By Craig McKee
Maybe we should start calling it the 9/11 Consensus Movement.
Recent developments in the struggle to widely expose the truth about the fake “terrorist attacks” of Sept. 11, 2001 have focused on apparent efforts to overcome divisions between different factions in the movement. Ironically, these attempts at consensus have themselves been highly controversial.
The latest, and possibly most consequential, move towards consensus is the creation of a collection of experts in a panel called “Consensus 911: The 9/11 Best Evidence Panel.”
The group, announced in September, was put together by prolific 9/11 researcher and author David Ray Griffin, his associate, Elizabeth Woodworth, and lawyer William Veale, who represented April Gallop in a 9/11 lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Richard Myers.
In an interview this week, Woodworth emphasized that what sets this project apart from other approaches is that the consensus panel is academic, not political, and it is not an effort to unify the movement.
“The question is not how important the 9/11 truth community thinks each point to be,” she says. “It is only the question of whether the point has correctly stated an element within the official story and then, under ‘the best evidence,’ provided good evidence against that element.”
What isn’t clear is whether “consensus” about the greatest weaknesses of the 9/11 official story will lead to greater unity – and therefore credibility – for the movement or whether it will lead to a watered-down case where “controversial” areas of investigation are sidelined or simply discarded from the debate.
The jury’s still out, and the stakes are very high.
Woodworth says the consensus points that do make the list can then be used to “penetrate the media.” She says resistance to the consensus project is based on a misconception of what the effort is all about.
“I think it created a lot of ill feeling and misunderstanding and people feeling left out,” Woodworth says. “But we’re not trying to represent the whole Truth Movement’s best evidence.”
According to the group’s web site (consensus911.org), the best evidence is founded on:
- The opinions of respected authorities, based on professional experience, descriptive studies, and reports of expert committees
- Physical data in the form of photographs, videotapes, court testimony, witness reports, and FOIA releases
- Direct rather than circumstantial evidence.
Woodworth and Griffin initially formulated 16 initial points to be considered by the panel. The points were first submitted to the members in March 2011. They were submitted a total of three times as modifications were made resulting from members’ suggestions.
The result was 13 points that achieved the required 85% support (this approach is based on the Delphi Method, which Woodworth says she learned about during her 25 years as chief librarian for the British Columbia Ministry of Health). These 13 points are now listed on the web site along with an explanation of the methodology.
The vast majority of the points involve the World Trade Center. There is only one point dealing with the Pentagon event and one that looks at Flight 93, which, according to the official story, crashed in a field near Shanksville, Penn.
The Pentagon point, dealing with the unlikelihood of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour being able to negotiate an incredibly difficult (if not impossible) 330-degree spiral to fly into the ground floor of the Pentagon, is valid enough. My concern, however, is that any journalist or member of the public who reads the list as it stands now might be left with the impression that the case against the official story, as it pertains to the Pentagon, is very weak.
Woodworth acknowledges that it would have been a good idea to make it absolutely clear on the site that this is just the beginning of the process and that many more points will be added.
“We plan to develop dozens if not hundreds of points,” she says.
Woodworth explains that the three points that didn’t quite make the cut the first go-round read as follows:
- “The FBI’s report on phone calls from the 9/11 planes, which became public in 2006, said that Barbara Olson attempted only one call from Flight 77 – a call that was “unconnected” and lasted “0 seconds.”
- “Although airliners have hundreds of (virtually indestructible, serially controlled) “time-change” parts, which can conclusively prove the identity of any airliner, the government did not point to time-change parts to prove the identity of any of the four 9/11 planes.”
- “Although some 80 cameras were focused on the Pentagon, as the Department of Justice has acknowledged, the government has not provided a single video that clearly supports the government’s claim about what damaged the Pentagon.”
As far as I know, this is the first time the panel has released these three rejected points to the public. Woodworth points out that as evidence evolves any of these points can be reworked and presented to the panel again, conceivably gaining consensus status in the future.
Currently, the panel is considering another five points, two of which Woodworth says deal with the Pentagon. She says this process will continue, likely for years, which is why it wasn’t possible to wait until the list was complete to release any points.
The panel is made up of 22 members (Veale participates in the evidence reviewing process making him the 22nd member), so it only requires four to oppose or be uncertain about any point for that point to be rejected. This has raised concerns that strong information – particularly involving the overwhelming evidence that an airliner did not hit the Pentagon – might be discarded because of the efforts of a small minority who may or may not be well intentioned.
