218 comments

1. Hi Craig!
   I just want to say hi…. Eventually I will post or say hi again. Just wanted to explore a little from your universe.

   Reply

   1. I peruse dozens of sites a week. Lately, I’v been concentrasting on 9/11 as it relates to a twisted pseudo-auto-biographical work on my own life in these trying times. Yet, I seldom actually communicate with hosts, for lack of patience with detailing my life and shopping patterns to say thanks. I DO appreciate the research and work people like you do. I no longer bother to seriously post anymore, as the inception of the internet age is glorious when compared to the shill-based 80 I.Q. mobs of today. Luckily I learned early to, “separate the shit from the candy”, and can maintain sanity as I wend the wwww (there’s a term not yet used, or trademarked, “the WWWW. or www wenders, or wanderers).
      Anyway, I do thank you for your work.

      Reply

   2. “Beware of Kokesh and the CIA
      There is something EVERYONE is missing with regard to Kokesh. It may be completely impossible to shut it down, because:
      The stats have been expunged from the web, but many of you may remember that the CIA, which already had a HUGE number of people, recently hired a million more. This means the CIA, which had at least 500,000 employees before they recently hired a million could fake the entire march, with 30,000 demonstrators in EVERY SINGLE STATE, and have all of them be CIA employees.
      Ever wonder what it is like to live in a tyranny? YOU GOT IT FOLKS, the monster is so huge now that it can stage massive movements, which are fake in their entirety. And having looked at the backlash to Kokesh in the blogs, it seems he has absolutely ZERO true support, yet he keeps getting stronger.
      There is only one way this could be happening – and that is if that support is coming directly from the CIA. We could be walking into a situation here where at each demonstration in every state there are tens of thousands of agent provocateurs with a minority of innocent dupes mixed in. GUESS WHO GOES TO JAIL. Guess who gets shot. And afterward, guess what will happen.
      That is the reality we live in. And when living in such a reality, we have to then confront the CIA directly, and tell them in advance we know what they are up to. We need this topic spread in the blogs, and not whether or not Kokesh is going to fool a few idiots into doing his bidding. We need to state with assertion that this situation with Kokesh is impossible, that the real support is not there, and that we know the CIA is doing this. Letting the CIA know that we realize beyond a doubt that this is 100 percent them and that few, if any true demonstrators will show up is the only approach that will shut this thing down.
      I suggest people find a way to send the following message to the CIA. Ha – just use the CIA tip line (while using Tor or at least Hidemyass.com)
      Dear CIA
      We understand that you have the job, the hard job, of maintaining tyranny. But we also understand that you all have clearances and operate in secret. And in the case of the Adam Kokesh armed march on Washington and all state capitols, there IS NO SECRET. So we strongly suggest you abandon this psy op and try something else, WE ARE WATCHING.”
      jimstonefreelance.com

      Reply

   3. This is 2016: I have added a little of Craigs material to my website, The Golden River. I have a slippery slope type of psychic ability which cannot be used professionally, but it comes up as a possibility that something might have happened to Judy to change her original contention or studies about what really happened around 9/11. Possible, kidnapping, stealing of her papers, harassment, intimidation and threats over the years later to keep the actual research she had started quiet. I originally felt drawn to the DEW material and then let others convince me it was probably ridiculous. However, I picked up some of Judy’s energy psychically which suggests she is a nice person, intelligent and connected to groups that might be impacting her voice to the world. I like the fact Craig has given her subject his open mind and expressed the problems with the way others might too easily write her off as a quack or dis-informing “queen.” It is possible the story around Judy is more complex than people realize. I would encourage ethical remote viewers with proven track records look into her situation. Whether she is really supporting the DEW thing or was supporting a more traditional big bomb scenario, it is best to have it checked out using legitimate psychic work. Many people don’t realize how much detail trained remote viewers can get. It’s amazing. This means there are a lot of people out there who probably do in fact know exactly what happened but it is hard to separate dishonest people from honest ones on the internet. The thing about remote viewing is you pretty much need to know the remote viewers personally or be part of the group itself before you can really rely on whether the information is likely truthful. The internet makes it hard to know fact from fiction because we often don’t know who we are dealing with. Craig’s website Truth and Shadows comes across as sincere. The Golden River, thegoldenriver.net

      Reply

2. Thanks for more depressing revelations. My father, a recipient of both Bronze and Silver Stars in WWII, had been a convert of Major General Smedley Butler WWI. When I inquired about our purpose in Vietnam that’s when he enlightened me on War. The Gulf of Tonkin was the example he used about “false flags”. I never believed the official version of 911 even watching that horror unfold I knew that somehow what was seen was not what was happening. Very sad that the Greatest Country in the world, that my father risked his life to defend,which I love, has become this.

   Reply

   1. It depresses me, too, but I can’t write about it without having some hope that people will wake up. The problem is that people have to be willing to consider that what they’re seeing in the media is not true. It takes effort to inform yourself when you can’t depend on the evening news. Many people aren’t willing to make that effort. Thanks for your comment.

      Reply

      1. Dear Craig, Please keep up the good work. I just read your article on infowars. I agree with you 100% and have requested your friendship on facebook. I have also gone through the same situation as you have with friends. It’s people like us that need to stick together. I hope and pray everyday that people will wake up and see what’s really going on. All we can do is put the info out there and hope they do their own research to come up with their own opinion. So keep it up. You are definitely not alone!

         Reply

      2. A bit of cheer, here. First I need to thank you for risks you have taken, as many are doing in the Truth Movement. Now, going to your statements about 911TAP.org (Truth Action Project)…
         TAP was re-constituted entirely, prior to and shortly after the Justice in Focus event in NYC last September. Today’s vast majority of volunteers are either new to TAP or we spawned from AE911 which remains committed to its mission as the go-to objective resource, theory-free space we direct newbies to for credible science. We broke free to conduct public outreach and to support the up-and-coming soon lawsuits — beyond the 800+ lawsuits filed March 20 (2017) by 9/11 Victims Families, resulting from JASTA’s passage last September which eliminated Saudi Arabian diplomatic immunity — the impending parallel set of suits in CIVIL COURT, requires an annual budget of $800K to pay for staff as the suit rolls on against …..
         So please, Mr. McKee, we all have individual views and i personally am one of many who know the 9-foot hole early on that day, fits one’s no-plane position, among other.
         If you truthfully want justice done, you will please revise your position and prior statements — b/c we are tied to raising interest and resources to enable Mr. Sheehan et al to proceed against the Deep State for 9/11 crimes. Anything short of that means you are subversive to our efforts for victory in this epic battle for freedom’s survival.

