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

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

So much is false in the Pentagon story – why would some ‘truthers’ spend years describing what they think is true?

September 4, 2018

By Craig McKee

What would you think if a group of truth activists, known for other areas of 9/11 research, turned their attention to writing papers, making videos, giving talks, and doing interviews telling us all the ways they thought NIST’s analysis of the World Trade Center destruction was correct?

What if they almost never questioned NIST’s findings but instead did everything they could to undermine any challenges to NIST from members of the Truth Movement? What if they told us they did this to keep the movement from losing credibility, to keep us from looking like crazy conspiracy theorists with wild ideas about government agents planting explosives in the towers?
Of course, this group would also make it clear they don’t believe the whole NIST report, and they don’t believe al-Qaeda was behind 9/11 – so they couldn’t be accused of supporting the official story. But virtually all the information they presented on the WTC destruction concerned what they thought NIST had gotten RIGHT – with next to nothing about what it got WRONG.
What would you think of such a group?

For how many years would you politely accept their support for one aspect of the official narrative after another? Would you be concerned when they made many statements that seemed almost identical to those made by Popular Mechanics or any number of other 9/11 “debunkers”?

This is just what is happening with respect to what took place – or didn’t take place – at the Pentagon on 9/11. The cabal supporting numerous elements of the Pentagon official story is not hypothetical; it is very real. Its members want us to think that the government is telling the truth about a 757 hitting the Pentagon. They’re also big believers in the authenticity of virtually all the evidence provided by the government. They dismiss as “outlandish” the idea of a staged “crash” scene, and assert that this idea results from speculation and confirmation bias.

The cabal, which I have been writing about almost since this blog began in 2010, features names like David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, Ken Jenkins, John Wyndham, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, the late Frank Legge, and the newest Energizer Bunny of debunking, spin, and misdirection, Wayne Coste. They want us all to disregard some of the very strongest evidence we have that 9/11 was an inside job – under the guise of simply seeking “the truth.”

For years, this group has been writing papers and making presentations that push something that is almost indistinguishable from the official story of what happened to the plane that was seen approaching the Pentagon. They use spin and repetitive talking points to gain support, suggesting that they alone are using “the scientific method” and that the same people who brought you controlled demolition of the towers have now turned their attention to the Pentagon. They tell us that they have “brought closure” to the debate even as they continue producing large amounts of supposedly “new” material.

As far back as 2011, Chandler and Cole were telling us (in their “Joint Statement on the Pentagon,”) that “foolish theories” like the one that says there was no plane crash at the Pentagon might well have been “planted” to discredit the movement, implying that Citizen Investigation Team (the group that revealed through their research that the plane that approached the Pentagon was not on the official flight path) could be government agents. For some reason, Chandler and Cole have not widely been condemned for this accusation. Nor has Chandler taken the criticism he should have for his latest dishonest attack on CIT from December 2017, which I deconstructed here.

Chandler and Cole also wrote that the movement should abandon Pentagon research because the government holds all the cards. But all they and other members of their team have done since 2011 is produce more and more “research” claiming that a large plane did hit the Pentagon. Why did they tell everyone else to stop researching this while they continued?

They don’t see a problem in putting literally years of effort into pushing this one aspect of the official story. When the government gives us evidence that undermines its own narrative, this group rushes to “fix” the evidence so it aligns, or appears to align, with the official impact scenario. The result is division and understandable anger from the members of the majority who are paying attention. Another result is that some look at the familiar and “respected” names behind the pro-impact material and automatically give it much more weight than it deserves.

Coste has been pumping out PowerPoint presentations since late 2015 on the 9/11 and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference. I have endured every one. Adam Ruff and I debated Coste in January 2016, and participants voted 17-1 that Adam and I had made the stronger case. Barbara Honegger debated him and won 20-3. This means that almost 90 percent of those who decided to vote in the two debates did not find Coste persuasive.

But that was just the beginning for him. His output since then amounts to an avalanche of speculation, assumption, and manipulation as he bends and twists the facts until he thinks they support his “hypothesis.” Now he has produced a more than five-hour PowerPoint presentation (a revised version is separated into “chapters” and narrated by David Chandler). I will be responding to this in detail in the near future.

But in the meantime, here are some samples of Coste’s “scientific” claims from previous presentations:

He assumes that the odd shape of a tree next to Route 27, near the Pentagon, must be the result of its branches being stripped by the blades of a 757 engine (that originally came from Chandler).

Proof of this?


He sees a dark shape on a surveillance video from the former Citgo gas station and proclaims with certainty that it is the shadow of a 757 flying overhead on the official flight path right before hitting the Pentagon. Same with the quick “flash” reflected in the gas station canopy, which he says is the reflection of exploding jet fuel.

Proof for these contentions?


We know the official flight path is impossible because there was a VDOT tower that would have been in the plane’s path. But, no problem for Wayne; he just moves the path so it goes beside the tower. Problem solved! Well, it’s solved if you ignore the fact that he has offered us multiple versions of the flight path that are distinct from each other. And no matter how the path changes, it magically lines up perfectly with the damage! Each time he comes up with a new path, he is confident that it is “supported by the evidence.” At least until the next one…

Proof that a plane actually followed any one of these proposed paths?


Coste speculates that the wings were pulled into the building through a hole not large enough to accommodate a 757. I’m not sure he uses the word “folded” but since the hole isn’t big enough for the wingspan of the plane and he doesn’t state the wings remained outside, I don’t see what else he could mean. (Chandler used to disagree in contending that the wings were smashed into confetti outside, but now he states that the wings were dragged in through the hole. He also speculates that the aluminum covering of the wings broke off in small pieces. All speculation.)

Apart from a few highly photogenic pieces of crumpled metal with parts of red letters on them (isn’t it uncanny how the pieces always seem to feature part of the lettering even though that would represent a small portion of the fuselage), the bulk of the unidentified “debris” seen in photos outside the building appears to be small enough that you could collect it using a rake and some heavy duty trash bags. Coste describes the familiar photo of a piece of alleged “fuselage” in the middle of the lawn as a “large piece” of the plane.

Proof that the entire plane, including the wings, ended up inside the building?


Yes, this is the hole Coste tells us was made by the flying pole.

Coste speculates that when Lloyde England described the pole he claims penetrated his cab, he was not referring to the long section of pole 1 but the top section of pole 2 (slightly farther north along Route 27) even though England repeatedly referred to the “long section” of the pole that was attached to the ground (which could only have been pole 1). The long section of pole 1 ended up on the road, right in front of Lloyde’s cab, as you can see in the photo at the top of this article. Coste also wants us to believe that the damage to the rear seat of the cab is exactly what you would expect from the penetration of a pole hit by a plane going 530 mph. But the damage he refers to is a hole that barely looks big enough to accommodate someone’s fist. (See photo)

Proof that the top part of pole 2 hit the taxi? Or that a flying pole created the small hole in the upholstery?


It would be one thing if Coste and his fellow team members simply cautioned us to avoid putting bad evidence forward but then turned their attention to what they agree are vulnerable points in the official story. But they don’t. They just attack truthers and the no-757-impact position. Endlessly. And they keep steering us towards their assertion that the burden of proof is on us to show exactly what happened rather than on the government to prove what it says happened. For some reason, they don’t want us to focus on proving that elements of the Pentagon official story are wrong. Instead, they want to chip away at all the powerful Pentagon evidence reported over the years by David Ray Griffin, CIT, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and others.

The Pentagon is the key to 9/11 in many ways. The “attack” on this symbol of American power was painted as an act of war – conveniently justifying the initiation of an actual war in response. Make that several wars and a global assault on freedom and privacy.

Further, the fact that the event occurred at a location that was under the complete control of the American military reveals how important the evidence of deception really is. If any of the evidence from the Pentagon can be shown to have been staged in any way, then it can only be the military that was responsible for the deception. That means 9/11 is proven to be an “inside job.”

This is why the Pentagon is so crucial to the case we as a movement must make to the world. It represents, in fact, an opportunity that is too good to pass up. And yet, some who purport to be part of the 9/11 Truth Movement are determined to focus their efforts – and ours – on supporting element after element of the official story of what happened, or did not happen, at the Pentagon. They ridicule the idea that evidence could have been staged in any way.

It goes without saying that we, as truth activists, don’t have to disbelieve everything in the official story. We can accept that some of the details are correct. But whatever we think about the details of the 9/11 deception, it seems to me that our collective task is to expose to the world the massive holes (lies) in the government story. Once exposed, the story crumbles to a pile of nothing.

Much of the world takes for granted that the official scenario is true, so we don’t have to help reinforce that position. Even if we agree with some details, our focus should be on the lies. But for some reason, this group doesn’t want us to focus on those.
And what have all their efforts achieved? They have caused enormous rancor and have distracted the Truth Movement from objectives that may actually bring us some success. Regardless of their motives, they are the primary cause of division within the Truth Movement, as they have been for a number of years.
This reality becomes more disturbing as each year passes.


Late last year, I undertook an initiative called the “No 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11” list to find common ground among the vast majority of truthers who do not believe a 757 hit the Pentagon. You can join our Facebook group and add your name to the list here or by going to the post where the list itself is contained at Truth and Shadows here.


  1. I only have time for a very brief comment now but I do want to say great job once again Craig, as usual. You have lots of stamina to keep doing this for a good solid decade has you have been and I admire that immensely.
    When I get home I will be at the desktop computer and will offer more detailed thoughts but for now, remember the song The Farmer in the Dell? Farmer —> Wife —> Child —> Nurse —-> Cow —> Dog —> Cat —> Mouse —> Cheese —> “The cheese stands alone.”
    Consider the more recent batch of people in this pentagon cabal, particularly Coste, as being at the top end of that list. The further back in time we go, the further we get to the cheese.
    The cheese was an anonymous blogger called “Arabesque.” No one that I know of in the truth movement knows this person’s identity and I have been a dedicated truther since the pre Loose Change days.
    Hoffman and Ashley cited Arabesque as a source of excellent research in the early days and they were the first two people with real names and faces to put their identities to the Pro Impact position as controlled demolition supporting truthers. The rest of the cabal over the past decade has built on all this.
    As Massimmo Mazzucco said to me in an email several years back when I wrote him about this subject, “the Arabesque witness list is unsourced, rendering it worthless.”
    Arabesque is the cheese. The cheese stands alone.
    This cheese is the foundation. And there’s something rotten in the foundation.

      1. Mr. Chandler, have you done any research on the alleged pilot, Hani Hanjour? If so can you tell me why he failed two check rides when he tried twice to rent a two seat Cessna trainer at two different airports but was turned down both times for “poor flying skills?” How then was he able to manage a 270 degree corkscrew descending turn from 7000 feet, above the designed safety speed of a Boeing 757, with full fuel tanks, then fly the last leg straight and level,10 ft. or so above the ground, meaning that the bottom of the engines would be a couple of feet above the ground. Yet the plane never touched the ground [the Pentagon lawn was undamaged].This feat was executed to perfection by a man who could not take off and land a two seat Cessna trainer?
        Is it possible Hanjour could have flown a jumbo jet in that manner? I am a former pilot with many more hours of flight time than Mr. Hanjour. It would have been impossible for me. Does that rule out the possibility that Hanjour could have turned into Chuck Yeager overnight? No, but if you knew anything about aviation, you would be laughed out of a courtroom trying make a case that he could.
        You are on the wrong side of this argument, sir.

          1. Scott, I agree with you that it is noteworthy that Chandler did offer a bunch of comments here, but the problem is that what he likes to do is drop comments and then disappear. This does not allow people to discuss the issue with him. You have to go to his turf, the “9/11 Truth Movement” Facebook page, which is troll central on the Pentagon.

          2. Although I am not a physicist, I am skeptical of the 757 hitting the Pentagon.
            Two years ago I read an article published on the FPJ (Foreign Policy Journal) website by physicist John D. Wyndham (see; https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/ ).
            Dr. Wyndham believes the 757 impacted the Pentagon building. Dr. Wyndham never conducted any experiments to justify his position. He simply looked at all the circumstantial evidence including short video clips of a commercial aircraft flying at low level altitude and a Vietnam era American F4 fighter-bomber aircraft impacting a concrete wall to support his theory. This was not scientific by any measure and I reason he glossed over the event hoping his PhD credentials would be sufficient to make his case.
            I went around and around with FPJ author Jeremy Hammond as to why I don’t believe the explanation. I came away with this conclusion:
            Large passenger airplanes are mostly hollow, they are not capable of punching through 300 feet of reinforced concrete and making a round hole at the end as we are led to believe occurred in the ‘C’ ring of the Pentagon. It has not been proven by anyone including the author of this article that it happened either by scientific experiment or by any mathematical calculus.

        1. Hani Hanjour is a red herring. There are other ways to fly a plane. I never claimed he manually flew the plane into the Pentagon, although there may be signs of amateur manual control during other portions of the flight.

          1. Geoff, Hani Hanjour is a red herring from David Chandler’s point of view because the idea he wasn’t flying the plane goes AGAINST the official story. David keeps his challenges to the Pentagon official story to a bare minimum. He even hints here that Hanjour (or some other hijacker?) flew the plane for part of its alleged route.

          2. David, as you know, the people you are challenging here are demonstrating confirmation bias based on early, incomplete evidence and ignorance of new evidence. It is obvious from their comments that they have not fairly considered Coste’s presentation in its entirety (or even watched it at all, judging by most) and cannot appreciate how it all fits together into a cohesive and logical picture of what happened.
            Coste’s presentation should be watched in its entirety with an open mind.

        2. This is a bait and switch tactic Geoffrey ONeill. David Chandler was asking people to check the witness lists, and you switch the topic to Hani Hanjour’s ability to fly a Cessna.
          No one is implying here that Hani Hanjour flew AA-77 into the Pentagon. It is doubtful that any human pilot could have flown AA-77 into the Pentagon, many seasoned pilots tried that maneuver on Sims and it took them over five tries before getting it right. But something like Dov Zakheim’s “Systems Planning Corporation’s” flight termination system certainly could have pulled off that maneuver. The argument that the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon conveniently lets Dov Zakheim off the hook.
          Did you also know that Norman Mineta testified that while he was on the phone to Monte Belger, at the FAA, while he was in the PEOC with Dick Cheney, that someone came on the line and said that an Arlington Police officer said that he saw an American Airlines plane go into the Pentagon.
          Did you know that Norman MIneta’s testimony was scrubbed from the 9/11 Commission Report and from the Congressional video record and in his place they had Scooter Libby discuss how Dick Cheney was referring to a plane in the air around 10:10 AM, and that when asked to give the order to engage that plane he made the decision, “in about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing at a perfect pitch,” to give the order to engage. If Norman Mineta is lying, then Scooter Libby must have been telling the truth and Dick Cheney comes out a hero such that in those final moments of the attack on 9/11 around 10:10 AM he saved America from further horror and destruction.
          Only problem is that Dick Cheney was in the PEOC at around 9:05 AM and not 9:58 AM and that the plane Norman Mineta was referring to was coming into the Pentagon from 9:27 AM to 9:37 AM when it disappeared from the radar, that Monte Belger was monitoring in real time, reporting the planes position moment by moment to Norman MIneta as Dick Cheney’s aide was informing the Vice President that the plane was 50 ,miles out, 30 miles out, and when it was 10 miles out, the aide asked if the orders still stand, and the Vice President sort of whipped his neck around and said, “of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary.”
          If the plane flies over the Pentagon, then Norman Mineta is a liar and Dick Cheney is a hero, and thus the official story is upheld.

        1. Yeah, it’s hysterical who Coste considers to be a witness. Like a person in, I kid you not, MARYLAND. Six miles away (as the crow flies) on the other side of a wide river.
          You can drive right past the Pentagram on 110 and not see it because it is lower than the highway. The idea that someone would see it from Maryland is laughable.

      2. Can witnesses be planted? Yes
        Can an aircraft impact a building and leave no debris at the point of impact? No
        Physical evidence vs testimony, which one weighs more?

