It’s time to face the cancer growing in the 9/11 Truth movement


By Craig McKee

In the 9/11 Truth movement, it seems nothing can be taken at face value. People who say they are part of the movement launch vicious attacks against others they should have common ground with. It’s over the top, and I don’t buy it.

Debate in the 9/11 Truth movement has gone well beyond being spirited – and even contentious. It’s now mean-spirited and destructive. There are clearly people who say they’re fighting for the cause who appear to have no interest in finding the truth. They are only concerned, it appears, with ripping the movement apart.

The question is whether genuine, sincere, and serious people are going to let it happen.

These individuals seem to focus their rage (real or contrived) on the work of Citizen Investigation Team (Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis). They’ll also go animal on anyone who shows any openness to CIT’s position. This group attacks CIT and its supporters with such obsessive regularity that I no longer accept the sincerity of what they’re saying.

That is not to say you can’t criticize CIT and its research. Of course, their conclusions can be, and should be, scrutinized. But it seems to me that most of the attacks are not refutations of the research; they are vicious ad hominem attacks that don’t ring true.

CIT’s position is basically that witnesses they have interviewed confirm that the airliner that approached the Pentagon flew on the north side of the Citgo gas station, making it impossible for it to hit the five downed light poles. They believe that this makes the official story crumble. They cite the C ring hole in the Pentagon (which depends on the official “south of Citgo” path). They also cite light poles that would have been in the way had the plane hit the building on a north of Citgo path. They conclude that explosives must have been planted in the building and that the plane must have flown over the building and not into it.

The anti-CIT gang claim to believe that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. But for some bizarre reason they think that the official story is right on the money as it applies to the Pentagon. That’s really odd. And if you don’t agree with them, be prepared to be attacked personally. Anyone new to the movement is only welcomed if they have the “right” opinion. If you don’t, look out.

We’re told that CIT is divisive, that its members are liars. They supposedly run from debates all over the place. It is suggested by these “truthers” that Ranke and Marquis don’t care who they step on to make their claims. Witnesses like Lloyde England and Mike Walter seem to be of more concern to CIT’s  critics than the victims of the 9/11 “attacks”. They go on and on about how improper it was to be tough on England when he was good enough to let Ranke and Marquis into his home. Oh brother.

Apparently, you can’t question the credibility of any witness account. This, the CIT-haters claim, is terribly unfair to the witness no matter how ridiculous their account might be. This is especially true if the person is likable, non-threatening and elderly as in the case of Mr. England.

So how do the CIT-haters justify their incessant attacks on the group? They claim that CIT’s conclusions are so “loony” that they will subject the movement to ridicule. These individuals seem to behave as if CIT and its views are a cancer that must be cut out. And they’re willing to go to any lengths to do this, no matter how much this in itself might damage the cause.

I believe there is indeed a cancer to be excised, but it exists in the form of the rabid CIT-haters who will happily destroy the movement from within rather than get on to another topic.

Here are a few examples – out of context to be sure – of the kind of discourse I’m talking about. These are from SnowCrash (real name Michiel de Boer) from the forum 911oz.net. There’s more like it on the largest 9/11 site, 9/11Blogger. And there are several venomous commentators who echo Mr. Crash as if they were small dogs at his side waiting for a treat. Over to you, Mr. Crash:

  • Hey genius, planes flew into buildings on 9-11. Some folks have a vested self interest in not admitting that. Aint figured that out yet huh sherlock? But I think you like being conned.
  • Let’s take this real slowly, P4T errand boy, since you have reading comprehension problems.
  • Do you get it now, idiot?
  • I know that, you godawful idiot, I cited the article.
  • You don’t need an X-ray vision machine, you need a brain transplant.
  • There is no wiggle room for liars, sorry. Not only did the plane not ‘fly over’, it was a 757.
  • Nah, you’re a liar (Like Craig the paparazzo) who defends other lying liars.
  • If I were to imagine the Pentagon liar crowd as a pyramid, critters like you dwell at the very bottom. You’re doing the legwork for the mountebanks up top.
  • There is no room for liars in this movement. We’re going to clean up these lies and deal with it ourselves. I’ll be damned if debunkers do it for us.
  • No, as a tabloid hack, you’re supposed to cast aspersions on people. And you’re doing a heckuva job there, Craig. Just what this movement needs. More outrageously false gossip from quacks.
  • You are a shameless, disgusting liar, who refuses to rectify his lies.
  • We’ve now established you lie intentionally.
  • I will rectify something though: you’re not amiable. You’re a lying weasel, in fact.
  • You’re another propaganda amplifier for CIT. Make pleas for ‘respect’ all you want. You don’t respect Mike Walter and Lloyd England, or what they’ve seen and been through. You label them (implicitly or explicitly) accomplices to mass murder. You label them agents. Don’t lecture about respect and rationality.
  • You’re not part of this movement, and neither is CIT.
  • You can’t even go one comment without quoting out of context, lying, or defending liars.
  • I have to admit, I didn’t quite trust you from the start.

