How can ‘journalists’ dismiss everything they are supposed to stand for when it comes to 9/11?


Anything that doesn’t fit with the official narrative will be attacked by mainstream journalists.

Dishonest attacks on Griffin like a blueprint for how the uninformed and intolerant defend the official story

Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. The state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking… – Leo Tolstoy

By Craig McKee

For the most part, I’m getting better at staying out of Facebook fights with idiots, trolls, and those who think the word “conspiracy” is their go-ahead to try stand-up comedy.

Better, not perfect.

On the 16th anniversary of 9/11 last week, I decided to spend the day sharing articles and memes I’d created about this massive and devastating false flag deception. I also dared to comment on a friend’s tongue-in-cheek Facebook post about 9/11, leading me into a somewhat predictable marathon confrontation with three journalists, one I know personally and the other two I know by reputation. Oddly enough, I do think it was worth it. The three, whose arrogance and non-existent knowledge of 9/11 were exposed, went beyond having bad attitudes; they thumbed their noses at everything journalists are supposed to believe in.

The three fancy themselves as intelligent and well-informed, but they have fallen for the indefensible idea that anyone who questions the official account of any important event must be a nut case. They actually seem to believe that it doesn’t matter about evidence if the word “conspiracy” is involved. They would deny this, but their words give them away.

And by the way, just because I focus here on three journalists does not mean I couldn’t have added a bunch more from past “discussions.” I’ve gotten “face palm” as a response to one of my points, I’ve been told that I live in a “conspiracy bubble” and, only slightly facetiously, that I had made up my mind about 9/11 even before it happened. (In fact, I didn’t seriously begin to doubt the official story until 2007, when I first learned what the heck Building 7 was. While I’m embarrassed that I was so gullible for so long, I did at least approach the new information by investigating further.)

The first member of the typing triumvirate in this case was Julien Feldman, co-founder of the now defunct Montreal alt-weekly The Mirror and currently a school board commissioner in the city. He unsuccessfully sought the New Democratic Party nomination in the federal riding where I live, NDG-Westmount (a “riding” is what we call our federal electoral districts in Canada). He is described in a CBC article on the nomination as a “former journalist.”

Batting second was David Lieber, who writes some freelance articles (we’ve had our work appear in the same magazine more than once) but describes himself as a communications/marketing writer and translator. His intolerance for ideas that don’t conform to his own seems almost absolute.  At least on Facebook it is.

And behind door number three we have Matthew Hays, who wrote about cinema for The Mirror and teaches cinema, journalism, and communications at Concordia University (where I studied journalism). Hays didn’t get into the discussion as deeply nor stay as long as the other two, but in his few comments he made it clear that he shares their cartoonish and condescending views on topics not deemed acceptable by the mainstream.

Unfortunately, these attitudes aren’t unusual, as every truth-seeking activist knows too well. Media reports on 9/11 and other false flags—when the subjects are covered at all—feature snarky and dismissive comments that focus on the psychological state of those who dissent along with questions about why these darned theories “persist” after so many years. I have a thought: maybe they persist because the media refuse to address them and refuse to help us to learn the truth about them. Just a thought.

What struck me about all three know-it-alls in this discussion was that they would not, or could not, offer any specifics about 9/11, the topic they were using to justify their insinuations about my mental health. They came up with many ways to say that 9/11 truth activists are lunatics but no ways to refute anything we say. They actually seem to believe this is not necessary.

Feldman thought it would be particularly great to attack the 9/11 Truth Movement’s most respected and prolific researcher, David Ray Griffin, and accuse him of inventing facts. Either Feldman didn’t think anyone would challenge him on this assertion, or he didn’t care because he thought that the accusation alone would be enough to malign Griffin’s scholarship. But I was more than prepared to call his bluff. I demanded even one example of something Griffin had invented, and Feldman could not comply.

The fun all started with a post by my good friend Frederic Serre, another journalist, who shared this: “What’s the difference between a cow and 9/11? Americans can’t milk a cow for 16 years.” Fred can be a you-know-what disturber, but in the best sense of the term. He is a free thinker, and he expresses support for my position, something that takes real courage. His post provided an opportunity for me to insert a different perspective into what I was sure would be predictable 9/11 anniversary hand-wringing. One person (yes, it was yet another journalist) said Fred’s joke was “cruel” and “too soon” and that he had friends who were killed that day. I offered this:

“I think the cruel thing is the bogus war on terror that this event has led to. Millions have died because of this deception. Those people—and the families of the victims from that day who continue to fight for answers—deserve more than maudlin tributes. They deserve the truth.”

I prepared myself for the inevitable vitriol, and it didn’t take long for Lieber to bring “psychology” into the discussion. He wrote: “Even if 9/11 were the conspiracy that a handful of nut bars believe it was, there’s no cause for hilarity at the commemoration of the event. And the families of the victims are NOT ‘fighting for answers.’ They already have it.”

I love it when people who haven’t taken five minutes to investigate 9/11 promise us that they know what the families of those killed on 9/11 want and deserve. I pointed this out, linked to a video of Bob McIlvaine speaking, and added: “There would never have been a 9/11 Commission had the families not demanded an investigation. It took more than 440 days for their demand to be met. And then the commission was a sham and a cover-up as even members of the commission admitted.”

Here are some revealing highlights of the discussion, with every effort made to maintain context. For the purposes of this article, I’ve removed comments from other contributors, although some were pertinent (a gentleman named Murray Pearson jumped into the fray and offered excellent points to rebut Feldman).

Lieber: Of nearly three thousand victims, the chances of finding of a few crazies like you, Craig, is virtually guaranteed.

And we’re off…

McKee: I gave you a question, which you were afraid to even attempt to answer.

Lieber: What was that question again?

McKee: How did Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, come straight down into its own footprint at virtually free fall acceleration? As if it were falling through air. Without damaging adjacent buildings that were just a few feet away. And considering that the official NIST report conceded that the fires were isolated on just a few floors and that they were out by 4 p.m. The report also said that falling debris did not play a part in the collapse. So how did the 82 support columns all manage to fail within a millisecond of each other to make a symmetrical collapse possible?

At that point, Lieber hit me with the dreaded link to Popular Mechanics – an article about Building 7 (“World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest”). The piece features a link to the magazine’s disinformation book called Debunking 9/11 Myths: How Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts. You can almost set a clock by these people posting PM. And you can almost picture their smug faces as they’re doing it.

McKee: I didn’t ask for a link. I know all about PM‘s whitewash. You pretend you know all about 9/11, so just tell me the answer. Or admit you don’t know. I would respect that, if you just stated honestly that you have not done any research.

I responded with my own link, to Griffin’s book Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory.

McKee: Written by David Ray Griffin, who has written a dozen books on the subject. His new one is called Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World. I recommend it.

Lieber: He has appeared on Alex Jones’ show and has also stated that 9/11 is a religious issue. That’s enough for me.

McKee: Ah, the old guilt by association thing. Griffin also appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show, and nobody is a bigger douche than that guy. Someone appearing on a show is the weakest possible argument. As for it being a religious issue, a lot of people would see a lot of things as having religious implications. Do you mock anti-war activists whose activism is influenced by their faith? You are exposing yourself as someone who has nothing to offer but snarky quips and a couple of links. Not impressive.

Then Hays enters the fray with this: “I have to side with David here. I’m shocked at the number of otherwise-sane people who believe the inside job theories around 9/11. It’s nonsense (yes – I’ve seen the “documentaries” on the issue and read the statements of some engineers). Please see Chomsky’s assessment of the inside job theory. This theory ranks up there with fluoride in the water, vaccinations causing autism and gluten-free diets. Bunk.”

I love it how they always hasten to inform others how thoroughly they’ve reviewed the evidence, but when you ask them a question…

McKee: I can see why you agree with David. Neither of you addresses any of the evidence. Just generalities and insults. And Chomsky doesn’t address any of the evidence either, so I see why you like his take.

Hays: Craig: I’ve seen and read about the “evidence.” None of it is convincing at all. You’ve been had.

McKee: Matthew, I don’t know what you mean by “seen and read about” the evidence. I can’t imagine that you have given the evidence fair consideration, particularly if you find “none of it” convincing. It’s the totality of the evidence that is convincing.

I then posted a link to my article on the documented weaponization of the “conspiracy theory” term by the CIA in the 1960s.

Hays: Craig: by the looks of things, this conspiracy theory is a fixation of yours. Good luck with that. Holy fuck, the things the Internet have spawned……..

McKee: Matthew: Given that this deception has led to numerous wars and a serious assault on privacy and civil liberties, then I think it is appropriate to be very concerned about people understanding the truth. When I was a teenager I was doing a great deal of research on the Kennedy assassination, so the Internet did not spawn my views. Research did. I’m sorry you feel the need to be dismissive and condescending about this, but I’m used to it. Tell me, what in the official conspiracy theory do you find compelling? Or did you just assume that the media and government wouldn’t ever tell us a lie?

McKee: I’m sure there were “patriotic” Americans in the 1960s who claimed that peace protesters had a “fixation” on opposing the Vietnam War. But it was a good fixation to have. By the way, that war started with a massive government lie called the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Hays: David makes valid points. This is a ludicrous conspiracy theory which stops us from focussing on what we need to know and act on.

McKee: Matthew, David didn’t make ANY POINTS. And neither have you. Can you address any of the evidence specifically, or do you just rely on broad and unspecific put-downs? I’d be embarrassed to endorse the comments of someone who says there is “no issue” because “there is nothing left to learn.”

Lieber: O! You brave, courageous souls! Here’s something I dragged off the internet (the same place you drag your bullshit from, Craig).

A self-satisfied Lieber plopped down a link to a horrible Psychology Today article (“The theories are powerful because they promise to manage fear of death. Instead of feeling poisonous worry, you name the threat and feel heroic for uncovering the secret truth. Since the theories are false, anxiety comes back as obsession with the theory and efforts to convert others to believe.” Anything to distract and misdirect…)

McKee: The refuge of those who are closed-minded and arrogant is to point to the “psychology” of those who dissent. It’s so much easier to slap down a link to a mainstream propaganda piece than it is to actually address the topic. But it makes sense: to address the topic requires knowing something about the topic, which you don’t.

Lieber: How did YOU become such a goddam expert, Craig? Whoever pronounced you to be an expert? You?

McKee: I did a ton of research, Dave. Even though I bought the official story for six years, I reacted to new information and began looking at the evidence. Anyone can do it.

Lieber: I know, Craig. “Anyone” can also be a doctor or a lawyer or a nuclear physics expert or a student of dead languages. “Anyone” can be a conspiracy theorist, too, except he doesn’t need any qualifications for that.

Huh?

McKee: That’s what I just said. Anyone can do it. Unless they think they already know it all. Those people cannot learn anything.

Lieber: If “anyone” can do it, I’m not impressed, Craig. It’s many, many years that conspiracy theorists have failed come up with anything resembling proof to the contrary of the intensively researched conclusions of experts.

McKee: That’s a laughable statement. We have tons of proof, but you would never know because you brush it off without even looking at it. What I notice about people like you is that you love to talk in generalities and insults, but you won’t take me on on the actual facts. If I were you, I wouldn’t either.

Lieber: What on earth do you mean by an “actual fact” Craig? And what constitutes a “ton” of proof?

McKee: You’d have to look at it to know that. I have, you haven’t. I don’t know why you expect broad questions like that to have short answers. Still waiting for you to set me straight on Building 7. Or we could go to other aspects of the crime. I’m easy either way.

Mr. Lieber then hit me with a Google search that he seemed to think would deal me a death blow. I responded with a search of my own. (See graphic.)

Lieber: … Craig looks WAY beyond the “usual sources.” I don’t find that at all virtuous.

Lieber: I invite anyone interested to visit Craig McKee’s FB page. It contains nothing but conspiracy theories, one after the other, and many memes from a site called “Truth and Shadows.” Craig also draws heavily on material from the Centre for Global Research, which contains, among other nonsense, filthy anti-Semitic articles disguised as anti-Zionist. I just read a fascinating article asserting that Israel instigated the Six Day War. Did I say “nut bar”?

McKee: Dave you seem to get nastier and more pompous as the day goes on. My page is indeed full of 9/11 posts over the past couple of days because it is the anniversary of 9/11. See how that works? Truth and Shadows is my site. Global Research does not contain “filthy anti-Semitic” articles. It sometimes dares to criticize Israel and Zionism, yes. Is that not allowed? Only nut bars do that? And you should do some research on the Six Day War.

Lieber then introduced a common disinformation tactic by suggesting that I was making money from my web site (I’m not) and that I am fooling people into thinking that Truth and Shadows the web site is unrelated to Truth and Shadows the Facebook page (pretty sneaky of me).

Enter Feldman (sounds like the worst Metallica song ever), who proved even more obnoxious and ignorant than the other two. As you’ll see, he accuses me and other “conspiracy theorists” of doing exactly what he does – ignoring facts and abandoning reason. Irony abounds.

Feldman: I studied the JFK conspiracy movement in depth for a story I wrote in the London Tely Magazine. The conspiracy nutbars stalked me for years afterwards and claimed I worked for the CIA!

I was tempted to ask, “So, do you?” but I resisted, mainly because I didn’t think he’d see the humor in the question. I also could not help wondering how truly bad that article must have been.

McKee: Did you ever study the actual evidence, or was the story just to mock “conspiracy nutbars”? For some reason, mainstream journalism only seems interested in doing the latter.

Feldman: The most interesting aspect of any conspiracy theory is how facts are systematically re-organized – always in service of the conspiracy.

McKee: It’s funny: I always evaluate situations on a case-by-case basis. It’s neither always a conspiracy nor is it never a conspiracy. I have to say I don’t respect the endless generalizations used to attack those who question official accounts. You’ve just made a generalization: why don’t you relate it to something specific, and I’d be happy to comment?

Feldman: You need to learn how to evaluate situations on a fact-by-fact basis!

McKee: By all means, Julien, tell me how I’m not doing that. If you can.

Feldman: I think you’re studious avoiding the facts. Your head is in the sand – a common look for conspiracy theorists.

He then posted the same dreaded Popular Mechanics link, which I doubt he has even read. What would these people do without it?

McKee: I’ve already addressed this link, Julien. If you want to tell me I’m wrong about 9/11, make an argument. Tell me why you believe the official account. Challenge something I’ve said. Slapping a link down doesn’t cut it. Popular Mechanics was refuted by David Ray Griffin in his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking. Did you know PM [actually it was PM’s editor-in-chief James Meigs] claims the wings of the Pentagon plane were sheared off? Odd since they were never seen again.

At this point, Feldman thought it would be good strategy to toss out a lot of ridiculous and easily-refuted attacks on Griffin.

Feldman: Craig, Griffin wrote the book, but debunking he did not do. The book was ridiculous and the debunking an abject failure.

McKee: Give me a specific, Julien.

Feldman: How about, who is this hack polemicist – without being chemist or structural engineer, nevertheless feels entitled to go beyond hypotheses and make authoritative judgements about the events of 9/11 being at odds with the official story?!

McKee: Are you a chemist or a structural engineer, Julien? And yet you have an opinion…

Feldman: I’m not making any judgments other than to observe that your retired religion prof pretends to “debunk” serious investigations. None of the facts raised in the technical report appear to be any use to your man of little faith.

McKee: For example? What did he say that isn’t right?

Feldman: In a way it’s not surprising that a man of faith is comfortable denying science while attacking scientists as politically motivated and venal. That’s standard operating procedure on the American right.

McKee: Stop, Julien. Jesus. He’s not part of the right and he is not denying science. His books are meticulous about the evidence, including the science. Do you know anything about this man? His new book is called Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World. Sound like a right winger to you?

McKee: I’m still waiting for one person on this post to offer even one specific point on 9/11. But no one can. All distractions and innuendos.

Feldman: Craig, your reaction to the Bldg. 7 report reveals you as completely alienated from the scientific idea — the notion that objective assessment of evidence is the way to understand the world.

You have to hand it to this guy. He has the balls to accuse ME of being alienated from science and objective evidence while being completely incapable of offering a single coherent thought on either one.

McKee: How so? Give me a specific, Julien. I’ve asked you to do that several times now, and all I get is empty accusations with no substance.

Feldman: A serious investigation such as the one your conspiracy leader allegedly debunks – should be taken seriously and its findings analyzed. Griffin, on the other hand, focuses on opinion polls!

McKee: That’s false, Julien. He mentions polls but he does not focus on them. Have you read his book? Do you have EVEN ONE specific point to make about Griffin’s analysis? You obviously don’t or you would have made it by now.

Feldman: History reveals a general consensus that Bush & Cheney exploited 9/11 to support their political agenda, start disastrous wars, etc., but Griffin’s actual (and wholly unnecessary) claim – in fact, referencing the same historical events – is that they *masterminded* 9/11. He launches into a search for physical clues to support the ludicrous claims of the 9/11 Truther movement – as if his pedestrian political theories need a dramatic theory to jazz ’em up.

McKee: Claims are not necessary or unnecessary, they are true or false. He does not “launch into a search for physical clues,” he looks at the official story in detail and shows where the evidence is contradictory and where government claims are simply impossible. But I guess that if you stay away from specifics – like you do – then it’s easy to take shots because you don’t have to support anything you’re saying. But I think people see through that.

Feldman: The specifics are in the Bldg 7 report. Griffin’s fake news is irrelevant invention and fabrication. A nice retirement hobby, perhaps.

McKee: That is fucking bullshit. Griffin does not peddle fake news. You throw words around very recklessly. What has he fabricated? What has he invented? What has he said that is irrelevant? Either back up your bogus claims or pack it in.

Sorry for the language, but it reflects exactly how I felt about these charges. I bet you can’t wait to hear what proof Feldman offered…

Feldman: I’m not making a claim at all, merely suggesting that the Bldg 7 report sticks to facts, while Griffin’s ambitious inquiry – designed to underpin a cult-like ideology, – is more suited to the concept of “bogus”.

The concept of bogus?

McKee: The building 7 NIST report is completely unscientific. It was even disavowed by a former NIST engineer named Peter Michael Ketcham, who now supports the 9/11 Truth Movement. So you’re wrong about that. And you have just added more empty assertions that you can’t back up about Griffin’s work. “Designed to underpin a cult-like ideology”? That sounds like gibberish to me. Again, you offer no specific point where Griffin is “bogus.” But no worries; I’ve adjusted my expectations so low now that you are guaranteed to meet them every time.

McKee: I’ll ask again: What has he invented? What has he fabricated?

A gentleman named Tim Rideout interjected a comment at this point that I got a smile out of: “Omg. Best. Thread. Ever. The Internets thank you all for your contributions.”

Feldman: The WTC 7 NIST report resulted in more than 20 changes in the U.S. model building and fire codes which have already been adopted based on the findings and recommendations from the investigation. I suppose Griffin would recommend that future tenants forego any safety concerns and measures other than arrest of the government conspirators.

McKee: Julien, no one is going to have a problem with improved safety codes, but in this case any changes are based on a false premise that fire and faulty construction brought Building 7 down. The buildings were brought down with explosives, which your precious NIST admitted they never investigated. (By the way, how do you explain the presence of molten metal under all three towers for three months after 9/11, along with the presence of unignited thermite and tons of iron microspheres in the dust that are a bi-product of a thermite reaction? In the Deutsche Bank Building, almost 6% of the dust that entered from the towers’ destruction was iron microspheres.) Your supposition about Griffin is once again both false and irrelevant. Too bad you have to attack him for words you put in his mouth instead of addressing what he actually has said. You seem incapable of dealing with actual facts. And your claim that Griffin invents and fabricates evidence is clearly invented and/or fabricated itself. I’m still waiting for you to provide an example of something he has fabricated.

Feldman: There’s no actual evidence of any kind government conspiracy. Plenty of evidence was found of the hijackers’ conspiracy – and subsequently, the crude effort to fabricate a case for war involving claims of Iraq’s alleged WMD program.

McKee: And the claim that there is no evidence of a government conspiracy is laughable. To take one example of hundreds, we know that the surveillance video from the Pentagon was doctored because two synchronized camera views from almost identical angles show exactly the same thing EXCEPT in the frame where the alleged “plane” appears. In every other frame we know they are synchronized because the smoke cloud is precisely the same shape. As to the hijackers, their identities changed multiple times, and we cannot look at who was on the plane because the official flight manifests have been kept secret. In fact, there is no proof that any of the 19 accused ever boarded any of the planes.

Feldman: That’s not evidence, just more speculation!

McKee: Doctored video is speculation? How so? As for the “hijackers”: these 19 men have been accused of mass murder. Don’t you think there should be proof they were on the planes? If you were accused of mass murder, wouldn’t you expect someone to prove you were even at the scene of the crime?

Feldman: It’s speculation that it’s “doctored”. As detectives, conspiracy theorists are notoriously lazy. Where there’s no evidence you just make it up. No problem, as the entire theory of the case is a fabrication anyways.

We’re notoriously lazy, says the man who hasn’t done enough research to be able to make a single specific point about 9/11 or about Griffin’s work.

McKee: Again, Julien, you prove that it is YOU who is lazy and you who simply fabricates. In fact, you just lie. Tell me what evidence I have ever made up! Tell me what evidence Griffin has made up. Show some integrity. Here is my article discussing the evidence for doctored video.

McKee: And how can a theory be a fabrication? Never mind. Tell us one example of evidence that I, or Griffin, or Murray, has “made up.” Just one example.

Feldman: Virtually everything underpinning the “theory” is a fabrication. It’s a theory looking for evidence. Where it finds none, it’s made up from whole cloth! The “doctored” video, for example – or Dr. Jones’ WTC dust.

McKee: If virtually everything is a fabrication, then you should be able to give examples and tell us why they are fabrications. Why is the video a fabrication? And please back up your new unsubstantiated claim that Steven Jones’s evidence is made up. Can you? No, I didn’t think so.

McKee: Watching you flail away with broad attacks that have no meaning is embarrassing. I’m embarrassed for you.

Feldman: Asking the sane world to disprove inane absurdities is as ridiculous as it sounds.

McKee: Thank you, Julien, for continuing to illustrate my points so well. But all you and the other “sane” people have to do is prove your own story. But you can’t, so you rely on silly sentences like the one you just posted. You are twisting yourself in knots to avoid addressing any of the hundreds of legitimate questions about 9/11. Is it an inane absurdity to ask how Building 7 came down when it wasn’t hit by a plane? We can’t even ask the question without being called names? But I understand: if my knowledge was as poor as yours, I’d look for distractions too.

Feldman came back the next day, showing that Google searching is among his skills. He started with a link to the pointless video of a guy showing how he can bend steel rods by heating them up. (Here is Richard Gage’s take-off on that video.)

Feldman: Here’s a detail that shows how flimsy most conspiracies really are: a waste of time.

He then posted a long quote from Griffin that he called “moronic”; it addressed the issue of whether steel melted or just weakened. But, again, he would not, or could not, say why it is moronic.

Feldman (quoting Griffin): “There have been claims, to be sure, that the fires were very hot. Some television specials claimed that the towers collapsed because the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. For example, an early BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as saying: “steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel.” Another man, presented as a structural engineer, said: “It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. . . . The columns would have melted” (Barter, 2001).[7]

These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit.[8] And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene—which is what jet fuel is—can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.[9] We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted.[10]

Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength that it buckled.[11] For example, Thomas Eagar, saying that steel loses 80 percent of its strength when it is heated to 1,300˚F, argues that this is what happened. But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot.”

At the time I responded to the use of this quote, I didn’t know where it was from or what the context was. But I tracked it down and found it in an essay of Griffin’s called “The destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the official account cannot be true” that appeared in the Paul Zarembka edited volume The Hidden History of 9-11. When I read the passage in the essay, in context, I realized why Feldman stopped quoting where he did.

Here is the paragraph that immediately followed “But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot”:

“But they were not. Claims have been made as we have seen, about the jet fuel. Much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and the rest was gone within 10 minutes, after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eager, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300 degrees F.”