      3. As a “physics guy”, should there be a “physical” plane? This entire debate is just a distraction. Any child can determine that there’s no planes anywhere on 911. It’s absurd to even be debating this at this late date.
        1) So, when did “they” get to you?
        2)…or, like in most of these cases/events, the controlled opposition/limited hangout/alternative theory/”conspiracy theory” was already worked out well in advance, and you are on that team?
        I suppose you also think a 15 volt battery sent “space-wifi” from the moon to President Nixon’s telephone with analog technology too, huh?……and, with no delay…
        There’s ONLY one business on the entire Earth. One business, and one business ONLY. It’s called the business of mass-brainwashing. MASS-BRAINWASHING is the ONLY thing happening on this Earth — nothing more, nor less. ONLY this.

  2. Didn’t you see bin Laden’s televised video where he admits responsibility for 9/11?
    There are many witnesses and photos revealing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon, including body parts. The black box was also found. Why did all the people on board cease to exist after that 757 crashed? You are a rather lost and pathetic bunch. It is no wonder why you can never be taken seriously.

    1. Eric,
      The bin Laden “confession” video is an obvious fake. It’s not even the same person.
      There is a relatively small amount of debris that appears that it could have come from a plane. Where is the 100 tons that should have been there? Where were the wings and the tail? The engine cores?
      And the black box could not even be linked to that flight.

    2. Eric, perhaps you know a VIP at the Pentagon. If so, you could you ask him to release one video of the many that must exist, of a jumbo jet crashing into the side of the buiding? You would be doing us all a great favor. Not much fun, at least for me, living in a rabbit hole.

    3. Eric, if the bin Laden video was authentic don’t you think the FBI would have used it on bin Laden’s “Most Wanted Page” as evidence of his guilt? They did not. In fact they never cited bin Laden for 9/11 because as Rex Tomb, spokeperson for the FBI said, we have no hard evidence of bin Laden’s guilt. Google Rex Tomb, read for yourself.

    4. So it’s not at all strange to you that they can show pictures of bodies inside the building but can’t show any video besides the 5 still shots that are such poor quality making it impossible to make out. There were cameras on every section of that building. But they have held the footage because of national security. So national security is a concern only when its cameras facing away from the building but not so much taken inside the building. People can say conspiracy theorist all they want. Thats not a conspiracy, thats the government withholding evidence that could shut down conspiracy theories unless of course the footage would fuel it.

      1. When I used to work at the Pentagon once I did something with a package that someone thought was suspicious. Within less than a minute a man was at my side to investigate me. I showed him my credentials and explained what I was doing. He thanked me and left. He was very polite and courteous. The point of this is that there are video cameras all over the place in the Pentagon and surrounding area. They watch and record everything as would be expected in a secure area.
        If an actual 757 had hit the Pentagon on 911, they would have shown us videos of the actual 757 hitting the Pentagon. These videos of an actual 757 hitting the Pentagon would be shown ad nauseam on the controlled news stations just like the planes hitting the twin towers. I think the reason they will not show the videos is that the videos would show the official story is a lie.

        1. The official lie and no plane theory are not necessarily exclusive to each other.
          Maybe they’re covering up something else?
          Why’d they release the video of a plane hitting? Was it the only one that didn’t show something important?

          1. POS, since you raise the subject of “lies,” I think it is worth mentioning that one of the lies I’m hearing very often lately is that if you don’t think a 757 hit the Pentagon you are a “no planer.” This is obviously deceptive. I think we know planes were involved in the deception but the issue is whether a plane hit the building. So when you refer to the “no plane theory,” you are contributing to the confusion that some are deliberately feeding.

          2. I figured some things out, and I am telling you with a very high degree of confidence that it was a passenger plane following a program or set of instructions, just as a cruise missile would.
            That is what hit the pentagon. I know this and can clearly demonstrate as such through physical and circumstantial evidence, facts and simple logic.
            I will need to do so in person with a presentation to the right people. But no one wants to entertain what I have to share, thus your movement is over and you will continue to argue over bullshit.
            At this point, I am inclined to sit back and punish you all by withholding what I have while watching you waste your time arguing.
            9/11 is just a piece of it. You people have no idea.

          3. Oh no! Don’t punish us! Bummer!
            I don’t know how you can claim no one wants to hear what you have to say; we don’t even know who you are. If you want to be heard, start by telling us who you are.

          4. I have no desire to share anything important with you. It’s more entertaining to rub it in your face knowing that I’m not bullshitting.

          5. It was definitely NOT a plane. It was a cruise missile with shaped charge warhead specifically designed to penetrated deep through concrete structures. A standard compression detonation would have broken the wall but would not have penetrated through the entire section.
            This was done specifically to eliminate the entire accounting department investigating the 2.3 Trillion dollars declared missing just the previous day by Rumsfeld. That accounting department was eliminated and never heard of again.

  3. ‘The chapter that got me onto the REAL story was that tree’s course made all those other possibilities elementary failed logic: 1) Only a large airliner could move that tree and create that air current. 2) The plane wafted north as confetti on air currents or 3) disappeared into the empty 1st floor, which has only two layers of brick that would allow the whole plane to enter. 4) apparently some entered and some became confetti – not clear – the engines and wishbone and bodies and luggage went inside, the tail, wingtips, rudder, etc. must have turned to confetti and floated north. 5) The video analysis is tea leaf reading and that gets us to Orwell, —— again.
    The REAL STORY; These guys are titled and trained and revered experts in this study of all things 9/11, the hobbies’ run a little long in the tooth, Coste comes up with some energy and the esoteric science of 9/11 wakens without a shower, clean clothes or a good teeth brushing. Up and at em! Up and at what? Videos, gossip, noise, emails, and a little interest. Oh Geez – shit we don’t know but we’re working again and it feels good. Going nowhere but making good time.
    I went thru that Coste/Chandler stack of videos 5 times and could not find a single thing of value – NOTHING! Is the effort an encore after a play? Felt like it. As a sailor and into winds and currents I went around and around about that tree and could not for the life of me get what he got about its movement and SIGNIFICANCE. – but, I ain’t a PE. Also wish I knew what kind of tree, I also know trees. I still wanna know why those early fire trucks used water on 10,000 gals of burning Jet Fuel, and if that was jet fuel and that was water why we don’t see the fire wildly and rapidly spread like we see when water is sprayed on Jet-Fuel. The easy answer is no jet fuel, or very little. But that simply cannot be, if it was a big airliner there was fuel and lots of it – there’s an explanation here someplace – not by Coste but certainly someplace, NIST? Pentagon? NTSB? “Truth and Shadow”?
    If we accept any part of AA-77 along comes Barb, cell calls, box cutters, Burlingame needing advice from an D.C. attorney, Hanjor and that perfect high speed turn.
    The planes are the pretty girl dancing across the stage so we don’t notice the magicians wires, doors, rabbits, etc. Planes and more planes – the CIA calls these folks the “compatible left” – so damn smart in their esoteric field, they are very easily manipulated.
    Personally, I thing the same pattern of deception used in NY was used in VA. The magician ain’t coming up with a whole new act when a perfectly good stunts been worked up, backed up, cover up planned. Nope, the same stunt in NY and the same stunt in VA.

    1. Incidentally, if we accept AA-77 we must accept Barb Olson – direct from Law School in LA to a job in D.C. with “Wilmer/Culter/Pickering et al” who had partners like Mueller (FBI Director a week before Barb’s last flight), Jamie Gorlik (911 Comm), and a few others directly mixed up with AA-77. Oh yeah! I can believe a 757 went into the 1st floor of that building – Geez, look at that tree – nothing else can explain the tree’s demise but a 757 – and air currents?

    2. The significance of the tree: The tree could not have been broken off and thrown to the north by an internal explosion. It shows a clear sign of an impact coming from the SW, giving it a northward component of motion. The fact that light debris was carried so far to the NW (past the heliport) is consistent with the trailing air mass following a large plane. An internal explosion would have distributed it more symmetrically.

        1. Wayne provides a mechanism for the tree to end up to the north and for the light material (leafy branches and other light debris) to end up farther than they could by simply being thrown. The trailing air mass hypothesis works. Internal explosions would not accomplish this debris pattern. The trailing air mass is more than speculation. It’s a physical reality and it could accomplish the task, so it goes beyond speculation to say it probably had something to do with the debris distribution.

          1. I do think the ‘air mass’ movement of the tree the most plausible.

            I’ve never gotten a response from anyone, I’ve asked at least a dozen: Those early firemen pushed the button which sprayed water, when that had just pulled up to a kerosene fire, foam would have been appropriate and the two trucks were equipped with foam. Why did they use water?

      1. David, you know a few things about physics. I have a challenge for you. Get out a piece of paper and mark the location of the Pentagon, the approaching Flt. 77 and the light poles (before they were struck).
        Now carefully line up the plane with the entrance and exit holes in the Pentagon and position the plane just before it is about to strike Pole 1.
        You will see the exact position on the wing that the plane struck the pole.
        Now after you have done this, tell me how it is physically possible on this planet, for the pole to have broken off and struck the taxi cab?
        Please be as detailed as you can! Thanks, and GOOD LUCK!

  4. It seems that we lived a period similar to when they said that the earth was flat.
    Truth answers all the questions.
    Thanks Mr. Craig

    1. Thank you. Interesting how the notion that the Earth is flat has made a comeback in the past three years, just in time so it can be used to denigrate “conspiracy theorists.” I have no doubt that this is a psy op. We might want to keep an eye out for those who claim to be truthers but who mock conspiracy theorists by referring to the flat Earth idea. It’s no accident.

  5. I’ve always thought the objective of the so called Truther Movement was the truth. It should be obvious to anyone that a plane could not have penetrated the outer ring never mind the inner rings of the Pentagon ipso facto:
    Anyone who argues otherwise is either working for the other side (those who continue to perpetuate the lie) or is ignorant of basic physics, especially the laws of inertia.

      1. Indeed not, but people on your side of this question seem to love comparing the alleged plane impact to the Sandia test. Dwain Deets is among them. And didn’t you refer to Sandia in your 2015 presentation in Oakland?

        1. >but people on your side of this question seem to love comparing the alleged plane impact to the Sandia test.
          The Sandia test illustrates the tremendous kinetic energy involved. All of that energy must be dissipated before everything can come to rest. That can account for the shredding of the plane. I am not saying the wall of the Pentagon is like the thick concrete block at the Sandia test. But the energy to dissipate is the same amount per kilogram, so a high degree of disintegration is to be expected. In the case of the Pentagon some of the energy went into penetrating the wall and deformation of the internal columns, but the rest went into shredding the plane. This was about 30 times the energy of a 100 mi/hr crash.

        1. >I worked at the Pentagon. The walls of the Pentagon were made of reinforced concrete.
          This is a simple “appeal to authority” argument. You may have worked at the Pentagon, but you obviously weren’t paying attention to the wall “upgrade”. How do you account for the evidence for the wall structure presented in Wayne Coste’s presentation? He refers to documentation + photos of the wall structure during construction and use + photos of the wall structure as “dissected” by the building collapse. It is all consistent with his description.

        2. There was never any reinforced concrete at the Pentagon, look at the pictures of the collapsed building. The composition IIRC is brick and limestone covering. Also the walls are relatively thin, even if they were reinforced concrete, after all two planes went through significantly stronger material on the exterior walls of the WTC. If a fast aircraft can’t penetrate the pentagon walls then a cruise missile certainly cannot, both travel at the same speed but the cruise missile is significantly less massive. If the missile exploded on contact then there could be no exit hole, the debris field would be in an arc on the pentagon lawn. There is this misconception that the wings of an aircraft are fragile, not true as they support 500 tonnes (500000 kg) of aircraft when in flight. If there was a fly over using the fireball as cover, there would be physical evidence on the images, vortices from the wing tips and the engines, there is no disturbance except for that accounted for by a large air mass. When a large aircraft takes off, smaller aircraft cannot take off immediately afterward s because of the turbulence created. To put the record straight I am not a US citizen, I have visited DC once, last October. I am British.

          1. The Pentagon was primarily made of concrete because steel was in short supply when it was built because of WW2, starting on UK 11/9/41 {US 9/11/41}. The twin towers had more steel and planes went through them. As I also said if a Boeing 757 cannot pierce the pentagon then a cruise missile certainly could not have either.

  6. Your truth movement is over because you reject opportunities for new and important evidence that would make a huge difference.
    Good luck anyway.

    1. Hey POS! The Truth and Shadows crew would desperately like to be seen as the heart of the Truth Movement, but they aren’t. There is a lot of flaky crap circulating around here, but there is a solid scientific core of evidence that constitutes real progress. It is important to clean up our act. Otherwise heaven help us if this ever gets real traction, like a grand jury that takes this on as a serious issue. We would get thrown out of court faster than April Gallop’s lawyer.

      1. This is a typical fabrication on your part, David. I don’t want to be the heart of anything. I just want to be part of a movement of people who are not afraid stand up for unpopular truths and who want to spread the word that the story we were told on 9/11 is a lie. I know how much you like to remind people about your “solid scientific core.” But “flaky crap” isn’t exactly a scientific term, is it?
        To call your relentless campaign on behalf of most of the Pentagon official story “real progress” is Orwellian and pompous.

  7. The Disruptive Agent:
    Disruptive agents can self-identify themselves by their actions. These people will often volunteer for jobs in the organization that will give them some influence in the 911 Truth organization.
    They will do several things like:
    They will try to create division, discord and hostility within the group.
    For example: Two disruptive agents will join a group and then pick a fake fight with one another at the same time trying to get other members of the group to join in the fight. Their goal is to create a situation where there is disruptive conflict within the group.
    They will try to set up one person against another person or one group against another group.
    They may use flattery to set up one person against another.
    They will accuse other people of being agents.
    They will try to divert the attention and energy of the group toward non-911 issues. In doing this, they may pose as left-wing or right-wing individuals.
    They will try to get the group to spend energy on projects that are not cost effective.
    One technique to disrupt a meeting is to talk incessantly in order to waste as much time as possible in the meeting so that little or nothing will be accomplished.
    They will try to persuade the group to do something illegal. If they are successful, this will be a set up. The authorities will be waiting with handcuffs.
    They will try to insert disinformation into the 911 Truth Community to create division and disruption in our movement and make us waste valuable time responding to absurtities. Many believe the “Large Plane hit the Pentagon Theory” is an example. This comes under the subject of “cognitive infiltration”. For more information on “cognitive infiltration”, please see the 2008 paper “Conspiracy Theories” by Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule. It is available on the internet.

    1. “Many believe the “NO Large Plane hit the Pentagon Theories” are examples.” How does this little essay distinguish between these possibilities? It doesn’t. Rather than labeling those who disagree as infiltrators, engage with them as people who have different opinions. Find out why and carry on real dialogue.
      When there are conflicting theories you have to look behind the theories to the evidence. Question: How do any of the “no large plane” theories explain all the evidence? (What evidence, you say? Start here: http://911speakout.org/wayne-coste/) And just saying “it was all faked” doesn’t cut it.
      How many of you on this list have actually watched the Explaining the Evidence videos rather than taking someone else’s pre-digested version of it?

      1. David Chandler said:
        “When there are conflicting theories you have to look behind the theories to the evidence”
        That’s funny, coming from you, since you’ve basically built a career on ignoring evidence.
        There WAS a large plane at the scene on 9-11….. Craig doesn’t deny that.
        What we affirm, is that “No plane hit the Pentagon” on 9-11.
        There is not a scrap of evidence that a 100 ton aircraft crashed there.

      2. “Carry on real dialogue” That is rich coming from you. You have dodged a real debate for over a decade now. At least Coste had the guts to debate Craig and I. He got trounced but at least he showed up to try. You are a hypocrite sir. CIT has had a standing debate offer for years and you have never responded to their detailed and damning rebuttal of your paper. You are the one who has prevented dialogue all these years. You want to be taken seriously again? Stand up like a man and debate Craig Ranke.

