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 result won’t be the consensus building he favours.
In his talk (which echoes a chapter in his new book, 9/11 Ten Years After: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed), Griffin deferred to members of a small group that spends a disproportionate amount of its time attacking the Pentagon research of Citizen Investigation Team. CIT has presented evidence that backs up the position that no 757 hit the Pentagon.
In fact, Griffin is now citing three people whose expertise on the Pentagon is dubious at best. This isn’t good.
The three are 911Blogger fixtures Frank Legge, David Chandler, and Jonathan Cole. The latter two were prominent presenters at last week’s Toronto hearings. When it comes to WTC research, both Chandler and Cole enjoy excellent reputations. It’s when we turn to the Pentagon that problems arise.
Throughout his presentation in Toronto, Griffin cited a Chandler/Cole paper on the Pentagon from early 2011 as a reference – even when he could have been citing his own research, which is much more thorough and thoughtful. He continually makes points that start with “Legge agrees…” or “Chandler and Cole agree…”
We need Chandler and Cole to question why Norman Mineta’s testimony was left out of the 9/11 Commission Report? The whole thing is very strange. Here’s my criticism of the C/C paper from February.
I did a short interview with Griffin at the conclusion of the Toronto hearings, and I asked him about the shift in his position. He told me that he came to realize that the question of whether a 757 hit the building is secondary and that there’s enough evidence that the Pentagon event could not have been a case of al-Qaeda flying Flight 77 into the Pentagon..
“I should have seen it all along,” he said.
I referred to the intense pressure that persuaded Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to withdraw his support of the CIT film National Security Alert, and asked Griffin if he’d received pressure from others to take on this new position.
“I got some,” he said. “But no kind of pressure is going to make me change my mind.”
To be clear, Griffin says he still believes NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON. He has been consistent about that from the beginning. But he is concerned that the fighting within the movement about the Pentagon issue has hurt the cause. He’s absolutely right about that. But whose fault is that?
I think it’s primarily the fault of those who relentlessly and viciously attack CIT and mock their research. Incessant forum contributors like Snowcrash (Michiel de Boer), Chris Sarns, jmd3100, Victoria Ashley, Jim Hoffman, Jeff Hill and others have turned attacking CIT into a collective full-time job.
While Griffin’s quest for consensus is an admirable one, I believe the strongest Pentagon evidence relates to the absence of proof that a large plane hit that building. I don’t agree that this evidence should be tossed aside because a small group opposes its use and creates an artificial “controversy.”
In Toronto, I spoke to Cole about the issue and made a suggestion to him that he call on all his supporters to stop the attacks on CIT for the good of the movement. He said he agreed that both sides should stop. I suggested that since he has no control over CIT supporters that he call on his supporters to stop the attacks.
“I’ve been thinking about doing that,” he said.
Great. I’ll be watching to see if he follows through on this.
These three researchers give great weight to the notion that we can’t prove that a 757 didn’t hit the building (I actually think we can, but that’s another post). But is this really the pertinent question? We can’t prove it wasn’t the Russians either; should we therefore abandon the overwhelming evidence that the U.S. government was involved in the so-called attacks?
The thing in Griffin’s talk that I found most concerning was that he spent a good chunk of time explaining how the position taken by Chandler and Cole does not mean they are supporting the official story as it pertains to the Pentagon. He listed six points to back this up:

  • Pentagon is the most secure building in the world and it shouldn’t have been possible to hit it with a plane
  • Cheney’s claim he didn’t know about the plane until it crashed is contradicted by the 9/11 Commission testimony of Norman Mineta
  • Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown the plane into the Pentagon
  • The manoeuvre was so difficult that even a less incompetent al-Qaeda pilot couldn’t have done it
  • Al-Qaeda would have flown into the roof because it made a bigger target
  • Al-Qaeda would have flown into the part of the building that housed the top military brass, not a newly renovated section that was largely empty

These are all important parts of the story but they just make it highly unlikely that al-Qaeda piloted the plane into the building. The lack of physical evidence of a plane crash (not one piece of wreckage has been positively tied to Flight 77; why didn’t we hear about that?) barely got a mention in Toronto (other than Barbara Honegger’s talk on explosives in the building).
So why does the most respected member of the 9/11 Truth movement feel the need to defend Chandler and Cole from criticism – especially fair criticism. Griffin explains how it’s possible to believe a 757 hit and yet oppose the official story. Fine. But is this really the point the world needs to be convinced of?
Legge/Chandler devote a good amount of space to their dispute with Pilots for 9/11 Truth over the flight path, G forces, and other technical matters. It takes for granted that four planes were hijacked on 9/11 and that “normal interception response failed.” This suggests that the military wanted to stop the planes but were unable to. Griffin is on record as not believing this.
“Unfortunately the well-presented videos and website of CIT have impressed a lot of people, so dissension has arisen, which is destructive to the 9/11 Truth movement.” They also write that CIT “has intensified its personal attacks on anyone who criticizes their claims in blogs and Facebook.”
Are they kidding? CIT’s web site has led to dissension? How about 911Blogger; that’s the primary source of the venom (not to mention and
The paper continues to attack CIT for its “selectively edited interviews.” This is nonsense. Watch National Security Alert and judge for yourself.
Then there’s this: “…a number of observers saw the debris outside the Pentagon but did not see the sizable hole in the wall, more than adequate to allow most of the aircraft to enter. They reported that the amount of debris was not sufficient. Thus was created the fertile field in which alternative theories developed to explain the observed damage.”
I’m sorry, but David Ray Griffin should not be identifying himself with people who think the size of the Pentagon hole was “more than adequate” to allow “most” of the plane to enter. If I’m not mistaken, that is going further even than Popular Mechanics was willing to go. Is there any basis for this statement or are we to just take their word for it?
Legge and Chandler actually have the nerve to cite the darkest disruptor in all of 9/11 Truth, Michiel de Boer (Snowcrash) as an authority on whether a plane hit or didn’t hit the Pentagon. I can scarcely think of anyone less qualified.
This man has shown himself repeatedly to be working to divide and destroy the movement with his incessant ad hominem attacks. His last comment on my blog suggested I go back to running with the other “psychotic stalkers.” Very impressive. If you want to hear more of Snowcrash’s greatest hits, read this post.
Griffin cites this Legge/Chandler paper but his positions don’t agree with it at all. Nor do they support the Chandler/Cole paper. So why is he basing his presentation to the important Toronto hearings on them?
In my judgment, the way to find a consensus is to show how all elements of the official story will crumble when challenged and go from there.


