your mind, is whether it was an well-intentioned but misguided theory, or a deliberately planted one. Not very promising.

    Then you went on to call CIT a “grassroots-sounding organization,” the subtle (or not-so-subtle) implication being that they’re not grassroots at all, but professional disinfo.

    “They compile their thirteen interviews in a feature-length video called “National Security Alert” (with an eyebrow-raising acronym shared with the National Security Agency: NSA), then further cherry-pick their witnesses and present the four who are most in agreement with their own views, and add a musical sound track for a second video they call their “Smoking Gun” version.”

    For someone who thinks we shouldn’t imply that our fellow researchers and activists are agents working for the other side, this is pretty rich. The Twilight Zone music went off in your head and your eyebrow raised itself in suspicion over the fact that CIT’s film has an acronym that involves the same three letters as those on a government agency?

    Even today, you speak of the Gallop case, and how anyone saying a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon would be laughed out of court. And you do it with a sense of protectiveness toward your own and others’ research into the WTC, claiming that public dissemination of the Pentagon stuff will destroy your work by association.

    I have even more thoughts which I’ll articulate after the next daybreak, but I’m signing off. Good night all…

  22. Actually, I’ll leave one more thought for the night. Very timely considering the passing of Senator John McCain, who, lest we forget, wrote the foreword to the anti-9/11 truth publication by Popular Mechanics magazine. (The magazine insisted that the piece was not political, just facts, and that “facts don’t have politics.” Yet the foreword was written by a senator whose party had complete control of all branches of government on the day of 9/11.)

    Mr. Chandler, you have repeatedly insisted that those of us who conclude that a flyover (or for that matter a missile strike) occurred have a psychological need, a desire to believe in such a scenario because it’s titillating and mysterious, and so on. You are not the first one to do this; your words mirror Victoria Ashley in a comment she left once at 911blogger.

    Vic Ashley’s sentiments, in turn, echo the gatekeeping rhetoric of JOHN MCCAIN.

  23. Chandler, why the gratuitous attacks and condescending remarks leveled at Craig and Barrie Zwicker? Who the fuck are you? By attacking them, you are making yourself look bad, really bad. These guys are high character, honest professionals.Your area of expertise is physics, not military planning or aviation. Stick to what you know. What would you think if they attacked your work on the Towers using the Popular Mechanics argument? I saw your video presentation at New York University a few years ago. It was powerful. That you are in here insulting Craig and Barrie, two of the most honest dedicated members of the Truth movement that I have met, is more than disappointing. In fact, it leads me to believe you have been compromised. You aren’t a gatekeeper are you? Sadly, in this day and age of American liars and sellouts, it would not surprise me in the least.

    1. A term that describes a person who has gained a reputation sharing CREDIBLE “information” and then spews unsubstantiated, made up stories that can’t stand in the face of the LACK of evidence presented is “limited hangout” Either Mr. Chandler is “innocently” mis informing due to lack of knowledge on the subject (and a VIVID imagination) or intentionally DISINFORMING, possibly because he has been threatened or paid off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout

  24. I hate to be a party pooper (ok ok… I actually love it!!!) but this virtually same exact conversation has been carried out here at T&S and elsewhere many many times over with very little or absolutely no results, no actionable conclusions. So much so that I am beginning to wonder who amongst us is genuinely expecting a different result this time around. Adam, do you? Sockpuppet? Mr. ONeill? Mr. Noel? Mr. Zwicker? Sheila? And you Craig???

    I am not trying to be a wise ass. Please know that all of these names I mention above, I have learned to love and/or respect over the years as I consider them all honest, sincere and intelligent thinkers who have pursued “truth” for no gain, and probably to the detriment of their own social and professional standings and even family lives. But, c’mon now… I am pleading with you all. Not again… Please…

    Chandler and his kind are too heavily invested in what they propagate to give up now. He will repeatedly drop links to his “research” which has already been debunked and successfully argued against many times over. He will avoid addressing any specifics whatsoever. If the conversation gets heavier, his stooges will materialize here and agitate and insult everyone. Some of the people here will leave the discussion in anger and disgust. Eventually the thread will slow down, and this groundhog day will be over with until the next one will start like the previous one never happened.

    There’s currently a massive war going on behind the scenes between the deep state and an administration who, at least for the moment, seems to be dead set on dismantling the deep state, shadow governments, dark money, mockingbird press and media and the supranational dark forces and cabals who are capable of carrying out untold atrocities to advance their agenda. Like 9/11!!! If the current fight between the people and the cabal by the forces that put Donald Trump in the white house in spite of the deep state’s best efforts is another piece of hegelian theater to herd the sheep to the slaughterhouse, we are screwed for good. But in the far chance that it is real (currently looking real until further notice) then it is our only hope.