If this guy thinks I’m a quack, I take that as a compliment. When he starts agreeing with me I’ll get worried.

Mr. SnowCrash actually has the gall to say I’m “not part of this movement, and neither is CIT.” The sheer arrogance of this… geez, I almost called him an idiot. Don’t want to stoop to his level.

Actually I don’t think he’s an idiot; I think he knows exactly what he’s doing.

22 comments

    1. Yes, I’ve read the email exchange about that. Apparently, he’s happier bashing Mr. Ranke when he can’t respond directly. By the way, I LOVE your falseflagburner name. Beautiful.

  1. “Semaphores for 9/11 Truth” is a phrase I coined to illustrate the phenomena of “me thinkest thou doth protest too much” attacks against certain people and topics. Their semaphore flag waving may read as a wave-off, what it really flags though for the astute reader is something to investigate further on their own.

    Another way to think of Semaphores for truth is as consistently bad critics. For example, I’ve known (film) critics whose sensibilities consistently matched mine and whose advice I could trust with as little as a “two-thumbs up” sign. I’ve known other critics whose followed advice consistently enough ended up disagreeing with my sensibilities. But because the latter were consistent, their future advice could be relied on as a semaphore of opposites: do not do what they advise. Inconsistent critics, which most real people are, must have their individual statements weighed individually.

    I was taught in my religious studies about truth and error, and that error was an unreality. As soon as you correct the 3+3=5.7 math error in your endeavor, the error stops having power to negatively affect the outcome. Without power, it seizes to exist on its own, and we certainly shouldn’t dwell on it except that errors must be addressed and corrected (one time) with truth.

    The problem with our times is that we’ve allowed a short-selling mentality, whereby, instead of by hard work and acumen, profit and gain are also obtained by predicting failure and (preferably someone else) experiencing it; odds improve when illegally seeded or assisted with insider information or influence. This applies to 9/11 on many levels. Today, it is well to remember “oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive,” because the web that snares us in foreign wars, shredded rights, mismanaged economies & industries, etc. has deceitful threads still being spun to shore up the original lies and continue with their profit-driven agenda.

    The semaphores fervently wave their flags to direct us away from CIT, away from Dr. Judy Woods, away from nukes, and away from manipulated media footage (part of the “no planes” argument) as if they were math errors that were being addressed and corrected. If there be any truth to this, then the very act of dwelling on the error gives it power. They would be well advised to “turn the other cheek” or “not feed the internet troll” and let the error seize to exist on its own.

    On the other hand, though, truth is eternal. Truth can survive an army of semaphores frantically waving and directing readers to land elsewhere in service or blind loyalty to short-selling and short-sighted govt, business, and financial leaders who are motivated to market and sell the lie, and purposely mislabel truth as error.

    1. I like the film critic analogy. And the more certain people bash other people in the movement, the more I want to know what’s really behind it. The fact that they won’t “turn the other cheek” makes me doubt their motives. I suspect that, at least in some cases, they want to do to the movement what they claim CIT is doing.

      It always makes me uneasy when I see people who supposedly challenge the 9/11 official story but who take shots at “conspiracy theorists” as being akin to crazy people. In their world, we can’t consider nukes, video fakery or other less conventional beliefs about 9/11 without being mocked. A contradiction, I think.

