To Ken Doc: You’re an anti-truther when you tell lies about truthers


(*This open letter is to Ken Doc, a self-described Canadian truther who is head administrator of the largest 9/11 Facebook forum, “9/11 Truth Movement.” It’s a digital place where civility, sincerity, and intelligence are frequent casualties. Doc devotes a page on his web site to calling me a “disinfo troll.” His supports for this nasty allegation—all of them—are provable lies. These same lies are being told by two others, Mike Collins and Seb Ménard, with whom Doc is well acquainted (for a thorough deconstruction of Collins’ disinformation playbook, see the article below this letter). More about them below. Once you read this letter, it should be crystal clear who is spreading disinformation. I’ve written about Doc’s forum before—about how it’s run like an immature high school clique.  In this cabal, the administrators pat each other on the back while applying absurd double standards to what is permissible behavior. These admins, except for one or two, are like the self-centered “popular kids” who shun and insult people they don’t like while hypocritically telling everyone else that insults are not allowed. The immediate casualty is the Truth Movement. The ultimate victim is truth itself.–Craig McKee)

In this Ken Doc graphic, he is front and center with supporting characters Richard Gage and David Chandler. I think that's Mike Collins behind him in the black helmet.

A legend in his own galaxy: In this graphic from Ken Doc’s Facebook page, he is the hero with Richard Gage and David Chandler as supporting characters. I think that’s Mike Collins behind him in the black helmet.

January 1, 2016

TO: Ken Doc

Well, here we are again. I had hoped that after writing an article in January 2015 about how damaging your Facebook forum is to the 9/11 Truth Movement and how irresponsible you are in running it, I would never have to address you or the forum again. I thought that your banning me and several others who agree with me about what happened and did not happen at the Pentagon on 9/11 would be enough for you.  Evidently not.

I have no choice but to respond to a dishonest attack you’ve launched against me on your web site based on invented charges. You did this by creating an entire page devoted to libeling me with allegations you know are untrue. You included me with four others in the “disinfo trolls” part of your site. The others who have received the same treatment include Jim Fetzer, John Lear, Ace Baker, and no-plane supporter Norma Rae. To justify your claim that I am a troll, you introduce several easily provable lies.

I became aware of the page’s creation in the last couple of months, which leads me to think it may have been prompted by two articles I posted on Truth and Shadows in October criticizing public presentations on the Pentagon by David Chandler and Ken Jenkins. Both researchers are part of a team that pushes most of the Pentagon official story and accepts almost all of the government’s evidence as being genuine and persuasive.

Your position on the Pentagon seems to have changed since I wrote the article about your forum. Before it was published, you held the position that you didn’t know if a plane hit but that you thought it was pointless to discuss the subject because it always leads to fighting. We’ll just never know exactly what happened, you used to write, although you were open to the possibility of a plane impact.

But then your substantial ego got bruised, and after that you suddenly became 100% convinced that a plane hit. Suddenly it was obvious! It appears you changed your position out of spite. If you learned new information immediately after the article that led you to change your tune, please let us in on what it was.

Let’s get to the lies.

You say I support the theory that the World Trade Center towers were destroyed by “space beams.” This is a blatant falsehood on your part. You know I don’t believe this and that nowhere can a quote be found to back up your lie, but you peddle it anyway. Feel free to prove me wrong by citing a statement I’ve made supporting “space beams.” You can’t, because there aren’t any.

You say I support the theory that the planes that hit the towers were actually holograms. You know this claim is also false. You know I have never said anything of the kind. Can you point to where I’ve said this? No, you can’t, because I never have.

So why are you telling these bald lies? What is the rationale? What is your real agenda?

Here is the statement from your page: “Craig McKee also supports the fraudulent theories of “Space Beams” created by Judy Wood and “Hologram planes” hit the towers by Jim Fetzer. Two known disinfo agents in this movement.”

You weren’t the first to tell these same lies about me supporting space beams and holograms. Two others did it first. You have just repeated their lies.  The first is your group’s head troll, Mike Collins, who is also involved with the “Conspiracy Archives” Facebook page. The second is the creator of the “911 Questions” web site and Facebook forum, Seb Ménard.

The three of you are all acquainted with each other, you each run a Facebook 9/11 forum, and you each come up with identical false claims. Is the strategy to try to make the same lies stick through triangulation? It’s a PR trick to improve the chance of fooling people by enabling them to run into the same disinfo in three or more places. It’s the seemingly separate origins that are intended to create credibility. But when falsity by triangulation is exposed, the dirtiness of what’s going on becomes clear.

After my article, which focused more on Collins than on you, he sought

Here, Collins admits he doesn't think I support space beams.

Here, Collins admits he doesn’t think I support space beams. But he refuses to admit that he made it up.

revenge by writing to Richard Gage of AE911Truth to tell him that he (Richard) should stay away from me. It didn’t work. I have been a regular writer for AE911Truth since April 2014. Collins wrote to Gage:

“Some of these people think ‘hologram planes’ hit the Pentagon, some think ‘space beams’ vaporized the towers…. I’m aware that YOU do not advocate these theories, yet the people who adhere to your groups do. Please be aware that Craig McKee is one of these people, and his blog is all about the ‘no plane’ theory at the Pentagon….”

Hologram planes hit the Pentagon? That’s a new one. And I don’t believe in a “no plane” theory at the Pentagon; I believe a plane was involved but did not crash. In response to the fact that I was going to be a guest on Andy Steele’s Internet radio show 9/11 Freefall, Collins commented on the AE Facebook page that I support “the nonsense no-plane theory.” This time no mention of the Pentagon.

And Collins wasn’t finished making things up. See this comment on Facebook:

“Craig McKee and other disinfo shills want truthers to ignore evidence, just so their ‘missile theory’ makes sense.”

I don’t have a missile theory. I have never once said I think a missile was involved in 9/11 in any way. In fact, I firmly believe none was. And Collins knows that. Doc, you could have corrected him, but you seem to like his brand of disinformation, because it’s the same kind you practice.

When it comes to Collins, none of your admins ever correct any of his misstatements and lies. Nor do you. The odd time one of you will scold him for being rude, but that’s about it. He is able to call others “retards” and “fucking idiots” and “conspiracy sheep” and engage in other name-calling with the enthusiastic encouragement of your team—while everyone else is reminded of your “zero tolerance” policy against insults.

After an absence of several months (I’ve heard Collins was kicked out for reasons unrelated to 9/11), he recently returned to the group. He’s just as smug, condescending, and poisonous as ever. You had the opportunity to keep him out, but you made it clear what your priorities are.

Collins lies pathologically. Or he is being paid to lie. At the bottom of this letter, you’ll find a sidebar article that exposes how the statements he has made correspond to known disinformation techniques.

Screenshot 2015-12-30 15.58.16 Satirical articleIn June, I wrote a satirical piece about the effort by some to convince the movement that most of the Pentagon official story is true and that a large plane hit the building. Collins either didn’t realize it was satire or he knew but pretended not to so he could level more false charges (note the three words on the adjacent image, and tell me he didn’t know). He wrote:

“Craig McKee writes on a disinformation blog, and wrote a new article about how to make this group look fake. He tells his readers ways to ‘debunk’ us, and how to spread disinformation about missiles and holograms.”

It takes a professional prevaricator to pack so many lies and absurdities into such a short statement. He uses the same tactic you do: any criticism of him and those who agree with him is equated with an attack on the whole group if not the entire movement. Not only does he say that I support missiles and holograms, but he says I tell people how to spread this “disinformation.” But rather than correct Collins, you copy his tactics. You quoted from my satirical piece, but “failed” to tell your readers it was satire. Here’s the quote from my article, which you posted on TWO pages on your site (including the one accusing me of being a “disinfo troll”):

“Now that you’re feeling relaxed, we are ready to begin looking at the best ways to steer the 9/11 Truth Movement away from the strongest evidence that the event was an inside job – what happened at the Pentagon. The first thing is to adopt this basic list of talking points. The fact that the points are untrue should not deter you.”

Since you appear to have at least an average IQ, it’s not possible you think I meant this literally. So it’s your moral IQ that’s in question.

Then there is the Seb Ménard story, which I know you are somewhat familiar with. He and I collaborated on 911 Questions but we went our separate ways after I found out that most of the articles on his site were stolen from other sites and credited as being “By 911 Questions.” These include several AE911Truth pieces and others from USA Today, the London Sunday Times, prisonplanet.com, The Sporting News, and even an excerpt from Michael Ruppert’s book Crossing the Rubicon.

I and two others who were on the admin team of his Facebook page told him he must give credit to the original creator of each article if only to avoid being discredited later. He became enraged and kicked the three of us out while proclaiming he would give credit “when it is needed!” Others have also told him about how unethical his practices are, but the situation has not changed. In fact, he continues to use one of my Truth and Shadows articles, the original byline replaced by “By 911 Questions,” and lists other sites than mine as “sources.”

At one point, he accused me of telling “everyone at AE” that I was accusing him of plagiarism. I had discussed his plagiarism with one person. He then left me a phone message (which I still have) that includes this statement: “We live in the same city. I will hunt you down, motherfucker.”

After he and I went our separate ways, he also came up with the idea to write to Gage:

“Craig was always OPEN to Judy Wood and also the NO PLANE theories! I had many discussions with him about this, to a point where I told him that he couldn’t be an AE volunteer if he couldn’t advocate what AE stands for.”

This must sound familiar to you, Doc, since you accuse me of similar things. But again, it simply didn’t happen. Not open to Judy Wood, didn’t have “many discussions” about being a volunteer for AE.

He went further when he told Gage that I operate a “conspiracy site” that covers everything “from aliens to the Moon landings.” I’ve never covered either one. Here’s more irony: Prior to using the Moon topic to attack me, Ménard created a Facebook page called “Moon Questions” and arranged to have me interview Apollo researcher Bart Sibrel. You can find the interview on YouTube, although I’m not identified as the interviewer. I think the Moon is a suitable topic for a blog like mine and will not hesitate to address it in the future.

Doc, on your page about me, you also took a screenshot of a comment I made saying that the Moon landings never happened, as if you’d unearthed something that I’d be embarrassed to have revealed. I’m not. Or I wouldn’t have said it.

So the three of you say I support some combination of Judy Wood, space beams, holograms, missiles, and no planes at the towers. The same lies from three of you.  You all agree that Truth and Shadows is a “conspiracy site.” It is, in the normative sense of that phrase. It’s a site that deals with, among other matters, conspiracies—actual ones. It is not a “conspiracy site” in the negative putdown sense you use, the same as mainstream media employ with “conspiracy theory.”

You and your pals throw around the word “disinformation” with reckless abandon—or as an intentional disinformation strategy yourselves. It might be useful to look at the definition of the word. I think you could use a refresher. Let’s check out “troll” while we’re at it.

The Oxford Dictionary defines disinformation as: “False information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media.” Merriam-Webster simplifies things: “False information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.”

So that’s pretty clear. False information, deliberately spread. Not the same as misinformation.

It seems to me that if you accuse someone of spreading disinformation, you had better be able to back up your claim. But you can’t in my case, although I can show concrete examples of where you, Collins and Ménard have made statements you know are untrue.

An article from The Guardian says this about the “Internet troll”: “Trolling enjoyment was very strongly associated with a sadistic personality, and was also correlated with Machiavellianism and psychopathy.”

In Psychology Today, Jennifer Golbeck, Ph.D., defines the term this way: “An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

Examples in which Collins is guilty of each of these sins:

  1. Lie: “Ask CIT. They have numerous fake witnesses in order to promote their disinformation.”
  2. Exaggerate: “The trouble is that every single ‘conspiracy theory’ about Sandy hook and Boston use false information and other speculation to make fake theories.”
  3. Offend: “Please stop reproducing, we don’t need more stupidity on the planet.”

But let’s get back to your hit page with my name on it (and by this I don’t mean your page is a big hit). You say: “… all Craig does is attack real information and promotes [sic] false theories.” I don’t do that. Do you mean the two you lied about? Do you mean my contention that no airliner hit the Pentagon? That view is shared by the majority of the Truth Movement, as you yourself concede. Is most of the movement spreading disinformation? And what do you mean by “attack real information”?

Ah, but you’re just getting warmed up. You imply ominously on a Facebook post that I also address “the Holocaust,” implying that I’m a Holocaust denier.

“I think you should really look into Craig’s blog a little more. Especially when he likes to entertain holograms and Judy Wood. Crisis actors in Sandy Hook and Boston is [sic] on his list too…. and let’s not forget the Holocaust. Seriously, look through his blog.”

I have never written about the Holocaust. I wrote an article in 2014 about the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education wanting to get involved in teaching children about the official story of 9/11. That article was about 9/11, not the Holocaust. Yes, I think there’s a great deal of evidence pointing to Boston and Sandy Hook being false flags. So do a lot of people.

And you have more sleazy tricks up your sleeve. You show a screenshot, supposedly from some unidentified web site, that claims that the top three search engine terms that lead people to my site, representing 58% of the traffic I receive through search engines, are about Judy Wood and her book Where Did the Towers Go? That would be remarkable given that I almost never mention either one. Not remarkable. Just false—again.

The fact is that a tiny fraction of searches leading to Truth and Shadows involve Wood in any way. Of the top 15 search terms listed in my WordPress stats (the majority of search terms are kept secret by the search engines) since I started my blog, 10 are about the Pentagon. None is about Judy Wood. Yes, I’m prepared to prove that. So this attempt at character assassination fails, too. (If you want to know whether Ken Doc cares about the truth, let’s see if he removes any of the false information.)

What bothered me more than anything you wrote about me was your calling Dave McGowan’s web site a “disinfo site” as he lay on the verge of death from cancer (he died Nov. 22, which you must have known since you link to my article reporting his death). This is lower than low. Even for you. You had better back up your claim that McGowan is disinfo. Dave was admired by a lot of people, and he certainly was not a peddler of disinformation, as you are.

Doc, you used to speak highly of my contribution the Truth Movement—until I wrote that article in January. You wrote on one occasion:

“Craig knows his stuff when it comes to 9/11 and has done some great work in the movement.”

You made several statements praising me. Then you removed them from the forum. Not the whole thread they were part of, just some of the comments, including your comments of praise.

Doc, not only are you lying about me, but you are intellectually dishonest in a number of other areas. You write things about 9/11 that you also know are untrue. For example, you claim that 90% of the movement believes a missile hit the Pentagon. That’s a lie, not a mistake, and your favorite straw man argument. From Sept. 24:

Ken Doc: “When 90% of the Movement believes it was a missile and we are showing contrary evidence. It doesn’t mean we are claiming victory. It means we are dedicated researchers that are looking at EVERYTHING. Not just what is popular belief.”

You did a poll on your own forum, and you found that 37.5% of respondents thought it was a missile. Not 90.

You and Collins use the same spin that Chandler’s Team does to try to convince people that facts and evidence are on their side while speculation and belief are what the rest of us are about.

You challenge what you call the “no-planers” to answer questions about why no one saw a missile hit the Pentagon AND why no one saw a missile fly over the Pentagon and how the debris on the Pentagon lawn can be explained. You know full well that no one thinks a missile flew over the Pentagon. You wrote:

“If No planers at the Pentagon can’t answer these three simple questions. I advise you find an answer or shut up about your theories!”

You also dismiss Citizen Investigation Team as being “a cult.”

Another example of your dishonesty in a Nov. 11 exchange:

Jake Ritchie: Just to be clear, I side with Chandler. BUT, if we are going to be truthers, then we can’t dismiss those [Citizen Investigation Team] witnesses. They seem highly unlikely to lie – especially Pentagon Police.

Ken Doc: Again, they did not lie. The only thing they were unsure of was the flight path. CIT twisted their words to suit their own theory.

Flat out false. The witnesses CIT interviewed in National Security Alert were NOT unsure of the flight path. That was what they were sure of.

Like any demagogue, you equate criticism of your actions with attacks on all truthers—as if you represent all truthers. You don’t.

Collins has repeated dozens of times that the hole in the Pentagon was 120 feet wide. Why have you never corrected him? He says that Lloyde England changed his story seven times and claims the downed light poles were staged. This is pure disinfo.

Then there is the really disturbing and destructive mocking of so-called “conspiracy theories.” In this, you parrot the language of the so-called “debunkers.”

In June, Collins wrote: “Conspiracy theorists are unscientific idiots who believe everything they see online.” He calls people twoofers, conspiracy sheep, conspiratards, retards, and much more. One of your admins, Cal Amyotte, echoes Collins in mocking “conspiracy sheep” and labeling as “disinformation” any suggestion that events like Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing are false flags. He labels as “the usual disinformation idiocy” a video of a talk given by Naomi Wolf, during which she says we have to wonder whether some events we hear about in the media are real.

You, too, join the mainstream chorus that mocks those who “believe in conspiracy theories.”

You conclude on your page that either I’m not a good researcher OR I’m a plant, sent to divide the movement. So now you’re saying I might not be a disinfo troll. But that’s the label of the page.

You state that I attack AE911Truth repeatedly. I have never once done this. I criticized but in no way attacked a decision Richard Gage made FIVE YEARS AGO to withdraw his support from Citizen Investigation Team. Richard and I work together regularly on articles I write for the organization. He’s fully aware of what I’ve written. You are the one attacking AE by saying that they employ a disinfo troll as a writer.  I also work closely with other respected figures in the movement. By calling me a troll, you insult them as well.

Like many truthers, I have experienced what it’s like to be attacked, mocked, and ridiculed by longtime friends, former colleagues, and online strangers who think it’s outrageous to suggest that the TV news would not tell us the truth about 9/11. Your lies and those of other anti-truthers will not slow my efforts down one bit.

To quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.  You have lied about me repeatedly, and this makes you a peddler of disinformation. And if you can’t see that Collins is a troll, then I have no faith in anything you have to say about 9/11 or anything else.

I hope you will do the decent thing and remove these false statements. Then we can get back to fighting for truth once again.

Craig McKee

 

Anatomy of a 9/11 troll and his disinformation playbook

By Craig McKee

Some 9/11 trolls have a personal agenda to wreak havoc and damage the movement, while others are agents who are being paid to disrupt. Whichever of these two Mike Collins is, he has been very successful in creating division and poisoning discussions on the Facebook forum “9/11 Truth Movement.”

Collins: worse than the disease.

Collins: worse than the disease.

He poses as the cure for disinformation, but he is infinitely worse than the disease. In fact, a good part of the time he is the disease.

What makes Collins more prolific as a troll is that he is given free rein on the forum to lie by those who run it, in particular its head administrator, Ken Doc, to whom my open letter above is addressed. Collins insults, attacks, mocks, and flat-out lies. Since I called him out for his trolling tactics in an article in January 2015, he has consistently lied about me, telling others that I support holographic planes at the WTC, space beams destroying the towers, and a missile hitting the Pentagon. I don’t believe any of these, and he knows it.

Collins uses classic disinformation techniques, and a few of his own creation, to divide and destroy dialogue. He disguises his use of these techniques by accusing anyone who disagrees with him of spreading disinformation or of being too stupid to know what is true and what isn’t.

Here is a post from this week that is typical:

“Ae911 is being infiltrated by mini nuke tards and particle beam tards heavily right now! Join in to help dispel disinformation!!”

Of course he doesn’t really mean that AE is infiltrated, just that too many people who support the theories mentioned are making comments on the AE Facebook page. But he doesn’t really care about that, he wants all the focus on disinformation all the time. He never offers anything constructive that might bring people together.

Collins has been taking his trollish behavior to greater heights recently by endlessly repeating that basically any conspiracy allegations other than the 9/11 positions he holds should be the objects of ridicule, and those who believe them are stupid conspiracy sheep. He has actually equated the Flat Earth theory [its seemingly sudden rise suggests a psyop to me] with believing Sandy Hook was a false flag. His mention of this topic makes his motives that much more suspect.

Let’s look at some of the disinformation techniques he uses – with specific examples. You may note that a long list of examples is offered for several of these disinfo techniques. I thought it important to show that he doesn’t just make these remarks on occasion, he makes them constantly. Had I taken the time to go through several years of posts, I could have provided hundreds of examples to back up what I am saying. But I think you’ll find there are enough.

He continually attacks “conspiracy theories” – Collins uses terms like “conspiracy sheep” to mock and ridicule virtually anyone who thinks differently from him. This is very effective and very damaging. He enthusiastically backs the mainstream media in continually reinforcing the idea that “conspiracy theorists” are tin-foil-hat-wearing kooks. By the way, the first one might be the most absurd statement he has ever made:

  • “No conspiracy theories are actually true. Because those theories can’t be proven. No theories about 9/11 are true either, they are only theories.”
  • “Please don’t use logic or facts with these retards. They would rather believe in conspiracy theories.”
  • “Not every conspiracy site is right, and most are fake.”
  • “Conspiracy theorists are unscientific idiots who believe everything they see online.”
  • “That’s why i don’t really like discussing the Pentagon, but we need to slap down the conspiracy sheep who adhere so strongly to ‘missile’ theories and other disinfo…They make us all look bad, and 100% of them are simple minded idiots who will literally argue you while they say bullshit lol.”
  • “The problem is that 100% of all people who believe the mini nuke theory are idiots (not meant to be offensive) and they will get utterly confused by what you just typed Ronald.”
  • “I hate when conspiracy theorists ignore evidence just so their theory seems more true.”
  • “Stay logical and only use statements you can absolutely explain and prove. Once you do this, the more simple minded twoofers will think you are a government CIA illuminati agent and this is when you’ve succeeded at distancing yourself from disinfo trolls.”
  • “I’m trying my hardest to awaken people to the only way they can discredit 9/11 truthers, and the conspiracy sheep defend the hoaxes like they were brainwashed to”
  • “I also work for the CIA too supposedly, because i debunk disinformation lol”
  • “Lol if you think I am ‘hopeless’ because I said you should look at the hard data, instead of only conspiracy blogs, then you are just a typical arrogant conspiracy sheep who thinks he is ‘spreading the truth’ by memorizing disinformation….lol”
  • “A new study shows that most conspiracy theorists are idiots who will believe everything they hear from “conspiracy pages.”
  • “Lol this is why nobody takes people considered “conspiracy theorists” seriously. Conspiracy sheep literally search online hours after any crime happens to try and find a “conspiracy theory” for it….even if it makes no sense, and isn’t based in reality.”
  • “Hahaha and every conspiracy sheep acts self important and like they are the only people who find these disinfo blogs.”
  • “Yeah I know, because they force people to use their brains and think, instead of parroting bullshit conspiracy crap.”
  • “We have to hold these theories with a higher esteem and try to distance the real researchers from the simplistic gullible conspiracy nuts who believe in nonsense.”
  • “Lol this is why nobody takes people considered “conspiracy theorists” seriously”
  • “Lol sounds like a typical conspiracy sheep article. If it starts with “reports circulating in the Kremlin….” Then we know its real lol”
  • “Seriously there are some dumb people in this group lol. And those people make all of us look Kooky.”
  • “It could have also been made to discredit conspiracy theorists who claim Isis is fake too.”
  • “I love when conspiracy sheep tell me to “wake up” and then they tell me to watch an Alex Jones documentary haha”
  • “Conspiracy sheep literally search online hours after any crime happens to try and find a “conspiracy theory” for it….even if it makes no sense, and isn’t based in reality.”
  • “Some of the “truthers” on this thread are the stereotypical conspiracy sheep who make us look bad….that’s what this post was about. We ALL have to realize how disinformation works.”
  • “The intelligent members of this group, and admins appreciate my work and knowledge, while teenagers and conspiracy sheep dislike me because I don’t believe every single conspiracy blog, plus I use logic….if you don’t like me, I can imagine what category you are in.”
  • “And no, I don’t parrot the official story I am just not gullible enough to assume that every conspiracy theory is correct just because it’s online.”
  • “There’s a reason why so many fake news sites exist nowadays, and there’s a reason why ISIS spreads conspiracy theories and uses social media”.”
  • “The large majority of information on “conspiracy sites” is completely bullshit. And that’s on purpose. Just be careful. I’m not arguing anybody”

He uses insults and ridicule to taunt opponents – This is his main weapon of attack. He insults, condescends, and generally belittles any opponent. He even claims that newcomers to 9/11 truth who are insulted this way end up thanking him and respecting him. I think it is much more likely that they leave 9/11 truth behind. The most incredible thing is that the admins let Collins get away with it:

  • “And this is why I treat you guys like fucking morons.”
  •  “But you fools keep arguing with me about common sense shit, which makes it hard not to make fun of you for being dumb as fuck”
  •  “Please don’t use logic or facts with these retards. They would rather believe in conspiracy theories.”
  • “Who did I call a retard?”
  • “You said ‘pilots said the plane couldn’t fly that low due to ground effect,’ which is either a lie, or the pilots you talked to are mentally retarded and have no idea what ground effect is….”
  • “You are worse than a debunktard, because you genuinely believe the fake theories which were created to make you look stupid.”
  • “It’s pretty funny getting called an ‘idiot’ by people who think that holograms live in the moon.”
  • “This is my opinion and I’m not insulting anybody specific, but only gullible morons believe some of these fake theories, and then they are unable to explain why they believe them lol”
  • “April Gallop isn’t a pilot, and she heard a bomb…yes, there was a secondary explosion. This doesn’t “disprove a plane”…lol. You are dumb as fuck”
  • “You can’t fly a plane 200 miles to a target just by looking out of the cockpit. Use your fucking brains…..”
  • “2+2 is a conceptual fact which was used to design the computer you type bullshit on”
  • “Don’t turn this into another post where I make you look stupid 300x in a row Jason, or I’ll just block you.”
  • “Yeah, but in this group, flies just avoid honey. They rather flock to shit”
  • “And yeah she still works at Danbury hospital lol what is your point now dumb ass? Did you get confused again”
  • “Message her and ask her about it if you are that fucking stupid.”
  • “LOL Jason you are like a modern day Shakespeare, but with more brain damage.”
  • “Please stop reproducing, we don’t need more stupidity on the planet.”
  • “I’m aware your mom tells you that you are a genius, but in real life, we are just laughing at you in another group at how stupid you are. You would be better off giving it a rest, because you are just going to get banned and then made fun of worse.”
  •  “No, I am right lol and I keep proving you people wrong when you type about bullshit you get confused about.”
  • “I’m sure you feel that way about me, considering all of the ‘opinions’ you have are incorrect and based in bullshit.”
  • “Sorry for showing you why you are so confused about hospitals and other stuff. Next Time, I’ll just let you happily repeat bullshit”
  • “You think it’s a conspiracy that they prepare for events lol”
  • “LOL Because I am in on the plot dude!!!”
  • “You are such an investigator! I can’t believe they don’t hire you as the newest Youtube Spy”
  • “The only way to fix this group is to isolate the people who believe/spread false information and remove them.”
  • “They want to promote missiles and no-planes, and hologram crap because it makes it easier to make 9/11 truthers look stupid.”
  • “He’s mad because I debunked all the errors he typed, and he couldn’t find a single error I said, so now he relies on calling names and character assassination lol.”
  • “Just a typical moron, we get a lot of them in here.”
  • “That actually shows the fuel, simpleton”
  • “Please jesus christ, google this shit if you don’t know what you are talking about. I’m sick of making other truthers on this page look stupid, but once again 100% of people who believe in missiles are clueless”
  • “We gotta clean house, get these cretins out of here lol so this group can seem intelligent again!!”
  • “You are a fucking pathetic fag dude.”
  • “Lol you look like a queer. I’d gladly slap you.”
  • “Let’s just hope that not too many people are dumb enough to join those riots besides welfare cretins or gang members who steal, loot, and do gang murder. If the military takes them out it’s all good. Lol by ghetto welfare cretin, I mean “The fat woman named Shananiqua who is unemployed but has a gold watch.”