         Reply

         1. Marc,
            First of all, since you write as a representative of TAP, could you tell me your full name and your position with the group? Thank you.
            You have asked me to revise my position and my statements about TAP. Revise them how? And which statements do you mean? Have I stated something that is inaccurate? If so, please let me know. You state that if I don’t revise my position and statements then I am “subversive to our efforts for victory in this epic battle for freedom’s survival.” If I don’t do what you are telling me to do then I am working against your efforts to support 9/11 lawsuits? I didn’t write a thing about your legal efforts, so I don’t think that harsh judgment is at all fair.
            You say that TAP was reconstituted just before and just after the Justice in Focus conference. But TAP was operating, with a functioning web site, long before that, was it not? I understand that you used the conference to “launch” the group but I also know it was already in operation.
            Does TAP renounce the Pentagon position it took until September? I know this was removed from your site in order to get AE911Truth’s endorsement, which you did not get (although Richard Gage introduced the group at the conference, AE911Truth is not affiliated with you and does not support you). Or do you continue to hold this position while keeping it in the background. People who are thinking of joining have a right to know, don’t you think?
            If you are open to different points of view, then I would like to propose that I write an article for publication on your web site that explains the no-impact position. Are you open to this?
            Craig

            Reply

3. great looking site, solid information, and good attitude all around.
   subscribing to your rss

   Reply

4. Interesting question you posed on GLP. I thought something was wrong about 9/11 from the get go. My mother was in the hospital as we watched the buildings pancake down. I’ll never forget it. Burning buildings don’t fall like that, I thought. It was a gut knowing. And then flight 93. Where’s the damn plane? It disintegrated? When has any other plane done that? Oh, I remember now, the pentagon plane disintegrated before it even hit the building. I am furious about the lies we have been sold. Who knows where to even begin sorting out fact from fiction. Very nice site. I’ll be back.

   Reply

5. What kinda drugs u on – any chance on gettin some? That’s some wild thinkin’, so wild that there seems to be a lot of truth to it in my eyes. keep lettin’ us know as it unfolds. Need to know more.

   Reply

   1. You can get this drug at any Tim Horton’s or Starbucks. In fact, I’m consuming it as we speak. I appreciate you being open to some wild thinkin’. Don’t worry, I’ve got more.

      Reply

6. Please notify anyone who isn’t a sock puppet at the 2 articles I responded to here that my comments are now being blocked, Craig, unless you’re having a hell of a technical problem. If you’re so interested in the truth, why are you censoring it?

   Reply

   1. Relax, you’re not being blocked; come down from your high horse. As much as I would love to be at my computer 24 hours a day just waiting for new comments, it isn’t always possible. It was slightly more than three hours since you sent the first of your two comments – not really that long.

      Reply

      1. My comments here have always shown up immediately, Craig, with “Your comment is awaiting moderation,” so when 2 in a row didn’t, I thought it was deja vu. It usually takes a day or so to be banned for violating civility standards or something on “forums” run by the 9/11 “truth movement,” and I was simply expecting more of the same.
         I asked someone at the Loose Change “Forum” my Silverstein question, i.e. why was he paid billions if he publicly admitted to blowing up WTC 7, and the moderator there announced to everyone that my question wasn’t “sincere enough,” so he had no choice but to ban me. It’s not always for the same board “infraction,” but I’m not welcome on very many of the ones run by your colleagues who are trying to enlighten everyone to the truth about 9/11.
         Kudos for your uncharacteristic tolerance. 😉

         Reply

         1. I appreciate that. And I believe virtually any question is worth asking if the person truly wants the answer. Your Silverstein point is absolutely fair. I was – and still am – puzzled by the Silverstein interview. On one hand, why would he admit to demolition, on the other hand, why would he be talking about “pulling” firefighters out of the building six hours before they were pulled out? If he was talking to the fire chief, wouldn’t the chief have pointed this out? I have been trying to find a balance between the blog and other things. I’d like to get comments up fast but I’m only in front of a computer part of the time. I have also wanted to post more often lately but have struggled to do so because of other things. My wish for everyone who is part of this debate could consider relevant questions without mocking or ridiculing. Sometimes that’s just a tactic to marginanalize someone else without having to answer their question. I would refer to your exchange (just moderated) with elOnce about nukes. Most people think this is a crazy idea, but should we conclude that without actually looking at it? It might explain some things that don’t seem to have rational explanations otherwise. Molten metal under the rubble, melted cars well away from the towers, illnesses suffered by workers. I don’t know if this would explain these, but I don’t think the question should be off limits any more than your Silverstein question should be. Anyway, thanks in advance for patience you may have to have while I get comments up.