  1. Well-stated, Craig. I have yet to receive my copy of the new book. It should be any day now.
    Thanks for the article.

    1. @Shelton Lankford
      I believe you are a member of Pilots for Truth and I have seen a video that they put out showing the flightpath of the plane after it flew over the Pentagon. This flightpath shows it flying over the impact point, over the building and banking to the right , to line up with the runway at Reagan Airport. This is described as the ‘flightpath of the plane as described by Roosevelt Roberts’. I have looked at what Roosevelt Roberts said and I can’t see how this flightpath in any way matches what he says: he says among other things that it was over the lightpoles in the lane one area of south parking, flying east towards DC, flying southwest away from the Pentagon and not flying towards the airport. I would just like to ask you, as a pilot, what your take is on this or if you can show an image here showing a flightpath for a plane that flew over the Pentagon.

      1. Hey Mr Wright, I believe you adhere to the OCT flightpath. Can you show me an image of ANYBODY who described it? Just one. Shouldn’t be too hard.

      2. Reading this page I’m beginning to think I’m the only one here who isn’t an agent and infiltrator trying to discredit the truth movement – everyone else seems to be.

  2. Craig,
    You say:
    “The paper continues to attack CIT for its “selectively edited interviews” This is nonsense. Watch National Security Alert and judge for yourself.”
    This, to me, is the heart of what the anti CIT disinfo campaign are all about: they are trying to do your “thinking” for you and convince you that you don’t even NEED to watch the NSA video for yourself, because others smarter than you have already seen and debunked it, hence you’d be wasting your time watching it. Hey, Chandler and Cole have done such excellent WTC work, so if THEY say CIT’s interviews are “selectively edited,” then it must be true, right?
    Good article. I hope Griffin will read it.

    1. Adam is a different kind of disruptor. I have been observing him for months. He calls himself the “chameleon.” It is truly his tactic. Here, we see the “chameleon” changing his colors to blend in with the environment and make his true nature more difficult to detect. AKA In this post, he is agreeing with Craig. This is the “set up.” The “sting” comes in the next post, below:

  3. The more I dive into Legge’s works, the more questionable they become. He is prone to making unsubstantiated belittling smears on tangential 9/11 subjects as if the truth behind the ridicule is self-evident before settling in on his debunking topic. The core piece of information — the flight data recorder from the Pentagon plane — has authentication issues and chain-of-custody issues right and left. The kicker for me was the original FDR information was missing the final four seconds. Along comes a mysterious “John Farmer” who found a way to re-build/extract the flight path of those final four seconds that went smoothly into the Pentagon, despite being in disagreement with the readings from other aircraft instruments that said the plane was never that low. Those readings are explained away as being in error, owing to the aircraft speed, without analysis of why they would be in error and the direction that error would take. (The pressure based altimeter at high speed and high altitude is known to introduce errors. My meager research on the subject does not show indications of errors at low altitude at high speed or how the error would be manifested.)
    Chandler and Cole have produced a lot of great fundamental research for 9/11.
    Whereas Cole has wonderful tests using thermite proving how it cuts and melts steel when applied correctly, he stops there and lets the science-challenged yeomen of 9/11 misapply thermite to destruction features that shouldn’t be attributed to it. Cutting of steel? Sure. Pulverization of concrete and its stunningly massive energy requirements? No way. The duration of underground fires? Were Cole to do the simple math on the range of burn rates from the various strains of thermite, thermate, and super-duper nano-thermite, it would come up short. Cole avoids the important energy questions. Through various websites, I have respectfully posed the questions. The closest I came to a response was 3rd hand through Chandler with Cole saying “Don’t even bother responding.”
    As for Chandler? Gotta love his physics videos. They should be required viewing for high schools and engineering schools.
    Alas, Chandler doesn’t entertain much thought into answering the massive energy questions associated with the towers destruction either, particularly when the form of the destruction mechanisms deviates from Jone’s and Cole’s thermite. Out of my own pocket, I did manage to get a copy of Dr. Wood’s new textbook into Chandler’s hands with the charge of giving it an objective review and to give me the good, the bad, and the ugly so that I might not be such a duped useful idiot on the subject. He hasn’t. The closest he came (or Legge came) were two dismissive and tangential sentences within their newly publish Legge/Chandler paper whose early P4T reviews suggested fixing my sending through a paper shredder.
    Don’t get me wrong. Dr. Wood’s textbook may have errors or disinformation. Admittedly, a few aspects of her book I’ve set aside to reserve my judgment on. The vast majority of her book I don’t have issues with. More importantly, I have seen precious little of the anomalous evidence that she presents explained or debunked by other theories. The best her detractors can do is ridicule her, but they avoid diving into the evidence.
    “Thus far and no further” must be the muzzle placed on influential people in the movement.

