Transcript of January 3, 2018 Broadcast (Original Archive). The times referenced in the transcript refer to the times in the version available below. Only the show’s lead-in discussion of current January 2018 events have been trimmed.
Cheryl: [at 0:00] Hello listeners and welcome to this edition of 9/11 Wake-up Call. I’m Cheryl.
Cheryl: Craig McKee is a 9/11 researcher and journalist who lives in Canada. He’s the secretary for the Monthly 9/11 and Other Deep State Events Teleconference. He hosts the website TruthandShadows.com and he’s joining me today to discuss his recent initiative on the Pentagon. Craig McKee, welcome to the show.
Craig: Thanks very much Cheryl. I’m glad to be with you.
Cheryl: So you recently created a list of people who agree with the statement “No 757 hit the Pentagon.” Could you tell us a bit about why you created this list and any other details about it?
Craig: Sure. I’ve been thinking for some time – the Pentagon is generally conceded to be where are a lot of the apparent controversy exists in the 9/11 truth movement. There is a small group of researchers, some of whom have familiar names to people in the movement, who have been working for several years now to convince us that a large plane, a 757 specifically, did hit the Pentagon – on the official flight path; that it did knock over the five light poles; hit the building; go right through three rings of the building and make a nice round exit hole at the end.
I feel that the evidence is overwhelming that there was no 757 impact and 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 but the thing that everybody has in common, or the majority I think have in common, is that they don’t believe it was a 757.
So I felt it because there was so much, I guess you could say, division over details that it was important to bring everyone together under this fundamental statement – which is that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. Because, this way – I personally don’t support the missile position but I know there are people who do – it’s really, I think, unnecessary for us to debate whether one theory or another theory is correct [Comment 1].
When really, if we unite under this statement then really the official story has to be false. t [Comment 2] 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 [Comment 3]. So that’s kind of the theory behind it.
And also, I think there was a false impression being given that the group of researchers that I mentioned earlier that they somehow were gaining ground and that some sort of consensus was forming around their position and this is only because this is what they claim. They claim that a consensus is forming when I think there is no such consensus on their side. So I felt it was important for people to register their position and to agree on this fundamental point [Comment 4].
Cheryl: I think you’ve done a great job of getting us a position that we can all support – even within that having differences about what did hit the Pentagon or not, so I like that it’s a way of uniting us around that one simple point – and it sounds like you’ve gotten a lot of support for that can you tell us who signed it and how many and anything that might be of interest that way?
Craig: [at 3:27] Yes. The effort started about a month ago. So I actually got the number on to the list even before the list was published. I got it up to about five hundred forty five names, which was a lot of work. Because I try to include also, you know, a little bit of identifying information with, you know, which city people are from; or only their country if they prefer. So in that time since we’ve published, about a week ago, we’ve actually got up to six hundred and seventy some odd names – six hundred seventy three. Some of the, I think, most respected names in the movement have added their names. Among those David Ray Griffin [Editor’s Note: Griffin has withdrawn and issued a challenge.], who is well known for his I think eleven or twelve books that he’s written on 9/11 and he’s also co-founder of the 9/11 Consensus Panel – although he is not adding his name on behalf of the Panel – strictly on his own. That’s an important point to make [Note: three weeks prior to this interview David Ray Grifin withdrew his public support and issued a challenge to provide evidence to resolve the effort using the scientific method]. But other people like Niels Harrit, a very well respected Danish researcher, who has given hundreds of presentations about 9/11 over the years; Barbara Honegger who’s known for her Pentagon presentations. Elias Davidson who is a researcher who originally from Iceland now living in Germany who’s written a book about 9/11 and all about the four flight – and he’s made a very strong case: that there’s no evidence supporting the idea of hijackers on any of the planes. So there’s a whole long list of people who have put their names on this – plus of course many many truthers who don’t haven’t written books or anything but there are still people that are dedicated to finding the truth. So that’s where we stand. I hope we have a lot of room to grow. It’s not so much a question of how many people agree with the statement, as it is how do we reach people.
Cheryl: So you have six hundred seventy three, which is really remarkable in that short amount of time, so what evidence is there that no 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11?