            Reply

            1. Hi: I’m not an expert with credentials in front or behind my name. I drive transport trucks and collect scrap metal among other endeavors. Regarding Silverstein’s decision to “pull it” is very interesting to think on. First thing you have to do is order the explosives to “pull it” and make reservation for a qualified trucking company that can haul it. Do you have any idea how long it takes to get the permits to do just these two things. Then you have the DOT to contend with because you just can’t drive a truck loaded with explosives anywhere you want. Now keep in mind there are two towers that have come down and Manhattan is jammed with every kind of emergency vehicle and you are going to try a drive a transport loaded with explosives over briges into that mess, then have qualified individual to set the charges in all the appropriate places and all of this done in five hours????????? This kind of thing takes months to work out. Just try and order explosives and see who shows up at your door. Also a tandem truck and trailer can carry approximately 25 tons, a tridem trailer about 30 tons, depending on what State or Province you drive in. The order is transported from Missouri, unless of course there is a store somewhere close by in New York you can make a quick purchase of 50 tons or more of explosives for a quick “pull it” and an army to take all of it into a building with fires already burning. If anyone that is capable of thinking that all of this can be done in less then a day is still asleep and dreaming.
               I have hauled steel beams all nice and straight on a flat deck. There was over 180,000 tons of steel in the building. Do the math and lets give it the benefit of 5o tons to the truck load which needs special permits to haul on any road with the appropriate number of wheels under it. Is anyone with a brain functioning going to tell us they hauled all this steel out of Manhattan all twisted and bent in a couple of days such as was stated. What kind of truck do you think can haul twisted metal with sharp and jagged edges that can go through a wooden flat deck trailer? You can’t haul scrap metal with the same tonnage as new metal all nice and straight unless you take the time to use oxy/ace to cut it in sizes that don’t wreck your rig. Oh! if the pile of rubble we can see was burning at the temperatures they said it was, you could’t run out the hoses with this explosive gas in order to cut the scrap metal. I read Dr. Judy Wood’s book and she is right on when she said, “Where did the Tower go”? Go to any steel yard and look at the metal stored in that yard, now imagine all that metal all twisted and bent into jagged pieces and tell us this was hauled out in a few days. That yard of steel would only be a fraction of the steel that went into one Tower. Some of the I-beams were 50 ton each so only one piece per truck load to get it to the site. Now twist it like a pretzel and say you can haul this out of a congested Manhattan.
               I have hauled scraped concrete with large rebar all twisted and bent and it has to be hauled in special trucks, not with aluminum boxes. You wouldn’t get enough trucks into Manhattan just to haul the concrete with reinforced rebar sticking out of it, let alone all the steel I-beams in amongst all the fire trucks and ambulances and damaged vehicles. And I’m only a truck driver not a physicist but maybe the Jenkins fellow who did his best to smear Dr. Wood could figure out how all the debris got hauled out.
               Roger

7. Silverstein was simply recalling a phone conversation he had with an FDNY commander who had called him to explain that they weren’t going to try to put out the multi-story fires in WTC 7, which Silverstein built and owned, as opposed to leased. The building was deemed unstable in the early PM, and they set up a ~600′ safety perimeter around it out of concern that it might collapse, adding to the “terrible loss of life [from the tower collapses]” mentioned in the quote. “Pull it” is not a C/D term for controlled demolition with explosives, and Silverstein’s statement makes it very clear that the FDNY, not he, made the decision, which was to abandon the firefighting effort. To spin this into a public admission of insurance fraud defies all logic, as the numerous questions I’ve already posted after the “Giuliani knew…” article in my NYCCAN letter clearly illustrate.
   You have also cited no unexplainable phenomena by bringing up illnesses related to inhaling toxic fumes from long-lasting debris fires, the fact that vehicles nearby caught fire and burned up, or that molten metal was found in the debris for several months after the attacks. The 2 USGS flyovers ~1 and ~2 weeks after 9/11 detected temperatures as high as 1350+ degrees F:
   http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
   and the rubble smoldered for ~100 days. That’s sufficient to keep lead and aluminum molten, but not steel, and there were no partially melted columns or other structural members found there. UPS systems contain large quantities of lead in their battery backups, and financial services institutions need uninterrupted power, so there was a LOT of lead in the WTC buildings. Aluminum was used to clad both towers, the planes were a source of aluminum, and it was also used in all of the window frames and most of the public door openings. Molten metal was uncovered long into the cleanup process, and explosives or incendiaries don’t produce heat for more than a few minutes.
   Simply put, there was no plausible motive for bombing WTC buildings with plane-proof, fireproof explosives to coordinate with an al Qaeda terrorist attack, no evidence at all of explosives, no evidence of foreknowledge of the attacks by the Bush administration or Silverstein, and secretly planting them in busy, occupied buildings is impossible, not merely unlikely. Given the fact that the towers’ 236 perimeter columns were more than halfway outside of the living spaces and in plain view, blowing them up without unmistakable visible and audible evidence would also have been impossible, and they clearly buckled slowly from heat and then failed, beginning the progressive collapses in each tower. The explosions inside were unrelated to the collapses, and were caused by a number of common events in major fires, including flashovers, BLEVEs, falling debris, and exploding tanks and transformers. If the “truth movement” needs quotes from people right next to or inside the buildings, they weren’t demolition explosives.
   The nukes thing is a crazy idea, as you seem to suggest, but that hasn’t stopped some of Gage’s “engineers” from claiming it:
   http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3834688&postcount=12
   I wonder if they’ve ever heard of Geiger counters…

   Reply

   1. I wasn’t suggesting the nukes idea was crazy. I said the majority of people may see it that way. I don’t think it’s crazy. I was saying it’s worth considering and investigating. Your “explanation” of how the molten metal could be accounted for explains nothing. Can you cite any example of a building collapse that produced this effect. Any precedent for it at all? Burning carpets and desks don’t create pools of molten metal regardless of how much metal there was in the buildings.
      Not sure what you mean by fireproof explosives. And there was no co-ordination needed because there was no al-Qaeda attack. You make statements as if they’re beyond dispute. You’re wrong to say there was no evidence of explosive or of foreknowledge.
      Oh, and how about the massive explosion in Building 7 that Barry Jennings and Michael Hess described? That happened before even the first collapse.
      And about the illnesses, I just said that these questions should not be off limits. Seems like common sense to me.

