Dr. Judy Wood

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

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

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

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

January 1, 2016

TO: Ken Doc

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s get to the lies.

You say I support the theory that the World Trade Center towers were destroyed by “space beams.” This is a blatant falsehood on your part. You know I don’t believe this and that nowhere can a quote be found to (more…)

Red pills and white rabbits: Truth and Shadows turns five

 

The-Matrix-Wallpaper-the-matrix-6100553-1024-768

August 18, 2015

By Craig McKee

Five years ago, I stopped peeking down the rabbit hole and jumped in. Well, climbed in.

On this date in 2010, Truth and Shadows published its first article. The one you are reading now is number 172. Over the course of those years, I have learned more about how the world is run than in any comparable period in my life—or in all periods put together. But more than that, I’ve learned that there is so much more to know.

The central focus of this blog from the beginning has been the so-called “terrorist attacks” of Sept. 11, 2001—the greatest deception of our time. Today I am more (more…)

Here are 10 things about 9/11 that deserve more attention – and 5 that deserve less

People need to know just how absurd the official story of the Shanksville "crash" is.

People need to know just how absurd the official story of the Shanksville “crash” is.

By Craig McKee

Let’s face it: the 9/11 Truth Movement is all over the place. But that’s not surprising – nor necessarily bad.

When you have an official story that is so clearly false in so many ways, there are going to be a multitude of valid angles from which to examine and expose the deception. There are also going to be many directions the movement can take to advance the cause and to awaken the uninitiated.

But all these ways are not created equal. When you have many thoughtful and intelligent truthers, some not-so-intelligent and not-so-thoughtful truthers, and an undetermined number of outright disinformation agents, you’re bound to get a “diversity of opinion” that would make Cass Sunstein very happy indeed.

So how do we decide what is important and was is not? How do we know where our efforts are best directed? It’s clear that we must keep our focus on things that will (more…)

Fear of ‘ridicule’ leads to damaging partition of 9/11 Truth movement

According to Chandler and Romanoff, Gage and Ryan should have passed up this audience.

 

By Craig McKee

The 9/11 Truth movement is fighting a war – but it’s only wounding itself.

Self-appointed “credibility cops” have made it their mission to act as antibodies in the Truth movement’s immune system, seeking out and destroying harmful ideas, individuals, and alliances they think threaten the survival of the host. The idea is to rid the movement of any area of research that might contaminate it and invite public ridicule.

But is the cure worse than the disease?

The exaggerated need to control all aspects of the message is working against us. We have become so (more…)

Free form 9/11: diverse voices make Vancouver Hearings messy but intriguing

By Craig McKee

There was definitely no “party line” at the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings.

The opinions offered by 19 presenters over three days were diverse, with some openly disagreeing with each other both in their presentations and in question-and-answer sessions. Some may feel that the lack of a common front at these hearings was a problem; I don’t think that’s true.

One thing that was clear from the outset was that organizers Jim Fetzer (pictured above) and Joshua Blakeney were making no effort to emulate last September’s Toronto 9/11 Hearings – apart from the quasi-judicial structure. Where Toronto was safe and controlled, Vancouver was unpredictable (more…)

Pushing the boundaries of truth: 9/11 Vancouver Hearings embrace controversy

By Craig McKee

In Toronto, we saw the conservative approach to examining 9/11 evidence. In Vancouver we’re going to see something quite different.

In stark contrast to last September’s Toronto Hearings into the Events of September 11, 2001, the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings will pursue the truth wherever that leads, according to co-organizer Joshua Blakeney. The stated mission of the hearings, which start tomorrow, is to “push the boundaries of 9/11 truth.”

In an interview this week, Blakeney, Canadian correspondent for Press TV and staff writer at Veterans Today, said the Vancouver Hearings will explore a number of areas that Toronto wouldn’t touch or only briefly addressed.

One is the question of whether a plane crash was faked at the Pentagon. Another is whether there is merit in some of the more (more…)

The Judy Wood enigma: a discussion of the most controversial figure in 9/11 research

By Craig McKee

For some time, I’ve been thinking about creating a post where the comment thread is the focus and the article more of an introduction to the discussion. That’s what I’ve decided to do here with what I hope will be an open, substantive discussion on the research of Dr. Judy Wood.

Rather than just having comments about her pop up in other discussions and other threads (usually involving name calling and ridicule), I’ve decided to create a post where her research can be rationally debated; at least I hope it’ll be rational and that the discussion focuses on science rather than hearsay.

I understand some of the regular readers of Truth and Shadows may think I’m off base by addressing Wood’s work at all, but I hope there aren’t too many who feel that way. I believe that any discussion that involves the pursuit of the (more…)

9/11 truthers need to ‘risk’ challenging ALL elements of the official story

Commentators didn't seem to see the approach of this supposed airliner.

By Craig McKee

When it came to big lies, Adolph Hitler was the expert. But when he said that it’s easier to get people to believe a big lie than a small one, he was telling the truth.

This is the strategy that was employed on September 11, 2001.

To get to the truth, I believe that we need to know everything about how this massive illusion was perpetrated that day. It was a big lie – bigger than most of us are willing to imagine. It was so enormous and so complex that most 9/11 truthers feel the need to boil it down to a manageable size to make the case that it was indeed an inside job. We feel we need to keep the scope of the deception small or risk alienating those who might believe us.

But there’s a problem with this. After a decade, the strategy has fallen short because it puts too many eggs in one (more…)

On the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis: an open letter to Gage and Cole

Conventional explosives don't explain what burned these and hundreds of other cars.

This piece, written by Maxwell C. Bridges, addresses the issue of what destructive force could have been employed to bring down the World Trade Center towers. The predominant belief within the 9/11 Truth movement appears to be that conventional explosives, including some form of thermite, were used. But here, Mr. Bridges looks at some of the key aspects of the destruction that can’t be explained (molten metal, melted cars, etc.) without the involvement of some other force. Mr. Bridges is a frequent contributor to this blog under the name Señor El Once. He writes this piece as an open letter to Truth activists Jonathan Cole and Richard Gage.

By Maxwell C. Bridges

The recent article AE911Truth FAQ #6: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis? by misters Cole & Gage concluded with:

“We do not support the DEW hypothesis because it is not supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction is well supported by the evidence.”

Really? Does the evidence actually support well the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis, and in particular nano-thermite, which was found in the dust at the WTC?

In dispute here is not the discovery of nano-thermite in the dust or its deployment as one of the mechanisms of the WTC destruction. As a secondary or redundant mechanism, it does not have to address all of the features of destruction. The issue is that nano-thermite has been extracted (more…)