      1. Well Craig, to be fair: the events of that day were acts of terrorism, whoever did it. Would you not agree? He did not say the “Islamic terrorist attacks” of 9/11. Terror is meant to drive fear into the hearts of people, and the attacks were pretty successful at that, were they not? Perhaps in your own mind, you’ve subconsciously conflated “terrrorist attacks” with “Muslim terrorist attacks.”
        More troublesome for me is when people speak of “the hijackers” rather than “the supposed hijackers” or “the alleged hijackers.”

        1. I’m going to have to disagree with you here. While you’re technically correct in stating that any act intended to terrorize is terrorism, the word clearly indicates an attack from “America’s enemies” whether Islamic or not. These are not terrorist attacks by most people’s standards, and it is most people that we have to convince. The public does not understand the subtleties you point to, and are bound to have their already imprinted understanding of 9/11 reinforced.
          I agree about the problem with terms like “hijackers,” “tower collapses” and others that reinforce the official story.

      2. Back to the “chameleon” again. And, here is the “sting.” (See “chameleon,” above.) Now that Adam has established himself as being on Craig’s “side,” (changed his colors), now he attempts to steer Craig away from 9/11 Truth and back to the OCT.
        How? Adam “agrees” with Craig, but, has only one “small” critique: Craig should continue to refer to 9/11 as “attacks.” Pretending to be an honest Truther’s ally, Adam is the “chameleon-disruptor.”
        Craig is of course too smart to fall for this suggestion and politely refuses to use the word “attacks” when he knows full well that to anyone with access to television, the word “attacks” in a 9/11 context means airplanes-jet-fuel-Al Qaeda-Osama Bin Laden and nothing else. “Attacks,” in a word, means “Muslims did 9/11.”
        Beware Adam the Chameleon. He is very clever, I’ll hand him that. But, he is NOT to be trusted.

      3. Wow, “” has figured me out. He nailed me right before I wasw going to finally drop the ULTIMATE bombshell and announce that I believe Arab Muslims flew Flight 77 over the Pentagon and staged the light poles!!!!
        (That, of course, was bitter sarcasm; I just thought I’d mention that since it clearly might need to be spelled out for you.)
        Seriously, that’s a pretty flimsy piece of “evidence” upon which to conclude that I’m a “disruptor.” I don’t know if you truly suspect I’m a disruptor or if this was just a below the belt personal attack, but in either case it’s uncalled for. I have occasionally suspected out loud that so and so is a professional disinformation agent, but I generally don’t do this unless I think the evidence is extremely strong. What Craig and I had was an honest disagreement between two well meaning 9/11 researchers and I clearly understand his point of view and where he is coming from. I was simply making the point that, for example, OKC was also an act of terrorism, and an attack on innocent civilians, but that one was done by white men (even according to the official version, let alone the truth), therefore, I didn’t take the level of offense Craig did at the words “terrorist attacks.” While it is true that the word “attack” implies an attack from an outside force, the word “terrorism” makes its way into truth movement phrases by way of: “false flag terrorism.” This acknowledges the reality of the terror, but makes it clear that the official explanations for this terror are false. I myself am part Muslim and would never have any interest or motive whatsoever in trying to steer the blame of 9/11 back to Muslims.
        David Ray Griffin, in his first book, said of French author Thierry Meyssan: “Meyssan, of course, agrees that the [9/11 victims] were ruthlessly murdered by terrorists. He just disagrees with the claims on the identity of those terrorists.” So perhaps Griffin is a disruptor too, by your standards.
        Anyway, I think an apology from you is in order sir. Not that I’m going to hold my breath.

        1. You’re right, Adam, it is an honest disagreement, and I respect your point of view on the matter. And on one level I agree with you (terror is terror, wherever it comes from). But at the risk of repeating myself, I’ll just say that the words “terrorist” and “terrorism” have become irrevocably tied to attacks – if not from outside the U.S. – at least from anti-government individuals. If the public hears us referring to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 they’ll only have a firmly entrenched myth reinforced. I’d rather see us take every opportunity to shake loose the assumptions people have made based on what they’ve been fed. The messages that work are simple, clear, and repeated as often as possible.

      4. Adam, I’d have to side with McKee on that one. Here in Virginia you can get license plates that say “Fight Terrorism.” Of the thousands of people driving around with “Fight Terrorism” on their cars, I bet not one of them thinks it means “fight the NWO” or “fight the fuckers that did the false flag attack we know as 9/11.”