Did Feldman just grab a random chunk of one of Griffin’s essays, or did he choose this one and end it where he did to deliberately mislead? [Griffin’s footnote here points out that Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the NIST report, said that the jet fuel fires “probably burned out in less than 10 minutes,” and that the NIST report itself noted on page 179 that, “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.”] Anyway, back to my real-time response:

McKee: Ah, Julien, you’re back! And after being incapable of making a single actual point the other day, you’ve done some frantic Googling, and now, armed with a quote from David Ray Griffin and the word “moronic” you’re ready to salvage your non-existent arguments. But this attempt just further confirms that you don’t know anything about the evidence. First of all, it was 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton who told [the CBC’s] Evan Solomon in 2006 that the steel in the towers melted and didn’t just lose strength.

Second, there is the problem of the molten metal seen pouring from one of the towers (lots of video available on that) and also reported by many sources under all three towers. The fires under the buildings were so hot that it took firefighters three months to extinguish them. They were in fact vastly hotter than anything that could be produced by jet fuel and burning office materials. And keep in mind that Building 7 was not hit by a plane and so molten metal there was not even helped along by jet fuel. The other day I mentioned the billions of iron microspheres that could only be produced by the cooling in air of molten iron. I also mentioned the presence in the dust of traces of thermite (nanothermite, actually). What do your Googling skills tells you caused all of that? And how did damage near the top of the building lead to the top section crushing the bottom four-fifths of the building?

There have been many high-rise fires that have engulfed buildings and burned for many hours without collapsing. And yet it took the South Tower just 56 minutes for its steel to “lose strength.” The only three skyscrapers in history to collapse because of fire happened on that day. And it is the official account, by the way, that says that the plane impacts did not play a significant role. And did I mention that Building 7 was not hit by a plane?

Feldman: Lol. The report on Bldg. 7 mentions in passing what happens when when [sic] steel structural members failed!

McKee: Not only is your sentence unclear, but your use of an exclamation point is a mystery. As is the reason for you laughing out loud.

Feldman: As in, the building collapsed. Lol, as in, your conspiratorial refutations are as delusional as they are absurd.

McKee: …  Tell me, what in my refutations was either delusional or absurd? Can you respond to the points with actual arguments? What created molten metal that remained molten for three months? How did the building fall as quickly as if it were falling through air? Did you know that NIST, authors of your precious Building 7 report, admitted that the building fell at free fall for the first 2.25 seconds? How can that happen without something removing the structural support? If my arguments are “absurd” then it shouldn’t be hard for you to refute them…

He did not refute them. He did not make any points about 9/11. He offered no analysis, no evidence of his own. Nothing.

And that is the usual pattern. Those who aggressively support the official narrative—like many journalists, academics, and others—will very rarely discuss actual evidence. First of all, they’re usually unfamiliar with it. They will replace knowledge with “attitude.” They will try to get others to believe that they are responding to theories that are so outlandish they do not merit serious responses. So instead, they condescend and mock and ridicule.

In this discussion, I raised the free fall of the towers; the symmetrical “collapse” of Building 7, along with its isolated and short-lived fires; the molten metal under all three towers that remained that way for three months; the doctored Pentagon video; the disappearing wings of “Flight 77”; the alleged hijackers who can’t be proven to have boarded any planes; and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. And I was prepared to go into any number of other elements of the bogus 9/11 official story. (How about the incredible plane that buried itself in a field in Shanksville while creating a debris field eight miles away?) But I would not have received a straight answer to any of those, either.

On the other side the ledger we heard that conspiracy theorists are fixated obsessed nut bar crazies who make ludicrous arguments, are notoriously lazy, commonly bury their heads in the sand, reorganize facts to serve the conspiracy, and make up their whole case “out of whole cloth.” What scares me isn’t that people even make these kinds of empty accusations, what scares me are those who think this is all you have to do to dismiss questions about 9/11 and other false flags.

It would be bad enough if Feldman made these simple-minded non-arguments because he just had to distract people from the fact that he was getting his ass kicked. But I’m not convinced he isn’t pleased as punch about how he set me, and David Ray Griffin, straight. That’s the really disturbing part.

I’m reminded of Al Franken’s old Saturday Night Live impression of Senator Paul Simon who thought to himself during a debate of Democratic presidential hopefuls, “I think I scored big with the bow tie.”

I rarely hear journalists mocking 9/11 “conspiracy kooks” who don’t think they scored big with the bow tie.

 

240 comments

  1. I didn’t read the whole essay yet but I had to tell you what most disturbs me about the folks who buy the Official 9/11 Myth. What most disturbs me most are those commentators on the Left, people I most admire for independence of thought and incisive investigative prowess, who still defend nearly in total the whole Official Report. Folks like Chomsky, Hedges, (Amy) Goodman, Harris, Greenwald, Scahill, that whole bunch. I cannot believe all these people I consider courageous, virtuous, and non-duplicitous have never looked deeply into what the co-chairmen considered a deeply-flawed report that was set up to fail. I can well understand a hypnotized and gas-lit Amerikan people. But these guys?

    It makes me doubt my own sanity sometimes. If it weren’t for the few intellectuals of real integrity who believe as I do that we were lied to about 9/11, I would really seriously consider checking into the nearest mental health facility!

    Look up Jon Gold who has interviewed some of the best skeptics of the 9/11 Report. Jon is for my money the best investigator of the real 9/11 truth.

    1. I have a degree in physics and have two brothers with degrees in mechanical engineering. Most of the real people that we have trouble with do not have any kind of STEM degree, and often misunderstand concepts that I would have no trouble with, such as the conversion of potential to kinetic energy. Most of these people have also been trained their whole lives to believe in authority, however unreasonable those beliefs are, under pain of going to Hell if they don’t. I have also worked in the Pentagon and CIA Headquarters and lived with a counter-intelligence officer and suspect that many of the so-called journalists supporting the official story actually do get compensation from the CIA. So it is no wonder that we still have trouble. 9/11 is an opportunity for education of a deeper kind than you might imagine.

      1. Thank you, sorgfelt, for shining light on the influence of the CIA over outspoken “experts.” Also, thank you, as a true expert yourself, for being willing to discuss the actual science behind this lie. As Mr. McKee says, most people just plop down the Popular Mechanics article (I had a Snopes link shoved in my face during a thread about Solar Radiation Management Geoengineering recently).

        The (shadow) government banked on the fact that believing one’s own “protectors” could never perpetrate such heinous genocide in order to start multiple “wars on terror” was just too much for most people to swallow. That, combined with the already-firmly-set-in-place pejorative connotation of the term “conspiracy theorist” that Craig so aptly goes into in his related article, and you’ve got yourself a recipe for majority support (or apathy) toward this endless hoax of war-for-profit. I think the masterminds such as Zakheim, Cheney, et all, were so confident in this that, despite knowing there would be glaring discrepancies in how their “official report” related to actual science, they didn’t care because such a “conspiracy” would come off as absurdly-far-fetched to most Americans. “But, if so many people had to be involved, why hasn’t anyone come forward yet?” Don’t get me started…

        Thank you, Mr. McKee, for fighting so valiantly for what you KNOW is true. I am a strong believer that this is the defining deception of our time, and no matter when the truth is finally accepted and acknowledged by all, this fight will have been worth it for those who died that awful day and the millions who have since died as a result of these fraudulent wars.

    2. Deboldt,

      I know how you feel. I grew up being very influenced by people like Chomsky. But since I got involved in the fight for 9/11 truth I’ve changed my view. These people do have valuable takes on issues in our world, but they remain within safe and permissible limits.

      The only point I can’t agree with you about is your praise of Jon Gold. He is a LIHOP (Let it Happen on Purpose) supporter and has even challenged the idea of the controlled demolition of the towers. He is not an investigator of truth that I would follow.

      1. He also opposes any suggestion that Israel was involved, which we know to be the case from Alan Sabrosky, Christoph Bollyn, and many other sources, including “Israel did 9/11! All the proof in the world” on-line. I substantiate its role in my latest video presentations, including on The Brian Ruhe Show, “9/11: Who was responsible and why”. The issue is beyond any doubt.

        1. ISRAEL DID NOT DO 9/11; the 545 AMERICAN BILLIONAIRES DID !

          Because I put 9/11 Truth Movement UNITY, first, last and ALWAYS; the ONLY 9/11 Controversy about which I speak up publicly is the question of the PERPS.

          Jim you say that “Israel did 9/11” and that: “The issue is beyond any doubt.”
          BUT, Israel did NOT do 9/11; 9/11 was done by the 545 AMERICAN billionaires (with MINOR participation from such as: Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the UK and others).

          We can KNOW this because nobody qualifies for CUI BONO more than do the AMERICAN billionaires.

          I’ve studied Bollyn’s presentation some months back to Farrakhan’s group. ALL his major arguments for the “Israel did 9/11” point of view are CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

          A key part of Bollyn’s argument is that Israel supposedly runs the US. This is poppycock.

          Here’s THREE PROOFS:
          1) Israel receives a bit less than $4 BILLION a year in US aid. IF Israel really ran the US Gov, they wouldn’t receive such a relative pittance (as compared to the entirety of the US Gov’s budget). They’d receive TEN TIMES AS MUCH ($40 BILLION); no they’d receive ONE HUNDRED TIMES AS MUCH ($400 BILLION); no, they’d receive ONE THOUSAND TIMES AS MUCH ($4 TRILLION) and there’d still be enough left over to run the US Gov.

          2) Greater Israel would have been set up years and years ago IF Israel ran the US Gov. AND, the 2-3 million Palestinians would have long since been either exiled or exterminated (the US Gov exterminates millions in country after country, and few are less-well armed than are the Palestinians – that’d be a cakewalk for the US military.

          3) IF Israel ran the US Gov, the US Gov would never be transferring MASSIVE armaments on a yearly basis to Arab countries; armaments that HAVE BEEN USED AGAINST Israel whenever Israel has attacked them.

          btw, Egypt receives more than 1/3rd the aid that Israel receives. Does this mean that Egypt runs the US Gov about 1/3rd as much as does Israel?

          As to the “Dancing Israelis” being supposed proof of Israel doing 9/11 – that’s poppycock too. We KNOW that some 13 different national governments KNEW about 9/11 beforehand. Foreknowledge is NOT PROOF of guilt. We KNOW that there was INSIDER TRADING (and put options) during the 10 days BEFORE and even on the morning of 9/11. Such trading means foreknowledge and more.

          The fact that some “Dancing Israelis” were CAUGHT filming 9/11 is not proof that Israel did 9/11. I’d be shocked beyond all belief if ALL 12 OTHER Governments didn’t have their own agents in NYC (and DC) documenting what they all knew was gonna happen. Why the bleep wouldn’t they? BUT, we have not been told that THEIR agents were caught filming it. That doesn’t mean they weren’t there; it only means that if they were there, they weren’t caught.

          But what then does the Dancing Israelis getting caught really mean? It means that either:
          a) they were incredibly sloppy (which is not a reasonable assumption about Mossad operatives) OR
          b) they WANTED TO GET CAUGHT (for any number of reasons – we may never be privy to) OR

          c) they were SET UP TO GET CAUGHT (by any number of at least partially-competing intelligence services.)

          Likewise, the PUBLIC STATEMENTS of present and former Israeli leaders that they planned to do this and that – PROVE NOTHING whatsoever beyond proving that they in fact made such statements. What? Poliicians never exaggerate their power and influence? Of course they do. So such public statements are NO PROOF whatsoever of Israel being the perps.

          And it goes on and on like this: CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that would never stand up in a court of law (based on true, popular justice).

          I’m willing and able to debate anybody at anytime about this issue.

          1. Permit to add this: Why (when it comes to 9/11 Truth Movement controversies) Do I ONLY Speak Out About The 9/11 Perps?

            The reason is this: America has NEVER BEEN GREAT. It slaughtered some 100 million Native Americans, enslaved (and or killed in the process) 10s of millions of Africans. It stole half of Mexico and then re-stole that half from the Mexicans/Native Americans that lived there. It interned the Japanese during WWII (despite them sending their own sons to fight the Japanese). It has ALWAYS smashed labor and trade unions. It’s treated women and gay horribly.

            And it’s been a war against the rest of the world for 225 of its 241 years of exsitence (A HUMONGOUS SAMPLE SIZE).

            AND, the AMERICAN super-rich have gotten richer and more powerful every single year!

            YET, WHY the bleep do they get away with all this ultra-criminal behavior? They do it IN OUR NAME and only get away with it because they brainwash us as young children into the BELIEF that America is both GREAT and UNIQUELY GOOD.

            THIS ILLUSION OF DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA IS THE #1 MOST-INJURIOUS IDEA THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE.

            It is further promoted by ALWAYS blaming ANYBODY ELSE for the problems the US Gov causes; anybody BUT the AMERICAN super-rich.

            So, when Saudi Arabia (the 28 pages) gets blamed for 9/11; that’s SCAPEGOATING.
            And when IsraHell gets blamed for 9/11; that’s SCAPEGOATING – and much worse, it furthers the life-long brainwashing of the American people to believe that the US Gov is a force for good in the world and would return to being one if only IsraHell (or some other boogey-man) did not control the US Gov.

            Another not insignificant driving force behind this scapegoating of the Jews / Israhell is the 2,000 years old MYTH that the “Jews killed Jesus” and somehow, 2,000 years later, they’re still guilty as charged and deserve to be killed off.

            This whole concept of “United Jewry”, that somehow once someone is born a Jew; they will forever put their Jew-ism FIRST – is just sheer racism. But the scapegoating aspect is even more important.

            When is it ever going to be the right time to teach the American people that their/our #1 enemy is our own “rulling class”, the 545 AMERICAN billionaires?

            One thing you can be sure of, UNLESS AND UNTIL this lesson is learned by enough Americans, endless wars, police states and world-poverty will continue to be reigned down on the people of the US and world BY the American Billionaires and in our name.

            Enough of the brainwashing!

            1. Why don’t you go through “9/11: Who was responsible and why”, and do your best to refute each point I make about the crucial role of Israel at each step in setting up and executing 9/11:

              (1) Security at the airports from which the 9/11 airplanes allegedly departed was run by ICTS;

              (2) The transfer of the WTC to private hands was conducted by Zionist members of the NYPA;

              (3) Larry Silverstein, it’s new owner, and Israeli PM Netanyahu are very close, personal friends;

              (4) Silverstein fired the company providing security since 1970 and hired an Israeli firm, Kroll;

              (5) PNAC was dominated by Neocons, most of whom turn out to be dual US-Israeli citizens;

              (6) Many of them were brought into the Department of Defense by Dick Cheney and W Bush;

              (7) The Controller of the Pentagon, Dov Zakeim, was both a US-Israel dual citizen but a rabbi;

              (8) An group of Israeli art students, “The Gelatin Group”, was given free access to the towers;

              (9) The Odego Messaging Service warned its Jewish employees to stay away from the WTC;

              (10) Mini nukes were refined from Davy Crocket warheads in Israel and brought back to the US;

              (11) Multiple ops on the ground in New York City being carried out by Israeli teams on 9/11;

              (12) Michael Chertoff, who released the “dancing Israelis”, is another US-Israeli dual citizen;

              (13) The debris from a 757 crash near Cali, Columbia, was bought by an Israeli company;

              (14) A piece of that 757 debris with vine from that region was found on the Pentagon lawn;

              (14) The only nation that has benefitted from 9/11 has been Israel and not the United States;

              (16) The plan was designed to drawn the US into the Middle East to take out Israel’s enemies;

              (17) The first party said to have done it was the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine;

              (18) Intel experts agree only two agencies could have carried this off: the CIA and the Mossad;

              (19) On 9/11, they were working together with the White House and the Department of Defense;

              (20) Jewish domination of the major media, which promoted a fantasy story, is virtually absolute.

              Franky, for someone who claims to have studied 9/11 to arrive at any other conclusion raises questions about their integrity and competence. They would appear to have been brainwashed.

              1. As knowledgeable as both of you are, I find this entire argument quite shallow, and simply do not understand why it necessarily needs to be one or the other.

                So, I ask you one crucial question: is there a single agency in the entire world who would be able to plan, stage, execute, and perpetually cover up such an operation?

                Assuming all of what Jim Fetzer outlines here is true, do these facts add up to “Israel and the joos did it”? Or do these facts simply show that Israel was definitely involved at a considerable capacity? Even then, was it the entire Israeli government, military and intelligence who planned and executed this ‘attack’, or does Israel also possess a deep state that runs the show, just like here, there, everywhere?

                On the flip side of the coin, could the US government or deep state, and any or all intelligence agencies have pulled off such an attack on their own? Could the CIA pull this off without the knowledge or participation of the FBI? Could something this big be executed without the knowledge of the Vatican, the Russians, or any other modern nation with an intelligence agency that is worth anything, whether we are talking about before, during or after the event?

                As always, mainly since it is a much simpler affair when compared to 9/11, the JFK assassination gives us valuable insights into these types of history-changing false flags. Just like the fact that the hitmen were Italian and French, and that there were Cuban citizens involved do not show that the mafia or the catholics did it and clear the US shadow government from any responsibility, the fact that Israel, Pakistan Saudis and even the French were involved in 9/11 does not show that any of these countries had real control over the event, or that they have any control over the US government, military and the intelligence agencies who continue to cover everything up for 16 or 54 years.

                At this point in the argument, the “Israel did it” people start arguing that the US governement, not just the white house or the senate and congress, but the entire machine is under the control of Jews and Israel… And I will have to agree with Pablo Novi that the events that unfolded from he moment the towers came down, who benefited and who did what do not support this thesis… Yes, the Jews and Israel are definitely players and contenders in this field, but blaming them alone or the US alone simply plays to their hands and serves as a distraction.

                From all signs in the world, a certain cabal of elites and technocrats, who have long stopped acting in the interest of the “nations” they are meant to represent, would like to see a world government in place, and are colluding and partnering to make this a reality at any cost. Therefore, in my opinion, thinking and talking about the perpetrators in terms of nation states, religious or ethnic groups, or any specific agency or persons would be a very misguided way of looking at it all.

                1. David, you knowledge of JFK appears to be every bit as shallow as your understanding of 9/11. If you bothered to look at my work before you attack it, you would know that the subtitle of my latest collection of expert studies on 9/11, AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11 (2017), is “Compliments of the CIA, the Neocons in the DOD and the Mossad”. Get a grip! Israel has enough apologists not to need one more. And the shooters in the assassination of JFK were not Italian and French but red-blooded Americans, where I have identified six by name, rank and serial number. So do us all a favor and respond to the proof I have adduced–after 25 years of collaborative research with the best qualified students to ever study the assassination–and tell us what we have wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_B1E_ainGQ

                  1. Oh, puhleez… Save your breath, professor…

                    There’s a sad similarity between how the terms “conspiracy theorist” and “Israel apologists” is used to dismiss arguments, isn’t there??? In spite of the fact that I have not argued against your extensive list of Israeli and jewish involvement in the attacks… But you have your head so far up you know where, that you assume every objection to your comments is an “attack” on you… And you play this “you are attacking me” game really well, don’t you?

                    For the record, there is not a single item on your above list that I can argue against, as I either think, believe, or know them to be all true. But, when it comes to the conclusions you draw from those facts that we actually agree on, I’d say they are immature and incomplete… Which, according to my measuring stick, puts you en par with those who NEVER mention Israel, or never blame Israel… Because, either side of the argument is utterly incomplete. Is that too difficult to comprehend for a professor like you??? Was it not possible for you to see that my comments were directed to both you and Mr. Novi, and not you alone???

                    Lastly… Are you actually telling me, with that super duper and infallible knowledge of yours on all things conspiratorial, that there were not Italian and French hitmen who were brought to Dallas for that day, and that Cuban citizens were not involved in the plot, whether any of them actually pulled the trigger or not???? Or was that only because you found my usage of the word “shallow” offensive, and you felt you had to give some back.

                    And, no sir, I will not go watch your “latest collection of expert studies”, thank you.

                    1. You are pathetic. One of the shooters (in the Dal-Tex) was an anti-Castro Cuban by the name of Nestor “Tony” Izquierdo. Could there be anything more telling that that you will not be bothered with evidence and facts because your mind is already made up? This is embarrassing, but you appear to have no shame. I have run across others who bail as soon as proof they are wrong starts showing up. On the shooters, here’s an article published about them some time back. You have no idea what you are talking about or how much we know about the assassination of JFK:

                      “Six JFK Shooters Named–three with ties to CIA–Oswald not among them”
                      http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2013/12/six-jfk-shooters-including-three-tied.html

                    2. Ahhhh. You got me there! WOW! You really know your stuff. Yes, he was residing in the US in Little Havana, Miami, where they have erected a statue in his honor. But he was indeed Cuban.

                    3. I wonder where they erected Lucien Sarti’s statue… Or, the statues of the army of Italian and Cuban mobsters who worked for Santo Trafficante.

                      After all this mambo jumbo exchange between the two of us, you have not addressed a single point I made in my initial reply, tried to insult your way out of it all, got hooked on something trivial you considered to be a mistake on my part, played your “you are attacking me” card (thank god you didn’t cry ad hominem this time around)… And here we are, many bullshit words later, and we got nowhere….

                      You can call me pathetic, shameless, or whatever you want, professor. You might even find holes in my knowledge. After all, I do not make a living off these conspiracies. I am merely interested in understanding how the world works. And, I know this much: When you pull out all your guns at the drop of a hat and start firing away at everything that moves like a drunken cowboy the way you do, that makes you a dangerous man.

                      This puts you in the same basket as the likes of Alex Jones, who do actually disseminate a lot of truth, but at the same time do a huge disservice to millions of people out there who are trying to convince their fellow human beings, (not their enemies but their friends, wives, husbands, colleagues, neighbors) that they are living and believing in a lie. Your attitude and banter always shows me that you have no respect or affection for other human beings, and your main concern always seems to be self promotion while trying to slap people into submission! And, one thing is for sure; you wouldn’t last more than 30 seconds trying to argue with someone like this Feldman character in Craig’s article.

                      I won’t continue with this conversation unless Mr Novi chimes in. You can have the last word if you care to do so.

                    4. I get it. I embarrassed you. You want to save face. OK. But making up claims (such as that I make a living off of conspiracies) is beyond reproach. That’s one of the recommendations of the CIA in coping with critics of The Warren Report (1964). You have announced that you are not open to reviewing the evidence I present about 9/11 (JFK, Sandy Hook or other events), so there is really no point to attempting to penetrate your closed mind. Let me just say that I have been at this for 25 years now and know my way around–and your name has never come up before, which explains why you are foundering in discussion. This REALLY IS your first rodeo!

          2. Pablo now that I have read what you just said in defense of the Zionist scumbags that executed 9/11 I am now confident that you, like Chomsky, Jon Gold, 911Blogger, and many others are a gate keeper for Zionists. With that I personally am satisfied that you are not someone I will listen to in the future. By the way it is a lot more than “circumstantial” that such a high percentage of the people who benefited from 9/11 and who participate in the ongoing cover up are hard core Zionist scumbags. You want to debate the subject? Yeah I bet you do since the debate has been over for quite a while about Zionist involvement. JREF’ers want to debate whether or not the towers were blown up with explosives too. The issue is settled the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, period. There is no debate about it. It wasn’t fire and damage from plane impacts, it wasn’t directed energy weapons, it wasn’t mini nukes, it was explosives assisted by nano-thermite. The perps are almost all Zionists and the ones who are not openly Zionists are probably secretly Zionists. There is no debate you don’t have a leg to stand on.

      2. Jon Gold has interviewed nearly every person of note with anything constructive to say about 9/11. For that accomplishment alone he deserves our praise.

        “Bush let it happen” is a much easier sell with the stupid Report believers than “Bush made it happen.” BLIH requires no real stretch for most people. Whether you consider those 28 pages a red herring or not, they certainly support the belief that the Saudis, with Bush’s help, plotted, financed, organized, and carried out 9/11.