Woodworth says she believes the panelists are honourable and that she has not seen any pattern in the responses that would suggest that any members have been acting in concert to block particular points.
“Most people are trying to build the points and make them stronger,” she says.
Fortunately, there isn’t heavy representation from the group that regularly attacks and ridicules the work of Citizen Investigation Team and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. One CIT critic on the panel is David Chandler, a high school and junior college physics teacher who has gained a reputation for his research regarding the World Trade Center but who has a far more dubious (if not discredited) “body of work” on the Pentagon.
The rest of the panel includes familiar 9/11 researchers and activists like Steven Jones, Shelton Lankford, Barrie Zwicker, Paul Zarembka, Dwain Deets, Niels Harrit, Tod Fletcher, Graeme MacQueen, Robert Bowman, Roland Morgan, and Daniel Sunjata. The complete list, with accompanying biographies, can be found here.
One notable absentee is Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Gage declined, Woodworth says, because he wants the credibility of AE9/11Truth to rest on the reputations of the more than 1,600 architects and engineers who are on record as supporting its conclusions.
“They don’t want to be associated with anybody,” Woodworth says. “They’re trying to wing it alone. But I completely understand this; Richard has the right to decline to be associated with other organizations that may not always speak his message.”
The quest for consensus was a feature of the recent Toronto Hearings into 9/11 and of David Ray Griffin’s latest book (9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed). I strongly criticized the Toronto Hearings organizers for staying away from evidence deemed by some to be controversial (like that from CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth) and from the Pentagon almost entirely (less than 90 minutes of the four-day event dealt with the Pentagon). I also criticized Griffin’s Pentagon presentation for relying so much on CIT critics Chandler, Jonathan Cole, and Frank Legge.
Chapter 7 of his new book also mentions their views extensively (while ignoring CIT and P4T), but fortunately it then makes a strong case that they are wrong in their contention that a 757 did hit the building. My concern about the consensus approach all along has been that it is based on the premise that all sides in the battle over the Pentagon are well intentioned, which I don’t think they are.
But there are a lot of smart and well-intentioned people on this panel who are willing to give this process a shot. If they are, then I will try to keep an open mind and watch what develops with keen interest.
But if strong evidence that a plane crash was faked at the Pentagon doesn’t make the consensus list at some point reasonably soon, there will be vocal objections ahead – perhaps raised by panel members themselves. On this point, Woodworth says evidence will become clearer over time and that patience will be required.
One of the best things about the panel is that it serves as a media resource with contact information for individual experts posted on the site. It is broken down by subject, so reporters with specific questions can find the right person to answer them.
A terrific resource. The trick will be getting journalists to use it.
My next post will feature interviews with three panel members as well as more from Elizabeth Woodworth. It will look in more detail at the methodology for arriving at the consensus points – and at the Delphi Method upon which it is based.
Good article Craig, but in regards to the 3 points about the Pentagon, I’m not sure why you would say “As far as I know, this is the first time these three rejected points have been made known to the public.” I think at least 2 of them (1 and 3) are generally known. I had not heard #2 stated that way before, but it makes sense.
Sorry, Mike, I should have been more clear in how I worded that. I meant that it hasn’t been made public which three points were rejected, not the information in the points. Clearly the information is well known, which is why Griffin and Woodworth included these points in their initial 16. Thanks for pointing that out to me; I’ll tweak the wording so it’s more clear.
My unfortunate conclusion re all this, and after all this time, is that the Truth Movement has a deep seated “approach avoidance” conflict over WHAT TO DO about the obvious crimes that were committed against us all on 9/11/01. I point out that these crimes are continuing and spreading as we dither over academic correctness. Murder, the widening destruction of nations abroad and the certain destruction of our own nation via the GATHERING POLICE STATE that is obvious all around us—all this is continuing. In our names.
There has to be A POLITICAL SOLUTION in addition to academic study and debate. The continuing emphasis on trying to convince additional people of what we know and surmise about the attack, of looking for an opening in the media for instance, is all nonsense. We have got what we’re going to get for supporters short of an actual, UNDER-OATH CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. Approximately 1/2 of our people now agree with us. That is a huge number! More than enough. Enough by far to do what needs doing.
Further, every member of Congress is perfectly well aware of what went down on 9/11…….. the entire body of what we laughingly call “OUR” LAW-MAKERS knows the truth…….and still they have not moved. They are still MAKING LAWS AND STEALING AND SPENDING OUR BLOOD AND TREASURE ON HORRENDOUS FURTHER CRIMES. They are at least accessories. AND THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF CHANGING EVER…….We need to organize ourselves to remove them all from office.