      5. I respect a person’s right-of-reply and that is why I make this short follow-up post in acknowledgement that I have read Syed’s reply.
        No, Adam is far too intelligent to not understand Craig’s point that the word “attacks” means to most people the OCT of planes-jet fuel-Al Qaeda-Osama bin Laden. I say that Adam – for whatever reason – INTENTIONALLY steers us toward the OCT.
        Again Syed calls himself the Chameleon and his modus operandi is kind of like this:
        • INFILTRATE – Make statements that you agree with to win your trust (e.g. “I support the CIT”, etc.)
        • SET-UP – Make a few useful contributions to your effort (e.g. a few solid blog posts, etc.) That’s the set-up.
        • STING – Your new “ally” Adam makes a serious of requests to you that seem odd; Adam uses convoluted logic to justify each odd suggestion; each odd suggestion invariably would have the effect of returning you back to the OCT.
        Runnning some risk, I will speculate about Adam’s purpose with CIT:
        • INFILTRATE – To infiltrate their honest research group
        • SET-UP – To get the public to associate his name with CIT
        • STING – The Chameleon now acting as CIT supporter might sting this way: by attempting to speak always about the CIT and, say, Barbara Honneger in the same breath. Thus, attempting to trick the public into believing the two are connected in some way, when, (it is my understanding) they are not. The poison in the sting might be for said individual, say Honneger, to make some outlandish statements that are easily debunked. Thus, as the Honneger statements would be debunked, by connection, it would be claimed the CIT was debunked. This sting operation against the CIT could not be successful without the “inside man,” in this case, hypothetically, the Chameleon.
        Anyone with inside knowledge care to let me know how close I got with my speculation?
        Honest truthers beware of the Chameleon, Syed. His work in the infiltrate and set-up phases may win you over. That’s why so many people may find it hard to see the Chameleon’s true colors, I say. Thank you.

      6. Dear Mr.,
        A short while after I read your September 20, 2011 at 1:05 am posting and then contemplated other interactions from you, a klaxon began slowly cranking up in my head culminating in a faint…
        *Ding* *Ding* *Ding* *BINGO*
        You words of wisdom — “INFILTRATE, SET-UP, and STING” –, man, they really struck a nerve of truth and recognition!
        The only problem? Minor. It can be easily fixed. You were aiming at the wrong target. I don’t know Adam Syed well. I don’t think we’ve ever exchanged ethernet pleasantries, although I did post once on his unmaintained WordPress site.
        Why did I do that? I have you, Mr., to thank for that. When was that? It was about the time that your was still in Beta and being promoted. The posting I made to your Beta site… was gutted at the half-way mark after a long period of time in the moderation queue while the superiors of your site undoubtedly debated how it should be handled. I was told by the moderator to take my concerns about the unanswered questions into the massive energy requirements of the WTC complex destruction off-list. You didn’t want any milli-nuke discussion on your fledgeling blog. I suspect that you won’t entertain or even tolerate today DEW either.
        Your blog. Your rules. My bad.
        I can’t help myself, though, in getting a massive sense of deja vu when your words of wisdom later echo “INFILTRATE, SET-UP, and STING”!!! Gee. Who does that remind me of? Who did I suspect of doing that? Can’t put my finger on it.
        *Ding* *Ding* *Ding* *BINGO*
        Like a fart lingering in the air. “He who smelt it (and cried foul), dealt it.”
        Mr., I encourage you to continue to participate here. Better the devil that you know… Be respectful. Refrain from such postings that ultimately reflect poorly on you. Be aware of the suspicions that linger on you from such gaseous infiltration accusations.

      7. Sr El Once,
        I have suspected you might be, yourself, a disruptor since the first time I saw you drop a “Judy Wood” link into one of your posts. And, if in fact you were posting about some nukes on my old blog months ago, then, I have actually suspected an agenda of disruption from you for that much longer.
        I also observe that when you attack me, the attack comes with “ad hominem” venom. It is not enough that you merely disagree with my ideas. No, the attack must be a smear that compares my opinions to intestinal gases. Oh, and I’m the devil, also. I thank you for that as well.
        So, you defend the Chameleon disruptor, Syed? You make “ad hominem” smear attacks. And, you promote the nuke and DEW theories?
        I think it’s becoming clearer that you, as a source, are not to be trusted.
        Mr. El Once, If you are in fact an honest Truther, I offer with no mal intent a few simple words of advice to you: A) If you truly believe the Judy Wood/nukes and/or DEW theories are valid, then, I encourage you to pursue those theories. Do you have a nuke/DEW blog of your own? If not, why not start one? I say, who knows? Maybe if enough evidence comes out and enough people support it, maybe those theories, too, might one day find that great acceptance that other research has such as Pilots, CIT, A&E, Steven Jones, etc.
        Syed, the Chameleon-disruptor, is writing an email to Chandler. What is Syed up to???
        Closing remarks:
        I would also just like to make this one last point clear, if I may. Like all honest Truthers, I do not have an agenda. I “follow the facts of 9/11 wherever they lead.” On my own blog, I limited disucssion strictly to evidence I supported such as Piltos, CIT, A&E, Steven Jones nanothermite, etc. I did not allow OCT, LIHOP, nukes, DEW’s, and the ‘invisible Chinese wall around the WTC’ (for laughs, refer to Q&A following last years A&E mock debate in DC). Just this year I personally began endorsing Simon Shack’s September Clues (ironically b/c I read Sr El Once’s posts, thank you). I am open-minded. I do not have an agenda.
        That is the critical point that really must be understood by all. That “other 9/11 website” and certain disruptors named here and elsewhere are accused of having AGENDAS. That is to say, no matter if CIT had 500 witness who saw the north of CITGO plane path, or a thousand, it would not matter to some. For example, such evidence would not, we allege, be allowed at that “other 9/11 website.” On the other hand, honest Truthers such as I do not have agendas. I hope people can see the importance of this point. Some evidence is stronger than others, but, some PEOPLE and GROUPS have AGENDAS and will not consider certain evidence, regardless. Clear?
        I would like to take this opporunity to thank KP, Craig, OSS, Marquis, Clresu and any other honest Truthers either posting or reading. We really need you all in this time of murderous crime, corruption, genoicde, covering-up by media, and making of war solely for profit.
        Disruptors such as Fly Under, A. Wright, Adam Syed, and any others, please disrupt someone else’s blog and leave honest Truther’s alone.

