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 certainly appropriate, given all the forces against it. But that is no reason to give up, given the overwhelming importance of the cause: Even if there is just a one percent possibility of success – and there certainly is – we should persevere. I would add to this that if the cause does not succeed, this would not mean that all the efforts have been in vain. There is a victory in the very battle for truth and justice.
CM: What are the most positive accomplishments of the 9/11 Truth movement, and the areas where it has fallen short?
DRG: Well, that’s a huge set of questions to which I could not begin to do justice in a brief answer, as distinct from a book or at least a long essay. But with regard to accomplishments, some of the things that I would mention would be: the creation of a truly global 9/11 Truth Movement; the emergence over the past six years of a dozen professional organizations working for 9/11 Truth  (such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, and Scientists for 9/11 Truth); the consensus within the 9/11 Truth Movement that the WTC (the Twin Towers and WTC 7) was brought down with explosives; the consensus within the 9/11 Truth Movement, in spite of differences about what damaged the Pentagon and killed the 125 people, that the attack on the Pentagon was an inside job; and the agreement that the official story about the crash of United 93 is false.
Where we have fallen short is obvious: We have not succeeded in getting the truth publicly exposed, or even in getting our information discussed in the public sphere (in the mainstream media). But arguably these failures are not our fault – as if we might have been successful if we had only gone about matters in a better way.
CM: In your new book, you devote 45 pages to the Pentagon without mentioning Citizen Investigation Team even once, and you make just one reference to Pilots for 9/11 Truth. What was your purpose in avoiding mention of these two groups?
DRG: I didn’t have a “purpose in avoiding mention of these two groups.” If you look at the indexes for my recent books, you will find that there are many names that were mentioned in earlier books that are not mentioned in my latest book. In putting a book together, I don’t have a list of all the names of people and organizations that I want to mention. I mention various names because those names are germane to the purposes of the book.
I mentioned both CIT and Pilots in my 2008 book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, because both of them were germane to the purposes of that book. In my 2010 book, I see, I mentioned Pilots but not CIT, because the former was germane to the purposes of that book, whereas the latter was not. In my latest book, I didn’t mention either of them, because neither was necessary to the purposes of that book.
CM: Why did you decide to so often cite the controversial and much criticized work of researchers Frank Legge, David Chandler, and Jonathan Cole?
DRG: If you have read Chapter 7, you know that I explain at great length why I reject the view endorsed by these men, namely, that the Pentagon was struck by American 77 (or at least a Boeing 757).
I discussed these men because they were useful for the purposes of this chapter, namely, that although there has been much controversy about “what hit the Pentagon” (an airliner, some smaller aircraft, or no aircraft whatsoever), these men, as three scientists who have endorsed the 757 thesis, very clearly state that the attack on the Pentagon was an inside job, which could not have been pulled off by al-Qaeda. They illustrate the fact, therefore, that there is consensus within the 9/11 movement, shared by those who accept and those who reject the 757 thesis, that the attack on the Pentagon was an inside job.
CM: What type of reaction were you expecting from this new approach?
DRG: My hope is that this realization would lead to the view that, just as the question about what hit the Twin Towers, while interesting, is not terribly important, the question of “what hit the Pentagon” is relatively unimportant, nothing worth having an acrimonious fight about.
CM: Do you understand how some who have supported you in the past might be upset at this new direction?
DRG: I know that some people got upset on the basis of reading only the introduction to my new book (which was put online), and then mischaracterized it (as if I said the question about what damaged the Pentagon was not important). But now that people can read the entire chapter, I see no reason why anyone should be upset.
CM: You’ve always presented evidence that shows how every aspect of the 9/11 official story does not stand up to scrutiny. Why have you now decided to focus on “consensus” items of evidence?
DRG: I still believe in showing that every aspect of the official story is false. But having and demonstrating consensus are also important for various purposes. One of these is trying to get the press to give more accurate presentations of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Another one of these is what I’ve already stated: that by getting various members of the 9/11 Movement to realize that their agreement exceeds their differences, the amount of acrimony within the movement may be lessened.
CM: We know that people like Peter Dale Scott and Richard Gage were heavily pressured in an effort to get them to denounce the work of CIT. You’ve acknowledged receiving some pressure – could you describe the nature of that pressure and where it came from?
DRG: I will not name names. But the pressure, such as it was, came merely in the form of people – two or three of them, if memory serves – urging me to recant. In one case, this “urging” was rather strong.
CM: In your Consensus 9/11 initiative, the “best evidence” offered for both the Pentagon and Shanksville seems very thin (one item each). Why do you think that eliminating some of the more dramatic (although disputed) research will help convince the public that 9/11 was an inside job?
DRG: Inasmuch as you suggest that I think “eliminating some of the more dramatic (although disputed) research will help convince the public that 9/11 was an inside job,” you have misunderstood the nature of the process. I did not decide which points achieved sufficient consensus to get included in the first list of points of consensus. Several points that I had proposed were eliminated, at least momentarily, because not enough of the 20-some panelists rated them highly enough to be considered consensus. Insofar as some of the points are “disputed,” they by definition are not points of consensus. But opinions can change: points that are too disputed to make the list one month may make the list in a later month. Given the goal of helping convince people that the official story is false, consensus can, we believe, serve this goal: Insofar as people see that 20-some scholars with different areas of expertise, who have been studying 9/11 for several years, have achieved consensus on a list of points, they will, we believe, take the points more seriously than they would a statement by an individual scholar.
CM: I understand there is supposed to be a second list of items that could be added to your 13 consensus points on Is this correct?
DRG: Yes, that is the intent, which we are working on right now.