But it’s okay, he claims he only attacks when someone else attacks first The hypocrisy would be laughable if it wasn’t deliberate:

  • “I ridicule the shit out of stupid people once they insult me. Lol yes. And typically, I do such a good job that they cry and complain to Joe or Ken, even though anybody reading the post could see that I just responded to their insult “…before I insulted anybody and when i kept asking you for things to debunk… yet you could only call me a troll, shill, disinfo agent, etc lol … then yeah, I started doing the same thing to show how hypocritical you are.”
  • “Then once you did nothing to stop people from insulting me, as admins should, i started to use the exact same insults back to the people in the same way they said them.”
  • “I only did that to point out the fact that you won’t get mad at anybody else for insulting lol”
  • “Lol I didn’t insult anybody except for Craig, but I just repeated the identical insults back to him”
  • “Lol I don’t push anybody around, but if I’m pushed I push back”
  • “I debate in extremely good faith. i use facts, logic and evidence. I don’t jump to conclusions, lie or make up bullshit “
  • “It’s funny how I’ve been nothing but nice and respectful as I explained your disinformation. Every time you just ignored what i said and called me names….I’ll take screenshots of it if you try to lie….”
  • “I haven’t ridiculed a single person and I’ve been pretty cool with you too, even with your backhanded sarcastic comments meant to piss me off”
  • “When people unknowingly spread disinfo, usually they would rather want to learn why its fake than to defend it. That’s why it’s good to be nice to people to figure that out.”

He invokes authority – As part of his know-it-all shtick, Collins talks about how anyone who is not an engineer, architect or other kind of scientist can’t possibly argue what happened on 9/11 because they lack the knowledge:

  • “This is the problem when you are a couch-ridden you tube scientist talking to a person who actually has college degrees.”
  • “It just sucks trying to discuss the Pentagon because none of the “no planers” have taken physics, so any explanation they hear, they simply cannot understand.”
  • “You can’t argue with an idiot using scientific terms they won’t understand lol”
  • “The retards in this group spreading false information are enemies to the real researchers in this group.”
  • “The movement is being overrun by non-experts trying to push their own speculation.
  • “I can’t believe I had to dumb it down that far for people.”
  • “I’m actually very familiar with doing engineering simulations, and physics simulations, since I had to publish mine in a paper…So, unless you guys are engineers, I don’t see the point in arguing that their model is bad, simply because you aren’t smart enough to understand it.”
  • “Only ignorant high schoolers think a missile hit, and 100% of those people failed physics and can’t even explain what momentum is.”
  • “I’m aware you never took physics, so of course, all physics is made up right?”
  • “Once again, one must have somewhat of a grasp of physics… Only children, high schoolers and uneducated adults think that…period.”
  • “… 100% of people who think a missile hit are idiots who failed physics.”
  • “Too many people think they are scientists and FBI investigators because they saw a few blogs, but they don’t do enough research into the stuff they believe to realize it’s fake”
  • “Scott, you don’t even understand how hospitals operate lol. Don’t even talk”
  • “At least admit you are foolish when you are debunked, it helps you learn”
  • “But what you would expect (these are my engineering degrees talking) is the heavy parts of the plane to break through the concrete into the building as they get shredded, and the lighter parts to only do minimal damage to the exterior of the building as they were shredded.”
  • “I’m aware Craig (Dow) likes to argue from ignorance on every topic, but one cannot just dismiss facts and basic physics in order to make a conspiracy theory correct lol”
  • “According to Craig (Dow), you tube videos are 100% true all the time, never fake. And physics textbooks must be wrong, because they disagree with some non-experts on you tube. That’s why you shouldn’t take advice from a high schooler lol.”

He falsely associates things that aren’t connected to discredit others Flat Earth and Sandy Hook – need I say more?

  • “Yes I was equating the Sandy hook disinformation program to the Flat Earth disinformation program since they both have the same purpose.”
  • “If someone tries to educate somebody about 9/11 using only facts and great information, it’s impossible to debunk them. Once they bring up how the Moon Landings were fake, or the Sandy hook kids were fake, or the earth is flat, that person will consider the truther to be a complete idiot and will forget all the 9/11 information they said. That’s why disinformation is used. I’m sorry if this is alarming but it should be obvious by now to everybody.”
  • “And the trouble is that yes, every single aspect of the Flat earth theory and Sandy hook are easily debunkable with actual research.”
  • “Lemme guess, you think Sandy Hook was fake, and the town is fake, and the children are fake. Maybe the USA is fake, have you ever been there?! And the Boston bombings were fake too. Nobody on earth does anything bad, unless it’s a false flag by the holographic elite lolol”
  • “It’s my opinion that anybody who thinks Sandy Hook was fake is a complete idiot. Or anybody who claims that every shooting and bombing is a false flag. That isn’t insulting anybody. Are we not allowed to have opinions?”
  • “Not every shooting is planned by the elite lol. It sucks when people in this group say that, because then it makes me feel stupid being associated with sheep who believe anything they read online.”
  • “The trouble is that every single “conspiracy theory” about Sandy hook and Boston use false information and other speculation to make fake theories. Every aspect of those conspiracy theories is easily proven wrong.”

He claims that any sources that contradict him are disinformation In the world of Collins, blogs, videos, and “conspiracy sites” are disinfo because they are “online.” A foolproof tactic; destroy the messenger:

  • “I forget we only post debunked hoax blogs in here!”
  • “You aren’t a researcher if you memorize David Icke’s blog daily…..”
  • “There’s a reason why so many fake news sites exist nowadays, and there’s a reason why ISIS spreads conspiracy theories and uses social media.”
  • “Ask CIT. They have numerous fake witnesses in order to promote their disinformation.”
  • “And no, I don’t parrot the official story, I am just not gullible enough to assume that every conspiracy theory is correct just because it’s online”
  • “Conspiracy theorists are unscientific idiots who believe everything they see online.”
  • “Craig McKee and the CIT (citizen investigation team) are not real researchers, but rather a group of people who memorize whatever Craig and the leaders of CIT say”
  • “Craig McKee writes on a disinformation blog, and wrote a new article about how to make this group look fake. He tells his readers ways to ‘debunk’ us, and how to spread disinformation about missiles and holograms.”
  • “Yeah you don’t know shit lol. You just memorize any youtube videos you see”
  • “Craig McKee and other disinfo shills want truthers to ignore evidence, just so their “missile theory” makes sense.”
  • “Don’t let Craig and the other people publish disinformation and trick all of us.”
  • “Please can some group members help us to expose Craig’s blog and his followers as shills”
  • “We need more people aware that [Craig McKee] is a disinformation agent”
  • “Be careful about Craig McKee’s disinformation blog. He might publish some truthful information from time to time, but the majority of his articles are full of incorrect and hoaxed information.”
  • “This whole thread just gives Rebekonikah GainoRoth more free advertising and traffic to Crazy “Craig’s disinformation site.”
  • “Not every shooting is planned by the elite lol. It sucks when people in this group say that, because then it makes me feel stupid being associated with sheep who believe anything they read online.”
  • “Please start thinking more like adults, and less like children on YouTube”
  • “Please can some group members help us to expose Craig’s blog and his followers as shills”
  • “Craig McKee and CIT just seek to gather a group of people who will spread their disinformation.
  • That article I posted is basically a guide on how to lie and mislead people.”
  • “But in all seriousness, try to research flight guidance systems so you don’t repeat the same incorrect information for a 51st time… otherwise it’ll seem like you are spreading disinformation”
  • “You don’t use facts, you just parrot disinformation from various blogs. Every single comment you make is almost all incorrect Stephen, no offense.”
  • “Jeff, read about 9/11 on websites which aren’t only conspiracy blogs…..that’s why most of the information you type is wrong, because most conspiracy blogs are disinformation.”
  • “It’s just sad when people would rather trust a disinformation blog, instead of fellow researchers who talk calmly and respectfully to them.”

He uses gross generalizations. Let’s call this the 100% club – Yes, every single solitary person who has ever disagreed with Collins is a moron:

  • “The problem is that 100% of all people who believe the mini nuke theory are idiots (not meant to be offensive) and they will get utterly confused by what you just typed Ronald.”
  • “…but we need to slap down the conspiracy sheep who adhere so strongly to ‘missile’ theories and other disinfo…They make us all look bad, and 100% of them are simple minded idiots…”
  • “Hahaha and every conspiracy sheep acts self important and like they are the only people who find these disinfo blogs.”
  • “No conspiracy theories are actually true. Because those theories can’t be proven. No theories about 9/11 are true either, they are only theories.”
  •  “Lol this is why nobody takes people considered “conspiracy theorists” seriously”
  • “…but once again 100% of people who believe in missiles are clueless”
  • And the trouble is that yes, every single aspect of the Flat earth theory and Sandy hook are easily debunkable with actual research.”
  • “Only ignorant high schoolers think a missile hit, and 100% of those people failed physics and can’t even explain what momentum is.”
  • “… 100% of people who think a missile hit are idiots who failed physics.”
  • “According to Craig (Dow), you tube videos are 100% true all the time, never fake.”
  • “The trouble is that every single “conspiracy theory” about Sandy hook and Boston use false information and other speculation to make fake theories. Every aspect of those conspiracy theories is easily proven wrong.”

He questions motives – Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive:

  • “Yeah there’s been a growing trend of truthers trying to jump on the “writing a book” bandwagon so they can profit by selling their own speculation.”

He claims that opponents’ positions are old news – Why address the substance of what someone says when you can just claim that it has already been debunked:

  • “Craig, why do you come in here every week, and repeat the same stupid questions every single time, after multiple people have proven you wrong? Are you hoping that one simple minded person will agree with you, so you can believe you are finally justified? Lol”

He introduces false evidence – As you can see in this example, he makes a nonsensical statement in the hope it will distract from the valid point that prompted it:

  • “How could the engines drag on the ground, before the fuselage? This question alone just proves you have absolutely no fuckin clue what you are talking about. Do the engines drag on the ground when planes take off from airports? Lol”

He claims the other side is pushing “speculationIt’s simple; he has the facts, while his opponents have “speculation” and “assumptions”:

  • “The trouble is that every single “conspiracy theory” about Sandy hook and Boston use false information and other speculation to make fake theories”
  • “The movement is being overrun by non-experts trying to push their own speculation.
  • “Yeah there’s been a growing trend of truthers trying to jump on the “writing a book” bandwagon so they can profit by selling their own speculation.”

New releases – Here are some blatant lies he wrote about me last weekend:

  • “Ask Ken and Joe how efficient I am at spotting trolls and disinformation agents lol. We have a pretty tight knit efficient team and I’m pretty good at helping out. So people like Craig McKee don’t like me, because I destroyed them and then we realized he actually published disinformation articles”
  • “He talks about holographic planes at the towers, Rebekah Roth’s book, and the missile disinformation at the Pentagon.”
  • “He also wrote an article insulting AE911 saying it was disinformation.”
  • “That’s why we banned him from every truth group ran by us (well I’m not admin of any groups anymore thank god)”

When he was asked for examples to back up his claims, he responded:

  • “Google “Craig McKee ae911 disinformation”
  • “And “Craig McKee missile pentagon”

These searches offer nothing to support his claims, as I knew they wouldn’t. The claims are obviously false, but he knows that for everyone who checks into it, there are dozens who will take his word for it. By all means, try this at home.

I actually thought admin Joe Haley had finally seen the light just the other day when it seemed that he had tossed Collins off the forum once and for all after chastising him for insulting other members and causing the group to lose members (he indicated that about 1,500 of more than 39,000 members have left in recent months). I was prepared to praise Haley for finally doing something to change things. When I raised all of these issues more than a year ago, he was one of those who brushed me off and sided with Collins. But he seems to have a lot less patience for him now:

Joe Haley: You say everything perfect, but then you say people aren’t smart enough. mike, i just wish you would leave out that “factor” People are smart, yes, granted not as smart as you, but really, don’t call 40 thousand people dumb. I really seriously wish you could “get” that. makes it much easier to teach people when you don’t start off with “It’s just a shame that so many people aren’t smart enough to tell the difference” Just teach them where they are wrong, without digging on their intelligence. Seriously, mike, please help us. I am fucking begging you.”

Mike Collins: Why is that bad? Some people aren’t smart enough to tell the difference. It’s not being mean, it’s just the truth. Chill out Joe, no need to get panties wadded up every time I comment lol”

Joe Haley: It’s ok, we are below 38,000 [members] for the first time in 10 years, but you are in fucking glee. It’s ok. fuck the 9/11 truth movement, i am fucking done… Nate [Nelson, a long-time member who finally got fed up] left you fucking freak… You won’t be happy until we have 10 fucking people. .. We lost 100 when you went on your Sandy hook rant. But nooooo collins still isn’t happy… Almost seems like he wants to sabotage this group.

The light bulb is coming on. Someone in that admin group is finally getting it. A few minutes later, Collins was out of the group, and I thought, “Way to go, Joe!”

Then, the next day, I find out Collins is back and that the credit I gave Haley was not deserved (Could it be that he wanted him out but was overruled?). Collins claims he left of his own accord because he was frustrated by the “trolls.”

Yes, they can be a handful, can’t they Mike?

***

Here are some of the sources on disinformation that helped me put this article together:

Disinformation: How It Works

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/disinformation-how-it-works

Washington’s Blog: The Troll’s Guide to Internet Disruption: The 15 Rules of Web Disruption

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/trolls-guide-internet-disruption.html

Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin

http://www.brasscheck.com/martin.html

Twenty-five Rules of Disinformation by H. Michael Sweeney

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html#Twenty-Five_Rules_of_Disinformation

 

 

339 comments

  1. So sorry this is happening to you Craig. The behavior you describe is so over the top it’s almost unbelievable. I do believe you of course but it’s far worse than I had assumed. Holograms at the Pentagon, a missile flying over the Pentagon, wtf?

    1. Yes, it’s incredible, isn’t it? There is absolutely no circumstance that would lead me to tell lies about another truther. I wouldn’t even tell lies about someone I thought was a government agent. The truth is what matters. Without that, what have we got?

      1. This comment was sent by email from Jim Fetzer and I have posted it for him. Unfortunately I don’t know how to remove my own gravatar although I was successful in changing the name. If anyone can tell me how to do that, I’d be grateful.-Craig McKee

        As someone who has published extensively on the Pentagon, who has offered good reasons for concluding that “no planes” theory is correct and who has advanced objective and detailed proof that the “official” narrative of the Holocaust cannot be sustained, I am impressed by the thorough and sensible fashion in which Craig McKee has taken apart the irresponsible and indefensible allegations of Mike Collins, which appear to have been fostered by Ken Doc. This is disgraceful.

        One of the common mistakes committed in ordinary language is to confound false assertions with lies, where false assertions properly qualify as lies only when those asserting them know they are false but assert them anyway in a deliberate effort to mislead their target audience. On the basis of my knowledge of the 9/11 research of John Lear, Ace Baker and Craig McKee, I am dumbfounded that such irresponsible attacks would be made upon any of them. I have had my differences with Ace Baker, for example, but I have never doubted his sincerity in his research.

        I would be glad to invite Mike Collins or Ken Doc (or both together) to come on my show, “The Real Deal”, and debate what did and did not happen at the Pentagon, what can explain what we have been shown in relation to the purported “hits” on the Twin Towers and the official narrative of the Holocaust. On that subject, search for “The Holocaust Narrative: Politics trumps Science”, which also appears in AND I SUPPOSE WE DIDN’T GO TO THE MOON, EITHER? (2015). On the Pentagon, here are links to 4 articles that, in my judgment, leave no room for doubt about it:

        http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/reflections-on-pentagon-911.html

        http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/top-ten-911-cons-fraud-vitiates.html

        http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2012/06/official-account-of-pentagon-attack-is.html

        http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/an-aeronautical-engineer-no-boeing-757.html

        On the “planes” in New York, check out “The Real Deal Ep. #100 The 9/11 Crash Sites with Major General Albert Stubblebine (USA, ret.)”, formerly in charge of all US military signals and photographic intelligence, with whom I discuss each of the alleged crash sites in considerable detail at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65H8XbrQHBg And for a shorter summary of the evidence that none of the alleged 9/11 aircraft crash sites were real, see “The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference, Part 2”, on line at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAEvw2CjAYQ

        For added measure, we can throw in Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing. I have YouTubes about both entitled “The Real Deal must see Sandy Hook Update” and “The Real Deal must see Boston bombing update”, which you can easily find by searching their titles on YouTube. I also have an edited book, NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015), which was banned less than a month after its appearance by amazon.com, which I immediately released to the public for free as a pdf. Anyone should be able to find it without effort, such as at rense.com, to download.

        My opinion is that Craig has exposed some of the most ignorant and irresponsible figures in the 9/11 Truth movement. Neither Mike Collins nor Ken Doc appear to have any idea what they are talking about. From what Craig has outlined here (with copious documentation) strikes me as a veritable encyclopedia of elementary fallacies compounded by deliberate deception. I therefore invite them to come on my show for a two hour debate with me. Like Bush and Cheney, they can come together and hold each others hand. I stand ready, willing and able to expose them both.

        1. “On the “planes” in New York, check out “The Real Deal”~Fetzer

          Hahahahahaha…still peddling that bullshit aye?
          \\][//

              1. Yes, one has things to be grateful for. But I dream of a day when Mr. Fetzer will comment or be mentioned and you will let it pass. You may say I’m a dreamer …(I’d put lol, but I hate lol)

                  1. Craig, You should not give him ANY of these snide and disgraceful ad hominem comments. If you want to foster respect, you have to ENFORCE IT. He ought to be banned for life; but for now, I would recommend that you simply delete his remark, which was clearly intended to distract attention from the abundant and compelling proof I have advanced that what Mike Collins and Ken Doc are peddling is not only false but provably false and, indeed, in relation to the Pentagon and the “hits” on the Twin Towers, not even scientifically possible. This guy has a designated role to attack and distract anything I post here lest others follow up and discover truths that he and others, such as Collins and Doc, would prefer that the public never know.

                    1. paul, I do like your article on roth and westover, if this is not the right place to comment, I am sorry.

            1. Well as you see Craig, well enough will not be left alone. I understand that Ken Doc and his oinkers are dishonest shills, And I know you have never condoned some of the nutty concepts that they have accused you of. BUT you have given solace even yet this very day to someone who does promote screwball junk science and absurd theories.

              This “no-planes” at the WTC has been shot down as absolute nonsense by all with any grasp of Newtonian physics. “Projected Holograms” are simply impossible in principle. And the other issues in dispute are equally unscientific twaddle.

              And now as we see with the latest post here (January 2, 2016 at 5:18 pm), we are no longer confined to the issues on Ken Doc and his nonsense, but are treated to an onslaught of absolute bullshit about the the towers not being hit by real aircraft. So we end up with junk science again:
              The “No-planes at WTC”, attended by the same crap pseudoscience that has come from this charlatan for years now.

              If you won’t at least make it clear that you don’t agree with this nonsense, how can you complain when someone accuses you of promoting it. You don’t have to censor the party spouting this bullshit, but you can make your position on the matter clear; that you allow all points of view here, but do not necessarily condone those points of view.
              \\][//

        2. Hey Fetzer, when you going to invite me on to talk about Shanksville? I’m starting to get tired of all the “names” in this “truth” movement acting like they dont know who I am….

              1. Ok, Domenick, I watched the videos and I still don’t know what your position is.

                Have you ever written an article explaining your position, and showing proof?

                I don’t see anything on your Facebook page.

                Thank you!

    1. Robert, I appreciate your comment, and you’ve pointed out one of the really problematic things about him and his forum. By the way, I removed your colorful descriptive term for Ken because I thought it would be hypocritical of me to criticize Collins for his name calling and then allow the same kinds of names to be used to describe Ken. But I understand where you are coming from.

  2. https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/craig-mckee/ indeed looks like a hit piece, albeit more intelligent than what a regular newspaper would produce. If Ken Doc wishes to express contempt at someone, he has innumerable targets available: just about anybody with a blog that opposes neoconservatism can be blasted–with legitimacy–for “ignoring” the Twin Towers’ self-evident terrorist controlled demolition and its transparent technical cover-up. Disagreements on other 9/11 subconspiracies and over other real or alleged conspiracies against humanity are best kept respectful, as these topics are unfortunately much more complex and fortunately much less important.

    Since criticizing people in their back is morally questionable, I tried to share this comment with Ken Doc, but was unsuccessful. I trust that he’ll find his way to this page, somehow.

    Love,

  3. I think it is sad, and unfortunate, that you needed to post this blog entry Craig, but ultimately it was necessary. I offer this comment as a response to what I’m predicting might be some peoples’ reactions: that by even blogging about this publicly at all, you’re simply perpetuating “truther infighting” and not “taking the high road” and just ignoring it all.

    Well first of all, if an entire web page were devoted to attacking me with lies — actually, now that I remember it, there IS such a page* — I’d respond publicly and nip the lies in the bud as well.

    The short answer: lies and libel are like a cancerous tumor. Cancer kills the host body if not excised in time. It’s not just about the instigator of the lies, it’s also about those who repeat them and propagate the ripple effect.

    Look at the way Richard Gage, 5 years ago, was emailed by the Agent Mike Collinses of that time (Victoria Ashley, Arabesque, Michael Wolsey, Cosmos, Col. Jenny Sparks… oh the nostalgia), and that Team kept drumming the same talking points into RG’s head about how CIT had distorted and cherry-picked witness statements to support a pre-ordained conclusion. This of course was not true but Richard eventually came to believe it and the result was, in February 2011, one of the most damaging moments in the history of the truth movement.

    Richard, in particular, is a very impressionable person and quite naive outside of his own area of expertise (and Richard if you’re reading I say this respectfully but bluntly). If enough people were to email him and convince him that one of his writers supports hologram planes hitting the Pentagon, and a missile flying over the Pentagon, Richard would probably start to believe it. This would go quadruple if the people telling him this are people he considers “good friends.”

    I was friendly with Ken Doc for maybe 5-6 years, but for me the first red flag was concerning Boston. He and a few friends created a “think tank” group, and one month into it, he conducted a poll with some pretty leading language. This is not a verbatim remembrance, but close: “In light of the sheer overwhelming evidence that the “crisis actors” angle is disinfo, and that all photos show real victims, should we any longer tolerate postings that push the “crisis actor” position? Vote YES or NO.”

    Of course, with wording like that, the No vote won by about a 65-35 margin. I remember messaging him and telling him that it was manipulative to word the poll like that; I for one had NOT been convinced that this angle was “disinfo.” He completely sidestepped my main point, which was that he was leading the reader with loaded language. His response was (again paraphrasing, don’t have screenshot nor photographic memory) “Adam, I took it to a vote. If the vote had gone the other way, I absolutely would have backed down.”

    Regardless of whether or not there were crisis actors in Boston, that experience left a sour taste in my mouth and I resolved at that point that I wouldn’t participate in any groups other than about 9/11 that Ken was in charge of. I figured, we get along just fine on 9/11, so we’ll keep it to that as far as activist collaboration.

    So on life went. But now, he’s really jumped the shark. After last year’s article critical of the 9/11 group here at T/S, he banned and not only blocked Craig but also me and anyone else who is supportive of his blog.