      Reply

   2. So just to be clear… spinning Silversteins miraculous timing of clearly intentional events earning him 6 billion dollars in terrorist insurance claim money in all of 6 months absolutly defies all logic.
      But… 2 planes w/ jet fuel taking out 3 buildings at free fall in 6.5 seconds, (1 not even hit), destroying a quarter of the city, melting thousands of cars within a 10 block radius, and then burning for over 3 months, does not. Even though all the jet fuel burned up within 5 to 10 minutes.
      Then 1 plane w/ jet fuel hits the pentagon, destroys a small section of wall and leaves a hole smaller than the alleged plane itself, which disintegrated by the way! In fact.. All 4 planes disintegrated. On the same day!
      And that doesn’t defy logic whatsoever … *sigh*
      Boy that jet fuel sure burns hot. I’m surprised planes don’t just melt and fall from the sky with all that super hot jet fuel they burn. : /
      I suppose the fact that 9 of the alleged Hijackers are alive and well doesn’t defy logic either, huh? Just another 1 of a hundred impossible and/or highly unlikely coincidences that surrounded that 1 event.
      Nothing odd about the President fighting to block any investigations for over a year, while refusing to testify under oath either, huh.
      If any of that sounds logical to you then your stupidity is a greater threat to the world than any terrorist.

      Reply

8. I’m looking for precedent too, Craig. Would you please name some explosives or incendiaries that produce heat for weeks or months? How about linking me to some known controlled demolitions that have left molten metal of any kind in the debris for even a few minutes? Office fires typically reach ~1300 F, and I’ve already posted a link to the USGS AVIRIS readings at GZ, so the molten metal just isn’t that much of a mystery. Oddly enough, only people who weren’t there are questioning it.
   -There were major fires in all 3 WTC hi-rises around the areas where the collapses started, so fireproof explosives would certainly have been in order.
   -Common sense tells me that people who breathe in toxic fumes from long-lasting debris fires fueled by contents of any collapsed office building are at risk of becoming ill.
   -You just made a statement as if it’s beyond dispute when you said that 9/11 was no al Qaeda attack. Please feel free to read not only the 9/11 Commission Report, which was only legitimately faulted for not addressing the full extent of negligence in the US government that allowed it to succeed, and The Looming Tower, by Lawrence Wright. Were the 2 US embassy suicide bombings in Africa in 1998, and the Cole suicide bombing in Aden in 2000 “no al Qaeda attack[s]” too?
   -If Jennings really heard explosions before either tower collapsed, they were most likely coming from shorted switchgear in the ConEd substation below WTC 7. Demolition explosives would have been heard on Long Island and in New Jersey, so why weren’t they reported by thousands of people?
   -If these explosions that Jennings allegedly heard were from a controlled demolition, why didn’t WTC 7 collapse until ~5:22 PM?
   -If Silverstein admitted to bombing WTC 7, based on his recounting of an FDNY call, why was he deciding in mid-afternoon WHETHER to do it if he’d already started doing it in the morning?
   -If you weren’t suggesting that the nukes thing is crazy, how unfortunate.

   Reply

   1. You are correct when you point out that normal explosives, as well as normal office fires, would not account for the molten metal pools under the rubble. That’s one reason why I don’t discount the nuclear thing. Sorry if that offends you. I don’t eliminate things because other people say they’re crazy.
      I’d like to learn more about what COULD cause the molten metal and what made dozens of cars virtually melt. Some of these were blocks away. I’m not saying a nuclear event explains this. I’m saying no one has come up with any explanation that makes sense to me, so I’m considering all the possibilities. Are you aware of any precedents of molten pools of metal continuing to remain molten for months after a building collapse and/or fire? I’d love to hear about those.
      Only the people not there were questioning it? You base this on what? Are you suggesting that people on the scene found this perfectly understandable? I don’t follow you.
      So you know for a fact that there were MAJOR fires at the point where the buildings collapsed? And you think it’s an obvious conclusion that the buildings fell straight down as a result of the fires? The WTC fires didn’t look major from the outside.
      I love that you invoked common sense to draw a conclusion. When I do that I’m told that I need scientific proof of anything I say or it has no value. I actually don’t mind you using common sense, but it becomes a problem when it is used as an excuse not to look into something further.
      On al-Qaeda: this is a subject I’ll be writing about in the near future so I won’t make my case now. I do, however, believe that alleged terrorist groups like al-Qaeda are used by Western intelligence to frighten the population so they can be controlled. I believe 9/11 was a false-flag operation that was blamed on terrorism when the only terrorism that happened that day was executed by the U.S. government. As for the embassies and the USS Cole, I haven’t looked closely at these events, so I’ll withhold judgment.
      Your theory about shorted switchgear has no basis that I can see. And if Jennings described this as a massive explosion that destroyed the landing below the 8th floor then I’m not sure why that would be any more silent than a bomb.
      Again, on Silverstein: the whole statement he made makes no sense either way. Why would he be discussing removing firefighters from the building when they had been pulled out hours before? I am inclined to agree with Senor elOnce, who says the demolition may have been intended for the morning along with the towers but something went wrong.

      Reply

9. “Something went wrong” in the AM, so they got on the phone and “MADE THE DECISION” in mid-afternoon to blow up WTC 7? What changed in between? There were multi-story fires inside that burned all afternoon, and the debris damage to the SW corner wasn’t a contributing factor to the collapse, so what was the planned cover for this alleged C/D?
   The theory that transformers exploded when their secondaries were shorted by the plane crashes across the street is based on the fact that it’s happened before, and produces extremely loud bangs and bright flashes, but not ~130 dB at a half mile or more, as demolition explosives do.
   I’m not offended by your nuclear “theory,” just amused and incredulous, but I never said that normal offices fires wouldn’t produce molten METAL in the debris of a burning building that collapsed, and explained to you that there was plenty of lead and aluminum, and that the fires lasted several months. I know of no one working there who found that suspicious, including FDNY members who lost colleagues and close friends. Here’s “Firefighters” for 9/11 “Truth’s” petition:
   http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469
   How many signatories to it are or even claim to be FDNY? Do they have their own 9/11 truth web site?
   The statement made by Larry Silverstein in 2002 makes perfect sense to me, and there’s nothing ambiguous about it. “We’ve had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is [blow up my $700 million building so I can lose all of the income from my dozens of floors of paying tenants and rebuild with the insurance money years later, hoping to get the tenants back eventually]” makes no sense at all, not to mention that secretly demolishing occupied hi-rises is impossible. More here:
   http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/larrysilverstein%27s%22pullit%22quote
   Learn a lot more about Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al Qaeda by reading The Looming Tower, a Pulitzer Prize winning book on the topic by Lawrence Wright before writing about it. If you have anything to add, I hope you research it as well as he has.
   If you’re baffled by the fact that buildings that collapse fall straight down, this physics professor explains it very well:
   http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM
   He does a great job on the burned up cars you mentioned also:
   http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics0.HTM

   Reply

   1. Your comment had ended up in my spam and I didn’t realize it was there. My apologies. This should eliminate this from happening again.