  1. “or even in getting our information discussed in the public sphere (in the mainstream media).”
    Mr Griffin sounds like a lovely man, and I look forwards to reading his stuff. That being said, this phrase worries me. If the media is anything like ours in the UK, then they’re extremely far up the government’s *ahem*. I’m not too sure it’ll hit mainstream.

    1. I think Griffin is just saying that the movement has not succeeded in getting media attention for the cause, and that the fault lies with the media, not the movement. I don’t think he’s saying that it has been a surprise that the media has remained silent.

  2. “DRG: I will not name names.”
    Why not? Is there some reason why those who are actively working to discredit CIT need to work in secret? Shouldn’t our movement be based on transparency? If they believe that an endorsement of CIT is wrong and dangerous, why not go public with that belief?
    Griffin absolutely should name names and this interview does nothing to bolster my faith in his consensus approach.

  3. One problem with Griffin’s consensus approach is that it is based on a false premise: that everyone agrees that it certainly, at the very least, was not a 757 piloted by al Qaeda. However, Frank Legge, in an interview with John Bursill, postulates that a human being was in control in the pilot’s seat. Go to the 59 min mark on the following podcast and hear for yourself:
    While Legge does not explicitly mention Hanjour’s name, the context is within Bursill’s lead-in, where Bursill refers to “these amateur pilots.” Even crash-hugger Bursill is somewhat bemused that Legge thinks the plane was flown by a human in the cockpit.
    Another example is Michiel de Boer, aka Snowcrash, who Legge and Chandler cite in their paper as a credible Pentagon researcher:
    “I am not convinced Hanjour could not have flown AA 77 into the Pentagon; particularly because I think the maneuvering of AA 77 has often been inappropriately described as incredibly skilled. Rather, I would describe the 757’s movements as hazardous and erratic. At this stage, I would await positive evidence of an alternative: e.g. direct evidence for remote control or control by a different pilot. I am still open to the possibility though, and I see this issue as distinct from the question of whether a plane hit.”
    and from that same thread:
    “I was speaking specifically about Hani Hanjour. He flew like the incompetent pilot he was.”
    and finally:
    “You know what I think? I think the American instructors underestimated their student. He sucked, but not enough to fail. A spiraling dead-man’s dive, clipping a VDOT pole, two trees, five lightpoles, a generator fence, a generator and the Pentagon foundation. Hanjour: ace pilot.”
    So unfortunately, Griffin’s main argument that we all agree it wasn’t Hanjour at the helm is not quite true.