    And the fact that he changed his position re what happened at the Pentagon immediately after your article has got to qualify as possibly the most epic “butt hurt” moment in TM history.

    I’m reminded of my now-ex friend who in 2004 voted for Bush out of spite for me and the fact that I was promoting Michael Moore’s movie.

    At any rate, thanks Craig. While at the moment I have little faith that your open letter will make Ken come around (your article last year was not as hard hitting as this one and look how bruised he got over that), at least you have done your duty and nipped the lies in the bud.

    _______________

    *pdx911truthalliancedramatica.blogspot.com/2012/03/adam-syed-aka-kameelyn.html

    1. Just curious Adam, since you say “Regardless of whether or not there were crisis actors in Boston…” does that mean you haven’t decided yet?

      1. Sheila,

        I am not certain that “crisis actors” were in Boston. But I am certain that Craft International was, and that they planted the pressure cooker bomb.

        You will recall that there were purported to be 2 bombs. I would say one was a “smoke bomb” and nothing else, but that there was a real bomb as well.
        \\][//

      2. Sheila, I said it like that specifically to safeguard from the thread being sidetracked for another dozen or more comments or so on that angle of my response to Craig’s piece. I want the focus here to remain on Ken’s and Mike’s libel and disinfo.

        But since you asked, I do tend toward the crisis actors angle, because I remember your article from 2+ years ago as being very thorough and very convincing.

    2. Your analysis is spot on, Adam. His reaction to the article a year ago was so over the top. Like a kid having a tantrum, threatening to quit the movement because someone had the nerve to criticize him. You know it isn’t evident to anyone reading this that I debated for weeks about writing something. I was very concerned that it would look like I was airing personal disputes in public to the detriment of the movement. But I finally decided that I had no choice. Collins kept telling the same lies over and over. And none of the admins would lift a finger to stop it.

      1. I agree Craig. And for real truthers like Sheila, myself, yourself and Adam Ruff to be given the permanent boot while Collins has several times received temporary bans but then let back in because he’s Ken’s “bro”… that says it all about the level of high school cliquishness. Maybe Ken and fellow admin Amanda Sedell should go and make out over by her locker. :p

        1. I just commented, but I don’t know if admin approval is required. My comment didn’t show up. Really Adam, are junior high insults, the mark of a real truther?

          1. Karma. You reap what you sow. I wouldn’t have been so tempted to add that snarky bit at the end if the group had not devolved over the years into such a jejune junior high clique.

            Care to actually rebut anything about Ken’s lies about Craig, or Agent Collins’ disinformation tactics or is my jab at Ken and Amanda all you’ve got?

            1. Thank you for commenting Joe. I’m glad you’re at least participating in the discussion. Why did Mike Collins recently get let back in to the group the day after your blow-up with him about how he alienates and how the membership numbers are down?

              1. Real mature Adam, I’d expect “real truthers” not to digress into such Junior High “insults”.

                Respond to my comment first, adam, thanks.

  4. My belief is this shouldn’t be about hyperinflated ego as I’ve seen too often across other blogs. Reminds me of dealing with the “Skeptitards” header from another blog that I’m sure regulars here are aware of. As soon as things get heated, emotions come into play. Won’t say for anybody else but I think it’s when human nature, logic and common sense are no longer exercised. We become uncentered, (explains my terrible choices in women and other things) when urges anger and hurt are come into play.

    I don’t know much about Collins or Ken Doc’s site but what I see are huge ego’s in play here to the fact that they have elevated themselves as the defacto authorities to 9/11 truth and other events that question the official storyline.
    What I don’t abide by is what I see to be self aggrandizement by people like Collins and such that use their pseudo lofty position of education/indoctrination as their basis for their auto authoritarianism. As the saying goes.
    “A thousand times better to have common sense and little education”
    “Than to be educated and have no common sense”
    What it gets down to is a maliciousness towards those that beg to differ be it through an incomplete understanding or a diametrically opposed opinion.
    This should be selfless, in the absence of truth, all that is left is what our gut tells us which amount to be varying degrees of probability in lieu of stark truth.
    These people need to step back and take a look at themselves. They’ve become what I think many see as sycophants.
    It’s about raising the level of consciousness, not stroking one’s ego.
    Keep up the good work Craig, your site is a go to for fresh speculation.

    1. Thanks, Veritytwo. I agree with the importance of common sense as well as the importance of just dealing decently with people. 9/11 truth is a worldwide movement not a club with a hierarchy. That’s what Doc has created. One thing I didn’t get into too much is that there is tremendous pressure on admins to support a plane impact at the Pentagon. This is very disturbing.

      1. And that’s where common sense comes into play. From the 5 frame video that doesn’t show something as big as a Boeing 757 to the lack of scattered crash debris from a 200,000 plus pound aircraft hitting a reinforced wall is a lot of kinetic energy that isn’t explained by the overview of damage inflicted. Collins does also not have a clue about the effects of ground effect on an extremely low flying aircraft. Even piloting a light aircraft in ground effect, you literally have to push down to keep it there. In a large aircraft at 350 plus MPH. with a 124′ wing span 8′ from the ground as “Pilots for 9/11 Truth” explain, would be very improbable to impossible. Ground effect is encountered at half wing span and has to be worked at to get lower, the aircraft will literally pop up when you relieve pressure on the control yoke or stick. Before he makes such garrish utterances even against professional pilots, he needs to do his homework as do others espousing plane impact.
        It’s s shame that we can’t come to a consensus, it plays right into the hands of those that want to keep the truth of 9/11 hidden

        1. The lack of consensus is by design. We have two prominent groups, for example, A&E911 and Judy Wood and DEWs, who will not even address who was responsible and why. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has made some important contributions, but do not appreciate that their proofs that Flight 175 was traveling faster than aerodynamically possible for a Boeing 767.

          Using ground-air communications, Pilots for 9/11 Truth have also established that Flight 11 was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, after it had allegedly crashed in Shanksville and that Flight 175 was detected over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after it had officially hit the South Tower are proof of video fakery and support “no planes” theory, which is the conjunction of the four claims:

          (1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;

          (2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;

          (3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville; and,

          (4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.

          Indeed, I have FAA Registration data showing the the planes used for Flights 93 and 175 were not even deregistered (formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005. There is more than enough proof that none of those crashes took place. But look around you. The Pentagon links I provided offer empirical evidence and aerodynamic proof no Boeing 757 hit there, yet we have members of the community attacking those who provide it. We have been infiltrated.

          1. There is no pressure whatsoever on the admins of the 9/11 truth movement to have any position on the Pentagon. Craig, if you are going to trash my group with motives unknown, at least know some facts.

            1. Mr. Doc and Mr. Collins have reaped what they have sown. Craig is not “trashing” the group, he’s meticulously pointing out what’s wrong there and even spotlights the moment where the light bulb seemed to go off for you regarding Collins’ presence. He’s also spotlighting provable lies Mr. Doc has propagated about Mr. McKee, on a URL devoted to discrediting him.

              1. so how many letters has craig written trashing the 9/11 truth movement, I know of at least two, both ironically almost a year apart. Second question who’s your “spy”? LOL

                1. Why can’t you understand that I am not trashing the group? How many times do I have to say this? Can you not tell the difference between criticisms of two people and an attack on a group of 39,000?

                1. Has McKee not spoken for himself enough on this thread? I’ve answered you and will answer anything you address to me. Adam has his own opinion, and on this subject we are in agreement. In fact, we usually see eye to eye. And there is nothing wrong with that.

            2. Once again, the false claim is made that I’m attacking the whole group. Ken and Mike keep saying that, too, even though it is false. The group has 39,000 members and I have never criticized the whole membership. The group had an admin who believes no crash took place and who was tossed out recently, and he certainly believes there is pressure. There is a climate in that forum that is hostile to views other than those held by the inner circle.

                  1. he probably does. I am intimately familiar with the removal of roger’s admin but as I said, I chose not to drag anyone into the mud and “defend” any decision that was made on an admin level in a group you are not even a part of and shouldn’t really be worried about admin descisions of that group. Contrary to what rogers told you, his admin was not removed for his stance on the pentagon. I was the admin who fought to have him “knighted” as admin to begin with, but I honestly saw that he wasn’t what we (911tm) needed as an admin. That should have been the end of it, but the protagonist decided to perform a suicide by admin, which it is called in the business. So really, if you want to speculate, you’d come to me. But it’s in the past. I look to the future of those (suspects) hanging in Washington Mall by their neck. All of this bickering prevents this by days, months, years and many years where the 9/11tm will never come together. I don’t give a shit what Collins says, I don’t give a shit what doc says, I don’t give a shit what McKee says I give a shit what the 911tm says. And we are so far from even getting an indictment on the autors of the NIST paper, it’s almost laughable, if people didn’t die daily, while we are bickering about planes at the pentagon, no planes at the pentagon, no planes at the towers, judy wood spacebeams, it’s all FUCKING gravy. Let’s go after obstruction of justice and crime scene evidence destruction.

                    1. There’s probably a lot we can agree on, Joe. I don’t want to be fighting over this stuff either. But I see real harm coming to our efforts when someone is allowed to poison discussions the way MC does. You want to shoot the messenger, but you don’t see the problem being communicated. Can’t you see the double standard? I could see you were fed up with Collins, and you were right to be. I’m sure that things were much better while he was gone. So why don’t you just kick him out for the good of the movement? Many people would thank you.

                1. I personally know why his admin was taken away, but he left the group on his own accord. But really facts shouldn’t matter to you. You’re only hearing his side of the story and as this is a public forum, I don’t feel the need to air my group’s dirty laundry. It doesn’t do anything to move us closer to a court date, suing SOMEONE for obstruction of justice, at the very least. Anyone in the 911TM that is actually dreaming that we are ever going to get the REAL perps is seriously deluded. 9/11 justice will never have those (suspects) hanging by their neck in Washington Mall, won’t happen. I have come to that reality. JFK was murdered in cold blood 50+ years ago and yeah really some people actually still “think” that Oswald fired three adrenaline laced perfect shots from 6 stories and 200 yards away.

                  1. Facts shouldn’t matter to me, eh? Do you see any irony in that comment? Why don’t you correct Collins when he lies? You must know he’s doing it. But you all let him launch bullshit attacks at will.

                  2. Joe, that is a lie and you know it, you blame me for something-some made up interaction that you deemed hostile weeks before with Stuart Crosbie (who I’m friends with), you claim a ad hom attack on Crosbie when the convo was peaceful and ended with me saying it was a miscommunication, when you are constantly using expletives dealing with people and by that same logic YOU should be removed.

                    I sent you the screen shot of Ken’s telling me why I was let go, so stop lying to this page here, do you have any scruples/moral compass at all? Then you say I left the group of my own accord, that is really funny but a total lie also, I was banned and you know it. After I was banned you had this glowing report of me which was to quell the masses on the page that were irate at your decision ‘which was unanimous’ according to Ken.

                    You then come on this page complaining of attacks on Ken when Ken devotes a page on his blog about Mckee! lol. Hemlock anyone?

                    1. ps, Ken told me all these things about Craig, ‘go to his page you’ll see what I’m talking about dude’, … I went and read all his stuff, nothing. You are a liar and are following a habitual liar. I don’t know what happened to ken, but lately he’s lost all reason and logic for some idiot theory from Arabesque/Hoffman circa 2006, and worships Chandlers 36 minute reprehensible lecture, which Chandler attacks previously many people and refuses to respond to legitimate criticism of their work, how is that helping the movement?

                  3. “I look to the future of those (suspects) hanging in Washington Mall by their neck.”

                    “Anyone in the 911TM that is actually dreaming that we are ever going to get the REAL perps is seriously deluded. 9/11 justice will never have those (suspects) hanging by their neck in Washington Mall, won’t happen. I have come to that reality.”

                    Interesting juxtaposition of convictions.

                    1. Stephen Phillips said:

                      Joe said:

                      “I look to the future of those (suspects) hanging in Washington Mall by their neck.”

                      “Anyone in the 911TM that is actually dreaming that we are ever going to get the REAL perps is seriously deluded. 9/11 justice will never have those (suspects) hanging by their neck in Washington Mall, won’t happen. I have come to that reality.”

                      Interesting juxtaposition of convictions.

                      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

                      Good catch, Stephen; that just proves that a liar can’t keep his lies straight.
                      They have trouble remembering what they said from one moment to the next, sometimes.

                      So, according to “Joe”, “Joe” is delusional.

                      And as Adam Ruff says:

                      “Liars are not Truthers”

                  1. Maybe Ken and fellow admin Amanda Sedell should go and make out over by her locker. :p so adam, it matters how many people are privy to the bullshit attacks? “those who are without sin may cast the first stone” Jesus.

                    1. Sorry, you’re confusing me and Adam, who made the remark you’re commenting on. But it’s funny that you actually take the time to write how you feel about the “locker” comment, but you don’t think it’s worth mentioning when Collins says I push missile disinfo. You don’t see the hypocrisy?

                    2. Like I said, it’s very telling you’re holding my feet to the fire over that yet ignoring the substance of Craig’s very long (2) piece(s).

                    3. craig, I know who made the comment, it is really my first time commenting oon a blog of this type, and I am unsure where the reply is going. Excuse me for being a newbie.

                    4. Not a problem. Just wanted to be sure. You know, Joe, I see that you have posted my articles a few times, and I really appreciate that. It indicates that you are looking at the content and not the byline.

                    5. adam, does your comment deserve any less? first of all you’re involving Amanda who isn’t even a part of this, then your mentally jerking off on the prospect of Amanda and ken making out, something you’ll never be able to do. Junior High? I got it. You’re welcome.

                    6. Well to be perfectly frank, she’s a member of the admin team, she’s in part responsible for allowing Collins to get away with his disinformation and lies.

                      And over the past year I’ve seen screenshots of her posting bullshit accusations against CIT, professing sympathy for the “poor old” cab driver who was “harrassed” by them because they didn’t buy his (non-credible) light pole story. Poor man, she exclaimed. After he invited them into his home and all!

                      Sometimes a small amount of derision is warranted.

                      And I don’t “fantasize” about them making out.

                      The image came to me precisely because the 911TM group had devolved into such an immature clique. A high school hallway is exactly what the place feels like over the last couple years. Cliques? Yes, well when Amanda “likes” Collins’ bullshit comments. Sometimes a small amount of derision can be warranted.

                      You’re welcome.

                    7. yeah syed, with that last comment, trying to defend your bullshit junior high school remarks about people making out is where I stop ever listening to you. You don’t realize, but you’re everything you hate about Collins(immature, junior high, speculative, juju(whateverthefuckthatmeans) and everything else.) I am glad you have shown your hypocrisy to the world, adam syed, the thing is, I won’t take screenshots and write a blog post about it.

                    8. Now you’re being a dick. Are you intentionally not getting it or do you still not understand why I had to write this post? Have you even once said that Ken’s page about me is not fair? I didn’t think so. So maybe you shouldn’t be accusing Adam of hypocrisy.

                    9. Yes I’m defending it because I have a high degree if disdain for those two individuals. The way they’ve treated the Pentagon and CIT, they clearly care more about their clique than the truth.

                    10. craig, sorry, but the same comments have been delivered by one of your contributors/admin. I don’t know how blogs work, versus the facebook group setting. I might have been a touch out of line, but also you admit your admin/”contributor’s” comments may have been a touch out of line. It’s all good because as syed explains so eloquently, karma is a bitch.

                    11. as far as getting back on topic, no craig, I don’t understand why you had to write two articles trashing the very thing you think you believe namely 9/11 truth. This infighting is honestly embarrassing to me, and really if it was up to me, I’d ban 37,000 of my group members and focus on the 1,000 that want to see the (suspects) in Washington square, hanging by their neck.

                    12. Joe, do you not see how ridiculous what you just said is? I’m trashing 9/11 truth? If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were kidding. Do me a favor and just give me your evaluation of the tactic of posting obvious lies about another truther. Simple question.

                      Ken has this on his web site right now.

                      Craig McKee also supports the fraudulent theories of “Space Beams” created by Judy Wood and “Hologram planes” hit the towers by Jim Fetzer.

                      What do you think of this?

            3. Joe the bottom line is that I was banned from your FB group for no valid reason whatsoever. I did not insult or disparage anyone, I simply expressed my opinion. The opinion happens to be one that Ken Doc doesn’t like so he censored me and banned me. Censorship is tyranny in case you do not know that Joe. It is not as severe a form of tyranny as say genocide is but never the less it is tyranny.

              I wonder if a person like Ken Doc was given real power how bad his tyrannical behavior would actually become? He is clearly willing to take away others right to speak freely so I have to question what he would do if he were a president of a country? My gut tells me his tyranny would grow with his power and people who were critical of him would probably end up dead in big heaping piles.

              Ken Doc is a petty tyrant and you Joe and the other admins are just as guilty of tyranny as he is because you enforce his will and try to justify his actions. You are his order followers and you would all do well to realize that you are following the immoral orders of a tyrant. Ken Doc has a little cult going there on FB and you and the others are his henchmen. Here is a little video that explains why you are in a cult Joe and why it is evil.

              1. Thanks for posting this video Adam. I watched just 5 minutes but find the speaker intriguing and will be back to listen to more.

                1. Glad you like it Sheila. Mark Passio is a wrecking ball to the NWO and to bad people in general. He has many more presentations and I have learned a lot from each one of them. I strongly recommend listening and/or watching his other stuff. His breakdown of the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms is second to none and completely shatters the idea of “gun control”.

  5. For those who care about truth as it relates to 9/11 as opposed to attacking Truthers, here is an outline of the proof that no real planes hit the North or the South Towers. This should make it all the easier for those who believe they were real planes to identify where we agree and disagree. I begin with some reflections on the construction of the Twin Towers and why the official account cannot be sustained.

    Notice that the windows were deliberately designed small to avoid overheating the buildings and placing too much stress on the air conditioning system. The alleged plane in the North Tower was intersecting seven (7) floors consisting of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and to the external steel support columns at the other filled with 4-8″ of concrete. In the case of the South Tower, it was eight (8).

    At 208′ on a side, each floor represented an acre of concrete. So Flight 11 would have been encountering seven acres of concrete on steel trusses, but Flight 175 eight. We know what happens when a commercial carrier hits a tiny bird weighing only a few ounces in flight. Imagine what would happen if one of the were to encounter a single acre of concrete on a steel truss?

    Any real plane of any kind would have crumpled against the building, with its wings, tail, bodies and seats falling to the ground. But we have photos of the areas beneath and there is no airplane debris. You could have relined in a lounge chair sipping Pina Coladas and have been perfectly safe. The laws of physics and of engineering have a contribution to make to 9/11.

    There were multiple reasons they had to fake it to make sure everything would go as planned:

    (1) It’s very difficult to hit a 208′ wide target at over 400 mph. Some twenty pilots tried it where only one managed to do it one time.

    (2) They needed to have the planes explode after they had entered the buildings to provide a pseudo-explanation for their “collapse”.

    (3) They had to coordinate them temporally with massive explosions in the subbasements, designed to drain the sprinkler systems of water.

    (4) The original plan was to use drones until they discovered that it was physically impossible to get them into the buildings before they exploded.

    (5) Indeed, the friction of their collisions with those massive buildings would have generated so much heat that they would have exploded externally.

    (6) Even using images of planes under their control, they missed the mark by 14 and 17 seconds, with the subbasement explosions going off too early.

    (7) The idea was to claim that jet fuel had fallen through the stairways and caused those explosions. It was crude but the public is very gullible.

    (8) They had previously positioned jet fuel/napalm prepared to be set off when the images of the planes had entered all the way into the buildings.

    (9) They had mini-incendiary charges in elaborate arrangements to create the cookie-cutter cut outs on the sides of the buildings (set by the Gelatin Group).

    It was a clever use of the post hoc-ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) fallacy, which took in the vast majority of the people. They even planted an outmoded engine at Church & Murray, which would not have been necessary had real planes been used. And a landing gear was found years later, still attached to a piece of rope that had been used to help lower it into place. How dumb are we supposed to be?

    But the public hasn’t caught on. The laws of physics and of engineering cannot be violated and cannot be changed. The official account of the planes in New York is no more physically possible that the official account of Flight 77 at the Pentagon, as an aeronautical engineer has explained in the fourth of the articles I linked above. It’s time for the 9/11 Truth community to acknowledge that science matters to our research.

    1. Let’s keep the discussion on topic. I understand you oppose the position on the evidence taken by Collins and Doc, but the post is not about arguing those scientific details. It’s about how they have used dishonesty and disinformation tactics to distract and intimidate. And it’s about how the exaggerated focus on “disinformation” is doing harm to the movement.

    2. So we have 7 acres of steel trusses, attached at each end to a steel support column, and filled with 4″ to 8″ of concrete. This comprises the 7 floors (one acre each) that the planes supposedly smashed through when they disappeared into the towers like a hot knife through butter, with nothing falling into the street.

      This alone, with no other evidence, is proof positive that the images we saw on TV were fake. It is time that the truth movement offer a big apology to the “no-planers” that have been derided for so long, such as Morgan Reynolds.

      I am reminded that the 3 topics that 9/11 blogger forbade were: 1) no planes, 2) criticism of Israel and 3) support for CIT.

      I realize that this is a bit of a hijack of this thread, but WRT Doc and Collins, I don’t know that there’s much more to say. I think we all agree that they are reprehensible people, or possibly paid agents.

      They are attacking you Craig because they hope that you will be intimidated and back down from presenting evidence they don’t want people to see. In case Doc and Collins are reading this, I can only say, don’t hold your breath.

      1. If you are talking about me presenting evidence on the Pentagon, I would agree. But since I have not presented anything on the subjects you have just mentioned their intimidation would not relate to that.

        1. Yes, referring to your Pentagon work. My comment was in two parts, not related to each other: a reply to Jim and my summation of the Doc/Collins situation.

          1. Interesting. I’ve never paid much attention to the no-planes theory, but have noticed that some of the videos look fake. Did not know (or forgot) that the 3 topics that 9/11 blogger forbade were: 1) no planes, 2) criticism of Israel and 3) support for CIT. Given the banning of items 2 and 3, above, 9/11 Blogger’s banning of the no-panes theory provides instant credibility to the no-planes theory.

      2. Sheila, You begin to appreciate why 9/11 Blogger did not want any discussion of “no planes”, where even easily verifiable facts about the design of the buildings defeats the official account. Consider the genius of making points of vulnerability “off limits” for discussion: 1) no planes; 2) criticism of Israel; and 3) CIT. There is a mountain of proof of Israeli complicity, such as the web site, “Israel did 9/11–all the proof in the world” (though it was done with the complicity of the CIA and the Neo-Cons in the Department of Defense). And toss in CIT, which uncovered a host of witnesses to a plane approaching the Pentagon north of the Citgo station, when the “official account” required that it approach south of the Citgo station. (That plane, by the way, flew over the Pentagon at the same time explosive charges were set of inside it.) What more elegant and effective technique than to declare those subjects “too controversial” and therefore “off limits”. How much more proof could we require that the 9/11 Truth movement has been compromised?

    3. Just on a side note I think I saw you Jim at LAX a week or two ago. I drive a taxi at LAX and I was waiting there at the curb and I think it was you that got into a taxi right near me. The person I saw was a spitting image of Jim Fetzer and he seemed to recognize me a bit as well. Anyway if it wasn’t you no worries. On another side note to this thread I will say that I disagree strongly with many of Jim Fetzer’s positions such as mini nukes among others. Back to Ken Doc though, I am NOT going to engage with Jim on this thread about anything but the topic.

  6. My personal impression is that 60-70% of the really active 9-11 Truthers are paid government disinformation agents. That’s a pretty characteristic proportion for any successful dissident/resistance movement.

    1. I doubt it’s that high. You only need one or two drops of poison to contaminate an entire well. I’d say the percentage is well under 50 but for sure, there are definitely paid agents out there that are assigned full-time to dominate at certain high profile sites.

    1. You’re being very childish, and you’re making a small problem into a huge one. I don’t know what you mean by “so long” but I think you should take the rest of the day off.

      1. No no, That’s all right Craig, Let the pseudoscience win the day here on T&S. It’s your site, play it as you please.You’ve got Sheila popping in supporting the same nonsense Fetzer is promoting.
        You can either quash this crap, or let it stand. It seems to me you want to let it stand.
        I will not stand by silently as this takes place. If you are going to throw my commentary back into moderation, YOU are making the choice, not me.
        \\][//

        1. I HAVE HAD IT WITH YOU TODAY. HR, YOU MAKE THINGS SO MUCH WORSE AND YOU PAINT ME INTO A CORNER EVERY GODDAMN TIME.

          I WON’T BE LECTURED ON MY OWN BLOG AND YOU ARE NOT THE COMMENT COP HERE. IF YOU COULD JUST KEEP YOUR KEYBOARD QUIET LONG ENOUGH FOR ME TO READ THE COMMENTS AND MAKE A DECISION, THINGS WOULD BE FINE. BUT NO, YOU HAVE TO SCOLD ME BEFORE I’VE EVEN HAD TIME TO POST A RESPONSE. I’VE TOLD YOU NOT TO DO THIS NUMEROUS TIMES. MEANWHILE, I AM ALSO DEALING WITH RESPONDING TO JOE, WHO IS AT LEAST ADDRESSING THE TOPIC AT HAND.