        A cry to prosecute Bush and Co for all the shenanigans, delaying tactics, lies, and criminal behaviors around 9/ll would be very easy for most Americans. They are already skeptical of the Report. It might actually lead to a reopening of a proper investigation that honestly addresses the issue of BMIH (Bush made it happen).

        I generally shy away from broad conspiracy theories that involve the conscious consent and collusion of so many people. But as we have seen with the Russian Hacker Hoax being used to beat the drum for thermonuclear war. there is reason to believe nearly everyone of any influence in this country who is not a murdering psychopath is at least a psychopath enabler.

        This fact is just too hard for most (indeed nearly all) Americans to countenance.

        Would the president actually sacrifice three thousand innocent people to facilitate his goal of world domination?

        How many were sacrificed as a result of the known lies that started nearly every US military action since WW2? Yes. The very essence of psychopathy!

        1. My take is that Jon Gold is one of the gatekeepers of 9/11 Truth. I am sorry, but you seem to have been played. He is not a “good guy” on my list. And he never interviewed me. In case you are unaware, I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth and have held 9/11 conferences and interviews around the world about it, including Athens (2006), Madison (2007), Buenos Aires (2008) and (2009), London (2010) and Vancouver (2011). You appear to be an errand boy for Jon Gold.

          1. To get your bearings and an orientation, there are three major groups in 9/11 research, A&E911, Judy Woods and DEWS and Scholars, where I have addressed their strengths and weaknesses many places, including The MidWest 9/11 Truth Conference (2013), Parts 1 and 2 on YouTube; and The MidWest 9/11 Truth Conference II (2016), which has fourteen segments featuring 12 experts on different aspects of 9/11. The first book from Scholars was THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007) and most recent AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11 (2017). Here’s an overview you might find helpful: What really happened? America nuked on 9/11, The Millennium Report (12 September 2017), http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/09/what-really-happened-america-nuked-on-911/

        2. Hello deboldt,

          Regarding your first line above: “Jon Gold has interviewed nearly every person of note with anything constructive to say about 9/11.”

          Who are these persons, other than Bob McIlvaine, for whom I have the utmost respect? Has he interviewed Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin, because those are the top two names that pop into my mind that fit the criterion of “person of note with anything constructive to say about 9/11.”

          I’ve seen him interview “debunkers” like Jonathan Kay, as well as likely pseudo-truthers John Albanese and Erik Larson.

          It’s one thing to try to sell or hook some people in with the “let it happen” angle, then introduce the evidence for an orchestrated event once their minds are more open. But Jon Gold has gone out of his way to question the existence of controlled demolition at the WTC. He has openly stated that the “debunkers” might be right about there being no CD (and that all the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth have it all wrong), and he based it largely on his breakdown of trust for Steven Jones, because Jones had (in Gold’s view) shattered his credibility by publicly speculating about earthquake-causing devices. Because earthquake devices seem crazy to Jon, maybe Jones is also just as crazy, and hence wrong, about 9/11. Here is a quote of his from 2011.

          F*ck science that is sold to us as “peer reviewed,” but published in a pay-to-play journal. F*ck science that is sold to us as “peer reviewed,” but is partially peer reviewed by someone claiming the 9/11 victims are alive and well and living on a tropical island receiving a Government stipend. F*ck science that is originated by someone advocating man-made earthquakes and perpetual motion machines.

          Jon also believes there were real hijackers, that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and that Flight 93 crashed into that field and burrowed itself underground. I actually don’t think Jon is an infiltrator or agent. I think he doesn’t possess the intellectual rigor to determine strong arguments from weak arguments; that’s certainly the case if he truly believes the “debunkers” are correct about no controlled demolition.

          1. Adam, far from it for me to question your intelligence, background and knowledge, but what are the accomplishments of Richard Gage make him “a person of note with anything constructive to say about 9/11”? There can be no question about David Ray Griffin; but why do you extol Gage?

            I raise this issue because he is notable for two reasons: (1) endlessly repeating that “Building 7” (WTC-7) came down in a (classic) controlled demolition; and (2) insisting (with Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and Niels Harrit) that it was done with nanothermite. Can you think of anything else?

            The problems I have with this are (a) that a third-grader could have made the observation made by Dan Rather at the time (that it looked like taking down a building with dynamite) and (b) that while nanothermite may have been involved, it cannot have blown apart the towers on its own.

            Nor, I surmise, could it have been responsible for taking down WTC-7 on its own–which is why, while Barry Jennings was in the building, explosions were going off inside the building. It might be a good idea for A&E911 to feature his account, which would have vastly more public impact.

            Egad! T. Mark Hightower and I published three articles about this back in 2011. For an explosive to destroy a material, it must have a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material. For concrete, that velocity would be 3,200 m/s; for steel, 6,100 m/s.

            But the highest detonation velocity attributed to nanothermite in the scientific literature is only 895 m/s, which means that nanothermite is such a feeble explosive that it cannot even blow apart concrete, much less steel. Something else has to have been involved. So what was it?

            You lionize Gage for trivia. Even Dan Rather on 9/11 saw that it was a controlled demolition. And in spite of repeated requests, Gage has never explained what else was involved–even though A&E911 has been the beneficiary of millions in donations from the American public.

            Indeed, since Gage and A&E911 will not even address WHO was responsible and WHY, where its explanation of HOW is hopelessly inadequate, I don’t understand your enthusiasm for Gage. I must be missing something, because these are basic facts you seem unwilling to acknowledge.

            1. Fetzer you are the one without credibility. Gage does NOT promote nano-thermite used alone and you damned well know that, he talks about nano-thermite used in conjunction with conventional explosives. Based on that straw man alone anyone can see that you are being intentionally deceptive. Your mini nuke theory is a house of cards pre-weakened with bullshit.

        3. “Jon Gold has interviewed nearly every person of note with anything constructive to say about 9/11. For that accomplishment alone he deserves our praise.”

          As others have noted, Gold has NOT done what you say. And whether or not he has interviewed people has nothing to do with anything. I’ve interviewed most prominent truthers but that is not why I should be considered credible. That should be based on what I present as evidence and as arguments against the official story.

          I think we must choose the route dictated by the evidence, not the one determined by what will be palatable for people.

      3. I used to follow Gage and Crew, not a proponent of them now. Thermite does not have the capability of dissolving steel in mid-air or render Building 7 a hollow core by the time it fell (i.e. internals being sucked out for hours as if by vacuum prior to it falling).

        1. Whether or not thermite has that capability, the way the buildings fell is consistent with controlled demolition. It is the only reasonable explanation.

          Considering the unspent thermite dust and metallic spheres, the molten metal pouring out of the towers, etc., it suggests that it was indeed used, perhaps in combination with other incendiaries and/or explosives.

    3. Jon Gold is a hard core LIHOP’er (Let it happen on purpose) with no credibility whatsoever with real 9/11 investigators. He will not even look you in the face and say the towers were blown up with explosives which has been proved many times over. You need to look at the work of real 9/11 investigators who are tracking down the perps and exposing them. People like Christopher Bollyn. Check out CIT’s National Security Alert and find out just how indefensible the LIHOP scenario Jon Gold promotes really is. Jon Gold is NOT a real truther he is a gatekeeper.

    4. I’m with you, deboldt. I feel the same way, overall, about Chomsky and the like, but their compliance with NIST and the “official story” is heartbreaking.

      Stay out of mental institutions! You are brave, virtuous, and sane! ✌🏼

  2. https://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2017/09/craig-mckee-how-can-journalists-dismiss.html

    Posted a comment but the video did not show. So I tried again. It was still a “no show”.

    On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Truth and Shadows wrote:

    > Craig McKee posted: ” Dishonest attacks on Griffin like a blueprint for > how the uninformed and intolerant defend the official story Freethinkers > are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without > fearing to understand things that clash with their own” >

  3. Oh, Craig!!!! As i read your article, I felt this sadly familiar feeling of frustration that overwhelms me when I speak or argue with brainwashed and/or braindead and intellectually lazy people on this subject. I commend you for maintaining a level head through it all. I think you did great!

    That said, the above exchange illustrates the level of success “they” have had in building this circular logic and indoctrinating most people with it. Feldman illustrates this so well…(assuming that he is not a conscious deceiver, but simply under the spell of “conspiracy theorists are morons” narrative.) His replies to your comments and questions clearly show that he is not in control of his own intellect, his own brain or his own views since he has never learned to question things. He must feel he is part of the “intellectual establishment” to be dismissing even the slightest piece of reality the way he does. And his own status (perceived or real) in his own bubble is and has always been dearer to him than truth itself.

    Sadly, (once again assuming he is real) Feldman walks away from all this not having changed any of his opinions, and not having developed an ounce of curiosity about any of the points you raise. And, in my opinion, that is the true nightmare of being a truth seeker and a truth teller.

    Thanks for sharing your experience. I am certain that many here (and elsewhere) feel and sympathize with your pain.

    1. I think you can only assume that this type of person is an agent of disinformation. His arguments were not serious and his only purpose seems to have been to enforce the idea that conspiracy theorists are nut bars.

      1. I don’t know what motives were involved but many people push the same non-ideas and don’t seem to see the intellectual bankruptcy in what they are doing. Clearly, the three in this article are spreading disinformation, but that doesn’t mean they have a hidden agenda. I’ve seen too many people offering the same garbage.

        1. I will have to second that. I live, work and argue with many people on a constant basis who display a similar approach to these types of arguments. In fact, when one pays attention to the sequence of their arguments and points and the language they use, one might mistake them as having been trained to be disinformation agents.

          But, although I can not always correctly assess the motives of people online, I can easily assure you that the people that I actually know personally would not even know what a disinformation agent is, let alone practice it consciously. So, I have learned to always leave an open door for the chance that they are simply under the spell of the relentless conditioning they receive from authorities, the cultural and academic elite, the press and most importantly, from the social engineers who are responsible of massaging the people and the culture to deceive, disguise and mislead.

    2. Thanks, David, for that insightful (as always) assessment of what we see playing out here. I love your line about Feldman “not being in control of his own intellect.” That’s it, exactly. He can’t even discuss a single point like a normal person. You’ve described the nightmare very well.

  4. We may have a breakthrough: “‘What about Building 7?’ A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories”, FRONTIERS OF PSYCHOLOGY (8 July 2013), which finds that “conspiracy theorists” are more open-minded and distrustful of authorities and are less likely to apply the label to others, which suggests they are more intelligent and skeptical than those who uncritically accept the “official narratives” about JFK, 9/11, Sandy Hook and other events. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3703523/pdf/fpsyg-04-00409.pdf

  5. Those who read this important, revealing article by Mr. McKee now understand the feelings novelist Joseph Heller experienced and expressed when he wrote “Catch 22”.

    Thankfully, recent developments such as University of Alaska-Fairbanks Professor Leroy Hulsey’s study of Building 7, the push for sponsorship and passage of the “Bobby McIlvaine Act” in Congress, and legal actions enabled by passage of JASTA legislation shows time is rapidly running out for the criminals behind 9/11.

    1. I hope your are correct, but the precedent of JFK assassination over 50 years ago, followed by a huge amount of work by independent researchers, has not led to an admission by the government or the corporate media lead me to believe that the current “police state” has the power to control things regardless of the opposition.

      1. It’s all related. There is a long string of assassinations and terrorist attacks and ‘accidents’ that are all part of the same interconnected context. They’ll never tell you the truth. And they are going to continue until stopped.

        You can’t even get people to admit they live in a police state or how barbaric and violent governmental systems are. If you tell them point blank and bluntly, they will wholly reject and ridicule and do everything they can as to support their ego. People don’t care about truth. They don’t want to hear it. They would rather hide in their comfortable fiction than admit the problem or that something radical and decisive needs to be done.

        Humanity is going to be enslaved forever for their complacency.

  6. Craig, ask this guy if he believes in science. If he affirms he does, ask him these questions:

    (1) Could a Boeing 757 crash in a field and leave no indication that it had crashed there?

    (2) Could a Boeing 757 barely skim the Pentagon ground while flying at over 500 mph?

    (3) Could a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and leave no bodies, seats, luggage, wings?

    (4) How could debris from a crash near Cali, CO, in 1995 have wound up on the lawn?

    (5) Could a Boeing 767 have flown at over 500 mph at the altitude of the Twin Towers?

    (7) Could a Boeing 767 have penetrated the external steel support columns of either?

    (8) Given their design, could either of the Twin Towers have collapsed? Was it possible?

    (9) Could they have collapsed and yet left no massive pile of debris in their footprints?

    (10) Why did the USGS find evidence of the use of nukes in its 35-location dust studies?

    Tell him much of this evidence is visual and therefore he ought to review the evidence at

    Tell him that I would be glad to arrange a debate over 9/11. And we can throw in JFK, too!

    1. Things are never that simple, but, while I agree with most of your implications, I don’t agree with all of them:

      “Could a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and leave no bodies, seats, luggage, wings?”
      Of course not. The trouble is that at least one first-responder has claimed to have seen bodies and seats. I realize that since so many eye witnesses don’t totally agree on what they saw, some of those people are either mistaken or lying. But I personally know one who saw an airliner pass by her office in Crystal City on the way to the Pentagon and I have no choice but to believe her. I still speculate that it may have flown above the Pentagon, but have no way to prove anything.

      “Could a Boeing 767 have penetrated the external steel support columns of either?”
      The answer is yes. It is mostly a matter of momentum. They could both be modeled as box structures in which the steel has roughly twice the density of the aluminum. Momentum says that the speed of the aircraft would be immediately halved upon impact, but would continue to go forward to some degree, breaking or disconnecting the steel structures as necessary. Practically, however, since the aircraft is not that simple in construction, one would think that at least the tips of the wings would break off and fall outside the building, and that the nose of the aircraft would be totally smashed before going through to the other side. I don’t have the time to properly evaluate exactly what could have happened, but yes, a Boeing 767 could break or shear the columns and continue into the building to some degree. I have not come to any firm decision as to whether they were real or not, but it seems too strange.

      “Why did the USGS find evidence of the use of nukes in its 35-location dust studies?”
      I have looked at the USGS data, and evidence of fission byproducts are in a minority of the samples (something like 3 out of 21) and are very small to begin with. One person has mentioned that the large number of CRTs in the buildings would have been enough to account for those samples. For other reasons, I haven’t totally given up on the basement nuke idea, but it would not have been a conventional nuke by any means. As to why I deem myself any kind of authority to make such statements, I did study nuclear physics in graduate school. Then again, questioning authority is what we are all about here, aren’t we?

      1. Look at the evidence presented in the two 9/11 video presentations I have linked here. There was NO AIRPLANE DEBRIS at the Pentagon. You think someone claiming something later has great probative value than photos of the scene in the immediate aftermath? That’s astounding.

        It’s a law of materials science that more dense material prevail over less dense. No way could an aluminum tube have penetrated the external steel support columns–plus Flight 11 was intersecting with 7 floors and Flight 175 with 8. You obviously have not watched the videos.

        I am sorry, but the USGS dust studies are powerful confirmation of the buildings being turned into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, which itself is an indication of the use of nukes. I take it you agree with nukes, but think it was a basement nuke rather than mini or micro nukes.

        But the buildings are being blown apart from the top down. And there is nothing–no massive pile of debris in their footprints–when its done. That indicates much of those 500,000-ton buildings was decimated by the nukes. Watch one of the other of my presentations and comment again.

          1. This is insulting. You cannot be familiar with the dust studies and make such an ignorant remark. The importance of the USGS dust studies was first emphasized in AMERICA NUKED by Jeff Prager. Don Fox has done a great deal with it. There are elements that, in their quantities and correlations, are distinctive of nuclear events. Some only exist in radioactive form.You are outing yourself with remarks like this, just a Michael Rivero has exposed himself as a 9/11 gatekeeper: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2017/09/michael-rivero-blows-his-cover-as-911.html I am VERY DISAPPOINTED IN YOU, ADAM RUFF. But I am glad to see you laying your cards on the table.

            1. Rivero’s charge seems to have focused on prop-ing up the official account at the Pentagon, which is quite a challenge, given the mountain of proof no plane hit the building. For example,

              . . . that no plane hit the Pentagon has been apparent since Thierry Meyssan published “Hunt the Boeing”; there is no sign of any plane having hit anywhere near the Pentagon, as Jamie McIntyre of CNN reported on 9/11; there is no massive pile of aluminum debris from a 100-ton airliner at the hit point on the ground floor; no bodies, no seats, no luggage, no wings, no engines; civilian lime-green firetrucks extinguish the modest fires at the hit point, where the Pentagon lawn is clear, green and unblemished; the large section of the Pentagon did not collapse until 45 minutes after the plane had allegedly hit; there is no debris on the lawn until after that section collapses, where a piece of debris from a Boeing 757 shows up that has been tracked to a crash near Cali, Columbia, in 1995; black, billowing clouds later visible across the Potomac from the Capitol came from a series of enormous dumpsters as a Hollywood-style special effect; and the official trajectory of a 757 flying at over 500 mph barely skimming the ground, taking out a series of lampposts, is not even aerodynamically possible.

              There are links to the articles cited in the post, which make it effortless to confirm. Unreal that anyone would continue to claim that a plane had hit the Pentagon at this late stage of research.

            2. Oh I can be and am familiar with virtually everything related to 9/11 Jim, even a few things you don’t know about. Hard to believe as that must be to you. Further up the page you used the argument (I am paraphrasing here) that any grade schooler could see it was blah blah to dismiss another commenters opinion. Well I am going to throw that right back in your face here. Any grade schooler can watch and see for themselves the enormous dust clouds that are present in any controlled demolition of a large structure. You are not going to baffle me with your bullshit here, the dust clouds seen after the controlled demolitions of all three towers were NORMAL and appropriate for buildings of that size and scale.

              A grade schooler could also easily figure out that mini nukes were NOT used to take down the towers by logical deductive reasoning alone. Even in your own commentary you mention witnesses reporting multiple explosions before and during the fall of the buildings. A mini nuke could not account for a symmetrical fall because it would have to destroy all the immense structural elements virtually simultaneously for the buildings to fall straight down into their own footprint. A “mini nuke” powerful enough to completely destroy the mighty core and all the perimeter columns simultaneously would have to be so powerful that the lower floors (all the non steel parts) would necessarily have to be vaporized. William Rodriguez would have had to be vaporized on his way out of the building in that case and his reports of explosions before the tower he was in came down would have to be very suspect then. I trust William (the last man out alive) one hell of a lot more than you Jim and his account is consistent with the other evidence too.

              If the “mini nuke” was no more powerful than a conventional demolition charge(s) then there would be no need to use a nuke now would there? If the “mini-nuke” was considerably more powerful than a demolition charge then how did William get out alive? All the visual evidence we have shows precisely timed demolition charges going off floor by floor to bring the building down. None of the visual evidence shows a powerful single or few “mini nuke” explosions going off. Eye witness reports are consistent with CD too.

              In my opinion Jim you are a purveyor of disinformation and it is my belief that you are doing it intentionally. You drop a little poison pill into each of your theories about the various conspiracies you deal with. Your poison pill for the 9/11 truth movement is the mini-nuke bullshit and it discredits you completely. Prior to the mini nuke crap you were pushing Judy Wood’s DEW garbage which can also be rejected by simple deductive reasoning.

              I am not inclined to debate you or have a discussion with you because in my book you are an agent of disinformation and have a very negative impact on the truth movement. As far as I am concerned you are not a truther but rather the enemy of the truth movement. Don’t even try to baffle me with your bullshit either because I have read it and I have read the solid debunks of it too. You are a very bad man Jim and I intend to remember what you have done and see that you receive the punishment you deserve for intentionally lying about 9/11 and other crimes against humanity.

              1. You do not even know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning, much less inference to the best explanation. While I featured Judy Wood in a series of 15 radio interviews between late 2006 and mid 2008, it was because she had accumulated the best collection of photos and studies available at the time. I was pioneering the use of the computer-with-radio by directing listeners to her site and reviewing the visual material that was present there. What I knew at the time was that nanothermite could not have done it, which T. Mark Hightower and I demonstrated in a series of articles that blew that claim out of the water.

                A typical technique of disinformation is wholesale condemnation, as you practice it here. What in the world would I have been doing being flown around the world to give presentations on 9/11, if I were some kind of op? I have exposed government complicity in JFK, 9/11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing and more–not just comments on blogs, which is your procedure, but bringing together experts from various disciplines to combine resources in collaborative research which has paid off handsomely with three (now four) edited volumes on JFK, two on 9/11, a co-authored book on Wellstone, and collaborative studies of Sandy Hook, Boston and more.

                The gaping blunder in your attack on me thereby surfaces, because MY RESEARCH ON ALL THESE SUBJECTS IS COLLABORATIVE, with the best experts on different aspects of each of the events we are addressing. So you are not just attacking me but the collective research of those I report, especially in relation to areas where I myself am not expert. Thus, in relation to JFK, I brought together a world authority on the human brain (who was also an expert on wound ballistics), a Ph.D. in physics (who is board-certified in radiation oncology, which makes him an expert in the interpretation of X-rays), a physician who was there when JFK’s moribund body was brought in and two days later was responsible for the treatment of his alleged assassin.

                We discovered that the X-rays had been “patched” to conceal a fist-sized blow-out at the back of the head; that the body itself had been altered; that the home movies, including the Zapruder film, had been massively edited to conceal the true causes of death; and that there were more than 15 indications of the Secret Service setting him up for the hit, which leads to the elimination of alternative theories that the KGB (pro or ant-Castro Cubans, or the Mafia had done the hit, since none of them could have had access to the body, altered the X-rays, edited the film or used the Secret Service to set him up. The evidence here leads directly to the CIA and key players in the government, especially LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover, which we have substantiated.

                Your position ignores the mountain of work I have done EXPOSING THE GOVERNMENT IN CRIMES AGAINST THE PEOPLE. If I were some kind of disinformation op, as you propose, I would have to be the least successful in history–because the collaborative research I have done has exposed the role of the CIA, the Neocons and the Mossad in 9/11; that Wellstone was taken out using an EM device only available to the government; that Sandy Hook was a FEMA drill (where we even have the manual), where they faked the kids using photographs of other children when they were younger; that the Boston bombing was a charade, where the brothers were photoshopped into the video footage and were framed for the bombing; and much more.

                If you were an honest broker, you would acknowledge that I have done so much good work across the board that it would be ridiculous to think I am an agent of disinformation. You would acknowledge the evidence that supports my position and the good work of my collaborators, who include Ed Ward, M.D., Jeff Prager, Dennis Cimino, T. Mark Hightower, Don Fox and a host of others who support the use of nukes (in one form or another), including Bill Deagle, M.D., Dimitri Khalazov, and a host of others at Veterans Today, which has an exceptional series on the use of nukes on 9/11. You can’t make that concession because it would make your claims about me OBVIOUSLY AND COMPLETELY ABSURD. So you offer some evidence you take to undermine my position, which reveals the weakness of your stance, even in relation to 9/11.

                You mention the sound of explosions, “Boom! Boom! Boom!”, from firemen who were in the buildings. But that is exactly what we would expect from a series of mini or micro nukes (which have dialable radius and can be directed upward), being set off in a sequence to simulate a collapse from the top down. You ignore (or minimize) that the conversion of materials into very fine dust is a signature of the use of nuclear devices. You ignore that a vast proportion of both buildings was VAPORIZED–COMPLETELY DECIMATED–and that over a thousand bodies were not recovered–not even a tooth or a fingernail! And of course there was molten metal in the subbasements for months thereafter–not due to nanothermite, but to the use of nukes. I have dealt with many phonies and frauds in my research, Adam, where you clearly stand out.

                While I present proof-after-proof, cite study after study, post videos that survey the evidence in copious quantity and exquisite detail, you ignore the evidence, EVEN WHEN I PRESENT IT. We have vast numbers of first responders and residents of the area who have suffered from the kinds of medical maladies associated with exposure to ionizing radiation, including leukemia, multiple-myeloma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, pancreatic, esophageal and thyroid cancers, where the number of those afflicted has been estimated to be as high as 70,000. Since I explain these points in my presentations, I infer you have not bothered to watch them, because you mind is already made up and you don’t want to be bothered with facts. Indeed, it undermines what you are all about in undermining serious research that expands our knowledge of the 9/11 event.