Craig: [at 5:30] Well I think there is a lot – and overwhelming evidence. First of all, I believe that the government’s claim that there was a 757 impact and that it was Flight AA77 specifically – I believe that the burden of proof is on those who make that assertion. So I think they have to prove that this did happen – and I think this is what they are actually not capable of doing [Comment 5].
But let’s look at some of the things there’s, I mean, the most obvious thing, the first thing I think that is inescapable is the fact that there are no large pieces of wreckage that were left outside the Pentagon on that day – and I mean none. When I talk about large pieces of wreckage I’m talking about something larger than what you could toss in the back of a pickup truck. I don’t consider that to be large wreckage – if you could pick it up and walk across the lawn with it in your hand – it’s not large wreckage [Comment 6].
The official story claims that the plane came in slightly banked to the left– and that the right engine clipped a generator trailer on the way in. Now this would put the right wing impact entirely on the second floor of the building – and there’s no hole there [Comment 7]. Actually one of the people whose added his named to our list, another Canadian scientist named A. K. Dewdney, he’s the person who did the study of the cell phone calls to show that cell phone calls would have been impossible from the plane at any altitude back in two thousand and one. He also did another paper talking about the wings that how the wings – had the plane actually hit the building – that the wings would not have folded in, as some allege, but would have snapped off – and certainly the right wing there’s simply no hole there. Where did the wing go? If the plane hit the building where the wing go? [Comment 8]. The tail section would have hit – I’ll mention what the hole looks like actually to those who don’t know – on the second floor there is a small hole maybe fifteen or sixteen feet wide with a column going right down the middle of it. This is supposed to be where the fuselage entered [aligning the damage points place the plane where only the overhear carry-on luggage bins would have hit].
On the ground floor, there is damaged section that’s something in the area of ninety feet wide – but – only an uninterrupted opening that’s about fifty feet. There are still some columns kind-of in-the-way – that are hanging at least, beyond that fifty feet. The tail section would have hit above the second floor hole and the windows directly in the path of the tail are not even broken [Comment 9]. This seems to be impossible. If you’ve got a plane coming in and it’s supposed to come in at five hundred thirty miles per hour, which is incredibly fast.
I’ll also mention the fact that there were some extremely credible and compelling witnesses interviewed by a group called Citizen Investigation Team (C.I.T.) that put the path of the plane entirely up to the north of the Citgo gas station – which was across the street – and this path – and they also, when they drew the path on a photograph they were given – an aerial photograph – they pretty much all drew a right bank to the plane. And these people were in different places, some of them worked at the gas station, some of them were cops who were stopping for gas[at 8:46], some worked at the cemetery and yet they all saw the same path. And this path is completely irreconcilable with the physical damage.
If the plane was north of the gas station, it could not have hit the light poles – that it is alleged to have knocked over. In fact two of the witnesses that the C.I.T. interviewed couldn’t even see the plane for most of its approach had it been on the official path. William Lagasse, the Pentagon cop, the canopy of the gas station would have been blocking his view of a plane coming in on the official path[?!?]. So he clearly describes that it was on a different path. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that the damage was staged [Comment 10].
Cheryl: So people in the movement, some think there was a plane there but it was a higher and it didn’t hit the building.
Craig: [at 9:34] Well that’s right – I mean, as I said earlier, there are still different theories that people have – who don’t believe a plane impact occurred. But certainly I’m one of the people who believes that the evidence is very strong that a plane did approach the building –and that it didn’t hit. In fact the flight data recorder, the National Transportation Safety Board released an animation based on the data from the flight data recorder and that animation shows the plane on the north side of the Citgo gas station and also too high to have hit the building. So the government’s own evidence undermines their own claim that the plane came in on the south path and hit the building.
Cheryl: [at 10:17] If a 757 was going after five hundred thirty mph and was so low to the ground, as this one supposedly was in order to be able to hit the first floor of the Pentagon, wouldn’t it be something called the Ground effect that would make it fall apart before it could actually hit the building?
Craig: Yeah that’s something I know a lot of people have pointed that out and it’s not something I’ve studied the science of closely so I am not sure I would be the best one to try to argue for that. But certainly that claim been made.