  4. Kudos, Craig. Great initiative and better execution getting this response from DRG himself!
    My 2 cents:
    • I’m concerned, frankly, that DRG’s apparent change of habit, shall we say, comes after recovering from his life-threatening illness. Was DRG’s illness no accident, perhaps? Has DRG been compromised?
    • DRG treats the “opposition” as it if were legitimate opposition. C’mon! Is this alleged “opposition” from the Legge-Chandler-Cole camp not bogus opposition to present an appearance of controversy where there is, in reality, none regarding the proven fact that no plane hit the Pentagon? (The CIT proved it.)
    • Watch how Adam Syed brings the unhelpful comments from the controversial website 911Blogger to this blog. Also, notice that his main point brings the discussion back to the OCT (the patsy Hanjour piloting Flt. 77 into the Pentagon). Just notice. See if after a while, you begin to see a pattern.
    • You say you didn’t know is the subject of scandal? Read for yourself this piece from the Rock Creek Free Press:
    Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working for the Other Side? (adapted from PDF file of whole newspaper)
    More evidence:
    Largest 9/11 site condemned for banning opponents, harming Truth movement (petition signed by Sheila Casey, staff reporter at The Creek.)

    1. 911NewsCentral wrote:
      “Watch how Adam Syed brings the unhelpful comments from the controversial website 911Blogger to this blog. Also, notice that his main point brings the discussion back to the OCT (the patsy Hanjour piloting Flt. 77 into the Pentagon). Just notice. See if after a while, you begin to see a pattern.”
      I suggest you calm down and actually read what Adam has written before you make a fool of yourself.
      Interesting interview Craig, thanks. It can’t be easy being DRG and trying to pilot some sort of middle ground.

      1. “I suggest you calm down and actually read what Adam has written before you make a fool of yourself.”
        Framing the Pentagon “event” as OCT
        Mr. Syed forgets to mention the explosion witnesses that day; the witnesses who can’t believe it was a plane and saw no plane parts. He forgets to mention the war games going on that day which involved simulating a plane crashing into a building twenty miles away. He forgets to mention. Points such as these suggest a false flag event took place on that day.
        Framing the Pentagon “event” as a False Flag
        What Mr. Syed does mention are points straight out of the OCT. He mentions “Al Qaeda” (does it even really exist?), AA flight 77 (not one serial numbered part from this flight identified at the Pentagon), Hani Hanjour (the patsy), etc. Points such as these are straight out of the OCT. Together, they can serve as a gentle suggestion, leading readers to post more about the OCT scenario.
        KP, Craig, and readers, I ask you: Is Mr. Syed attempting to help, or hinder, the discussion? You will never find Mr. Syed demanding justice for the crimes. He is not outraged at the deaths of innocent Muslims. He does, however, continually make suggestions that tend to lead discussion back to the OCT. He does tend to bring in unhelpful comments from that “other 9/11 website.” Is this the behavior of an honest Truther? Would Bob McIlvaine behave this way? Or, William Rodriguez? Maybe I’m wrong, but, that’s how I see things. Beware Mr. Syed and his unhelpful, OCT-steering suggestions. Respectfully stated differences of opinion are welcome. Thank you.

      2. Dear Mr.,
        I don’t know what your beef is with Mr. Syed or how far it goes back (NOR do I want to know), but it is tainting your postings. Woa, woa, woa. Reign it in.
        I disagree with your perceptions that Mr. Syed is “framing the Pentagon event as OCT”.
        He isn’t the only one who does not mention lots of things about 9/11 in each and every post. Such omission does not always mean commission with OCT.
        KP’s advice is solid. Due to your history with Mr. Syed, my advice is to avoid him. Do not address him directly. And because your third-person responses tend to be back-handed attacks, I would prefer you not going there at all.

      3. Senor El,
        Thanks for the kind words; however, I would prefer it if someone addresses me directly (in the first person) if they want to challenge any points I make. The third person comes across as arrogant and condescending. 911blogger moderator Erik “loose nuke” Larson used to employ the third person when addressing me over there. It’s as he and I are both on stage, and there’s an audience, and instead of looking me in the eye and saying: “Adam, look at what you’re saying here…” he instead looks at the audience, avoids eye contact with me, and says to the audience “Look at what Adam Syed is saying here.” It’s as if he feels “above” giving me the dignity of acknowledging my presence by avoiding direct addressing.