And, yes, that is a relatively easy thing to do. Far easier than the hopeless and useless task you now seem to be focused upon. Yes. Easy.
PLEASE VISIT FireCongress.org for a brief introduction to the task and a primer on HOW TO REMOVE ALL CRIMINAL LAW-MAKERS via a simple, non-partisan, nationwide, election strategy. We can easily remove all incumbents in Congress by shifting a small # of votes away from all incumbents into the vote totals of WHOEVER THEIR STRONGEST POLITICAL CHALLENGER IS, without regard to political party or ideology or any other thing.
WE CAN MAKE “OUR” LAW-MAKERS OURS ONCE MORE. WE CAN MAKE THEM LISTEN TO US. AND WE MUST. We must. This is not optional and must not be further delayed.
Or call or write me, please.
West Pawlet, VT 05775
802 645 9727
If the three points that didn’t quite make the cut the first go-round do not make the second go-round, we will have a clue in 20/20 Hindsight what was deployed to govern and throttle the 9/11 truth movement.
I haven’t seen this pointed out before, so I’ll say it here. Maybe the reason the video’s of the plane flying toward the Pentagon and the subsequent explosion, has not been released, is that it’s a government institution (unlike the the WTC towers) and having our enemies be able to use it for promotion was deemed highly unacceptable?
Having said that, I’ve watched “National Security Alert”, and can’t get past 12 or more people who saw the plane coming on the opposite side of the gas station and the taxi driver who was recorded saying he was essentially a plant at the scene.
Exactly how does one discount the evidence presented by CIT? I sure can’t “pass” on verifiable information. Especially when the list of people who were quoted as seeing the plane hit the light poles has been debunked. Why I trusted news reports about what these people were “quoted” as saying and now do not, was a great awaking for me personally.
All in all, it doesn’t bode well for any investigation that dismisses credible avenues of investigation.
I reacted the same way when I first saw National Security Alert. Good for you for being open to that evidence.
I can’t agree with your reason for the surveillance tapes not being released, however. I don’t know what kind of promotion “our enemies” would get from the tape (we have dozens of tapes of the towers falling – one of the Pentagon is going to make a difference?). Also, many of our supposed enemies are part of the deception. Was Osama bin Laden a master terrorist or was he a longtime CIA operative? Don’t forget that we heard that they didn’t want to release pictures of bin Laden’s body because the bad guys would turn him into a martyr. It’s a lie that most people fall for.
And considering that absolute proof, video or otherwise, of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon would seriously damage the Truth Movement’s cause, I’d think the government would be quick to show us the plane hitting. They haven’t because no plane hit.
They released the video taken from the car park entrance. It didn’t show a plane flying over the Pentagon. It showed something coming in low and level and hitting the base of the building just as all of the witnesses described.
Not exactly- the “Fab Five Frames” showed a nondescript white BLUR in 1 or 2 frames and damned little else. How do we know it wasn’t just a bunch of whitish pixels added with an ‘airbrush’ plugin or tool (just like 3 of my image software packages have) or like this Adobe Photoshop one:
If I could do it so quickly and easily with tools ALREADY INSTALLED on my $900 laptop (and I’ve never studied computer graphic design either), then why wouldn’t the multi-billion-dollar DoD and/or military-industrial-“intelligence” complex that Eisenhower warned us about back in 1961 not be capable of doing the same?
Why is “concensus” so suddenly the buzzword in certain circles? I thought this was a quest for TRUTH, not for political correctness, for “concensus” or what have you. In fact, my personal experience is that telling the truth seldom wins one many friends ( I was actually once fired for telling the truth publicly- instead of ‘covering up’ for my ‘superiors’ and ‘going along’ with their lies).
Am I the only one who is recently reminded of this?
The name “bandwagon fallacy” comes from the phrase “jump on the bandwagon” or “climb on the bandwagon”, a bandwagon being a wagon big enough to hold a band of musicians. In past political campaigns, candidates would ride a bandwagon through town, and people would show support for the candidate by climbing aboard the wagon. The phrase has come to refer to joining a cause because of its popularity.
Appeal to Popularity
Argument by Consensus
Argumentum ad Populum
Authority of the Many
Idea I is popular.
Therefore, I is correct.