  7. Maybe writing blog posts attacking other people can be doing some harm to the so called 9/11 truth movement? It’s been 15 years and look at this, look at it, everyone is fighting about their theory, instead of getting the bastards responsible. We need to as a movement be going after those who we suspect, leave the constant bickering over egos and who has the best “theory” and FOCUS on what we do have. NIST says WTC7 was brought down by office fires, but they left out key structural elements. After 15 years we should be better than Collins said, McKee said, but we are not. That disgusts me. You have one of your contributors speculating on the making out habits of two admin in the 9/11 truth movement. Really Craig, is that what you want for your 9/11 truth movement?

    1. You seem to be suffering from some extreme confusion as to who is doing the attacking. You might want to look at the long list of quotes Craig compiled from Collins.

      And he’s already answered your claim about why he felt the need to write the post:

      I was very concerned that it would look like I was airing personal disputes in public to the detriment of the movement. But I finally decided that I had no choice. Collins kept telling the same lies over and over. And none of the admins would lift a finger to stop it.

      1. “ken doc is an anti truther” ever hear the expression two wrongs don’t make a right, or are you too busy fantasizing about someone making out behind the lockers?

        1. Libel has to be responded to, Joe. The fact that you’re jumping on me for my “making out” comment – which was a COMMENT, not part of Craig’s piece – instead of acknowledging the extremely profound damage Collins has done to countless threads there, speaks volumes.

          And yes, if you lie, you’re an anti-truther.

        2. Adam said if you lie you are an anti-truther. I wrote that you are an anti-truther if you lie about truthers. Both statements are correct. If they apply to Ken, it is because he has lied. Why don’t you have a problem with that?

        3. Yes that is correct Ken Doc is an anti-truther for both telling lies about others and for censoring other truthers for no valid reason. You are an anti-truther yourself Joe for acting as an apologist for Ken Doc and for not doing everything in your power to stop what is going on. You serve a petty dictator Joe therefore you are no longer a truther. Sorry but those are the facts Joe.

          Also Joe I have some juicy screen shots of you playing right along with Collins abuse of other people and in fact joining in on belittling them. Does Joseph Hanji ring any bells for you Joe? Maybe not but he was one of many who have been abused by Collins with yours and Ken’s tacit approval. You and Ken are not victims in this you are the aggressors.

    2. “Everyone seems to be fighting about their theory” you say.

      Interesting choice of words. “their theory”.

      Group A : consists of people who have actually done real investigation into 9/11 including interviewing eyewitnesses on location

      Group B : reads things on the internet and watches youtube videos.

      It doesnt take me long to figure out which group has “their theory” and which group has actual goddamn evidence.

      Wow.

  8. Joe, since you’re here commenting, care to answer this?

    I actually thought admin Joe Haley had finally seen the light just the other day when it seemed that he had tossed Collins off the forum once and for all after chastising him for insulting other members and causing the group to lose members (he indicated that about 1,500 of more than 39,000 members have left in recent months). I was prepared to praise Haley for finally doing something to change things. When I raised all of these issues more than a year ago, he was one of those who brushed me off and sided with Collins. But he seems to have a lot less patience for him now:

    Joe Haley: You say everything perfect, but then you say people aren’t smart enough. mike, i just wish you would leave out that “factor” People are smart, yes, granted not as smart as you, but really, don’t call 40 thousand people dumb. I really seriously wish you could “get” that. makes it much easier to teach people when you don’t start off with “It’s just a shame that so many people aren’t smart enough to tell the difference” Just teach them where they are wrong, without digging on their intelligence. Seriously, mike, please help us. I am fucking begging you.”

    Mike Collins: Why is that bad? Some people aren’t smart enough to tell the difference. It’s not being mean, it’s just the truth. Chill out Joe, no need to get panties wadded up every time I comment lol”

    Joe Haley: It’s ok, we are below 38,000 [members] for the first time in 10 years, but you are in fucking glee. It’s ok. fuck the 9/11 truth movement, i am fucking done… Nate [Nelson, a long-time member who finally got fed up] left you fucking freak… You won’t be happy until we have 10 fucking people. .. We lost 100 when you went on your Sandy hook rant. But nooooo collins still isn’t happy… Almost seems like he wants to sabotage this group.

    The light bulb is coming on. Someone in that admin group is finally getting it. A few minutes later, Collins was out of the group, and I thought, “Way to go, Joe!”

    Then, the next day, I find out Collins is back and that the credit I gave Haley was not deserved (Could it be that he wanted him out but was overruled?). Collins claims he left of his own accord because he was frustrated by the “trolls.”

    Why was Collins let back in for the umpteenth time?

      1. He was probably banned for no damn good reason just like I was by the dictator Ken Doc.

        Why do I always think of Pol Pot when I say Ken Doc? It doesn’t really rhyme, oh well it will remain a mystery.

    1. I seriously doubt that you are being censored Joe. Craig is not a petty dictator and he actually wants to talk this out and resolve it unlike El Presidente Ken Doc.

      Take a screen shot of your post and then show it as evidence.

      Just so you are aware Joe all posts go into a moderation queue if they contain more than two links. Perhaps that is the issue?

      1. Joe is not being censored. If he has sent a comment that hasn’t appeared I think I know what might have happened. I put hybridrogue1 on the blacklist yesterday because of a series of comments that went beyond what I was willing to tolerate. I had put him on moderation and his comments continued directly to me and I had had enough. But in blocking him, I would also, unintentionally, have blocked comments where his name is mentioned. if Joe’s comment mentioned HR, then it would not have gotten through. If he resends it then it will appear. My apologies.

        1. Yes. Also, in his 10th anniversary book DRG shot down the arguments re the “evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon.” Even without mentioning the findings of Pilots or CIT, he was able to thoroughly deconstruct the arguments within the “scholarly papers” that Doc is undoubtedly referring to.

          Massimmo Mazzucco also examined the “scholarly papers” by Legge and party. As Craig blogged in his article focusing on Jenkins and the cutting the Pentagon section of MM’s film:

          Mazzucco, in researching his film, says he examined all the “scholarly papers” by the group very carefully but did not find anything persuasive in them.

          “I discarded immediately the Legge/Chandler paper because of course the first thing I did was go and check the sources they used for that list of witnesses, and when I got down to 20 and I couldn’t find anyone I said something is wrong with this. That’s why I call it junk. And I don’t use the word “junk” very easily. In terms of a researcher, unsupported and undocumented witnesses are junk. And Craig Ranke (of CIT, which made the film National Security Alert) has done the opposite: he’s put name and last name of people and what they say. It’s on the spot, and it’s on camera.”

          So, in essence, Ken’s admin team is open to junk.

  9. More DEW doo doo. The nukie doo doo is sure to come up in this posting now that this kettle of rotten fish has been dumped on the stage. Wouldn’t piss on O’Reilly if he was on fire but the scum left Fetzer gasping and blubbering here.
    I don’t have time for this, there’s a greater need in exploring and exposing the end play being foisted in the geopolitical landscape in the current sense, bullshit put aside. This innuendo is just more round and round here. No time to be dragged into an ambiguous undiagnosed past. There’s bigger issues in the present that beg to be understood to thwart dark possibilities rather than infighting over points of view that are only that, points of view.

      1. No, he’s ignorant of the evidence that supports the use of mini or micro nukes to take down the Twin Towers. This is the kind of remark that gives 9/11 research a bad name: no argument, only a derisive dismissal based on his personal lack of knowledge. There’s a lot of that going around

    1. For reasons of his own, veritytwo introduces a completely irrelevant and distracting post about my appearance on “The Factor”. Others viewed it completely the opposite. After I spoke at The Great Hall of Cooper Union, my wife and I made a visit to a local theater when Alex Jones was producing a 9/11 program. They were very hospitable and ushered us in, placing me on a podium with first responders, which I regarded as an honor. The fellow sitting next to me leaned over and said, “It was watching you on O’Reilly that convinced me 9/11 had been an inside job.”

  10. Read what I said Craig. I have a great respect for you but this is just leading to another round of infighting that’s a complete waste of time that just leaves me with the taste of bad bile in my gut.

    1. I read what you said but I asked you to clarify. Are you blaming me for quoting Ken as saying I support space beams? That’s the only DEW reference I’ve seen.

      As for it being a complete waste of time, that may well be, but I had little choice other than letting false charges stand and waiting for more of them. Perhaps you should address your frustration to Joe or Ken or Mike.

  11. Come on Craig. I don’t do Facebook and I certainly don’t hold it against you for this posting. I certainly would have contested it with my whole being given your position. What I see happening is just more round and round with a big clash of ego’s trying to put their read into what they’ve bought into. I see you as being a gracious moderator that tries to maintain a level field which gets difficult when people get their dandruff up. I realize this blog centers around 9/11 but it needs to move forward with insight and good intent.
    9/11 is a symptom, as horrific as it is of an underlying grave deep issue that needs to be brought to the surface to the here and now. By infighting, all it does is create division, after all, isn’t that what the dialectic is all about, divide and conquer?
    We’ve got to consider, the perpetrators that would do such a thing are focused as a lazar, as Adrian Salbuchi said. While we, in our vast multitudes are like fireflies over a field or pond with our lights illuminating in different directions, not focused. We are many, they are few. Should we ever throw off the garb of garrulousness, we’re unstoppable. I just find it disappointing to see that we can’t seem to find a consensus. We’re going into year 15 after the event, we’re still infighting amongst ourselves. A pity, there’s some dedicated brilliant people in the movement.

    1. “By infighting, all it does is create division, after all, isn’t that what the dialectic is all about, divide and conquer?”

      This isn’t a question of infighting. It’s a question of responding to libel. Ken Doc has an entire URL devoted to lies about Craig.

    2. And just to be clear:

      “I don’t do Facebook and I certainly don’t hold it against you for this posting. I certainly would have contested it with my whole being given your position.”

      Are you saying that you support Craig posting the piece but that the comment section is where the real bile is? Should commenting have been disabled for this blog post? He is contesting the lies “with his whole being” just like you said you would if in his position.

      1. I am interested in the answers to those questions also. I think it’s pointless to talk about in-fighting unless you break it down more than that. Does it mean don’t say anything that might prompt an argument? Don’t criticize anyone because they’ll react and then we have a fight?

        You know, I was prepared for an onslaught of hostility from the subjects of this post and their supporters. But it turns out that most of the opposition has come from other supposedly “friendly” sources.

        Two things I will leave everyone with:

        If you have a problem with a comment that someone else has made, as in you think it should be deleted, email me privately and explain what your issue is. Those who don’t have my private email can use truthandshadows@yahoo.com. What I will not put up with any more is someone posting a comment publicly demanding that I discipline another commenter or ban them or delete a particular comment. No more.

        The other thing is that for the rest of this comment thread I don’t want to hear one word about the details of physical evidence concerning how the towers were brought down. It’s not the appropriate venue for that discussion. I don’t care if it’s nukes, DEW, nanothermite or anything else; this thread is not the place to argue it. Anyone who does not respect this will have their comments deleted.

        1. What I’m saying relates directly to this blog. There’s a freshness here that occasionally gets bogged down by what appears to be bruised ego’s as to those participants personal beliefs. I come here for knowledge and fellowship, I try to keep an open mind. I have my perceptions of 9/11 tempered by much background research but that is my personal view.
          It doesn’t matter, there’s something to be gleaned from each perspective but things don’t have to get nasty. The one thing we’re all in consensus on is that a criminal act was performed on that day that leaves much to be critically answered to.
          The way TPTB handled the whole investigation speaks of a blatant criminality by those sanctioned to public trust in escrow. That trust has been broken leaving us that have become unglued from the status quo to try to find answers amid speculation and innuendo.
          My point of view is to ask the question, why the derogation? When in fact we’re in consensus to the fact, we’re all onside that there’s too much being hidden by those that are sanctioned to public trust.
          The division that’s been created all through society by the event and all their other false flags is in no doubt to keep we the people offside while they engineer their technocratic vision of how they envision things to be. What I believe we’re all in agreement to is in the recognition that their hubris has created a sickness throughout all society and the very nature of the planet herself. Funny how “lived is the devil spelled backwards”, there’s devils on the loose, a prevalent psychopathy. This is to be viewed across many different spectrums of information sources.

          1. This just about explains my stance in a large way. As with you Craig, I live north of the 49th, there about living out in the rhubarb patch. My bug out bags have wings attached. Just waiting for the marathon to begin.

      2. Should commenting have been disabled for this blog post?
        Certainly not but lets bring the picture clear. There’s a schism that can’t seem to be dealt with due to the impersonality across the ether. Too bad we all couldn’t just sit down and hash it out over a few brews. Some may come away from it really not liking some of our counterparts to this question but many would develop a close camaraderie. It’s easy to say anything one wants online but would be a different story in the flesh, the repercussions are vastly different. I’m sure many have had parallel experiences in dealings that become face to face. Online on a keyboard isn’t a true view of someone’s character, it lacks that feeling that nature provided us with to sense who we’re interacting with. It’s that gut instinct thing again. I’m sure there would be some genuine comedy should that happen, it’d be fun.

        1. Veritytwo, I agree with you. People are very different when they are looking right at the other person. I still think everyone should be capable of behaving in a principled way (in other words not lying or defending those who do) but it is definitely the human touch that is missing. To be truly fair to each other requires even more effort that we would need in our day-to-day lives with those we know in person.

          1. Agreed Craig. What I see is a kind of selflessness for the most part here where many people park their ego’s at the portal. I know I’m preaching to the choir here but it takes a huge leap of faith to trust in our own intuitions in going counter to popular perception.
            We’ve all I’m sure have had to deal with and be hurt by ill indoctrinated skeptics and debunkers in up close and personal conversations. People can be nasty when their perceptions are challenged by a diametrically opposed read on what’s going on be it presented or not in challenge to their world view.
            What I see is the public view of “conspiracy theory” straight out of DUBYA’s playbook without alteration from the time he stated it in “01”.
            The other one that I hear is, “You shouldn’t believe anything you get from the internet” when each of us knows full well that’s the only place one can get real info. As we all know, it takes many, many hours of research to find our ways to the right places online.
            I’m not sure if it’s a curse or blessing but I have a talent for finding things with a mind for facts and figures with excellent recall. I enjoy good repartee, I’ve discovered standout people and made friendships from that. Being social creatures by nature, we need people in our lives, it’s social interaction that keeps us sane, the greatest thing we can do for own own kind is to share of ourselves. We each here bring something special to the table, a sane view from our own unique perspectives.

  12. Joe I have a question for you. Why is it that Ken Doc himself does not discuss this issue openly in an environment where people are allowed to speak freely without being silenced? I find it strange that Ken Doc is comfortable silencing people he doesn’t agree with yet pretends to be a fair and benevolent leader of the truth movement who is being attacked.

    Get this one thing straight Joe your group did the attacking and all Craig has done is defend himself. You and your group are the aggressors, you allow that poison pill Collins to attack others and do nothing. You are therefore condoning his behavior and supporting it. Ken Doc banned me and others without cause and that is a fact. Now if we respond to the petty tyranny you have all either condoned or initiated we are NOT attacking you we are defending ourselves. There is a big difference between those who initiate a fight and those who defend themselves. Think of it this way Joe, if you take out a gun and start shooting at me I am then free to take out my own gun and blow your head off in self defense and no criminal charges will be filed against me. In that scenario you are the guilty party Joe because you initiated the attack.

    Ken Doc was not guilty of anything UNTIL he applied different rules to Collins than he did to other people. Once he did that and once all of the admins went along with it you all became guilty of doing an immoral act. Ken Doc compounded his guilt by banning other people, like myself, who tried to initiate a conversation about the issue and hopefully resolve it. Doc obviously doesn’t want it resolved. If he did want to resolve it he would be here himself trying to do so. Instead only you Joe, his henchman and apologist, are here discussing it.

    The truth of the matter is that Ken Doc would like us all to just go away quietly and say nothing about his tiny tyrannical regime on FB. He would love to be able to lob his insults from behind a big electronic wall and have everyone else be incapable of responding back. Well guess what Joe this is the real world and not only can we respond but we can do so publicly. In fact Joe we can shout from the rooftops about what a petty little tyrannical kingdom Ken Doc has going there on FB. That is what I intend to do Joe because frankly Ken Doc and his henchman picked a fight with the wrong God damned people. There is zero justification for what you did. ZERO!

    Now Joe here is a video I made which expresses my feelings about censorship which I dedicate to Ken Doc and his henchmen who are all vile disgusting book burners in training.

    Censors are just evil dictators that lack the power and the armies to slaughter the people they don’t like. Ken Doc is just another Stalin without the army, but hey at least he has you Joe.

    1. Hey Adam,

      I appreciate your comments, but just to be fair: not ALL the admins have put up with it. Some like my friend Kim McLaughlin have protested his presence and opposed it for a long time now. She also doesn’t spend much time at the group anymore, largely because she’s been so turned off by Collins, who she recently referred to as “100% a troll” in an exchange between us. However, I guess the anti-Collins admins are the minority. Certainly, others seem to like him (for reasons beyond me) and Ken in particular has repeatedly expressed that he still loves Mike in spite of his prolific trollish remarks. I thought that Ken and Mike had finally parted ways for good several months back and that Ken had seen the light. Obviously not, because he’s back in.

      1. Adam,

        Obviously any admin who opposed Collins and was vocal about it and left after it was clear the situation would go unaddressed is not guilty of doing anything wrong. I will say though that if they choose to remain on-board as an admin knowing full well that Ken Doc is protecting and showing blatant favoritism to an obvious shill and troll such as Collins then I do question their judgement and their integrity. I have to ask why they would remain in such an environment where people are not treated fairly and the truth is trampled on. In my view a real truther would not tolerate Collins or Ken Doc protecting him and condoning his actions nor would they tolerate Ken Doc operating as a petty tyrant and just banning people on a whim. I guess I just don’t have much respect for them if they are still there and I feel like they are order followers for a petty tyrant. If they leave in protest I respect them, if they stay they are part of the problem. In my view ALL the members and admins who are genuine truthers should leave that group immediately.

  13. Just for the record Joe I will also say that I am open to debate the pentagon with Ken Doc or Collins or you for that matter and I am very confident that your bogus belief in airliner impact will crumble to dust in a legitimate debate. I know what I am talking about when it comes to the Pentagon and to be frank you guys over there including Collins are amateurs.

    Real rules have to apply in the debate. Collins cannot just run amok and fling poop all over the place he is actually going to have to respond to arguments without deflection and he will have to make a reasoned argument supporting his position as well. I won’t hold my breath but know this Joe. I am saying you are totally wrong about the Pentagon and I am ready willing and able to prove it. Lastly Joe your flippant dismissal of the Pentagon as not being important enough to care about is also totally wrong and very counterproductive to the real goals of the truth movement.

    Anyway the challenge has been made so now we will see if Ken Doc or Collins or you are man enough to answer the challenge.

  14. A question I have keeps popping into my mind lately and it has to do with all the accusations of creating divisions and infighting in the truth movement. It occurs to me that if one “side” or the other in an incident of infighting isn’t really a legitimate truther or group then is it really infighting that is happening or is it something else?

    I mean if I call out Ken Doc and Collins, for example, as the petty tyrants they really are am I causing a division within the truth movement? It is an important question because from my perspective neither Ken Doc or Collins are members of the truth movement. Maybe, and I stress the word maybe, at one time both Ken Doc and Collins were legitimate truthers trying to bring justice for 9/11. Today however they have morphed into something else entirely, they are not truthers. In my opinion therefore I am not creating division within the movement because neither Ken Doc nor Mike Collins are in the truth movement.

    1. It amazes me that when some people see “fighting,” they can’t distinguish between those who are standing up for the truth and those who are not. They affix equal blame and equal motives to all. See Kim’s comment below for a perfect example.

  15. Since Adam felt the need to bring me into this I am going to involve myself. Do Mike’s actions bother me? Yes. Do I have say in everything that happens on the Truth Page? No. But all the admins get lumped into the same category when it comes to the infighting, especially when someone doesn’t get their way. Adam, you make it clear that you blame all admins when you say “she’s a member of the admin team, she’s in part responsible for allowing Collins to get away with his disinformation and lies.” So here’s my choice, I can walk away from the Truth Movement because of all this crap? Because you’re all acting like a bunch of brats? Honestly, it pisses me off ADAM that YOU keep bringing me into this. Let me be frank, I DON’T WANT ANY PART OF THIS FIGHTING!” What part of that don’t you get? So now I am going to defend Ken, and I really don’t care who doesn’t like it. I saw Ken ask all of you, over and over, to BLOCK each other, you all REFUSED! You are all guilty of what you accuse the other of being and it makes me sick to keep hearing about it OVER and OVER! Pat yourselves on the back, you have accomplished making this movement look like a bunch of idiots!

    1. Kim, I understand you feel you’ve been caught in the middle of this for some time, and it’s clear that you are angry, but nevertheless your remarks are quite unfair.

      First of all, I hope you noted that I said in my article that not all admins were complicit in this problem. I was specifically thinking of you. You have always been kind and respectful to me. So has Joshua Froze. But I do think the entire admin team bears some responsibility for all of this whether you individually have power to reverse decisions or not. If you remain on the team then you are saying you can tolerate what is being done, even if you don’t agree with every decision.

      Your defense of Ken is quite absurd. Frankly it’s beneath you. I, too, was told to block Collins. But as I said then, this missed the point. It wasn’t about me personally not liking the guy, it was about him being allowed to call people fucking retards with none of you publicly telling him that he would not be permitted to do this. It was about the harm being done to the movement by this behavior being tolerated. Can you imagine a new person who is just dipping into 9/11 truth for the first time, and they make a comment that maybe nukes were used. Then Collins comes in and calls that person names. That person gets the hell out of there and probably doesn’t come back. It happened to me at 911blogger in 2010 but I was stubborn enough that I stuck with it.

      Tell, me, am I one of the people acting like brats? What have I done or said that makes me at fault? I don’t give a shit about Ken or Mike or Joe or Cal or anyone who spews ignorance, but I do care about the effort we are all engaged in.

      Do you remember me passing along a note to you telling all the admins that Mike was routinely posting lies about what I believe? That was months ago. You said you’d pass it on, and I thank you for doing so. But NOT ONE of the other admins even acknowledged the note, which I sent to others individually. So if anyone had done the right thing then, this post would never have happened. Lies are intolerable for a truth movement. You think the fighting makes us look like idiots? How about tolerance for those spreading libelous lies that lead to fights?

      For you to defend Ken for telling us to block Collins is beyond ridiculous. Ken is the main person who could have been fair from the beginning instead of abusing his power. Why don’t you say right here, publicly, that Ken’s claims that I support space beams and holograms are wrong and unacceptable. Let’s see some of that anger directed where it belongs.

      1. Craig, I am sorry that you think me defending Ken is ridiculous. Hopefully we can agree to disagree on that. I have never seen, heard, etc, Ken lump you personally into supporting Space Beams, etc, so honestly I am not sure what all of that is about? I have never seen you support Space Beam and Holograms. My understand of your disagreements on the truth page have always been the Pentagon and Mike Collins. I will let Ken speak for himself on what he thinks… So again, you are saying my only choice is to change Ken and other admins minds or walk away from the truth movement. You write “So if anyone had done the right thing then, this post would never have happened.” Craig, you have no idea what I have or have not done… Instead of walking away, I chose to block certain people. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if you would have also blocked Mike. You say “Do you remember me passing along a note to you telling all the admins that Mike was routinely posting lies about what I believe?” Yes, I remember that, if you would have blocked him none of that would be an issue. You write “I don’t give a shit about Ken or Mike or Joe or Cal or anyone who spews ignorance,” If that’s true Craig, why do you keep writing about it? I used to be a huge supporter of your articles. Sorry, I don’t support this, and I stand behind everything I have said about it.. If your articles go back to focusing on things that help this movement, I will support those. You keep this fight alive though, and by doing so, in my opinion, you are damaging your credibility…

        1. In response to Craig’s comet “It amazes me that when some people see “fighting,” they can’t distinguish between those who are standing up for the truth and those who are not.” It worries me that someone who writes for AE911 thinks this article is standing up for the truth.. The only thing you are standing up for in this article is your ego…

          1. Kim, I’m afraid it is now clear why you are comfortable remaining as an admin. And I don’t mean that as a snarky shot at you, just that it’s obvious that you don’t get the problem even though it has been explained over and over. I find your latest comment to be absolutely incredible. If you can’t tell the difference between responding to libel and the original libel then it is you who worry me. Do you not get that I had said nothing more about Ken and Mike since my original article a year ago? Ken chose to create a whole page full of lies months later, which has led to this. It is his fault, not mine. I don’t even blame Collins the most, because he’s doing his job as a troll and probably an agent. But Ken chose HIS ego over the truth. You are shooting the messenger.