      1. I think it’s long past-due to address the whole concept of this “truth movement” or simply “the Movement” that these self-appointed ThoughtPolice seem to egotistically believe that they are somehow “protecting and serving…”

        1. How/when were they appointed as the ‘leaders of the Movement?’
        2. Was there an election that I somehow missed? When was that exactly?
        3. What is the term limit for a ‘leader of the Movement’ position?
        4. Are there bylaws or perhaps a rulebook of ‘the Movement?’ Where and by whom are these ‘published’ exactly?
        5. So does a committee meet behind closed doors and by secret ballot somehow (in their ‘infinite wisdom’) determine who is included and who/what is ‘excluded’ from this mythical ‘the Movement?’
        6. How does one identify a sanctified member of ‘the Movement?’
        7. Are there photo ID cards or numbers that are issued by ‘the Movement,’ similar to drivers’ licenses?
        8. What is the specific process whereby one is ‘excommunicated’ from ‘the Movement?’
        9. Is there a list of ‘cardinal sins/offenses’ that must never be committed by the exalted members of ‘the Movement?’
        10. Is there a ‘graduated scale’ of ‘transgressions/heresies against the Movement?’ Does it somehow progress from 911blogger downvoting censorship up through banning to exile? What is next- scarlet letters, stoning, boiling oil and other corporal punishments, stockades in the town square, involuntary amputation(s), manila ‘neckties’ and/or other capital punishments perhaps?
        11. ALL this is allegedly in the name of “TRUTH” rather than in the name of conformity, of cliquishness, and of GroupThink? REALLY?

      2. Also, I should have added pillories to my question #10 and titled my Mar 16 comment “The anti-CIT ‘Movement’ Grand Inquisition.”

    2. Dr. Judy Wood openly berates Professor Stephen Jones:
      http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/a/SJ/jones1.html

      As for the “no plane” crew ‘who happen to be’ former Bush Administration, why do they magically have the ability to get uninterrupted air time on Fox News? Who else hinges the debate on a single divisive (strawman) issue while ignoring ALL other 9/11 evidence? Watch ‘no-planer’ show up to discredit a We Are Change event complete with a lizard costume. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC_7YD2vmbA#t=7m20s
      (at the 7 minute 20 second mark)

  2. My statement was in response to Señor El Once’s comment that lumped Dr. Wood in with the CIT. My mind has so far been open to the CIT because:
    A. from what I’ve read they seem to advance logical notions and conclusions,
    B. they do it in a non attacking manner,
    C. their endorsements. http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/praise.html

    HOWEVER, this is not the case with Dr. Judy Wood or Ace Baker. Anyone portraying Dr. Judy as a mere victim of “semaphore flag waving” is demonstrably wrong. Dr. Wood, Alexander Collin “Ace” Baker, and Morgan Reynolds openly ridicule Professor Stephen Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others. For example:
    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/a/SJ/jones1.html

    Perhaps what is more telling is their association with and endorsement of works by infamous provocateur Nico Haupt of the Concordia Foundation. I encourage everyone to look into this. Nico Haupt broadcasts from the ‘Concordia Foundation’ along with Rosalee Grable AKA the Web Fairy. Concordia members and it’s closest associates have cranked out the bulk of YouTube’s “no plane” – “t.v. fakery” content.

    WHO IS NICO HAUPT?
    – Nico Haupt provocateuring in NY

    – Nico Haupt doing the same in LA

    – Haupt’s YouTube channel dedicated making offensive 9/11 clips
    http://www.youtube.com/user/nicoHAUPTSTRASSE

    – “Dr.” Judy Wood with Nico Haupt
    http://drjudywood.blogspot.com/2010/03/tracy-postert-httpwww.html
    – Judy Wood accusing Prof. Stephen Jones of 9/11 involvement:
    http://drjudywood.blogspot.com/2010/03/tracy-postert-httpwww.html

    – Morgan Renyolds saying he talks to Dr. Judy Wood “every day for years” and praises Nico Haupt, Rosalee Grable AKA “The WebFairy” as “colleagues”:
    http://nomoregames.net/2010/06/04/the-real-deal-a-memorial-tribute-to-gerard-holmgren/

    In short I saw Dr. Judy Wood and her associates cast as the victims of needless naysaying and provided the clear evidence that the opposite is the case.

  3. Mrboz, I think originally the concept of truth movement leaders grew up when the Jersey Widows were lobbying for an investigation of 9/11. Others became recognized leaders through founding and organizations such as 911Truth.org and sf911truth and WeAreChange, or through making notable movies, writing books, or doing significant research.

    Different people have different conceptions of the movement. Some, and Craig McKee seems to be one, seem to define it as those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job. I reject this definition because I suspect that it excludes the Jersey widows and excludes many others who may be interested in new investigations of unanswered questions but are reluctant to associate with conspiracy theories.

    There are certain practices that most people would agree are discrediting behavior–murder, child and spousal abuse, lying, harassment, fraud.