This many months/years later, I’m of the opinion that we should call a spade just that and rename it “Mistress Vicky’s TrueFaction Movement.” I also want NO part in that…
One of the Concensus points:
The Best Evidence
Pilots are trained to “squawk” the universal hijack code (7500) on a transponder if they receive evidence of an attempted hijacking, thereby notifying FAA controllers on the
ground. But leading newspapers and the 9/11 Commission pointed out that FAA controllers were not notified.
A CNN story said that pilots are trained to send the hijack code “if possible.” But entering the code takes only two or three seconds, whereas it took hijackers, according to the official story, more than 30 seconds (Link) to break into the pilots’ cabin of Flight 93.
The fact that not one of the eight pilots performed this required action casts serious doubt on the hijacker story.
“The prosecutors Tuesday played two other tapes from the cockpit that were
picked up by ground control. In those tapes, the pilots shouted as hijackers
broke into the cockpit.
“Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!” a pilot screamed in the first tape.
In the second tape, 30 seconds later, a pilot shouted: “Mayday! Get out of
here! Get out of here!”
This evidence has about this much significance.
Another great posting Craig, thanks for the coverage of such important 9/11 issues.
First of all, I think it is embarrassing that they are including William Veale. He completely botched April Gallop’s case by including a hodge podge of long debunked theories and disinformation, some of which contradicted each other.
Second, it is ridiculous (and incorrect) to continue to assert the following:
“Although some 80 cameras were focused on the Pentagon, as the Department of Justice has acknowledged, the government has not provided a single video that clearly supports the government’s claim about what damaged the Pentagon.”
There was NOT “some 80 cameras” “focused on the Pentagon”. This comes from the “85 or 84” “Pentagon videos” misinformation myth. There was not “80 cameras focused on the Pentagon”. The 85 videos refers to the Maguire documents and response to an FOIA specifically worded as wanting to see ‘video of the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon’. She simply located 85 videos in the FBI files, and some of those videos pertain to the WTC attacks and even surveillance videos related to the hijackers in Florida presumably. Here are the specifics, I hope those behind the consensus panel are paying attention…
Of the 85 :
56 “of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11.”
Of the remaining 29 videotapes, 16 “did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon.”
Of the 13 remaining tapes, 12 “only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77.”
911myths.com/index.php/FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos (I hate using this site as a source)
They released many of those mentioned including the edited Citgo videos-which CIT also covered: http://thepentacon.com/Topic8.htm, the Doubletree video (there is no video from the Sheraton), and the DEA building. There was also plenty of post-attack footage.
Only two tapes “showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon”: the Pentagon’s own security camera footage. The first one as we know, or maybe you don’t know, were the five frames that were originally leaked in 2001. The Pentagon “could not verify that they came from surveillance cameras” and the DoJ “which reviews taped and photographed evidence obtained by federal security cameras, said (they) could not comment on whether the photos are legitimate, adding that the photos “were not disseminated by the FBI or the Department of Justice.” Those five leaked frames likely were released to help fuel the purposely placed disinformation about missiles and drone/fighter crafts. CIT has documented this for years and it’s right on the FAQ: http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-security_video.html
Besides obtaining smoking gun witness testimony proving the object in the video was later inserted, CIT showed that the object in the video does not even cast a shadow.
Now, you have to understand something very important. Please pay close attention to what I am writing certain members of the consensus panel…
They have released TWO videos that, according to the gov’t and official story supporters, “clearly supports the government’s claim about what damaged the Pentagon” satisfactorily…
1)The five leaked frames from 2001 which turned into a full video through the FOIA
2)The second video with an unobstructed view…
Both videos show a 757 sized object low and level across the lawn, with their silly white smoke trail that no one saw of course. The problem is, people (much like the person who wrote the mission statement) don’t do their homework and don’t realize that the first video, the five frames, have been shown to be a “757” low and level across the grass, on the SoC path. This was illustrated by defense contractors, Integrated Consultants: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
This was the first time the gov’t or any official story supporters were definitive in the flight path with focus on the light pole path. This was about the time when the discussion about the Pentagon attack was reaching an all time high and theories were abound everywhere. In one fell swoop, this video answered all the questions about how the Pentagon was hit by a 757 using photos of the damaged light poles and the dubious surveillance video frames.
There is nothing wrong with accepting this. First, because it is the truth about the current status of the “Pentagon videos” issue and not a misinformation myth. And second, because it works in our favor. The gov’t have largely tried to remain repetitive and assertive in regards to the general idea that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon no matter what, but, due to the potential and actual discovery of the NoC witnesses and flight path, they have had to remain semi vague and ambiguous when it comes to the exact details of the flight path and trajectory of the plane.