  8. Thanks Craig. I am really surprised about Chandler. Are these guys CIA plants? In my view the official narrative about the Pentagon is more absurd that the twin tower narrative. As you know, the Pentagon never released a video of the crash though several must exist with all the security surrounding the Pentagon. One video does exist however of a CNN reporter, on the scene, soon after the crash, with his back to the camera telling the world “No plane crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.” If you look behind him, there is no wreckage and the lawn is pristine.
    Ah but, don’t believe your eyes and ears folks, believe the U.S. government. They lie all the time to justify war but would never lie about 9/11!
    Great writing Craig.

    1. Thanks, Geoff. I agree that the story is impossible to believe. As to why some in the Truth Movement want us to focus on what they think is correct in the official story, your guess is as good as mine.

      1. How about out of a concern that we “get it right” and don’t get swept up with emotional arguments. We were not attacked by Osama bin Laden. I don’t back the official story. Your saying large plane impact equates to the official story is a distortion for emotional effect. Why not look at the evidence and see if large plane impact might be the truth?

        1. David, this very statement is a distortion. I do not say “large plane impact” equates to the official story. But it is certainly part of that story. My point is that when you try to help us “get it right” on the Pentagon, you restrict yourself (almost entirely) to telling us what you think is CORRECT in the official story and not to what you think is wrong. Why is that?
          Why did you tell the movement in your “Joint Statement on the Pentagon” in 2011 that it was pointless to continue with Pentagon research because the government “holds all the cards” when you had no intention of stopping your research? Did you announce that you changed your mind? Did I miss that?

        2. Mr. Chandler, Lt. Col.George Nelson, United States Air Force [ret.] a member of Military Officers for 9/11 Truth, was a former Air Force accident investigator and an airplane parts authority. He said this. “With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged.” He added this, “The goverment alleges that four wide body ailiners crashed on the morning of September 11, 2001, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to identify ANY of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems that ALL potential evidence was kept hidden from public view.”
          Sir, it is not Craig McKee’s job or my job to prove what happened at the Pentagon. it is the governmen’ts job. They have not done that. They have not produced a video or ONE airplane part with a serial number that identifies that plane with any of the 4 planes that crashed that day. Try to explain that please. Titanium engines don’t vanish, yet eight vanished that day? Please.

          1. Great point, Geoff. It is beyond me why people who claim to be part of the 9/11 Truth Movement think the burden of proof should be on us and not on the government.

    2. OK, now watch the full interview with the context. Jaime McIntyre was arguing against the idea that the plane crashed on the lawn short of the Pentagon. He is affirming that it hit the wall directly and mostly went inside. This is discussed in Wayne Coste’s presentation, Chapter 2, here: http://911speakout.org/wayne-coste/. Thank you for bringing this up. I hope this sets the matter straight.

      1. David Chandler said:
        “OK, now watch the full interview with the context. Jaime McIntyre …..”
        It doesn’t matter what Jaime McIntyre or Dan Rather said after they were told to keep their yaps shut.
        What matters is what they spontaneously reported without coercion.
        Jaime McIntyre said there was no evidence that a plane crashed “anywhere NEAR the Pentagon”.
        Twist it to fit your agenda all you want.

        1. >Jaime McIntyre said there was no evidence that a plane crashed “anywhere NEAR the Pentagon”.
          >Twist it to fit your agenda all you want.
          Making loud grunting noises doesn’t prove your point. I showed you that the Jaime McIntyre quote was taken out of context. The full original quote shows he was answering whether a plane crashed somewhere near the Pentagon other than directly into the wall. He is affirming that it hit the wall. It doesn’t take any twisting to see that.

  9. “The Pentagon is the key to 9/11 in many ways […] This is why the Pentagon is so crucial to the case we as a movement must make to the world.” The Pentagon 9/11 attack may indeed be the key to “war,” ”a global assault on freedom and privacy,” ”evidence” that ”it can only be the military that was responsible for the deception.” However, it bears repeating that these are minor aspects of the 9/11 conspiracy. The bulk of the 9/11 work and by far the boldest, largest and most successful achievement of the Master 9/11 conspirators is the censorship thereof by all opinion-makers who would have a vested interest in informing their audiences of 9/11’s essence as an amateurishly covered false flag. This censorship has been worldwide and permanent. It has been very tight, even self-healing. It has encompassed highly variegated opinion-makers, from structural engineering associations to Muslims to pacifists to human rights activists to socialists to etc. It so happens that the Pentagon does not lend itself to demonstrating the censorship nearly as well as the Twin Towers’ controlled demolition, thanks to the existing video record thereof and its massive broadcasting.
    Therefore, while Chandler, Coste, and others may be harming activism against “war,” ”a global assault on freedom and privacy,” ”evidence” that ”it can only be the military that was responsible for the deception,” they are not harming activism against the much more disturbing 9/11 censorship, nor the search for a putative still bigger and still more alarming mother conspiracy that the 9/11 censorship would be a manifestation of and whose resolution may accordingly bring humanity larger benefits. Discerning 9/11 analysts and activists have bigger fish to fry than Chandler, Coste and others’ qualms over the Pentagon and may even try to use them as allies.

    1. Daniel Noel said:
      “Discerning 9/11 analysts and activists have bigger fish to fry than Chandler, Coste and others’ qualms over the Pentagon and may even try to use them as allies”
      So, what are you doing here, on this particular thread which is about Chandler, Coste and others’ qualms over the Pentagon, Daniel? …. I don’t get it.
      Maybe, one of these days, Craig will become a “Discerning 9/11 analysts and activist” and realize that he has “bigger fish to fry” ….. I don’t know, but we can always hope ….. huh? 😉

  10. What I have wondering about for many years is: After two planes(?) crashed into the WTC and everyone claimed (knew) this was a terrorist attack, and about 40 mins later another plane waltzed it’s way from Ohio right to the fucking Pentagon unmolested. What the fuck was the Pentagon doing? The most sophisticated and expensive monstrosity on the planet was not even able to defend itself from a passenger plane piloted by crazy Muslims who couldn’t even fly, even though they were tracking it, according to the testimony of Norman Mineta. Oh well, mistakes were made.
    Gary Walker

    1. I agree Gary. I think there was a screw-up and the Pentagon event occurred too late, it was supposed to precede the WTC explosions. They know it’s their Achilles heel and so have dedicated most of their dis-info agents to this topic.

    2. More so. The terrorists aboard the plane knew they had limited time before they were wiped out of the skies and yet they took a maneuver that risked the whole operation to hit one specific wall that guaranteed no General would be killed and an accounting department that found a BIG chunck of money to be missing 🙂 Thats your smoking gun …

  11. No mistakes were made… just lies that were accepted..NIST is a waste of time and they are doing what they were intended to do…NOTHING…

      1. Fabricated, imaginary, fake “evidence”. All your claims of having “evidence” where there really is none is minimally laughable. Maximally, complicit with the fabricators of “the Official Story”. All I’ve heard from your group is conjecture labeled as “evidence”.

      2. David, you violate your own guideline by speculating all over the place. The tree “notch”? The several tree at the Pentagon, the wings turned into “confetti”? All speculation.

        1. The tree notch is observation, not speculation. Look carefully at the images starting at 8:14 in the Chapter 7 video. Here is the link again: http://911speakout.org/wayne-coste/ The ends of the twigs appear stripped and shredded as though hit by a dull blade. The edge of the engine housing is duller than the average mower blade, but it had about 30 times the kinetic energy, so “mowing” the tree would have been no problem. You have not provided an alternative theory that accounts for this observation. No tree trimmers were visible on the morning of 9/11, and why would anyone think to tweak this little detail the previous night? This must clearly be processed as evidence.

          1. Your conclusion about why the tree looked as it did is speculation. You offer something you think it consistent with it being hit by a plane and conclude it was hit by a plane. It’s as if you don’t think there is any chance of deception or inauthentic evidence. I know people from your clique mock the idea of planted evidence of any kind. So I have to be careful to suggest something like that. The perpetrators of 9/11 would never do such a thing, would they?
            I am not suggesting that the tree was prepared in advance to offer corroboration for the official plane path. But the light poles were (I allege), so it is not impossible that other things were as well. The fact is you don’t know what that tree looked like immediately before that day. So it’s speculation to say it must have been hit by the left engine of a plane.

  12. I cannot find a single word in your article Craig that I disagree with. In a lot of ways I guess I am the same as “the cabal” when it comes to your article, they can’t find fault with the official lies regarding the pentagon, I can’t find fault with your analysis of them.

    1. There’s one big difference, Adam!
      Your position is sincere, while their position is hypocritical.
      They don’t really believe the rubbish they are promoting.
      For proof of this ….. consider:
      It is IMPOSSIBLE to be as stupid as “the cabal” is pretending to be ….. it is simply IMPOSSIBLE!

  13. Following up on Daniel Noel’s contribution, very relevant and large canvas as usual: As he writes, we’ve endured 17 years of mainstream media complicity, via radio silence about evidence of an inside job—a false flag op—on all aspects of 9/11, including its cover-up.
    Not just silence. But mainly silence. In addition there’s been complicity through denigration of those asking questions about the evidence, those trying to bring the evidence to larger public attention. Marginalization of those who have researched the physical evidence. How many books examining the physical and other evidence have been reviewed in mainstream media? There’s an answer. The answer is virtually none.
    I’m thinking mainly of mainstream media, which despite their decline still are a major factor in Earth’s infosphere. The largest source for most people, most of the time, on most subjects. Remaining daily newspapers of note, such as the New York Times and Washington Post in the USA, The Times of London, even The Guardian in the UK, and in Canada The Globe and Mail and Toronto Star, still do most of the agenda setting along with broadcasting organizations such as the BBC, CBC in Canada and the Amnets. These are not yet down and out and may not be for a long time (and they pursue some worthy purposes).
    But Dan is hitting a big nail squarely. The silence. It can be called misdirection. It can be called denial. It can be called abdication. It can be called inattention. It can be called failure.
    By any name how could the world media be silenced and kept silenced? To expect a simple single answer would be foolish. But it is not foolish to point out a very likely major contributor to the explanation.
    That is gatekeepers. Gatekeepers insinuated and installed at a very large number of mainstream media outlets—probably every one. It was the plan of the CIA from the outset. Plants, paid by “intelligence agencies” to do normal executive editing most of the time but turn into eagle eyes with talons as soon as information threatening the Deep State’s best kept secrets shows up. Their job then is to squelch, by any and all means, such threatening information, and do all possible to divert or undercut its sources.
    As Dan states: “The bulk of the 9/11 work and by far the boldest, largest and most successful achievement of the Master 9/11 conspirators is the censorship thereof by all opinion-makers who would have a vested interest in informing their audiences of 9/11’s essence as an amateurishly covered false flag. This censorship has been worldwide and permanent. It has been very tight, even self-healing.”
    There’s much more to the censorious monolith of obfuscation, burying and propaganda, of course. Witness the pathetic trolls. But The Big Silence paradoxically speaks for itself, for those with ears to hear.
    “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” said Donald Rumsfeld, thoughtfully. The absence of evidence of the army of gatekeepers is not evidence that the army is absent. The silence they impose, on the contrary, is the evidence of silence makers effectively at work. Silence instill fears in some, frustration in many. All the rest, it fools, creates a “nothing to see here, let’s move on” illusion. Firmly in place, 17 years after the most blatant false flag op in history. Impressive, if you like the tyranny of silence.

    1. Hey Barrie. You’re a journalist. Fran Shure tells me she believes you are a straight-up guy and not a shill. If that is the case, how about a little direct dialogue on the evidence that Wayne has put so much time and energy into compiling? You might debunk it if you have better information, but it is due a better response than just decrying the fact that it contradicts prior beliefs. Are you open to having your mind changed by persuasive evidence? Have you watched the videos of the presentation? If not, let me know when you have and we can talk about it. I don’t want to waste my time until you have done your homework.

      1. How dare you say to Barrie Zwicker “if you are not a shill.” That’s a really slimy insinuation. You manipulate with language, using words like “belief” to put down positions you don’t agree with.
        It is ironic that you don’t want to “waste your time” while you waste the time of the whole Truth Movement.

        1. Craig,
          I’m sure Chandler would respond about a double standard, remarking that our side regularly accuses people of being shills, and point to some of the comments here as proof. This is where I would remind everyone that Chandler was the one who initiated this trend with his and Cole’s joint statement in 2011. See this comment of mine at the bottom of the thread:

        2. >How dare you say to Barrie Zwicker “if you are not a shill.”
          Craig, you take tremendous freedoms in putting quote marks around words that are not direct quotes. One can only assume you are trying to make it look like someone is saying what he didn’t say to sway your audience. You claim to be some kind of journalist, but this is pretty flagrant.
          I was making a straight-up invitation to Barrie Zwicker to enter into some direct dialogue. You want to turn that into a slur because that fits your agenda. Talk about slimy….

          1. You’re right. I should have put the quote marks around “if” instead of the rest of the phrase. That was an error on my part. But, as usual, you pounce on something like that to make an exaggerated comment about my practices in general. Instead of it being one incidence of sloppiness on my part, it becomes taking “tremendous freedoms” with quotation marks. (Did I do it right that time?)
            As for what looks to me like a slur, it has nothing to do with any agenda, it is a comment you made. You did not give Barrie the respect he deserves. There is no reason to even entertain the possibility that Barrie is a shill. But you chose to use the word “if.” Why don’t you ask Fran if she thinks that’s fair?

  14. Just because people give wrong information doesn’t mean they are being intentionally deceptive. But I’ve had enough exposure this cabal to have witnessed incident after incident where they are undoubtably lying, not simply misinformed.

  15. How do I enter a paragraph break without posting? I guess I’ll just make it one big paragraph. This cabal nurtures the fallacy that reasonable people can disagree about the Pentagon. This is ridiculous. No one who spends any time at all looking into the evidence will believe the things that Coste believes. He indicts himself further with every powerpoint he creates, because we know that he knows the truth but is deliberately promoting a lie. Some things are just too obvious for an intelligent person to miss. It’s a question like “what color is the White House?” It’s just not possible to get it wrong unless you are either too lazy to look into it or are being deliberately deceptive.

  16. If you want to understand me and why I believe what I do, read my writings and watch my videos, not what someone like Craig McKee says about my writings and videos.
    If you want to understand Craig McKee, read my writings and watch my videos, then read what Craig McKee says about them!
    For Pentagon evidence, see http://911speakout.org/wayne-coste/
    For my analysis of CIT, and why you should not rely on their interview evidence, see http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/Critique-of-CIT-Rev-4.pdf
    If you want to see what hit the Pentagon, see http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/BlinkedPentagonPlane.html
    Dig for the truth yourself before you go skulking around in the shadows.

    1. Ooh, that sounds ominous. If people want to understand me… Ultimately, that’s an empty and meaningless insinuation.
      We know all about your assessment of CIT. You have attacked them and said we should reject all their research based on their “methodology.” But I show how it’s your methodology that is fraudulent. And your preference for the interviewing habits of Jeff Hill shows exactly how biased you are. You have suggested CIT are government agents based on nothing. But in fact, their contribution to Pentagon research has been game-changing.
      Here is my thorough deconstruction of Chandler’s bogus hit piece against CIT:
      David, you guys continue to reveal yourselves with how you deal with criticism. Coste has tripped over himself in his anxiousness to mock the use of “shadows” in the name of this blog. You’ve repeated that here. So clever! Either you are both being deliberately slippery or you don’t get why I use the word.

      1. >Here is my thorough deconstruction of Chandler’s bogus hit piece against CIT:
        Your “thorough deconstruction” is a complete misrepresentation of my argument. Here is the direct link to my essay on CIT’s methodology: http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/Critique-of-CIT-Rev-4.pdf Your audience needs to read what I actually said and to understand my actual argument and interact with THAT. If they then read your slimy [you introduced the word into this thread] misrepresentation of it, they will see it speaks more about you than about me.