                The early explosions in the subbasements may have been conventional. I have not claimed they were nuclear. But their apparent purpose was to drain the sprinkler systems of water so they could not extinguish the modest fires that remained after the pre-positioned jet fuel or napalm was consumed in those spectacular fireballs. So you exaggerate my views, on the one hand, to make them easier to attack, and then selectively attempt to refute parts of the evidence, when it is the totality that demands rebuttal. Thus you cite on Willy Witten (a phony name, of course) as having debunked the discovery of radioactive elements in the dust samples on the ground that exit signs included Tritium! But what about the Barium and Strontium, the Thorium and Uranium (which only exist in radioactive forms), the Lithium, the Lanthanum, the Yttrium and Chromium?

                You commit elementary fallacies that I spent 35 years teaching undergraduates to avoid. But of course that’s the best you can do. How many times have I challenged A&E911 to explain WHAT ELSE WAS INVOLVED IN BLOWING APART THE TWIN TOWERS? You, apparently, want to fault me for observing that nanothermite cannot have done it because it is non-explosive. How many times have we been told that other explosives were involved. You suggest that would be conventional explosives! BUT THE BUILDINGS WERE CONVERTED INTO MILLIONS OF CUBIC YARDS OF VERY FINE DUST. MILLIONS OF TONS WERE VAPORIZE. THERE WAS NO MASSIVE PILE OF DEBRIS IN THEIR FOOTPRINTS, which should have run 13.5 floors!

                When nanothermite combined with conventional explosives cannot account for the observable effects, what are we to make of an organization like A&E911 and individuals like Adam Ruff who continue to promote a theory is inconsistent with the available evidence AND HAS ALREADY BEEN FALSIFIED? Your position is so blatantly indefensible that I want to thank you for your candor. Like A&E911 and Steve Jones, you are doing your best to suppress the truth about 9/11 in an effort to keep the devastating truth from the public. One of us deserves to be characterized as an “agent of disinformation”, but that would not be me. That distinction has been earned by Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, and others who know better–where Jones has an extensive back-ground in dealing with nuclear processes–and their willing stooges, one of whom is Adam Ruff.

                1. “I have exposed government complicity in JFK, 9/11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing and more–not just comments on blogs, which is your procedure, but bringing together experts from various disciplines to combine resources in collaborative research which has paid off handsomely with three (now four) edited volumes on JFK, two on 9/11, a co-authored book on Wellstone, and collaborative studies of Sandy Hook, Boston and more.”

                  You also said that the explosives were painted onto the plane.

                  Who told you to say that, Dr.?

                  1. Do you have any idea what you are talking about? The fuselage burned for 7 hours and they could not extinguish the fire. The plane had to have been prepped with something to promote that, such as magnesium, manganese or (even) thermite (or nanaothermite). You have to be incredibly ignorant to suppose anyone gives me guidance in what to say. Check my record as a scholar, for which I have received many awards and other forms of recognition. Only a shill would make such an insinuation. My complete CV may be found at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/

                    1. I am familiar with your credentials and reputation, Dr. Fetzer.

                      Think like an assassin instead of a scientist. You have two primary objectives; kill people and don’t get caught.

                      Taking a plane out of the sky is a very efficient effective and stealthy method. A small remote detonated charge hidden any number of places on the plane will suffice, especially with a small plane such as the one in question. Your most difficult task is how to access the plane for a few minutes without being detected or recorded. And if you use a custom or homemade device there is a much lesser chance of it being traced to you.

                      Relatively simple operation.

                      More people are paying closer attention to public officials, especially well liked charismatic ones. Everything they do is logged or recorded, and they are often protected by some form of security. This complicates things ten fold as your opportunities are limited. It’s not like killing an executive who likes to go flying on the weekends. Thus you are going to have to take the simplest or most direct approach possible. The more complicated, the more chance there is to get caught.

                      Aviation paint is very similar to automotive paint. The difference is that it uses a little different bonding agents and is usually lighter weight material. It is generally quality material that will last the duration of the life of the aircraft. Other than factories or paint shops, most common use is for touch ups, routine maintenance on chips or peeling that may occur in spots where the aircraft experiences weathering or excessive wear.

                      Repainting an entire aircraft with a lot of life in it is not exactly common as it is usually unnecessary. Thus it is counter-intuitive that an assassin would have the convenient opportunity to repaint the craft around political agendas.

                      Not only that, but a paint job is a process that requires time, tools, materials, shop, and scheduling and records and everything that would trace it directly to the assassin.

                      And where do you find incendiary paint? How would you otherwise produce it? You would need a small paint factory and chemical engineering expertise to even consider it. And because the materials for such a thing is somewhat rare, you would go through a lot of trouble and draw attention to yourself in obtaining it. Such incendiary materials would also be heavy and detectable, as well as a bit more trouble in the application.

                      It stands to reason that an assassin would see it as unfeasible and not worth the trouble.

                      Are there any records of a recent paint job or indications that it was the actual paint burning?

                      We know through various sources that there was a peculiar fire that burned for several hours and could not be extinguished, …which is distinctly characteristic of metal fires. Powder is ineffective and inappropriate, foam or water exacerbates the situation by making it pop and explode and spread. Standard practice and procedure for a metal fire is to simply contain it and let it burn out. Thus is is entirely reasonable that there was materials such as magnesium on board.

                      So why would an assassin need a 7 hour magnesium fire to thoroughly burn everything?

                    2. Killing Wellstone would have been easy. Killing him and making it look like an accident is not. You cannot have watched my video, “The Sen. Wellstone Assassination”, on YouTube or read my co-authored book, AMERICAN ASSASSINATION: THE STRANGE DEATH OF SENATOR PAUL WELLSTONE (2004) and be asking these questions. They manipulated the GPS to draw the plane into the kill zone then took out the computerized components using an EM device.

                      In order to cover it up, they had to completely destroy the fuselage so none of those components would survive for forensic review, which would have revealed how it was done. John Costella, who has a Ph.D. in electromagnetism and diagnosed how it had been done, and I co-authored an article Michael Ruppert published in From the Wilderness, “The NTSB Failed Wellstone”, which begins with several reviews of the book. Check it out. You just might learn something.

                    3. If you can manage to get remotely detonated charges and enough magnesium to burn for 7 hours onto a plane, you don’t need a difficult to access traceable experimental military grade EMP weapon. And you don’t wait until it has crashed before setting off the charges.

                    4. Why you want to manifest your ignorance is beyond me. They wanted to make it look as though it had been an accident. Check out (at the very least) “The NTSB Failed Wellstone”. Snowshoe films has done a three-hour documentary on the witnesses and the evidence that supports what we have explained. Your thoughtless remarks aren’t going to impress those who know the case.

                    5. Why would an assassin need to make it look like an accident when all they need is to not have it connected to them or their party?

                      And why, if that is indeed the case, would they need to go through all of that when there are simpler ways of doing so?

                      Or was it to create a presumption?

                      And of all the things to posit, why would you insist on something so irrational?

                    6. This attack on research that has been widely lauded strikes me as completely contrived. JFK had to be taken out in public or the inference that it had been a conspiracy would have been irresistible. Wellstone was the Conscience of the Senate and was personally threatened by Dick Cheney that, if he opposed them over Iraq, there would be “severe ramifications” for Minnesota and for him personally. This was intended to appear to be an accident, especially by destroying the computerized systems that would have revealed what had happened. There is much more at snowshoe films, but for those unfamiliar with the Wellstone case, this is a good place to start:

          2. Here are elements that, according to Adam Ruff, are “COMMON in all controlled demolitions”, which is completely absurd. Some of these only exist in radioactive form. He is blowing smoke:

            BARIUM AND STRONTIUM: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris IN THESE QUANTITIES. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both the dust samples taken at Broadway and John Streets.

            THORIUM AND URANIUM: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. IT’S VERY RARE AND SHOULD NOT BE PRESENT IN BUILDING RUBBLE, EVER. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.

            LITHIUM: With the presence of lithium, we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.

            LANTHANUM: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.

            YTTRIUM: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.

            CHROMIUM: The presence of Chromium is one more “tell tale” signature of a nuclear detonation.

            TRITIUM: A very rare element that should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another “tell tale” sign of nukes.

            How could Adam Ruff claim that these elements are COMMON in controlled demolitions, which is completely absurd. Let him offer proof in support or be damned before us by his own words.

        1. The USGS did not make any mention of fission byproducts in its official report of the dust samples. The USGS report totally ignored it. That was left to others who have noticed that some samples showed something on the order of 55 times normal levels of strontium and barium in those samples. But even at 55 times, those few samples that seem to have fission byproducts still have such a tiny amount compared to what one would expect from a nuclear detonation, that they do not confirm any such thing,

          I am surprised that anyone maintains several mini/micro nukes per building, when any intelligent person should be aware that the regular collapse does not show any sign of the irregular explosions one would see in that case. There are obviously small explosions on every single floor all around the structure, all perfectly timed for an even demolition. The only thing approximating a nuclear explosion happens just before the collapse starts, and can be seen on one video that shows the ground bouncing about a block all around the building and was obviously underground.

        2. Jim you cannot state there was NO PLANE DEBRIS and then say that there was part of a plane crash from Columbia in 1995. By the way, what happened regarding James Hansen whom you gave as the source for the debris? You also suspected debris was dropped from a C-130 after the “event” I cannot find anything subsequently.

          1. There was no debris on the Pentagon lawn for 45 minutes after the crash. It only began showing up after the large section of the Pentagon had collapsed. Nothing inconsistent here, when you take the timeline into consideration. Looking for an early article on Jim Hanson’s discover, this one turned up, which is rather comprehensive and covers a lot of the same evidence, including a link to that source: https://steemit.com/news/@scubasteve/something-else-hit-the-pentagon My appreciation for such a straightforward and appropriate question. Let me know if you need more.

            1. And, yes, the debris appears to have been dropped by a C-130 that was circling the building. He continues to reside near Columbus, OH. His is one of the more remarkable findings about 9/11.

  7. Gee Craig, Your patience and care in that discussion are just remarkable!
    My main main Jim Fetzer, you said,
    “(1) Could a Boeing 757 crash in a field and leave no indication that it had crashed there?”
    It turns out that no commercial airliner has ever completely buried itself in the ground. (Nor had either of its black boxes gone missing).
    BUT, there’s also this,
    (1b) Could a Boeing 757 crash in a field and bounce parts from 5-8 miles away?”
    It turns out that no plane can bounce parts off the ground 5-8 miles away.

    (1c) Could a Boeing 757 BOTH: completely bury itself in the ground AND bounce parts 5-8 miles away?
    Clearly it can do neither separately, much less BOTH.
    Yet, that’s part of the US Gov OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory)

  8. This report from the psychological trenches approaches academic calibre, and I mean that positively.

    The specificity, the attributions and the analysis all drive home what I take to be the central thesis: that this particular trio of real-life individuals—ones with journalistic credentials no less, however marginal—share an extreme aversion to (a) entertaining evidence concerning the subject at hand (b) engaging in respectful discourse, even while they (c) put forward non-sequiturs in place of straightforward argumentation.

    Craig wisely sidesteps arguing motives himself, while his tormentors apparently feel no embarrassment or shame in dodging issues while repetitively name-calling, a lower grade school tic.

    This slice-of-life report gathered on an anniversary that makes the findings especially relevant is worthy of comparison with the work within the book Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument. The authors isolate 51 separate fallacies that cripple critical thinking. I purchased the book long ago, have revisited fairly often and recommend it for sure. Here’s a link to it, followed by the description in Amazon:

    https://www.amazon.com/FALLACY-Ward-William-Holther-Fearnside/dp/B000KJ9KBQ

    W. Ward Fearnside and his co-author, William B. Holther, have written a textbook on critical thinking which is so cogent that it remains an important teaching text even to the present. Originally published in 1959 and still in print, the book presents fifty-one separate fallacies of argumentation commonly used in everything from political spin to advertising, marketing, and even personal relations, and discusses them in clear, unambiguous, easily comprehensible language. At the outset, the authors liken argument to a manufacturing process, pointing out that “if materials are up to standard, the operator efficient, and the machine running smoothly,” that the finished product will pass scrutiny. In argumentation, they see the basic facts as the “material,” the person making the argument as the “operator,” and logic as the machine. Dividing their text into three sections, they discuss in detail the Material Fallacies (problems with facts), Psychological Fallacies (problems with the bias of the person arguing), and Logical Fallacies (problems with logical processes). The Material Fallacies section discusses making improper generalizations, assuming causes, making false classifications, and presenting false dilemmas. The many examples, sometimes humorous, that they give for each section parallel arguments readers will recognize from daily life. Because the examples are short, followed by thorough explanations, they really come to life and stick in the reader’s mind. The Psychological Fallacies include: Emotional Coloration (charged language), Misusing Authority, Stirring up Prejudice, Rationalizations, Biased Misconstructions (including cultural biases), and Diversions (humor, ridicule, red herrings, creating impossible conditions). For each section the examples are numerous, pertinent, and easily recognizable

  9. Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. The state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking… – Leo Tolstoy

  10. Craig, this is great. I have same problem talking with people. Recognize you are not just asking people to look at 9/11. You are asking them to realize that they are being lied to by government, TV networks, all major newspapers. Also that wacky-sounding websites like Alex Jones are at times telling the truth. What their children are taught in school is often false. Also that politicians who talk about the terrorists are lying. Oh, and most of the people around them have been duped. That is way more for them to take in than what really happened on 9/11. I don’t know how you break through that.

    1. Well said.

      The phenomenon is not very dissimilar to trying to tell a devout christian (or any other religion) that god does not exist, and that the church has been lying to them. There is a natural and quite understandable negative reaction to such an attempt to destroy the world as they know it. For a vast majority of people, the leap they will need to make from a place of “knowing all” to dark and murky depths of “knowing nothing” is simply unbearable.

      1. Yes, I have learned it is a waste of time to argue with a believer about the existence of God or similar topics. Neither side can convince the other. A big difference is that outside of religious topics, with crimes like 9/11 there is evidence that can be examined and rules of logic and evidence. Despite the availability of proof, though, most people are impenetrable. I am reminded of the stories about hitting a mule between the eyes with a 2×4. It will take something like that.

    2. AJ is a controlled opposition agent likely working for either CIA or Mossad or both.

      He got rid of his 9/11 truth endeavors and has changed his whole focus to supporting conservative government and sucking Trump’s member. His material is trivial, bigoted, and taylored to people with average to low IQ’s, and obviously meant to deter focus from real issues.

      The guy is full of it.

  11. This was so painful to read; I couldn’t finish it. As Dan Rather said it’s something “we’ve all seen too much of,” namely know-nothing creeps haranguing someone because he understands things that they haven’t even begun to glimpse.

    PS this is the first public link to my new website, which is still under construction.

  12. The irony is that the respectable establishment press also peddles what could arguably be considered conspiracy theories, for example Russian hackers disseminating unflattering documents of Clinton’s campaign in order to tilt the election for Trump, or Hugo Chavez housing Hizbullah and Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops in Venezuela for a future invasion of America. Why don’t McKee’s bullies, Snopes, Rational Wiki, James Randi and the rest of the “skeptic” industry or “normal journalists” address these special stories from the establishment?

    1. Bluegreen- the sites you mention, Snopes, Rational Wiki, James Randi and many others (Michael Sherman of Skeptic magazine, Wikipedia for selected entries as pointed out by Wikispooks) are corrupted. I assume they get monetary compensation for helping to spread disinformation. “Respectable establishment press” is an oxymoron. I have learned that if a “conspiracy theory” does not have a disinformation agent assigned to it, it may not be true. 9/11 has quite a few disinfo sites.

      1. When supposed rationality has been weaponised by the oligarchy, you know you’re in trouble. Does this apply to ostensible entertainment sites such as Cracked and TV Tropes, too? (They are prone to mocking, ridiculing questionners of official narratives, too.)

        1. I know we are in trouble, but I am not familiar with Cracked and TV tropes. By the way, here are just a few of the disinformation web sites I have come across.

          9/11 Guide
          9/11 Science
          911Mysteries Guide
          911Myths
          Conspiracy Watch
          Debunking911.com
          Links for 9/11 Research
          Screw Loose Change Blog

  13. YEAH, but every so often, you break through !
    Every so often, friends or family or acquaintances who for years have pulled askance at every mention; or left the room angry, saying “I don’t want to talk about it” or reacted/acted in those awful put-down ways anyone dealing with this knows full well the brunt of…the silences. ..suddenly, one of em turns… BING bong….Suddenly for whatever reason in them, in their epistemological pathways left un-crippled by the perception managers;) suddenly understands!! that ‘holy-fuck’ moment; and they pour through into this realm we have been fighting all these years. And, its amazing to see that happen. To feel that transition..that transformative moment ! Worth every frikken moment of discussion push and fret, every bitter conversation and referral and insult up till then.
    Because then they know, and when they know,
    they are friends.
    off on their own journey into this shit storm.

  14. Craig another great article from you. It glimpses what we truthers have been going through for many years, which is constant harassment from people who are too afraid to face reality. It is a shame that even here on your own home turf disinformationists attempt to mislead people.

    1. This guy has exposed himself, just as Michael Rivero has done, as a 9/11 gatekeeper. Offering no proof, just as Rivero offers no proof, he characterized the use of mini or micro nukes on 9/11 as “disinformation”, when the evidence in support is abundant and compelling. Given that the conversion of materials into very fine dust is a signature of the use of nukes, given that there was no massive pile of debris in their footprints (which ought to have stood 13.5 or more high, had this been a classic controlled demolition), given the US Geological Survey’s studies of dust samples from 35 locations in lower Manhattan, given the medical maladies that have afflicted first responders and residents of the area (estimated as high as 70,000), HOW COULD THE THESIS THAT THIS WAS DONE WITH MINI OR MICRO NUKES POSSIBLY QUALIFY AS “DISINFORMATION”? We are all at liberty to make our case for our interpretation of how it was done, where sincere disagreements are commonplace. But to qualify as “disinformation”, the party must (1) make the assertion (in this case, that it was done with mini or micro nukes), (2) when that assertion is not only false but (3) the part knows that it is false yet (4) makes it anyway with the intention of misleading a target audience. Since I have presented the proof that it was done in many contexts, where I not only believe it to be true but have explained exactly how we know it is true, I cannot be acting in bad faith by making an assertion that I know to be false but assert anyway with the intention of misleading a target audience. That, however, cannot be said of Adam Ruff, who has (now) several times asserted on this blog that this is “disinformation”, when it cannot possibly be the case, as I have explained. Adam Ruff is right about this point: one of us is disinformation, but that would not be me.

      1. Jim if you are going to plaster your bullshit all over this forum then I made the right decision by leaving it a while ago so you do not need to ask Craig to boot me I will leave voluntarily as long as you are a regular. Tell me Jim where are all the ground zero workers with radiation poisoning? Tell me why the people digging out the debris from the “mini nuke” in the basement did not die on the spot from radiation exposure that massive? Oh I forgot these were “special” “mini nukes” right? The kind that do not leave behind massive radiation right? Yeah sure.

        Willy Witten tore your claims to shreds a long time ago about the radioactive elements found in the dust samples. I remember for example that tritium is found in all the exit signs inside the WTC and since there were thousands of such signs the tritium levels were consistent with that.

        You want this to go into an extremely complicated and technical discussion of these elements because very few people can follow along with that and you can easily slip in red herrings and misleading information into such a discussion. Willy did go there and he has dismantled your lies completely and I am satisfied that your claims are bogus and debunked. If you want to debate the technicalities of your theory I suggest you do so with Willy.

        I have determined that you are a purveyor of disinformation by other means. I have observed you in action for many years now and you have sowed disruption everywhere you have been. You regularly use disinformation tactics like straw man arguments. I pointed out one such use above when you suggested that Richard Gage promotes a “nano-thermite only” hypothesis which is patently false. He promotes a conventional explosive AND nano-thermite hypothesis. So when I see slimy tactics like that being used on a regular basis I conclude you are a liar. A look at your track record confirms it and let me assure you of one thing right now. Steven Jones was the whole enchilada at scholars and your contributions were insignificant compared to his. Jones is still to this day a giant in the truth movement while you are just a carnival barker trying to keep people playing your rigged side show game.

    2. Mediocrities like Adam Ruff are dime a dozen. To the best of my knowledge, he has not made a significant contribution to 9/11 research EVER, but likes to tweak those of us making real and sustained progress in solving the WHO, the HOW and the WHY. Here’s the guy he is dissing:

      I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth (2005), gave the keynote at Alex Jones’ 9/11 American Scholars Conference in LA (2006), was flown to Athens for a 3.5 hour television interview on 9/11 that was broadcast worldwide by satellite (2006); organized the first 9/11 Scholars conference in Madison (2007); published THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007) with 11 contributors; was flown to Buenos Aires for lectures on JFK and 9/11 (2008); was flown back to give the keynote for An International Symposium on 9/11 Truth and Justice (2009) held at The National Library of the Republic of Argentina; organized “Debunking the War on Terror” in London (2010); organized The Vancouver 9/11 Hearings (2012); organized The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference (2013); organized the Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference II (2016) with 12 participants; and published AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11 (2017) with 14 contributors; while maintaining Scholars for 9/11 Truth website and its discussion forum.

      Here are the guys he ought to be attacking, if he had even a shred of integrity regarding 9/11 research. A&E911 and Judy Wood & DEWS won’t even talk about WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE AND WHY. Yet he comes after me and Scholars, who are advancing the 9/11 Truth agenda?

      the “serious scholars of 9/11” he ought to be attacking include Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones and those who publish in The Journal of 9/11 Studies; but who are committed to nanothermite as responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers, which T. Mark Hightower and I have demonstrated to be impossible; they are publishing articles that claim a plane really did hit the Pentagon; and they are unwilling to address who was responsible and why, where Richard Gage left 9/11 Truth in a time-warp on C-SPAN; where a nice overview of the differences between the key groups in 9/1l research–A&E911, Judy Wood and DEWs and Scholars for 9/11 Truth–recently appeared in The Millennium Report (12 September 2017), http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/09/what-really-happened-america-nuked-on-911/, which provides a summary of the differences between the three and why A&E911 and Judy Wood appear to be limited hangouts, which allow some of the truth about 9/11 to be revealed but conceal, obfuscate or suppress crucial aspects, which include the use of mini or micro nukes, the role of holograms and that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. Adam is pitching with them.

  15. This thread is not about nukes at the towers nor is it about slinging insults. In fact, the article is about, among other things, how counterproductive personal attacks can be. Any further comments that I deem to be off topic and/or stirring the pot will be removed.

  16. Those about the sense of frustration we have all felt at those who are so closed-minded they are unwilling to hear out (watch or consider) evidence relevant to getting at the truth about 9/11. And even liked the arguments we had on the upper-half of the page about JFK and such. I liked that you put up an argument and cited (what you took to be) facts about the case. I could tell that you had watched most of “The Men Who Killed Kennedy”, for example, and have read some books on JFK. I could have been more tactful in my replies, no doubt. That’s one of my worst faults.

      1. You seem like a decent guy to me, David. I won’t draw any contrasts, but I put you in a different category than others on the basis of your sincerity. I can be overly combative. Sorry about that.

  17. Great article Craig but I had to stop reading after a while because I just couldn’t take any more! Arguing with these people is frustrating and may seem pointless, but at least there’s always the chance that a reader who is on the fence about 9/11 may decide to take a closer look at the evidence.

    On another forum I frequent, there’s a thread entitled “Lessons from 9/11”. Ironically, the people posting in the thread still believe the official story. They haven’t learned a damned thing!!! I was tempted to put in my 2 cents but I know they don’t want to hear it and it won’t end well. However, one person wrote “I was at a desk about 1000 feet from the explosion at the Pentagon.” Notice he said explosion instead of plane crash. There may be some hope!