      8. Dear Mr.,
        Me? A disruptor because I drop Dr. Judy Wood links? Oh me, oh my. And what about the fact that I also openly champion no-planes? I guess that makes me a double threat on the disruptor front. But it doesn’t make me wrong.
        You’ll have to do better than that to convince this useful idiot (and the readers of this blog) that Dr. Wood and September Clues aren’t on to something.
        You don’t have to trust me as a source. In fact, it is better that readers don’t. I would prefer that you and the readers objectively and open-mindedly pursue the matter and validate/invalidate each and every point. But do let me know when something gets debunked, so I won’t be all alone and believing the wrong thing. Do you have your copy of Dr. Wood’s textbook? Have you pin-pointed the disinformation? What about any nuggets of truth?
        The issue is that the energy questions aren’t being asked, so they aren’t being answered. They are being ignored. Dr. Wood at least “goes there.” And her research hasn’t been debunked. It has been ridiculed and belittled, but not debunked. Please note the distinction.
        September Clues runs a parallel path: ridiculed and belittled, but not debunked.
        If you want to take personal offense that I consider you the devil (or infiltrator) that we know, so be it. I guess it comes from your bi-polar nature on Truth and Shadows. One minute, you’re handing out laurels of honor. (That must be the “ingratiate part” of infiltration.) The next moment you’re condemning others as being sly infiltrators. (I don’t know enough about Mr. Syed thus putting me on the fence, but I do know that your smear campaign against him to depict him in such light doesn’t convince me of anything except to reflect such light back on you.)
        If you want to compare your opinions with intestinal gases, so be it. On that account, you missed the analogy. You accuse others of “INFILTRATE, SET-UP, and STING” with little proof. Yet from my tiny direct interaction with you and larger indirect reading, this is exactly the gaseous impression I got of your website before it was too far along in its illustrious 8 month run. Admittedly, I didn’t follow it very closely. Your early avoidance of the massive energy question was all I needed to avoid you and your website: you weren’t being honest. Honesty would dictate that milli-nukes or DEW and video fakery be openly considered.
        You wrote:

        If you truly believe the Judy Wood/nukes and/or DEW theories are valid, then, I encourage you to pursue those theories.

        I have pursued them. I distill the wisdom of my efforts here.
        I leave the door open that I might be wrong. Convince me otherwise. As is my duped useful idiot nature, I’ll gladly change my mind in the face of the truth. The only fly in that ointment is that I’m educated (in engineering) and I think.

        Maybe if enough evidence comes out and enough people support it, maybe those theories, too, might one day find that great acceptance that other research has such as Pilots, CIT, A&E, Steven Jones, etc.

        The great acceptance? Poor framing on that one.
        One day, the views I expressed here on DEW and video fakery will be self-evident to the educated and open-minded. The overkill totality of the destruction exhibited in the videos should be clues enough of massive energy imbalances. The extent of the ruse will be known, as will the extent of the infiltration to limit the discussion strictly…
        Final point. Honest Truthers do indeed have an agenda: truth. With this truth, I want wars ended and corrupt govt’s overthrown.

      9. Sr El Once,
        I like your ‘fighting style.’ Disruptors often have incredibly large vocabularies for whatever reason. Perhaps you are an honest Truther, as you imply.
        I will give the Judy Wood stuff a look if I ever have the time.
        Be warned about Syed. He’s the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing.

  4. Excellent piece Craig. I can’t tell you how disappoited I am with this “shimmy” stance by DRG. I knew he was trying to give himself some wriggle room but this bending to the “you’re either with us or against us” bs?
    You say:
    “I’m sorry, but David Ray Griffin should not be identifying himself with people who think the size of the Pentagon hole was “more than adequate” to allow “most” of the plane to enter. If I’m not mistaken, that is going further even than Popular Mechanics was willing to go. Is there any basis for this statement or are we to just take their word for it?”
    Never mind Popular Mechanics, how about the official damage report by the ASCE?
    (They lied about the width of the hole btw, it extends from column 9 to column 18 = 90ft)
    NOTE: the tips of the wings and the vertical and horizontal stabilizers (in fact the latter are ignored completely) allegedly neither struck the facade nor entered the building according to the ASCE..where are they? They weren’t on the lawn.
    “In any event, the evidence suggests that the tips of both wings did not make direct contact with the facade of the building and that portions of the wings might have been separated…”
    The same report even queries the lack of facade damage by the “45 ft” vertical stabilizer as well
    Even the ASCE Report’s exaggerated entry hole and particularly angle of “penetration” (the aircraft was at a much more acute angle according to the OCT) shows the absurdity of Griffin’s claim:
    The OCT path aircraft wingspan is increased from 125ft to around 177ft
    THIS is a more accurate depiction (although the right wing i both images should be raised more to correlate with the generator trailer damage):
    and this:
    Is DRG serious? Looks more like he’s bending over backwards to get accepted back into the “fold”.
    And Frank Legge?? I thought DRG dealt in “facts and logic”?