      Reply

   2. Why must “Albury-bot” keep pouring off-topic, mouldy, congealed ‘randi’ “Gravy” all over Mr. McKee’s “About Me” page? (As if we somehow haven’t seen that/those website(s) before)?
      http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/richard-gage-joins-perplexing-gang-up-on-citizen-investigation-team/#comment-592

      Reply

      1. Why must you persist in personally attacking “Albury-bot” and everyone else who disagrees with you, mrboz, instead of pointing out our errors? You may have “seen” Roberts’ and other web sites before, but have you ever actually read one? Please feel free to address my comments here also, since Craig has been kind enough to allow them.

         Reply

   3. Re: “We’ve had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is [blow up my $700 million building so I can lose all of the income from my dozens of floors of paying tenants and rebuild with the insurance money years later, hoping to get the tenants back eventually]” makes no sense at all, not to mention that secretly demolishing occupied hi-rises is impossible. it is a very interesting comment. The WTC complex always lost money. I have found several old news articles to that effect. The buildings were well insured, and teams of legal folks were ready at the helm for the “two instances” law suit. The buildings were loaded with asbestos, and it would have cost at least a billion in 1997 dollars to fix (also in newspaper articles). To have those buildings knocked down was a definite windfall for the leasholders of the WTC complex. They knew that well in advance.

      Reply

10. Thanks, Craig. You hadn’t blocked any of my comments previously, so I had no reason to think that you did it this time. Please consider them carefully and read the links.