    1. Let’s hope so, Peter.

      I totally understand not finishing the article; the discussion is long but I made the choice not to make it a lot shorter and lose the real sense of the lengths these guys will go to not to respond to questions and to support their position. I would like you to skip to the end of the quoted discussion and read my ending section. I think it’s an important part of the piece.

      1. Oh yes, I did read that part. It summarizes the same old pattern of dismissal and mockery that these people employ. They don`t realize that the burden of proof of the official story is on them.

  18. For the past few years, I have commented on just about every Facebook post I see that has anything to do with 9/11. My comment is nothing more than a link to AE911T. I limit my comments to posts solely from mainstream media outlets, and my initial comment is never anything more than the link (www.ae911truth.org).

    I will almost always get some sort of reply accusing me of being a nutjob conspiracy theorist. The replies are now usually just memes, since people are becoming too lazy to write complete sentences. I usually reply to the conspiracy theorist accusations with a simple question, “What is it about my post that makes me a conspiracy theorist? What conspiracy have I alleged by posting a link to AE911T?” That usually ends the conversation.

    This past 9/11, I did the same thing that I have been doing for years, and I received the same attacks. That part is not unusual. What was unusual is that my replies, on just about every page, were immediately marked as spam and deleted. My initial comment was not marked as spam, only my replies to other people’s comments.

    Here is an example, just to be clear.

    My initial comment: http://www.ae911truth.org (never marked as spam)

    Random reply: Nutjob. Conspiracy theorist. Truther. Etc.

    My comment: What conspiracy have I alleged? (or something similar). This is what would be marked as spam and it would be invisible to everyone but me.

    The problem with this is that it makes it appear that I am not willing to respond to comments, and that could not be further from the truth. Additionally, this has never happened before.

    What frustrated me most was that someone posted a link to an article on metabunk, and my response was instantly marked as spam. I can’t go to metabunk and comment there because Mick West and his nazi moderators delete any comment that goes against their effort to support the official story.

    It’s becoming harder to discuss the truth about 9/11. I am seeing this firsthand, and it makes me more appreciative of people like you who are willing to take the time and spend the money to keep the discussion going.

    Thank you.

  19. What I thought was so interesting is how the conversation never progressed beyond ‘you’re crazy vs demands to address the facts with reason’.

    I don’t think people like that are interested in anything but keeping the conversation shallow and unproductive, never mind debunking anything.

  20. It’s a good article and very typical of many comment sections. And yes, it is frustrating when people won’t listen to logic or think for themselves instead of repeating memes. It matters not what profession they are. The broad brush name calling underscores their inability to deal rationally with the topic. It is a trigger to their deficiency. I suppose it is cognitive dissonance in those who are sincere. Those we hope to enlighten. But plenty are there to shill.

    I decided long ago you cannot change anyone unless they are willing to change. That goes for thinking as well as habits. Common sense isn’t common with all our smart technology. It often matters not how many proofs are presented. Hopefully you do plant some seeds. Or at least land a few splinters where they can’t be ignored.

    Job security and peer pressure is often reason many folks won’t consider investigating controversial theories or truth. We’re told to do our jobs and not make waves. Don’t be a troublemaker. Be a good citizen. Programmed from birth.

    The 911 incident is what woke me up, but it wasn’t until the economy tanked in 2007. Since, it has been a journey down many a rabbit hole. Once you know what they are capable of planning and carrying out, the sky’s the limit. And, truth be told, it really is and many of them know it.

  21. There are countless institutions, whether think tanks, academic establishments, intelligence agencies, or propaganda outlets, etc. who make it their business to follow, analyze, assess and diagnose the behavior patterns of so called “truthers” in order to develop defenses and tactics to counter this relentless barrage of truth bombs coming from the “people”. And, since internet is our medium for fighting deception, all of “our” work and all of our behavioral patterns are publicly available for “them” to observe, and scientifically categorize in order to develop ways and means to combat it all. It’s like a scientist’s wet dream to have access to this much data.

    I don’t mean to state the obvious, but as many of you know so well, every discussion on the subject of the major conspiracies quickly turns into a contentious and bloody cockfight, which, to say the very least, is extremely counterproductive.

    The article Craig posted above, outlines a very familiar dynamic between an open and a closed mind. As many noted here, the exchange Craig shared between himself and this Feldman character is a very painful read. Although quite benign in and of itself, the conversation reminds us of the many conversations each of us must have had over the past many years, that more often than not do not end well. For example, my biggest handicap in these types of “conversations” whether on line, on the street, or at a dinner table, is that no matter how determined I start it all to keep calm and use only facts and reason to argue, no matter how understanding I try to be of the fact that the people I am arguing with are simply conditioned and programmed and therefore are not “bad” or “stupid” people, I end up in a place where I am so frustrated by comments similar to Feldman’s that I start raising my voice, taking shortcuts to slap them with some truth, show them how utterly dumb they are etc. (Kudos to Craig once again for not going there with this douchebag) Needless to say, 99% of my attempts have ultimately failed even after times when I manage to prick some holes in the fabric of their conditioning.

    Therefore, if I may, I’d like to suggest that we return to the subject matter of the article, and start sharing and discussing our experiences in “talking” to people and try to learn from each other instead of quibbling about how they brought down the towers, who was responsible, who knows more about these things, and who has 35 years of experience. (yes professor, I am talking about you… BEHAVE YOURSELF! FOR ONCE!!!)

    Because, there was only one single “hopeful” comment on this page… Which was by fremo.remo when he said:

    YEAH, but every so often, you break through !>>

    Thank you, fremo.remo!

    His full comment here

    1. “There are countless institutions, whether think tanks, academic establishments, intelligence agencies, or propaganda outlets, etc. who make it their business to follow, analyze, assess and diagnose the behavior patterns of so called “truthers” in order to develop defenses and tactics to counter this relentless barrage of truth bombs coming from the “people”. And, since internet is our medium for fighting deception, all of “our” work and all of our behavioral patterns are publicly available for “them” to observe, and scientifically categorize in order to develop ways and means to combat it all. It’s like a scientist’s wet dream to have access to this much data.”

      They willingly do so knowing the ultimate goal is to facilitate large scale systematic violence and genocide. There is no reasonable peaceful solution. You cannot negotiate with them.

      They are the enemy and need to all be identified, hunted and killed.

      1. They are the enemy and need to all be identified, hunted and killed. ~ EverStem13

        This approach is very unrealistic, EverStem13… “They” have money, science, arms, organization and, motivation… While the only thing we have is numbers… Until the recognition of their scheme hits a critical mass in the public and we nullify their plans by removing ourselves from the game, your suggestion has no legs.

        But, you are right about one angle… You know the old saying “Rome offers you war or peace… It cares not which one you choose”. Their goal being the implementation of an iron handed world order preferably to a greatly reduced world population, any armed confrontation plays into their hands. In other words, it suits “them” just fine if we remain as lethargic as we are right now, or choose to put up a fight for it and go into armed and violent. In either scenario, we’d be playing the game they have set up for us. I still feel the only way out of the game is to simply start playing it and being a part of it.

        Once again, I was attempting to resuscitate the conversation about Craig’s article above, and how to talk to people who resist truth and reality. Not the professionally, politically or ideologically charged people whose job is to shoot down truth at any cost, but the real people arounds us like friends, family, neighbor, etc. I understand you might feel “talking” is futile.. Which, to be honest, I find it contradicting with your painful attempts on another thread here to share the truth you claim to have come to know.

        1. “This approach is very unrealistic, EverStem13… “They” have money, science, arms, organization and, motivation… While the only thing we have is numbers… Until the recognition of their scheme hits a critical mass in the public and we nullify their plans by removing ourselves from the game, your suggestion has no legs.”

          They have money, science, arms, organization and, motivation. The truth movement has numbers, money, science, arms, organization and motivation, numbers and righteousness. …and ineffective inefficient strategy. So change the strategy.

          “But, you are right about one angle… You know the old saying “Rome offers you war or peace… It cares not which one you choose”. Their goal being the implementation of an iron handed world order preferably to a greatly reduced world population, any armed confrontation plays into their hands. In other words, it suits “them” just fine if we remain as lethargic as we are right now, or choose to put up a fight for it and go into armed and violent. In either scenario, we’d be playing the game they have set up for us. I still feel the only way out of the game is to simply start playing it and being a part of it.”

          Destroy the game.

          “Once again, I was attempting to resuscitate the conversation about Craig’s article above, and how to talk to people who resist truth and reality. Not the professionally, politically or ideologically charged people whose job is to shoot down truth at any cost, but the real people arounds us like friends, family, neighbor, etc. I understand you might feel “talking” is futile..”

          It is in many respects. People are egotistical, selfish, and stupid, even the most intelligent. They would rather rationalize accepting violence upon themselves and others than admit fault. Their ego is more valuable than life, truth, peace or whatever is righteous.

          The basic thought process is this; I am an American who has my ego firmly attached to this culture and system of social organization. To recognize fault and oppose it is to oppose my identity and way of life. Therefore it must always be right because my identity and ego are too important to be at fault.

          “Which, to be honest, I find it contradicting with your painful attempts on another thread here to share the truth you claim to have come to know.”

          What you see as a contradiction is me weighing ethics, trying to do the right thing. While I reach out to others, I also hunt stalkers with intent to kill and collect.

          My reasoning is this; They are a threat to my welfare and being. They violate me and cost me everything I cannot do with stalkers present. I believe I have even survived at least two assassination attempts by family. I am open about this and have given every opportunity to do the right thing and repent or be honest. They know the difference and do their evil willingly, with no apparent signs of stopping or paying restitution. Therefore the right to defense by whatever means applies. I own them.

          Because I view the use of force as something to reserve as a last resort, I attempt other means of resolution. When/if all else fails, I am going to kill them and/or take whatever I want from them.

          Truth I claim to know is not BS. It is the critical mass you are looking for. It connects a lot of things together. I told you that it was about myself a childhood friend and her mother(and our family/friends). What I don’t tell you is how it is all connected or what to, partly because I am still trying to figure a lot of it out myself (it’s big). Doing so has consequences no matter what. I am trying to minimize them by being careful, by enlisting the help of others.

          I really am sitting on something valuable, and I really do need assistance.

  22. “There are countless institutions, whether think tanks, academic establishments, intelligence agencies, or propaganda outlets, etc. who make it their business to follow, analyze, assess and diagnose the behavior patterns of so called “truthers” in order to develop defenses and tactics to counter this relentless barrage of truth bombs coming from the “people”. And, since internet is our medium for fighting deception, all of “our” work and all of our behavioral patterns are publicly available for “them” to observe, and scientifically categorize in order to develop ways and means to combat it all. It’s like a scientist’s wet dream to have access to this much data.”

    It may be worse than you think. I suspect this guy;

    ht tp://www.kreindler.com/Attorneys/James-P-Kreindler.shtml

    …is nothing but a tool to keep things under control against people like this guy;

    ht tp://twiceasfar.ca/

    And see this article;

    https://28pages.org/2017/07/13/the-saudi-agents-next-door-americans-who-cashed-in-on-campaign-to-stop-911-trial/

    Coincidentally, at least one of them is a close neighbor to 9/11/41 …who, coincidentally grew up in an area where a lot of Saudi royals own property and hang out. She was also raised by a preacher and Sunday school teacher who have a lot of connections to the Southern Baptist Convention, who happen to be closely associated(Graham) with the Bush family, who happen to be friends with a bunch of Saudi royals.

    I wonder if that has anything to do with the convenience of a Bonesman replacing Comey as FBI director.

    ht tps://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_23/2028566/170607-christopher-wray-mn-0940_67759a7998d29270d9a41b13c5eacb25.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg

    …and I am suspicious of our resident Dr. Fetzer as well, for reasons I have yet to discuss.

    1. WOW! Here I was reading this with fascinating and anticipating that I would comment how much I am impressed–even to discover that an obscure figure working against JASTA resides in the village south of Madison where I live–only to read the final sentence expressing suspicion of me!

      Egad! What in the world could have led you in this direction? And are you familiar with my work–which is collaborative with other experts in areas where I am not–on JFK, 9/11, Wellstone, the Boston bombing, Sandy Hook and other events such as Charlottesville? I can wait to read more.

      1. Reviewing the entire thread, I see this guy doubts what I have said about the assassination of Paul Wellstone, the mode of taking down the plane and the destruction of the fuselage. My work on Wellstone, where I was residing in Duluth, MN, just 60 miles south of the crash location, was done with many witnesses but in collaboration with Don “Four Arrows” Jacobs, who was then on the faculty at Northern Arizona University, and John P. Costella, Ph.D., with specialization in the area of electromagnetism, who did brilliant work detecting features of the extant version of the Zapruder film, where you can find his tutorial at assassinationscience.com, which was my first web site, and assassinationresearch.com, an on-line journal for advanced study of the death of JFK. Since snowshoe films has done so much on Wellstone, I want to share it with everyone:

      2. Above, you accused me of being ignorant of the situation. While that may be true in regard to many of the details associated with the Wellstone incident, while you are touting your experience with JFK, 9/11, and the Wellstones, I am seeing a few underlying layers to it all and how it is connected.

        Have you ever considered that I may know some things that you don’t?

        Read my above reasoning again and see if you can identify what I am subtly implying. ( shhhh )

        I have heard that painted on incendiary nonsense before, by others and pertaining to other similar such things, and in addition to what looks like time travelers trying to make me look guilty of things that I am not. And when/if you see how I fit into all of this, it will make sense to you why I have suspicions.

        You are basically subtly implying I am involved or guilty of killing the Wellstones, when, if anything, I have a certain social obligation to look out for them. …as well as an alibi. I didn’t even know who they were until recent years.

        1. If you think I have any reason to suspect you of involvement in the death of Paul Wellstone, you are simply deluded. I explain that it appears to have been a small conspiracy, where I name the participants: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Karl Rove; and that Raytheon, which owns the company that makes the King Air A-100, also has patents for EM devices that would have been suitable for taking it down. So unless you are Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rove, I do not suspect you.

          I am, however, beginning to suspect that you are not as smart as you think you are. I welcome your criticism of me and my research, because it promises to be a severe test. I have already been thinking of inviting you onto “The Raw Deal” to explain why you have doubts about me. But so far I can see nothing but skepticism about how the Wellstone plane’s fuselage was destroyed, where I agree there is room for debate. So, if you think that you have my number, GO FOR IT!

          1. I am not outright accusing you of anything, doctor, but simply a little suspicious, that’s all.

            There are certain aspects, mentioned above, that are inconsistent with an assassination. And I’ve recently discovered things to suggest that my social obligation toward their family is also shared by the Bush family.

            Consider this; People look guilty knowing they are in no way shape or form as such, so that people like you waste your time chasing false leads to do the impossible of demonstrating their guilt.

            1. You’ve got to be kidding! THE BUSH FAMILY? Egad! Dick Cheney PERSONALLY threatened Paul with, “If you oppose us on Iraq, there will be severe ramifications for you personally and for the state of Minnesota”! Didn’t you watch these videos? And you think you are in good company with the Bush family, where Bush and Cheney brought us 9/11? I am dumbfounded. Lay out all your suspicions for the world to see. You seem to have been rather thoroughly played. Unreal!

              1. I am still piecing things together and confirming, but yes. And ramifications could mean a lot of things.

                I am not interested in a pissing contest with you, Dr. I am simply challenging some of your reasoning and introducing the notion that things may not be as thy appear.

                1. Egad! All my (collaborative) research shows that “things are not as they appear” with regard to JFK, 9/11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing and now Charlottesville, not to mention the moon landing. If you don’t want to engaged in a pissing contest, then stop pissing on me. I don’t take kindly to it, where you don’t seem to have anything to back it up. If you think there’s something wrong with me, SPELL IT OUT. If I am a fraud, THE WORLD DESERVES TO KNOW.

                  1. I am simply trying to be reasonable as a standard to define truth.

                    It is all about truth with me, as anything developed from a false faulty or incomplete premise will always inevitably produce something that is false faulty or incomplete.

                    Generally speaking, problem solving is about taking a set of confirmed facts and piecing them together with logic to determine a solution. What I have seen from your presentations is very well researched, thought out and reasonable. And I give you extra credit for thinking outside the box. Status quot is almost synonymous with inhibition.

                    What do you do with new information that conflicts with or questions the puzzle you have already pieced together? Reassess and reconfigure.

                    I see something else. I am not sure what exactly. But it calls your answers into question. You have already demonstrated very well that there is something very abnormal about the whole incident. What exactly is still not definitively answered.

                    I try to look at it from each individual perspective as best that I can. When I do that trying to see an assassin’s perspective, it doesn’t make sense.

                    1. Well, the basic principle of scientific reasoning is known as “inference to the best explanation”: which hypothesis, were it true, would confer the higher probability upon the available evidence? An introduction to the application of this approach may be found in “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories’: 9/11 and JFK”, http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/fetzerexpandedx.pdf which appeared in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY: THE SCAMMING OF AMERICA (2007), with eleven (11) contributors, including David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, John McMurtry, Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds.

                      The NTSB considered three possible explanations of what had caused the plane to crash: (1) the weather, (2) the plane and (3) the pilots. It turned out that the weather–although reported to have been bad over CNN by Wolf Blitzer, was fine for that time of year; that the plane, a King Air A-100, akin to the Rolls Royce of small aircraft, was in excellent condition; which left the pilots, who were actually highly qualified, where the primary had 5,200 hours of flight time and held the highest civilian rating below Astronaut as an Air Transport Pilot. There was nothing suspicious.

                      Other pilots had flown into the user-friendly Evelyth-Virginia Airport earlier that morning and had encountered no problems. The NTSB was subsequently forced to conclude it had been a case of pilot error, but one member admitted they had “no idea” what had happened. That might have changed had they considered that the plane was off course, that no distress message had been sent, that the fuselage had burned intensely for seven hours and could not be put out, that the engines were set on below idle and that (it turned out) the GPS system had been manipulated.

                      There were multiple indications that some kind of electro-magnetic device had been used, which included that garage doors were found open (even though their owners had not opened them), an odd cell phone anomaly in the vicinity of the area where the plane came down, and that the cessation of communications appeared to be concurrent with the lost of control of the airplane. Ask yourself, what is the probability of the totality of the evidence if this had been an accident vs. a deliberate assassination–which was compounded by a white van observed fleeing the scene?

                      What bothers me about your pursuit of this case is that my co-author, Don “Four Arrows” Jacobs and and I lay it out in AMERICAN ASSASSINATION: THE STRANGE DEATH OF SENATOR PAUL WELLSTONE (2004), lay it out in detail. And I systematically apply inference to the best explanation to the available evidence, which leaves no doubt about what happened here, where the combination of motive, means and opportunity are nailed down explicitly and thoroughly. For more, read the four reviews of the book included by Michael Ruppert when he published “The NTSB Failed Wellstone” in FTW, http://fromthewilderness.net/free/ww3/070605_wellstone.shtml.

                    2. “what is the probability of the totality of the evidence if this had been an accident vs. a deliberate assassination”

                      I don’t dispute that. I dispute your theory that it was painted incendiary and an EMP weapon. That doesn’t make sense to me when considering things from the assassin’s perspective.

                      Planting enough magnesium to trigger by remote demand and burn an airplane at 3000 degrees for 7 hours, after it crashes, takes more time and effort than it is worth to an assassin, not only because it is risky, but also unnecessary. It is counter-intuitive of an assassin’s objectives.

                      A small electronic device with a radio receiver and a simple mechanical lever combined with a battery, fuse, and grenade sized strategically located incendiary or explosive, is adequate for dropping a plane from the sky and killing everyone. It can be made from every day common items. A few minutes of undetected unrecorded undisturbed access to the aircraft is your goal. Detonation would be when most vulnerable, like mid-flight at their highest elevation. If the explosion or loss of control does not kill them, the impact from the fall does.

                      If you are going to plant enough magnesium to burn a plane for 7 hours, why not use less time and effort to plant an explosive that would either take out a key component of flight, or powerful enough as to be sure to rip it and the occupants apart in mid-air, …or at least set it on fire in mid flight?

                    3. This is embarrassing. THEY WANTED IT TO LOOK LIKE AN ACCIDENT. They took the plane out using a technique they thought no one would be able to figure out. But we figured it out. You are not serious about this, because the evidence that this was how it was done is overwhelming. You seem to want me to waste my time responding to questions for which answers have already been given. If they had not completely destroyed the fuselage–and look at the photos with “The NTSB Failed Wellstone” and you will see how thoroughly it was done–the method used would have been discoverable. They could not leave any computerized systems available. You must be faking a lack of understanding. Your absence of sincerity ought to be obvious to everyone.

                    4. I understand your point just fine. But what you’re positing is like going to California on your way to Florida from New York. Unless necessary by extenuating circumstances, it’s counter-intuitive to your goal.

                      Why would an assassin do it that way or even need to make it look like an accident?

                      Is it possible that the control console or other areas of the plane contained alloys that would mimic a magnesium fire, and the alleged assassin used an EMP weapon without anything being placed on the plane?

                      Is it possible that there was no EMP weapon, but rather something else that would explain the electronic anomalies?

                    5. And that would cause garage doors to open and cell phone anomalies, while explaining the loss of communication, the absence of any distress call, the manipulation of the GPS to bring the plane into the kill zone, the white van observed departing the scene at high speed? Why are you here grasping after straws? There is no merit to your arguments. You are either ignoring all the evidence or attempting to suppress the truth. There is no serious doubt about what happened.

                    6. “And that would cause garage doors to open and cell phone anomalies, while explaining the loss of communication, the absence of any distress call, the manipulation of the GPS to bring the plane into the kill zone, the white van observed departing the scene at high speed? Why are you here grasping after straws? There is no merit to your arguments. You are either ignoring all the evidence or attempting to suppress the truth. There is no serious doubt about what happened.”

                      There are a number of things that could interfere with electronics, anything that interferes with a radio signal that they are dependent. An EMP is one things and not necessarily from a weapon.

                      Again, try to look at it as if you are an assassin trying to kill a senator, consider my above points. Your hypothesis is too complicated and risky and redundant, unnecessary, etc.

                      Consider this;

                      What if the assassination was via incendiary charge in the planes control console, a fuse of sorts that would not only make it uncontrollable, but also ignite the front section of the aircraft containing various substances to produce a 7 hour fire engulfing the whole plane.

                      In order to detonate it in flight, the plane, containing the receiver/detonator, would have to be within transmission range of of the trigger device. Dealing with a plane requires greater distances, thus the need for a van with a transmitter that would reach up to however many(?10-100?) miles necessary to intercept a plane on it’s path. Ideally, if you know where it’s going, all you’d need to do is get within a few miles of the airport and wait for it to come to you.

                    7. This post demonstrates CONCLUSIVELY that you have done no research on Wellstone and are here to muddy the water about the crash that took his life. The plane was coming in for a landing at the Evelyth-Virginia Airport and was at a low altitude. Talking about “10-100″ miles” reveals that you are a fraud. The GPS was manipulated to get the plane into the kill zone an altitude of a few hundred feet. Your frantic efforts to find SOME KIND OF ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION when the evidence fits together precisely as I’ve explained and documented with my one-hour, “The Senator Paul Wellstone Assassination” and snowshoe films two hours of interviews with witnesses, “WELLSTONE: They Killed Him”, not to mention my co-authored book AMERICAN ASSASSINATION (2004) and co-authored article “The NTSB Failed Wellstone” demonstrate beyond any doubt that you are either incompetent or corrupt. No one familiar with the contents of this thread could draw any other conclusion. Spare us! Take your bullshit somewhere else.

                    8. Dr. Fetzer,

                      Why would an assassin need GPS to bring them into a kill zone if the pilot is already taking them to an airport where the plane can be intercepted? Why would an assassin need all that complication when they can sit with a transmitter near any airport with the plane leaving or arriving?