        1. Hi David,
          When are you going to interview the multiple witnesses we interviewed about which path or side of the former Citgo gas station the plane was on? Did you speak with Sgt Lagasse?
          How many witnesses have you interviewed? How many have you interviewed that were in a prime position to watch the plane approach and to determine which side of the gas station the plane was on? How many of those are on your “witness list”?
          Do you agree that a plane on the north of citgo path can’t hit the light poles?
          Do you agree that a north of citgo flight path implicates Lloyde England?
          So you understand the history. This was ALL my research. I got Craig Ranke involved and he was able to do a significant amount of the legwork (with and without me) based on my research which eventually turned into OUR research and investigation. I am the witness expert. I have exhaustively and personally debunked nearly every single witness and not one single witness that you have presented details a south of Citgo approach. Many of your witnesses couldn’t even see the Pentagon from their POV.
          Remember this ALL started, because in 2003 a very pissed off Sgt Lagasse, who believed there was an airliner that struck the pentagon, told researcher Dick Eastman that he was on the “starboard side” of the plane while he was refueling at the Citgo. This is what started me researching what he saw. This is what drove me to fly out to Arlington with the Loose Change crew and confirm or refute what he saw. And one after another, witness after witness, confirmed what he saw – the north of the Citgo, banking flight path.
          Your obsession with us is ridiculous and your innuendo and accusations about us being govt agents is disgusting. We have delivered the strongest evidence proving an inside job on silver platter complete with witnesses who can be subpoenaed and an actual accomplice to the crime and all you can do is spit in the face of it.
          I’ll leave you with this:
          “Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that the jet kept on going.” ~Erik Dihle, Arlington Cemetery Supervisor

          1. The security video from the Citgo station clearly shows Sgt. Legasse to the south of the station filling his car. The plane shadow passes the grass to the south of him. Unless Va has moved to the Southern Hemisphere the sun is to the south east. Sgt. Legasse was pulling your chain, telling you what you wanted to hear.

          2. Yep! ….. Sgt. Lagasse was pulling Aldo’s chain and so was officer Brooks and all the other witnesses that were interviewed on camera were also pulling Aldo’s chain.
            You can tell by the body language and facial expressions that every one of the witnesses is a lying sack of shit!
            Not only are they all liars, but they are also all psychic, because they all drew an almost identical North of Citgo flight path on aerial photographs without consulting each other.
            Yep! ….. makes sense to me.
            Thank you for your “intelligent” input, John ol’ boy! 😀

          3. So Aldo: Were you Craig’s handler or was he your handler?
            Who came up with all the flawed logic and tactic of pressuring the witnesses?
            Who came up with the strategy of finding one tiny flaw in their testimony and then, instead of clarifying that one item, using that as the gold standard to reject the bulk of the actual testimony?
            Usually when a hypothesis can’t account for the evidence it is rejected. Your tactic is to reject all evidence.
            What do you know about reconstructed memories? Which would be a more prominent memory, seeing a plane hit the Pentagon or remembering years later the exact path of the plane before the primary memory was formed?
            Are you aware of the powerful effect of suggestion in the process of filling in such memories with artificial details?
            How come all of your witnesses in a position to see the impact said the plane actually hit the Pentagon?
            When are you going to release the full raw footage of the interviews, not just the edited versions? I focus in my critique on the Hemphill interview because we have the whole thing, start to finish, and a couple of comparison interviews. Pretty damning.
            Hemphill testified to a large plane going at high speed, testified that it was accelerating, and that the plane came over his right shoulder (south). He reinforced the southern path by estimating that it was not as far south as the VDOT antenna. (i.e. south, but not that far south). He testified to one light pole being hit…Light pole #2. He knew about others being hit but refrained from testifying to what he didn’t see personally (pretty discriminating witness). He knew about the taxi but refrained from mentioning the taxi because he didn’t see it personally. He testified to which floors of the Pentagon were hit, something that happened before any explosion magic show. He did not testify to a north path initially. The only reason you guys focused on the CITGO was on the assumption that someone AT the CITGO could tell which side of the station the plane came in. But Hemphill was not AT the CITGO, therefore that criterion was irrelevant. Still when asked about the CITGO he said the plane may have flown over it. It is only when pressed by Craig on whether part of the plane might have been on the Arlington side. However later he clearly retracted that assessment and denied even making it. It was clearly an error on his part, and one which he would not make again if asked today, but you guys used that one slip to discount EVERYTHING else he said. Pretty slimy.
            How about a REAL discussion of the Albert Hemphill interview? (Just poking fun at Jeff Hill doesn’t count as a logical argument.) Do you acknowledge that once Hemphill saw a map of the site he had no trouble affirming the plane went south of CITGO? He was clearly going on distant memories of the geography years after the event when the wing of the Navy Annex he worked in had been demolished. All he needed was a map to get it right, but you guys didn’t seem to be interested in getting it right. You just wanted an outcome you could use to put him in the NOC category.

            David, if you believe Craig and I are intelligence operatives covering up the inside job, what are you waiting for you to contact the FBI??? You cleeeearly have the evidence. I mean, it’s not like Craig or I have led perfectly normal lives that can be documented or anything. I mean with a little digging they should be able to identify and punish us traitors! Lol. You are truly losing your mind over this stuff.
            Tell ya what, I’ll answer your questions when you answer mine.
            Good day, sir.

          5. Aldo,
            The fact that Chandler refuses to have a moderated debate is the proof that he is not acting in good faith as a genuine truther. All he will do is sling mud and refuse to answer direct questions. He wants to control the whole scenario by being the only one who should have his questions answered while himself answering no questions. He will never answer your questions Aldo because he can’t answer them. He will never debate CIT because he would be fully exposed as a dishonest person pretending to be a truther. I would not answer a single question from Chandler until he responds meaningfully to CIT’s rebuttal to his paper.
            Chandler is the one refusing to discuss this issue and it has been him stopping discussion about it all along. I really do not care if he is an agent doing this on purpose or if it is an ego problem on his part and he is just a megalomaniac pathologically unable to admit mistakes. Either way his actions are a HUGE negative for the truth movement. I do not consider David Chandler to be a truther at all actually, he has proved by his ongoing actions related to this issue that he is not one.
            As to his other work related to free fall, let me just say that by the time he did his work the rest of the real truth movement had already been talking about the free fall of WTC 7 for years. He came along and presented what was already a well known fact at the time. So his other work was at best a nice little contribution clarifying what we all already knew. In intel terms, if Chandler was an operative from the beginning, all he really did was concede a point that was already lost (to the perps) in order to gain credibility capitol to be used later.
            I have my doubts he was an operative from the beginning, I lean much more to the megalomania explanation for his actions today in promoting such obvious disinformation. However his work on free fall was hardly groundbreaking or original and does not mean he could not have been an operative all along. He runs with the whole bay area group who are all suspicious as hell. San Francisco by the way could be fairly called the governments intel hub for the west coast by the way. One of the largest fusion centers in the country is located there as well as military psyops units and of course Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, Ken Jenkins, and several other know disinformation purveyors are located there. Even the infamous Cosmos was there in SF for a while, as was Brian Good who infiltrated A+E for a while. Chandler has spent time in west coast spook central with Hoffman and Ashley, and as far as I am concerned there is a good chance he has been cointelpro from the start.

          6. I had to ponder whether to get into this with you because mud wrestling isn’t very productive. However as I thought about it, what you have posed here opens up some interesting questions that go to the heart of what is wrong with your methodology. So let’s try a round and see where it leads. No commitment beyond that.
            >When are you going to interview the multiple witnesses we interviewed about which path or
            >side of the former Citgo gas station the plane was on? Did you speak with Sgt Lagasse?
            Alright. Right here is a major error in your approach. I would not interview ANY witnesses about which side of the CITGO they saw the plane on. For most of the witnesses this is not the focus of their attention. I would ask any witnesses what they saw, heard, etc. and listen to what they said. The CITGO question is a misdirection. You guys talk a lot about magic tricks. This is the magic trick right here. What Sgt. Lagasse saw was a plane that hit the building. That’s what he saw, that’s what he told you over and over, and that’s what you ignore.
            >How many witnesses have you interviewed? How many have you interviewed that were in a
            >prime position to watch the plane approach and to determine which side of the gas station
            >the plane was on? How many of those are on your “witness list”?
            I’ll settle for one you did interview: Albert Hemphill. Your argument for the CITGO criterion is the witnesses at the CITGO were in a prime position to judge left or right (assuming they were paying attention to the jet before the main event, the Pentagon impact).
            Albert Hemphill was not at the CITGO, but he was in a similar left-right decision position and he definitely was paying attention to the plane itself prior to the impact. He was in an elevated location right across from the impact point looking straight at the Pentagon when the plane flew by. He described the plane, its path, how it was being flown, the fact that it hit a light pole along the way, the fact that he saw it go into the Pentagon, and which row of windows it hit when it entered the Pentagon. For him, the CITGO station was irrelevant because he wasn’t at the CITGO. He didn’t bring it up because it was not part of his consciousness of the event. His natural reference for left-right was his own body, and he said repeatedly that the plane came over his right shoulder. That puts it to the south, consistent with his testimony that he saw it hit the second light pole (which he correctly identified as the one on the north side of the bridge–he was paying attention). He reinforced his testimony that the plane was to the south because Craig asked him whether it was as far over as the VDOT antenna. He said no, not that far. That is a clear statement that the plane was to the south, but in his judgment not that far south. That answer would not make sense if the plane was to the north. Asking him to reference the plane’s position relative to the CITGO station is a total red herring because the CITGO station was not part of his consciousness. It was a misdirection introduced by Craig. It took several tries for Craig to get him to say it might have been a little toward the Arlington side of the station. From Hemphill’s point of view flying over the CITGO was consistent with hitting the light pole and the impact point. What that tells me is he misremembered the layout of exactly where the CITGO station was. He thought flying over the CITGO was in line with the light poles. That tells me he thought the station was farther to the south than it actually was. This was years after the event, he was no longer working at the Navy Annex, and the wing of the building that housed his office had been torn down. He was operating on a limited memory. When Jeff Hill showed him an aerial photograph with a line from his office to the impact point going right over the station, he had no trouble asserting with certainty that it was on the south. In fact he was so certain of this that he didn’t remember ever saying it was on the north side of the station. You could not get him to reaffirm his NOC testimony today if you tried. If you were looking for truth, you would check it out. But you got what you wanted from him and you let it drop.
            It is very telling that Craig took the one, clearly erroneous statement that the plane might have been a little on the Arlington side of the station as an excuse to dismiss ALL of his other testimony. There is no logic to this. The actual testimony that came from Hemphill without being led, was that it was in line with the light poles and hit the building. That is strong testimony. The CITGO reference is nowhere on the scale compared with the value of the direct testimony. The fact that Craig, and apparently you, since you claim you were the witness expert and the research guy, would value the single instance of interviewer-led artificial testimony over the clearly high quality, vivid, and consistent actual testimony says something about the role your agenda was playing here. The most generous interpretation is you were incompetent bumbling interviewers who didn’t know what you were doing. The more likely interpretation is you had an agenda to drive the questioning into a position that would give you an excuse to disregard all the real testimony. I call that dishonest methodology that disqualifies your interviews as having any scientific value. What you threw away in the interviews is more valuable than what you chose to keep.
            >Do you agree that a plane on the north of citgo path can’t hit the light poles?
            >Do you agree that a north of citgo flight path implicates Lloyde England?
            No. I reject the framing of that question. What I see is that Lloyde England’s testimony and the physical evidence embodied by his car are clear evidence that the plane flew through the light poles and the incident was a real-time event. Therefore the notion that the plane was flying NOC must be rejected. You are consistently rejecting strong evidence in favor of exceedingly flimsy and dishonestly obtained evidence.
            What Wayne Coste has shown in the video series I produced is that everything about Lloyde’s testimony and the physical evidence of the light poles is consistent and raises no red flags. He could not possibly have been hit by any piece from the first light pole because if he had, when his car came to a stop it would have been further down the road. He was hit at the second light pole and stopping distance placed him, and the light pole fragment carried by the car, by the first light pole once everything came to rest. Wayne has a challenge out to find anywhere in the CIT videos where Lloyde unambiguously identifies the large section of the first light pole as what hit the car. All I see when I watch the videos is Craig harassing him and telling Lloyde that that must have been the pole because it was right there, to which Lloyde responds with silence. You know the CIT videos better than anyone else. Why haven’t you collected the challenge prize? Could it be that you know that Lloyde never identified that as the offending pole?
            Once Craig pretended that Lloyde agreed to that being the pole he turned right around and pointed out that it was impossible, because of the weight of the pole, the pristine hood, etc. There is the magic trick again. Push, push, push, to get a wrong statement, than use that one thing to discount all the other evidence. That’s your MO. In this case you guys are discounting both Lloyde’s testimony and the physical evidence.
            I’m curious. How can you account for the lower support arm of the second light pole being missing in photos near the second pole but being present near the first pole if not being the piece that was transported by the taxi as it came to rest?
            >… not one single witness that you have presented details a south of Citgo approach. Many of your witnesses couldn’t even see the Pentagon from their POV.
            That’s not true. We just discussed Albert Hemphill and his testimony is clearly south path. And he could clearly see the whole thing, probably better than anyone else. Just because you claim him as a NOC witness doesn’t make it true.
            >Remember this ALL started, because in 2003 a very pissed off Sgt Lagasse, who believed
            >there was an airliner that struck the pentagon, told researcher Dick Eastman that he was on
            >the “starboard side” of the plane while he was refueling at the Citgo.
            Interesting. Lagasse was pissed off because people were claiming no plane hit the Pentagon. Yet all you saw was his inconsistent memory of Left-Right and North-South. Some people have trouble with that. My reading of this is you saw an opportunity to run your little magic show, claim absolute certainty for a flaky observation, and use it to discredit the mountain of actual evidence for a flight path through the light poles. You found a few more people who could be talked into misremembering the pre-main-event flight path, and you were off and running. This doesn’t come across as science to me. It comes across as a couple of guys with a sales pitch.
            By the way, who are you two anyway? I’ve heard you and Craig were telemarketers in Southern CA, experts at a fast talking sales pitch. Is that true? Why really did you get into this project? It makes me wonder who fed you the research? Who paid your bills? I’m finding it hard to swallow your story.,
            >This is what started me
            >researching what he saw. This is what drove me to fly out to Arlington with the Loose Change
            >crew and confirm or refute what he saw. And one after another, witness after witness,
            >confirmed what he saw – the north of the Citgo, banking flight path.
            Yeah, the banking path is impossible, as Frank Legge and I proved in painful detail. Wayne Coste has an independent analysis with the same conclusion. You have never shown where our analysis of that went wrong.
            Your story doesn’t hang together for me. Science is usually collaborative, but you guys not only operated on your own, you attacked some of the most prolific 9/11 researchers, like Jim Hoffman, and even put up an enemies list on your site. Science doesn’t work like that. Scientists learn from each other and collaborate. They also argue and correct each other, but they keep it on a rational level. If you want to know why I think you are infiltrators, this is the main reason why. But please don’t take that as me saying I know you are infiltrators. It just looks that way to me. The way I would put it is, you are either infiltrators or you may as well be.
            So how about you answer my questions now? Let’s just boil it down to one item: Where is your raw, unedited footage of your interviews?

          7. I am taking up Wayne’s challenge David.
            “Wayne has a challenge out to find anywhere in the CIT videos where Lloyde unambiguously identifies the large section of the first light pole as what hit the car.”
            At 53:20 in the CIT video:
            “OK so you’re saying, how long do you think the pole was approximately?
            “It was sticking out, way over,
            “No the whole pole?
            “I’d say it was, I’d say the pole was about 30 or 40 foot long”
            30 or 40 foot long?
            “Yeah. It was out on the ground like a telegram pole, sticking up. The base of it was in concrete.”
            “I’d say the pole was about 30 or 40 foot long” unambiguously identifies the large section of the first light pole as what hit the car.
            What is the prize for the challenge David and how can I claim it?

  17. I just wonder why they don’t release all the videos to show a clearer shot of the event in order to settle the question once and for all. We all know that there are more videos than what has been given to us. That would give us a more definitive image of what happened.

    1. Andy, Chandler will tell you the video we got from them perfectly shows an American Airlines 757 crossing the lawn on the official flight path. Any doubts or questions we in the Truth Movement raise about the official claim of a plane crash, Chandler and his team will be there to tell us it all happened (with respect to the plane at the scene) just like the government said.
      So Chandler is ready to dismiss even your very modest and reasonable demand that we be shown all the video. He’ll say we have all we need!