    Reply

    1. Will do.

       Reply

11. This may be hard to believe, however, if you go to the FBI’s website http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm you will see that Osama bin Laden is wanted for a couple of crimes (flimsy evidence) but not the 911 attacks. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page (30), [Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI] said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” Obviously the FBI realizes the widely viewed confession tape of Osama bin Laden is phony.
    A former President of Italy stated in a major Italian Newspaper http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_solved118.html that everyone in the European and American intelligence communities knows that Israel’s Mossad was responsible for the 911 attacks. The Mossad is Israel’s intelligence agency.
    “There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this basically was going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11.”
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html
    Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.” Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) http://www.public-action.com/911/sams.html
    WHY IS THE US GOVERNMENT COVERING UP THE LATEST ISRAELI SPY RING? WHAT WAS THE ISRAELI SPY RING DOING THAT IS SUCH A THREAT TO THE US GOVERNMENT THAT THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE OVER A HUNDRED SPIES ESCAPE THAN RISK A PUBLIC TRIAL?
    “Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.”
    — US official quoted in Carl Cameron’s Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spyring.html
    The Mossad motto: “By way of deception, thou shall do war”
    Research strongly indicates that Israel’s Mossad (their intelligence organization) masterminded the 911 attacks. Why did they do it? Here are the words from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: “It’s very good…….Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel).” The USA also attacked Israel’s enemy Iraq and is trying to control the Middle East which is beneficial to Israel.
    Here is another powerful quote from Netanyahu: The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.
    “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Ma’ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events “swung American public opinion in our favor.”
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8738
    Inept Arab hijacking terrorists did not plan 911. The supposed terrorist pilots for 911 were incompetent pilots. The Mossad has a history of infiltrating Arab groups and they infiltrated a so called terrorist organization and orchestrated the attacks. They have a long history of false flag attacks – USS Liberty, the Lavon Affair, the false flag which caused Reagan to bomb Libya etc.
    Here is a major item: The Dancing Israelis (from Urban Moving Systems) were actually Mossad and Israeli Defense Forces personnel and were seen dancing and celebrating while video taping the first tower being hit. The authorities developed their pictures which showed them rejoicing while holding a lit lighter with the burning twin towers in the background. They were arrested and failed lie detector tests but were let go due to orders from Michael Chertoff. When they returned to Israel they went on a talk show where one of them mentioned they were there to document the event. The confession video is at Youtube and other web pages including at this link: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html How could they have be there to document the event unless they had prior knowledge of the attacks!
    This information is from an article written by the Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh: Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase.”
    http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/10/08/011008fa_FACT
    Leaving clues behind was another part of the Mossad plan to blame the Muslims for the 911 attacks.
    This article about the Dancing Israelis is a must read. It also includes information about the Dancing Israelis that indicates they planned to blow up the George Washington Bridge on 911, fortunatley they were arrested.
    After the 911 attacks Osama bin Laden was interviewed by a Pakistan newspaper and said he had nothing to do with the attacks and had no knowledge of the attacks. If he was responsible he would have bragged about it.
    http://www.911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html
    The Osama bin Laden confession video that was miraculously found has been shown to be inaccurate and misleading by a German television show. Please read both articles.
    http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16801
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osamatape.html
    Another fake video Osama bin Laden appeared. This one has been thoroughly discredited by an expert.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9777136-7.html
    The Israeli Art students (arrested spies) were following and living very close to the hijackers in Florida including Atta. http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=9-11/questions/israelis/israeli-art-students-canvassed-DEA-offices.txt
    They were also living down the street from the hijackers residing in the Northeast coast. The street addresses are available on the Internet. They were really military surveillance and explosive experts and some were Mossad members. Surely at a minimum they intercepted the communications of the hijackers yet did not provide us the details. However, they were following the patsies to make sure they did their jobs.
    Odigo Systems, an Israeli company with a New York City office received an advanced warning by email that an attack was going to occur in New York City the day of the attack. This is verified by their CEO. They were probably not tipped off by Arabs! http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/9-11_warnings_odigo.html
    Zim American Israeli Shipping Company, also considered to be a front for the Mossad and the CIA broke their lease in one of the twin towers which cost them $50,000 and moved out about a week before the attack. Perhaps they had an advance warning. According to Ex-Navy intelligence officer Wayne Madsen, the company was controlled by the CIA and the Mossad. http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/09/AmericanFreePress0902.html
    Commercial pilots and military pilots at pilotsfor911truth.org claim that the maneuvers of the hijacked planes are impossible for these inexperienced, inept small plane pilot hijackers to have performed. Regarding the plane maneuvers at the Pentagon, experienced pilots claim they could not have performed the maneuvers themselves. It would have been impossible for the lousy pilot Hanjour to have hit the Pentagon.
    http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hanjour.html
    “In the second week of August 2001, Hanjour had attempted to rent a small plane from an airport in Bowie, MD. Flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner declined his request, after taking Hanjour on three test runs, noting he had trouble controlling and landing the Cessna 172. Source”.
    Regarding hitting the Pentagon: “It required making a tight 320-degree turn while descending seven thousand feet, then leveling out so as to fly low enough over the highway just west of the Pentagon to knock down lamp posts. After crossing the highway the pilot had to take the plane to within inches of the ground so as to crash into the Pentagon at the first-floor level. Quite a feat for a flight school flunky who had never sat in the cockpit of a jet!” Source:
    http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/badpilots.html
    Why would terrorists ask incompetent pilots to fly the attacks planes? The Mossad used them as patsies because the planes were flown by remote control.
    It gets even more intriguing: Eddie Shalev was the man who certified the incompetent pilot Hanjour to rent a Cessna 172 just three days after Marcel Bernard the chief instructor at Freeway refused to rent Hanjour the very same plane. The shocker is that Eddie Shalev is an Israeli and served in the Israeli army.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14290
    System Planning Corporation, an Israeli company produces the Flight Termination System that is used to take over and fly airplanes by remote control. Perhaps the system was used with the 911 attack planes.
    An Israeli security company provided airport security at Boston and Newark airports which were the airports used by some of the 911 attack planes, http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4401
    From the article: the airline security company who is responsible for the shocking security lapses at both the Boston and Newark airports on 9-11 is a wholly-owned subsidiary of an Israeli company (ICTS) headed by Israelis with clear ties to Israel’s military intelligence agency, the Mossad.
    There is no video tape of any of the hijackers at the Logan International airport where two of the attack planes took off from and phony video from another attack airport. The only Atta (imposter) video is from the Portland Maine airport. Please read this compelling evidence that should be all over the news:
    http://www.waarheid911.nl/video_surveillance_tapes.html
    This well researched article strongly indicates there is no evidence that Muslims got in the 911 attack planes:
    http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:GJCen6fpk8YJ:www.newdemocracyworld. org/Noevidence.pdf+911+no+muslims+on+the+planes&cd=2&h l=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
    About one third of the hijackers are alive. They had their passports stolen. Atta the supposed ringleader was being impersonated. According to friends, family and former college friends in Germany, he was a shy, very conservative man in real life and not the drinking womanizer as the Mossad impersonator played him at bars just before 911.
    Atta and the supposed hijackers were supposedly devout fundamentalist Muslims and their drinking and womenizing doesn’t make sense. Read this amazing article which is a must read about Mohamed Atta and two other supposed hijackers. This is from the article: “They were talking about what a bad place America is. They said ‘Wait ’til tomorrow. America is going to see bloodshed,”‘ said John Kap, manager of the Pink Pony and Red Eyed Jack’s Sports Bar. I don’t think terrorists would want to attrack attention to themselves and jeopardize their mission. Kap said he also told the FBI they spent money on drinks and lap dances.
    Also, it would have been ridiculuos for Atta and his two collegues to be in Florida the eve before 911 because if the flight to Portland Maine or the connecting flight to the airport in Boston had been delayed the hijacking operation would have been at risk. The very stunning Atta information that shows he was being impersonated at bars and making a spectacle of himself starts with the paragraph that begins with: The Friday before the attacks.
    http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/168489
    Very interesting information about the hijackers that are alive:
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/stf3.html
    The amazing passport of one of the hijackers found near the twin towers that supposedly made it safely through the airplane crash was a ridiculous ploy by the Mossad.
    Seems to me the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence organization, infiltrated the so called terrorist group and planned the whole event and used the hijackers as patsies. They wanted America to hate Muslims and attack Muslim countries for Israel and not care that Israel illegally occupies Palestine.
    Read this amazing article about the Mossad involvement in the 911 attacks by Albert Pastore at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/stf1.html?q=stf1.html
    This information needs to be available to people. There needs to be a new investigation of the 911 attacks that includes people that know about the Israeli involvement in the event. If you do some of your own research, which I encourage you to do, be aware that the Zionists have a few websites that intentionally mislead people about the compelling evidence of the Israel 911 connection . Fortunately, they cannot stop the evidence from being available.
    1. Christopher Bollyn is offering a free download of his book Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World. A must read. He is one of the best 911 investigators.
    http://www.bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book

    Reply

12. Hi Craig. I enjoy reading your articles as I gain comfort in knowing that there are many credible people out there (including yourself) who are still asking serious questions and digging deep for the truth. The comments made by some of your critics display an obvious hidden agenda. Your calm reaction to these detractors is excellent. I’ve always believed in Jefferson’s philosophy of “when angry count to ten” but with 9/11 surely the immense anger within us shouldn’t warrant us to count to one hundred? It’s ten years this year and we’ve counted enough. The world needs to know the truth. If Gallop doesn’t succeed, hopefully her actions would start a chain of more suits. Each suit that is kicked out would expose the failing US justice system

    Reply

    1. Thanks for the encouragement. And I agree that we’ve all counted long enough. I think we’ve got to keep at it if we want something to break. The problem with exposing the flaws in the justice system is that the media won’t report this. And this makes it hard to reach the majority of people. I’m hopeful about the Gallop case, and I’m hopeful about the Building 7 ad campaign in New York City.