                      And why would an assassin wait until the plane was down before setting off the charges?

                      Why THAT particular method of assassination? It seems there would be another method that would be equally or more feasible.

  23. http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2017/09/michael-rivero-blows-his-cover-as-911.html

    Rivero attacks me about mini-nukes in New York,

    the use of holograms, no plane at the Pentagon

    and denying that we went to the moon. Here’s an

    outline of key points to make in 9/11 arguments:

    (1) Were real planes used in New York on 9/11?

    impossible speed

    impossible entry

    absence of collision effects

    John Lear vs. Field McConnell

    no debris beneath the facades

    planted engine at Church & Murray

    landing gear wedged between buildings

    CGI vs. video compositing vs. holograms

    AU military manual: airborne holographic projector

    James Perloff, “Conversations with an Airline Pilot about 9/11”

    (2) How were the Twin Towers demolished?

    comparison with WTC-7: bona fide collapse

    blowing apart in every direction from the top/down

    conversion into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust

    no massive pile of debris (@12% = 13.5 floors) in their footprint

    1,116 bodies were never recovered (were completely vaporized)

    molten metal beneath the WTC that lasted until 1 December 2001

    US Geological Survey studies of dust samples taken from 35 locations

    medical maladies of first responders and local residents from ionizing radiation

    (3) What happened at the Pentagon?

    frame labeled “plane” is too small to be 757

    impossible trajectory w/regard to altitude and speed

    no debris at the hit point: no bodies, seats, luggage, wings, tail

    debris only shows up later following collapse of section 45-minutes later

    Jamie McIntryre of CNN on the scene reported no signs of a plane anywhere

    includes a piece of a 757 that has been tracked back to a crash near Cali in 1995

    2-hour interview with Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, YouTube has suppressed

    plane did fly toward the Pentagon and then swerved over it (Norman Mineta)

    (4) Did we go to the moon?

    lacked the propulsion power

    lacked the computing power

    lacked the communication ability

    photographic anomalies (a la Jack White)

    “Conspiracy Theory: Did we land on the Moon?”

    “The Great Moon Landing Hoax” with Dennis Cimino

    “The Real Deal: The Moon Landing Hoax” with Dennis Cimino

    NASA admits the problem going to Mars is the Van Allen Radiation Belt

    Found 100s of hours of moon landing footage and NASA destroyed it

    Help NASA with its “space poop” problem (only 14 hours vs. 8 days)

    Materials used have melting points too low to make it into outer space

    “NASA admits we have never gone to the moon” (new video study)

    The latest proof comes from the temperatures that the spacecraft would have had to endure, had we gone to the moon. In “NASA admits we never went to the moon” on forbiddenknowledgetv.net (21 September 2017), we learn that the melting points of the materials of which it was made—aluminum alloy, stainless steel, titanium, nickel steel allo7, and heat resistant glass. But their melting points would have been exceeded in passing through the Thermosphere en route to the moon. A spacecraft made of these materials would have melted in flight.

    Temperatures in the Thermosphere up to 400 miles above Earth’s surface which can reach from 932*F to 3632*F, for example, which exceeds the melting points of the materials of which the spacecraft is made:

    aluminum alloy = 671*F;
    stainless steel = 2750*F;
    titanium = 3034*F;
    nickel steel alloy = 2647*F;
    heat resistant glass = 1400*F.

    Unless those melting points are greater than 3632*F, we cannot have gone to the moon in spacecraft made of them.

    1. Of course we did not go to the moon.
      There is no outer space.
      There’s a dome over the entire earth.
      We even tried nuking it: Operation Fishbowl.

      They lie to us about everything. Nasa was made up of nazis brought over through Operation Paperclip.

      Today’s optics can easily see that the stars and ‘planets’ are NOT what science tells us they are.

      Hollywood is responsible for selling us the moon landing and much of 911.

      Like Nixon said, “The American people don’t believe anything until they see it on television.”

    2. How is this related to anything here, and how does it help with the issue of “talking to brainwashed people”??? Do you feel people like Feldman are interested in data points like the melting point of materials used? Or, would your bringing up the nukes and moon landing once again using Rivero as an excuse more likely to invite a flat earth reply like the one right above mine? Do you believe the earth is flat, prof?

      Would it be appropriate or productive if I posted a comment on this page about how the Virgin Mary was not a virgin, and that it was all a conspiracy, and we all start talking about the bible and the melting point of the hymen?

      1. The answer ought to be obvious to one of your intellectual abilities. Rivero is a 9/11 gatekeeper. If you don’t know the evidence, you could easily be played by his contentions that anyone (such as me) who suggests that holograms were used in New York or that the Twin Towers were taken down by mini or micro nukes–not to mention that no plane hit the Pentagon–is “kookifhing” the 9/11 Truth movement. Our principal problem is those who are promoting false information about 9/11 to manipulate the public. They need to know the evidence to cope with case like this one.

        1. I would identify our “principal problem” as trying to convince people of the simple but extremely painful notion that their own governments (mis)leaders and institutions could, would, and often do engage in acts that kill their own presidents as well as citizens, start wars, pass draconian laws directed at their own citizens, kill millions for money and resources, and that they are capable of covering it up for decades if not forever. It is only once this impenetrable psychological and spiritual shield is punctured that you can start putting in data points in there to enlarge that hole. Not by throwing a truckload of conspiracies and related facts at them and tell them “nothing you believe is true, you are an ignorant idiot”, which seems to be your style.

          Since these people’s self and national identities, opinions and views are based on falsehoods and deception, they will have to dig deep into their soul to revisit and reconsider every aspect of their own minds, beliefs and priorities. If that mountain is to be climbed, it will have to be of their own volition… You can’t just push them up all the way. Or bully them into climbing, which, once again, seems to be your style. Screaming “there is no God” in a crowded church will not yield any defectors.

          You assume the positions of a preacher and a scholar/researcher simultaneously. I imagine you’d disagree, but these two positions are not reconcilable, as each position casts a shadow onto the other.

          1. Yes, I agree that cognitive dissonance–the tendency to suppress, reject or ignore information that conflicts with one’s core beliefs, in this case, that the government is there to protect and to nourish us–poses the major problem with the public. But WITHIN the 9/11 research community, the problem is that too many are seeking to mislead others about the facts of the 9/11 events.

            If we can straighten out the insiders by exposing them for phonies and shills, then reaching the public becomes immeasurably easier. That is why I was obligated to expose Michael Rivero as a 9/11 gatekeeper, insofar as many in his audience regard him as reliable about the facts of 9/11. Which is why I have outlined the available evidence that exposes his claims as disinformation.

              1. The alternative range of possible perps is thereby dramatically reduced. Obviously, 19 Islamic terrorists did not nuke the Twin Towers. Neither could that have been done by the Palestinians, where the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine was the first organization reported to have claimed responsibility between the destruction of the South Tower and that of the North. It reduces the prospects to countries with nuclear weapons, where intel analysts concluded long since that only two intel agencies in the world could have pulled it off: the CIA and the Mossad. On 9/11, they were working in collaboration. Having been done that way is a major key to 9/11.

              2. Captivescientist, I really think your question is the smartest words said in this thread.

                The issue of the burden of proof has shackled the truth seekers for decades. This preposterous notion that private citizens, with no access to real data or evidence, with no power to subpoena witnesses, with no resources, no organized institutions, under assault by a vast army of propaganda and perception management operatives, are required to prove beyond reasonable doubt how exactly these towers came down is, in my opinion, the biggest trick played on the so-called truth movement. And this obsession with figuring out how the magic trick was done has wasted, and continues to waste many valuable minds and much valuable time, and has caused and continues to cause great division and outright hostilities between factions.

                While all we ever had to prove was that these three structures all could not have collapsed due to planes crashing into them or office fires, and that meant the official 19HJ story was not true.

                1. The truth movement is thinking in terms of using truth to assign responsibility, accountability and punishment, hence the need for definitive and precise truths and courts or hearings.

                  In a general sense, the truth is already apparent. Whether it be A B or C and persons X Y and Z, the entirety of what humanity knows of 9/11 truth is enough to identify and correct the way we manage our world.

                  Forget trying to get government approval of truth or to admit it facilitates large scale systematic violence. Look at it as an example, a wake up call, a reason WHY to stop facilitating any situation that results with such issues.

                2. ”The issue of the burden of proof has shackled the truth seekers for decades. This preposterous notion that private citizens, with no access to real data or evidence, with no power to subpoena witnesses, with no resources, no organized institutions, under assault by a vast army of propaganda and perception management operatives, are required to prove beyond reasonable doubt how exactly these towers came down is, in my opinion, the biggest trick played on the so-called truth movement.”

                  Well put David. It would be like if you were accused of murder, proved in court that the charges were false, and then were required to prove who dunnit.

                  1. And what is especially troubling is when people inside the Truth Movement demand that those who question something in the official story (like a plane impact at the Pentagon) take on the burden of proof.

              3. It does matter. And we should have a real investigation. I think we can ALL agree that the intent was to cover up any truth and to feed us a line of prepackaged crap. It gave them their ‘new Pearl Harbor’ they needed to begin their aggressive wars in the middle east and excuse to clamp down on our freedoms. And who were the biggest benefactors?

                The following are my observations that point to more than standard grade explosives:

                Steel beams ejected vertically with enough force to embed in adjacent buildings
                Vaporization of solid materials
                Molten steel with pockets still smoldering for months after the event
                Molten rock and craters at the base of the buildings
                Pyroclastic clouds
                Prolific cancers among first responders

                I am one of those people who has need to figure out the how of things and always have been. A good investigator would need to visit the means and method in addition to opportunity and motive.

                The method greatly narrows the field of suspects and totally annihilates the official narrative.

                So, though it appears divisive to discuss method, it is nonetheless a valid debate. The fact that we have no power to bring those responsible to justice is more a problem with our system of governance than it is non unity of thought among truth seekers.

                1. The question is not really whether or not we want to or need to know the hows and the who’s… I am sure most of us would love (and demand) to know exactly what happened. But, there is already a mountain of evidence that the cover up investigation and report is simply full of falsehoods, and conclusions based on those falsehoods.

                  My best guess would be that there will indeed be some sort of a reinvestigation within the next 15 years, similar to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and there will still be no indictments, no legal proceedings, but more tainted or manufactured evidence. By then, a vast majority of the perpetrators, witnesses, and sadly even some the investigators will be dead. If the assassination committee is any example, they will then set an even further date for documents to be released (40 or more years from date of event… JFK docs are due for release next month after 54years)

                  And, all this, provided that the world is not turned into a hellhole with a new, hot ww3, which seems very probable the way things are going, during and after which September 11 and the burning question of how exactly the towers were destroyed will be the least of our concerns.

                  1. How can we know there was a cover up if we don’t know what really happened? The HSCA did a piss-poor job of reinvestigating the death of JFK (leaving MLK to one side), where for example the fist-sized blow-out at the back of the head had been turned into a missing back of the head by James Humes using a cranial saw, but now became a small wound of entry at the top of the head–with no explanation of the massive discrepancy between the three descriptions, where we know that the Parkland physicians got it right and that the X-rays were “patched” to conceal it.

                    To abandon the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is an abdication of our obligations to the pursuit of 9/11 Truth. We have ample and abundant proof that no Boeing 757 crashed in Shankesville, that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, that two of the planes–Flights 11 and 77–were no even in the air that day and that the planes seen in New York were images, not real Boeing 767s. We have proof that WTC-7 was brought down in a classic controlled demolition and that the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini/micro nukes.

                    Why stop there? 19 Islamic terrorists were obviously not involved. Only two intel agencies in the world could have pulled it off–the CIA and the Mossad–on 9/11, they were working together. We know the role of PNAC and its dual-citizens, most of whom were brought into the DOD by Bush and Cheney. We know Cheney was the executive direction and that the 9/11 Commission was used, like the Warren Commission before it, to cover it up. We know it was arranged to draw the US into endless wars on behalf of Israel. The proof is ample and abundant. DON’T STOP NOW!

                    1. How can we know there was a cover up if we don’t know what really happened?

                      Both in the immediate aftermath and for years to come, the cover up not by what “they” did, but what they didn’t do, what they didn’t investigate, and what they lied about (the easily demonstrable ones)

                      For example, there is absolutely no doubt that there were various size explosions going on in all three buildings. I don’t need to know what exactly these explosions were, what chemical or explosive was used to set them off, or how exactly any of these explosions affected the weakening of the structure. The fact that they never investigated any of it is a proof of a cover up.

                      There’s absolutely no need to know how exactly the magician made his assistant disappear, to know that the assistant is live and well, and that this is all a trick… Especially when you observe the magician not worried about the disappearance, not looking for the assistant, and using the same assistant sun the next show. We certainly do not have to expose exactly how the trick was done in a court of law, or quibble day and night with other magic-truthers about the trick’s mechanics.

                      Even then, professor, history and world affairs are not processes that operate like a court of law. It’s one thing if we simply couldn’t solve the crime, and the world kept turning as it used to, it’s a whole other having had a chance to observe 16 years of cover up, obfuscation, and how they have chosen to use the incident as an excuse to wreak havoc in the middle east and the entire world, and kill millions of people. “they” didn’t have to prove Tonkin to kill millions, didn’t have to prove PanAm103 to bomb Libya, or Sandy Hook to pass laws.

                      I simply do not feel it makes an ounce of a difference whether towers were nuked, or if the Israeli art students loosened each bolt and each rivet with a swiss army knife, or if the big bad wolf huffed and puffed and blew the buildings in.

                      But, by all means, you can continue to push your “theories”, fight with people who disagree, call them imbeciles and shills.. The truth is, you don’t have an ounce of proof or evidence showing a a mini-nuke went off… Yours, like others’ are all theories.

                    2. It is the second time on this page that you expect me to be “embarrassed”, Fetzer!!!! … And I am not!!!! There you have it… I am not embarrassed to say that you may be a PROF but you have have no PROOF… And I feel absolutely no shame for saying so….

                      You, as well as the people whose theories you support, do not have scientific and objective measurements, you do not have access to material evidence… All the points you keep repeating in favor of your claim have been refuted by real scientists and engineers (some of whom have done so on this very page) and you certainly do not have PROOF! You have a hypothesis… And similar to every other reasonable hypothesis, unless for some reason or another the government grants access to data, info and evidence (as if…) it shall always remain as such; a hypothesis.

                      Lucky for you, I do not require proof? As I have expressed many times, and I will say it again, although I would enthusiastically welcome such knowledge, I do not give a shit about the physics of the demolition!!! And I still feel that the self-imposed prerequisite of “proving” how they did it is like poison, and has prevented millions of people (truthers) who have long shared the common knowledge that it was not the hijackers nor the planes to come together in a unified movement!!!

                      In the past 16 years, we have not even managed to obtain footage of any one of the some hundred cameras directed at the pentagon that day, and we are talking about how to prove there was a cover up and/or a deception????? Where is the outcry for that? How come, as a “scholar and a researcher” you are not harping on that for years and years, comment after comment, video after video, insult after insult, fight after fight????? So, Let me ask you, then… Are you embarrassed?

                      The crime that we call 9/11 neither began nor ended with the destruction of the buildings and the planes… It is ongoing, and even larger crimes, including crimes against humanity, are being added to it on a daily basis by the same forces who murdered the president in Dallas while we argue, and argue, and argue, and argue….. You say you have long solved the entire JFK conspiracy… How is that working out for you, professor… ??? But, more importantly, how is that working out for US???

                      PS. I am openly begging you, professor!!! Please do not post another nuke video or any other video and your “outline” as a reply to my comments… And stop it with your condescending bullshit!!!!!

                    3. I was very clear that there were to be no more references to nukes on this thread. And yet here is another. LAST WARNING. The response from David will be allowed to stay and anything else that so much as mentions this topic will be removed, and the person mentioning it risks having their posting privileges suspended. This is not censorship, it is me exorcising my right to set rules for which subjects will be considered off topic.

                      There are an unlimited number of venues for debating this topic, including other blogs, books, articles, podcasts, etc. I am not obligated to host this topic any further. It has been address at enormous length here already. It’s enough.

    3. From a Wikipedia article on the Thermosphere:

      “The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat. A normal thermometer might be significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), at least at night, because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact. In the anacoustic zone above 160 kilometres (99 mi), the density is so low that molecular interactions are too infrequent to permit the transmission of sound.”

      Like you mini-nuke arguments, you may have some facts correct on the surface, but totally out of scale, and you have ignored issues of scale to prop up your false ideas. Please study the physics more deeply. You cannot ignore thermodynamics. Mass and density are important.

        1. There are so many proofs that we didn’t go to the moon that even if this one were flawed, we did not go–it would have been impossible! Review the list of points I have made about it and watch or review the sources I have cited. How could it be that hot and not affect the materials of which the space craft was composed? I have understood heat to be the product of interaction between atoms and molecules, where heat is the total energy of molecular motion in a substance, while temperature is a measure of the average energy of molecular motion. If the temperatures were as advertised, how could those materials survive? Could this claim (about merely feeling warm) be disinformation to defeat an otherwise obvious disproof that we went to the moon? I would be glad to have opinions more expert than my own on this point, which I do find rather fascinating.

      1. Watch one of my presentations, either on The Brian Ruhe Show or The Goldfish Report. Gordon Duff ran a series on the use of nukes on Veterans Today that is also very good. There is more than enough to contradict your minimization of the use of nukes, which is extremely revealing.

  24. Gentlemen, you guys are going too far off topic. This ought not to be about what happened on 9/11. Craig was trying to focus attention on why it is so difficult to get people to believe something when their salary depends on them not believing it. As he demonstrated, merely repeating evidence that did not convince everyone years ago is not going to cause a different outcome today. Jim Fetzer’s arguments have been given ample exposure and discussing them here detracts from getting to Craig’s issue. Anyone who comes here and reads this far down does not need more proof of what happened on 9/11.

    Honest question: Can anyone think of a “sound bite” that will motivate a non-believer to devote weeks and months of effort to researching something they can dismiss immediately because (1) it is not confirmed in the daily media, (2) it is too complicated for the government to pull it off undetected, and (3) someone would have talked and the media would have reported and investigated it. Also, it has to be short enough to fit into the attention span of a gnat, or more accurately a tweet reader.

    1. I have had some success with this looping “boomerang” GIF I had made some years ago, which showed WTC7 collapsing, and rising back up (in reverse)… 90 percent of people I showed it to did not recognize the building, let alone know that it was part of the greater 9/11 event. But, in my experience, it did at least yield a confused puppy look on their faces.

      The reaction I would get was usually very similar to that of Danny Jowenko when he was first shown the collapse of WTTC7. Even in the absence of Jowenko’s demolition expertise, most people found the visual surreal and unrealistic for a “collapse”. I think having a chance to see it repeatedly on this infinite-loop GIF also helped them to have a better handle of what was going on, as opposed to a simple video showing the collapse.

      As it was mentioned earlier on this page, this served simply as a prick in the fabric of their programming/brainwashing, and it certainly requires a lot of further pulling and pushing to tear that fabric apart.

      1. So what is your “success” rate? Of the people who were “pricked” how many do you think did enough reading to change their minds about what happened? I like the GIF gimmick.

        1. So few and far between… Unless one continues to work on and with them until a lasting nugget of curiosity is formed, it is really difficult to even know where they went with it in their minds once the encounter was over.

          My best guesstimate would be that, over that past 15 years, I have managed push 10-15 people to start doing their research to find out the obvious. And perhaps a hundred or so people whom I could convince that the 19 hijacker story was untrue, but they wouldn’t cross the “inside job” red line. As for the GIF specifically… It isn’t like magic red pill, but more of a conversation starter, curiosity inducer, kinda thing.

          Not a great track record. I am by no means militant about it, and have had to usually stay within socially acceptable levels… Over the years, I have managed to improve my ability to stay calm and collected, not insult, not make people feel stupid, and try, as best as I can, to determine how much load the person can handle and not dish out too much. I find the most difficult types to be exactly like this Feldman character, who have been to a few debunking websites, perhaps watched a Discovery channel or Popular Mechanics bullcrap, and feel they are equipped with the “truth” from above and go down all of the classic official narrative talking points, and it gets tedious. I’ve learned to just let these types be and let them stew in their own poop. (although, I must admit, if there is an audience to this tedious conversation, it is a sheer pleasure to make them look stupid and ignorant.)

          While we are on the subject… The 9/11 world is now full of documentaries, short and long videos, documents that range from tinfoil hat all the way to peer reviewed scientific papers. So, when an inquiring mind decides to stop watching the shadows on the wall and stick his neck out of the cave, the person is bombarded with the loudest and most visible material and 9/11 peddlers out there.. Illuminati, gematria, satanists, flat earthers for 9/11 truth, seed vendors, doom vendors, lizard people watchers, the militant screamers, you name it… In that sense, for a virgin, the “welcome committee” of the “truth” movement is a pretty scary, not very inviting place in my opinion. Not to mention the fact that the louder side of the 9/11 “community” is full of intentional deceivers, operatives, infiltrators, shills, etc. to make it even more scary, which causes me to be extremely picky about what I recommend to read or watch or research. After all, I wouldn’t want this virgin to go to a page to read a great article about the difficulties of communicating to closed minds, but immediately find themselves face to face with mini nuke theories, Sandy Hook theories and even the Moon “hoax”, the supernatural, This combo, instead of serving as a red pill, becomes more a dildo-sized red suppository that most virgins would shy away from.

          1. This reveals your role here is not to support 9/11 Truth but to undermine it. Show us examples of “tinfoil hat” 9/11 theories APART FROM those from some of us who ALSO UNDERSTAND, as you apparently do not. that Sandy Hook was a hoax and that we never went to the moon. If you can’t do better than that–attempt to smear me on the basis of ignorance about Sandy Hook and the moon landing hoax–then it will be obvious to everyone here that you are complete phony.

            Since I have cited sources on the moon landing hoax already, for those who are not abreast of current research on Sandy Hook, check out some of the following, which leave no doubt about it:

            “Sandy Hook: Megyn Kelly and NBC perpetrate a Fraud on the Public” (21 June 2017)
            http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2017/06/sandy-hook-megyn-kelly-and-nbc.html

            “Sandy Hook: Neil Heslin CONTRADICTS official Sandy Hook Narrative” (22 June 2017)
            http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2017/06/sandy-hook-neil-heslin-contradicts.html

            “Where were the Sandy Hook children in the Newtown Schools?” (29 June 2017)
            http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2017/06/where-were-sandy-hook-children-in.html

            “Amazon.com and YouTube: Accessories after the Fact of Fraud and Theft by Deception (17 July 2017)
            http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2017/07/amazoncom-and-youtube-accessories-after.html

            “Carl Herman: Sandy Hook shooting mothers’ average age = 36” (2 August 2017)
            http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2017/08/carl-herman-sandy-hook-shooting-mothers.html

            “Sandy Hook Scam: Why the mothers’ ages matter” (1 September 2017)
            http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/09/sandy-hook-scam-why-the-mothers-ages-matter/

            Read these and come back with your absurd allegation that those who are exposing the Sandy Hook hoax are undermining research on 9/11. You are either massively ignorant about Sandy Hook (and the moon landing hoax) or are deliberately misleading the members of this forum.

            1. This is such a knee jerk reply that I am beginning to think either I am a miserably bad communicator, or you don’t really read the comment and just reply to the most superficial and self centered reading of people’s comments with a very predictable one-two punch structuring: start with a put down, follow by pointing out your experience, peppered with condescending comments, and finish off by linking to your own work… got it.