      1. >Chandler will tell you …
        Craig, you may be psychic, but you really need to stop telling people what other people are thinking or what they would say. If you want to encourage real dialogue, let people speak for themselves, then you can speak for yourself in response, and so forth. You don’t own both sides of the argument.
        I would of course like to see any additional videos that may exist, but no one has any actual evidence that they exist. The FOIA that got these videos asked for any videos that showed the plane. That left the ball in some bureaucrat’s court to determine what videos were responsive to the request. If you want to see more videos you need to make a more pertinent FOIA request.
        In the mean time we are making an attempt to make sense of the evidence we do have and not use the lack of more evidence as an excuse for dismissing it all. The videos we do have may not show everything, but they show something, and the only response I have heard from your side is the unsubstantiated claim that they are faked. We address that assertion in the videos most of you appear not to have taken the time to watch.

      2. Craig McKee said:
        “Andy, Chandler will tell you the video we got from them perfectly shows an American Airlines 757 crossing the lawn on the official flight path”
        I’ve seen that “video”, Craig ….. it clearly shows an American Airlines 757.
        You can even see the passengers smiling and waving in the windows.
        If you squint your eyes just right you can make out a bearded man wearing a bandana, with a box cutter in one hand and a Koran in the other.
        You can even see the plane engine clip a tree on the way in.

    2. Andy, when the videos are finally released (if there ARE any still in existence) I’m very confident that they will show what DID attack the Pentagon. I’m not holding my breath. I’ll be presenting a viable scenario on the next 9/11 conference call. This is a link to a website (wix) We’re assembling to address the Pentagon Airborne Sortie and other events that occurred on 9/11. Your comments and criticism will be appreciated:

    3. That’s no justification for ignoring the evidence we do in fact have. Hey Andy, have you watched the Coste videos? I think that would be pretty important as background for someone with a prominent position in disseminating information such as yourself.

        1. You’re calling me a troll? Really! Why don’t you just call me a heretic. That would be a more apt description. I don’t buy your dogma. I have attempted to carry on a rational conversation, but apparent’y that’s not happening.

          1. Didn’t you say that people who follow Truth and Shadows are part of a cult? And didn’t you imply that Craig Ranke and/or Aldo Marquis are government agents? So maybe you already gave up the moral high ground.

          2. Taking these one at a time:
            I scanned the comments on this page and I never used the word “cult.” I then went to Facebook and scanned my activity log and found two references. Here is what I actually said:
            “The attitude of science is to foster openness to diverse hypotheses and to decide between them based on evidence and rational thought. The attitude of a cult is to insist on conformity to the content of thought. You appear to be advocating a cult-like adherence to certain thoughts and condemnation of other thoughts based on similarity to the official story. If one follows the evidence where it leads, who knows the exact situation we will find at the end of the process. In science that’s OK, and in fact that’s how it works. A large plane could have hit the building. AA77 could have hit the building. Whether the government was lying about these particular facts we don’t know, so we have to look at the evidence. That is what Wayne’s new presentation is doing. You owe it to yourself to see the evidence and think deeply about its meaning without fear that your outcome might be considered heretical. Let’s do away with cults and adhere to the process of science in the 9/11 Truth Movement.”
            If you want to question my reasoning on why I think a large plane hit the Pentagon, bring it on. But when you simply point out that my conclusion matches the official story’s conclusion on this point, you are taking something that should be a matter of evidence and reason and turning it into a dogma. You’re saying “Thou shalt not come to the conclusion that a large plane hit the Pentagon.” As pointed out in the little mini-essay above, that is cult-like behavior. Deviation from the group’s consensus on the content of one’s thought is called heresy. Calling out people for heresy rather than for errors in reasoning is cult-like behavior. I think calling a group that indulges in this kind of cult-like behavior a “cult” is a fair characterization. It becomes impossible to reason with members of such a group because any who would change their opinion would be rejected and castigated.
            Why is it you are criticizing me? Is it because of faulty logic or bad evidence? Or is it that my conclusion is anathema in your group? I’ve heard a whole lot of the latter and very little discussion of my faulty reasoning, and an actual unwillingness to deal with the evidence, which is what our recent evidence project is all about.
            This brings me to the only other reference I made in a quasi-discussion with a CIT enthusiast (to carefully use a neutral word): “…if having thoughts that diverge from the Truth and Shadows group think is going to get you excommunicated, you might want to reconsider what kind of a cult you are getting in to.”
            I wouldn’t want to belong to a group like that, would you?
            You might or might not know that pretty many of the main researchers who today argue for large plane impact (including Jim Hoffman, myself, Dwain Deets, Wayne Coste…and now you can add Dick Eastman to that list) started from a point of rejecting large plane impact. Open inquiry might lead one to more deeply believe the consensus view, but it could well lead elsewhere. That’s the risk of doing science. To foreclose that possibility is cult-like behavior where deviation from the norm is considered heresy.

          3. David Chandler:

            “Why is it you are criticizing me? Is it because of faulty logic or bad evidence? Or is it that my conclusion is anathema in your group?”

            The former. And the fact that you attack CIT’s research with baseless accusations, such as “pressuring” witnesses. It’s very clear when listening to the NoC witnesses that they were not pressured and their memories are very sharp and not faded.

            Chronologically, Jim Hoffman attacked CIT’s work and insinuated their position was deliberate this info, BEFORE CIT struck back and spotlighted him for doing this.

    4. Are you talking about the government’s footage or CIT’s footage? Interesting parallel, don’t you think? Wouldn’t you like to see the CIT interviews from start to finish with set-up and all?

      1. For clarity, this last comment was responding to Andy Steele. That is not clear the way the responses got stacked. It is ironic, don’t you think, that the Federal Government through the FOIA process has been more forthcoming with their film footage than CIT has with theirs. There’s no civilian FOIA, of course, but one would hope for a little more transparency since they claim to be about the truth.

        1. Another team talking point. You guys all seem to be reading from the identical script. Wayne Coste made this ridiculous comment about the government being more forthcoming than CIT. Your hatred for CIT is so extreme that you will actually give credit to the government’s “transparency” to attack Ranke and Marquis. This is beyond low. It’s disgusting and clearly a crafted strategy by you people.

          1. Actually I was reading it from a script…I narrated Wayne’s presentation, if you remember. That point stuck in my mind because as disgusting as the facts may be, those are the facts. Pretty disgusting, isn’t it! Instead of griping at my calling a spade a spade, why don’t you politely ask the Craig and Aldo to release their videos.

          2. No, Chandler, what is disgusting is the side of this argument you have chosen to run with and stick to.
            I agree with Craig the what motivates you and some of your friends to do this is an extreme hatred for CIT. That is plainly obvious.
            I would say the feelings are pretty mutual. I think that if you are not an agent you might as well be. The reason I find it so difficult to imagine you could be an agent is because you actually did the work to bring NIST to its knees.
            If you had merely ingratiated yourself into the 911 blogger community and the Northern California group of truth activists, by supporting controlled demolition by way of a good essay or two, combined with some prominence at street actions, I would have been far more suspicious of you far earlier, because promoting controlled demolition seems like a no-brainer method to infiltrate one’s self into the activist community.
            Frankly, your arguments against CIT’s work are so nonsensical that they match those of the debunkers at the International Skeptics forum, formerly JREF. Those folks use equally dumb arguments to try to neutralize your work. It is sad and disgusting that you are doing to Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis exactly what the enemies have 9/11 truth have done to the unassailable evidence for controlled demolition.
            In fact, it makes my skin crawl to know that you are part of any sort of “consensus panel.”
            Good day.

          3. The mark of dogmatism is focusing more on WHAT someone thinks rather than HOW someone thinks. If no one is allowed stray from your self-defined straight and narrow path without being branded a heretic, that makes you guys a cult. I think it is much more important to focus on how one thinks. That includes openness to a range of hypotheses, sorting out the possibilities using rational thought processes, intellectual honesty, and willingness to change your mind as the evidence leads. All of that is lacking in what I see as a CIT cult. How boring. How stagnant. There are never any new insights or growth. Just repetition of the flyover mantra, with closed minds and an attitude of vigilance against any who might think differently. Give me science any day!

          4. I’ll bet it stuck in your mind. Any irrational attack on CIT will put a smile on your face.
            But for any 9/11 truther to give even the slightest praise to the U.S. government for being more transparent than members of the Truth Movement is contemptible. In fact, I can’t think of words strong enough to express my disgust for this glib view.

  18. Chandler, most serious truthers, like most people generally, have a life. We have families and jobs, and our free time is limited. Now I will freely admit that I am not a scientist, formally trained or otherwise, but I am a well-educated person (Phillips Exeter Academy, Columbia College, University of Virginia Law School), and an independent thinker, beholden to no one. And I have spent many, many hundreds of hours studying 9/11 since I woke up to the monstrous reality in the Spring of 2009. But because my free time is limited, I am unlikely to spend additional hours watching videos made by you or Coste or anyone else who supports the idea that a large airliner hit the Pentagon. The idea is obvious bullshit, and that is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by CIT’s work and by many pieces of circumstantial evidence. I stand firmly with Craig and Adam Ruff and Adam Syed, and every single other truther that I know personally in the State of Maine feels the same way. Now back to my original point: most people have a life. I have a life. So what about you, Chandler? WHY the f*** are you spending so much time and effort supporting the large impact bullshit and trying to discredit Craig and this site, the single best 9/11 information source on the entire internet? I believe I know why, and Craig has made it pretty clear. You and the others in your cabal are on a mission to disrupt and fracture the truth movement on behalf of nefarious forces. See David Ray Griffin’s Cognitive Infiltration. In conclusion, Chandler: suck it – no intelligent truther is buying your crap.

    1. David (Bauer), thank you for powerful statement, which is notable for its clarity and its absence of misdirecting fog, which so characterizes the claims of Chandler and company.

    2. Very well said David Bauer! I agree 100%. I have a life too, and an important part of it is waiting for me right now while I write this, so that’s it for now.

    3. >David Bauer
      There is no dialogue here. I would describe your style of interaction as someone with a megaphone and ear plugs. What we have to say is to be found in the videos Wayne and I have produced, but you explicitly have affirmed that you won’t take the time to watch them because you already have your mind made up. You are a fan of CIT, but did you even read the short essay I wrote about their flawed methodology? Or did you just read what Craig says about it and assume he got it right? If you want to have any credibility discussing a topic, go to the source: http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/Critique-of-CIT-Rev-4.pdf

      1. Interesting that Chandler wants you to read his hit piece against CIT while he attacks and mocks my total deconstruction of his fraudulent techniques and conclusions. I invite you, and everyone, to read BOTH of them and then draw your own conclusions. Chandler attacks Ranke for his perfectly reasonable interviews while he gives his approval to the laughable interviews done by Jeff Hill, which were absolutely without a shred of credibility. Chandler exposes the bankruptcy of his approach through this attack, which just happened to come out a little over a week after my “No 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11” list was published.
        David (Chandler), you are throwing around reckless and unfounded attacks on my response to your article, but you don’t offer specifics. You call it “propaganda” but offer no support for this claim. I can see why you wouldn’t want people reading my response to you. It must have been truly humiliating for a “scientist” like yourself to have his shoddy “research” methods exposed.
        Tell me, David, does the plane being over Albert Hemphill’s right shoulder automatically mean it must have been entirely south of the Navy Annex?
        For those wondering how good an interviewer Jeff Hill is (the guy whose “methodology” gets a thumbs up from Chandler), check out this question for Albert Hemphill:
        “Okay, well that makes, you know, I mean I don’t know it just makes whatever you say, like any, I don’t know how to say it, I guess that makes it, I don’t even know what to say, like from what you’re saying it could easily have hit the light poles and smashed into the Pentagon from where you saw it.”
        Yes, propaganda has been produced about a series of Hemphill interviews. But it didn’t come from me.
        But don’t take my word for it. Read BOTH articles. Listen to the interviews. Tell me if anything I wrote is wrong or unfair.

        1. Chandler is correct, and apparently because his methods are solid. His position and findings make perfect sense.
          Maybe you guys should follow his lead? ..Because, quite frankly, the “no plane hit the pentagon” position sounds as much like BS as the official explanation. There is so much it doesn’t explain. Basic common sense tells me it’s nonsense.
          How’d they fake the light pole and tree damage, the damage to the building, etc.?
          Wouldn’t that be kind of stupid to use a missile or similar military equipment? That would tell on the perps in so many ways if it were a nation state. I don’t think they’re that dumb.
          And if a bullet made of lead can go through steel, if a broom bristle can be shot through a piece of wood by a big storm, why can’t a big hunk of aluminum traveling several hundred miles an hour penetrate a few concrete walls?
          What about all the witnesses who saw a plane? What about the fallibility of humans and how we perceive things? Considering this and how difficult it is to actually pinpoint the altitude and position of an airplane with the naked eye at a few hundred knots, how do we know they saw what they think they did?
          What about the flight recorder data? How do you explain that?
          I can on, but I won’t. There are a lot of flaws in that position. You can cite as many witnesses and get as many signatures as you like, but it still does not explain away all that Chandler and associates (and many others) have presented.
          And what happens if a new set of data were introduced that essentially proves you wrong? Will you ‘destroy’ it too with a new set of signatures and a freshly painted bandwagon?

          1. POS, I encouraged you to read my response to Chandler’s attack on CIT. I assume you have not done this. You throw a bunch of baseless off-hand comments about what you think is common sense but you don’t do any serious analysis. You are one of those people who thinks that the burden of proof is on us, not the government. You think that if we don’t know exactly how something happened, that we must default to the official story.
            As to your final paragraph, you could ask anyone that. Meaningless and childish.

          2. No, it’s much simpler than that.
            Much of the events have been explained through detailed analysis and impeccable logic that you cannot explain away with your attempts at ad hominems, bandwagons, questionable witness accounts and faulty investigative techniques, etc…
            To be honest, I’m not sure you folks are intelligent enough to realize how faulty your position is, and in spite of it being explained to you as a courtesy on Chandler’s part. Otherwise, I will suggest that you’re a gatekeeper intentionally muddying the water, obfuscating and such.
            It’s almost comical, if not for the insanity of it.

  19. Hasn’t most of the evidence in its various forms been supplied by the very perpetrators and collaborators of this monstrous crime?

  20. I would absolutely agree with David Chandler on one thing. To find out what someone actually claims, go to the source! I wholeheartedly agree that one should not go to a source’s opposition to get the “lowdown” before checking out the source that’s being critiqued.
    Chandler’s foray into the Pentagon was in January 2011 with his and Jon Cole’s “Joint Statement on the Pentagon.” It is flawed to the point of saturation. CIT’s Craig Ranke deconstructed it point-by-point. You can see the Chandler/Cole original text (in the light brown boxes) as well as the critical response (white background), so anyone can judge for themselves by seeing what Chandler/Cole wrote, whether the critical response is on the mark or just a “rant,” which has to my knowledge been the only instance in which Chandler has addressed it.
    Mr. Chandler,
    The criticism of CIT and why their work should be “rejected outright” (provided by you in your above comment) is absolute hogwash, a nonsense attack. I just re-familiarized myself with your PDF. It’s a nonsense attack against CIT generally, and a misrepresentation of this very interview.

    “–The plane came in over his right shoulder, i.e. to his south, therefore to the south of the CITGO station.”

    NO! This has been explained to you and others many times; conflation of his right shoulder with “south of the gas station.” You simplify the alternative flight path down to this. The entirety of the official flight path is (1) south of Columbia Pike at all times (2) south of the Navy Annex at all times and (3) south of the Citgo and over the Rt. 27 overpass bridge.
    His office was at the north end of the building. He actually says it came over the Navy Annex, which already contradicts the official flight path of being south of the Annex at all times.