    As painful and traumatic as 9/11 and its repercussions were, the world has moved on, but after 17 years of truth bombs people worldwide have been educated in spite of “their” efforts to inject information pollution to mislead, distract, misinform and disinform… And the world is now coming to terms with the fact that it was never the “guberment”, or this party or that party, or this intelligence agency or that foreign entity that needed to be fought, but a very organized, very secret, very twisted and psychopathic organization which had spread its tentacles to every sliver of civilization controlling it from within. And, even then, the scale has not yet tipped. And it won’t until an actual “proof” that even the dumbest person can wrap his/her head around is produced. How does the specifics of if and what hit the pentagon measure up in this perspective??? Craig can write a thousand more pieces of analysis, and Chandler et al will produce a thousand more bullshit stories. Is anyone who has not already made up their mind even reading this stuff???

    Now that I am ranting, I will also say what most in the “movement” would consider sacrilegious. Even his most ardent critics seem to give Chandler credit and pay him some level of respect for his WTC free fall collapse “research”… I call bullcrap!!! The free-fall aspect of the destruction was physics 101 at best, which anyone who has participated in an egg-drop contest in 5th grade could formulate. He is still cashing in that “scientific breakthrough”. I say just leave him and his insincere arguments and his “cabal” alone to just lay in their own poop. They have failed! They have no impact on what is to come. They do not really have an audience. And, most important of all, the ideas they propagate have lost their relevance altogether.

    I will be at ground zero tomorrow morning as I have done every September 11 for 17 years… I will report back if anything interesting happens. But I’m not holding my breath… Last year, there were a total of four individuals protesting…

    1. David (Hazan, not Chandler), I understand your frustration at the endless repeating cycle. But I don’t know how to avoid it when people like Chandler and Coste pump out more mountains of material in support of most of the Pentagon official story. Sometimes you have to repeat the truth. The fact that is has been said before is not enough.

      I hope you’re right that their arguments aren’t being listened to. But there are a lot of people out there who are impressed by credentials and past “accomplishments.” And I don’t think it’s right to assume there have been no positive results from the actions of people commenting here (now or in the past). Speaking the truth is always worth doing.

      1. David, Craig is right. I’m a member of a Belgian 9/11 Truth Group and whatever evidence I produce that no 757 hit the Pentagon I cannot convince them. They believe everything David Chandler says because he was the guy that “brought NIST to its knees”, so he must be right on the Pentagon as well. So his arguments are still being listened to, even though it’s just an “argument from authority.”

      2. Craig, Ivan… I absolutely understand, sympathize with, and to a certain degree share your frustration…

        But, let’s see what we have here… what has Mr Chandler done so far? He has brought the issue of free fall to people’s attention. The natural conclusion of which was that this was not a gravitational collapse of a steel mesh structure, therefore not due to plain impact, therefore not by 19 hijackers, therefore a complete lie and cover up. And, since the attacks were coordinated, both the pentagon and the Shanksville stories Had to be also lies and were being covered up. This is as simple and full-proof of a logic as it comes. And this simple conclusion stands on its own no matter what part of the rest of the story changes… Doesn’t matter whodunit, doesn’t matter if they used thermite or firecrackers, and it certainly doesn’t matter what hit the pentagon. So, thank you Mr. Chandler for your service.

        But now, as a result, whatever Chandler two-point-o propagates about the pentagon has zero value… He can convince everyone who already knows it was a conspiracy that not one, but five 737s hit the pentagon for all we care, because we don’t need anyone who knows exactly what happened, we just need a critical mass of people demanding to know what happened and ready to hear what happened not from Mr Chandler, but from professional, military grade investigators, true experts of the pertinent scientific fields, military ops, etc, people with high security access, people with subpoena power.

        So, I say, if people who follow the Chandler-dogma already believe that it was all an inside (and outside) job anyway, we can just let him do his thing… More power to him. Because, whether he knows it or not, his real function is not really to sell the 737 bullcrap to the crowds, but it is to distract and stall and when possible, divide, frustrate and pacify sincere people like you, Craig, by having you and many valuable minds spend their time and energy fighting bogus, distorted and outright dishonest “research” put out there just to create a fake front in the fight for truth. Especially when the said research has very little to add or take away from the actual objective. Which, in my mind would be moving towards eliminating or at least weakening a system and a cabal that is capable of carrying out such things and then managing to cover it up perpetually. And then, we maybe and maybe find out what hit the pentagon.

  25. Some people of the Q persuasion might have hoped that Trump would step outside the box on this anniversary of 9/11, but instead he’s actually doublin’ down with the deep state, perpetuating Zelikow’s Official Mythology in the safe space of Shanksville, since New Yorkers and Pentagoners really don’t like him.