      4. Dear Mr. Syed,
        My posting above was directed to Mr. 911NewsCentral. Thus, any reference to you was correctly done in third-person and in a formal, respectful manner.
        This posting is directed at you, yet retains the correct and respectful usage of an honorific: Mr. Syed. It isn’t third person. It is second person, particularly when it employs a “you” later in the text after I have gotten your attention by calling your out formal name, “Dear Mr. Syed.”
        First person is “I, me, my”. I don’t think you want me addressing you as me, as you so indicated. That would get confusing.
        Now you might be bothered by the honorific, but it has a place. Think of all 007 James Bond’s nemesis. Even when they are about to push the button on his doom, they maintain their upper-crust British accent and address him as “Mr. Bond.” They don’t say, “die you effing mo-fo scumbag!”
        In my 9/11 travels, I have taken up diligent usage of honorifics in addressing my discussion partners, because it gets me into a formal James Bond-style accent in my mind. More importantly, it keeps me away from the zingers that would have me violate forum decorum to get my sorry ass banned. (Not that I’m thinking of any zingers against you personally. I’m writing in general terms with respect to my online battles in the past against military-style agents who, owing to their gung-ho fraternity, use profanity as conjunctions and punctuation in all sentences, if you let them. As such, it is fun taking away their vocabulary, their language, their tools, their home court to get them to think and communicate like adults.)
        So, Mr. Syed, I hope this clears up my language usage.

      5. Senor,
        Sorry for the confusion, but you misunderstood my comment. I wasn’t referring to you yourself and your referencing my name. When I said I prefer to be addressed directly, I was referring to the advise you gave 911NewsCentral in your comment addressed to him. You advised him that because of our history, and the fact that hard feelings could remain on his part, it would probably be best for him to “not address [me] directly.” By this, you probably meant that your advice to him should be for him to completely avoid me if at all possible. However, if he can’t bite his tongue from wanting to challenge something I say, and wants to engage, he should address me directly as he did in his most recent post to me. Hope that clears that up.

      6. Dear Mr. Syed,
        Indeed you are correct. My advice was unclear. My apologies.
        Yes, for the most part until the pains of blog-divorce have lessened, Mr. contribution to this blog will be better if he doesn’t address you, either in the second person or the third person, particularly if such efforts simply serve to twist the hatchet that should be buried in the ground, not each others back.

  5. You know NewsCentral, I think you were right when you wrote:
    “Just notice. See if after a while, you begin to see a pattern.”
    I do see a pattern. The pattern I see is that Adam Syed once again demonstrates a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of the disinfo swirling around the Pentagon, and is once again trying mightily to dispell it.

  6. Fair play to you Craig for asking the pertinent questions. Pity the answers were politician-like.
    And for Christ’s sake, when is he going to realize that the alleged “acrimony within the truth movement” is nothing more than a bunch of gossips who happen to be gatekeepers preaching to the vast majority of “truthers” who don’t believe that anything hit the Pentagon.
    And the overwhelming majority of logical skeptics know that the NOC evidence has never been addressed by these same people, never mind “debunked”. Ever.
    Nice post Adam.
    Would you forward those links to DRG, Craig?

      1. That smoke is definitely not coming from the OEO building itself. Perception of spacial distance, combined with the fact that the TV on which the newscast was originally aired was most likely not a 3-D high def television, combined with the fact that the YouTube screen is also not 3-D, make the plume of smoke look quite close to the OEO building. It’s akin to noticing the discrepancy between the real life distance between a pitcher and a catcher, when attending the ballpark, versus how much (little) space appears between them when watching an old non high def TV shot of a typical broadcast cam showing the pitcher (with his back to the camera) in the foreground and the batter/catcher in the background. It always appeared to me as if there was hardly any distance between them at all. Finally, there are no significant landmarks visible between the OEO and the smoke. This gives the illusion of the smoke being much closer than it really is. But whether the smoke appears to be coming from just slightly behind the OEO, or a full mile away from it, it is clear to me that it is NOT the OEO itself that is burning.
        The Old Executive Office building, now called the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, is situated about a mile or so northeast of the Pentagon. The reporter says that the camera from just north of the OEO is pointing southwest, so this would be consistent with the camera catching the smoke from the Pentagon in the far background.