Think about it. There is no official report on the light poles or the light pole path (just acknowledgement by proxy). There is hardly any mention of them and definitely no diagrams related to them in the ASCE report. The fraudulent black box data doesn’t even contain the last 4 seconds of the data, effectively stopping before the plane would have veered to the north path or stayed on the required south path – which of course keeps the north vs south path issue at bay! We of course know the data shows the plane too high to hit the light poles or the Pentagon and is rife with other problems and anomalies. The stop in the last 4 seconds of data and the high altitude shown in the data is likely because it came from a late night/early morning flight over of another plane the week before 9/11, as casually documented by an Arlington resident who lives next to the final seconds of the flight path and is an Admin at the pilots for 9/11 truth forum.
Embracing the video as supporting their story can only help us, because we KNOW the plane was nowhere near those light poles or that required south-of-Columbia Pike, south-of-Citgo flight path track. We have overwhelming corroborated witness testimony to support this. We also know, thanks to CIT discovering the steep decline in topography and obstacles as a problem and PFT matching it against aircraft limitations, capabilities and NTSB data, that the object in the video was most definitely inserted after the fact
Consensus Panel, here are some important factors to keep in mind when weighing the importance of CIT’s witness interviews:
-A majority of the key witnesses were interviewed on camera, on location, in the exact spot they were standing when they saw the plane.
-The closest key witnesses were directly next to the former Citgo gas station or on the gas station property itself.
-The witnesses all have different and opposing vantage points, including some from the Pentagon area itself, and most all with a clear view of the gas station.
-3 of the witnesses are Pentagon Police officers, all on duty at the time.
-The witnesses were unaware of the implications of the flight path at the time of the interview and thought they were supporting the official story. None of them supported any type of conspiracy theory.
-The witnesses stood by which side of the gas station they saw the plane on even after being made aware of the implications. Some said they would even testify to it.
Why certain individuals would refuse to cover this evidence or downplay it is mind boggling. This is evidence which proves without a doubt this was a black operation by American military/intelligence/gov’t agencies. No debate. No discussion. Just put these unwitting and unsuspecting corroborated witnesses on the stand. Frankly it is sad that people are still clamouring for the video of the impact. Whether it is clear (and we know it isn’t on purpose) to your satisfaction is of no concern to the gov’t or even official story supporters. As far as they are concerned they have released the videos of the impact of a low and level 757 into the first floor of the Pentagon. You demanding release of a video they have already released makes you look stubborn and like you are in denial. One of their defense contractors have broken the down the video and shown you that it is supposed to be a low and level 757 over the lawn you are seeing. Why are you still expecting them to release video of the alleged impact when they already have and why would you expect them to commit themselves to anymore details in the flight path when they have tried to remain ambiguous about it now that CIT has exposed the real one ? Stop chasing your tail.
My last point is regarding Shanksville. There was no shootdown. This is simply another layer disinfo and definite limited hangout. Much like the missile/drone theory at the Pentagon, the shootdown is meant to whet the appetite of conspiracy minded truthers but keep them away from the real truth and that is a flyover of an airliner sized plane on the wrong trajectory and flight path to match official data and story and the flyover of a reconnaissance and possible targeting small UAV drone documented by CIT associate Domenick Dimaggio and the witness accounts he collected firsthand on camera in Shanksville…
Not sure I coded the image right so here you go…
1)The five leaked frames from 2001 which turned into a full video through the FOIA
2)The second video with an unobstructed view…
“The Pentagon point, dealing with the unlikelihood of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour being able to negotiate an incredibly difficult (if not impossible) 330-degree spiral to fly into the ground floor of the Pentagon, is valid enough. ”
I agree to an extent and I agree Hani wouldn’t be able to fly a 757 performing the maneuvers we learned about from the NoC witnesses and he certainly cannot perform the maneuvers on the official path due to topography and obstacles. But for the record, that spiral was not that difficult…
What do you base your claim on that the spiral wasn’t that difficult. Some professional pilots are on record as saying it would have been very difficult even for an experienced pilot, which Hanjour wasn’t.
Ask Rob Balsamo about it. It is not an acrobatic feat as some have touted it as. Watch the descending spiral, it is pretty tame. Not saying Hani could have pulled it off as his experience says he couldnt even handle a Cessna, let alone a 757. I am just saying we have to be accurate in our description/assessment of the flight path spiral and how it relates to Hanjour.
