NEW – $200 Reward For Information Helping Craig Justify His Statements
A $200 Reward is being offered for information about Lloyd England’s statements about the light pole that hit his taxi. Please see the Reward tab.
This website is a response to a demand for an “apology” proffered by the organizers of the Monthly 9/11 and Other Deep State Teleconference – spearheaded by Craig McKee – over an innocuous email exchange. Because a simple apology is not sufficient – and because they organizers would not allow for a full discussion of context of the exchange, and other pertinent issues, a more extensive reply is warranted. Details of the exchange can be seen on the following web pages.
Wayne’s Reply to Craig
In response to Craig McKee’s demand for an apology and retraction of the following statement, sent in an email exchange, in which I asserted:
“For years you have never presented any evidence supporting your position – only incomplete analysis. You frequently apologized for not having any evidence. Do you want me to dig out those teleconference recordings?”
My review of the teleconference recordings surprised me. I was astonished at the lack of any evidence proffered in support of Craig’s positions – preferring mud-slinging, innuendo and attacking any evidence offered by anyone else with whom he disagrees. He never offers any evidence to support his positions.
My conclusion is:
However, because Craig McKee, as his policy, never attempts to present any evidence to support his hypotheses – he never cross his mind to apologize for not having any. It is implicit. So it in accordance with his request for a public retraction, I hereby apologize to Craig for making the above statement. Also, a statement of apology, containing links to this extended reply, has been sent to those involved in the offending e-mail exchange.
That should settle this matter.
Does Craig Ever Offer any Evidence?
The answer depends on what is meant by “offer any evidence.” To an engineer, such as myself, looking to see what happened and coming up with an explanation supported by observations (e.g., evidence) is critical. in Craig’s interviews, he discounts this process entirely and prefers to only assert that if the large plane impact can be dis-proven, then that is all that is needed – nothing more needs to be done!
I felt that because the rest of the movement seems to be a bit divided on specifically what did happen – some people think it was a missile from people think it was a Global Hawk or perhaps a military plane or a commuter jet. There’s all different possibilities … division over details …
I think [its] unnecessary for us to debate whether one theory or another theory is correct. When really, if we unite under this [No 757] statement then really the official story has to be false. If we’re right about what we’re saying – and if the evidence against the 757 impact is persuasive – then the official story is toast. So that’s kind of the theory behind it.
Dead end – this is not actionable can’t do anything with it and it is a movement limiting position.
Throughout this extended reply, I’ll use the acronym CABEMOH–BIFAB whenever Craig make an unsupportable assertion.
Craig Asserts it’s Best Evidence The MOvement Has – But It’s Flimsy At Best
Craig frequently relies on flimsy, unsupportable or discredited information in making his case that anything could have happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 – except a large plane impact. To highlight this, I have created the acronym: CABEMOH–BIFAB
Why I’ve pursued the Pentagon evidence for years:
In a letter to a large number of recipients, Craig McKee Accuses me of being a part of a “disinformation campaign,” where he says:
“I believe the Truth Movement has been the target of a disinformation campaign for more than a decade over the Pentagon issue … Wayne Coste is the latest member of this group …
He has been pumping out PowerPoint presentations since late 2015 on the 9/11 and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference …
He has produced copious amounts of speculation and some points that I have a hard time seeing as honest …
Most troubling is that the best challenges made by the movement to the official story end up being the subject of Coste’s attacks …
Wayne’s output amounts to an avalanche of speculation and manipulation…
I [Craig McKee] will keep fighting this, using evidence to aggressively challenge the official story.”
In a few words, the reason I keep researching the Pentagon is that I’m a meticulous engineer and Craig keeps telling I’m wrong. And he does this with nonsensical arguments that are easily disabused – if a person were to look. I’m not wrong about what the evidence shows and it is Craig’s vacuous and baseless arguments that keeps me, an engineer, fully engaged with the issue.
Dividing vs. Diminishing the 9/11 Truth Movement
For those that argue that this debate about the Pentagon divides the movement, I assert that you cant have a “Truth Movement” with a falsehood at it core. After hearing the evidence, a major 9/11 figure asked, “can’t we just live with a noble lie?”
My response is NO!
I say this for the following reasons:
- It is disingenuous for a “Truth Movement” to have a known falsehood at it core. We become no better than those who knowingly sent the war machine to Iraq and Afghanistan under false pretenses. Granted we would have less capability to create death and destruction at our fingertips, unless we were to somehow prevail – and then start acting on other (less) noble lies.
- For practical reasons, such a “noble lie” imposes a limit on the public’s acceptance of the 9/11 Truth Message. Once a member of the public looks, they will see the discordant, inconsistent, incoherent and conflicting arguments for a missile, a fly-over without impact, internal explosions, external explosions or exploding jet(s) at the heliport as ludicrous. This reduces the appeal to working for justice on behalf of the 9/11 victims – which includes all of us.
The Movement: “Cornered” by the The Pentagon Issue
Since 2002, the 9/11 Truth movement has “cornered” itself on the Pentagon issue. In reviewing the historical path to the present conundrum, it was clear that the incoherent story began with the earliest 9/11 Truth documentaries that insisted on a 16 ft hole being too small for a plane to have entered. They all took one hypothesis or another and misrepresented the damage and/or the Pentagon construction to make an argument that conflicted, not only with the US government’s “official story” of the damage mechanism, but also with other “9/11 Truth” hypotheses.
I am sympathetic to Craig’s lament that exposing the misinformation about the Pentagon eliminates the”best challenges made by the movement to the official story.” It has been a great recruiting tool for a sub-set of people who would get involved – even though it turns off many more to the movement. I am sympathetic to Craig’s lament because I know people who have been brought into the 9/11 Truth movement by the consistent message that something is dreadfully wrong with the official explanation about the “mechanism of destruction” at the Pentagon.
However, having mis-informed people trying to go-forth and convince public figures of problem with the greater 9/11 crimes, with the erroneous Pentagon story at it core, provides a good reason not to endorse the question for a re-investigation.