    1. onesliceshort wrote:
      “Looks more like [Griffin’s] bending over backwards to get accepted back into the “fold”.
      Was he ever out of the fold? Having written and published ten or so books on 9/11, he’s practically the godfather of the movement. He doesn’t need to kowtow to Legg, Cole and Chandler.
      As for Mr. 911newscentral, implying that Adam Syed is an agent or disruptor is absurd. If there is anyone in the movement I am utterly convinced is NOT an agent, it’s Adam.

      1. Fair comment Sheila. But the “fold” I was referring to was the little devious clique over at and hiding in the shadows of the Truth Action and 911Blogger forums. Exactly WHY he would pander to their demands given his clout he personally has bugs me as much as it apparently bugs you.
        They did the same thing to another intellectual heavyweight in Peter Dale Scott who in all fairness made it known that he was barracked and bullied into taking a stance on the Pentagon and he never retracted his belief that the NOC witnesses are central to finding the truth about this particular op.
        He said:
        “This is a form letter in response to the flood of letters that has been showered on me by those who do not like CIT.
        I have not endorsed the flyover theory for Flight 77, and I do not personally believe it. All I endorsed was their assemblage of witnesses who said that Flight 77 approached the Pentagon on the north side of the Pike. I do not draw the conclusions from their testimony that CIT does. But I believe that the testimony needs to be seriously considered by those trying to find out what actually happened.
        I must say that I am disappointed by number of ad hominem attacks I have received. I do not believe one incoming letter so far has dealt with the substance of what the Turnpike witnesses claimed and I endorsed.
        In his famous American University speech of June 1963, John F. Kennedy famously said, “And we are all mortal.” I would add, “And we are all fallible.” For this reason I would ask everyone in the 9/11 truth movement to focus their energies on the substance of what happened on 9/11, and not discredit the truth movement by wanton attacks on each other.
        Peter Dale Scott”
        For DRG to openly endorse pure disinfo needs to be explained. By him.
        As for Adam Syed, I’ve found him to be one of the most level headed and honest truthseekers I’ve ever encountered.

      2. Thank you, Sheila and OSS for your defense of Yours Truly. Much appreciated. Mr. 911newscentral has not hurt my feelings or anything — I have publicly insinuated in the past that so and so is an operative, and if I can dish it out, I can take it — but the idea that I’m trying to use the subtleties of language to steer people back towards the OCT is laughable in and of itself, and he by far has put forth the flimsiest argument I’ve ever seen in favor of someone being a disruptor.
        I’m about to type a response to David Chandler. Good response to him, Adam Ruff (got your email.)

  5. To me this is an even-handed commentary, admirably succinct considering how complicated the situation has been rendered through the persistent machinations of the cabal of disruptors. I detect no malice or divergence from an authentic search for truths. Well done!

  6. This is nothing new. This is the same trick Russell Pickering used. Griffin’s six points sound attractive on the surface to some looking to reach a consensus. It even seems to have a flavor MIHOP conspiracy by hinting or implying the plane was remote guided. This was Russell Pickering’s angle.
    The problem is you can’t “prove” the plane had a remote control system equipped. We know it was based on the maneuvers and Hanjour’s lack of skill. But without having access to the flyover plane or this alleged destroyed plane, the theorizing is irrelevant. And the trick is at the end of the day, you still end up embracing a plane impact.
    I am sure Griffin is merely being influenced, and he may mean well. But I really have to question his judgment and his integrity when it comes to this issue.
    Why doesn’t he stand strong? Why would he defer to Legge and Chandler when it comes to the Pentagon? Better yet, why won’t any of these people speak with the witnesses themselves? Why would these supposed truthers fight so hard to keep evidence which proves an inside suppressed or marginalized? Why wouldn’t they let it get to court and let the chips fall where they may? They weren’t there. The witnesses were. Let them speak for themselves.
    There is an obvious reason why Griffin tries to play both sides of the fence.
    If I were to say what I really think about Griffin’s latest actions I think it would give these scumbags more gasoline to fuel the fire.

  7. “Why doesn’t he stand strong? Why would he defer to Legge and Chandler when it comes to the Pentagon?”
    Because since they’ve done such good work on the WTC, we *MUST* lend gravitas to *whatever* they say about the Pentagon, right?

  8. Craig says:
    “Yes, who the heck is Frank Legge, and why is anyone listening to him?”
    I would urge anybody with connections to DRG to send this link to him. He’s so desperate to get an endorsement for his latest paper that he has resorted to skulk around obviously biased “pilot” forums and meekly accept by his silence that the whole of 9/11 truth consists of “moonbats” (not a surprise as he has been using the same biased connections at the JREF forums to promote his nonsense).
    Thing is, even these people rejected what Legge claims!