    But that location was where yet another plane magically plowed into a small smouldering hole without leaving the significant visible wreckage we expect at jetliner crash sites. First responders were more than a bit mystified. But Shanksville, just like the Pentagon’s green lawn, has been totally terraformed to support the ongoing sacred narrative of cognitive dissonance.

    1. Hi Windjammer.

      Even if just as a thought exercise:

      Given the current state of affairs in DC, what do you feel he should have said or done, could have said or done, and what would have been the effect or results of what he may have said or done?

  26. David Chandler addresses me in one of his medley of missives and asks: “Are you open to having your mind changed by persuasive evidence? Have you watched the [Coste] videos of the presentation? If not, let me know when you have and we can talk about it. I don’t want to waste my time until you have done your homework.”

    So despite David Hazan’s understandable stance above, I’m with anyone who says we must persevere, must not give up, must fight the good fight, must remember the importance of repetition as one of the twin pillars of communication (be the communication lies or truth). The other pillar is persuasiveness.

    I don’t duck responding to most people most of the time, however busy I am and whatever the subject—whether my response is necessarily brief, or brief by choice, or whether it is longer, based on a number of factors. So David Chandler, I’ll focus for you mainly on two factors.

    One of those is in fact time, as David Bauer has usefully pinpointed. Time arguably is the most precious resource each of us has. Within real time each of us organizes his or her other resources such as energy, talent, skills, disposition of such money as we may have. My time the last couple of days, for instance, is delimited by my other priorities. In that, I am but typical,
    You are asking me not to waste your time unless I waste a very large amount of my time watching Coste’s chaff—a farrago of misleading minutiae—already watched in part by me and watched in its entirety, and addressed, by other Truthers whom I respect. They have found his work wanting as to relevance and logical continuity and I concluded the same listening to him on 9/11 Truth and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconferences. His slide show approaches absurdity and your making my viewing the videos of it a prerequisite to our holding further dialogue about the Pentagon approaches arrogance.

    Robbing other people of their time is a sort of crime against persons. Doing so deliberately, and in the process misleading them on matters of great import is, in my view, a crime. It is abetted only in that dealing with the time thief they sharpen their intellectual tools and reap rewards of greater insight into what’s at stake, and the nature, tactics and strategies of the thieves.

    This response is later than I planned because indeed I did take more time to go to the Coste material more deeply than I had. With as open a mind as I could manage. This only confirmed my previous reactions. Take the preface or core argument.

    “If contrary evidence is denied or ignored” says Coste, “then the result isn’t science.” Denying or ignoring, are exactly what Coste, you and the rest of your cabal have done, and continue doing to this day, repeatedly and knowingly, concerning the Pentagon. So your results, as Coste unintentionally points out, are not scientific.

    Early in the Coste production it’s high soundings generalizations. The first introduction of a specific example is Jim Hoffman’s describing the initial location of wire spools. This is also an initial example of the introduction of a minor issue—if indeed it is an issue at all—rather than an elephantine issue such as the too-small-sized hole for a Boeing 757 to make. Fooling with spooling is a distraction, is misdirecting, is suggesting the location of the spools has as much, or greater, evidentiary weight than the size of the hole in the Pentagon façade, to take one major example.

    The next specific example of an issue claimed to be of high or new or determining significance is the “severing/displacement of the tree at column 16.” The spools and the tree and the following specifics are comical in their irrelevance compared with reams of evidence of no 757 impact. Nobody has previously addressed the tree, Coste says. If that is true (I don’t know whether it is) the most obvious reason would be that the tree is ludicrously irrelevant, not a telling detail, its significance invented.

    He promises to focus mostly on physical evidence. At the 8:35 mark we’re told of “too many people” hearing “no plane at the Pentagon.” Some evidence! And then this vague cohort, he claims, therefore leaps to the conclusion “that the 9/11 Truth movement is incompetent and misguided.” This is a reference, without admitting it, to a tiny fraction of the 9/11 Truth movement having claimed that no planes struck the twin towers, but rather that holograms, for instance, were used to simulate planes.

    The further assumption is that this is loony (with which I agree), and so—another assumption—anyone claiming that, in another case, no plane struck an architectural structure would be loony too.

    And—bogus conclusion reached—it’s a bad thing for members of the 9/11 Truth movement to believe no large jet impacted the Pentagon on 9/11.

    It’s an incorrect statement to say that 9/11 anniversary remembrances are centred on the Pentagon. On the contrary they continue, as they always have, to centre on the twin towers, with less emphasis on the Pentagon and Pennsylvania, and virtually zero attention let alone emphasis on WTC Building 7.

    This I personally watched tonight on The National, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s flagship news program. The co-hosts followed the official line to a T, and the emphasis once again was on New York, with a brief statement about the Pentagon and a bit more about Shanksville, since Trump unveiled something there.