The speed of the plane as well – you know – it’s the government saying that it was five hundred thirty mph. We don’t really have any independent confirmation of that. In fact some of the witnesses that C.I.T. interviewed had the plane going considerably slower than that. But the government’s claim is five hundred thirty – so that I think they have to defend that. If they’re going to claim that is what the speed was – then I think they have to deal with the ground effect issue that you’re raising. It does seem impossible to think that a plane could be going that speed [Comment 11] .
Also there’s another thing to know as well and that’s that the official flight path would go right through Virginia Department of Transportation antenna tower which is one hundred sixty nine feet high. It was within a – I don’t know a couple thousand feet – twenty four hundred feet, I think, of the Pentagon.
So for that plane – and Pilots for 9/11 Truth has done a study on this – for the plane to have flown above that tower and then it would have to descend so fast in order to hit the first light pole that the G-forces would have been impossible for the plane to pull out of that dive – and then to go across parallel to the ground just a few feet above the ground and into the building [Comment 12].
So there’s a big problem with that.
[at 12:00] And there’s also the video – the video that a lot of us have seen that shows some kind of a blur. But if you watch Massimo Mazzucco’s film called September 11 the New Pearl Harbor, he shows some research by another Italian researcher that the two views that we have seen – because they’re almost from identical angles one was inside a parking booth and one was in this barrier right in front of the booth so they were almost identical – they were synchronized using a what’s called a multiplexer. You can see that the frames match up just by the shape of the smoke cloud. But there’s only one frame of the two pairs that doesn’t match up that should match up and that’s the one with the alleged plane in it. So this indicates, I think, clearly that one or both of these pieces of video were doctored – because we should have seen the same thing from a just a slightly different angle [Comment 11].
Cheryl: Yeah, I’ve seen that video I think we’ve showed it here at the college Mazzucco’s film about the New Pearl Harbor – that’s where I learned that thing about the ground effect. Then there’s also the pilot Honi Honjour who they said did this who was supposedly flying that plane – and of course according to all his flight school teachers he was the worst pilot they’d ever seen and that kind of thing and if you want to add anything to that.
Craig: [at 13:19] Sure, some of the flight schools he dealt with – one of them wanted to know whether his pilot’s license actually was genuine. They actually doubted that it was actually genuine because he was such a poor pilot. He was refused rental of a Cessna two seater plane a month before 9/11. There was even inquiries made by one flight school about whether his piloting license should be revoked because he was so bad – one of them said, I can’t remember the name of the person who said it, but they said basically he could not fly at all – his skills were so poor. And this is a person who is supposed to flown for the first time in his life a Boeing 757.
Cheryl: Yeah, making that miraculous turn at such a high speed.
Craig: The spiral descent. Yeah.
Cheryl: I think most thinking people do not believe the government’s official account of this. But you had mentioned earlier that you think the burden of proof falls on them – on the government – and I agree with you on that – but what have they shown about the Pentagon? There’s, supposedly, something like eighty or more cameras at the Pentagon and they haven’t released nearly all of those videos that if there were any of a supposedly plane hitting. I know you have any information on that you want to add?
Craig: [at 14:31] Well there were Freedom of Information requests made for that and the government, the answer that came back, was that there was only the one camera view – I guess the two because they were almost the same – that would have captured a plane. I don’t know the exact wording they used whether it was did capture a plane. They also confiscated all of the video from the surrounding businesses within ten minutes of the event. All that video was scooped up.
Cheryl: Never to be seen again.
Craig: Yeah, Some of it’s been released – but it doesn’t show a plane. You know there’s one I think it’s from the Doubletree Hotel where you you can see it a background you can see the explosion and you can see that big smoke cloud going up but you don’t see a plane. So yeah, basically they have not showed – I mean there should be tons of, there should be tons of video. Had there been a real plane, the Pentagon had so many cameras and the assertion made by some people that while they only shot it one frame perspective and so that it’s not surprising it wouldn’t capture it. I mean this is absurd absurd claim. It’s the Pentagon for God’s sake. There are people really asserting that your corner convenience store has better surveillance, video surveillance, than the Pentagon. It’s ridiculous.