       Reply

13. Hi Craig,
    How’s things going? Any word on Cheney suit?
    By the way, I had done a tribute to that fateful day and the horror that the world has witnessed since.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCZiJzIG0c8
    Did you know the story of the Nigerian suit against Cheney? They lost the case file. Of course in Africa money gets you out of anything – people literally get away with murder if they know who to “talk to”.

    Reply

    1. No news on lawsuit yet. Yes, I had heard about the Nigeria suit, but I haven’t really read the details. Thanks for the vid. Lots to remember and to think about.

       Reply

       1. Craig: how close are you to passing that legislation on felony false flag and can you tell me if it would stop the trickle effect caused by false flag and terrorism domestically? thanks

          Reply

          1. Heather,
             I assume you’re referring to the proposal for a law that I wrote about here: http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/make-planning-a-false-flag-attack-a-high-felony-lawyer-and-911-activist/
             I suspect this is nowhere near close to happening, unfortunately.

             Reply

14. Osama is dead – this time officially. No more resurrections as (apparently) he swims with the fishes. I’ve seen blogs and comments of people stating that this is the best day ever. If only they would open their minds. On the other hand, who can the West blame now?

    Reply

15. Dear Mr. McKee,
    Just a note of appreciation for your good work. Much of what you are writing about in the course of your research correlates with much that I have found out on my own but which I haven’t expressed.
    Robert B. Livingston
    San Francisco

    Reply

    1. Thanks very much, Robert. Glad to have your comments anytime.

       Reply

       1. Just read your response– thanks.

          Reply

16. Regarding your recent, excellent post “Largest 9/11 site condemned for banning opponents, harming Truth movement,” DID YOU KNOW that 911NewsCentral.com was likewise created in response to the 911Blogger.com situation? Check out our About page for a few words on our motivation for creating the site. We like to think we are part of the solution: CIT evidence is welcome at 911NewsCentral.com, as are CIT endorsements by Zwicker, Deets, etc. Link: http://911newscentral.com/why.html We look forward to publishing more of your great posts. Thank you for your dedication to the cause of 9/11 justice.

    Reply

    1. Thanks very much for your support and for posting my articles. And I’m glad you pointed out the origins of 911newscentral.com – I certainly could have mentioned that in my post. Your site has some great research and analysis, and I look forward to following it on a regular basis.

       Reply

       1. Thank you, Mr. McKee, and the feeling is mutual. The only thing that would be more perfect would be if the criminals had not pulled off a false flag attack on 9/11/01 in the first place. With best regards in pursuit of justice, 911NewsCentral.com.

          Reply

          1. Yes, I guess all we can do now is our best to expose the truth.

             Reply

17. Truth should be made known to all. Lies and Liars are hypocrisy and must be exposed.

    Reply

18. Thanks, Mr. McKee for your compelling 9/11 truth related articles. If I may offer a suggestion? – Your piece “Out of the loop? The absurd story of Joint Chiefs chairman Myers on 9/11” is quite readable but you may want to look at 1. “senator’s upcoming confirmation” should be rather “his upcoming confirmation” 2. “George W. Bush was defying all reason by staying in a school for more than half an hour after the first World Trade Center tower was hit.” should be “after the second World Trade Center tower was hit.” Once again, thank you for all you are doing to further the cause.
    Best regards,
    Jon Clark
    P.S. Would have preferred (!) to pm you instead.

    Reply

    1. You’re right about the “confirmation” reference, Jon. Thanks for pointing that out. There’s no substitute for a second set of eyes. The reference to the first impact in the “Bush in the classroom” item was actually intentional, but it might have been clearer to write “45 minutes” instead of half an hour.
       Thanks for reading, and I look forward to more comments from you in the future.

       Reply

19. How in the world could WTC 7 have come down 8 hours later
    due to “fire” or vibration or whatever?
    What is that all about?
    Couldn’t they have come up with something better?
    I believe the term that was used was—–PULL IT

    Reply

    1. And how could the media announce the building had collapsed almost half an hour before it did? A BBC reporter was discussing the collapse live on camera with Building 7 still standing over her left shoulder.

       Reply

       1. Hi Craig
          Was there ever any info re the electrical supply/feed to wtc
          property.
          If power to the property was not cut off before the plane
          crashes, I believe there would have been collateral damage
          due to possible sub station explosions etc affecting a wide
          area surrounding the wtc
          Scott

          Reply

          1. Interesting point, Scott. I saw an interview in a documentary last week (can’t think of the name off hand) when a survivor talked about climbing down one of the towers after impact, and he said the building below seemed like nothing had happened: the power was on, there was no heat or smoke. So whatever happened didn’t seem to have caused any wider explosions. Of course there are plenty of accounts of explosions that seemed to be independent of any plane impact, including basement explosions that took place even before the first impact. If you come across any interesting research on the subject of your comment, please pass it along. Thanks.

             Reply

20. One of the most vivid films is “Tell me when you see fire.” You Tube it. I noticed your comment about psychological inquiry into obedience and apathy. I think the perps must have read Brave New World and applied it…

    Reply

21. News Tip from 911NewsCentral.com:
    Title: Pentagon Truth May Be Suppressed at “Toronto 9/11 Hearings”
    Link: http://blog.911newscentral.com/?p=1903

    Reply

    1. I’d be very interested to get more details about the possibility that CIT’s point of view will be suppressed. Certainly, the list of participants includes several people who oppose CIT.

       Reply

       1. IMO the suppression of Pentagon Truth at the Toronto Event is the #1 9/11 story of 2011 so far. Let all 9/11 writers, researchers, and activists everywhere know that a dark cloud of censorship is looming over Toronto…

          Reply

22. I definitely have a passion for the truth. In many cases, such as the death of JFK, RFK, and MLK, I don’t think the truth has been told. I did not find the story about bin Laden being killed in the compound very credible since there was zero evidence other than the government’s word.
    About 9/11, I feel differently, however. No matter what I think of George W. Bush, I cannot believe that he would deliberately kill 3000 of his fellow citizens to justify a war. He could have found many other reasons. I also recall live shots of people in the streets watching as a plane slammed into the South Tower.
    I am, however, more involved in another controversy which is a literary one, rather than a political one. It involves the authorship of the Shakespeare canon. I am a strong believer that the true author is Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. The academics and literary establishment hang onto the orthodox version as if there life was at stake rather than just their careers.
    Do you have a view on this subject?