            1. Let me tell you in my own words why I have decided to stay on as an admin . I decided to stay because myself and several other admins are grown up enough to agree to disagree on several issues.. Does it sometimes drive me crazy, burn me out, etc? Yes, absolutely 100%! Sometimes I get so mad that I let my finger sit over the “leave group” button.. The other night, when Adam sent me your article, and I got to read it all again.. It brought up all my disdain for certain people and their actions. Congratulations Craig, your article accomplished what you wanted it to. I mean, after reading it, I was so angry I seriously contemplated leaving… Then I woke up and realized, certain people just aren’t worth it. The “Truth” in whatever way I can be apart of it, means more to me then the opinion of some smart mouth kid. You apparently don’t want to, or can’t let his opinion go. You can justify it by saying you are “defending the truth” and you may convince some. I say BS Craig! Clearly you’re mission is to divide people on that page and within the movement. YOU keep the most ridiculous fights going. I support Ken and the other admins decision of not letting certain information on the truth page. And from sources close to you, it’s my understanding that you really don’t want certain “theories” associated with yourself either but, because you dislike censorship so much you allow it. If that’s true, that is your choice… What you can’t seem to accept is that Ken and other admins refuse to allow it, period.. To bad for you Ken chooses to run his page differently than you would or agree with.. All of this because of that? Really? Cry me a river, this is so beyond hypocritical it’s almost funny!!. Instead of being the bigger man you pretend to be, you continuously rehash this crap! How does copying and pasting his ridiculous comments and giving them more attention, help you? Or the Truth Movement for that matter? Explain to me how you rehashing this over and over is helping? Are you really that thin skinned of a writer?

              1. Kim, I don’t know you from Adam, but I find your attacks on Craig for objecting to a mountain of false claims being deliberately disseminated from a site that you defend to be indefensible. Why in the world–when Craig has so meticulously documented the false allegations against him–would you want to defend that practice? I reaffirm my invitation to Mike Collins and Ken Doc to come on my show and debate 9/11 (planes/no planes, the Pentagon and anything else), what happened at Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing, even the Holocaust and the Moon hoax. I have published and done shows on all of them and more. For the video program archive, see https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsfS5KpYMzb20sCxyfSotfX1ELkIBrXZ3 For the audio, go to radiofetzer.blogspot.com. Take me on, if you like; but Craig McKee does not deserve this.

                1. Mr. Fetzer, as an admin on the Truth Page I really only have one thing to say to you. Go sell crazy someplace else, we’re all stocked up here!

                  1. That’s the kind of reply I would expect from a troll or a shill: an ad hominem with nothing to back it up. You cannot show that I have anything wrong, so you don’t even make the effort. I think we can see why you belong with Ken Doc and Mike Collins. Something about “birds of a feather”.

              2. Kim, I really don’t want to fight with you because you seem to be in the middle of some kind of emotion meltdown that is clouding your reason. But you’re saying some very ridiculous and untrue things. And asking if I’m “that thin skinned as a writer” is just one more irony. Your first comment was a complete overreaction to what Adam wrote and every one since has been worse.

                You have a hell of a nerve saying that my mission is to divide the movement while you defend Ken Doc for spewing outright lies! Don’t you see how absurd that is? I had no intention of ever saying another word about any of you, but Ken posted a whole page of character assassination at least eight months after I stopped saying anything to him or Collins. Any opinion about that? I’m the one who’s keeping it going? Collins was repeating those lies, and adding more, as recently as a few days ago. Any opinion about that? You condemn my response but say nothing about what he continues to do other than call him a “smart-mouthed kid.” Has even one of you EVER told Collins PUBLICLY that saying I support missiles at the Pentagon is not acceptable because it’s not true? And you have the nerve to chalk this up to Ken running his forum “differently”?

                You are more upset that I revealed the continual disinformation from Collins because it makes you all look bad for allowing it. Don’t you care about what’s true? Have I lied about Ken? Have I lied about Collins? Have I lied about you? No, I have told the truth even if it was a truth you didn’t like. So now you say I’m dividing the movement. How dare you.

                As for theories I don’t want identified with me: I have had more than 20,000 comments published on this blog and I’m sure that many of them I have strongly disagreed with. But the purpose of comments is not for people to agree with me, it is for them to have their opinion. I have mine, for the most part, in the articles themselves. That’s where you can find out which theories or evidence I support. Are there times I would have been better not to allow certain comments? Absolutely. Jim Fetzer’s detailing of the no planes evidence on this post is probably one – not because I disagree with his view, which I do, but because it was off topic.

                But I get crapped on for allowing comments while you defend Ken for what he allows and the falsehoods he spreads. And then you call me a hypocrite. But I’m not going to censor people to please those who don’t agree with them. Should I be stricter about comments that are off topic? Perhaps. But that cuts many ways. We’ve had some very interesting exchanges that weren’t strictly on the topic of the article.

                Kim, your superficial and twisted reading of this situation tells me you should not leave the group. You seem to have found a home there, particularly after today.

                1. Craig, you saying “Kim, your superficial and twisted reading of this situation tells me you should not leave the group.” speaks volumes of what your intentions are Craig. I have made it clear how I feel about Mike Collins and he has made it clear how he feels about me. We did the big kid thing though and choose to block each other. Guess what? Our fighting stopped, go figure.. You seem to be addicted to his comments about you. You do everything you can to bring more of his attacks your way. Good luck with that…

                  1. Kim, are you being deliberately obtuse? “Blocking each other” is not the point, and I have explained this to all of you many times now. But nothing sinks in. You still think this is some little personality clash. You haven’t got a clue.

                    You haven’t answered my questions. What do you think of Ken putting up a character-assassination page eight months after I had stopped dealing with him at all? What do you think about the fact that Collins CONTINUES to repeat obvious lies even though he has been blocked for MONTHS! And you continue to say not one word about this on the forum, just like the rest of your clique.

                    1. What are you trying to accomplish with this? As far as “Ken putting up a character-assassination page.” you bring a lot of this on yourself. And the fact that you care so much That ” Collins CONTINUES to repeat obvious lies.” Well, you keep repeating them as publically as you can so I guess a part of you must like it.

                    2. You’re right! I do love it that Collins continues to post lies about me on a forum where I haven’t been allowed to respond for almost a year! And I love it that after almost a year of silence from me about Ken Doc or anyone connected to your “forum” that I caused him to put up a hit page filled with lies and distortions about me. Clearly I was egging both of them on with my silence.

                    3. “Clearly I was egging both of them on with my silence”

                      Now we’re getting to the root of the problem!

                      It was your deafening silence that caused them to attack you.

        2. I missed this comment earlier. Here is the exact quote from Ken’s page, which I guess you haven’t seen, Kim. “Craig McKee also supports the fraudulent theories of “Space Beams” created by Judy Wood and “Hologram planes” hit the towers by Jim Fetzer. Two known disinfo agents in this movement.”
          How can you justify that under any conditions, but especially after I had completely stayed away from anything to do with Ken? And you think reacting is damaging MY credibility? Wow.

          1. And what, precisely, is supposed to qualify me as a “know disinfo agent in this movement”? Because I offer scientific explanations for events that are otherwise inexplicable, but which they apparent do not understand or want to obfuscate? and that makes ME “a disinfo op”?

          2. Craig, I used to be one of your biggest supporters. After you last article, I risked my spot as an admin defending you. I was the only, and I do mean the only one, that defended you. I used to look forward to your articles, now when I hear you have written one, I cringe. The same way I do when I see Mike attack people, I am sorry if you don’t like me being honest. And after today, I have to ask Craig, do you believe in “fraudulent theories of “Space Beams” created by Judy Wood and “Hologram planes?” Do you support those theories? I am happy to publically state that I do not…

            1. Kim, have you read this post or not? It seems that you haven’t if you have the nerve to ask me if I support goddamn space beams and holograms! Have you missed the whole point??? I say right in the article numerous times that I do not believe in space beams and holograms! Seriously, what is wrong with you?

              You cringe because I wrote about your precious forum a year ago? And now I’m on a par with Mike Collins? After today, I have to ask whether you support making up things about what other people believe. It seems you do because it appears you are doing the same thing. Read the post before commenting further. Or better still, don’t.

              1. I read it.. I think it’s crap! Your time could have been spent on so many other things. I think this is what Ken was always trying to help me see about you? But, like I said, I will let Ken speak for himself. I highly doubt he will bother with this, he seems to be pretty much over it. No matter how many more blogs you write about him. Congratulations, you’ve accomplished what you obviously set out to do. You have caused more division, bravo!

                1. Sorry Kim but shifting blame to Craig isn’t going to work. Ken Doc lied about Craig, therefore Ken Doc is the liar, he is the attacker, and he is the one doing wrong. You are doing wrong yourself by trying to shift the blame to Craig and by trying to justify Ken Doc’s immoral actions.

                  It is the way it is. Perhaps later you will come to realize this truth.

                2. I was going to respond one last time but I think Adam Ruff said it better and more calmly than I could have. I would have just been angry and said something very unkind to you. True, mind you, but unkind. And I don’t want to stoop to your level. You’ve made your choices, you can live with them. This is the end of this discussion.

    2. Kim,

      I actually thought that Adam Syed’s comment was complimentary of you and it prompted me to write that anyone who spoke out about Collins and then left the group when it became clear that Ken Doc was not going to stop Collins was not guilty of anything and in fact earned my respect.

      Here is the problem though Kim. You didn’t leave the group even after you knew that Ken Doc was allowing Collins to continue abusing people. You could have left the group at that point and made a stand against something that is morally wrong. You choose to stay in the group though and you choose to ignore the abuse which unfortunately makes you part of the problem.

      If you do not stand up to something that is clearly morally wrong then that is your failure as a person. Emotions don’t come into this Kim, you either do the right thing or you don’t, it is that simple. When Ken Doc made the immoral decision to start lying about other truthers he became a liar instead of a truther. It is just a fact. Ken Doc choose to ban me and several others for no cause and that too was an immoral act. It is just a plain simple fact Kim that Ken is doing wrong and that he is the attacker in this. Craig is defending himself and therefore he is NOT the attacker and he is NOT the one causing division. When you choose to stick with Ken Doc and even defend his immoral behavior you committed an immoral act. Emotions have nothing to do with it Kim the fact is you did an immoral thing and no amount of yelling, kicking, screaming, or blame shifting is going to change that.

      Adam Syed did nothing wrong by trying to post a positive statement about you and for you to be angry with him for that is just another wrong on your part. If you step back and get your emotionalism out of this you will see that what I said is true and you will face up to the mistakes you made, admit them, and move forward as a person and grow. Or you can choose to continue trying to shift the blame to someone else for Ken Doc and your own morally wrong actions.

      The simple fact is Kim that lying about others means that you are not a truther. Period. Ken Doc is not a truther and neither are you until you do the right thing. Sorry Kim but that is the way it really is no matter how emotional or angry you get about it.

      1. All of what I just said above applies to Dany Carmady and all the other admins that have chosen to stay in Ken Doc’s group. You are all doing a morally wrong thing by ignoring Ken Doc’s immoral dishonest behavior. It is just a simple truth.

          1. Ah good for her then she escaped the cult. I wonder though if she left in protest over the immoral things the group was doing or if she left because she was bored or lacked the time to stay involved? I hope she left in protest over what she saw as wrong going on in the group. Based on my lengthy conversation with her though I doubt she left in protest. Much like Kim Dany seemed dead set against “getting it” when I talked to her. I am happy to be proved wrong though and I hope she did leave for the right reasons.

  16. I am absolutely appalled at the mindless, thoughtless, hostile, vicious attacks on Craig McKee. His site and his thoughtful analyses of major issues are a light in the darkness. It is inconceivable that anyone could challenge his carefully constructed views or his honesty or his impartiality.

    All the assaults on him that I have read seem carefully constructed to damn the 9/11 Truth Movement and demonstrate that its adherents are crackpots.

    Shame on you all. Apologize, if you are able.

    1. Thank you so much for that support, Michael. I could use it about now.

      It’s interesting to me that the most obnoxious and ignorant comments to me since I posted this – both public and private – are from people I thought were fair and reasonable. These aren’t the people I thought would be this way.

  17. I support Craig and all the work he’s done. I haven’t seen anything to cause me not to. I also support him in this open letter and trust that his representation is 100% truthful to the best of his knowledge. It’s unpleasant, but things like this must be addressed. This is a very unfortunate situation, but is to be expected from a couple of standpoints. #1) we live in a very sick society and there are very large numbers of people who have not matured past a middle school or high school mentality #2) one should expect a tremendous amount of interference in the 9/11 Truth Movement for obvious reasons. I hope that Craig, and others, will learn to just “let it go” and not continue wasting time and energy on fruitless battles that have been, very likely, set up specifically to waste time and energy, create frustration, to divide and conquer, divert and disrupt. There was pretty much zero disagreement on the Pentagon, everyone accepted that no plane impacted there, then all of a sudden, at the time of Cass Sunsteins’ “Cognitive Infiltration” piece and the arrival of CIT on the scene, there’s this huge concocted controversy. The purpose of this controversy was stated above. Now, all these years later, it’s still bearing tremendous fruit. Craig has nailed his detractors to the wall, now he should accept the fact that they are not going to change, that things are only likely to get worse and worse in this respect, and just let it go and put his time and energy and considerable talents towards more constructive things. I won’t be commenting further as I refuse to be sucked into these stupid cesspools that are set up to sucker us in. Thanks for all your great work Craig! Hope you can put this behind you- you deserve far better and you can get it in other places, other efforts. You are most unlikely to ever find any kind of satisfaction or resolution in this case, I’m sorry to say.

    1. I agree with you, Mike. It had to be addressed, and despite some of the ridiculous reactions, it isn’t worth continuing to pursue. I don’t expect those concerned to start behaving honestly, but it is their reputations that will suffer. But yes, I have lots of ideas for articles, and there will be great stuff coming from other contributors. I’m also involved with other projects where I get the opportunity to collaborate with great people. 2015 was by far the biggest year yet for the blog and I expect this year to be even better. Thanks for your support.

  18. Craig:

    I tend to agree with Mike Cook.

    I think you are being drawn into a debate that goes nowhere, by obvious “Sunsteinians” from an obviously “Sunsteinian” “forum”.

    I have a suggestion:

    Write a simple article titled:

    “Craig McKee: 911 Space Beams, Holograms”

    And state your position clearly and succinctly.

    Whenever someone reads Ken Doc’s disinfo, they’ll probably want to find out if it’s true and Google will send them directly to your article.

    Just a thought.

    1. That makes some sense for sure. But I don’t want to legitimize his bogus accusations as if I need to set the record straight. I have written almost 200 articles about 9/11 and related topics, and if people can’t figure out what I believe from those then I think they don’t really want to know. But thanks for the suggestion.

  19. Sorry I missed most of this thread, my wife’s only home 2 days a week and timing of the thread overlapped us being out of the house. Thanks to Mckee, Ruff, Syed and any others who support trying to talk some sense into ‘Ken Doc’ and Joe.

    1. Thanks for your comments, Brian. Good for you for the efforts you made over there, but the gang over at 9/11 Junior High (the admins I mean) are just not worth it. This has been an incredible two days. And I don’t mean in a good way. But as Scarlett O’Hara once said …

  20. Craig, it has been a fascinating read, both the blog post and the comments. I found it hard to believe how some people can be so obtuse, and dodge the main issues to concentrate on sideshows, like off hand remarks about kissing by the lockers etc, not even made by you. You were begging for some actual response to your primary question-why do these people lie about me and my work in public-and all that you got in return was that you are the one sowing the seeds of dissension, it is your fault, and that instead we should all be focussed on the events of Sept 11, not our petty disagreements. However, it is your character you are defending, and your views, and your status as a respected blogger on this subject and many others, and so that is your right to do as you did.

    I have always enjoyed your articles, topics, and writing, and find that you try to be informative about your subject matter, and fair to everyone, even those with whom you disagree. And that is also why you let comments remain that are certainly not reflective of your personal views in order to have topics fully aired and provide participants their opportunity to share what may be controversial and provocative positions.

    I have cringed at Collins’ treatment of people at that FB site, and he has even aimed his invective at me for challenging some of his sacred and unassailable (to him) determinations. Hurling childish personal insults and repeatedly stating how smart he is, and how stupid the rest of us are, is a constant theme with him, and perhaps the only way he knows how to relate. His racist rant about welfare cretins named Shannaniqua was way over the line, and he removed that post after I pointed that out, although he at first wanted to argue that there was nothing racist about it.

    Unfortunately, you became the target of much unfair and untruthful invective from certain members of that group, and when I saw that Ken Doc decided to list you as a “disinfo” purveyor on his personal website I was saddened, for of course it is not true, far from it. Same for Dave McGowan, RIP. You have done much for bringing the truth to light in this area, and many others, and you are a brave person for putting it all out there, exposing yourself to the public as much as what you write about it, and ending up a target of scorn when it is clearly not deserved.

    1. Nikogriego, I am grateful for you comment and your support. Every time I get discouraged by a mean-spirited and ignorant comment by a mean-spirited and ignorant person, my faith in truth seekers is restored by someone like you or the many others like you who contribute thoughtful, honest, and sincere perspectives. The assholes are the loudest but they are the minority.

  21. I actually wrote this a few days ago, but I found it to be very relevant to this article. I hope it’s not too long.

    Imagine that one day you are on your way to visit you sister. As you are approaching her house you hear loud screams from inside. Panicked, you rush inside to find out what is happening. As you enter the house, you see the towns chief of police, his uniform stained with blood and dirt, escaping through a window. On the floor inside you find your sister’s body, mutilated, bloody, and no longer breathing. As you, stricken with grief, cry out in anguish, you realize that the chief of police may actually be the murderer. During the following weeks the investigation of the local police, led by said chief, refuses to take into account your testimony about what you saw. Imagine that this story takes place in a very corrupt society where such things are possible. Your suspicions become only graver. The local police then concludes that another man, whom there is little or no evidence linking to the murder, killed your sister.

    Outraged by this, you and your friends start to look carefully at all the details and information yourselves. After examining whatever evidence you have, you all agree that a group including the chief of police were responsible for killing your sister.

    However, you and your friends have not been allowed to examine the body, crime scene, circumstantial evidence, etc. closely enough and you disagree on exactly HOW they killed her. What kind of weapon did they use? How did they do it? Did they use guns, knives, poison, a blunt object, or some combination of the above? You and your friends all have different theories, and you all seem to have quite good evidence for your claims. The debate among you can get quite bitter, and sometimes you even question each other’s motives and/or sanity. At that point, if you are wise, you will all stop, pause for a moment, and then say together:

    It may not be entirely irrelevant what the murder weapon was and the other details of how they killed her. We do want to know that. However, right now, that is not the most pressing issue! Right now, the most pressing issue is that they did! They killed her and got away with it! The whole town is corrupt, and the murderers are laughing at our little quarrels while they themselves have, so far, gotten away. Let’s leave those details for now! Let’s focus all of our attention on bringing the murderers to justice! Let’s tell all the citizens of the town! Let’s tell them there was a murder, the chief of police is connected to it, and the investigation has been a farce! Let’s show them how the town is run by a bunch of corrupt murderous bastards! Because the citizens of the town are the only ones who can do anything. The police are not going to investigate it. We can only tell the people of the town. And we don’t need to be sure of exactly how the murder was carried out. After all, we are only ordinary people. We are not all forensic experts. We don’t have access to all the forensic evidence. We can be humble enough to say that we aren’t absolutely sure what the murder weapon was. Or that we don’t know exactly how the other details of ther crime was carried out. But we do know that the story the police have presented about the crime is an absolute bunch of shit. And we do know that some powerful people in the town have been involved in the perpetration and cover-up of the crime. And that is enough! Don’t let anyone tell you it is not! Don’t let anybody demand that you know exactly how your sister was killed, because you don’t! We may one day find out, but we don’t right now. In the meantime, stop fighting with your friends. Unite with your friends, no matter what they think the murder weapon was, or what the other details were. Heck, even if some of your friends have some kind of (in your view) whacky theory about your how sister was killed, and can be a argumentative, spiteful, annoying bastards at times, please just try to let it go. Try to thank them for at least not buying into the bullshit story the police concocted about the murder. Otherwise, all the rest of the townspeople will see is a bunch of outsiders arguing about the details of a murder that happened long ago. OK, if they believe they killed with a four mile long sword, then you can tell them that you don’t agree. But I think you know what I mean. With this described, better attitude, you can talk to the other people in the town, and one day, you can probably see justice for your sister, and have your questions about the details answered too.

    I, who wrote this, have quite a few unorthodox suspicions about the details of the 9/11 false-flag. Do I care if you agree with them? NO! I am just grateful that you don’t buy into the bullshit of the official story. Do I think it is totally irrelevant what the details were? No. Hopefully the people can find out all the details one day. Because even the details may prove to be truly important and shocking But if my sister has been murdered, I do NOT have time to sit around arguing with my friends about the details while the murderers are laughing at us. I do NOT have time for that. I have time for seeking justice for my sister.

      1. Thanks! It might have stepped on the toes of Mr. Zelikow, Mr. Sunder, Mr. Gross and the 9/11 perpetrators, but those guys deserve worse than having their toes stepped on.

        I really believe that even if someone appears to be hostile, telling lies and being unreasonable, we should still try to avoid lengthy discussions with them. We can clearly state that we disagree with them, clearly state our opinions, and then limit our interactions with them. I don’t believe lengthy arguments and hostility is worth our time. I think it is quite possible that all the people Craig has disagreements with are actually trying to do their best for the movement. I cannot prove either a positive or a negative for that. I question both those people’s conclusions, and Craig’s conclusions. But who cares? Our brothers and sisters were murdered, for Christ’s sake! This is not the time for petty quarrels and personal attacks. And by personal attacks I also mean calling people trolls, questioning their motives, etc. (Even if there may be truth in such accusations.) Think about all the millions of people who have suffered, died or otherwise been affected because of this false flag attack, and then consider whether biting the hook in such petty quarrels is really worth our time.

        1. Don’t take this the wrong way, Eriksen, but it’s easy for you to say, who cares. Of course it’s not the ideal use of time to deal with people I have written about. But it’s my time and I was attacked very unfairly. It’s my right to respond. I would counter that it is NOT possible that in lying that they thought they were helping the movement. When is lying acceptable for those in a truth movement?

          And yes you can prove that these claims are false. Try to find a single statement I have made supporting any of the things they say. You won’t. If they had proof they would have offered it. And I’m sorry but I demonstrated very thoroughly how Collins qualifies as a troll. It’s very clear. How much proof do you need? And this goes beyond a personal argument. Among other things, it’s about people, especially new people, having the opportunity to explore ideas and learn about 9/11 without being called a fucking retard by an obvious troll.

          1. Don’t worry, Craig, I did not take that the wrong way. I understand totally that it must be frustrating for you to be attacked by these guys, just because you speculate on some things that do not fit with their canon of accepted topics. I speculate about many such things myself.

            Honestly, I’m just so saddened by the fact that it’s been fourteen years, with the elusive breakthrough still eluding us. I’m probably a bit emotional because of that, so I’m sorry.

            If I was a newcomer curious about 9/11 Truth, came to any blog or forum, and saw people arguing back and forth about trolling, personal integrity, details, etc, I might have just closed the site and gone back to CNN and BBC. Therefore, sometimes it may be better to just drop the ball. I don’t have my own blog, and I don’t mean to lecture you. I understand totally that you wanted to stand up to the accusations. I probably would have done so too, if I was a blogger. I’m just still grappling with the cognitive dissonance of 9/11 and the fact that such a thing was even possible. So my best wishes to you, Craig. May your posts reach beyond the choir. May people everywhere stop believing lies. May we all find love and truth among each other and be happier. Best wishes.

    1. This analogy is very relevant to this discussion. One of the disinformation tactics we see used telling people they have nothing to say unless they can prove every element of the crime. I think if we can agree on how the official story is false, we’re off to a good start.

      1. Thanks for your reply, Craig. I wonder if we can make it through all the fear, lies and lack of reason. I have quite a hard time believing a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon. While I find the flyover theory plausible, and do entertain the possibility, I cannot conclude definitely that that is what happened either. I also speculate about a great many other aspects of 9.11. But I think that far, far, far more important than excessive discussion regarding these details, is a cordial relationship among truthers, even the fringe groups. I believe we should try to avoid name calling at absolutely all costs. I know it is hard when people are insulting one and telling lies, but biting the hook is just so painful and counterproductive. I think it’s better to just assume good faith (even though the assumption may very well be wrong.)

        1. I agree with you that cordial relations between truthers is very important however I have to ask one question. Is a person like Ken Doc who posts provable lies about others really a truther? I do not think he is a truther any more. I have no reservations at all about saying that.

          Mixed in with your positive intent to unite truthers into more cordial relations is the assumption that everyone who claims to be a truther really is a truther.

          1. Dear Adam

            Let me first grab this chance to say that I enjoyed quite a lot a post you made in the AIA WTC 7 ballot thread. It had a lot of feeling in it. It was all about right vs wrong approach, etc.

            You know, I must agree that these guys seem quite immature, hostile, unreasonable, dishonest, and indeed, troll-like. You have a very good point. Sometimes i write from emotion rather than reason.

            My definition of a truther is someone who at least questions the official 9/11 story and suspects involvement by government officials, intelligence agencies and/or other such individuals. Even if someone is totally unreasonable, hostile, dishonest, argumentative, and a proven liar, they could still fit that definition. Indeed, anyone who spends years talking about the details of 9/11 has to either know or strongly suspect that the official story is false, even if they have a great many defects to their character. (Indeed, we all have defects to our characters, and some have more than others.)

            There is, of course, also the possibility that such individuals, while knowing that the official story is false, are actually intentionally working to try and deter the progress of the movement. It is not to be ruled out that some people who claim to be truthers are in fact driven buy such a Sunsteinian, Cointelrpro-like agenda. Actually, that may even be quite likely.

            However, for any given individual, I find myself unable to positively conclude which one it is. Are they knowingly doing something sinister? Or are they just an immature, troubled, unreasonable person? I think it is better to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and not answer that. Anyway, here I am admitting that they are either seriously flawed characters or willful saboteurs. Oh well.