              Professor, I watched the towers burn and collapse from roughly a mile away (and no, I was not dancing on the roof of a van). The moment the second tower came down in identical fashion, it should have been obvious to the entire world that forces beyond the two “planes” were in effect. One really didn’t need to know any more than that… Subsequently, when one watched the the reaction of the government and the narrative they built, one did not need to know what exactly happened or how they did it to understand that this was an inside job. For anyone with half a brain to realize all this should have taken 3 months or so… So, the lack of information about the specifics of the event has never really been our true problem in failing to achieve the critical mass of ‘awake’ people. It was something more fundamentally embedded in American minds… An inherent inability to differentiate between fantasy and reality, between news and propaganda… and a deep running delusion about how America was force of goodness in the world, bombed places out of mercy and spreaded democracy. The same people who couldn’t figure out Liberace was gay, and wouldn’t believe it even after being told so… where is the effort to combat this? Where are the psychologists for 9/11 truth?

              Can you please explain how li’l ol’ me is undermining the “truth movement”??? But more importantly, in what direction exactly is this ‘movement’ of yours? Is there a leader of this movement? Is there a common objective in this movement? A plan of action? Any actionable results in spite of the tremendous research that has gone into the the subject? Has there been a single achievement in the direction of effecting the electorate, lawmakers, educators, statesmen, military personnel??? Has there been any actionable advances? Because, the only movement I see in these circles nowadays is running in place and infighting. Once again, I am arguing that the shortage of knowledge about all things technical and physical about the destruction of that day has not been our problem. It is the professional deceivers and infiltrators, or the ego-laden “I’m right, you are wrong, and your feet stink, too” type combative and counterproductive arguments that prevent the general public from focusing on the real problems. While everybody and their uncles become pretend scientists and develop or support theories of scientific issues they don’t really understand, they have no training to understand… not to mention the limited imagination… it has to be thermite, oh no it is nanothermite, no no it is mini nukes.. do we even know what destruction capabilities and technologies US and Israeli militaries have? Having had uninterrupted access to the WTC buildings for at least 8 years since the 93 FBI bombing, and multiple years to that wing of Pentagon, I’d say those geniuses have had ample time to plan, prepare and wire up the entire building with a cocktail of explosives neither you nor the AE engineers ever even heard of..

              So, here we are discussing the difficulties of talking to people, and how to break thru their programming, and here I am pointing out the down side of lumping together all of the conspiracies and punching people in the face as hard as you can with conspiracies, most of which are simply too much for an average tv zombie to process let alone believe in, and you come back with a presumptuous reply, assuming I do not know anything about sandy hook, that I do not believe it was a fake event, and then set out to provide links to teach me… about an event that came on the heels of another psyop called Aurora shooting… an event where the fakeness and deception was apparent from the moment they made the chopper video of a chase through the woods disappear, and from the moment they ‘found’, with great fanfare, Lanza’s rifle in the hood of his car… just like what I said above about 9/11, we really didn’t need more to know it was fake, to know it was a psyop. The rest of he details of the event, which have been almost fully exposed over the years, are simply filler uppers… in the years since these events there have been countless more , fake events and psyops, drills billed as real, and we are now exporting and franchising these tactics and know how all over the world, as far away as Australia, to shove the globalist agenda down people’s throats.

              In your 35 years of experience, have you not gained an ounce of wisdom? A little maturity? On this page alone, you have accused countless people, including me, of being disinfo agents, apologist, shills, etc. causing many good and decent people to leave in anger or disgust… even if I were to assume you were right about all your facts and they (or we) were all wrong, was it worth it? Are you ‘contributing’ to the discussion, or actually killing it whether knowingly or not? You are a smart and hard working person. But have you ever stopped to think a little before you serve your divisive one-two-punch-in-the-face? Knowing as much as you do is relatively easy, but knowing how to teach is a skill you don’t seem to care for at all. Which is a peculiar aspect of all this because you were actually an actual teacher for long years.

              Many people are convinced you are an agit-prop agent among many other unsavory things. Personally, I am not able to say either way… but there are certainly moments when you make it extremely difficult to defend or excuse your antics.

    2. Chad, you have made many excellent posts here. Well done! Calling out Michael Shermer of SKEPTIC magazine, for example, is so appropriate–and they even have an office at CalTech! I think if you can find some data point that intrigues someone–such as that piece of vine in the section of fuselage at the Pentagon–that can cause someone to want to know more. I like to survey the evidence as an index of the range of points that are available to make in discussion and debate. Your remark about the existence of God, of course, is not really appropriate, since neither the existence of God nor the non-existence of God, unlike 9/11, can be subject to proof.

      1. Thanks, Jim. On whether one can prove or disprove the existence of God, that debate has been going on for probably millennia. I classify it as not worth the time to touch. Although Shermer is big on pushing atheism.

      2. That depends on your definition of god.

        If one defines god as the creator or premise or first cause of all things, all things are proof.

      1. I know how. But I could use some help.

        I told y’all time travelers left a code in place that, when combined with the people and context, tells a story and why it was done.

        The USA is a violent warmongering criminal organization that violates it’s own as well as people all over the world, and spends it’s descendants as currency to pay for it. Thus they were given “Hell to pay, Fire and damnation”

        You think all those other things are separate and different, but they aren’t. It’s all connected.

  25. Truthdig posted a 2-hour talk by Chris Hedges on their YouTube channel where we challenged him and Truthdig on 9/11 in the comments section, suggesting they interview Peter Michael Ketchum. That led to an exchange of comments with a hostile “believer” of the official 9/11 Commission narrative.

    Shortly afterward Truthdug interviewed John Kiriakou and posted on YT, where among other issues he shared his opinion of 9/11.

    Looking at (2) interviews of Kiriakou on YouTube, one from 2015 – “Why Didn’t Bush-Cheney Prevent 9/11? ex CIA John Kiriakou” – and the Truthdig (2017) post – “CIA Whistleblower John Kiriakou Answers Questions About 9/11, JFK’s Death and More!” – are revealing, and point to his being consciously involved in 9/11 disinformation.

    In the 2015 interview Kiriakou responds to Paul Jay of TRNN after Jay mentions explosives by immediately saying “no explosives”. He mentions Cofer Black, his superior at CIA and a high-level officer, as knowing “something big” was coming at a meeting Kiriakou attended before 9/11. If one listens closely to the questions from Jay and the consistent side-stepping, directional/subject changes,and/or failure to directly address Jay’s central requests for response explicit in his questions, it seems clear Kiriakou is intentionally refusing to answer questions. For only one example of many in that 2015 interview, Jay brought up the PNAC documents about “a new Pearl Harbor”, which Kiriakou passed over completely.

    In the 2017 Truthdig interview, after being asked if he “ever entertained the idea that 9/11 was an inside job” Kiriakou immediately responded with “No.. Nothing…The intelligence was crystal clear.” He does go on to say Building 7 should be investigated, (perhaps because in 2017 their is no way of being taken seriously if defending the Building 7 NIST “conclusions”) as virtually the whole world knows the report is bogus. Mr. Kiriakou doesn’t volunteer his reasoning for coming to believe Building 7 deserves investigation, in particular he doesn’t mention explosives or controlled demolition. Regarding explosives or thermite used on the Twin Towers, his response was “a lot of that is nonsense … a lot of it is interesting and true … coincidental”.

    In both the 2015 and 2017 interviews Kiriakou defers to his (former?) boss Cofer Black as the truth or basis for continuing to assert the narrative that the terrorist hijackers – not any “inside job” – were responsible for Towers 1 and 2. His continued insistence on denying the use of explosives on 9/11, when 2nd, 3rd and 4th graders have watched Graeme McQueen’s 40-minute presentation clearly showing proof of explosives use at last fall’s AE911Truth Justice event, is simply unbelievable.

    Famed Iran-Contra lead attorney Daniel Sheehan addressed last fall’s AE911Truth Justice event along with Mr. McQueen and many others. During one of his lectures to students at University of California-Santa Cruz posted at “Romero Institute” YouTube channel, he shared with his students that he considered Cofer Black (paraphrasing) someone to watch with regard to nefarious activities carried out by the deep state. Either Kiriakou is disinformation or – through his pattern of asserting “no explosions on 9/11” – dumb as a (fill in the blanks).

    Mr. Kiriakou needs to be pushed hard on 9/11. Now that he’s a self-professed “dissident”, perhaps Mr. McGovern, Mr. Binney, Ms. Rowley and/or other concerned truth tellers of high moral stature can act forcefully in the clear, legitimate cause of seeking total clarification.

    1. I suspect that the masterminds behind 9/11/01 are responsible for other things as well. I suspect one of their methods is to compartmentalize or isolate the people and circumstances to facilitate whatever goals. In other words; they are all doing their small part unaware of the others or what the ultimate goal is.

      It makes sense how people started catching on that something big was coming. They started detecting others involved by watching them work towards the same goal.

      Someones went around setting people and things on a collision course in more ways than one.

    2. Excellent commentary! You have clearly identified yet another 9/11 gatekeeper–to add to a list that includes Noam Chomsky, who dismisses critics of the official narrative; Alex Jones, who is covering for Israeli involvement; Michael Rivero, who blames Israel but covers for the DOD by denying proof that no plane hit the Pentagon; and (surprisingly) A&E911 and Judy Wood/DEWs, where both A&E911 and Judy Wood/DEWs refuse to talk about who was responsible and why.

  26. Why is my comment in moderation?

    I responded to David Hazan’s comment above with this:

    “..do we even know what destruction capabilities and technologies US and Israeli militaries have? Having had uninterrupted access to the WTC buildings for at least 8 years since the 93 FBI bombing, and multiple years to that wing of Pentagon, I’d say those geniuses have had ample time to plan, prepare and wire up the entire building with a cocktail of explosives neither you nor the AE engineers ever even heard of.”

    I already told you that it has something to do with time travel, among other things. Whoever it is doesn’t think in those terms, as time is not restricted to them in the same way. They’re thinking in terms of cryptography and in a much larger span of history.

    The first WTC bombing was, in part, about Kennedy’s role in whatever they did to us. They left a message telling why. My guess is that he was going to unnecessarily get our families killed. Aside from all the other people he was pissing off, he was likely going to get people killed and screw up many centuries of the timeline. So they whacked him.”

    …and it got moderated.

    Why?

    1. Everstem13, I gave you lots of leeway earlier to make comments that went beyond the scope of the article you were commenting on. But I feel that time travel is definitely outside that scope. And it is in the realm of speculation, not hard evidence. You are free to create your own blog or to contribute to sites that address this kind of subject. But it is not the focus of this blog or this post. Thank you.

      1. This site and your efforts are about 9/11 truth, right?

        Why do you feel that time travel is out of the scope of 9/11 truth?

        How many things are speculative in regard to 9/11 truth?

        What makes you think that I have no hard evidence of time travel?

        1. EverStem13, if you have published any evidence for time travel then point me to it, and I will look at what you have. If not, you can email me something at truthandshadows@yahoo.com. But I don’t think this blog is the place for a long discussion of this topic. You are the one making this claim, and it’s up to you to support it.

          1. It’s not going to fit in an email. It’s pertinent to 3000+ years of history. Hell, it takes a lengthy discussion just to show you how to recognize or understand it, one that you are obviously not open to or welcome.

            Keep pretending you’re doing something while stuck in neutral complaining on a blog, while they win by playing on your typical human nature.

            If you’re lucky, your grandchildren might not have to resort to prostitution to eat.

      2. “Everstem13, I gave you lots of leeway earlier to make comments that went beyond the scope of the article you were commenting on.”

        Translation; I am king of this site. I decide what is discussed here. And I am being nice by tolerating free thought and deviance from what I prescribe.

        The reality is that you aren’t in the position to give me leeway. The reality is that we are all dependent upon each other if this truth movement is ever going to amount to anything. And because I am in a unique position to have figured out some key undiscovered elements to this, it means that you are somewhat dependent upon my contribution, unless, of course, you’re satisfied with settling for in-completion of your endeavors and the consequences thereof.

        It might behoove you to re-read through that last thread and further consider many of the things I wrote. What is I’m not BS’ing?

        Someones have it, and some of them (?possibly a thief?) are using it for evil, to manipulate, restrict and control, all of human existence. And they are winning. You can’t even see it, not to mention things like identifying their methods of operation, manipulation techniques, or what I’ll call an ‘extra-temporal false flag’.

        Half (arguably all or most) of my life has been involuntarily spent on this. I have learned a thing or two in the process. While you are all completely oblivious, I struggle to play a very complex game with travelers and their associates from a static position that has tested every aspect of my ability and being.

        Whatever your concept of reality and normalcy is, it’s either incomplete, nonsense, inapplicable or problematic. There is a much larger and complicated picture here to see. If you cannot take an intellectual scientific approach, or understand cause/effect in fluid ‘time-loops’ or think in terms of probability/odds and patterned coincidences, among other things, you’re lost, your ship is D.I.W. and sinking.

        Forget convincing the media or anti-truthers or brainwashed idiots. They are stupid and as good as dead, may as well be zombies. If they don’t exhibit an open mind, reason and curiosity to start with, they’re a waste of time. If you want to make any headway, more focus needs to be on consolidating and better organizing the existing groups, and a willingness to apply even more zeal and unconventional and obscure or radical tactics. …whatever it takes.

        Over the long term and in a large scope perspective, what is at stake is everything. We either figure out how to get along and work together as a whole on some level, are entirely completely and permanently enslaved, or billions die to free the rest forever. Pick one.

        I’ll tell you now that the first is impossible as per human nature. People are egotistical selfish territorial violent stupid idiots who divide and fight over everything. Slavery is unacceptable. I see it as worth it to allow a couple of billion to kill themselves with their own stupidity if it means several billion are later free.

        1. What am I missing? I haven’t the vaguest idea how time travel could explain any aspect of 9/11. This is Craig’s web site. He created and moderates Truth and Shadows–and does a brilliant job of it in spite of having to deal with a lot of difficult posters, myself included. But you have given no indication of how time travel (were it possible) would make a difference here. Craig MIGHT be inclined to give you more leeway if you were less defensive and more forthcoming about it.

          1. “What am I missing? I haven’t the vaguest idea how time travel could explain any aspect of 9/11.”

            That’s why the truth movement hasn’t gone any further than it has. You haven’t the vaguest idea, even though you are looking right at it. In fact, you are especially in the position to see it when taking into consideration the relevant context and people it pertains to. You might appreciate it more than most.

            (I almost drove there to track you down for a conversation a few months ago, just to avoid electronic communication.)

            When/if you start to see it, questions get answered, things fit together nicely. It explains things.

            I am not sure of more than I am sure of. I don’t know how it works, who has it, or any of that. What I do see is a lot of evidence, things like actions responding to events before they happen, encryption, anomalies, etc.

            As far as me being forthcoming, re-read the previous thread where I explain some of my inhibitions. I am kind of walking a thin line here. I have to do this in a certain way or it’s null or a catastrophe. It kind of already is.

            And it is not so easy to show you or prove. Again, read some of my comments where I explain that.

          2. Actually there is a thing about 9/11 and time travel. It is clearly off topic of how to convince the public the official story is false. If you think it is hard to sell “conventional” Truther version, imagine trying to sell the notion that a anti-gravity time traveling UFO hit the towers. I think some kind of advanced military weapon was part of the planes deception. Part of the 9/11 story but NOT on topic here.

            1. Andrew Basiago knows things. I have independently ‘verified’ some of his claims simply by trying to explain my own experiences.

              It can be proven. Evidence is EVERYWHERE. It is simply a matter of recognizing it, which requires a lengthy process. But it is real and evident. As I mentioned in the last thread; Ideally, I can get with some smart people and address this. But people are narrow minded and unwilling to indulge. Idiots.

              I find that interesting, the notion of on/off-topic discussion. Whoever thinks in those terms is ignorant. It’s all connected. What is considered off-topic is actually just a different piece of it.

              1. The conjecture of anti-gravity craft hitting the towers would have to overcome its falsification by the evidence adduced by Richard Hall in his 3-D Flight 175 Radar Study, including the discovery of a radar path 1,200′ to the right of the image in the videos, which appears to be the projection of what looks like a plane by an airborne holographic projector, as I have elsewhere explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5DgFcpsxes

  27. I appreciate the opportunity to express my views. It is understandable that everyone is passionate about the topic. We all have our own perspective. If we are truly truth seekers, we want to share our experience with others when possible. Often it is on line, where we feel less vulnerable. So here we are.

    Comment sections are glimpses into other’s perspectives, but they lack the one-on-one-in-the-same-place interactions that better communicate our ideas and visions. Maybe we feel braver behind a keyboard.

    To me, nine eleven is just one manifestation of the bigger evil that controls the present world and its human institutions. It served as my wake up call. It continues to for many others. Once you realize they can lie so big and get away with it, you should begin to question everything going forward as well as the past. It lets you know rather quickly that government is not on your side. Then if you see how many clues were put out over the years to predict it, well it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the plan was in place for a long, long time.

    Method just happens to be something tangible we can argue about, and probably why we often do. We want everyone to see or understand the same things we do, or at least consider them.

    Not only is it obvious the media and government lied and continue to when it comes to nine eleven, but they give support to every other agenda driven lie and false flag. How obvious can it get? Or do we just get wiser with age?

    The mind is a powerful thing. Even the weather forecast is there to program us. The weatherman says it will be partly cloudy. I can point out planes spraying chemicals over us all day on some days. None are real clouds, though we do get them occasionally here in the desert. Some people look up and cannot see them. I used to be one of those people too. But once you see it, you cannot not see it.

  28. @Craig McKee

    9/11 IS evidence of time travel. It is only one piece of the MANY in plain sight for all to see. It is a matter of recognizing it. But you cannot see the forest for the trees in the way.

    I find it interesting how this site basically does what it accuses media of. Controlled demolition/false flag is no more real to others than time travel being part of 9/11 is to you.

    They don’t question it, and don’t go digging into it, therefore do not have the same level of understanding and cannot see the difference. You try to show them and they dismiss your ‘ridiculous’ claims of conspiracy.

    You know it is not ridiculous because there is a lot of evidence to support it. It is actually very reasonable. But they don’t see it, nor want to. They already know that there is no way that government would do such a thing. They already know the towers fell because planes hit them.

    And you already know that time travel is completely ridiculous and irrelevant because you have already figured out 9/11 and all subsequent thereof.

    1. Sorry, but did I ever say time travel was ridiculous? You shouldn’t put words in my mouth. And I never said I had 9/11 entirely figured out. There are many questions I continue to have. But I know for certain that this was a false flag operation, and that it involved some very powerful people in the U.S. government and probably other governments as well. And I know the official story was a complete lie.

      So don’t start talking down to me about how I am unwilling to hear what you have to say or that I’m intolerant of unusual points of view. And don’t you dare tell me that I am doing the same thing mainstream media do. I would strongly recommend that you or anyone who has a highly questionable point of view not approach others with arrogance. If you know something the rest of us don’t, then it’s up to you to get that message out, and you don’t have the right to demand that I provide you with a venue for that.

      As I said in my other comment, send me something supporting your argument, and I will consider it (particularly evidence for your claim that “9/11 IS evidence of time travel”). I’m not willing to have you spend any more time on this in my comment section unless you do this.

      1. I tried. You moderate, control and inhibit.

        Like most, you expect it to be simple and a given as it is portrayed in the movies. It doesn’t care about our social dynamics, your ego or preferred terms. It doesn’t work like that. I cannot just simply show it to you and say “Here, see?”. You won’t understand what you’re looking at.

        It is hidden, implied, wide scope, often circumstantial, and has to be confirmed through a process of reason and fact checking. It starts with understanding the mechanics of it, how to recognize it, as well as any relevant context, encryption methods, etc, etc, etc… … …

        If you’re more concerned with asserting your position in regard to a futile effort of convincing zombies, you’re not going to get it and are as much a waste of time as any of those you criticize.

        1. Craig has the right of moderation of his own site. You have not made a case for introducing the rather bizarre time-travel meme in relation to the events of 9/11. He should justifiably block you.

          1. I don’t care at this point. He’ll just be cutting off his nose to spite his own face.

            I can just as easily go elsewhere. Eventually, someone trustworthy and intelligent will care enough to indulge it. They’ll get the grand prize, and y’all won’t.

            Ideally, I would like to do this in person because it is MUCH more efficient communication.

            1. But, everstem13…. indulge what???? You are yet to give a single specific about anything… and repeatedly profess that it is very complicated, and it explains everything…

              Why don’t you take one step back and put yourself in our shoes for a second… from everything you have said so far about time travel, on this thread and the previous one where we first met, would you have been convinced that time travel was real and it explains 9/11? In that sense, your accusatory attitude is not justified at all… if this “explanation” of yours will take so long to even start, then Craig is probably right, and this, or any blog’s comment section really, is not the right place for this exercise…

              And since i don’t believe you have been truthful about your age when I asked, I’m beginning to go “hmmmmmm” about all this a little bit.

              1. I understand completely, which is a big part of my frustration. Until I substantiate anything, it’s BS. I get it.

                I have to be careful how I do this. When I express concerns of tens of millions of Christians or unreasonable idiots not responding well, wars and such, I am not overestimating or exaggerating things. Putting it all out there has potentially very bad consequences. Not only that but I am also very much taking into consideration respect and well being of personal friends or associates.

                …And “born in 1998” is code, or rather a reference to the code, another way of saying it. It is a phrase used by John Titor to identify myself specifically from my birth(and possibly others). I was being tongue-in-cheek, hence “apparently”.

  29. @ David Hazan

    I’ll try to give you an example of what we’re dealing with here.

    I wasn’t actively on the internet until about 2008 or 2009. I was a little bit during 2007, but not for long, and not before then except to take my comp to someone’s house and tap into their net connection, and usually to download music or something while we drank beer and grilled out or whatever.

    But I was not actively participating in any social venues or having any lengthy participation in discussion threads until about 2009. In doing so, I have developed a writing style.

    If you care to notice, in the John Titor posts he mimics my writing style in 2001, as well as makes many cryptic references to pertinent aspects of all of this, to include my identity.

    How could he mimic my writing style that did not yet exist? And how did he know those things that I do not talk about, that I did not know until around 2012-2013?

    He also made several mistakes if his intent is to pretend to be me. But I suspect that was a cryptic means of addressing me rather than pretending to be me.

    From the perspective of most, that is unprovable because you have not tracked me the whole time to be in the position to witness the anomalous nature of it. But from my personal perspective, it is indeed unequivocal proof.

    I could direct you to all available evidence, but it would only do so much good, as you were presumably, not following me around hanging on every move I made. Thus unable to definitively say.

    I am looking at MANY such similar examples, some provable, but only through a lengthy confirmation process. One of those is a connect the dots that I previously described to you, that includes the 9/11 attacks.

    It’s real. It took me a lot to actually accept it as such, but it is real. I don’t expect people to simply accept it until they have thoroughly analyzed it. In fact, I will argue to anyone that they need to reserve judgement until they have thoroughly analyzed it to their satisfaction of having no doubt.

    But it is real.

  30. Back in the 1980s, a university prof I had said that the Russians had an advantage over us in that they knew their press was controlled. It didn’t really register with me then but it’s clear as daylight to me now. We are told not to believe everything we read on the internet, but not told that when it comes to the mainstream media.

    The internet is our most powerful tool when it comes to freedom of speech and spreading truth. It’s a big problem for those in power and my big fear is that they will some day clamp down hard on it.

    1. They’re already doing it.

      I have personally seen changes made that are quite relevant to this time travel stuff. They are systematically making it difficult to confirm/realized or decipher code..

      I have watched various websites operate as controlled opposition, seen them shut down, search results and algorithms altered, comments deleted, …you name it. They’re doing it.

      I posit that even some things that point to guilty parties are actually actions taken to deliberately appear guilty as to redirect focus away from time travel. They do not want everyone knowing it exists and will go to great lengths to hide it, or whatever it is about it that is so damn important.

      1. To add;

        They’ve been doing it for a long time. OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD is modeled after experiments done by JP Morgan and Goebbels, and is apparently in full operation mode.

        When you really dig into the history of it, it is so obvious. While it may not be like the Soviets, it is definitely happening. In recent years there has also been a lot of legislation signed to gain more control.

        We live in “Nineteen Eighty Four”. There should have been a full on armed revolt years ago.