    Coste says: “(presumably) past discussions ignored vast amounts of evidence.” That’s what his and the cabal’s total approach delivers. This is an attempt at clever masking. By clearly naming an illicit approach (ignoring or misrepresenting evidence) he and you apparently think that no one could imagine you would be engaging in exactly this illicit approach yourselves. Well many people can imagine that. Only they don’t need to imagine it. They can see it with their own eyes.

    The second factor I imagine you’re familiar with. It’s the concept of “one thin slice” referred to in Malcolm Gladwell’s second book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking (2005) “…[in which he] … presents in popular science format research from psychology and behavioral economics on the adaptive unconscious: mental processes that work rapidly and automatically from relatively little information. It considers both the strengths of the adaptive unconscious, for example in expert judgment, and its pitfalls, such as stereotypes.” (Wikipedia)

    From the ‘Net: “Specifically, thin-slicing is a term used in psychology and philosophy to describe the ability to find patterns in events based only on “thin slices”, or narrow windows, of experience. … The first recorded use of the term was in 1992 by Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal in a meta-analysis in the Psychological Bulletin.”

    The Pentagon is a perfect example of valid application of this approach. To begin with, stereotyping is ineligible as a pitfall. The case of the Pentagon, while not unique in the category of false flag operations, is unique otherwise. From the time it was built, the Pentagon had not suffered such destruction and indeed was safeguarded all along by numerous pieces of equipment and systems meant to prevent just such an event.

    It was evident from the time that Theirry Meyssan’s “Hunt the Boeing” image was distributed, soon after 9/11, that the hole in the Pentagon was initially, and remained, too small to accommodate a strike by a large transport category aircraft. I emphasize that it is reasonable to stop right there, applying the “one thin slice” concept, in determining that the official Pentagon story is a lie.

    But going beyond the reasonable to the unassailable regarding the Pentagon is a tall pile of slices, although it would be wrong to term all of them thin. There’s the lack of airplane parts such as engine cores being retrieved from the building. “On and on” fairly describes the many other anomalies, impossibilities and absurdities of the official account. The confusing trivia trotted out by you, Wayne Coste and the other members of your cabal, when deconstructed, qualify as a remarkably tall stack of thin and thick slices. Not only regarding what happened and did not happen at the Pentagon on 9/11—ostensibly your and the others’ focus—but as or more importantly, what you and your campaign are about.

    Most of us in the ranks of the 9/11 Truth movement, such as those who have signed onto the “No 757” list, possess decent decision-making capabilities, sufficient acquaintanceship with the requirements of evidence, reasonable knowledge concerning language and logic, increasing familiarity with the latest findings in psychology, enough accumulated life experience and even a good grasp of the principles of scientific inquiry, to assess and weigh all factors and arrive at conclusions regarding what did and did not happen at the Pentagon on 9/11.

    Because it is so open-and-shut that the crashing of heavy transport category aircraft into the Pentagon could not have, and did not, occur on 9/11, considering all the evidence, including your cherry-picked evidence and your corresponding omissions, we rightfully determine that necessarily watching Coste’s absurd picture show would be a waste of our time—just as valuable as anyone’s. So our thoughts quite naturally turn to the tactics, strategies, aims and objectives and motives of those who seek, and succeed so often, to waste our time and sow confusion and worse within our ranks.

    And so we come to you, David. And find that your claim of being a disinterested scientist rings hollow, very hollow. And we have to leave it at that, lacking documentation (as would be expected) as to your aims and objectives and motives, except that, as the old saying goes, your actions speak louder than your words.

    1. Wow, Barrie. You are quite the wordsmith. That was as entertaining to read as it was illuminating.

      Just to pre-empt what a “debunker” might do, which is to take one of your appearingly (but not truly) flawed arguments where you say:

      It was evident from the time that Theirry Meyssan’s “Hunt the Boeing” image was distributed, soon after 9/11, that the hole in the Pentagon was initially, and remained, too small to accommodate a strike by a large transport category aircraft. I emphasize that it is reasonable to stop right there, applying the “one thin slice” concept, in determining that the official Pentagon story is a lie.

      Even though your next paragraph goes further, the Chandlers will stop reading right there, quote what I’m highlighting, and say “See??? This shows how damaging disinformation is! It was an early incorrect talking point triggered by Meyssan… The firefighter foam was obscuring the REAL hole which was 90 ft wide on the 1st floor…”

      In which case you have to be prepared to respond about how if that’s true, the engines would have burrowed themselves into the ground and caused significant foundation damage, and how the 90 ft wide swath of damage includes support columns that are still intact, how there are windows intact that should have been broken by the tail, etc…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s