By Craig McKee
It’s a challenge to interview someone you’d rather be debating. That was the case when I interviewed Canadian writer and journalist Jonathan Kay this week. Kay, an editor with the National Post, is the author of Among the Truthers, which attempts to examine and explain the world of conspiracy theorists. Why do these otherwise intelligent people believe the “bullshit” that they do, he wonders? He sees the 9/11 Truth movement as being ridiculous and based on arguments that “even an eight-year-old” would see through. I chose to try and cover as much ground in 45 minutes as I could rather than getting into an in-depth debate on any one point. I did find things in his arguments that cry out for further argument , and I will offer my analysis of his remarks in a subsequent post. I encourage readers to offer their own comments at the end of this article.
CM: What is the difference between a conspiracy theorist and someone who does legitimate research to unearth a real conspiracy?
JK: I define according to the method of argumentation of the people who advance the theory in question. I give the example of Iran/Contra, Teapot Dome, the Sponsorship Scandal or Watergate, which of course were real historical conspiracies. If you’re advancing something like this, one person will advance evidence and the other person will refute it, and by that method you Continue reading
Tag Archives: Controlled demolition
CIT would likely have said no to ‘fixed’ Toronto 9/11 hearings: Ranke
By Craig McKee
Citizen Investigation Team would almost certainly not have participated in the Toronto 9/11 hearings last month even if invited, CIT’s Craig Ranke said in an interview.
“We knew they weren’t going to give us a fair hearing, even in the unlikely event that some of our evidence was addressed,” Ranke says.
“If we had been invited, it would have been foolish for us to automatically accept knowing that we’d be walking into a rigged situation where all aspects of the discussion, and even the final report, were controlled by our detractors and their associates.”
Ranke says it’s apparent to him that one of the major goals of the hearings all along was to marginalize CIT’s evidence that a large plane approached, but did not hit, the Pentagon Continue reading
Conflict, consensus and 9/11 truth: an interview with David Ray Griffin
Griffin now focuses on al-Qaeda not flying a 757 into the Pentagon.
I met David Ray Griffin at the recent Toronto 9/11 Hearings, and heard his presentation on the anomalies of flights 77 and 93. In his talk, Griffin introduced us to his new “consensus approach” to exposing the official lies of 9/11. I did a brief interview with Griffin following his presentation, but we agreed to do a more substantial interview by email once the hearings were over. What follows is that interview. I decided against my earlier inclination, which was to write back with follow-up questions before publishing. I chose instead to present my original questions and his answers.– Craig McKee
CM: In your new book, what did you most want people to understand about the fight to expose the 9/11 inside job?
DRG: I think that the main purpose was essentially the same as previous books – laying out various types of evidence that the official story is false – plus the new aim: seeing 9/11 as an example of – indeed, the preeminent example of – a SCAD (a state crime against democracy).
CM: How has your level of optimism/pessimism changed in recent years?
DRG: I don’t know that it has changed much. I like Gramsci’s motto, combining “pessimism of the intellect” with “optimism of the will.” Intellectual pessimism about the emergence of the truth about 9/11 in the public sphere is Continue reading
Griffin’s embrace of CIT critics a setback for 9/11 Pentagon research
By Craig McKee
Over the past several years, David Ray Griffin has set the highest standard for 9/11 research. He has looked at the entire official story, showing us how every aspect of it fails to stand up to scrutiny.
His approach has been just right, and 9/11 Truth would not have achieved a fraction of what it has without his efforts.
For the first time in those 10 years, however, there’s a “but.”
His presentation at the Toronto 9/11 hearings last week on “anomalies” of flights 77 and 93 introduced some troubling elements to his position that weren’t there before. And I fear the Continue reading
Has credibility of Toronto 9/11 hearings been hurt by pressure?
This post requires an update. In it, I expressed outrage at the appearance that a change was being made to the roster of Toronto witnesses based on pressure from the group that regularly attacks Citizen Investigation Team and ridicules the idea that no 757 hit the Pentagon. It turns out that while pressure was certainly applied, this change was at the request of the person whose name was removed from the schedule (April Gallop). Despite the fact that I said people should be angry “if” she was removed due to pressure and didn’t state this as a fact, the impression left was unfair to the organizers of the hearings.–Craig McKee
By Craig McKee
It appears that the organizers of the Toronto 9/11 hearings have utterly caved to pressure and thrown fairness and common sense under the bus in the process.