The turn/spiral descent was meant to make it appear that he “randomly” ended up on that path. Which is why they try and make the damage path appear “random”. Some also tried to insinuate that Hanjour took the path up Columbia Pike on purpose, because he lived off of that street and he used it as a guide up to the Pentagon.
Interesting information about the 85 videos that people keep talking about , something
I suspected for a long time. More ‘Best Evidence’ that turns out not to be true but has
been used to convince people that there is some big cover-up at the Pentagon.
I have to say alarm bells ring for me when I hear someone saying that ‘This is evidence which proves without a doubt this was a black operation by American military/intelligence/gov’t agencies. No debate. No discussion’. Something happened in the past and someone , like CIT who say the same thing, are telling me that they know what happen beyond a reasonable doubt, and that I must agree with their conclusions. In fact people who say they disagree with their conclusions actually really agree with them but are pretending not to, either because they are disinfo agents,or are jealous of their difinitive proof, or ..well there has to be some reason because people couldn’t actually disagree with their conclusions. That in itself indicates an illogical mindset I’m afraid. Looking at the way they have assessed the evidence though, it’s pretty clear why they are under that mistaken impression, and the surprising thing about it is how they can’t see it themselves, since they, I presume ,consider themselves to be critical thinkers.
Nice generalization. Why do you distract people from the evidence itself with attempts to make CIT look illogical and maniacal?
The witnesses were there. You weren’t.
They were all witnessing the plane on the north side of the gas station from different and opposing vantage points. They all corroborate each other and virtually connect the flight path together.
You can accept where the witnesses saw the plane and call for them to testify, or you can go out of your way to convince everyone that CIT is wrong therefore the witnesses are wrong- which obviously makes no sense.
A. Wright, could you walk up to those witnesses and tell them they are all wrong? Shouldn’t you be able to rectify this whole mess by simply explaining to the witnesses they were all mistaken… About the exact same thing…in the exact same way?
I don’t think I’m trying to distract anyone from looking at the evidence, I would encourage people to look at the evidence. I would encourage them to look at all of the evidence though and not just the limited amount presented by CIT in their DVDs. If someone is doing what they call an investigation then then have to investigate all the evidence, and present all the evidence. You , and they talk about the witnesses as if the witnesses they present are the only witnesses, and you suggest it would somehow be insulting to go to these witnesses and say I think they are wrong- CIT on the other hand are all over the internet, on bloggs, websites radio interviews etc., not only telling all the other witnesses they are wrong about their evidence, but are publicly accusing some of them of involvement in a conspiracy to commit and cover up mass murder. The fact that their assessment of evidence is fundamentally flawed and illogical makes that all the more reprehensible.
They have discovered definitive evidence that the plane did not hit. Your denial or your paycheck prevents you from admitting this publicly.
CIT has pointed out suspects and those suspects have remained quiet regarding the charges.
There is 0 consistency in “impact details”. There is 0 corroboration in “impact details”.
Worst of all, the steep decline in topography, the obstacles, the final altitude in the data and the 757 limitations prevent it from impacting low and level into the first floor on the official south of Citgo path. This in itself should tell you that that some alleged impact witnesses are either wrong or deliberately lying.
Take Rick Renzi for instance-deliberate case of lying…
A good illustration of what I said about CIT – and obviously you as well- people unable to imagine that anyone elses assessment of evidence could differ from theirs. It just illustrates how fundamentally flawed their assessment is. Assessing evidence is something that every individual has to do for themselves-you don’t let someone else do it for you. Someone who thinks their conclusions are the only ones that others can arrive at,have failed to grasp that fundamental principle unfortunately.
You seem to recognise that principle though, given what you say in the posts above, where you present your own assessments of the evidence, which differ from the assessment of other people. Presumably you wouldn’t let other people tell you what conclusions you should draw from the evidence?
Dear Mr. Wright,
You wrote so eloquently:
I am in full agreement… providing the they and their in your statement refer to the government.
The alternative to the CIT hypothesis, which you attack, is the hypothesis that everything trotted out by the govt & media about 9/11 is true. You are eager to accept their witnesses at face value, discounting potential conflicts of interest (those beholden to the govt & media for their livelihood) as well as specific contradictory details that turn them into unreliable witnesses.
You even discount the great number of nose witnesses. Who are the nose witnesses? These are the military personnel with experience in military grade explosives who smelled the smoke of such at the Pentagon. If the story were as you and the govt wish it to be, these nose witnesses would have had this component missing from their smelling tales.