    “Having answered that to the best of his recollection the plane flew over the top of the CITGO station, Ranke continues pushing, “OK, but would you say if you had to say if it was leaning towards one side or the other of the gas station, perhaps a portion of the plane, or did it look directly over the top? Or what do you think?” He is clearly telling Hemphill he is unsatisfied with his previous answer. Finally Hemphill answers, “Yeah, I would say more towards the cemetery side.” It is troubling that Ranke ignores Hemphill’s first answer and persists in digging for a different answer. “…if you had to say,” “…if it was leaning towards one side or the other,” “…perhaps a portion of the plane.” This is leading the witness, if not badgering the witness. Such questioning is bad practice because it distorts the testimony. It has no place in scientific data gathering interviews since the goal is to get at true memories uninfluenced by the questioner.”

    Come on, really? Ranke is not “clearly” or even ambiguously telling Hemphill any such thing. He even re-emphasizes “or did it look directly over the top?” So, he’s giving Hemphill another chance to re-emphasize, or modify. He chose to go with “cemetery side.”
    But what is really telling is the fact that you’d use this interview at all as a source. It was not part of an official release and was conducted AFTER all of CIT’s major presentations had been publicly released.
    (And, most suspiciously, certainly bizarrely at the very least, Jeff Hill’s phone call to the same witness occurred roughly an hour after Ranke made his call.)
    Your nitpicking at trivia regarding the exact words of the Hemphill interview do NOTHING to negate two Pentagon police officers who were at the station. Lagasse clearly said that the fact that the plane flew NoC was not up for debate, and that the only possible detail for debate is just exactly how far north from the station the plane was; he understands that no two memories would be identical and no two people would draw the absolute exact same line on the map with the marker CIT gave them. But as he said, there’s no way the plane was SoC… unless he has eyes in the back of his head.

    1. With map in hand, would Hemphill today draw the path north or south of the CITGO? We know the answer to that because Jeff Hill sent him a map, and he was so certain it was south of CITGO that he didn’t even remember his earlier slip saying it was on the Arlington side. When Jeff pointed this out to him he denied ever saying it. There is no question that his real testimony is south of CITGO. How is CIT’s interviewing style anything but a con job?

      1. No, it is YOU who is pulling a con job. I totally destroyed your bogus “analysis,” revealing your grotesque double standard when it comes to “interviewing techniques.” How about that Jeff Hill?? Isn’t he something? Can you actually put “Hill” and “methodology” in the same sentence? We know Hill and alcohol go together ever since he phoned a WTC survivor at 1 a.m. and drunkenly berated him on the phone.
        You should be ashamed of yourself.
        I would like anyone to find one thing wrong in my total annihilation of Chandler’s bogus attack on CIT. No one has provided one thing yet. Chandler himself just calls it “propaganda” and “laughably biased.” But this is a distraction. What I wrote was true.

  21. Chandler says we should not be driven by emotional arguments. We should not have pre-conceived biases, and we should seek out the facts with no agenda but the truth. And we should especially be civil and not accuse or imply that other truthers are infiltrators.
    But his very first public statement on the Pentagon was loaded with rhetoric that violates all of these. This was in 2011. Here are some examples.

    “Therefore the Pentagon is a dead-end for research. The puzzle of the Pentagon might be fascinating or intriguing, but as an avenue to determining the truth, it seems doomed to failure. The ones who want it covered up literally hold all the cards.”

    As has already been pointed out by another reader here, Chandler was saying 7 years ago that the Pentagon was a “dead end” for research. Yet he has spent hundreds if not thousands of hours over the past 7 years attempting to save the truth movement from its own folly by trying to convince us that a plane did hit the Pentagon.

    “Fortunately the evidence at the World Trade Center makes the investigation at the Pentagon almost irrelevant.”

    Well heck, the info we already have about the WMD lies used to invade Iraq, combined with the LIHOP evidence re 9/11 itself, is enough to indict Bush and Cheney for treason even without all of that crazy-sounding controlled demolition inside job stuff!!

    “It is sometimes hard to tell the difference between simply foolish theories and intentionally planted foolish theories. The difference is generally speculative. The wisest policy is to avoid foolish theories altogether.”

    So, far from coming into the fray with a neutral, objective stance, you declared from the get-go that it should be obvious to anyone that the ‘flyover’ is a foolish theory. The only question left up for debate, in your mind, is whether it was an well-intentioned but misguided theory, or a deliberately planted one. Not very promising.
    Then you went on to call CIT a “grassroots-sounding organization,” the subtle (or not-so-subtle) implication being that they’re not grassroots at all, but professional disinfo.

    “They compile their thirteen interviews in a feature-length video called “National Security Alert” (with an eyebrow-raising acronym shared with the National Security Agency: NSA), then further cherry-pick their witnesses and present the four who are most in agreement with their own views, and add a musical sound track for a second video they call their “Smoking Gun” version.”

    For someone who thinks we shouldn’t imply that our fellow researchers and activists are agents working for the other side, this is pretty rich. The Twilight Zone music went off in your head and your eyebrow raised itself in suspicion over the fact that CIT’s film has an acronym that involves the same three letters as those on a government agency?
    Even today, you speak of the Gallop case, and how anyone saying a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon would be laughed out of court. And you do it with a sense of protectiveness toward your own and others’ research into the WTC, claiming that public dissemination of the Pentagon stuff will destroy your work by association.
    I have even more thoughts which I’ll articulate after the next daybreak, but I’m signing off. Good night all…

  22. Actually, I’ll leave one more thought for the night. Very timely considering the passing of Senator John McCain, who, lest we forget, wrote the foreword to the anti-9/11 truth publication by Popular Mechanics magazine. (The magazine insisted that the piece was not political, just facts, and that “facts don’t have politics.” Yet the foreword was written by a senator whose party had complete control of all branches of government on the day of 9/11.)
    Mr. Chandler, you have repeatedly insisted that those of us who conclude that a flyover (or for that matter a missile strike) occurred have a psychological need, a desire to believe in such a scenario because it’s titillating and mysterious, and so on. You are not the first one to do this; your words mirror Victoria Ashley in a comment she left once at 911blogger.
    Vic Ashley’s sentiments, in turn, echo the gatekeeping rhetoric of JOHN MCCAIN.

  23. Chandler, why the gratuitous attacks and condescending remarks leveled at Craig and Barrie Zwicker? Who the fuck are you? By attacking them, you are making yourself look bad, really bad. These guys are high character, honest professionals.Your area of expertise is physics, not military planning or aviation. Stick to what you know. What would you think if they attacked your work on the Towers using the Popular Mechanics argument? I saw your video presentation at New York University a few years ago. It was powerful. That you are in here insulting Craig and Barrie, two of the most honest dedicated members of the Truth movement that I have met, is more than disappointing. In fact, it leads me to believe you have been compromised. You aren’t a gatekeeper are you? Sadly, in this day and age of American liars and sellouts, it would not surprise me in the least.

    1. A term that describes a person who has gained a reputation sharing CREDIBLE “information” and then spews unsubstantiated, made up stories that can’t stand in the face of the LACK of evidence presented is “limited hangout” Either Mr. Chandler is “innocently” mis informing due to lack of knowledge on the subject (and a VIVID imagination) or intentionally DISINFORMING, possibly because he has been threatened or paid off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout

  24. I hate to be a party pooper (ok ok… I actually love it!!!) but this virtually same exact conversation has been carried out here at T&S and elsewhere many many times over with very little or absolutely no results, no actionable conclusions. So much so that I am beginning to wonder who amongst us is genuinely expecting a different result this time around. Adam, do you? Sockpuppet? Mr. ONeill? Mr. Noel? Mr. Zwicker? Sheila? And you Craig???
    I am not trying to be a wise ass. Please know that all of these names I mention above, I have learned to love and/or respect over the years as I consider them all honest, sincere and intelligent thinkers who have pursued “truth” for no gain, and probably to the detriment of their own social and professional standings and even family lives. But, c’mon now… I am pleading with you all. Not again… Please…
    Chandler and his kind are too heavily invested in what they propagate to give up now. He will repeatedly drop links to his “research” which has already been debunked and successfully argued against many times over. He will avoid addressing any specifics whatsoever. If the conversation gets heavier, his stooges will materialize here and agitate and insult everyone. Some of the people here will leave the discussion in anger and disgust. Eventually the thread will slow down, and this groundhog day will be over with until the next one will start like the previous one never happened.
    There’s currently a massive war going on behind the scenes between the deep state and an administration who, at least for the moment, seems to be dead set on dismantling the deep state, shadow governments, dark money, mockingbird press and media and the supranational dark forces and cabals who are capable of carrying out untold atrocities to advance their agenda. Like 9/11!!! If the current fight between the people and the cabal by the forces that put Donald Trump in the white house in spite of the deep state’s best efforts is another piece of hegelian theater to herd the sheep to the slaughterhouse, we are screwed for good. But in the far chance that it is real (currently looking real until further notice) then it is our only hope.
    As painful and traumatic as 9/11 and its repercussions were, the world has moved on, but after 17 years of truth bombs people worldwide have been educated in spite of “their” efforts to inject information pollution to mislead, distract, misinform and disinform… And the world is now coming to terms with the fact that it was never the “guberment”, or this party or that party, or this intelligence agency or that foreign entity that needed to be fought, but a very organized, very secret, very twisted and psychopathic organization which had spread its tentacles to every sliver of civilization controlling it from within. And, even then, the scale has not yet tipped. And it won’t until an actual “proof” that even the dumbest person can wrap his/her head around is produced. How does the specifics of if and what hit the pentagon measure up in this perspective??? Craig can write a thousand more pieces of analysis, and Chandler et al will produce a thousand more bullshit stories. Is anyone who has not already made up their mind even reading this stuff???
    Now that I am ranting, I will also say what most in the “movement” would consider sacrilegious. Even his most ardent critics seem to give Chandler credit and pay him some level of respect for his WTC free fall collapse “research”… I call bullcrap!!! The free-fall aspect of the destruction was physics 101 at best, which anyone who has participated in an egg-drop contest in 5th grade could formulate. He is still cashing in that “scientific breakthrough”. I say just leave him and his insincere arguments and his “cabal” alone to just lay in their own poop. They have failed! They have no impact on what is to come. They do not really have an audience. And, most important of all, the ideas they propagate have lost their relevance altogether.
    I will be at ground zero tomorrow morning as I have done every September 11 for 17 years… I will report back if anything interesting happens. But I’m not holding my breath… Last year, there were a total of four individuals protesting…

    1. David (Hazan, not Chandler), I understand your frustration at the endless repeating cycle. But I don’t know how to avoid it when people like Chandler and Coste pump out more mountains of material in support of most of the Pentagon official story. Sometimes you have to repeat the truth. The fact that is has been said before is not enough.
      I hope you’re right that their arguments aren’t being listened to. But there are a lot of people out there who are impressed by credentials and past “accomplishments.” And I don’t think it’s right to assume there have been no positive results from the actions of people commenting here (now or in the past). Speaking the truth is always worth doing.

      1. David, Craig is right. I’m a member of a Belgian 9/11 Truth Group and whatever evidence I produce that no 757 hit the Pentagon I cannot convince them. They believe everything David Chandler says because he was the guy that “brought NIST to its knees”, so he must be right on the Pentagon as well. So his arguments are still being listened to, even though it’s just an “argument from authority.”

      2. Craig, Ivan… I absolutely understand, sympathize with, and to a certain degree share your frustration…
        But, let’s see what we have here… what has Mr Chandler done so far? He has brought the issue of free fall to people’s attention. The natural conclusion of which was that this was not a gravitational collapse of a steel mesh structure, therefore not due to plain impact, therefore not by 19 hijackers, therefore a complete lie and cover up. And, since the attacks were coordinated, both the pentagon and the Shanksville stories Had to be also lies and were being covered up. This is as simple and full-proof of a logic as it comes. And this simple conclusion stands on its own no matter what part of the rest of the story changes… Doesn’t matter whodunit, doesn’t matter if they used thermite or firecrackers, and it certainly doesn’t matter what hit the pentagon. So, thank you Mr. Chandler for your service.
        But now, as a result, whatever Chandler two-point-o propagates about the pentagon has zero value… He can convince everyone who already knows it was a conspiracy that not one, but five 737s hit the pentagon for all we care, because we don’t need anyone who knows exactly what happened, we just need a critical mass of people demanding to know what happened and ready to hear what happened not from Mr Chandler, but from professional, military grade investigators, true experts of the pertinent scientific fields, military ops, etc, people with high security access, people with subpoena power.
        So, I say, if people who follow the Chandler-dogma already believe that it was all an inside (and outside) job anyway, we can just let him do his thing… More power to him. Because, whether he knows it or not, his real function is not really to sell the 737 bullcrap to the crowds, but it is to distract and stall and when possible, divide, frustrate and pacify sincere people like you, Craig, by having you and many valuable minds spend their time and energy fighting bogus, distorted and outright dishonest “research” put out there just to create a fake front in the fight for truth. Especially when the said research has very little to add or take away from the actual objective. Which, in my mind would be moving towards eliminating or at least weakening a system and a cabal that is capable of carrying out such things and then managing to cover it up perpetually. And then, we maybe and maybe find out what hit the pentagon.

          1. Perhaps a more accurate wording would have been if I had said “if and what hit the pentagon.” Was that the reason for your focus on the “what”, or am I misreading your question??
            While I’m at it, I’d like to correct all my 737s to 757.

          2. I was concerned that you statement assumed something had hit, which I don’t accept. So, I would change: “… find out what hit the pentagon” to “…find out whether anything hit the Pentagon. And if anything did, what it was.”

  25. Some people of the Q persuasion might have hoped that Trump would step outside the box on this anniversary of 9/11, but instead he’s actually doublin’ down with the deep state, perpetuating Zelikow’s Official Mythology in the safe space of Shanksville, since New Yorkers and Pentagoners really don’t like him.
    But that location was where yet another plane magically plowed into a small smouldering hole without leaving the significant visible wreckage we expect at jetliner crash sites. First responders were more than a bit mystified. But Shanksville, just like the Pentagon’s green lawn, has been totally terraformed to support the ongoing sacred narrative of cognitive dissonance.

    1. Hi Windjammer.
      Even if just as a thought exercise:
      Given the current state of affairs in DC, what do you feel he should have said or done, could have said or done, and what would have been the effect or results of what he may have said or done?