    1. I was hoping we could have some fun with this EOE Building aspect of 9/11. But, if no one is interested, that’s fine. But, still, I’d like to at least throw out some engaging food for thought which, I assure everyone, does indeed relate to the DRG interview. Consider:
      Executive Office Building:
      * Clean lawn
      * No plane hit it
      * Black smoke source not from any plane
      * Clean lawn
      * No plane hit it (CIT proved this fact)
      * Black smoke source not from any plane
      Your PERCEPTION of these two events, I would offer, is THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM.
      Now, consider the DRG interview again. CIT and Pilots not relevant to his new book? C’mon!

    2. More disinformation from Jeff Jacobucci.
      Clearly Jeff doesn’t do his research and actually hurts the case genuine truthers.
      Perhaps we should start to ask what Jeff’s intentions are.

  7. The comments about me by 911newscentral, written in the third person as Senior El points out, do indeed come across as back handed attacks, and yes, I suspect our history at (the site) is the motive. Whatever they are, they make no logical sense whatseover, and fortunately the readers of this blog are smart enough to see through them.
    While it is usually beneath my dignity to strike back in anything other than the politest manner, I do have to say to 911newscentral: at the very least, you’re not very bright, are you?
    If you’re not an operative (which I don’t think you are), and if you’re not attacking me due to sour grapes, and if you actually are decently bright, I can think of one more option as to why you say the things you say. I know a few people in real life — friends — who are paranoid schizophrenics. They tend to see invisible connections, and connect false dots, when there’s really nothing there to connect. One friend, for example, has an MS Word doc on his hard drive of one of his poems which begins with the words “Our House.” Coincidentally, one of the neighboring wirless signals, an unsecured network that I swipe for a signal when I’m over at his house, is called OurHouse. In his paranoid mind he sees some nefarious, Orwellian connection and it’s proof in his mind he’s being watched, or that someone’s hacking into his computer, or something. No amount of reason could convince him that maybe there are such things as coincidences and that “our” and “house” are two common successive words in our language. Not only does this prove he’s paranoid, it proves he doesn’t know how the technology works. Does your brain also connect non-existent dots and draw false conclusions based on those non-existent dots?
    But based on some of your comments and actions about a year ago when we were working on your site, BEFORE we fell out when you suddenly asked me to resign from your advisory board, I have to stick to my original premise: you’re simply not very bright.
    DRG devotes 100 pages in one of his books to addressing the claims made by Popular Mechanics. Of course, he’s doing this to refute PM, but let’s face it, in order to refute PM, he has to, in your words, “bring in unhelpful comments from” that “unhelpful” book. Perhaps even just by giving Popular Mechanics any dignity at all, by even addressing what they have to say as if it’s important, “can serve as a gentle suggestion, leading readers to post more about the OCT scenario.”
    Get this into your noggin Jeff: bringing up someone’s comment from another site does not mean I agree with it, nor am I promoting it. It simply means I brought them up to make a point: that contrary to DRG’s assertion that “everyone in the movement” agrees it wasn’t AA77 piloted by al Qaeda, there are indeed one or two “truthers” who do claim to believe this, including at least one person (Legge) prominently cited by Griffin. It does not mean I believe it or am promoting it.
    And Jeff, I have family in Pakistan. You know, one of those countries the USA likes to bomb in the name of fighting terrorism. I was racially profiled right from 9/11. To say that I am not outraged about the killing of Muslims is the most below-the-belt thing a fellow “truther” could say about me. Kindly refrain from making baseless assertions and allegations.
    Thank you for the kind words, Sheila, Senior El, KP, onesliceshort. Drop the baseless allegations, Jacobucci.