            I spoke too strongly in my previous posts. It was absolutely correct of Craig to:

            1. Point out that these guys have told several lies about him.
            2. State very clearly that he does not endorse theories about space beams and/or holograms, and that there was no reason for anyone to think so. (His Judy Wood post made it very clear that he simply believes in open discussion, even regarding viewpoints he doesn’t endorse.)
            3. State his opinion that the dishonesty, hostility and censorship of these guys is not helpful.

            That is basically what Craig did. But, meh. I don’t know. Once he has very clearly stated those things, maybe he should drop the ball and stop spending energy on those guys. I guess it boils down to this: Whenever I’m in a public 9/11 discussion room, I always ask myself: “If I was someone who still believed the official story, and came here, what would I take away from this?” Because I believe we need to decrease our preaching to (and arguing with) the choir, and remember that the real achievements can happen during our exchanges with the people who still believe the offical story. As I told Craig in this thread: “If I was a newcomer curious about 9/11 Truth, came to any blog or forum, and saw people arguing back and forth about trolling, personal integrity, details, etc, I might have just closed the site and gone back to CNN and BBC.”

            By the way, I am not sure what kind of technology destroyed the towers or what the observed aircraft consisted of, whether flyover is correct, etc. But surely we can have a calm, dispassionate discussion about all that. And I think we can let all those details take a backseat. I think we can talk to all the people who still believe the official story. The more of those people we are able to engage in the discussion, the more rapid progress we will make. Domino effect, yeah?

            Hey Adam, based on your previous posts I feel compelled to ask you what you think about this concept called MITOP. (Explained in link.) I feel it may be one of the most important concepts in the whole truth movement. Actually, I invite anyone reading this to read about and comment on MITOP. Especially you, Craig. Details here: http://www.opednews.com/Diary/MITOP-by-Michael-David-Morr-090908-104.html

            Here is another piece of writing that can also be labeled under MITOP: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread494053/pg1&mem=

            PS, Craig: Sorry for my ever-changing IP. I may be a bit cowardly.🙂

            1. “If I was a newcomer curious about 9/11 Truth, came to any blog or forum, and saw people arguing back and forth about trolling, personal integrity, details, etc, I might have just closed the site and gone back to CNN and BBC.”

              Eriksen, I wonder what a newcomer would think about 9/11 if they went to a forum and raised some questions and were called a retard or a moron? And what would they think of those running the forum seemed to endorse this? Exposing lies is never the wrong thing to do, particularly when the result of those lies is damaging to what we are all trying to achieve. Our movement is full of trolls and agents, so all of us getting along and being united isn’t likely to happen. We have to push on the best we can regardless. The one thing that can bind sincere truthers together is a desire to speak and seek the truth.

              1. Sure, Craig, there are probably quite a few intentional trolls in the movement. And these guys have attacked you and told lies about you. And I told you that I would probably also have made a few things very clear publicly if in your shoes. But have you reached the point where you will stop spending your energy on them? Or will you soon reach that point? And if not, are you gonna try to expose them to the whole movement, so that they lose their influence and ability to disrupt? Or are you gonna try and convince them to change and be more open minded or reasonable? Try to get them to remove you from the list of “disinfo trolls”? I’m just repeating my mantra here that I think your future energy could be spent a lot better in other pursuits, while ignoring these guys.

                1. No, I won’t be pursuing them any further. I’ve made my point. None of them have the integrity to retract anything. I do promise, however, to post the exchange where Collins refused to provide a source for his accusations to someone who was booted out shortly after. I provide it mainly for entertainment value, because it is really, really funny.

                  1. Glad to hear you have decided to drop the ball, Craig. It seems I was myself preaching to the choir (you).🙂 Also, I can’t argue with posting things for comic relief, I’m sure we all need that.

            2. No problem with the IP as long as you know that the changes put your comments into moderation as if you were a new arrival. I’ll do my best to approve them promptly.

            3. Eriksen said:

              “Actually, I invite anyone reading this to read about and comment on MITOP”

              I haven’t read that article yet, but I will read it today.

              I agree with the MITOP(Made it Transparent on Purpose) theory; of course it is nothing new; it is as old as Larry Silverstein’s “Pull it”, and the magic passport.

              Thank you for the link!

              1. Cool, Sockpuppet. If you agree with MITOP, what do you suspect the motive is? I mean the motive for MITOP itself, not the motive for the attacks in general.

                I realize this is purely speculative, but I think that if MITOP is true, then the motive becomes extremely relevant.

                Craig: Am I taking the discussion too far off topic here? Maybe this is the wrong thread for discussing MITOP. By the way, I would be delighted if you would write a comment on MITOP, and thus provide a space for the discussion on that topic in general.

                I personally don’t *know* that MITOP is the case, but I think there are several good reasons to suspect it.

                1. I have long wanted to write about MIHOP and LIHOP so maybe I could write about all three. But go right ahead and discuss it here if you like. I can handle things that go off the topic depending on what it is. Some things instantly destroy a thread. Like space beams, for instance. But I’ve tried not to be too inflexible about sticking with the content of the article, particularly after more than 260 comments. If you had brought it up when the article was first published, I’d have pulled you back to the topic at hand.

                  1. Cool, Craig, thanks. I was just about to present my theory about how Commander Tarkin destroyed the towers, but I’ll let it go.

            4. I do not believe MITOP is the case for a couple reasons.

              First and foremost is the extreme danger the perps would put themselves in if they made it transparent on purpose and that led to their complete exposure. If the perps are ever completely exposed to the general public they will swing from the trees with a rope around their necks. They would not risk that exposure in my opinion. I believe they wanted to keep their crime a secret and they blamed it on the provided patsies so they themselves could escape with the loot and spoils of the crime. I believe they were arrogant enough to believe they planned the perfect crime and that they would get away with it.

              Second I think the MITOP theory gives the perps far too much credit as evil geniuses beyond all compare. I mean even Lucifer himself would not be that clever would he? Well maybe he would be but regular human beings are not so clever and omniscient that they see into the future and they do not have God like powers to be able to control every contingency. MITOP kind of falls into the category of giving your enemy so much credit that you essentially become impotent. How could we ever fight back against such clever, far seeing, all powerful, masters of evil, who literally run circles around all of us small minded humans? Do you see my point? MITOP means they saw into the future, predicted all possible outcomes, and prepared for all of them in advance. I don’t buy it.

              The truth is I think the perps are just arch criminal, greedy, evil, scumbags, with extreme hubris, and right now they are stretched to their absolute limits just trying to keep the flood gates of 9/11 truth from opening. I think they are failing and they are living their last days without a rope around their neck tied to a tree limb above.

              1. Thanks for responding, Adam. I’m probably about 50/50 between your perspective and MITOP. MITOP is mostly speculation, to be sure.

                It could very well be that the perps were just arrogant, over confident scumbags. And perhaps not prepared for the way in which the internet would change things. If this would have been in the 80’s, maybe none of us would have even heard of Building 7, etc.

                I want to add, though, that MITOP could have been planned by people very high up in the hierarchy, and hidden from the lower level “operatives” by means of compartmentalisation. The “lower level” perps may not even have known the names of the superiors a few steps above them. The “lower level” guys may have been in the dark about MITOP, while at the same time serving as a possible “second line of patsies” in case the shit hits the fan.

                All this, of course, is pure speculation, and I wonder if it’s worth discussing in public. Anyway, here are a few things that made very little sense to do, that the perps still did:

                1. Why destroy Building 7? OK, destruction of evidence and everything. But it is basically like screaming out to the world that it was an inside job. They may have managed to destroy some evidence, or SEC documents or something, but in doing so they have given a massive blow to not just the official 9/11 story, but indeed their whole propaganda machine, and thus their whole power structure. Couldn’t they destroy evidence with a huge arson or something?

                2. Spreading foreknowledge and press releases about Building 7 before it collapsed. If they seriously believed this would aid the official story, then I find that truly bizarre. This foreknowledge is actually what knocked down my last pillar of brainwashed faith in the official story six years ago. And I was brainwashed really well at one point.

                3. Satam al-Suqami’s spotless passport that allegedly survived an impact with the North Tower. FBI’s document says the passport was “soaked in jet fuel.” (Yes, that document can be found on FBI’s own website.) Who can believe that planting such bizarre “evidence” is going to aid the official story? Couldn’t they have stuck with less bizarre evidence for framing the “evil muslims”? They did plant some other, slightly more believable “evidence.” Why add the completely ludicrous magic passport?

                4. The insane “exit-hole” inside the Pentagon. What, exactly, was the point of this hole? What purpose did it serve, other than clearly indicating that the Pentagon attack was staged by insiders?

                5. Even the collapse of the twin towers was completely preposterous. Indeed, they must have been extremely arrogant, with a significant amount of hubris and confidence in their ability to brainwash people using the media. “And yeah, let’s demolish the building down the street too, it has too much dangerous paperwork in it.”

                7. Shanksville and Pentagon “crash sites” are also completely ridiculous, to the point that I think we have to ask ourselves whether people diabolically smart enough to pull off 9/11 would have been mad enough to feel confident that most people would surely buy it. The same goes for points one to six. M. D. Morrissey also put all this very well in the article I linked to earlier. If this operation got exposed, the consequences would be truly humongous. Did whoever staged this realize what kind of fire they were playing with? According to the “arrogant-bastard” theory (which may very well be correct,)” they were willing to risk all this, all for some other motive(s) they had.

                I know the idea of MITOP is seems quite bizzare. But: The 9/11 crime itself was completely, utterly, outrageously brazen and bizarre.

                Imagine if 9/11 gets fully exposed a few years from now. Imagine a bunch of the low level perps (or even a phoney bunch of government officials as patsies) being prosecuted. I may, very well be assigning too much intelligence and ability to the men behind the curtain, as you say. But could they even have a plan for turning such a situation to their benefit? Such as certain puppets talking about what an absolute piece of shit ( think 9/11, 7/7, etc) the old system was, and how we now need a new system of international governance and “real democracy.” ( Which really means a one world government.)

                Another possible motive is simply wanting to wage psychological warfare on the population, by making the false flag transparent and thus intimidating them by announcing an Orwellian terror-regime without having to come out and say it literally.

                This post has been a true conspiracy theory, using the popular sense of the term, since it is only based on speculation, rather than proof. I want to say again that I think your viewpoint that they were simply arrogant, over confidant, bastards may be just as likely. Hope I didn’t bore you with my speculation. I do, though, think MITOP is quite and interesting notion.

                Best wishes, Adam, Craig, Sockpuppet and all the rest of you guys. If 9/11 ever gets exposed it’s sure as hell not gonna be quiet. But I do yearn for it. Not sure why. But I do. And clearly, you do too.

                Love and best wishes.

  22. Dear Craig,

    I have always been an admirer of the ethics and dignity you apply to your articles, as well as your interactions with the countless comments and commenters on your pages. And that includes this latest article above, in which you try to engage in a major confrontation with people that you feel are in the wrong.

    As painful and frustrating as it was for me to watch and read the ensuing shitstorm, I tried my best to refrain from jumping on the bandwagon with a knee-jerk comment of my own, and can’t help wishing that others would have used some restraint as well before shooting their mouths off.

    But, sadly, I feel that you have been had. You have allowed these lowly characters to pull you all the way down to the gutters of the internet. And when you pick a fight with sewer rats, it is inevitable that you will get some muck all over you regardless of the outcome.

    “LOL” is already annoying enough as it is, but countless LOLs right after calling people idiots and dimwits should have been sufficient to know that these people have zero interest in T?UTH, and they wouldn’t give a rat’s ass whether what they are saying or claiming is true, ethical, or dignified… And, not unlike the super-anti-gay minister turning out to be gay himself, for people who keep calling others stupid, they seem to be very short on IQ points and education themselves.

    I suspect this Facebook operation’s admins are much more organized and sinister than just being liars and being dumb. But, that’d be pure speculation on my part.

    However, I would like to pose a question (not rhetorical) to anyone reading this who might have an answer:

    I would be very curious to know how these truth-bandits, Ken, Mike, Joe, Kim et al, make a living.

    Wishing you all a rat-free blog :-]}

    1. This is bad–a form of “political correctness” applied to 9/11 research. If we don’t call out the rats among us, we will never be free of them. They will continue to pollute and obfuscate the truths we have established. There is no alternative to outing them. They are wrong in every way: empirically, scientifically, theoretically, morally and ethically. They have no redeeming merit. I hereby reiterate my invitation to Mike Collins and Ken Doc to come on my show for a debate on the issues (the Pentagon, planes/no planes and whatever, including the Holocaust and the moon non-landings, if they like). I have done serious research and publication on all of them. But of course they won’t do it. They are of the kind that attacks others for no good reason using a blizzard of ad hominems and refused to offer good reasons in their defense. The explanation, of course, is not difficult to discern: THEY DON’T HAVE ANY. Craig is a nice guy, but I am willing to take them on in a no-holds-bared exchange on “The Real Deal”, https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsfS5KpYMzb20sCxyfSotfX1ELkIBrXZ3

      1. Mr. Fetzer,

        As per Craig’s wishes, I have no intention to argue with you on the merits of your comment above, or expressing my long held opinion of the heavy handed and callous manner you try to steer the so-called truth movement.

        I have already seen your repeated, self-promoting invitations to the “rats” to come on your show to hash things out, which I can almost guarantee you that they shall not accept. And, if, by some freak development they do accept, I have very little interest in listening to any of the participants in question, including the host.

    2. David,

      I thank you for your thoughtful comments. And you raise a fair point – that I have been pulled into the gutter, where I have no business being. But sometimes this is better than the alternative – doing nothing.

      Believe me, I debated for weeks about how to deal with this. One option was to ignore any attacks. I mean the attacks are so absurd and so juvenile, they are hardly worth worrying about. There would have been some advantages in this approach, to be sure.

      A second option would be to expose what these people are doing and to use the situation to illustrate some of the ways that real disinformation is being used to obscure the truth. I finally chose the latter. And despite the enormous stress it caused, I’m glad I did. I also wanted to expose how this Facebook page is doing all it can to drive any newcomers to the Movement away but insulting and mocking them. I think my dissection of Collins demonstrates how that is being done.

      I knew that an article of this kind would cause a shitstorm, but this was not the intention or the desire on my part. I thought that the idea that a truther should simply never tell obvious lies about anyone’s position would go without saying. But apparently, some people don’t see this.

      The fact that Kim McLaughlin can not only justify Doc’s lies but actually come to agree with them during an afternoon without the slightest basis for doing so, is absolutely incredible and absolutely unprincipled. This is not a person who cares at all about truth or who can even recognize it when she sees it. All she cares about is staying in her clique. She can have it.

      As I tried to point out, I had not dealt with any of those people for the better part of a year when Doc and Collins thought it would be a great idea to launch more attacks. And those who think responding is “starting a war” simply don’t understand what they are talking about.

      Not one comment out of more than 180 addressed the issue of so-called truthers attacking and mocking “conspiracy theorists.” If people don’t understand how damaging that is, then I don’t know what to say to them. Going on about “conspiracy sheep” is beyond irresponsible, it is an attack on truth itself. I think it’s something an agent would say to divide and to denigrate those who investigate conspiracies.

      So despite the fallout, which includes the permanent departure from Truth and Shadows of its most prolific commenter, Hybridrogue1 (that’s another story), I do not regret this post. I think the truth matters, and I think there are people who call themselves truthers who clearly don’t.

      1. “…. the permanent departure from Truth and Shadows of its most prolific commenter, Hybridrogue1 (that’s another story)….” – Craig McKee

        With all due respect (and affection) for both of you, your egos and your hurt feelings, I do not believe even for a second that either of you think, believe, or wish that this is indeed a “permanent departure”. So, please do not make me write up a whole thing where I would have to address you both like little children who just had a fight, and make you apologize to each other and kiss and make up.

        Whether you want to go through the conciliatory process in private or on these pages is your business… But whatever you are going to do, do it soon. If you don’t, Wisemen lose to the Rats one-nothing… In their home field, nonetheless. Which might force them to change their team name to Notsowisemenafterall.

        1. I have to go with David on this one. I haven’t tendered many comments until recently, for the simple fact, a closed mouth gathers no foot. The “Rogue” and I have been online friends over many campaigns covering each other’s 6’s. Under that crusty out front persona is what I’ve come to respect, a sweet guy (no Willy, I ain’t gay. Not that matters an iota). He’s very outspoken but brings to the table a sharp mind backed up by much archived materials. He’s been instrumental to bringing my knowledge base light years ahead, I hold the highest respect for him. It’s because of Willy that came over to this blog, now I’m sounding off for him.
          His eloquential demeanor can be quite crusty but there’s no BS with him. Whoever comes to the table better be up on their game because he’ll certainly hold them to it. Be a shame for him to move on. Hey David, you two are of a like mind I see.
          Craig, I hope you and him can patch up your relationship.

          1. Thank you. Looking forward to it.

            Can’t speak on behalf of veritytwo, but I followed all of your exchanges and comments live, as it happened, both here and on the HR1 blog. And, I will risk being perceived as presumptuous and say in advance that I feel I understand both of your positions, angles, and resentments quite well. My bigger point is still that, considering your history with each other, what transpired does not warrant a break up.

            I might come across as a little pushy regarding this matter, but it’s only because I am quite troubled by it… And with that, I will shut up and wait for the chips to fall where they may between you two.

            1. Based on what I’ve seen on hybridrogue’s blog today, the chances of this split being reversed are much more remote than they were even yesterday. I will post more after the hockey game I’m watching is over.

            2. David, you have been a voice of reason and patience over the past two or three days (not just then) but I must say I was hurt by this comment you made on hybridrogue’s blog:

              “And, if Craig lets this clash between you go on to really become permanent, I will start thinking he is not who and what i thought he was after all, and will probably stop frequenting the blog eventually.”

              Why would you say that?

              1. Craig, You are such a good and decent man who has only the truth at heart that this has become a litmus test for integrity among students of 9/11: Those who attack you have shown that they are not dedicated to truth and do not deserve our respect. We know who you are–and through their attacks we are discovering who they are. This is a painful but instructive exercise.

              2. “Why would you say that?” – Craig McKee

                In the jungle, they say “when elephant run, monkey climb up high tree”… Perhaps it would have been wiser if i had listened to it and stayed out of this. But, now that I haven’t done that, I realize that this monkey has to do the monkey dance and avoid getting run over, while trying not to step on any elephant toes…

                Craig… I have made a great effort to keep my comments and peacemaking efforts to gentle generalities, and didn’t think it was my place to get personal or criticize or praise either one of you for some very human mistakes both of you have committed in the past few days… But you did ask the “voice of reason” for a reason… So, now I have to spell a few things out…. Please watch your toes.

                Even when quoted out of context like above, I feel my words are pretty self explanatory, and they speak the truth. I would, indeed, be very disenchanted (to say the least) with T&S if this somewhat childish episode results in a stalemate. That said, I still wish that you’d consider my commentary here and at HR1 in its entirety, and not in dissected individual sentences.

                I hate to lay undue pressure on you guys, but this “spat” is symbolically a little larger than just the two of you. To me, it represents exactly how the so called truth movement, and in fact, an entire society is made to disintegrate day by day, by rats, using tactics that are already so well known to most everyone here, let alone you as someone who has written many eloquent articles about this very subject, or HR1, who might be considered an expert in his own right with extensive knowledge about these tactics. As someone who has watched many truth babies get tossed out with the blog water over the years, what is a justifiably emotional episode for you, is a very recognizable and saddening pattern of psychology for me.

                When things are this obvious, and the people involved are still not able to look at what’s happening rationally, it is almost always because they are intoxicated by their own emotions. And, at times like this, when egos are still tender, criticism is useless, and a level headed, neutral and friendly “voice of reason” is the only thing that has any chance of working. If I, indeed, hurt your feelings with my hypothetical that you quoted while I was trying to be just that, so be it. As long as you know that I was fully aware that you were keeping an eye on the HR1 blog and it was not a statement made behind your back.

                In the meantime, like teenage sweethearts who just broke up, both of you are following and quoting each other’s blogs, misreading into each other’s comments (And in this instance, one of mine), while pretending not to care much if this is “permanent”.

                HR1 is shooting his mouth off on his blog trying to inflict some pain while trying to maintain his verbal warrior stance to disguise his hurt feelings. It is really not helping the situation at all… Especially when the other side (you) is locked into the wounded dove position and is seeking support and sympathy. I’ll say it one more time… I feel that I understand, sympathize with, and feel affection for both of you and your positions in this matter, and I do not sit in judgement of anyone for their temporary lapses of judgement in the heat of things… God knows I have had my own fair share of all that… But still, for two smart, intellectual, honest and mature men of a certain age who have shared a bumpy journey with each other over the years towards Truthlandia, with the good, bad and the ugly, yes, I find this dynamic a little childish and insecure on both sides, to be honest.

                One thing that web based relationships do is that they take the human factor out of the equation to a great extent, and we often forget that the person behind the keyboard, including the shills and trolls and Kens and Fetzers, is a flesh and bone human being, with very human strengths and weaknesses, with very human feelings that are not limited to just their opinions on whether or not a plane hit the pentagon, or what they think or believe in on any given contentious subject. While both of you are trying to make this all sound like it is about principles, the truth, the cause, the right thing to do, etc. I just see two human beings who have hurt each other’s feelings (irrespective of who was right or wrong) and are having a difficult time dealing with it. It is really that simple… The rest is all mambo jumbo!

                I will end by saying that I am neither a psychic, or a psychologist. I could easily be very wrong with my analysis of the “situation”, and might be unaware of some past and dormant resentments between you two that are reurfaceing because of all that transpired. In fact, even though I value truth more than most aspects of life, I don’t even consider myself a “truther” and I couldn’t tell you how many trusses the WTC had, or how many NoC witnesses there are, and I do not care to know. I come here for the people and the high level of intellectual discussions that take place here, not to gather 9/11 info or news. I do enjoy reading your take on some douchebags on Fartbook, but do not need an article to know that the sewer is full of rats. It’s a foregone conclusion. It took me years to muster up the courage to post comments here, and even then, I try hard to keep my head low and my participation at a philosophical and sociological realm and not embarrass myself by going into any 9/11 related fact-based discussions. So, please forgive me if I have overstepped some boundaries by meddling in all this, or have abused your welcome.

                I hope this answers your question. And I really hope that it was not a rhetorical, and that I have not made a fool out of myself with this lengthy reply.

                Couple of footnotes:
                * I appreciate you calling me “voice of reason”. Means a lot to me
                * Please do not feel obliged to deal with or reply to my commentary.
                * And lastly…. SockPuppet!!!! Show some dignity for god’s sake and put a sock in it!

            3. David, I have just read the latest on HR’s blog, and I don’t have the energy to deal with this tonight. I will say this, however. It is hybridrogue who is deciding that this split cannot be fixed. He is behaving like a bully with a gleeful mean streak, like Mike Collins with a better vocabulary.

        1. David, I can’t find a comment in the system that hasn’t gone up. Could you post it again? If it tells you it’s a duplicate comment, just change something and repost.

          1. Thanks Craig… But, peculiarly, my comment in question (10:32 am) appeared on the page about half an hour later, with the correct timestamp. (I assure you that it was not there when i asked… I was eager to post that comment up, so I did refresh the page a few dozen times just to make sure before I decided to request that you fish it out.

            BUT…. Now that the comment is up, and now that the shitstorm has subsided… What say you, Mr. McKee? What say you, Mr. Rogue?

      2. As a daily reader/follower of this blog for nearly 5 years, the permanent departure from Truth and Shadows of its most prolific commenter, Hybridrogue1 is bittersweet to me.

        On one hand I particularly found much of his well-worded insight into the deep state to be nothing short of profound – “Government is [indeed] a racket” – and have quoted many similar statements like his “gawblesmerka” several times in other communications.

        On the other hand, I found his ridicule, vulgarity, and overall dominating presence here intimidating and in stark contrast to the considerate, respectful and evenhanded tone of Mr. McKee and almost all of the other regular contributors here.

        Admittedly, I was sometimes confused by how strongly he defended some of his positions, perhaps most confusing to me was his relatively recent defense of the government agency NASA which, as a Flat Earther who knows the whole agency is a giant money-siphoning hoax, I attempted to challenge directly at his blog – only to be un-welcomed and blocked. While not directly 9/11 related, I’m hoping Mr. McKee will someday write on his investigation into that subject.

        Regardless, in separating the chaff from the grain, I greatly appreciate much of his insight on this blog. I look forward to my increased participation here on what I believe is the finest blog on 9/11, and perhaps the participation of those who were otherwise reluctant before.

          1. Just to be clear, everyone, I don’t believe in blocking subjects of points of view, but we will not be discussing anything to do with this theory on Truth and Shadows. No offence to anyone.

              1. Sincere, relatively experienced investigators who wish to contribute to and benefit from our collective knowledge and perspectives in a non-combative environment towards the goal of revealing truth – and who may not be at their computer around the clock.

            1. I agree with Mr. McKee that the topic of Flat Earth is not appropriate on a 9/11 focused blog. I only mention in it as a basis for my understanding of the Apollo missions, which has been previously mentioned on this blog, as being totally fraudulent because they are physically impossible.