April Gallop, who was injured in the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 along with her infant son, has been removed from the list of witnesses at the upcoming hearings (Sept. 8-11), to be replaced by an “unconfirmed” witness. If that replacement is assigned to make the case that a 757 did, in fact, hit the Continue reading
Eyes on the Pentagon: new Toronto event independent of 9/11 hearings
Witnesses in CIT film describe flight path to the north of the official one.
By Craig McKee
The Toronto 9/11 hearings are no longer the only game in town.
The 9/11 research group Citizen Investigation Team, which contends that no commercial airliner hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, has announced it will present a screening of its documentary National Security Alert on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 in Toronto. The Sept. 11 event will also Continue reading
9/11 truthers need to challenge ALL elements of the official story
Commentators didn’t seem to see the approach of this supposed airliner.
By Craig McKee
When it came to big lies, Adolph Hitler was the expert. But when he said that it’s easier to get people to believe a big lie than a small one, he was telling the truth.
This is the strategy that was employed on September 11, 2001.
To get to the truth, I believe that we need to know everything about how this massive illusion was perpetrated that day. It was a big lie – bigger than most of us are willing to imagine. It was so enormous and so complex that most 9/11 truthers feel the need to boil it down to a manageable size to make the case that it was indeed an inside job. We feel we need to keep the scope of the deception small or risk alienating those who might believe us.
But there’s a problem with this. After a decade, the strategy has fallen short because it puts too many eggs in one Continue reading
Will Toronto 9/11 Hearings ignore Pentagon to avoid ‘controversy’?
By Craig McKee
While most eyes will be on New York City on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 in September, the real news could be made north of the border.
To coincide with the anniversary, the International Centre for 9/11 Studies is organizing The International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001 in Toronto, Canada. These hearings, to be held at Ryerson University Sept. 8-11, will address the evidence from 9/11 and will produce a final report that could become a very valuable document in getting the truth out to the world.
Some of the most prominent names in the 9/11 Truth movement will be participating. Notable are author David Ray Griffin (who has written more books on the subject that anyone), Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and physicist Steven Jones. Other familiar Truth movement names include Peter Dale Scott, David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, Kevin Ryan, and Niels Harrit. Check out their bios on the Hearings site here.
But there could be a problem. And that problem could arise because not everyone agrees on what constitutes the weakest link in the official government story of 9/11 – and what constitutes strong evidence. Continue reading
Gage ignores challenge by truthers to justify Pentagon reversal
By Craig McKee
Richard Gage had a lot to say in February about what did and didn’t happen at the Pentagon on 9/11. But in recent weeks he’s been sticking to more familiar territory – the twin towers.
The founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has declined to respond to a letter signed by 27 members of the 9/11 Truth movement criticizing his stance on the Pentagon and Citizen Investigation Team (which contends that no commercial airliner hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001). In his statement he withdrew his support of CIT and its film National Security Alert.
The film features a number of interviews with people who were working near the Pentagon that day – including two Pentagon cops. The interviewees recounted that a large commercial plane approached the Pentagon to the north of the Citgo gas station, which is located across the street. If accurate, their accounts would mean that the downed light pole evidence must have been planted.
There continues to be a relentless and seemingly co-ordinated attack by some 9/11 Truthers (or people who purport to be Truthers) against CIT and its supporters. CIT’s position is ridiculed, and its research methods are Continue reading
On the 9/11 DEW Hypothesis: an open letter to Gage and Cole
Conventional explosives don’t explain what burned these and hundreds of other cars.
This piece, written by Maxwell C. Bridges, addresses the issue of what destructive force could have been employed to bring down the World Trade Center towers. The predominant belief within the 9/11 Truth movement appears to be that conventional explosives, including some form of thermite, were used. But here, Mr. Bridges looks at some of the key aspects of the destruction that can’t be explained (molten metal, melted cars, etc.) without the involvement of some other force. Mr. Bridges is a frequent contributor to this blog under the name Señor El Once. He writes this piece as an open letter to Truth activists Jonathan Cole and Richard Gage.
By Maxwell C. Bridges
The recent article “AE911Truth FAQ #6: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?“ by misters Cole & Gage concluded with:
“We do not support the DEW hypothesis because it is not supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction is well supported by the evidence.”
Really? Does the evidence actually support well the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis, and in particular nano-thermite, which was found in the dust at the WTC?
In dispute here is not the discovery of nano-thermite in the dust or its deployment as one of the mechanisms of the WTC destruction. As a secondary or redundant mechanism, it does not have to address all of the features of destruction. The issue is that nano-thermite has been extracted Continue reading