It would have been acceptable to remain on the fence about 9/11 and the potential involvement of our leaders, if their handling of the aftermath was not so criminal.
Yes, criminal… Rendition. Torture. Invasion of Iraq. (Invasion of Afghanistan once the threats of the summer of 2001 are considered.) Lies of WMD. The USA PATRIOT Act that needed an Anthrax attack to push through. Department of Homeland Security. TSA. No child left behind.
The Bush Administration and the Obama Administration accomplished a lot… for the 1%. They pulled one of the biggest con’s in history. Neo-con is so apropo.
Too bad that “parallel processing” of the Internet age exposed the wires, exposed the tricks, exposed the lies, exposed the man behind the curtain.
I don’t know you personally, Mr. Wright, but I know your postings well enough from when you started posting here to spot your agenda. I’m glad that you are making postings here and representing the govt. It would be a shame if Mr. McKee’s blog did not attract such Cass Sunsteinesque and Q-Groupie attention. But because of this, I try not to waste too many keystrokes on you, and encourage others to do the same.
Here is a very poignant statement and stunning admission from a CIT detractor, official story supporter, and JREF member regarding the low and level approach into the first floor of the building shown by the gate cam video…
Boone870: “After having been there myself, I came to the realization that the people who use the Pentagon security videos to prove that Flight 77 leveled off over the lawn, are sadly mistaken. There is no way in Hades that that airplane approached the Pentagon level. Impossible!”
Ms. Woodworth, you have been referred to as David Ray Griffin’s assistant. What exactly have you done to assist him and was it done for no pay as appears to be the case with Tod Fletcher? http://www.consensus911.org/ states very boldly that you and Griffin created it but why doesn’t http://www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.com/ do so as well? Is this email that was published from your organization accurate?
P.S. My previous post on this blog and regarding Mr. Fletcher:
First off “fabulous five frames”..ha!
Second, 100% agree that we should be looking for the truth and not consensus.
Third, A. Wright pokes and prods on these blogs (and usually runs away when the going gets tough) based solely on the sources rather than the information yet never questions the official line, no matter how fruity the various OCT claims are.
A. Wright is the “concensus” king (if it’s the OCT that is).
What do you actually disagree with regarding the OCT, A. Wright?
Doing a bit of “swotting up” on the detractor claims about the FDR of “Flight 77”, I came across a post that’s very relevant to this blog at Pilotsfor911Truth…
If people are going to talk about “consensus”, I suggest that their first priority should be to set the parameters of what they are actually debating. The OCT as per the 9/11 Commission, NIST and the ASCE Report or some bastardized version of what the OCT may be Legge and the other barnacles associated with his “work” being a prime example of this.
Know what I mean?
I know exactly what you mean oneslice,
I’ve been watching the long-winded ramblings of “LabTOP” over at ATS off & on over the last few weeks/months, and lately this entity (who I’m quite sure is not a native English speaker and I always try to keep this in mind when grinding PONDEROUSLY through those PAINFULLY long, drawn-out, often circular posts that might have been pieced together from multiple translators or editors) has finally adopted ol’ Sarns’ & vertster’s pet “NoC impact” theory. I suspect this might actually be due more to an anti-Pilots4truth agenda than to any actual interest in Pentagon ‘discovery’ based upon reading pages of that convoluted “WATERGATE of 9/11” saga:
I mean Jeebus- I don’t agree with Legge on a WHOLE LOT about the Pentagon events, but we seemed to have ~100% agreement on the laughable “NoC Pentagon impact” theory(ies now?). I seem to recall posting at length and producing many very-specific and lucid diagrams (even using CAD to do so in many, maybe dozens of posts) last year at 911oz.
But to no effect- Sarns ALWAYS went back to his circular “25 traits of the disinformationalist”-esque behavior (I even used that to form a sizable portion of my satirical ‘anti-CIT handbook’ over at 911oz). Handwaves and repetition. And handwaves and repetitiion. And repetition and handwaves and repetition… Wash, rinse, repeat… ad infinitum.