  9. Great article, Craig. Craig, is this really Barrie Zwicker? Welcome honored guests Zwicker and Marquis.
    Yes, what indeed might have changed Dr. Griffin’s mind?
    I immediately recall his recent illness which almost took his life:
    “October 6, 2010
    An Account of My Recent Illness(es)
    “I experienced some serious illnesses during June and July that almost resulted in my death. Because many people have kindly expressed interest in my condition, and also because I do not wish to repeat myself dozens of times, I have written up this account.”
    Then, I can’t help but recall the serious illness of another famous 9/11 author, Michael Ruppert, who also was seriously ill:
    “In addition to his previously described symptoms it has been learned that his adrenal system is severely damaged and there may be toxicity of the liver. He has lost more than 20 pounds in the last ten weeks. Many of you have written suggesting possible poisoning as cause for his known symptoms.”
    I recall reading once that Ruppert believed he was intentionally made sick. Trying in vain to find the link.
    Then, I recall another 9/11 author, Christopher Bollyn, who was not suddenly deathly ill, but, instead, missing for a time. Apparently, police had broken into his home and violently attacked him in front of his family, breaking Bollyn’s arm in the process. Details include TASERing, ADL an ugly legal attack.
    Griffin’s chapter 7: “A Consensus Approach to the Pentagon” seems like a concession. If so, was it a willing concession, or was he perhaps coerced?

    1. Yes, this comment is really from Barrie Zwicker. I appreciate his support enormously, because he, unlike some in this movement, is prepared to say what he believes to be the truth without excessively calculating the political correctness of each statement. When he says something, he means it.
      I don’t know how much pressure was applied to Mr. Griffin, but it angers me that any was applied at all. This man has more credibility and more integrity than all of those who pressured him combined.

  10. Great article. I was banned (like so many others) from disinfo hotbed 911blogger a long time ago. Victoria Ashley and the rest of the clowns still spew their lies there though.

      1. *sniff* They wouldn’t even let me in. *wahhhh, boo-hooo* [wiping tear from eye]
        During the registration process, I pointed some gatekeeper to my body of work where I’ve written respectfully about being duped by milli-nukes, Dr. Wood, no-planes, or other things at various points in time.
        *BEEP* *BEEP* *FAIL*
        I did not pass go. No 9/11 Blogger for me.
        911 oz put me in the fighting pit from the onset.

        1. Do you mean to suggest that 911blogger was anything less than welcoming? Sounds far-fetched to me. I met Jonathan Cole and he was very polite and friendly. Maybe your spelling was spotty…

      2. The gatekeeper and I had a friendly and respectful email exchange of not more than 2 a piece, as I recollect. The gatekeeper wasn’t a name I’m familiar with. He said that there were a few topics that “weren’t well received” on 9/11 blogger, among which were discussion of 9/11 nukes and no-planes. I believe he alluded to those discussions from the past getting out of control and into flame wars. He didn’t write that those subjects were banned. I figured I could avoid flame wars, but if the evidence suggests we think out-of-the-bun and consider nukes and television special effects, we shouldn’t avoid going there.
        I don’t recall writing my position to him as such, but my web footprint that he explored certainly did. Thus the final official response to my request to obtain admittance was… silence.
        Not being admitted to 9/11 blogger does not bother me, because it can be a gigantic time suck.
        What bothers me is the censorship. Yes, my twin trick-ponies of milli-nukes and no-planes (of the day) could get shot mid-stream. But what should remain are the energy questions and all of the errors to the OCT telly pixels that math & physics expose. They need explanations.
        Which is why I still ride no-planes and have traded the milli-nuke pony for DEW.

  11. I’ve read a good many DRG books, and I plan on getting this new one.
    But, I don’t keep up with it enough to know the meaning of DEW and OCT and the (apparently recent) debates surrounding the Pentagon.
    Could anyone fill me in or give me some links?

    1. If you’ve read David Ray Griffin, you have a good grounding in the issues. He covers the subject more thoroughly than anyone. The Pentagon is where most of the debate seems to be. I’ve tried to make sense of the politics behind the battle on this blog so you might find some helpful information in my past posts. There is also the Citizen Investigation Team site, which explains their contention that the large plane that approached the Pentagon did not hit the building. The people I strongly disagree with post their views on sites like 911blogger,, and
      Here’s the gist of the Pentagon debate: some, including me, feel that the evidence shows that a 757 could not have hit the building. The hole wasn’t big enough for a plane, there was no damage where the wings would have hit, and there was no major wreckage on the lawn. People inside different parts of the building reported explosions. The other side thinks the witnesses who say the plane hit the building are too numerous and that not believing them will make the movement look foolish. My rebuttal of this position can be found in many of my articles here (and many comments by others). If you have any specific questions, I’d be happy to try and answer them.

  12. OCT = Official Conspiracy Theory. This is the theory put forth by the U.S. government in various official reports such as the 9/11 Commission Report which holds that 9/11 was a conspiracy by Al Qaeda terrorists led by Osama Bin Laden. See this 5 minute video for an overview:
    DEW = Directed Energy Weapons. Google it. When used in relation to 9/11 it usually refers to the notion that DEW were used in the destruction of the WTC towers.

  13. Thanks, guys. Now I feel silly not realizing what OCT stood for.
    I think, with the stuff about the Pentagon, I had the feeling that something new had taken place in the community that I was unaware of . . . which was kinda what had happened. I watched the video by CIT last night and today, and now some of the conversation makes more sense.