  31. Since the mainstream media ridicules or ignores 9/11 truth, how does that explain Jesse Ventura`s Conspiracy Theory TV show? is the program a kind of “safety valve“ so that the media doesn`t look biased? Or do they figure that most viewers won`t take it seriously anyway? Can someone enlighten me? Thanks!

    1. I don’t know about Jesse Ventura’s show, but, as a general rule; If it is part of the main stream media, it’s BS.

      If it isn’t main stream media, if it is independent news or bloggers or what have you, it’s half BS, or part of the half of them that are all BS.

      🙂

    2. There is certainly a lot of money to be made in the Conspiracy Bizniz.

      For most part, Ventura never goes all the way with any of his own comments, which usually end with a question mark.

      For example: “They did not let us into the warehouse where they keep pieces of the WTC… Could they be hiding something????” dun dun duuuuuhn….

      That is really the extent of his exposés… Plus, as an ex pro wrestler he does not have any credibility with the snooty liberal crowd… Works from every angle…

      1. You would think that arousing people’s curiosity about 9/11 is not something the networks want. And he’s not just an ex-wrestler, he’s an ex-governor of Minnesota.

        1. Yes, also a an ex navy seal. So, it’s hard to say which team he’s batting for.

          In my comment, I was trying to point out the compartmentalization of the public. The people who’d trust such matters to a person like Ventura, are actually the choir he’s preaching to.. I know it’s a gross generalization on my part, but these would be the tea party types… But for the liberal types, or the high brow Republicans, propagation of conspiracy theories by such a character would actually harden their resistance to accepting any of the stories he tells.

          (to be clear, I am by no means saying that his being this or that earlier in his life discredits him somehow… I am simply commenting on the perception of his personality by different factions of the public)

          1. No one who knows Jesse Ventura has any doubt about “which side he is batting for”. Jesse is one of the most stand-up men in the world, much less the USA. He has dedicated himself to exposing what’s going on in a series of programs, including “Jesse Ventura’s America” and “Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura”. He featured me on both shows, where on the former I appeared with Beverly Oliver and Aubrey Rike, where Beverly explained how she wanted JFK’s brains blown out the back his head and Audrey that he had felt the rough edges of the massive defect when he assisted in lifting the body into the bronze, ceremonial casket, and I explained how David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., had determined that the autopsy X-rays had been “patched” to conceal the defect using material that was too dense to be human bone. On the latter, he flew me to Ventura County, CA, to set up a replication of the shooting scenario alleged by the Warren Commission using bales of hay to stand in for the location of the limousine at each of the three purported shots making sure the distances and angles were as specified. Jesse was using a far better Manncliher-Carcano and is himself a much better shot, yet with three replications of three shots, he scored only one hit on the targets WHEN THEY WERE STATIONARY and was unable to come close to the time frame of 6.5 seconds. He has published many books with Skyhorse on subjects exposing governmental complicity in nefarious affairs, including THEY KILLED OUR PRESIDENT, 63 DOCUMENTS THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T WANT YOU TO READ, and AMERICAN CONSPIRACIES. Someone here, alas, is not an honest broker, which bothers me.

              1. He even exposes that, as newly elected governor, he was summoned to a meeting with some of his staff, who turned out to be CIA. There appear to be agency representatives at all the state houses across the nation. The CIA is a cancer on American body politic that has to be excised.

                1. Some people out there interpret Trump’s election as the military finally putting someone they support into the white house after 54 years of consecutive CIA presidents. Although I feel what is happening right now gives a lot of credence to this angle, I can’t possibly know if true.

                  But, Ventura receiving a visit from the CIA makes total sense. I feel anybody who is anybody in politics, business and entertainment does get a visit from the CIA. Seems like a lot of the times they do not necessarily identify themselves as such and work through assets and operatives already implanted in the field instead.

  32. Craig
    I admire your resolve in trying to debate with people who bring nothing to the table and simply try to belittle those who do not believe the official view, but rather than trying to get the thick bastards to inform themselves by studying such a vast subject as 9/11, I have for a long time now believed you, and others willing to stand up to be counted , should concentrate on just a single truth during your discussions, whether on air, on the internet or in writing.
    From your article it is obvious that the opposition will not read up on the subject to debate it thoughtfully but simply reply on vast sweeping statements in their attempt to confuse the argument.
    What I am advorcating is a single point of discussion that you could set down beforehand, such as:

    “Do you believe that it is possible for untrained pilots to have flown the four aircraft on 9/11?”

    Being a single subject would mean that they would have to carry out research before giving their answer. Hopefully they would learn something.

    Dave Gahan
    UK.

    1. They aren’t going to learn anything. They are unwilling to even consider it for their cognitive dissonance or whatever ulterior motives they may have.

      The reality is that they are going to stay in their trance or guard their position and continue to demand more government to produce more violence death and destruction. They will continue to pray to their state-gods and rationalize how serfdom is necessary or how the men in funny clothes have a right to abuse them. They’ll die and leave their children, who they taught to be serfs, to do the same.

      The only way anything is going to be corrected is if most of the human population dies in a very short time period and ‘civilizations’ are destroyed. Even then, if it isn’t rebuilt on solid principles respective of human rights, it’ll end up the same evil mess.

  33. Returning to the topic of how to convince people about 9/11, the best video I have found to recommend people view is the five hour series by Massimo Mazzucco, Italian director. It asks 50 questions. The questions are very carefully worded. He does NOT try to explain what happened. He does not speculate. He put it out AFTER the Popular Mechanics and other disinformation. I know of at least one person who changed his mind after viewing. The problem is that most people wont sit through it (or set aside an hour a day for 5 days). Despite the length it is actually fast paced. It does not seem to have gotten as much attention as it deserves. I believe for most people you have to avoid jumping ahead to what happened, and undermine their current beliefs about what did happen. That can create a mental vacuum and open the way for other explanations to enter.

    1. Here’s my strategy: go through the known, confirmed conspiracies (Iran-Contra, WMD’s), then widen the crack with the known but unconfirmed conspiracies (USS Liberty, Gulf of Tonkin, CIA involvement in the drug trade), then the less known, but confirmed (MKUltra, Paperclip, Northwoods), and finally you can start to ask them about the big ones (9/11, JFK, moon landings). It takes awhile, but it forms a much more compelling narrative to see how there are many layers and it’s only time and investigation that can expose these atrocities.

      I generally stay away from the more recent ones unless someone else brings them up (Boston marathon, sandy hook). Not that they’re harder to prove, just that they’re still too recent that the emotions run too high. Better to stay analytical and level headed so the person with whom you’re conversing doesn’t put up as many psychological barriers.

    1. Meant for this to be a reply above. If comments can be edited, just delete these comments and add gladio in the parentheses after Northwoods.

  34. A few days ago in responding to an article in Consortium News, edited by Robert Parry, I pointed out that the article, in listing a long chain of false flags, had not mentioned any possibility of 9/11 amongst the group. Parry deleted my comment. I wrote to say my comment had been deleted–he deleted it again. I then wrote to him via the contact button. In fact I had written to him a year ago when he deleted my response to someone who had provided a link to a very interesting video and skeptical view of the official story at that time. He replied then by saying it was all unproven conspiracy theory not worth the time. I was repulsed and disappointed, but, after telling him how much I disapproved of this attitude, let it go. I have seen many fine analytical articles on CN since, many by Parry.

    On this occasion I responded again by the contact button, saying it seemed odd to me since he was spending so much time, seemingly nearly obsessed, with disproving “Russia-gate.” I pointed to the inconsistency. I stated isn’t the topic 9/11 at least worthy of some serious questioning? He did not reply this time, and I probably insulted him by calling him “squeamish” and saying his attitude struck me as “gutless.” He then began delaying my comments as in “your comment is waiting moderation” which took me completely out of discussions. The comments were delayed for many hours, although they said nothing about 9/11 or my questioning of him, and were mostly on Russia-gate or Syria, and they did not provide any internet links in need of checking.

    It is now impossible for me to return to CN comment community and explain why my enthusiasm has gone and I will no longer be part of the forum. He will delete every such comment, or any breath directed toward 9/11. This is mighty peculiar to me. I am talking about questions. Are there not serious questions on this event, that need examination and clarifying? Of course there are, as indicated by the many questioners as with Griffin and whoever. I am not asking to be responded to here with questions. I have plenty of them myself. It is doubly strange amidst the torrent of false flag operations that continue, that lack of skepticism with somebody like Parry or Chomsky or whoever continues, with the chief oppositional response being deleting, ignoring, or demonizing. Demonizing is an automatic indication of a lightweight and off-topic response, instead of serious enquiry.

    1. Very interesting. He published an article, “9/11 Truth is a parlor game”, to which I responded with “9/11 Truth is no ‘parlor game'”, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/911-truth-is-no-parlor-game.html And, believe it or not, Kevin Ryan attacked me for sticking up for 9’11 Truth with an absurd onslaught involving issues that he did not (even remotely) understand. I took him to the cleaners in my response, for which (I am certain) he has never forgiven me: “The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan”, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/911-truth-is-no-parlor-game.html I have a difficult time not smiling when I think about it today, but his ignorance exceeded his arrogance.

    2. Anyone who does not promote open expression and search for truth is, presumably, part of it, or so egotistical they are a soliptic control freak. I don’t care who they are or what their excuses are. If they’re not allowing honest discussion about it, they are trying to control the narrative.

  35. I have by now read through most of this thread and appreciate the intent of this blog to bring on intelligent discussion of this matter. Mr. Fetzer’s link to his response to Parry back in 2011 is helpful, and I thank him for it. I am not much interested in quibbling and already regret calling Parry “gutless” in writing to him, part of my being annoyed with his authoritarian deleting of my comments and failure to reply whatever. Reading here today, it is further disillusioning to add to my list of those supporting the official story John Kirkiakou. Yesterday I happened to tune in to Democracy Now, which I stopped listening to many months ago, and right away was confronted with a Russian “expert” who proclaimed on Putin, including his “invasion” of Ukraine, etc. etc., and immediately turned it off. Goodman too had responded to my use of the show’s “contact” button by cutting me off when I said her show now sounded like the Washington Post in its interpretation of Ukraine and Syria. She cut me off, no further comment allowed by the contact button, thank you very much, and before that I was cut off from Juan Cole’s “Informed Comment” site again for asking a question.

    I sense from reading today that Mr. McKee will give his commenter his due in providing some substance or at least raising a fair question, but that there are limits to abiding to a helpful discussion. This seems reasonable to me. Of course I don’t see myself as violating this spirit in Parry’s forum, given any even allusion to 9/11 I’ve made has been deleted, as well as other comments that have been deleted, with no explanation. Unlike McKee Parry does not enter the comment threads usually, to offer any clarifications on his policies. Nor does Goodman. Goodman’s limitations are well known. My intent here is to alert readers of Consortium News to its negative bias and intolerance on what seems to me THE most important matter we ought to be discussing. So I will just say this last and have done.

    The comment in this thread that questioning 9/11 is akin to questioning the existence of God, begetting the same automatic refusal and hostility, is directly applicable to the problem of journalists evading, denying, and turning authoritarian in the face of questioning on their particular “sacred” subjects. It strongly resembles Trump’s recent attitude (or pose) toward the NFL athletes and making the flag into a holy object. Add to that the weight of approval from herd-think and monies accordingly, especially when you’re having to appeal to your readers/listeners for contributions to keep you going. We’re all human, too human, as with the old and well-worn phrase.

    What I’ve read over the past 10 years or so on 9/11, influenced particularly by Griffin to start with, has left me with many questions. I’m not going to quibble on technical aspects, not having the scientific expertise, but I do call for a real investigation, as does this site, while fully aware it will not happen. As to the gate-keepers such as Chomsky and Parry they seem to be afraid of something, what that is I’m not sure, because if we start with the box-cutter story as THE EXPLANATION surely we have many concerns that have been left out. Their denial of that essential fact–many considerations left out of the official story–discredits their intelligence at the least. But it reminds me of many of my neighbors and even friends who cannot countenance any view of this country as being any other than the White Knight of Do-Gooders they have been indoctrinated to believe, and which those ruthless enough to seize on this condition and exploit it have indeed done so very thoroughly. Sure, I would like to hear a defense of the automatic dismissal I’ve just re-experienced with Parry, and others of his ilk mentioned here as belonging to the “gate-keepers” group, reputed as bright people who are otherwise interested in being analytical on what suits them more favorably. I recommend at the least–and this I wanted to recommend to Parry and his forum–a list of major questions and alternative answers, stated without rancor. But I don’t think I’m going to get it.

    (Will check the above reference on the film with the 50 questions, thank you.)

    1. “gate-keepers” are everywhere, even people who seemingly have no involvement, motive, or stake in it.

      (They’re more than likely here too.)

    2. I think things really started to go south with the official response to the Kennedy assassination in Dallas. Once the absurd Oswald/single bullet theory was flown past the Anerikan public with little questioning, the denizens of the Deep State knew they could get away with much more.

      Kennedy was one of the last remaining powerful critics of the CIA and their lack of accountability. He was never forgiven for squelching Operation Northwoods, his refusal to let them off the hook for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and the firing of Alen Dulles. Nobody, NO BODY fires Alen Dulles and lives!

      As you said, I am not prepared to participate in an elaborate discussion of all the technical whys and wherefores of the 9/11 attacks. There is enough foul history, obfuscation, obstruction, lies, and omissions in the Official Report all by itself that cry out for a proper re-investigation. The media and officials have closed ranks to such an extent that we cannot even question this patently false report.

      Lately and in a similar vein, I have been quite dismayed at the lack of critical analysis of the Russian hacking hoax. Most people are totally unaware that not only is there no evidence to support the email hacking theory but Intelligence Veterans for Sanity in the recent Nation magazine PROVED the emails were leaked using a direct connected device like a thumb drive to the DNC computers. And still neoliberals like Morgan Freeman and Rob Reiner and neocons like Woolsey and Clapper are willing to risk nuclear war to forward the lie that the Russians hacked us.

      If this country is ever to have one gram of dignity restored we have to set the record straight on all the terrible conspiracies that have been foisted on us. Until the 9/11 investigation is opened in good faith, I will remain an enemy of this state and an opponent of Amerikan Empire. It now looks like I will take this seething outrage to my grave.

      1. The “Russian hacking” meme is one of the recent absurdities of our time, 24/7 for the last nine to ten months. When they realized we don’t have one national election but 50 state elections, they tried to plug the holes i the dikes by claiming Russia had tried to hack 21 states. When the story broke in the Wisconsin State Journal, I wrote a letter to the editor that they did not publish:

        Russian hacking in Wisconsin? Give us a break!
        Inbox
        x

        James Fetzer
        Sep 23

        to wsjopine, bcc: JIMVIKEN, bcc: Mitch, bcc: Rolf, bcc: Moon

        Editor,

        How can anyone believe in the WSJ when it publishes (on the front page), “Russia tried to hack state vote”? The proof that the whole story is fantasy and that there was no “Russian hacking” is abundant and compelling:

        (1) SHATTERED (2017), a book by two investigative journalists about Hillary’s campaign, reports that John Podesta and Robbie Mook made up the “Russian hacking” meme within 24 hours of he concession speech;

        (2) VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), including Ray McGovern and William Binney, found that the files had been downloaded from the DNC server too fast to be Russian hacking and in Eastern Time;

        (3) Julian Assange and Craig Murray have both declared that they know the source of the Wikileaks revelations and that he was not Russian and that Russian agents had nothing to do with the emails published;

        (4) Seth Rich, IT guy for the DNC, a Bernie supporter disillusions with sabotaging of his campaign, appears to have given them to Assange via Murray and paid for it with his life as retaliation for his heroic act.

        What are readers to make of it when the alternative media is publishing the truth and the mainstream “fake news”? The WSJ ought to do publish more real news and less political propaganda.

        James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

        1. The whole damned country seems paralyzed, hypnotized. Worse, far worse than the McCarthy era when at least most people realized the Commie witch hunt was a fraud but were afraid to speak out. Now everyone believes the fraud. No need to speak out. Eddie Bernays would be having an orgasm!

  36. The battle with most truth deniers is never over the facts, they don’t know any. They simply believe that the media would have told them the truth by now. I just met someone today who did not know about building 7 and even after I showed her the video she didn’t believe it fell on 9-11. She thought I was showing her a building being demolished, and of course, I was.

    I have written a stage play about 9-11 called, The 9-11 Investigation: A Farce. It is a comedy that pokes fun at the official version of 9-11. If you have any interest in this project, write a comment here and I will respond. Thank you.

    1. YES! Robert has a brilliant script for “The 9/11 Investigation: A Farce”! This is a great way to reach the public, which I endorse 100%. We need a hook to grab the public’s attention. This is it!

      1. You might as well throw in the towel. The 9/11 (part of the) truth movement is dead.

        Ego, fighting a losing battle to convince the brainwashed world in denial of a half-truth, and false accusations are, apparently, more important.

          1. lol

            ‘Time travel truth’, while a little work, isn’t all that complicated to prove. It simply needs pointing out in a way that allows you to perceive it. I connect the dots and you see enough to realize there is a picture of something. When you realize what you’re looking at, it takes a life of it’s own. Then a greater context eventually becomes visible for those who are inclined to see, and when it gets complicated.

            As far as the 9/11 truth movement is concerned, most of it is obvious at this point. But there are still a lot of unanswered questions and unknown elements. I have studied it well. A lot of people have been researching for a long time and have brought a lot of good information to the table. Put it all together and sift through it to discern what is what, and you have your basic truth. While it is not yet fully explained, and whether you can pin it to this or that group or persons, you see what happened.

            Trying to convince the world that government and industrialists and bankers and intel people and whoever else did a big nasty false flag and killed millions of innocents is either ineffective to those who refuse to see, they don’t care, or they already know and won’t/can’t do anything about it. That’s why I ask things like “Now what?”

            Either it has to progress to something, a conclusion, or it’s going to get diluted into the ocean of almost 8 billion people’s BS over time, ..like the others. People will be reading about the official story in textbooks years from now, hearing stories of when great great grandpa was in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan hunting the evil amazing Muslim terrorists in caves who managed to thwart the multi gazillion dollar advanced defense matrix of the USA.

            The root problem is government, or rather the use of coercion and violence as a systematic ultimate answer to everything. It is what facilitates it. Human social organization, from local to global, is based on systematic violence and financial servitude. Pay and Obey or else be stolen from caged assaulted and/or murdered/destroyed. Law says “shall be” as if it were a god dictating reality with a gun/tank/aircraft carrier. And it says you shall be whatever it wants, which is everything until it can no longer grow and feed or destroy what it cannot feed from.

            Until that is addressed and corrected, there will be more death and destruction, as it’s function is to respond to everything with and produce violence. People won’t correct. People are trying to make america great again as if it’s any different than hope and change or the buck stops here.

            The only way you are going to get anything done is to kill a LOT of people, create a clean slate, globally. So unless you have a way of killing about 6-7 billion people, it’s probably a lost cause because people like to be serfs and demand you be a serf too.

  37. Absolutely love:
    “What’s the difference between a cow and 9/11? Americans can’t milk a cow for 16 years.”

    I think it is very important to see 9/11 as part of a continuum because people always like to box things in the past as if they’re one-offs never to be repeated and are thus allowed to forget about them. Shamefully, I’ve never been interested in history but the level of complicity required for the Holocaust to happen has always concerned me. The shaving of the heads of the “collaborators” is complete bullshit and pure scapegoating. The vast majority of people were collaborators in the way they refused to see what was going on. And, as mentioned in a comment above so many GATEKEEPERS! How many gatekeepers, are there? It is ridiculous. I’d really love to know the difference between a gatekeeper and a collaborator.

    We are being hoaxed massively around the world – of course, Las Vegas is a big one. But there’s little hoaxes too. This is a 1.5 minute video of what has been reported as a Rohingyan refugee setting himself alight in the foyer of a Melbourne bank and severely injuring others. The video clearly shows this event was staged. Note at 27 seconds in, the woman coming from bottom right and pressing, presumably, the Exit button to facilitate the “exodus” and then running back inside the bank. Also, note his name, “Nur Islam”. Nur means “light” in Arabic and although Islam is a genuine surname you do have to wonder, don’t you? But it’s clearly a hoax in any case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQVmJb0pCpU.

    False-flag analyst, Ole Dammegard, says that the power elite justify what they do by TELLING us and if we don’t pick it up it’s our own fault. They love their clues and symbology. This is a video where an analyst predicts the Las Vegas event from a woman’s track pants in the Freeman School Shooting hoax. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Nph4oueARA

    I have issued a $5,000 challenge (with flexible judging rules) to anyone (initially, it’s targeted to self-identified skeptics) who can produce a credible 10-point Occam’s Razor exercise favouring the “official story” hypothesis over the “independent researcher” hypothesis for any of these three events: Collapse of WTC-7, Sandy Hook and Manchester Bombing. Not a soul has responded nor have they poked a single hole in my own 10-point exercises. http://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html.

    I have written to Michael Shermer with regard to his article, When Facts Backfire, https://michaelshermer.com/2017/01/when-facts-backfire-why-worldview-threats-undermine-evidence/ and pointed out how I hadn’t heard a peep from any of the self-identified skeptics I’d issued my challenge to (including, so very ironically, him). Not a peep, except from one poor man whose powers of reasoning are so limited he does not understand how he’s been snookered. They think that simply staying silent will somehow make the truth disappear. But, of course, it won’t.

    1. “We are being hoaxed massively around the world”

      The masses have been trained from birth to accept a false perception of reality. Humans are selfish violent territorial animals who rationalize things. This has been exploited in favor of the ‘beat them over the head with a club method’ as the best general method of sociopolitical organization. The system is simple for even the layman; Obey or be beat with the club. Even the most intelligent with come up with creative excuses why servitude to the club is necessary and better.

      The idea is to convince the people that magical transformation happens where the right to beat people over the head out of convenience is created when you cast a spell. The recipe is to get get a group of as many people as possible to decide on a person or persons to say magic special words at a ceremony with magic quilts and furniture and stamps and seals and costumes, and then talk about it and write on paper what everyone within range of the spell is to do and be. Then they send an army of people with clubs and funny clothes with magic medallions to make the people in the spell range do what the paper says or else be hit with a club.

      As soon as they can make enough people believe it, they start finding all kinds of excuses to boss them around, even those who may disagree find a way to accept it. The basic rationalization process works like this: If I disagree, I get the club, . I don’t like the club, thus I must agree, therefore reality must be different to accommodate my agreement.

      People teach their children to do this, starting from an early age, through role modeling and defining normalcy. They learn by through the guidance of their parents’ obedience that the club way is magically better. In order to mature and integrate into a functional member of society they must rationalize and adapt to a set of standards counter-intuitive and antithetical the the virtue they learned since early social developmental periods.

      Cooperation requires a club. The club is THE answer, or else. Everything I do or think or value and every social exchange must include a club, things like family and romance and childcare, healthcare, eating and clean water and killing people who don’t matter or agree.

      Producing something requires a club to make people pay. Stealing is wrong, so the men with clubs only take mandatory periodic contributions or else.

      Don’t ask your neighbor about it, call the man to hit him with the club.

      I have to be and do as my neighbors say the men with the clubs say I should be, until it is my turn to tell the men with clubs to make them be as I say they should be.

      Hitting people with clubs is wrong unless they have a magic medallion. If there isn’t someone with a medallion to beat us with a club, people will beat us with clubs, therefore we must have men with medallions to beat us with clubs.

      No choice and less is better because the club or else. Winners obey, losers get enlightened with a club.

      To make you feel better about it, they provide celebratory positive reinforcement like a short ceremonial prayer to a magic quilt with a club on it that includes the song “Glory to Club” at social venues and various mediums. It becomes necessary and socially obligatory to the rationalization process to incorporate the element of a quilt prayer and Glory to Club into obscure things like driving a car or throwing balls on a field. If you are lucky they will perform and throw the clubs around in unison and beat things with them.

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