David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker support CIT’s ‘staged evidence’ scenario

By Craig McKee (http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com)

There are not two people who I respect more in the 9/11 Truth movement than David Ray Griffin and Barrie Zwicker.

Griffin has done the most thorough analysis of anyone in the movement of all the evidence from that terrible day. Without his work, and his unimpeachable reputation, it’s hard to imagine the movement would be as far ahead as it is. He has written numerous books about 9/11 examining things like the failures of the 9/11 Commission Report, the flimsy case made by “debunkers” like Popular Mechanics, and the many holes in the official government account of what happened.

Zwicker, a Canadian media analyst, peace activist, and 9/11 truther, has looked at the event from a different angle. His fascinating book Tower of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11 (an absolute must for anyone in the Truth movement) looks at 9/11 as mass deception and hypnosis. And, as the title suggests, it analyzes how the mainstream media has been utterly complicit in the deception.

One of the many things that Griffin and Zwicker agree on is that the official story of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 doesn’t hold up. They both cast serious doubt on the assertion that Flight 77, or any other commercial airliner, hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

In the past few weeks I have taken issue with those who mercilessly attack the work of the Citizen Investigation Team duo of Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis. These two contend that the flight path of the airliner that approached the Pentagon was incompatible with the physical evidence used to support the official story. They contend that the plane flew to the north of the Citgo gas station making it impossible for it to have clipped the five light poles that were allegedly knocked over by the plane.

A group of supposed truthers has done everything possible to discredit CIT, defending the official story to a bizarre degree. They mock and ridicule anyone who doesn’t agree with them, calling them “liars” and “no-planer idiots” and then they claim that it is CIT’s investigative methods that are the problem.

I have questioned the motives of some of these “researchers.” They claim they want to cut CIT out of the movement because their claim that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon will bring ridicule to the cause and undermine its chances of success. So they fuel internal dissention that will do exactly what they claim to be afraid of.

In his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Griffin questions the eyewitness account of Don Mason, who claims to have seen the light poles hit (p. 264).

“This claim, that the plane en route to the Pentagon hit five light poles at the Washington Boulevard overpass – three with one wing, two with the other – has been an important part of the evidence that a Boeing 757, or in any case an airplane with a wingspan of at least 100 feet (the distance between the light poles on the two sides of the road), really did strike the Pentagon. PM’s [Popular Mechanics] support of this claim includes photographs of the five poles, which were knocked down.

“Serious questions about the credibility of this claim have long been raised. But videotaped testimony has recently been presented that, if reliable, would make the claim even more dubious than it was before.”

Griffin refers to interviews in the CIT film The PentaCon that show that the flight path was to the north of the gas station, making it impossible for the plane to have hit the poles.

But here’s the key passage (p. 265):

“This testimony, besides throwing into doubt the testimony of Don Mason and the other people who claimed to have seen the light poles clipped, suggests something even more important: that the five light poles were staged to provide evidence for the official story. If so, then we must suspect that other evidence for the official story was also planted. If any of the evidence is demonstrably planted, in fact, we must doubt the truth of the entire story.”

So, unlike the CIT haters, Griffin is willing to consider that witnesses were mistaken or untruthful. And he correctly states that if any of the evidence is fake (I think immediately of the pole that Lloyde England claims he pulled out of the windshield of his cab), then it is all called into doubt.

CIT’s opponents claim that it’s wrong to express doubt about any eyewitness testimony without absolute proof that they are lying – an impossible standard.

Zwicker has written an endorsement of CIT that states:
“It’s no exaggeration to state that the findings of the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) concerning what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 are reliable, undeniable, conclusive, and of immense historic significance.

“The evidence now shows, well past reasonable doubt, what happened. It was detonation of explosives within the building, timed to coincide with a flyover by a large jet plane, thus producing the clever illusion that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, heart of the official 9/11 Pentagon lie.

He adds: “To me, two most important questions now, almost nine years after the events, urgently call out for investigation. First, who are those behind the vicious attempts to discredit the work of the Citizen Investigation Team? Second, what are the motives of the would-be discreditors and those behind them? I say “attempts” because careful examination of the arguments of CIT’s tormentors show them to be tricky and unreliable – as flimsy as the official story they try to defend.”

Exactly.

For the full endorsement by Zwicker: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/news/2010_07_23_zwicker.html

Unfortunately, two prominent 9/11 scholars, Richard Gage and Peter Dale Scott, have rescinded their support of CIT in the past few weeks.  I’ve dealt with the Gage statement (http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/richard-gage-joins-perplexing-gang-up-on-citizen-investigation-team/), which apparently prompted the one by Peter Dale Scott. Mr. Dale Scott cites “CIT’s methods” although he isn’t specific about what he doesn’t like about them. This move is odd given a statement Dale Scott made last year in which he criticized the CIT critics who were badgering him to rescind his support then. In 2009, he wrote:

“This is a form letter in response to the flood of letters that has been showered on me by those who do not like CIT.

I have not endorsed the flyover theory for Flight 77, and I do not personally believe it. All I endorsed was their assemblage of witnesses who said that Flight 77 approached the Pentagon on the north side of the Pike. I do not draw the conclusions from their testimony that CIT does. But I believe that the testimony needs to be seriously considered by those trying to find out what actually happened.

I must say that I am disappointed by number of ad hominem attacks I have received. I do not believe one incoming letter so far has dealt with the substance of what the Turnpike witnesses claimed and I endorsed.

In his famous American University speech of June 1963, John F. Kennedy famously said, “And we are all mortal.” I would add, “And we are all fallible.” For this reason I would ask everyone in the 9/11 truth movement to focus their energies on the substance of what happened on 9/11, and not discredit the truth movement by wanton attacks on each other.

Sincerely,Peter Dale Scott

Very well put, Mr. Dale Scott. You seemed to be very clear in your opposition to the harassment you received by CIT’s relentless critics. While you may not have support CIT’s “flyover” thesis, you put the focus the evidence.

So what the hell happened? Your new statement (http://911truthnews.com/peter-dale-scott-withdraws-endorsement-of-cit/) is insufficient to explain this about-face. What has changed?

One telling point is that the statement was released by Frank Legge at Dale Scott’s request. Legge is one of the most vocal CIT attackers and a proponent of the official story at the Pentagon. He posts at the 911Blogger web site, which has banned numerous people who are sympathetic to CIT, including Ranke and Marquis themselves.

This brings me back to Barrie Zwicker’s question about who is really behind the attacks on CIT and why. And why have past endorsements been rescinded by Gage, David Chandler, and Jonathan Cole all around the same time? The reasons they’ve given have been vague and unpersuasive.

Peter Dale Scott’s statement only muddies the waters further.