  8. I have read all the above comments. Good advice, Sr El Once. I will keep it under advisement. Thank you. Others: I’m just offering my opinion; a word of caution. You here on this thread seem to be expressing support for Mr. Syed. I respect your opinions. I have given my warning. You replied. Shall we move on?
    Mr. Syed wrote: “It simply means I brought them up to make a point: that contrary to DRG’s assertion that “everyone in the movement” agrees it wasn’t AA77 piloted by al Qaeda, there are indeed one or two “truthers” who do claim to believe this, including at least one person (Legge) prominently cited by Griffin. It does not mean I believe it or am promoting it.”
    One or two Truthers? That is a valuable clarification. Thank you, Mr. Syed. So, in fact what at first might have sounded like an endorsement of the alleged “opposition” is actually a criticism of it, is it not? If what you’re saying is the “opposition” is really only one or two “Truthers,” then, what you’re really saying is that it is false opposition. Yes? (KP, are you following me as well?)
    Mr. Syed, I had never heard you publicly (or privately, for that matter) express anger about the Muslim genocide. This is the first time in close to a year that I have ever heard you utter such a remark.
    Clean lawn + black smoke + “America Under Attack” TV banner = Pentagon scam

  9. Griffin to McKee: “…some people got upset on the basis of reading only the introduction to my new book (which was put online), and then mischaracterized it (as if I said the question about what damaged the Pentagon was not important).
    Yeah, sure they did…..
    Griffin to McKee in the very same interview: “My hope is that this realization would lead to the view that… the question of “what hit the Pentagon” is relatively unimportant, nothing worth having an acrimonious fight about.”
    Griffin’s publisher: “[Griffin] argues that the intensely debated issue about the Pentagon – whether it was struck by a Boeing 757 – is quite unimportant.”
    Griffin in his new book (“9/11 Ten Years Later”): “In [Chapter 7], I argue that, although there is indeed much disagreement on the issue that has received the most debate — Was the Pentagon hit by a Boeing 757? — this is a relatively trivial point in comparison with an issue about the Pentagon attack on which the 9/11 Truth Movement has reached consensus.” (Intro, p. XII)
    Griffin in his new book: “I myself played a role in the battle about what damaged the Pentagon, not fully realizing that this issue is not only of very secondary importance, but also that this issue, unless seen to be quite unimportant, can be very destructive.”(Chap 7, p. 154)
    Griffin in his new book: “I have now, however, come to see that a battle about this issue could easily become destructive—that is, if it is indeed a battle between the two positions, based on the assumption that the issue is quite important, rather than a discussion, based on the fact that the issue is relatively unimportant.” (Chap 7, p. 155)
    Griffin in his new book: “In the first part of this chapter, I explain why a serious dispute about whether a 757 hit the Pentagon is unnecessary, because this issue is quite unimportant.” (Chap 7, p. 155)
    Griffin in his new book: Given the consensus on this point—that whatever hit the Pentagon was controlled not by al-Qaeda hijackers but by the Pentagon’s leadership—the issue of what hit the Pentagon loses most of its importance.” (Chap 7, p. 196)

    1. Yes, Mr. Griffin was upset with me because I characterized his position as being hat what hit the Pentagon was unimportant. He wanted it clear that it isn’t completely unimportant. He preferred “quite unimportant” or “relatively unimportant.” Judge for yourself whether the distinction is worth making.

      1. So he’s basically saying: “Stop misrepresenting my position. I did not say that the issue of whether the Pentagon was struck by a Boeing 757 is unimportant. I said that it’s ‘quite unimportant’.” Got it. Brilliant.

    2. Thank you North Paw for that bit of sleuthing. Griffin has accumulated an enormous amount of credibility capital in the past few years, but he’s now spending it like a drunken sailor.

      1. Thanks Craig for another excellent article. Well done Sheila in summing up the DRG situation: “Griffin has accumulated an enormous amount of credibility capital in the past few years, but he’s now spending it like a drunken sailor.”

  10. Sorry for the 17-hour delay in moderating the last bunch of comments, but I was out hearing Jonathan Kay talk about the dangerous scourge of “conspiracism” and what can be done about it. He’s agreed to an interview, although I have mixed feelings about giving yet more publicity.