    Some of us feel that the interests of the movement are better served if its members abide by certain standards of honesty, logic, evidence, and scholarship. Some of us also feel an obligation to subordinate our own personal wishes and interests to the wishes and interests of the family members who are trying to get answers for their questions.
    Others prioritize their own wishes for personal notoriety.

    1. Brian,

      I agree with you on one point. The truth movement should be broad enough to include anyone who seeks the truth about 9/11. One would presume that if someone is pressing for the truth, they must not feel they’ve been given it so far. Perhaps we can agree that the movement is seeking knowledge that goes beyond what the White House and the mainstream media have given us. I’m not sure how this would exclude the widows or anyone else. If you believe there are unanswered questions, you’re in as far as I’m concerned.

      Whether the Jersey widows want to be associated with those who believe 9/11 was an inside job is a red herring. We all in the movement believe we haven’t been given the whole story. We want to learn the truth, whatever it is. Bringing in a term like “conspiracy theories” is just buying into the official position.

      1. I’m glad you agree, Craig, that it should be not a “9/11 Was an Inside Job!” movement but a “We Have Not Been Told the Truth!” movement.

        Dr. Robert Bowman, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.) put it: “The truth about 9/11 is that we don’t know the truth about 9/11, and we should.”

        Objectively we have to deal with the term “conspiracy theory”, for several reasons.

        1. Unless we are very careful to assert that we are not conspiracy theorists (like AE911Truth does), we are going to be perceived that way.

        2. The official story of 19 hijackers working in concert is itself a conspiracy theory.

        3. Any coverup (such as the redaction of 28 pages in the original congressional report) is a conspiracy

        4. Controlled demolition is a conspiracy theory unless you’re going to claim one person did all three towers

        5. Flyover is a conspiracy theory

        6. “Inside Job” is by definition a conspiracy theory

  4. “it should be not a “9/11 Was an Inside Job!” movement but a “We Have Not Been Told the Truth!” movement.”

    And this is exactly what brought me here. I dont want to know at this point WHO did it, or WHY; I think first we need to establish beyond a doubt that
    1. What actually happened?
    2. Whether or not the events happened in the manner in which they have been told to us (i.e. was it a military plane or commerical plane that hit bldg 2? was it a missile or plane that hit the pentagon?, etc.) and that will lead us to:
    3. Who was lying to us, or being given false information to relay, etc.

    Once we know these things… WHO did it and WHY will lie in front of us like an open book, imo.
    I dont want to hear people jumping to wild conclusions. Lets get the truth first.

    1. This is a complete contradiction of your comment on the “Dump irrelevant Pentagon research” post. There, you wanted us not to get bogged down on details but to look at the big picture. Here, you don’t want to consider who did it or why, you just want to work on the details. Please clear up the apparent inconsistency.

  5. After reading the article and comments so far I have this to say;

    1. What is wrong with ‘conspiracy theory’?

    Is it not more logical than ‘coincidence theory’?

    I have read history from a forensic point of view because I have come to distinguish between what I term as “Lollipop History” and real history, between the official mythology of the academiacs and information left in the margins for political purpose.

    I have studied social engineering and perception manipulation for more than thirty years.

    As I see it, most people enter this discussion of 9/11 with a built in disadvantage: TRUST.
    They have been programmed to trust the “government”.

    Anyone who knows the history of the foundation of this nation knows that the LAST thing the founders of this nation would advise would be to “trust the government”, they in fact were adament to remain vigilant and ever wary of those who came to authority.

    Why does such information and warnings languish in modern Amerika Inc.?
    It is not by happenstance, it is no coincidence.

    A prerequisite course on the history of False Flag operations throughout both US and world history should be supplied to any who want to understand the events of 9/11. This would clear a lot of cobwebs out of the way and leave a better focused perspective for debate.

    To merely buckle under the absurd charge that “Conspiracy Theory” is in some way the arena of nutjobs and cranks is a grave epistemic error.

    ~Willy Whitten

    1. Couldn’t agree more. We have been conditioned to mock “conspiracy theories.” I even have a friend who told me once, “I don’t believe in conspiracy theories.” I said to him, “Do you mean you don’t believe that two or more people ever get together to do something illegal?”

    2. If I was Vishnu, that comment would get four thumbs-up!

      The term “conspiracy theorist” itself is just that. There is no reason the alter the English Language.

      Federal Judges and Barristers are even conspiracy theorists. Susan Getzendanner ruled that the American Medical Association engaged in a conspiracy against chiropractors.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilk_v._American_Medical_Ass%27n

      Conspiracies happen all the time. Some go to trial, and some do not.

      I am going to start using the legalese meaning instead of the pop-culture conception.

  6. Um, how about just looking at just the facts of physics to determine if further investigation is required? No conspiracies, no finger-pointing, that’s what law enforcement & the Judiciary branch of the government is for. Only the scientific, verifiable, research-proven facts, to see if they are consistent with the laws of physics period, to determine if more thorough investigation is warranted.
    Just the dust cloud expansion & concrete pulverization vs. PE of the towers is off by at least an order of magnitude, if not two. But I digress….
    Even ignoring the low-on-physical-evidence Pentagon incident and the utterly-debatable unique construction of the Twin Towers, why not just concentrate on WTC7? That one appears pretty obvious. Propose an experiment, say a demolition of a similar building (someone has to be demolishing one somewhere, sometime in the near future) with no nearby structures to worry about… Fill it to the gills with with office supplies, diesel fuel tanks and whatever else might have normally (according to the official claims) been in WTC7. Then double or triple the fuel load. Add an ammunition cache for the Mayor’s bunker too, in case he had a SWAT unit based there). Light the puppy up, and let it burn furiously for a long time ’till nice & hot. Then blow out one or two or even more “key beams” (as the official report said brought down WTC7). If the experiment way-overdoes the fires/heat, and the sudden loss of one or more or several key beams does not bring about anything even close to a symmetrical collapse, then we’re onto something (and established steel building construction codes will all have to be re-written as well)……If not, then minutiae can & will be debated forever. .. And we can all go get some coffee.
    It was just too perfect a collapse to have been caused by small random fires when compared to other steel-framed buildings that have burned much longer, hotter & more thoroughly.

    1. The true condition of Building 7 at the time of “collapse” is described more by the video footage of the dust billowing out of the building on one sided throughout the day. This was more than likely the structure itself disintegrating from the inside out.

  7. This is now August 2016 and going over the posts to see if there are any leads I could follow that I wasn’t aware of and found a few things that I found interesting and how people are reluctant to say anything, even though Craig Mckee is very fair in this Forum.

    One thing Craig McKee said, “Anyone new to the movement is only welcomed if they have the “right” opinion. If you don’t, look out.” and looking at the two last posts seems to make the point.

    Both Stevie I and Paul are cautious regarding the way Building 7 was destroyed. Most everyone, including Craig, thinks all the buildings at WTC complex were “controlled demolition”, after all what else could do it?

    Also, the name calling is done by everyone even when it is politely done.

    Poster joshbot☠ would have you not to put any credence on Dr. Judy Wood because she attacked Steven Jones. Steven Jones isn’t a “saint” when destroying the work of Pons & Fleishmann and Cold Fusion because everyone knows fusion is “hot”. That mentality is prevalent in the 9/11 looking for TRUTH Movement, because everyone knows the only way those Towers and the other FIVE buildings in the complex could be destroyed is by Controlled Demolition. If you think otherwise then what Craig said is à propos, “Anyone new to the movement is only welcomed if they have the “right” opinion. If you don’t, look out.”

    Like Paul pointed out, why was the building “frothing” out only on one side, for most of the day.
    And it was going down…. not up…. like you would think if it was “smoke”. Note Paul used quotation marks in the word “collapse” and also declares it was dust.

    He cautiously is telling us that it wasn’t a “controlled demolition”.

    I agree.

    The Truth Movement is doing their best to avoid Dr. Judy Wood because of ……..what?????

    1. Frothing!! Could you provide us a link?

      What do you think happened?

      Even if thermite wasn’t used, it was still a controlled demolition. Numerous buildings have survived with much more damage than Twin Towers.

      Here is an equation for the Fetzer Theory: 9/11 + ☢ = 5.8💩³
      You can plainly see that the 9/11 nuke theory is equal to 5.8 piles of cubic shit. This is equivalent to .34 metric shit-tons.

      All joking aside, I didn’t think that the Judy Wood theory was any better. Would you elaborate on your to-date opinion of the destruction?

    2. You make two assumptions here: one that the movement is avoiding Judy Wood and the other is that I believe Building 7 was demolished because “what else would do it?”

      The movement has rejected Judy Wood, by and large, and this is because her “theory” is not credible. In fact, as Niels Harrit says, she doesn’t actually have a theory. All fights within the movement over what type of explosive device was used to bring the towers down are unproductive. We know they were blown up; why should we fight over how?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s