Cheryl: [at 15:45] Exactly and I think – I can’t imagine – that on a building like the Pentagon they must have had some kind of a weapon system on the roof with it– or something – for just that kind of thing happening.
Craig: Yeah. I don’t know that that’s ever been completely proven – but there is certainly a lot of indications that they did have that. We know for a fact that the White House did. It had surface to air missiles – so to think the Pentagon would would not is kind of hard to swallow.
Cheryl: I agree. So tell us – this apparent controversy as you call it – within the 9/11 Truth Movement about the Pentagon– what are some of the evidences that the opposing people have if you’ve studied that a little bit. Do they have any convincing evidence for what they’re saying – that it was a 757?
Craig: Not as far as I’m concerned, No. In fact they basically echo the government’s position on almost everything. I mean, of course, they are quick to point out that they don’t agree with the official story and they don’t think Honi Honjour was flying the plane and all that – but beyond that they pretty much, as far as I can see, kinda of rush in to prop-up that story. When strong evidence emerges that is beneficial to the truth movement [sic.] because it pokes a hole in that official story this group seems to be more concerned with going after the new evidence than it does going after the official story. So I think there’s a big issue with that.
[at 17:11] The latest thing is that the claim is being made that Lloyd England, who’s the taxi driver who’s cab was supposedly hit by a pole knocked over – which is a completely ridiculous story as well. But they’re claiming that – you know – all the way along the the story has been that this first light pole that the plane supposedly came in contact with – that the pole got hit by the plane’s right wing and was knocked into his cab. But in fact the story doesn’t it doesn’t hold up at all because – first of all the plane was crossing the highway so the pole somehow had to get through the fuselage of the plane as it was going across the highway – and plus it was hit by the right wing which because it’s not perpendicular to the plane it’s kind of the back – the pole should have gone forward and to the right but it instead it goes one hundred fifty feet up the road to the left and impales England’s cab, supposedly, and leaves a hole which you can see in photographs that you would have a hard time getting a tennis ball through the hole in the upholstery – allegedly made by this more than twenty foot long pole hurdling through the air after being hit by a plane going five hundred and thirty miles per hour. Not only is that completely ridiculous – but even the idea that the wings of the plane could hit five light poles at that speed and not rupture – and not explode – before even getting to the Pentagon. Unbelievable.
Cheryl: Yeah and then if this light pole supposedly went through Lloyd England’s window and he comes out unscathed and he’s walking around does it doesn’t make sense to me either.
Craig: Not only is he unscathed, but the hood – I mean things fully went through the windshield with him and stuck into the back seat – the hood doesn’t have a scratch on it. And the story is that he stopped the car and some guy pulled over – some guy in a van stopped – and helped him pull the pole out of the car. Why he would do this immediately after this event is kind of beyond me. And how, I mean this is a man that was in his late sixty’s at the time, I don’t even know if they physically could do that. I highly doubt it. But certainly why they would do it is a mystery. And the group that I’m talking about, this group of researchers, is now saying oh it wasn’t the first pole it was the second pole that was on the other side of the plane and it was just a small part of a pole. Even though it has been absolutely clear that it’s a long part of a pole – the part that it’s attached to the ground – he said it many times. And now this particular group is trying to convince us that they’re trying to change the story so that it fits the evidence better. And I think that’s wrong [Comment 13].
Cheryl: We also know that due to the great research of Barbara Honegger that there were explosions going off in the Pentagon that morning.
Craig: Yeah absolutely that’s something Barbara has talked about for many years now. And there are people inside the Pentagon who smelled cordite. Several people reported that. There’s the explosion in – that April Gallop experienced. And her office was well to the north of the alleged impact point [Comment 14].
There’s also a part of that the foundation [actually – it is in the second floor slab] in the path of what what would have been in the path of the plane – in the damage path – that was blown up as if from below. This is even mentioned in the Pentagon Building Performance Report. There’s no particular explanation for how that could’ve happened [Comment 15].
[at 20:37] There’s also no explanation for the round C-ring hole. Because the plane clearly would have lost – that even that report I just mentioned – that the plane would have completely lost structural integrity before it even went past half way to that hole. So how does a plane that’s been ripped to shreds allegedly create a round exit hole – makes no sense [Comment 16].
Cheryl: [at 21:00] Doesn’t make any sense. Craig if somebody wanted to sign your list of people who agree with the statement “No 757 Hit the Pentagon” how could they go about doing that?
Craig: Well, there’s a couple of different ways they can go to the Web site which is Truth and Shadows dot com and the current post is the list itself with an introduction that I wrote. Below my introduction you’ll see the full list all six hundred seventy three names or whatever it is exactly. So you can just go to the bottom of that – and go to the comments at the bottom – and just put your name in there. Ideally give me to the city you live in – so we can get the list a little more meat to it that by just, you know, just putting names. So, yeah sure, just put the city and state or whatever. You can also email me at truth and shadows at yahoo dot com. And we also have a Facebook group that’s been created with over six hundred members – more than six hundred members – and that group is called appropriately “No 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11.” So you’re welcome to join that group and you can leave a comment there that says you’d like to be added to the list. So hopefully there are enough different ways that people can do it – or they can send you a private message on Facebook – Crag McKee – and I’ll make sure that they get added to the list.
I hope we can make this as big as possible so we can be as, I guess, united as it is possible in opposition to the official story of what happened at the Pentagon.
Cheryl: Exactly – and you know this group that is saying that it was a large plane or a 757 – one of the things that kind of rubbed me the wrong way about it and is that they wrote an article saying that now this is the definitive proof – or whatever the I don’t remember the exact words – but it was to that effect that this is the definitive proof of the Pentagon that there was this large plane. And it’s just a couple guys writing this article so it’s kind of arrogant to say we have the definitive proof here. And we see that there’s only like a few of them who have backed this view – and that you have created this list with now over six hundred seventy three people. So I think that it shows that they don’t have a lot of support in their views for this.
I’m not knocking anybody who wants to do research – and they may believe in what, you know, what they’re saying – but to say that is the definitive proof I think is on the side of arrogance – that anyway. So if you have anything you want to add to that.
Craig: Well I just agree with you I mean there’s there’s an article by a guy named John Wyndham where the headline is “Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate” or words to that effect. But, “bringing closure!” In other words, he the ending the discussion. Because it’s it’s it’s it’s an exercise in spin – the best way I can put it. They use manipulative language to try to convince us that a consensus is forming around their view. This is absolutely false.
Cheryl: [at 23:51] Yeah. You know I really like a few of the people that are in that minority group – and they’re entitled to their beliefs – but I do think that the way you’re handling it where you’re having people sign up and they can agree or not agree but you’re not forcing an opinion down someone’s throat, you know, and so I appreciate that.
Craig: No. No, and I think that you see the benefits of it because when we have discussions in the Facebook group people aren’t fighting about whether it was a missile or or the plane flew over or or some other possible theory. You know Barbara Honegger and I we don’t agree about you know everything about what happened – but we agree on the fundamental point. So we can be allies instead of being in different camps debating, we can be on the same team, you know, standing up for this fundamental statement – that’s, I think, the benefit of doing this.
Cheryl: Right it creates a strength in the movement I think – and also it’s a strong stance to say, “No, the 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon,” you know, that’s our belief based on evidence – as a united front. I think it unites us in a way that we’ve never been united before.
Craig: I mean – that’s right – I mean. To have a plane crash you need a plane. And they don’t have a plane.
Craig: [at 24:57] You have a few scraps outside that just seem to appear – kind of in the middle of the lawn – one wonders exactly how they got there. Small piece of fuselage that just happened to show the part of an American Airlines letter – from the fuselage – there’s not just silver it got to have part of one of the letters – so that you really know it came from a plane, you know.
Craig: I think that the evidence is overwhelming and I don’t really understand why people in the movement would spend years trying to convince us that the government crash impact scenario is actually correct. It’s a mystery to me.
Cheryl: You know they’ve had an opportunity to present their information and then – let’s leave it at that – but it’s like it’s a continual push. To push that. And I don’t understand that either. Anyway Craig McKee, is there anything we haven’t discussed today that you’d like to say to their listening audience before we have to pause.
Craig: Ahhh … I think we I think we’ve covered it pretty well.
[when its come to the physical evidence, he has completely failed]