    1. Hi Clresu,
      CIT’s major discovery was the flightpath north of the Citgo gas station that was reported by numerous witnesses – a flightpath that is contrary to the official flightpath, the official flightpath being set by the supposedly downed lightpoles and directional damage to the Pentagon. Since finding the original 4 witnesses, they have uncovered many other witnesses who repeat the same flightpath, north of the Citgo after passing over the Navy Annexe.
      In the course of their investigation they have found that there are no witnesses to the plane having struck the lightpoles or to a lightpole having lodged in a cab on the highway – in other words, Lloyd England the cab driver tells a physically impossible tale that is not corroborated by any other witnesses.
      A conclusion of this research is that the plane did not fly into the building but that the plane flew over as a large explosion took place – fooling onlookers that the plane had struck the building.
      Because of the nature of this evidence (everyone can understand it, no engineeing or aeronautical knowledge required), many factions have attacked it
      1. by attacking CIT’s methods
      2. by attacking their conclusions
      3. attacking the witness testimony.
      1. Watch the videos yourselves and see what you think, to me CIT always let the witness speak in detail about what they saw.
      2. CIT drew the logical conclusions from the evidence, you have to disprove the evidence to disprove the conclusions.
      3. The suggestion that all of these witnesses were independtly mistaken in an indentical way is laughable. If you run into any of these detractors, be sure to ask them to provide witness evidence to support the official flightpath and see what they come back with.
      KP – long-time reader on all things Pentagon.

      1. Thanks, KP.
        I certainly don’t doubt the witnesses’ testimonies. The taxi cab driver is almost certainly lying. I don’t doubt CIT’s methods . . .
        My question is: why bother? In other words, what’s the motivation for those who scripted the official version to lie about the flight path? Why not just say it was the north one?
        Is it because the damage to the pentagon implies a southern flight path?

      2. @Clresu
        The damage through the lightpoles, the generator trailer, the columns and the alleged “exit hole” could have only been caused from the “southern flightpath”. It’s actually so specific that we are talking feet and inches. The aircraft didn’t fly the necessary trajectory according to the witness testimony.
        There could be a number of reasons for their “motivation”
        1) The perps could not risk such a manouevre through lightpoles and roadway signs and end up with evidence sprayed all over a very civilian accessible area.
        In all four operatios on 9/11, the alleged aircraft involved were made to be seen to have been totally destroyed. 2 tower collapses, an alleged full penetration (“liquidization”) into a reinforced building and subsequent collapse and of course the Shankesville “crash” where the plane was “swallowed” by the ground.
        2) They couldn’t risk impacting the aircraft for fear that it couldn’t pull up in time, hit the ground and again leave evidence sprayed over a civilian, innocent blue collar military and rescue worker accessible area.
        Whatever the reason, the aircraft could not have caused the damage from the north path. It’s up to official sources to explain the alleged “impact” which doesn’t begin at the facade, but through the lightpoles and the other damage outlined.
        Those that suggest that it impacted because “it just did” have an agenda. I mean, how could a real truthseeker offhandedly dismiss the staging of the lightpoles? Manipulation of a crimescene?
        You’ll find those people whenever you discuss this issue Clresu.

  14. “My question is: why bother? In other words, what’s the motivation for those who scripted the official version to lie about the flight path? Why not just say it was the north one?
    Is it because the damage to the pentagon implies a southern flight path?”
    Well if we presume that nothing struck the Pentagon and so all damage was caused by pre-planted explosives – then they already knew what the damage pattern would look like. For it to be a plane then it had to be low enough to hit in that position and for that reason the lightpole damage had to be staged.
    Motivation is hard to assess – it seems that you have to work backwards by assuming that the damage had to be at a particular location at the Pentagon for some reason.

  15. Clresu sounds like an honest Truther. We need more of those. Ciresu, THANK YOU for simply viewing the excellent CIT documentary. That simple step puts you in a different category than others who claim to want “truth” yet haven’t had time to consider possibly the A) most important and B) most easily understood evidence compiled thus far. Kudos again to CIT for doing this critically important work.
    KP has explained very well already. The CIT evidence simply refutes the claim that a 757 struck the Pentagon. The unanswered questions such as “Did it fly over” and “what caused the apparent explosion” would IMO be left for the new 9/11 commission appointed to investigate with subpoena powers. I would just like to reinforce the idea that it is not our job IMO to solve the entire crime. All I think that is required is for there to refute some important aspect of the official story to justify a new investigation.
    When attacks come, let me suggest that one really has to consider the source of the attacks. Attacks from “that other 911 website” I personally either disregard, and I would suggest that others do as well.
    Ciresu, as you watch/read more CIT evidence and consider the significance of it, I hope you will follow up and please share again.

  16. _______BUILDING 7_________

    1. Yes we are. And things seem to be getting worse fast. The indefinite detention under the NDAA is a huge red flag, as if we needed one. The next battleground – one of the last – will be the Internet. They want control of it. There’s too much of that freedom of speech happening.

    2. @slidingintoit
      The official storyline on the Pentagon is what the witnesses who were there said happened. It’s the accounts of all of the people who were there before during and after the event and had to deal with the aftermath physically and mentally for days, weeks, months, years afterwards. It’s their account.

      1. No, the official story is TOTAL BULLSHIT.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *