Tag Archives: Wayne Coste

Why I choose to stand up to the most persistent threat to 9/11 truth

A 9/11 mystery: why a minority of truthers want to claim that this is the scene of plane crash.

‘Propaganda team’ uses deceptive spin and private pressure to attack evidence that no 757 hit the Pentagon

If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives. Do good anyway. The biggest people with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest people with the smallest minds. Think big anyway. Give the world the best you have and you’ll be kicked in the teeth. Give the world the best you have anyway. – Selected lines from Anyway by Kent M. Keith

February 13, 2019

By Craig McKee

Usually the discussion is about how 9/11 was done. Or why it was done.  Or who did it.

But we in the 9/11 Truth Movement don’t talk as much about why we choose to fight for truth in the way we do. Which elements do we focus on? Which do we stay away from? Do we take a dry academic approach or that of a passionate activist or journalist? Do we advocate for theories that we can’t prove or do we focus on proving the official story false? And how far do we dare go in condemning actions by “respectable” researchers who we think are undermining what we’re trying to accomplish?

The answers to these questions depend on who we are, what we have learned, and how open we are to seeing through subtle and not-so-subtle attempts to deceive us. This is why I am writing this article – to offer some insight into the reasons for the choices I have made – and the ones I continue to make. Continue reading

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


England says it was the “long end” of the pole, the part attached to the ground, that penetrated his cab. Coste says it wasn’t this pole at all but the top of another pole.

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 Continue reading

9/11 truthers must focus on destroying the official story, not splintering over dozens of theories

We must also resist those in our movement who want us to accept more and more of the official account

May 1, 2017

By Craig McKee

It’s a question you would think we would have answered long ago: How can we collectively pull the truth out of 9/11 if we are pulling in different directions?
As determined and sincere truth seekers, we continue to do what we can to open the eyes of people everywhere to the fact that they have been lied to about 9/11. But to be successful, we must also explain what those lies are. In other words, we have to show how the official story of this world-changing event cannot be true.
This raises another crucial question: does the 9/11 Truth Movement have a strong and coherent message—one that is understandable and potentially Continue reading

Pentagon debates expose emptiness of large-plane-impact scenario

The work that Craig Ranke (of Citizen Investigation Team) has done on the witnesses for the north path is some of the most solid, irrefutable evidence that one could ever assemble on 9/11, period – Massimo Mazzucco, creator of September 11: The New Pearl Harbor
It was my understanding there would be no math ― Chevy Chase as Gerald Ford in 1976 presidential debate, Saturday Night Live
March 16, 2016

By Craig McKee

It’s like watching someone try to dance between raindrops while they accuse you of being all wet.
Those who are determined to push the impossible claim that a large plane really did hit the Pentagon on 9/11 – despite the absence of a plane at the “crash” site – go to incredible lengths to try and make their case. They speculate, hypothesize, assume, and concoct imaginative and “plausible” scenarios that they claim “fit the data” or are “consistent with an impact”. They focus on minor details as if they are conclusive, they mention the “witnesses” as if the word Continue reading