  11. One possibility might be to turn the pseudo “psychoanalysis” tables on his camp of argument. You know how Kay and others love to say that it somehow comforts us truthers to believe in an inside job? That the “randomness” of Islamic terrorism is too terrifying for us to accept, and that it’s much easier and more tempting to believe in an inside job because then everything is all nice and neat and makes sense?
    You might wish to play a clip or two from Psychologists, and follow up with a hard question.

  12. To opine for a minute on DRG acknowledging that he did receive pressure to denounce CIT:
    He says that “two or three” people tried to urge him to retract his endorsement. He also told me privately, in mid 2009 after the endorsements were first unveiled, that only “two” people had urged him to retract, one of them very aggressively.
    I believe him on this, because the people instigating the pressure knew they probably wouldn’t have much success in getting David to accept the SoC flight path and the idea that the plane knocked over the poles and went into the building. The reason is that David has been pretty consistent, all the way from 2004, that he doesn’t believe a 757 crashed there. Therefore, only a relatively minimal amount of pressure was put on him, because they could see he was no one’s fool.
    By contrast, however, Richard Gage had only been on the scene since 2007, was not a “general” 9/11 researcher (publicly), and had remained neutral on everything except the fact that the WTC was demolished with explosives. Therefore (and combined with the fact that many now see him as “the no. 1 most effective activist in the movement”), he was a much easier target for pressure w/r to retracting support for CIT. I can say with absolute certainty that far more than “two or three” people heaped pressure on Richard, and they did it repeatedly over time, as I have elsewhere documented where Chris Sarns admitted he’d been trying for nearly a year.
    When Richard was in Buffalo just prior to the Toronto Hearings, he met with Paul Zarembka for lunch, and Paul asked him about the CIT situation. Richard’s response beggars disbelief. He told Paul that he received no pressure at all to denounce CIT, and that his retraction of support was written willingly and freely. Richard told Paul to convey (summarize/paraphrase) these thoughts to the 911telecon email listserve.
    So are we really supposed to believe that while DRG acknowledges receiving a certain degree of pressure, the much easier target Richard Gage received no pressure?

    1. At least Peter Dale Scott qualified his “clarification” on the NOC evidence by making it known that he ws “shocked” by the aggressiveness of the e-mails he had received urging him to retract his endorsement and stating that the “turnpike witness testimony” needed to be addressed.

    2. I was among the people who “pressured” Richard Gage. One of the ways I did that was by copying him on an email discussion I had with Craig Ranke in the summer of 2009 in which I pointed out a number of flaws in Craig’s logic and in his assumptions about his evidence. Ultimately Ranke fled from the discussion without addressing the issues–though he claimed that they had all been raised before, he did not refute any of them. Later he reprinted the discussion on the CIT website in an incomplete form that omitted his rapid departure.

      1. @Good

        I’m not going to debate the north side approach. My position has always been that the north side testimony is very interesting and persuasive, as is its implication that much of the Pentagon damage was faked. Why would I want to refute my own position?
        We can argue about the implications of the north side approach. Your belief that the north side approach proves flyover is irrational, unjustified, and extremely discrediting to the truth movement. I know I’m not the first person to tell you this

        We (Chris Sarns and Good) both recognized that debating the north path was a poor tactic; we would do much better to jiu jitsu you by granting the north path while pointing out the obvious logical disconnect between that and your ridiculous flyover theory.

        Also, why should I debate you, Craig? I’ve already demonstrated in this very thread (as well as in a private email discussion, at OpEd news, at 9/11 Oz, and at the french blog) that CIT is a crock. .

        Craig offered a textual debate too.

        Do you accept the challenge? If so I’ll post my opening statement.

        Your reply?

        I am not an expert on the Pentagon witnesses and there’s no reason in the world I should become one. The subject is insignificant. I know you want to push me into arguing against your 13 witnesses. I’m not going to do that. I have never disputed your 13 witnesses, so there’s no point in arguing about that.

        What followed was a lot of horsekack and dodging from you. Craig both challenged and accepted a debate with you. You prefer to waffle and dodge under different sock names, play strawman games and bore anybody who bothers their ass to take your opinion seriously.
        That debate with Craig is still on the table. Should I notify him that you accept?

Leave a Reply

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