  26. David Chandler addresses me in one of his medley of missives and asks: “Are you open to having your mind changed by persuasive evidence? Have you watched the [Coste] videos of the presentation? If not, let me know when you have and we can talk about it. I don’t want to waste my time until you have done your homework.”
    So despite David Hazan’s understandable stance above, I’m with anyone who says we must persevere, must not give up, must fight the good fight, must remember the importance of repetition as one of the twin pillars of communication (be the communication lies or truth). The other pillar is persuasiveness.
    I don’t duck responding to most people most of the time, however busy I am and whatever the subject—whether my response is necessarily brief, or brief by choice, or whether it is longer, based on a number of factors. So David Chandler, I’ll focus for you mainly on two factors.
    One of those is in fact time, as David Bauer has usefully pinpointed. Time arguably is the most precious resource each of us has. Within real time each of us organizes his or her other resources such as energy, talent, skills, disposition of such money as we may have. My time the last couple of days, for instance, is delimited by my other priorities. In that, I am but typical,
    You are asking me not to waste your time unless I waste a very large amount of my time watching Coste’s chaff—a farrago of misleading minutiae—already watched in part by me and watched in its entirety, and addressed, by other Truthers whom I respect. They have found his work wanting as to relevance and logical continuity and I concluded the same listening to him on 9/11 Truth and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconferences. His slide show approaches absurdity and your making my viewing the videos of it a prerequisite to our holding further dialogue about the Pentagon approaches arrogance.
    Robbing other people of their time is a sort of crime against persons. Doing so deliberately, and in the process misleading them on matters of great import is, in my view, a crime. It is abetted only in that dealing with the time thief they sharpen their intellectual tools and reap rewards of greater insight into what’s at stake, and the nature, tactics and strategies of the thieves.
    This response is later than I planned because indeed I did take more time to go to the Coste material more deeply than I had. With as open a mind as I could manage. This only confirmed my previous reactions. Take the preface or core argument.
    “If contrary evidence is denied or ignored” says Coste, “then the result isn’t science.” Denying or ignoring, are exactly what Coste, you and the rest of your cabal have done, and continue doing to this day, repeatedly and knowingly, concerning the Pentagon. So your results, as Coste unintentionally points out, are not scientific.
    Early in the Coste production it’s high soundings generalizations. The first introduction of a specific example is Jim Hoffman’s describing the initial location of wire spools. This is also an initial example of the introduction of a minor issue—if indeed it is an issue at all—rather than an elephantine issue such as the too-small-sized hole for a Boeing 757 to make. Fooling with spooling is a distraction, is misdirecting, is suggesting the location of the spools has as much, or greater, evidentiary weight than the size of the hole in the Pentagon façade, to take one major example.
    The next specific example of an issue claimed to be of high or new or determining significance is the “severing/displacement of the tree at column 16.” The spools and the tree and the following specifics are comical in their irrelevance compared with reams of evidence of no 757 impact. Nobody has previously addressed the tree, Coste says. If that is true (I don’t know whether it is) the most obvious reason would be that the tree is ludicrously irrelevant, not a telling detail, its significance invented.
    He promises to focus mostly on physical evidence. At the 8:35 mark we’re told of “too many people” hearing “no plane at the Pentagon.” Some evidence! And then this vague cohort, he claims, therefore leaps to the conclusion “that the 9/11 Truth movement is incompetent and misguided.” This is a reference, without admitting it, to a tiny fraction of the 9/11 Truth movement having claimed that no planes struck the twin towers, but rather that holograms, for instance, were used to simulate planes.
    The further assumption is that this is loony (with which I agree), and so—another assumption—anyone claiming that, in another case, no plane struck an architectural structure would be loony too.
    And—bogus conclusion reached—it’s a bad thing for members of the 9/11 Truth movement to believe no large jet impacted the Pentagon on 9/11.
    It’s an incorrect statement to say that 9/11 anniversary remembrances are centred on the Pentagon. On the contrary they continue, as they always have, to centre on the twin towers, with less emphasis on the Pentagon and Pennsylvania, and virtually zero attention let alone emphasis on WTC Building 7.
    This I personally watched tonight on The National, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s flagship news program. The co-hosts followed the official line to a T, and the emphasis once again was on New York, with a brief statement about the Pentagon and a bit more about Shanksville, since Trump unveiled something there.
    Coste says: “(presumably) past discussions ignored vast amounts of evidence.” That’s what his and the cabal’s total approach delivers. This is an attempt at clever masking. By clearly naming an illicit approach (ignoring or misrepresenting evidence) he and you apparently think that no one could imagine you would be engaging in exactly this illicit approach yourselves. Well many people can imagine that. Only they don’t need to imagine it. They can see it with their own eyes.
    The second factor I imagine you’re familiar with. It’s the concept of “one thin slice” referred to in Malcolm Gladwell’s second book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking (2005) “…[in which he] … presents in popular science format research from psychology and behavioral economics on the adaptive unconscious: mental processes that work rapidly and automatically from relatively little information. It considers both the strengths of the adaptive unconscious, for example in expert judgment, and its pitfalls, such as stereotypes.” (Wikipedia)
    From the ‘Net: “Specifically, thin-slicing is a term used in psychology and philosophy to describe the ability to find patterns in events based only on “thin slices”, or narrow windows, of experience. … The first recorded use of the term was in 1992 by Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal in a meta-analysis in the Psychological Bulletin.”
    The Pentagon is a perfect example of valid application of this approach. To begin with, stereotyping is ineligible as a pitfall. The case of the Pentagon, while not unique in the category of false flag operations, is unique otherwise. From the time it was built, the Pentagon had not suffered such destruction and indeed was safeguarded all along by numerous pieces of equipment and systems meant to prevent just such an event.
    It was evident from the time that Theirry Meyssan’s “Hunt the Boeing” image was distributed, soon after 9/11, that the hole in the Pentagon was initially, and remained, too small to accommodate a strike by a large transport category aircraft. I emphasize that it is reasonable to stop right there, applying the “one thin slice” concept, in determining that the official Pentagon story is a lie.
    But going beyond the reasonable to the unassailable regarding the Pentagon is a tall pile of slices, although it would be wrong to term all of them thin. There’s the lack of airplane parts such as engine cores being retrieved from the building. “On and on” fairly describes the many other anomalies, impossibilities and absurdities of the official account. The confusing trivia trotted out by you, Wayne Coste and the other members of your cabal, when deconstructed, qualify as a remarkably tall stack of thin and thick slices. Not only regarding what happened and did not happen at the Pentagon on 9/11—ostensibly your and the others’ focus—but as or more importantly, what you and your campaign are about.
    Most of us in the ranks of the 9/11 Truth movement, such as those who have signed onto the “No 757” list, possess decent decision-making capabilities, sufficient acquaintanceship with the requirements of evidence, reasonable knowledge concerning language and logic, increasing familiarity with the latest findings in psychology, enough accumulated life experience and even a good grasp of the principles of scientific inquiry, to assess and weigh all factors and arrive at conclusions regarding what did and did not happen at the Pentagon on 9/11.
    Because it is so open-and-shut that the crashing of heavy transport category aircraft into the Pentagon could not have, and did not, occur on 9/11, considering all the evidence, including your cherry-picked evidence and your corresponding omissions, we rightfully determine that necessarily watching Coste’s absurd picture show would be a waste of our time—just as valuable as anyone’s. So our thoughts quite naturally turn to the tactics, strategies, aims and objectives and motives of those who seek, and succeed so often, to waste our time and sow confusion and worse within our ranks.
    And so we come to you, David. And find that your claim of being a disinterested scientist rings hollow, very hollow. And we have to leave it at that, lacking documentation (as would be expected) as to your aims and objectives and motives, except that, as the old saying goes, your actions speak louder than your words.

    1. Wow, Barrie. You are quite the wordsmith. That was as entertaining to read as it was illuminating.
      Just to pre-empt what a “debunker” might do, which is to take one of your appearingly (but not truly) flawed arguments where you say:

      It was evident from the time that Theirry Meyssan’s “Hunt the Boeing” image was distributed, soon after 9/11, that the hole in the Pentagon was initially, and remained, too small to accommodate a strike by a large transport category aircraft. I emphasize that it is reasonable to stop right there, applying the “one thin slice” concept, in determining that the official Pentagon story is a lie.

      Even though your next paragraph goes further, the Chandlers will stop reading right there, quote what I’m highlighting, and say “See??? This shows how damaging disinformation is! It was an early incorrect talking point triggered by Meyssan… The firefighter foam was obscuring the REAL hole which was 90 ft wide on the 1st floor…”
      In which case you have to be prepared to respond about how if that’s true, the engines would have burrowed themselves into the ground and caused significant foundation damage, and how the 90 ft wide swath of damage includes support columns that are still intact, how there are windows intact that should have been broken by the tail, etc…

  27. Good point and possibly a good prediction, Adam. Rather than my writing that the hole in the Pentagon was “too small,” I should have written that the hole was “inconsistent in many important ways with a hole that a 757 would make.” That’s closer to the hole truth.

    1. It is inconsistent with that to be sure. But you’re not wrong when you say the hole wasn’t big enough. It wasn’t. But Chandler and Coste want us to focus on incorrect claims of the hole being 16 feet as if debunking that means the plane had room to enter the building. It didn’t.

  28. If Chandler truly wanted “dialogue” as he protests that he does what is preventing him from accepting a properly moderated debate of the facts with CIT? What possible excuse could there be for refusing such a debate? What possible explanation is there for Chandler to have refused for so many years now to address the many issues raised in CIT’s rebuttal of his and Cole’s paper?
    If David Chandler wants dialogue then he has missed some very large steps in the dialogue process:
    1: CIT released their findings.
    2: Chandler and Cole write their paper challenging those findings.
    3: CIT responds with a detailed, thorough, and persuasive deconstruction of those challenges.
    4: (Here is the missing step) in a “dialogue”.
    5: Chandler and Coste reassert the old challenges and add a few new challenges.
    6: Craig McKee, myself, CIT, and many others deconstruct those old challenges again and deconstruct the new challenges going so far as to debate Coste (defeating him soundly). McKee writes numerous articles further deconstructing those old and new challenges.
    7: (Here is another missing step) in a “dialogue”.
    8: Chandler and Coste present their challenges again as though they have never been deconstructed and thoroughly rebutted.
    9: Chandler insists we need to address his and Coste’s materials before any true “dialogue” can take place.
    There is something very wrong with this picture.

    1. Good point Adam! With this cabal, the communication is wholly one way. They have no interest in learning, they were most likely given their talking points by their handlers, and they never budge or admit a single point like real truthers who are able to change their minds when confronted with compelling evidence.

  29. The wall was limestone, brick, and concrete.
    14-24 inches thick, with a sheet of kevlar embedded.
    It was 14 inches where the impact took place. The 24 inches is where the built-on pillars jut in and out on the side of the alleged impact.
    The EXACT SECTION THAT WAS ALLEGEDLY STRUCK (WING TIP TO WING TIP) WAS THE ONLY SECTION that was renovated to be “blast-resistant” – as in for a truck bomb. It was not built to be “757-resistant”. I personally think the kevlar and blast-resistant reinforcing was for the explosion that happened inside outwardly and potentially right outside the hole. I believe the kevlar and reinforcement helped hold the poorly made plane shape before that section collapsed.

  30. In case you missed it, David Chandler…
    Hi David,
    When are you going to interview the multiple witnesses we interviewed about which path or side of the former Citgo gas station the plane was on? Did you speak with Sgt Lagasse?
    How many witnesses have you interviewed? How many have you interviewed that were in a prime position to watch the plane approach and to determine which side of the gas station the plane was on? How many of those are on your “witness list”?
    Do you agree that a plane on the north of citgo path can’t hit the light poles?
    Do you agree that a north of citgo flight path implicates Lloyde England?
    So you understand the history. This was ALL my research. I got Craig Ranke involved and he was able to do a significant amount of the legwork (with and without me) based on my research which eventually turned into OUR research and investigation. I am the witness expert. I have exhaustively and personally debunked nearly every single witness and not one single witness that you have presented details a south of Citgo approach. Many of your witnesses couldn’t even see the Pentagon from their POV.
    Remember this ALL started, because in 2003 a very pissed off Sgt Lagasse, who believed there was an airliner that struck the pentagon, told researcher Dick Eastman that he was on the “starboard side” of the plane while he was refueling at the Citgo. This is what started me researching what he saw. This is what drove me to fly out to Arlington with the Loose Change crew and confirm or refute what he saw. And one after another, witness after witness, confirmed what he saw – the north of the Citgo, banking flight path.
    Your obsession with us is ridiculous and your innuendo and accusations about us being govt agents is disgusting. We have delivered the strongest evidence proving an inside job on silver platter complete with witnesses who can be subpoenaed and an actual accomplice to the crime and all you can do is spit in the face of it.
    I’ll leave you with this:
    “Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that the jet kept on going.” ~Erik Dihle, Arlington Cemetery Supervisor

  31. From Chandler:

    What do you know about reconstructed memories? Which would be a more prominent memory, seeing a plane hit the Pentagon or remembering years later the exact path of the plane before the primary memory was formed?

    The path of the plane, of course!

      1. But this isn’t about the general claim of a low-flying plane in the area approaching the Pentagon.
        It’s about one of the specific details of the flight path
        I don’t recall Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, CNN, Fox News or for that matter Tim Russert on Meet the Press, feeding millions of people specific details about any flight path.
        But these government and media entities did tell the entire world that a plane smashed into the Pentagon, so naturally this would color people’s perceptions, including and especially witnesses who were ducking, flinching, or running the other way for cover and for their lives. These witnesses are not people who just hit a golf ball and are peeling their eyes intently on it to see exactly where it will land. So the mind fills in the blanks.
        Sergeants Lagasse and Brooks specifically said that they had never spoken to each other about the details of that flight path, but upon seeing that they corroborated each other, both acknowledged that they felt good about that corroboration, since it validated what they thought they remembered.
        They had no idea that the north side flight path was fatal to the official story.
        Indeed one of the reasons why Lagasse was so eager to give the fine details of what he saw is because he was really pissed off over the early truther theory of a missile, so he was more than eager to go on camera and explain in real depth how he saw a plane, and where it was, and all the other fine details.
        He went on even further to say that the one and only thing that could possibly be up for debate is just exactly how far north of the gas station the plane actually was.
        Your “camp” has actually seized upon the fact that the witnesses did not draw the exact same line as proof that they should all be thrown out.
        And even more nonsensically, that we should conclude, ergo, that the official flight path is correct.
        “Since some witnesses drew the flight path as being more north than others, each and every single one of them is wrong and the plane flew south of Citgo.”
        What utter nonsense.
        Do give it up, Chandler. I actually do not think you are an agent, I think that social dynamics within the movement combined with an over zealous concern for -perceived- credibility is why you do what you do. You believe the outside world will think the movement looks stupid if it publicly believes a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon, so when the day comes that the government releases that color, hi res video of a plane slamming into the Pentagon on the official flight path, you can be the one to stand on your soap box and say to the world, “I tried to warn them about this!!!” You cite the April gallop lawsuit as proof of bad activism. You don’t want such bad activism and weak evidence to tarnish the pool of good activism and strong evidence.
        But honestly, do you remember the OJ trial? Remember how solid the evidence was against him? If they were able to throw doubt on the way Mark Fuhrman handled the evidence, a defense team could surely throw doubt on the way Steven Jones handled the nanothermite evidence. And they wouldn’t need to prove that he was a racist like Mark Fuhrman. Just that he is a Mormon, and believes Jesus visited the Americas, and hence has a tendency to believe weird things.

      2. I have read the whole discussion and am disappointed. Fist of all it should be acknowledged that we are in no position to offer a rigorous proof that (H1) No plane hit Pentagon or (H2) A plane hit Pentagon. Both sides should admit that they really do not know. Little more humility, pls.
        As far as the 9/11 event there is sufficient evidence to prove in court of law and court of public opinion that almost all of official narrative must be false, Most important of the proofs is the elegant demonstration (done by Mr. Chandler) of a free fall of the entire roof of WTC7 for over 2 seconds. This fact demonstrates controlled demolition beyond reasonable doubt. This fact alone is enough to destroy the whole official narrative.
        What happened to Pentagon we do not know and most likely will not know unless some radical political change will occur.
        The strongest argument against the official Pentagon story as well as that of Mr. Chandler’s hypothesis is that government did not release a persuasive footage of plane hitting Pentagon.
        The 9/11 truth community should concentrate more on improving communication and medium of presentation already know facts to increase the range and reach of their message to win the case in the court of public opinion. What I see here is sectarian divisiveness that is destructive to the cause. You all should admit that you do not know.