              1. My only word on this subject is that I am very disturbed by the linking of it with the Apollo Moon missions. I have been seeing this a lot lately, and while I do not accuse you, Sherif, of being insincere, I suspect the sudden re-emergence of the flat Earth thing in general is a psyop designed to deflect people from the continuing exposure of the bogus Moon landings. Four months ago I did not even know people believed the Earth was flat. Now I’m hearing about it everywhere. I’m not a big believer in coincidences.

                1. Thank you for acknowledging my sincerity, Mr. McKee. Your suspicions about the timing and suddenness of the emergence of this topic are valid, however, contrary to your assertion, I have seen a greatly increased focus on the exposure of the bogus Moon landings, and the fraudulent nature of the US government agency of NASA as a whole. I could offer you a more satisfying explanation off this blog, via e-mail.

        1. Yes, can you please define in what context you are using this term, Mr. Shaalan?

          I’d like to believe it is not in the literal sense, but more the way Obama and others use it for those who do not believe in anthropogenic climate change…

  23. The TruthAction characters I mentioned would regularly beat people with a conspiracy stick wrapped in ‘guilt by association’, and a lot more besides. Besides the TruthAction site itself, some of them moderated/patrolled InfoWars and 911Blogger. When I first saw them attacking people and poopooing all over the place I couldn’t believe it. Who would act that way except someone *wanting* to appear stupid? It amazes me how people can’t the see the obvious: They are the ‘credibility cops’ and they don’t like the ‘big tent’. They like to throw ‘twoofers’ in the big tent and hit them with a conspiracy stick. Just the facts ma’am!
    Alex Jones increasingly distances himself from ‘conspiracy theories’, and he regularly pushes LIHOP. Though sometimes he shouts ‘at minimum!’. Jones’ sidekick Paul Joseph Watson sounds like Mike Collins.
    This is *the* main weapon they have to use against anyone, and if they act repulsive/stupid while doing so then great! It all helps to keep people away.

    1. “Burning skyscrapers don’t collapse”

      “But what about ones hit by airliners that are also burning?”

      That is the type of back and forth you will get into when you use Youtube videos as your evidence.

      We have living breathing pieces of evidence in the NoC witnesses.

      1. I’d like to know which already burning towers hit by airplanes there were. Please enlighten me. You mistake me for someone that just crawled out of the cucumber patch

        1. veritytwo said:

          “I’d like to know which already burning towers hit by airplanes there were. Please enlighten me. You mistake me for someone that just crawled out of the cucumber patch”

          I’m still looking for the word “already” in Aldo’s comment.

          I see the word “also”, but not “already”.

          The Towers that “collapsed” were on fire…..they were “also” hit by airplanes.

          That’s what people will say when you show other buildings that were on fire but didn’t collapse.

          “It’s because they weren’t hit by airplanes”

          C’mon, veritytwo…..did you just fall off a turnip truck?

        1. Thanks, Sock. That was my point.

          Captive, are you talking about the Pentagon or the NoC evidence? That’s the point the NoC evidence doesn’t have to be back and forth. You don’t even have to debate it. It is evidence of high treason. People need to be going to their elected representatives and the FBI, Homeland Security and demand they speak with the witnesses and recognize the gravity of what they saw and what it means – or provide you a thoroughly detailed rebuttal on why they won’t – and you need to document every step of this. We brought this evidence to all of you on a silver platter. Not only that, we gave you technical information in the form of hard data from Pilots for 9/11 Truth that disproves the official story. This will not be up for debate with the authorities and elected officials because you can’t debate over a lie. If they are the big tree, you have to be the small axe. That’s what we were.

          There is no back and forth with the NoC witnesses. They were unwitting bombshells in key AND opposing vantage points in the final seconds of that flight path and thats what makes them so very important. They all independently confirm the same flight path on the north side of the gas station. At that point it is a wrap on the official story. Either they are all lying or they are all hallucinating the exact same thing.

  24. You guys are animals! lol

    Don’t you ever get burned out on this stuff?! I commend all of you for keeping the fire lit, with the exception of the few on here that I suspect are or might be die-hard operatives.

    I was just going through the CIT forum. Man there is some good stuff on there. Great leads to follow-up on still. Like man, what about Opus Dei priest Stephen McGraw? He was SUPPOSEDLY going to preside over a funeral (that he was already late for) at ANC and completely abandoned the family that was having the funeral. We FOIA’d the list of burials for 9/11 at ANC. Wouldn’t it be awesome to confirm with him or the church who that burial was for? I don’t suppose any of you would want to do some research and investigation? The sad part is it is probably too late. They’ve likely cleaned up whatever mess was left.

    Anybody reach out to any of the NoC witnesses? I wonder what Lagasse and Brooks are up to. Or damn, what about Roosevelt?

    I’ve always thought about pressuring and documenting the FBI’s reaction to the evidence. Although I am sure it is futile it is still vital to document their inaction.

    As some of you may or may not know, I once had back channel e-mails with Congressmen Dana Rohrabacher (R) and even met face to face with him behind closed doors. I have ample documentation that he actually believes the witnesses and believes the plane was on the north side of the gas station but refuses to do anything about it because he believes the plane can come from the north side of the gas station and still hit the poles and Pentagon. He would be someone awesome to write a story on or hound and hound and hound.

    He is the first and really only gov’t official who has reviewed our evidence and believes the NoC witnesses and flight path.

    Any way, food for thought. I think it is more productive than worrying about these silly facebook groups – no offense.

    Later!

    1. Hi Aldo,

      No offence taken. I know it seems pointless, and it probably is. Believe me, dealing with these (I’m not supposed to name call but I can’t stop myself…) assholes is the opposite of fun. It’s horrible, really. But I do have a bit of a stubborn streak at times. I don’t care about being personally insulted by these “truthers,” I just think certain tactics – that are being used against a lot of good people – should be exposed once in a while. I think some of these tactics have been used against you and Craig Ranke totally unfairly. I know you guys can manage without my help but I’ve tried to support you because of the quality of your research and the importance of what you have unearthed.

      I agree with you that we have to look for ways to advance this beyond debating with each other. I was involved in an effort to create a 9/11 political party in Canada (it didn’t happen, long story) and I was a (small) part of the petition demanding an investigation into 9/11 that the leader of the Green Party brought to Parliament in Ottawa. In addition to any new initiatives I can get involved with, I’ll keep writing because that’s what I’m best at. And maybe I can make a New Year’s resolution: no more silly Facebook groups!

      1. Well my comments are more aimed at the Americans on the board, Craig. But that is a step in the right direction.

        There is plenty of additional work that can be done with the Pentagon, especially at a journalist’s level. I’ve even given you some tidbits you can follow up on.

    2. Good to see you Aldo. For what it’s worth – to answer one question of yours: even though I knew it would be completely futile, I tried to reach out to Dewitt Roseborough. This was 4/3/13. There used to be the “✔ Seen” at the bottom, but I suppose not now, since reconfiguration of algorithms. I even took a screenshot with the checkmark at the time but I guess it’s now an expired Imageshack link, so you’ll have to take my word for it, but here is what I sent to him (1 screen’s worth anyway).

    1. No, I’ll fix it. I took them off temporarily because someone asked me to post a comment from them but I couldn’t figure out how to take my avatar off. The name is easy to change but the other I don’t know how. Open to suggestions. But I’ll put them back regardless.

  25. What a mess this keeps turning out to be.

    I totally understand Craig’s frustration, as I have witnessed a lot of what he alludes to from the sidelines, multiple times (like Kim, I’ve had my finger on the “Leave group” button may times!). I’ve seen 9/11 TM followers attacked for simple, seemingly harmless comments, often misunderstood, sometimes because the comment was made by a European expressing himself in English and not quite getting the wording right, thus prompting some sarcastic put-down from one of the admins (how many admins, may I ask, express themselves fluently in a language other than English?). I’ve watched my own closest contacts and friends being banned, one after the other, from the group, even though I have personally witnessed the unbelievable time and energy they have invested in and dedicated to 9/11 Truth actions. The irony is that most of them are AE911Truth volunteers, like myself – and we’re all doing our thing for the single most credible Truth group in existence today, so it’s difficult to understand where the low blows come from. I don’t comment on the TM page often, but the couple of times I did – and believe me, I tried to tread VERY carefully – I saw my comments being removed just when people started agreeing with something I said that ran counter to the TM ideology.

    THIS is what bothers me about the TM page: For a page that advocates “Truth” it strikes me as beyond ironic that the names of (some of) the admins or their locations (North Pole, anyone?) are fake and made up. Seems to me that if you want to stand for the truth, you can start with your own. It bothers me that the group is closed. It bothers me that people get put down, and accused of being disinfo agents and banned outright simply for being in disagreement with the thin-skinned powers that be. It bothers me that nobody is given the benefit of the doubt, bcs at the end of the day, NONE of us know what transpired that day, and nobody has all the answers. A little humility would go a long way. It bothers me that the lowest common denominator seems to prevail, with none of the admins commanding any true respect, only enforcing their views. Truly very dictator-ship like.

    Every once in a while, I try to imagine how Richard Gage would respond, or handle a tricky situation, and I know it wouldn’t be anything like the the way it’s being done by Ken or some of the others. Gage has class that others can only dream of. I agree he sets the bar high, but that doesn’t mean that everyone else needs to just throw in the towel. On the contrary.

    Craig, leave it be. You’ve said all you needed to say, nothing else can be gained at this point. We all know where WE stand, and I don’t think you need to worry about any of us suddenly questioning where YOU stand. Hope you find some small comfort in that. You have done nothing but be honest, lay your cards on the table and even admit when you don’t have an answer. As far as I’m concerned, your class is up there with Richard’s, don’t let yourself get pulled down into the gutter, even if you didn’t choose to be there in the first place.

    I checked, and Mike Collins no longer seems to be an admin, unless he’s using another name, so maybe something actually resonated with Ken, who knows? But in the end, just let your actions speak for you, and let other people’s actions speak for them. And let the chips will fall where they may.

    1. Beautifully written. All very true, unfortunately. I have many of the same feeling as you regarding TM FB page. The overall conceit and self-importance of some who control the page or post most often there is appalling. I too have chosen not to write much or often, and have had a few run ins with MC where he insulted me for no reason. MC was removed as administrator many years ago after he mistakenly made the page “private.”

    2. Sandra, thank you for weighing in and for bringing some sanity and decency to the “discussion” and for your support, which I know I can always count on. I agree with your sensible suggestion that I leave the situation be. It’s clear that these childish bullies will never leave the gutter they love to splash in. Undoubtedly I will not be writing any more posts about this truth-pretending clique, although I will soon recount a final exchange that brought a comical closure to this chapter for me – stay tuned for that. Thanks again.

  26. Hi Aldo, a few more things.

    Are you still in contact at all with Craig R. or Ligon? Might we see a reemergence with some even more new evidence?

    Also, you mention the example about burning skyscrapers, and how the knee-jerk reaction from a denier would be “but no other skyscrapers had 767s slam into them at full speed.” And how it ultimately gets nowhere.

    “But what about the 2400+ architects and engineers…”
    “They are a teeny tiny minority of the global A/E community! Every profession has its crackpots!”

    Honestly denial can easily work with the NoC evidence too.

    “But what the 13 witness who place the plane NoC…”
    “The vast majority of witnesses contradict those 13!”

    or

    “Physical evidence always trumps eyewitness testimony, which is fallible!”

    My point is, if anyone is going to be in a state of denial, they will be like that with ANY evidence that proves an inside job. The Congressman’s insistence that NoC is correct but still believes the light poles and building impact is proof of that.

    Although, certainly the Rohrabacker issue would be good material for an article.

    What would the McGraw thing prove as far as whose funeral he was supposed to preside? Are you thinking that he might not have been assigned to ANY funeral, and therefore, that if we got that confirmation, it would prove he’s a planted witness? After all, isn’t it pretty obvious already that his testimony is bogus? Didn’t he say the plane cartwheeled off the ground?

    Both with your NSA presentation and with the AE Experts Speak Out presentation, if people have, to quote DRG, even just a “30% open mind,” they will watch and grasp the significance. But if they’re at less than 30%, there’s no hope, just move on to the next person.

    1. Still in contact with Craig. Haven’t talked to Ligon in a while. Last I heard they were going to re-release NSA with improvements.

      “But what the 13 witness who place the plane NoC…”
      “The vast majority of witnesses contradict those 13!”

      or

      “Physical evidence always trumps eyewitness testimony, which is fallible!”

      Well again, that is if you are debating someone which there is no need to do. But if you want a rebuttal… 1) There is not one single witness who contradicts the NoC witnesses. 2) Well Mr. Skeptic, your impression of the “physical evidence” is different than mysel and, others. CIT found it suspect. The “Physical evidence” is evidence of a crime and that was the whole purpose of speaking with Eyewitnesses in the first place. These are witnesses who are corroborated over and over and need to be investigated, why are you opposed to investigating what these witnesses all independently saw.

      That’s the real question you need to ask during a debate. Even if they claim it is “disinfo” then ask them why are they opposed to investigating these “disinfo” witnesses. Wouldn’t disinfo witnesses be evidence of a crime or a cover-up?

      You have to attack the debate from a different angle. You are letting them trap you in a back and forth. You need to appeal to their basic sense of logic.

      It’s not about eyewitness testimony or physical evidence. It’s about what all these people said and why this doubter or skeptic doesn’t even want to go so far as to investigate their claims head on to begin with. The question needs to be asked why this doubter or skeptic is trying to discourage everyone from even considering what all these people said they saw.

      “Are you thinking that he might not have been assigned to ANY funeral, and therefore, that if we got that confirmation, it would prove he’s a planted witness?”

      Yes.

  27. Ok, Craig, I’ve changed my mind.

    I said I agreed with others that you were wasting your time with these disinfo agents, but I said that at the time when “Joe” and company, including “Kim” were stuck on the “high-school making out scene”, and totally avoiding and pretending to not understand the points you brought up in your article.

    Now it seems you are being discouraged by a whole flock of “well-wishers”.

    Since I posted my own “discouraging” comment, I’ve seen you smoke “Kim” out of the cave to show “her” true colors, and now it seems you might be smoking others out; this is turning out to be a very productive thread…..You’re starting the year off pretty good!

    Smoke ’em all out, Craig!😉

    1. Well, that’s a fresh perspective I wasn’t expecting!

      I didn’t count on Kim jumping the shark, but she has made her choice, and she’ll have to live with that. Now she says I defend Jim Fetzer “constantly,” which completes her conversion to the Ken Doc/Mike Collins school of truth telling.

      Despite how painful and stressful all of this has been, if I had to do it again, I would.

      1. “Despite how painful and stressful all of this has been, if I had to do it again, I would”

        And you probably will.

        As long as you are a teller of Truth, “they” will never leave you alone…..they can’t.

  28. Craig; You have to have noticed since you canned Willy, all the pustulence oozing and slithering out of the woodwork. Now you have to deal with puppet ass kissers, flat brained flat earthers, festerers and the other drivel. Rogue performed a duty contesting these slugs and holding them to some kind of accountability with aplomb.
    Now you have to. By the way, I’m still on the turnip truck headed out of Dodge having a life as opposed to hiding behind the opaqueness of the ether where one can be whatever kind of asshole their mean spiritedness has brought them to become. They need to try having a real life, I can think of all kinds of expletives but all it’d become is a name calling contest.
    One from the “Rogue”

    1. veritytwo said:

      “Craig; You have to have noticed since you canned Willy, all the pustulence oozing and slithering out of the woodwork
      Now you have to deal with puppet ass kissers, flat brained flat earthers, festerers and the other drivel”

      Awwwwww…..did the poor baby get butt-hurt?

      That’s a charming “vocabulary” you got there.

      Can you name some of this “oozing, slithering pustulence…..puppet ass kissers and festerers and other drivel”, and by copying and pasting from some of their comments, prove your point?

      “By the way, I’m still on the turnip truck headed out of Dodge having a life as opposed to hiding behind the opaqueness of the ether….”

      Oh…..I didn’t know “veritytwo” was your real name and address…..stupid me…..all this time I thought you were hiding behind the opaqueness of the ether…..Project much?

      “…..where one can be whatever kind of asshole their mean spiritedness has brought them to become”

      Now, that is such a classic, text book case in projection that it renders your whole comment as a parody.

      “They need to try having a real life…..”

      Yawwwwn.

      “I can think of all kinds of expletives…..”

      You mean…..even MORE?

      “…..but all it’d become is a name calling contest”

      I can’t for the life of me imagine how that would come about

      veritytwo…..your whole comment is a parody of projection; your projection is so exaggerated, it’s actually comical, like a Monty Python skit.

      1. Can you name some of this “oozing, slithering pustulence…..puppet ass kissers and festerers and other drivel”, and by copying and pasting from some of their comments, prove your point? – sockpuppet2012

        There!!! I did just that!

          1. Because your recent comments are perfect examples of what he seems to have been alluding to… Here are more extensive quotes to make it clearer:

            Waaa…..waaaa…..waaa!

            Will someone please feel sorry for me…..at weast dust a widdoh bit?

            veritytwo…..your whole comment is a parody of projection; your projection is so exaggerated, it’s actually comical, like a Monty Python skit.

            Awwwwww…..did the poor baby get butt-hurt?

            That’s a charming “vocabulary” you got there.

            1. But, David……you’re wrong for two reasons.

              1. If you think the above quotes are examples of “oozing, slithering pustulence…..puppet ass kissers and festerers and other drivel”, then you’ve got a strange way of understanding the English language.

              2. You’re quoting me AFTER THE FACT, where I RESPONDED to irrational nonsense.

              Now that you’ve stuck your nose in where it doesn’t belong…..I challenge you just like I challenged the Projection artist:

              Copy and paste from peoples’ comments where they exhibit “oozing, slithering pustulence…..puppet ass kissers and festerers and other drivel”.

              I’ll save you the time David…..you won’t be able to do it.

              veritytwo’s accusations are projection on steroids!

              My comment:

              “Waaa…..waaaa…..waaa!

              Will someone please feel sorry for me…..at weast dust a widdoh bit?”

              is a proper response to a self-pitying little brat who would be stupid enough to post a video like “You’re Gonna Miss Me”

              Why didn’t veritytwo or whoever “he” is speaking for just go all out and post a clip from “Fatal Attraction” where Glenn Close says:

              “I WILL NOT BE IGNORED!!!”

              How would YOU respond to a sniveling little cry-baby who would post a video saying “You’re Gonna Miss Me”, David?…..c’mon…..tell the truth.

              I know how you would respond to an “adult” who would post such a video, David; you would respond in one of two ways.

              You would either say:

              “Dere, dere….vewitytwo…..doan wet da big bad “oozing, slithering pustulence…..puppet ass kissers and festerers and other drivel” make you angwy…..Uncle David will kiss it and make it aw better”

              ……or you would say:

              “Uhh…..excuse me veritytwo, but, did you post that video as a joke…..just to be funny, or are you really that mentally unstable and childish?

              Or maybe you would abandon all reason and opt for:

              “Hey!…..great video, veritytwo!…..that’ll teach Craig a lesson!”

    2. veritytwo, I like that video you posted…..”You’re Gonna Miss Me”.

      It reminds me of Opie Taylor gettin’ ready to run away from home and writin’ his Pa a goodbye letter.

      Waaa…..waaaa…..waaa!

      Will someone please feel sorry for me…..at weast dust a widdoh bit?

  29. I promised to explain the split with hybridrogue, and while I don’t particularly feel like doing it, I will.

    David, I appreciate your broader perspective on what has happened, and undoubtedly I could have done some things differently, but you can’t have peace negotiations with someone who won’t stop shooting at you. And he won’t. I predict that in just a few minutes, he’ll be quoting from this comment (using bold type and starting with hahahaha!) and heaping on more insults and more ridicule. Have I ever mentioned how much I hate childish arrogance and cruel condescension?

    He is making the choice that this won’t be resolved. He is not even giving me a chance to be part of the decision.

    HR is a much more interesting and effective commentator when he has someone to answer to. He used to be much more aggressive and insulting at TS, but he changed after I asked him to cut out the insults. It took time and I acknowledge the effort he made. But since his recent split with reality, and with no one to advise him, he has turned into a disturbed child pulling the wings off flies.

    I find that it’s often not the cause of a split that is the most important in terms of whether it can be healed or what it reveals about someone’s character. It is what the parties do after it has occurred. Do they fume in silence? Do they run and trash the other behind his/her back? Does their pride keep them from apologizing? And do they make any effort to avoid inflaming things beyond a certain point, knowing that this will make reconciliation more difficult?

    Or do they pull out everything they have been saving up over months and years to launch an all-out assault against the other? And do they keep the assault going beyond the point when they can ever expect the other to come back and meet them halfway?

    That’s what HR has been doing now for several days. And there is no sign of him letting up.

    Willy is much too clever for his own good. At the same time, he’s not as clever as he thinks he is. Nor is he as important. He thinks that the blog will come tumbling down because he is not there to police it. No doubt the loss of his usually intelligent input will be felt, but the world will keep turning (no offense to flat Earthers) without him.

    He writes: “It is funny that the nutballs are coming out now that I have been blackballed from T&S, there will likely be more as time goes on.”

    And again: “The Lunatics are now taking over the asylum! T&S is in for some very weird times in 2016.”

    Then he blames me for Jim Fetzer defending me. Do I need to explain how ridiculous this is?

    Hahaha!! This is hilarious! Now Craig’s new “celebrity” pal, Fetzer rides to his defense like a knight in shining armor. This is like something out of Kafka!” says HR.

    And…

    “At this point if McKee wants to ban me then fuck him, I don’t give a shit. I have had enough of his tepid wishy-washy bullshit.”

    And…

    “What is really stooooooooooopid is Craig has his panties all twisted in a knot over fucking Facebook bullshit!!! He has lost all perspective. He has fucked himself and T&S with this self-gratifying post.”

    See? Not as clever as he thinks he is.

    Then irony rears its head:

    “Maybe Craig will reinstate Maxifucker’s posting privileges out of spite! Add these guys, Fetzer and Maxipad, and you will have a Crackpot Jamboree at T&S … a flood of Yahoos! Jonathan Swift would be proud.”

    Mentioning spite certainly was ironic as seen when he bizarrely endorsed an irrational and simple-minded emotional rant from Kim McLaughlin.

    “I agree with Kim here, whom I have never encountered, or know at all. But she makes all the sense in the world in her commentary there.”

    And in keeping with a post that addresses people not telling the truth, HR announces that I don’t allow others to criticize Jim Fetzer. Do I need to collect the hundreds of HR attacks on Fetzer on this blog, many of them just gratuitous insults? Later, HR clarified that it was just on this post that I wasn’t allowing criticism. That’s false, too, of course.

    “Craig allows this nonsense to be spewed on his blog without comment, or allowing Fetzer to be confronted.”

    And: “ESPECIALLY when Craig won’t allow others to criticize Fetzer for his bullshit.”

    Yes, it is after the conflict that someone’s true colors come out. Doc and Collins felt wounded by what I wrote last year, and they reached for anything close by to throw. Their goal was to discredit me even if they had to resort to false statements to do it. It seems that HR has a similar instinct.

    This whole thing brought me to HR’s blog, which I must confess I hadn’t much read before. In addition to the firehose of ridicule turned full blast, I found a post from the past where he made one of the more hateful attacks I’ve seen in some time. I am removing the name, because I don’t want to compound any effect of this unjustified expression of hate.

    HR includes a photograph of someone he has tangled with on TS. The caption reads: “The old faggot himself.”

    And just to reinforce the sentiment, he follows with this:

    ” _____________ attempts to provoke me on every T&S thread he attends, which are only few and far between actually. But every time this spermbank has shown up he spews showers of septic jiss my way.”

    Yes, I miss HR already. How will we ever survive without him?

    1. I’m glad he’s gone and I commend you Craig for writing about this split with admirable restraint. After being so unfairly and viciously attacked, it would be only human to want to sling a little mud yourself. You don’t, and my esteem for you has only increased.

      1. Thank you, Sheila. I got a couple of shots in but for me it’s either find a bit of distance or smash some furniture with baseball bat. I really can’t spare the furniture.

      2. Sheila I am NOT glad that Willy is gone and I think it is a shame and a loss for T+S. I think both Willy and Craig made mistakes to create this split and I told them both that and I told them both what I thought those mistakes were. I do not blame either person for the break up but I blame both Willy and Craig for not allowing for a cooling off period and sincere apologies all around. I am still friends with both Craig and Willy and will continue to talk to both. I will continue to participate here and I will also participate on Willy’s blog. That is my full disclosure about this.

        Sheila I have to say that I object to your glee that Willy is gone and I object to your promotion of hologram planes of all things. I almost swallowed my tongue when I saw that post. My God that theory has ZERO merit and has been debunked ten times over. Worse you said it right when the issue between Craig and Willy was blowing up because Fetzer was attempting to derail this thread with his mini nuke crappola. Your timing could not have been worse. Anyway I am not going to say more here about this except that I will miss Willy here.

        None of this should lead anyone to believe however that I blame Craig more than Willy for the split because I don’t. I have written to both Craig and Willy and made it clear what I think for what it matters. It is finished now and that is that.

        1. Adam,

          I would say that when these kinds of conflicts occur there is usually blame to go around. But I must object to one thing you said. That is that I deserve some blame for not allowing a cooling off period. I do not accept this blame. I was not the attacker in this, I was the person being attacked relentlessly amid other attacks. If this had happened when things were otherwise calm that might have been different, but Willy knew full well the pressure I had put myself under. He chose that time to issue an angry lecture about something that frankly is none of his business. As you know, I am always open to suggestions, concerns, and beefs. But he used poor judgment in thinking that berating me was going to produce the results he wanted.