Honestly, I no longer care if “LabTOP” and the ubiquitous J-refugee ‘rebunkerz’ “Reheat” “Good Ol’ Dave” “hooper” “GenRadek” etc. troll & counter-troll each other to oblivion over at ATS or until Hell freezes over at this point. Operation Hoffman (launched circa July 2009 IIRC) seems to have achieved its goals almost ENTIRELY- debate about the Pentagon (and much else involving Sept. 11) has all but gone the way of the dinosaur at ANY forum that isn’t tightly controlled by the Randi/Hoffman ‘coalition’ (and I think most of us know which “forums” those would be)…
I’ve personally ‘invented the [well-documented and sourced] wheel’ enough times with ‘anti-CIT movement’ to see the ultimate futility in wasting much more time there. In fact, it seems more important for the “mainstream movement” to be ANTI-CIT, regardless of the evidence, facts, topography, media manipulation(s), etc. regarding the ACTUAL Pentagon events. It appears to be of UTMOST importance to bash Citizen Investigation Team (and often in the same breath, the Pilots for Truth orgainization for whatever reason(s) ) and to promote the work of the Hoffman/JREF/Legge coalition rather than to critically evaluate what the Pentagon FIRSTHAND accounts and physical evidence really indicate.
The anti-CIT Movement- When and Why?
Strangely enough, my reading would point toward Gregg Roberts being the ‘hand behind the curtain’ of the anti-CIT Hoffmanite movement (and likely the A&E/Gage sagas with the “assistance” of Sarns):
Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee
Some DAMN strange bedfellows in that ‘west coast’/Aussie camp though. Hmmm…
I was looking back through some of my older comments here on Mr. McKee’s blog (but I didn’t find the exact post(s) that I was thinking o- perhaps I posted them at 911oz). I did however find some excellent articles/discussions that are highly relevant in this context.
I think it is worth reviewing some of Mr. McKee’s previous ‘descriptions of hand-operated gardening implements:”
March 2011: It’s time to face the cancer growing in the 9/11 Truth movement
Is science being used to reveal the truth about 9/11 or to help conceal it?
Posted: February 13, 2011
The assault on CIT: Who is really undermining 9/11 Truth?
Posted: February 6, 2011
The comments are also very interesting (as are the ‘clockwork’ appeareances of a few “debunkers” and Hoffmanite(s) and their ‘broken record’ message(s?) ).
[Nearly] everything one needs to know about ‘barnacles’ in one tiny, UBER-condensed post (#17) at 911oz:
Note: That post tells MUCH more than what was typed there in those few keystrokes and animated GIF’s though (for those with eyes to see and ears to hear anyway- there’s a fairly HUGE backstory).
Exactly MrBoz. And the deafening silence at Weick’s presence at that forum and his open friendship with Hill was disgusting.
@A Wright…what don’t you understand about that self explanatory post?
And which part of the OCT do you have trouble with?
The comments on the more recent “Breaking the Back..” article set me thinking about this one.
So are certain persons [and ‘barnacles’] in Gregg & Vicky’s ‘Conformity Movement’ more interested in “truth via concensus” or in “truth” via intimidation? (ala 1500’s Jesuit-style).
[But what do I know- I was deemed one of ‘Hereward’s Pentagon Heretics!’ ]
“Mr Boz” referred to me above from December 2010 as “Naomi, ‘impartial’ (non-CIT affiliated)”.
Since January 2011, I am no longer impartial and fully support the excellent work of the Citizens Investigation Team.
I am truly disgusted at the tactics and censorship displayed against CIT and their supporters by this very well known group of detractors. However, I am even more appalled at the lack of evidence and logic continually presented by the anti-CIT clique.
I agree 100% with this comment by “Siberian Tiger” to John Bursill:
“The “controversy” you speak of is not a natural controversy that arose for a genuine reason. It is a synthetic, MANUFACTURED “controversy” from a SMALL BUT VOCAL INFLUENTIAL clique of individuals.”
Influential? The Toronto Hearings and Consensus Panel are evidence of that.
This clique should be named, shamed and outed from the 9/11 Truth Movement immediately – despite their “credibility capital”. HOW ABOUT A CONSENSUS ON THAT?
“Siberian Tiger” – great question to John Bursill:
“You don’t seriously think that time will succeed in flushing all this down the memory hole do you?”
One of my personal favourites is:
“Don’t you realize that this is all on permanent record for everyone to read forever?”
In my view consensus can be a very dangerous goal. Like statistics it can be gamed.
It is also generally very temporary – although this is rarely admitted or understood, or even remembered after the polling is over and a consensus reached.
Worse still is unintentional ‘contract’ – not seriously considering whether one will be ‘bound’ to the terms of such a consensus, that one may have not completely grasped in the first place.
Individuals should always retain the freedom to change their minds. And for reasons as simple as “I changed my mind.” Or, “I’m not satisfied with this situation.”
We should always keep in mind that ‘Contract Law’ has been designed by “legally piggally” minds, as Bucky Fuller puts it.