  32. This article, “WHY DO WE TOLERATE A ‘TRUTHER’ CABAL THAT CONSTANTLY PROPS UP ALMOST ALL THE 9/11 PENTAGON OFFICIAL STORY?” By Craig McKee, September 4, 2018 at Truth & Shadows Blog and comment exchange that follow are insightful and much appreciated. Thank you once again to Craig McKeee, to Truth & Shadows Blog, and to the participants in this discussion!
    A friend of mine claims that Jenkins’ “Pentagon Plane Puzzle” did not change his opinion about whether or not a large jet hit the Pentagon on 9/11/01. Yet he claims that the Coste-Chandler “Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon” has changed his opinion, and that he withdrew from the private Facebook group “No 757 Hit the Pentagon” set up to discuss Pentagon evidence and the methods employed by this active minority in the 9/11 truth movement to defame, ridicule, and exclude other perspectives while posturing behind a smokescreen of “scientificism” and claiming the “scientific method” and principled high ground.
    These 6 items were offered to my friend to evaluate. He was asked why certain eye witnesses are omitted and others, such as the taxi cab driver named Lloyd England, were included in the latest exercise in sophistry from the Pentagon Jet Plane Theory campaigners:
    (1) 9-11 Eye Witnesses Questioning the Jet Plane into the Pentagon Story
    April Gallup – Was there a bomb in the Pentagon? (4:33) William Lewis YouTube Channel. Now in the “9/11 & Other False Flag Investigations” playlist at “Truth Troubadour” YouTube Channel. Chandler says that April Gallop was “laughed out of court” as if US courts are the arbiters of truth about 9/11! Yet April Gallop was a Pentagon worker and eye-witness survivor who said there were bombs, that she saw no plane parts, and that the FBI visited her in the hospital to tell her what to say, all of which she considers treasonous.
    (2) 9/11 Truth: Pentagon Eyewitness Bob Pugh Tells His Story (10 m 40) Henry Bloggit YouTube Channel. Now in the “9/11 & Other False Flag Investigations” playlist at “Truth Troubadour” YouTube Channel. Why is he not included in their analysis?
    (3) Why don’t Coste and Chandler include Pentagon eye-witness Aziz ElHallan, who showed up at FOX News on 9/11/01 showing an alleged large piece of the Flight 77 jet? You can hear him claim to have taken as a souvenir piece of the plane from the crime scene where most of the plane was “sucked into the Pentagon so we saw no more plane parts”. He even shows the alleged jet plane piece! See: Pentagon witness Aziz ElHallan, Fox, 9/11, 16:39 (5 m 00) Published on Aug 3, 2010 at 11septembervideos YouTube Channel. Now in the “9/11 & Other False Flag Investigations” playlist at “Truth Troubadour” YouTube Channel.
    (4) “9/11 – Pentagon – Official Path Witness Lloyde England” (5 m 22) NativeInterface YouTube Channel. https://youtu.be/cIM1T4gy6pE
    Lloyde England was the taxicab driver who claimed that his cab was hit by the long section of a light pole that was allegedly hit by the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Yet the pole that he says smashed his windshield did no damage to him or the hood of his car. This video has excerpts from the documentary by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) National Security Alert – The 9/11 Pentagon Event. In a moment of confidentiality Lloyd England states: “This is a world thing”… “I’m a small person”… “I’m not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people, people who have money and all that kind of stuff”… “yeah, we came across the highway together…it was planned.”
    (5) Since so much of the 9/11 story does not withstand scrutiny, there is good reason and context to suspect staging of items and witnesses at all of the crime scenes. Now there is even more reason to suspect the integrity and reliability of the alleged “scientific method” of this latest Coste-Chandler presentation when one considers the “Full Context” of the 9/11 crime and cover-up story.
    “The Pentagon Attack In Context” interview with Tod Fletcher (RIP) on “Guns & Butter”Radio Show by host Bonnie Faulkner on 9/03/14. I was unable to find the show in the KPFA Archives due to the recent cancellation of her show for airing speakers critical of Zionism. But fortunately what I want to share with this No 757 at the Pentagon group is preserved at SoundCloud by Guns & Butter! Tod Fletcher was a devoted friend and editor for David Ray Griffin, the dean of 9/11 investigative journalism. But Tod was an amazing force of nature in his prodigious research and by producing interviews on his “9/11 In Context” radio show, or being interviewed himself. When Griffin was hospitalized he had Tod Fletcher fill in for him when interviews were requested. We note well that David Ray Griffin in Chapter 7 of his 2011 book “Ten Years After: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed” vetted witnesses used by the Pentagon Jet Plane Theorists as “elite connected” to the military and the mainstream corporate media. Yet they do not address his criticism made in 2011. Why not?
    (6) Chandler’s Failed Pentagon Methodology by Craig McKee, December 29, 2017 Truth & Shadows Blog. The same selective and specious methodology is employed in the making of “Explaining the Evidence at the Pentagon” as if it had not been exposed before.

  33. So Chandler, if you are so correct about the top of light pole number 2 being what struck Lloyd’s cab, why does the Integrated Consultants video (cited by practically EVERYONE on your side – Hoffman, Legge, etc.), which is an animation that supports the official version, declare that it was light pole number one?
    And why does it specifically show photographs of light pole number 2?
    Chandler says in this very comment thread, here in 2018:
    Mr. England DREW the large piece of the pole and also clarified it verbally.
    MARQUIS: And, to clarify, if it was the large piece of base of the pole…
    ENGLAND: Yeah, it was the large piece, the large piece was sticking out across the hood.

    1. I will not hold my breath for Chandlers answer because there is no answer and I am convinced he is not here for a legitimate discussion of the facts in the first place. There is no question about which piece of which pole Lloyd claims struck his taxi and there never was any question. Coste made it up out of whole cloth to muddy the waters on purpose. The photos of Lloyd’s cab also show the large section of pole #1 right in front of his vehicle right where Lloyd said he and a “silent stranger” put it after supposedly removing it from his cab. Chandler and Coste are pushing such flagrantly obvious disinformation that I am convinced it is not accidental or an honest disagreement. They MUST know what they are saying is completely and provably false. To me there can be no greater proof that the cabal’s agenda is not finding and exposing the truth. To me this whole laughable charade is a bright blinking red light flashing in everyone’s eyes saying Chandler and Coste are cointelpro. No way this BS passes any honest persons smell test.

      1. Chandler talks about dogmatism, but his very first foray into the Pentagon in 2011 is what is dogmatic. Jim Hoffman has been dogmatic about a plane hitting the Pentagon since 2004. CIT and the existence of the North of Citgo (NoC) flight path didn’t even emerge until 2006. Yet in an email I saw from Ken Jenkins a couple years ago, Ken extolled Jim Hoffman as being an original researcher who looked at “all” the witnesses and what they said, going back to “2004, many years before the rest of us caught up.” Well gee, I guess Craig Ranke and Also Marquis wasted thousands of dollars and man hours going through every available witness list, attempting to track every witness down they could and confirm they were genuine, and have them agree to an independent interview in order to find out find specific details. Because, from behind his computer screen on the West Coast, the infallible Jim Hoffman had it all figured out in 2004!
        What sealed the deal for me that Hoffman and his wife Victoria, Arabesque, and their regular foot soldiers from a decade ago were COINTELPRO, is the fact that they initially dismissed the first “PentaCon” video as having only 4 eyewitnesses contradicting the official flight path and that this was a very small number given the total number of witnesses. At the time I remember thinking to myself, “fair point.” Followed by: “I’m glad we have careful responsible researchers like Jim.”
        But when I saw how between 2006 and 2009, CIT had found many more witnesses who confirmed the same path, culminating with the release of their presentation National Security Alert, I was very impressed indeed.
        Much to my astonishment, Jim did not react the way I would expect a person to react. Most people would probably react: “I was originally skeptical of your work because I thought 4 eyewitnesses was too low a number to draw any conclusions. But wow, you guys have produced so many witnesses that I would say that this flight path is now confirmed beyond a shadow of doubt.” Indeed David Griffin did say this in his blurb of praise (endorsement) for National Security Alert.
        But Hoffman and Company did not do this. Their opposition to that evidence and its conclusion increased proportionally when the evidence for the flight path got stronger. Rather than relenting and admitting that maybe the official flight path is false and that the damage path was staged, they went into Full Throttle mode by emailing the people who endorsed CIT and trying to convince them they had been fooled by con men. (Actually it was the wife Victoria who used the con men line. Jim on the other hand insisted that anyone who believes in the flyover scenario must be high on crack. So which is it? Genius snake oil salesmen, or crackhead Truthers?)
        They also went into overdrive voting down the comments of CIT supporters at 911blogger.com in order to make it look to the casual observer as if the entire movement were united in favor of a plane hitting the Pentagon and against the NoC evidence. Proven fraud like Cosmos, Julian Ware, and Erik Larson were participants in this campaign. Larson even worked hand-in-hand with the people at JREF (now Int Skeptics forum) to defend the official flight path, and he elevated himself up to moderator status at 911 blogger.
        At that point there was no doubt that a massive COINTELPRO operation was going on to muddy the NoC flightpath evidence.

        1. Lost in this argument is plain common sense. As a pilot with more experience than Hani Hanjor I can say with near certainty that Hani Hanjor, an amateur pilot at best, turned down twice in check rides for poor flying skills in a Cessna trainer, flying a jumbo jet in the manner described at a speed at sea level of 530 mph without leaving a gouge mark or any debris on the Pentagon lawn is laughable! Impossible? No, but I would have a better chance of winning a lottery buying one ticket. Maybe Chandler thinks that a kid who flunked his first drivers test could win the Indy 500 the following month. Not me. Evidence in a court of law, including legitimate time stamped videos will convert me, not Chandler’s BS or anyone elses.

  34. David Chandler, in case you revisit this site, I suggest you read the article below from Pilots for 9/11 Truth. It is titled “Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Not From American Airlines 757.” You should spend time reading and watching videos provided by the professional pilots on this web site. If you have an open mind and not an agenda, you would soon realize that Hani Hanjor could not possibly have flown a jumbo jet in the manner described in the 9/11 Commission Report. In fact, he was turned down twice on check rides when he tried to rent a single engine Cessna trainer for “poor flying skills.” If you prefer technical evidence, not emotional opinions like the above, the article provides plenty of that to support their hypothesis and confirm Craig and Barrie’s outstanding work. You are on the wrong side of this sir. The question is why?

  35. The information in the article below would be, in my view, impossible to challenge. It would also prove that David Chandler’s claim that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon, is false.The author is a retired Air Force maitenenace officer with impeccable credentials. He states that every aircraft has several parts with serial numbers that are entered into the plane’s logbook so it is easy to identify the plane in case of a crash. He states that not a single part with its identifying serial number matched any of the four airplanes that allegedly crashed that day. Everyone should read this.

  36. Good evening. I’m quite nostalgic reading this thread. I withdrew from involvement online a few years ago as it was literally sucking up my time – which of course was always the intention is certain parties.
    One of the final acts I oversaw was the Hemphill interviews where he backed up the route given by the other witnesses in a sensible, measured interview quickly followed up by Jeff Hill’s desperate attempts to get him to backtrack. If Chandler really wants to pin his colours to Hill being a model interviewer and CIT being crazed loons then don’t read his interpretation of it – just listen to the interviews. That’s all. Because Mr Chandler I will never, ever, read another word you say if you have just a modicum of backing for Jeff Hill. Are you actually serious? Not just having a laugh? You want me to watch your 5 hour video and refute it and yet you promote Hill? You really are a joke ….
    Anyway back in the old days I would debate with the late Dr Legge on the same topic and myself and others were amazed that such an intelligent man seemed totally incapable of logical thought? I suspect Mr Chandler also struggles with logic.
    If I was doing the project plan for 9/11 I’d make sure that I positioned my people as the leaders of the truth movement. And I would keep on producing new characters as heroes. And these characters would have endless time to post online, make videos etc etc ….
    Keep fighting the good fight Craig and all the other logical thinkers. Also good to see Aldo still around.

    1. KP, fantastic to hear from you! Your contributions are missed.
      And you have said it all perfectly. Chandler’s support for Hill over Ranke shows at the very least his gross bias, and at the most that he is deliberately obscuring the truth.
      I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but I did a complete evisceration of Chandler’s latest hit piece in December. If you haven’t seen it, I’d love your comment there also.
      I hope we’ll see more from you (without letting it take over your life again!). People who can think logically are badly needed.

      1. Hey Craig,
        Agree with you 100% on that article. It’s all coming back to me now. Hill’s photo etc.
        No accident that the Hemphill interviews by CIT set the attack dogs on them. Hemphill was the one always quoted as having the perfect view of the flight path … but what nobody knew was his exact position in the Navy Annexe. Once Craig established that it was clear that Hemphill’s account was fatal to the official story. Craig’s interview was very precise, polite and measured. Given the pressure he must have felt having tried to get the interview for so long, it was outstanding.
        That photo and my discussion of it that followed with the late Dr Legge made me realise what we are up against. Multiple highly intelligent, articulate people all being totally illogical in exactly the same way over the same issue. If it looks like a duck etc etc.
        Just seen the latest article on the site and my current interest is the loosening grip the mainstream media propaganda has on people. Problem is that it is loosening too slowly .. but with every case such as Skripal (which so many people have called for the bollocks that it is) the edifice crumbles just a bit more.

  37. I talked to April Gallop. She said a plane didn’t hit the building and her and her son were helped out the alleged impact hole.

    I made a video years back demonstrating how the c-ring exit hole had all the signatures of a wall breaching kit.

    When Chandler and Costs can convince April Gallop a 757 came inside the place she was that morning, then i will consider what they have to say.

    The truth movement had April Gallop on their side from day 1 and they allowed them to get distracted with the book tour version of the Truth who profits very nicely to this day off of this event.

  38. I cannot tolerate a cabal of ‘truthers’ that refuse to open their minds to logic and the only cohesive study of what happened at the Pentagon. I have made the mistake of thinking us ‘truthers’ have open minds, but it is CLEARLY demonstrated by some in these comments that to be considered “on the right side” is to believe in a foregone conclusion that a large plane didn’t hit the Pentagon — in the same manner that NIST made their foregone conclusions that no explosives or incendiaries were used at the WTC, admittedly without even testing for them.
    To attack David Chandler and Wayne Coste, naming them as being ‘on the wrong side’ is a dead give-away as to the intent here. Maybe you also believe there were no planes at the WTC? In that case, you would obviously oppose any theory involving any large planes at all. But ask yourself, if you were planning the 9/11 attacks, would you use a small plane or drone, or missile, or whatever and then try to push a cover story that a large plane hit the Pentagon? That would be far too risky as pertains to possible eyewitnesses, perhaps some having a camera handy? And why not use the same M.O. at the Pentagon as at the WTC?
    And do you think that David Chandler would spend such a huge amount of time demonstrating how the WTC buildings were destroyed using controlled demolition techniques, and directly challenging NIST, just to gain your confidence, in order to then turn on you by supporting a study of the Pentagon that just happens to agree in part with the official mainstream lie? No, it doesn’t add up. David Chandler obviously believes 9/11 was not what the government entities and mainstream media have told us.
    Why on Earth would you refuse to consider a large plane at the Pentagon, especially when that theory fits all the evidence in a self-corroborating and logical manner? Is it because you think that being in agreement with one aspect of the official conspiracy theory automatically makes you a supporter of the perpetrators? God forbid if something the government/mainstream media said turned out to be true!!! (Except, of course, that the RADAR tends to indicate the planes were under computerized control during their final approaches at the WTC and the Pentagon.)
    To cling to theories based on early, incomplete evidence, such as the “20-foot hole” that turned out to be on the second floor, with a column still in place dead-center, ignoring the 96-foot wide hole in the first floor, is simply ignoring the new evidence that disproves theories derived from a lack of evidence. But as we know, thanks to confirmation bias, the first thing you hear is what you tend to believe, unless you can keep an open mind.
    The lack of evidence early on led us astray. The lack of evidence may have been intentional in order for people to come up with varied speculations, making anyone seeking the truth to appear as a nut-job. And sure enough, there are at least seven contradictory theories about the Pentagon. Withholding evidence results in unfounded speculation. It’s not hard to imagine that the perpetrators of 9/11 know that.
    I am not on anyone’s “side”, okay? To be on a “side” is to be biased. It is all I can do to restrain myself from obscenities in calling out all you “no large planers”. You are demonstrating total bias and a foregone conclusion that ignores evidence. To be scientific and open-minded, one cannot just ignore a study as comprehensive and logical as Coste’s and still consider oneself as unbiased.
    The road to the truth is rife with wrong turns. That’s how determining the truth works. We devise a theory based on observations, then we test it against the evidence, then we draw our conclusions, then we find more evidence, then we CHANGE our theories and conclusions based on the new evidence. Or we ignore the evidence, like NIST did.
    All theories must be given equal consideration and must pass scrutiny. That’s why a report as coherent and self-corroborating as Coste’s carries much more weight than anything else I have yet to hear about the Pentagon — nothing comes even close!
    Disagreements among the truth-seeking community are to be expected, but to attack one another just because we disagree is absolutely counter-productive to revealing the truth and casts doubt on our cause in the minds of those who believe the official propaganda. Personal attacks have no place in scientific methodology. Open-mindedness is critical to our cause. Let the science and evidence lead us, not our personal beliefs and biases that we find so hard to admit we have.

Leave a Reply

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