          For things to be patched up, both sides have to show some openness to this and some willingness to meet the other person halfway. But Willy only increased the nastiness of his attacks once I put him on moderation and made them more and more personal. He said I was refusing to allow criticism of Fetzer and he knows this is untrue. That’s really dishonest. He was put in moderation because of the way he was attacking me both in comments and emails. And he chose to use the same mocking and taunting tone that I wrote about in the post. He knew I’d react very badly to this but he didn’t care.

          I know that privately you have indicated in more detail why you think we are both to blame, and I thank you for your efforts to fix this. I admitted later that if I had not been distracted by all else that was going on I would not have allowed Jim’s first comment because it was off topic. There were other comments from him that were not approved for the same reason. Neither of you realize this. I objected to Willy firing off a stupid insult that would only provoke a confrontation I didn’t want to deal with.

          “On the “planes” in New York, check out “The Real Deal”~Fetzer
          Hahahahahaha…still peddling that bullshit aye?”

          I just asked him not to fire off “unspecific” attacks – in other words, ad hominem attacks. When Fetzer posted a second comment I was literally in the middle of reading it when Willy intensified his assault on me for allowing it. To say I muzzled him is not true. He had six comments posted after the first one and before I put him into moderation. To compare that decision to allowing comments from Fetzer is apples and oranges. Willy was not muzzled, he was abusive and I don’t have to put up with that. And for him to say he agrees with the moronic comments of Kim McLaughlin, and for him to suggest on his own blog that Ken Doc has a good point simply went beyond the pale.

          I’m not glad he is gone, but it didn’t have to go this way. A little humility and sincerity would have helped avoid this result. He was not willing to contribute this. He even reproduced a private email between us on his blog. How can I trust a person who can turn on someone so suddenly and so ferociously?

          I’m sure a wiser person would extend an olive branch, but Willy chose to make this impossible for me.

          1. OK let me step aside from this at this point and just say that it saddens me that this did not work out. I would like to move on from it because I see nothing constructive coming from continuing to talk about it. I chalk it up to an unfortunate mix of circumstances and bad timing.

            1. Craig, I really don’t want to reduce our exchanges to quick comebacks and snappy repartee, which is beginning to feel somewhat confrontational. Nor, do I wish to antagonize you in regards to your position on the matter, which you have made abundantly clear. I am hoping I have as well. (I appreciate your taking the time to do that, by the way.)

              But, after all the words we have exchanged, it also feels wrong not to reply to, or at least acknowledge your comment and leave your “comeback” hanging, which might be misperceived as signs of an antagonistic attitude that I don’t really have towards you. So, if you permit me, I’d like to respectfully bow out of this conversation.

              1. Of course, David. My responses to you were just in fun. No confrontational intent on my part. I hope that at least you saw sincerity in my summary of my side of the HR thing and that I got no pleasure from that confrontation. You were very perceptive when you said a couple of days ago that after my article went up I was prepared for attacks from those I was criticizing but was not ready for HR’s attack about Fetzer. Regardless of how he felt, his timing could not have been worse from my point of view. But that’s water under the bridge. I hope you continue to offer your intelligent take on the topics that come up on this blog.

  30. Yes, a person’s true colors are indeed manifest after a split and how it’s handled. Remember how Jeff Jacobucci and I collaborated on the short-lived 911newscentral.com, and then after our “blog divorce,” he came onto the discussion here and started insinuating I was an infiltrator? I don’t think he was truly suspicious of me, he just wanted to backhandedly attack and demoralize me.

  31. Ken Doc…..where do I even begin? I was friends with Ken Doc on facebook years back. I thought the guy originally had his heart in the right place. I dont participate in forum discussion because I find it to be counterproductive and that the discussion often gets derailed by trolls. Despite that, I decided to participate with his little Facebook page to spread the truth about Shanksville. I was expecting it to be different than posting on some free for all anonymous forum.

    I dedicated 3 years of my life to around the clock research. I met, emailed, called multiple eyewitnesses in Shanksville and met many of them numerous times. I interviewed Susan McElwain on film, Viola Saylor on film, and coroner Wallace Miller on film. I met a few others who said and I directly quote “Come see me when my kids are grown up and I’ll tell you all about it”. Others told me things under the condition I didnt identify them. The eyewitnesses I have interviewed prove beyond all reasonable doubt that what we were told happened in Shanksville did not.

    I AM THE ONLY TRUTHER TO EXAMINE CORONER WALLY MILLER’S PHOTOS. YOU THINK SOMEONE IN THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN INTERESTED IN THAT, DONT YOU?

    Anyways, back to this shill Ken Doc. I went to his facebook forum, apparently at the rare moment when he actually isnt online, and began sharing my information. Since the MSM and the AltMedia are both controlled assets my information/videos always appears to be “new” to large movements of the truth movement. Many people were fascinated by it and inquisitive and then it turned to shit. Out rolls Ken’s watchdog someone using a cartoon picture and the name Lyrentha J or something like that. She had no real picture on her FB (surprise, surprise). She is Ken Doc’s admin and began attacking my research.

    But her arguments were very very familiar to this old dog. I quickly exposed and got her to admit to being a member of the James Randi Education Forums. After that Ken Doc arrived and refused to discuss or even acknowledged that he looked at my work. He defended his admin and banned me.

    KEN DOC IS THE 911 BLOGGER OF FACEBOOK.

    9/11 HAS BEEN HIS TICKET TO FAME.

    HE HAS DONE NOTHING AND DOES NOT DESERVE ANY RECOGNITION.

    HE AND HIS FACEBOOK PAGE ARE THE ANTI-TRUTH MOVEMENT. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND EVERYONE AVOID THAT PAGE AND AVOID THIS LITTLE TROLL UNTIL HE FADES BACK INTO OBSCURITY.

    ITS A RANDI’S KIDS OPERATION. IF YOU’VE BEEN A TRUTHER AS LONG AS I HAVE THAN YOU KNOW WHAT A ‘RANDI’S KIDS OPERATION’ IS.

    1. Yes Dominick Ken Doc and Collins do strike me as JREF’ers for sure. I think you may well be onto something AGAIN!

  32. I had this exchange sent to me the other day, and I promised to post it, if only for its entertainment value. No, I’m not obsessing about it; I just thought it was revealing and funny. Note how Collins avoids answering simple requests for him to support his charges about missiles, etc. If anyone had any doubts about what he’s up to, they shouldn’t after reading this. And what does Ken Doc think about it? You’ll see at the bottom.

    David Thorn: Mike, you told me a week ago that he supports missile at the Pentagon. you told me to google it, and that he says AE911 is disinfo. I googled and didn’t find anything. Can you show me a source?

    Mike Collins: Go to Ken Doc’s page, he has all of Craigs posts catalogued

    David Thorn: I have but I can’t find anything you are talking about. Please give me a source so I can check it out. Can’t find him talking about space beams either.

    Mike Collins: You haven’t because Ken has all those posts catalogued. And yes, everything I said is true. All this calls into question is your ability to do actual research.

    David Thorn: No need to insult me. I’m asking you for a source for what you said. It should be simple to provide that.

    Mike Collins: Go to Ken’s website and look for an entire page called Craig McKee lol.
    Google “Ken Doc wordpress Craig” It’ll be number one.

    David Thorn: I told you I did that. I can’t find anything about what you have told me to google. Why don’t you just tell me where you got that info?

    Mike Collins: It’s the second link if you click what I posted!
    Read the whole post that Ken made and every single post I’ve mentioned is in there.

    David Thorn: I don’t want to have to read a huge page with more than 20 links. Just tell me where Mckee says he thinks AE911 is disinfo or missiles were used at the Pentagon. Give me a quote please.

    Mike Collins: Well then you aren’t a researcher. Stop wasting my time if you can’t even read.
    Every post Craig has made is linked on Ken’s page and discussed. If you aren’t smart enough to do your own research when I give you the exact source to read I don’t trust you to know how to do much else…..

    David Thorn: I see how quickly you start putting people down. I’m asking a question and you won’t answer it. So you can’t provide a single quote? Why should anyone believe what you said?

    Mike Collins: Being a “mindless memorizer” and an “intelligent researcher” are much different. Mindless memorizers beg for sources that they can memorize without thinking. Intelligent researchers read about topics themselves. to do “research” and to increase their understanding. David I’m not putting you down lol If you act lazy and I say you are lazy that’s an observation. An intelligent person would try to correct their behavior, not simply complain about being attacked.
    If you can’t read why do people have to read for you. His site is public, so are his posts.

    David Thorn: You made the charge. You don’t remember what you based it on? Nothing to do with memorizing anything. Just tell me what Mckee said. Why is that so hard?

    Mike Collins: If you are just going to waste my time, I don’t have a problem blocking you lol. I actually try to educate and help people about 9/11, and you’d rather bicker about gossip like a kid on a playground. Craig does the same thing, and thats why he doesn’t like me lol.
    If you aren’t smart enough to Google exactly what I said, or click the link I gave you, I can’t help you anymore. Let me know if you will stop this pointless dumb crap, or if I should block you, too lol.

    David Thorn: I’m getting very confused. Bickering like a kid on a playground? I’m trying to understand the issue with McKee. You say he believes certain bad things. But I’m starting to wonder whether you base the charges on nothing. Can’t you give me one quote?

    Mike Collins: No because I didn’t quote him. I summarized his beliefs after reading his whole article. I suggest you do the same so you can get educated about this and stop asking silly questions. You haven’t done research at all because on Ken’s site he lists his Judy Wood post, the AE911 post and the Pentagon flyover missile post. If you are unable to click your mouse on the link I posteed and use your eyes to read it, we are done talking and you are just another conspiracy sheep.

    David Thorn: Am I. Strange because I have read the links you are talking about and there is no indication at all that he believes in space beams. I have found his position on the Pentagon all over his blog and he opposes missiles. And why would AE911 have him writing for them if he was calling them disinfo? You made the charges, so it’s up to you to support them. But you refuse. Until you show something specific (not telling me to read something) I’m going to have to assume you made these charges up.

    Mike Collins: https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/
    There’s the article about how he says AE911 is disinformation because they think a plane hit the Pentagon.

    David Thorn: I did read it. He doesn’t say anything like that. Do me a huge favor and pull out the quote where he says a plane fired a missile. It should take you ten seconds.

    Mike Collins: Dude you are an idiot.

    Mike Collins: If you like Craig, that’s fine, but the smarter researchers and leaders of this movement understand what disinformation is.
    I’m sorry that you research skills are non existent and you don’t have reading skills either.

    David Thorn: Ya, you say that a lot. But it stills seems that you made this charge up. Simple. Tell me where he says that. Why won’t you?

    Mike Collins: He said it in this group before he was banned too.

    Mike Collins: Nope you are just unable to comprehend what you read or do actual research lol It’s okay. Many truthers are conspiracy sheep.

    Mike Collins: Stop wasting my time and ask more people to deliver you sources to memorize lol.

    David Thorn: He said in this group that a plane fired a missile? So if I search for his name I’ll find that? I think you’re making that up too. I think you’re just using insults instead of facts. What kind of researcher accuses with no facts and then calls everyone else an idiot? I’ll ask one more time. Can you back up any of the charges you made? Even one? If you can’t I’ll have to assume you made them up.

    David Thorn: So now he has blocked me. And he still won’t answer a simple question. I have to assume he’s making everything up. I just reread that article about Jenkins and there is nothing about planes firing missiles. I guess he can’t back up any of the claims he has made.

    Nathan Fallou Fuhr: I read the whole article. Nothing against AE911. On the contrary, he calls out Jenkins for trying to give credit to his retard Pentagon theory by falsely aligning it with AE911. Craig’s on our side here.

    And Ken Doc’s response to all of this:

    Ken Doc: Mike doesn’t have to answer to you or anybody for that matter.

    1. Yeah I have to say that is a VERY instructive conversation there. It makes me feel better though to know that most truthers are like David Thorn and see right through Collins BS and in fact see through Ken Doc too. I suggest to them that they leave the Ken Doc controlled FB group and join another group which is moderated by a real truther. Collins is not a truther obviously and Ken Doc isn’t one either now if he ever was a real one.

      I will say this about Collins though: He sure is smarter than everyone else I have ever met! I mean wow! I could never compete with such a brainiac as that, he is on an entirely different level. I feel so small and stupid after coming into contact with his ultra brain and searing commentary. I don’t know how the world could even function without Mike Collins brain power to keep it going. I bet you he could have whipped Bobby Fisher at chess too! I feel so small.

    2. Hello Craig,

      I have just finished reading the arguments back and forth on who said what, and as a relative newcomer to 9-11 theories I find it sad that it takes the heat away from proving the government lied; if they ever needed to account for themselves they have only to use our own arguments against us to further muddy the water.

      I would like to make three simple points;

      David Thorn has the correct response to lies and falsehoods where he simply asks Mike Collins over and over for the actual quote that you (Craig) were said to have written. He stayed calm and did not lapse into profanity, despite getting the replies that he did. Anyone reading this exchange would quickly know whom to believe. The same truth stood out in your own correspondence with Joe, but I believe you should not have given her the column inches that you did.

      I find it strange that after looking at the photographs of the hole in the Pentagon wall people still believe an aircraft went through it.

      I believe that on all internet sites anyone using bad language and insults against another contributor should be banned. We do not need to be called retards, idiots, or any such names.

      Please keep up the good work.

      Dave Gahan, UK

      1. Thanks, Dave. I understand your concern about how apparent in-fighting can compromise the credibility of the 9/11 Truth Movement. I worry about this, too. But unfortunately, there are those who stomp all over the truth and then complain when someone has the nerve to call them on it.

        You are right about how Collins was exposed in that exchange. It’s so obvious, but not to Ken Doc apparently. When you refer to my correspondence with Joe, did you mean Kim McLaughlin? I just wonder because you said “she.”

        And I agree that it is strange that anyone actually believes in the government’s claim that a large plane hit the Pentagon.

          1. Right. I had this exchange with her because she was the one who said she understood how toxic Collins is and how she had tried to convince Ken Doc of this. Now she has forgotten all of that and she is supporting lies. I had to challenge that. Anyway, that’s the beauty of the Internet: column inches are infinite here!

  33. I just looked at Ken Doc’s Shanksville page on his word press site and noticed there isnt any of the interviews I did on it despite me having shared them with Ken along time ago.

    Why wouldnt a 9/11 Truther want to share videos of interviews with witnesses and the actual coroner himself?

  34. “Wow Dom, those interviews are shit and only support the government story” – Said No 9/11 Truther ever that has seen them.

    And he has seen them.

    Just think about that.

  35. Just found out that Mike Collins is no longer a member of Facebook group “9/11 Truth Movement.” But if the past is any indication, he’ll be back. It seems that he can’t do anything that is so bad he won’t be forgiven.

    1. Wow, good catch. I forgot I wrote that blog entry. Holy crap, 2009, and already a 4 year veteran truther by that point.

      I was a prolific contributor – indeed one of the most valuable ones – to 911blogger for several years until that cognitive infil-traitoring POS that calls itself “Justin Keogh” booted my colleagues and I off the site sans explanation in May 2010.

      1. Yes, and in particular you were on the reasonable side of the Pentagon debate. I commend you for the patient effort put in there. But of course your eventual booting off was inevitable when it became clear TruthAction would be against NSA.

        Personally, when I first began watching it and saw those flight paths side by side I thought oh no! You know, coming as it did just after WTC7, I immediately assumed it was some sort of cheesy psyop to play into those guys hands. They just loved (being paid?) to push division and defamation. Webster Tarpley had already called them out after the Kennebunkport incident, and they went completely berserk about that. I remember feeling naive while hoping ‘oh maybe they (TA) will be reasonable about it (NSA)’. But no! And any time they had left after bashing CIT or whoever had a different opinion on something was spent pondering obscure factoids from FBI documents… quite sad how technology has created new ways to control the conversation.

        By the way, with regard to witnesses and vantage points. Are you aware of any kind of google earth animation or something with a plane in where I can see the different paths, and where the witnesses were? I’ve seen various videos but no source files.

        1. Captivescientist,

          Do you mind me asking what name you posted as at 911blogger?

          For me, the opposition to CIT’s NSA was the confirmation point that the TruthAction clique which also heavily infested 911blogger was not interested in serious discussion and that they dogmatically had their minds made up from the get-go, and that their belief in “impact” was something more nefarious than an honest difference of opinion.

          Jim Hoffman and Arabesque were the first two individuals to dismiss (via their websites) the NoC testimony. A core part of their initial reasoning: CIT had provided us with a mere, paltry four witnesses.

          Such a low, low number they said. In light of the hundreds of witnesses who don’t report curious anomalies, surely these 4 represent an egregious example of cherry-picking.

          But as CIT continued their investigation, they interviewed many more witnesses over the next couple years before NSA came out in 2009. And as they continued, they uncovered even more eyewitnesses who confirmed NoC and not one credible, verifiable witness to support the official damage path (let alone corroboration from multiple such witnesses).

          Now, a genuine skeptic, i.e. someone who might have been skeptical of the initial 4 witnesses, would become more impressed as time went on, with the increasing number of witnesses from 4 to 13. A genuine skeptic would evolve similar to how researcher Aidan Monaghan describes himself in his praise for the film: “I was initially skeptical of CIT’s findings. But after closer review of the numerous interviews contained in their documentaries, a strong case has been made for an approach trajectory for the plane said to be American Airlines Flight 77 that is hundreds of feet from the official trajectory.” ~ Aidan Monaghan

          But Hoffman, Arabesque, Legge and friends did not have this reaction. Instead, as the number of NoC witnesses swelled, so did their opposition to it. They went into full throttle and hounded the inboxes of all those who had endorsed NSA in an attempt to convince them they’d fallen for a hoax and would save their credibility if they retracted their praise.

          When actual investigators fly across the country and interview eyewitnesses on their own dime, and find out some very specific details (flight path) that weren’t known before…

          …you know how phony the individuals like Hoffman are: “Well, sitting from behind my computer screen on the West Coast, I respectfully have a difference of opinion regarding your investigation…”

          Bullshit. There’s no honest “difference of opinion.” I’ll call a spade a spade and call it for what it is: COINTELPRO. A Team of cognitive infil-traitors.

          Quite simply, the NoC evidence had the perps crapping their pants.

          1. Indeed. I initially put quotes around opinions, but removed them after I realised I couldn’t easily explain what I meant. What you said about their attitude to more evidence is surely better than what I would have come up with. But there was other stuff too, like the uniformity of ‘opinion’ within the group, a general push towards the official story regardless of topic, and the ridiculous aggression.
            It really was a fountain of bile… so why on earth would Richard Gage (or anyone for that matter) even give them the time of day?? It must have crossed his mind that they were agents of some sort. Was he just trying to placate them?
            I posted occasionally on 911b as influencedevice, but probably only spoke to you once or twice. Generally I agree with everything you say, or if unsure I can’t provide a decent counter argument.
            Holy man made global warming climate change catastrophe though Adam!

  36. Now that the storm has passed, I would like to ask your opinion as to what exactly you think is going on there at the 9/11TM. Do you feel they are just low on character and are trying to maintain a supposed status in the so called “movement” and give the impression that they have some influence? Or are they consciously trying to gatekeep a honeypot operation, managing their herd of 40K people?

    In a previous post, I had also asked if anyone knew what these people did for a living. I am not interested in finding out any personal information, but curious about how much of their livelihood (if any at all) depends on 9/11 related activities. Although exceptions abound, I find this element to be, more often than not, a very important factor in determining someone’s motives.

    1. This is an important and difficult question.

      I no longer have any doubt that Mr. Collins is a troll whose job it is to destroy dialogue, discourage newcomers, and marginalize discussion about the Pentagon. I hope people are seeing this finally. As for Ken Doc, he clearly has a humongous ego and fancies himself to be very important in the movement, which he obviously is not. At least not in a good way. A serious and sincere truther doesn’t just make up things about people because his ego is bruised from some article a year ago – as he has done with me on his web site.

      I knew that forum was dysfunctional when I started to post comments regularly in 2014. What I wrote in January 2015 was strong but fair criticism, and every word has only proven to be more and more true with time. But I am reaching the conclusion that character flaws are not enough to explain what goes on in that group.

      The Pentagon was really the issue that led to the conflict in the first place. It wasn’t that any of them disagreed with me, it was that there seemed to be a concerted effort to push people away from talking about or thinking about the Pentagon being the scene of a faked plane crash on 9/11. Ken Doc’s post-article conversion to the “plane impact” position seems to be very revealing about what he is really up to. It’s no accident that all the admins either believe in the crash scenario or they have shut up about it. Brian Rogers, who was dumped as an admin, was told by Ken Doc that because he is not “open” to a plane impact at the Pentagon, this puts him in a conflict of interest position. Have you ever heard anything so absurd and bizarre? And before anyone denies this, Brian took screen shots.

      It is also no coincidence that “conspiracy theorists” are regularly bashed on the site, especially by Collins and Cal Amyotte but also by the others. I find people in the movement who use terms like “conspiracy sheep” or “twoofers” to be beyond suspicious.

      The clique running the forum is working against truth now. Even Kim McLaughlin who was always spoke up for the “no Pentagon impact” position is now quiet about that from what I have seen (maybe I’ve just missed her recent contributions). But she pops up here to say she sees what Ken meant about me. What does that mean? If they both think I’m an asshole, that’s fine with me. I’m not looking to get their approval in that way. But lying to attack a truther can’t be justified under any circumstances. It’s really malicious and duplicitous. It seems that Kim, like the rest of them, can’t tell the difference between the truth and a lie. Even despite the exchange I posted between David Thorn and Mike Collins, not one of these admins will ever call Collins out for his obviously made-up charges.

      I’m sure many of the veterans in the group can handle themselves and won’t be manipulated into changing their views, but I wish I could warn those who are less experienced and knowledgeable – and those who are brand new – to stay the hell away from that black hole, where truth is sucked in, never to be seen again.

      1. Thanks for that, Craig. I don’t have time to exchange comments until much later today. But, until then, I wanted to reiterate my question about the money side of things. Did you have any idea (or knowledge) as to whether or not any or all of these people are dependent on the “movement” for their livelihood? In other words, is this a work of passion, or simply work?

      2. The article and the above comment is very necessary. Real sorry that you’ve experienced this Craig. I know how painful this process can be.

        But this is pretty much the nature of the 9/11 Truth Movement i.e. compromised from the start. Not that we shouldn’t keep plugging away but it does help to understand that if we live in an official culture rooted in the very same ponerised dynamics then it’s not a great leap of logic to know that the Movement was always going to be anything but. It’s a major hot potato after all. You make it your life’s work then you also make yourself a target.

        It’s deeply unpleasant to be slandered and dragged through the mud for seeking the truth which is one of the most noble aims there is. But to continue doing it despite all the shite thrown in your face is the challenge I’m sure you’re up to. And I absolutely agree you must always call out lies and create that demarcation around your space otherwise integrity and will power are drained and by extension, the whole point of keeping truth afloat.

  37. 9/11 AS FALSE FLAG:
    WHY INTERNATIONAL LAW MUST DARE TO CARE
    Amy Baker Benjamin*
    ABSTRACT
    At the heart of contemporary international law lies a paradox: The attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 have justified nearly fifteen years of international war, yet the official international community, embodied principally in the United Nations, has failed to question or even scrutinize the U.S. Government’s account of those attacks. Despite the impressive and serious body of literature that has emerged to suggest that 9/11 was a classic (if unprecedentedly monstrous) false-flag attack, international statesmen, following the lead of scholars, have acted as if there is no controversy whatsoever. This disconnect between the growing (alternative) evidentiary record of state responsibility for the attacks and the focus of international institutions is impossible to sustain if those institutions are to maintain any semblance of viability and meaning.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2713267

  38. I got the hell out of that Facebook group because they posted any and every sloppy claim with no responsibility to fact check, or to even make much sense.

    They actually inspired this article:

    Disiinformation Killed 9/11 “Truth”
    http://www.911truth.org/disinformation-killed-911-truth/

    I’m surprise you allow Fetzer to post here. Hey Fetzer, did magical alien space beams still destroy the Twin Towers?

    Funny, once you toss away all credibility it’s hard to get it back.

    JG

  39. Craig, good article. All three are gate-keepers,…Collins, Doc, and Joe……Those guys will reel in the the honest folks looking for truth at the entry-level. In other words, bubble-gum truthers. It is actually pretty effective. But once you get through that non-sense you advance to the next level, toss these cats aside and get much further down the rabbit hole.

    1. Thanks, Dan. The reason I took these people on in the first place is that I thought they would discourage and/or mislead people who are new to the subject of 9/11 truth. And I agree, it’s pretty effective.

  40. Hi guys. This is my first post here and stumbled here while googling the ridicule of the noun “conspiracy theorist”. I must say that I have found solace in the sanity that I have found here. I was beginning to feel kinda like Captain Yossarian amidst all these crazy people telling me that I am crazy! WTF?

    Every since I was a teen, I knew that JFK was hit from the front.

    I just want to say keep posting! I enjoyed the roasting of Jim Metzner to no end! Keep the good stuff coming.

      1. Yes sir, my apologies. I confounded his name with that of a radio talk show host.

        Having a sane discussion on Youtube.com is impossible. Do you think that some individuals there get paid to insult people and to ridicule ideas? I have little knowledge of the disinfo profession, but I am quite certain that it exists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s