... more than misunderstanding and obstinacy, I feel.
This suggests an agenda.
As a student of human nature, I feel it's hard to overestimate the effects of misunderstanding and obstinacy... especially when there's an agenda involved!
And, McKee has explicitly declared that he has an agenda. See his article "Why I choose to stand up to the most persistent threat to 9/11 Truth.
Namely, his agenda is that he is determined to defend the "no 757" narrative against what is, in his view, "a persistent and single-minded disinformation campaign that has been going on for more than a dozen years
", being pushed by individuals who may be "thinly disguised official story supporters and therefore not truthers at all.
" He says the most prominent and suspicious members of this "propaganda team" are David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, Frank Legge (now deceased), Ken Jenkins, John Wyndham, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, Warren Stutt, Chris Sarns, Wayne Coste, Dwain Deets, and Kevin Ryan. The group is accused of working together, publishing together, and applying "relentless pressure
" against other "Truthers" who continue to deny that a 757 struck the Pentagon.
Furthermore, McKee lauds CIT's work as a major contribution to the quest for truth about the Pentagon. And he complains about what he sees as illegitimate criticism against CIT by the "propaganda team":
These people seemed to be reading from a script as they launched deceptive and unfair attacks. They moaned about CIT being so “mean” to an elderly cab driver (Lloyde England) when all that CIT founders Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke did was ask England direct questions and point out when his answers contradicted his past statements or other evidence. The impossibility of the England story was obvious to me right away. In fact, it’s a huge smoking gun (I plan to address England in an article very soon). I couldn’t figure out how other truthers could hear about it and get angry not at the story itself but at the suggestion that it isn’t entirely true.
A key element of McKee and CIT's case against the 757 impact, is the idea that the light pole damage was faked. The argument is that according to the official story, Light Pole 1 (about 40 feet long) was struck by the plane and flew directly into Lloyde's cab, where it came to rest until Lloyde and a passer-by removed it and sat it down on the road. This is obviously ridiculous.
The "propaganda team" attempts to salvage Lloyde's story by claiming it was never Pole 1 in the plane, but rather it was a smaller piece of a pole. If that's the case, then the damage to Lloyde's taxi is credible. The only problem remaining is Lloyde's confusion about his location, which must have been on the overpass bridge.
So to get to my point: McKee sees you as a threat to his "agenda", Ruby, because you're contradicting his (and CIT's) narrative that Lloyde is an obvious liar. According to McKee, Lloyde insisted that the 40-foot-long Pole 1 was the object that struck his cab. In his writeup "Staging the scene: Lloyde England's tall Pentagon tale, Part 1 of 2",
McKee gives a couple of sources indicating that Lloyde was crystal clear about this. To quote:
First, in an NBC interview shown in The First Known Accomplice?, England says: “When [the plane] hit the pole it knocked the light part off. Nothing came through the car but the pole itself.”5
In an audio pre-interview for the same CIT video, England is asked by Pickering, “So which piece did you take out of the window?”6
England: “The long piece. The part that was [unintelligible] off the, off the ground.”
Pickering: So it’s the long piece?
England: Yeah, the long piece. See it’s the long piece. See the end on it?
Ranke (to someone in the room): Show him the end.
England: Yeah, this was the piece that was in the ground.
Then, in their 2008 interview, Ranke asks about the length of the pole he is talking about:
Ranke: So, you’re saying, how long do you think the pole was? Approximately?
England: It was sticking out, way over…
Ranke: No, I mean the whole pole.
England: I’d say it was about 30, 40 foot long. … The base of it was in concrete.
Marquis: And to clarify, it was the long piece of the base of the pole.
England: Yes, the long piece that was sticking out across the hood.
5. NBC interview: starts five minutes into The First Known Accomplice?
6. Same video, starting at 5:48.
That sounds pretty definitive, doesn't it? You have to work pretty hard, to parse that as saying that only a small piece of the entire pole was in the car.
From McKee's point of view, Ruby, you are the one who is being stubborn and obstinate. Your version of the story gives key support to the "propaganda team" by claiming that England's cab might actually have been hit by a short piece of a light pole.
But the fact is, you and McKee both have some evidence to support your views. As we mentioned above, Lloyde's drawing is possibly the clearest indication of his perception of the length of the pole in his car.