Just noticing that Craig Mckee has written an article whereby you can sign your name to a list.
On this subject, it always boggles my mind that the conventional large-square peg can fit into the small-circle peg theory, yet the quantum 757 theory is alive and kicking. I guess it is still the fantastical official position and always will be.
Mckee writes:
'Stand with us: add your name to the ‘No 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11’ list!
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2017/12/11/the-no-757-hit-the-pentagon-list/
-----------------
On this subject, it always boggles my mind that the conventional large-square peg can fit into the small-circle peg theory, yet the quantum 757 theory is alive and kicking. I guess it is still the fantastical official position and always will be.
Mckee writes:
'Stand with us: add your name to the ‘No 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11’ list!
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2017/12/11/the-no-757-hit-the-pentagon-list/
By Craig McKee
Join more than 650 from 35 countries and six continents (so far) who are stating that no 757 impact happened
(The list appears immediately below this article)
I would like to make it very clear that people are being asked to add their name to a list of those who support a simple statement: no 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn’t matter which theory or theories they support, just that they can stand behind this fundamental position. They are not being asked to endorse anything in my article below, which is simply an introduction to the list (the list was 545 names long before the article was even written). It reflects my reasons for creating the list and mentions some of the people who have added their names and some who helped spread the word. The article is not a “statement” that anyone is being asked to support.–CM
-----------------
It has been more than 16 years since 9/11, and no issue has done more to slow progress and inhibit unity in the fight to spread the truth than the Pentagon. Some think this is a reason to run from it. A few have written papers assuring us that the government’s impact scenario is essentially correct. While others have remained true to the conviction that there is one statement that best describes both the evidence and the position of the vast majority of truth activists:
“No 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11.”
We generally agree, and yet we have appeared divided for all these years. Why? One reason is that those who support the statement have a variety of different theories about what did happen: a missile, Global Hawk, commuter jet, military plane, or a large airliner flying over the building while explosives were detonated inside. And a second reason is that we have a small group of researchers within the Truth Movement trying to convince us that a large-plane impact really did happen.
But these apparent divisions needn’t exist. So I decided to do something about it.
With the help of some fellow truth seekers, I embarked a little over three weeks ago on a plan to create a list of people who are either already on the record as supporting the statement that no 757 hit the Pentagon or who are prepared to declare this now.
Some of the friends who took this on with me, and who have made enormous contributions to 9/11 truth over the years, include fellow Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker, the author of Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11; and Kelly David, the chief operating officer of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who is working on this project as an individual, separate from her work with AE911Truth. Help in assembling the list came from a number of dedicated people, including Niels Harrit, Josef Hanji, and Thomas Torrens in Denmark, and Sheila Casey and Ted and Nelisse Muga in the U.S. It must be noted that this list has extraordinary representation from Denmark, thanks both to the people I already mentioned, and to the state of awareness of 9/11 truth in that country.
While almost all on the list are there because they asked to be, there are a few who are included because their position is publicly known. One who fits this description is highly respected 9/11 researcher David Ray Griffin, who has been clear from the beginning on this issue. But despite the fact that Griffin makes the list because of his established position, he nevertheless gave me his explicit approval for his name to be included (which means a tremendous amount to the project and to me, personally). Another wonderful bit of news came when Harrit, co-author of what is commonly referred to as “The nanothermite paper,” and someone who has given literally hundreds of presentations about the evidence for controlled demolition at the World Trade Center, not only agreed to be part of the list but even lent his efforts to bringing more people in.
And that is just the beginning. Besides those already mentioned, our list now includes authors Elias Davidsson, Christopher Bollyn, Enver Masud; academics Anthony Hall, Paul Zarembka, and A.K. Dewdney: filmmakers Massimo Mazzucco, John Massaria, Art Olivier, and Chris Emery; 9/11 Consensus Panel members Giulietto Chiesa and Dennis McMahon (in addition to Mazzucco, Griffin, and Harrit); pilots Rob Balsamo, Bruce Sinclair, Shelton Lankford, and Ted Muga; journalists Dan Dicks, Sheila Casey, Andy Steele, Dave VonKleist, and Josef Hanji; researchers Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, Barbara Honegger, and Domenick DiMaggio; and other dedicated truth activists like Adam Syed, Adam Ruff, Cheryl Curtiss, James Hufferd, Michael Cook, Jeff Long, and so many more. And, of course, many of these names could easily fall into several of these categories. We even have a former Member of Parliament in Denmark, Ole Gerstrøm, and a former federal major-party candidate in Canada, Bev Collins.
(Important note: Everyone included on the list below is speaking out independently of any organization they might be listed as being part of. For example, while we do list several people from both Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and the 9/11 Consensus panel, this should not be interpreted in any way to mean that these organizations have endorsed this effort.)
Special mention must go to French journalist Thierry Meyssan, who I have chosen to include because of his place in the history of the fight for 9/11 truth. Meyssan really was the first to publicly challenge the official claim of a 757 crash at the Pentagon. He has received criticism for this, but he should receive our thanks. Also worthy of mention here are two men who are no longer with us but who made no bones about their belief that the 757 crash story was a lie. They are author and researcher Dave McGowan who passed away from cancer in 2015 at the age of 51 and Army Major General Albert Stubblebine, who died this year at 87.
(Those who have not asked to be included at this point are Ranke, Marquis, Meyssan, and Pentagon researcher onesliceshort. All have either been contacted or will be shortly, and we hope all will be happy to be listed. But we felt they should be on the list anyway because of their public positions on the question. Some pilots and/or members of the military like Ralph Kolstad, Russ Wittenberg, and Stubblebine are included because their public positions have been laid out on the website patriotsquestion911.com.)
All of the people on our Pentagon list have their own ideas about 9/11, but they agree on the statement that no 757 hit the Pentagon. And that is enough, because if a 757 didn’t hit, the official story crumbles to dust. This matters because only the U.S. government could have faked a plane crash at the headquarters of its own military.
The full list below is arranged in alphabetical order by surname (with given name first) so it’s easy to look people up. I will also be putting new additions in red for the month they come in, so you can also check the list to see who has joined since the last monthly update. [More identifying information is being sought from those currently lacking it.]
This list will provoke a strong reaction from those determined to defend the claim that the government’s 757 impact scenario is true despite a total absence of large pieces of wreckage outside the hole, which was not large enough to accommodate an airliner. This challenge to the official story does not divide – rather it unites those who lend their names to this one fundamental issue.
There will be attacks – in fact they’ve already started elsewhere on this blog. People will be pressured not to add their names. Some of the loudest voices in the Truth Movement have been telling us we’ll look like crazy conspiracy theorists if we don’t embrace the official crash scenario (minus al-Qaeda participation). I don’t accept this. I think we must challenge the official story, not accept more and more of it to appear “acceptable” to mainstream media that have no intention of giving us a fair shake anyway.
This is just the beginning. We will be working to make this long overdue list grow. It’s not the solution to everything, but it’s a positive step.
Let’s not waste any more time. Add your name!