    Reply

    1. Thanks a lot for the comments, Howard. I can’t say I am able to offer an opinion about de Vere as the author, but I’m definitely of the view that Shakespeare didn’t write any of the plays attributed to him. I got onto the subject when I saw a one-man show in Montreal called Is Shakespeare Dead? The play was a satirical adaptation of Mark Twain’s book of the same name. I had the opportunity to interview the performer/writer Keir Cutler and was hooked on the subject from then on.
       If you have any suggested reading regarding the de Vere theory, I’d love to know more. I heard a lecture from another author who believes it was actually John Florio who wrote the plays.
       On 9/11: You’re right to question the assassinations you mentioned, and you’re , right to question the bin Laden “raid.” The only difference between all of these and 9/11 is the scale. How many thousands of people died in the Iraq War? Bush didn’t seem to mind these hundreds of thousands of deaths.
       I can’t make the whole case in this comment alone (I’ve tried to do that with articles on this blog since last summer), but I’ll try to sum up my position. First of all, it’s not George W. Bush that’s important. Obama is not doing anything different.
       The first thing you have to look at is the actual evidence used to support the official story. And there’s basically nothing that stands up. The three WTC buildings could not have come down without explosives of some kind. There was clearly no airliner that hit the Pentagon, and a plane didn’t bury itself in a field in Pennsylvania. So if all of this is false, why is the government claiming it’s true?
       I believe 9/11 was part of a pattern that goes back many years. It includes the assassinations and many other events that were used to misdirect the world. It’s not just about the Iraq War, it’s about a consolidation of power and control over the population. We have to be constantly kept frightened about external threats so that we’ll hand over all our rights and freedoms to an elite that has its own agenda. And yes, the Bush family is right at the centre of this effort over several decades.
       I wrote a post about how W.’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, was part of an attempted fascist coup in America in the 1930s. It involved some of the most important industrialists of the time.
       Keep an open mind and keep reading. Too many of us are willing to uncritically swallow everything that’s fed to us without question.

       Reply

       1. Thanks for your sincere reply. The most recent book of merit that makes the case for Oxford is “Shakespeare by Another Name” by Mark Anderson. The book that originally convinced me, however, was “The Mysterious William Shakespeare” by Charlton Ogburn. The book is 800 pages long though and is from 1982 so I hesitate to recommend it (except for those with lots of time on their hand, which is probably very few people).
          I do have an open mind on 9/11. I find the evidence puzzling in the Pentagon crash and also the Shanksville, but so far I haven’t seen anything that compelling about the Twin Towers. The difference between killing 3000 Americans and killing Iraqi’s in the war is too vast If it turns out that the Bush Administration was behind it, let’s say I wouldn’t be surprised, but I’m not there yet.

          Reply

          1. Thanks for those titles. This is a subject I’d love to be able to spend more time on.
             I didn’t mean to suggest you don’t have an open mind. Clearly, you do because you are asking questions and listening to answers. If everybody did that, we’d be much further ahead.
             I have come to believe that virtually no element of the official story of 9/11 stands up to scrutiny. A quick word on the towers: no one has been able to explain why there were pools of molten metal flowing under all three WTC towers for three months after Sept. 11. How can a gravitational collapse account for this? How could the top of the south tower tilt over more than 20 degrees after the beginning of the collapse and not land on the ground. It defies the laws of physics. How was there enough energy to pulverize the concrete into a fine dust while at the same time smashing the building downwards. Why did people like William Rodriguez report massive explosions in the WTC basements, some even BEFORE the first plane hit.
             There’s lots about the destruction of the towers that is very compelling. The pancake theory is not a theory at all; it’s a cover story. And we’ve all been very gullible to accept it for this long.

             Reply

23. Thanks Craig. I will definitely need to do more research on this one.

    Reply

    1. Great. I’ve written a few posts that might be relevant. The dates are Sept. 9 (2010), Oct. 24, Oct. 26, Nov. 26, Nov. 30, Dec. 8, and Jan. 28 (2011). If you wish, you can check them out in my archives. Look forward to hearing from you again.

       Reply

24. “I refuse to be afraid. I refuse to believe what others want me to believe. I refuse to lose my ability to reason and analyze. I refuse to panic over statistics as they are just numbers. I refuse to think that everything will go the way it should and panic when it doesn’t. I refuse to buy into this modern day culture of fear that is taking over the minds of the masses.” – Myself

    Reply

25. I am so glad to have found your blog Craig. It has been a long time since I have stumbled across an original thought in my reading about 9/11.
    I very much appreciate your fresh perspective and your gift with words.
    I’m a fan.

    Reply

26. You deserve more attention for your efforts.

    Reply

27. Craig,
    You said “If I really believe in what I’m saying and writing about then I’m going to have to be prepared to go alone at times. I’m going to have to decide when to put away what I care about to get along and when to put truth ahead of everything.” This is what Christ our Lord said about following him even to the point of death. “Truth will set you free” keeping that freedom may cost us or lives. Thank you for your voice of truth!
    You’re not alone.
    Stephen Karp
    Former Marine USMC
    Christian
    Husband
    Father
    “Truther”

    Reply

    1. I appreciate that, thank you Stephen.

       Reply

28. A New Declaration of Independence
    When frustration and discontent make it necessary for people to change their government and exercise their rightful power to determine the government they want, respect for other people’s opinions requires that they explain why they are dissatisfied with their government.
    We believe certain truths are self-evident. We believe that all men are created equal. We believe they have certain natural rights, and that these rights cannot be taken from them. Whether people believe in a Creator or not, we believe that these rights include Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Men create governments and consent to give them certain powers in order to protect and secure these rights for themselves. Whenever any government jeopardizes this goal, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government founded on those principles and to give it the powers they think will best protect and serve their Safety and Happiness. Prudence dictates that long standing governments should not be changed for trivial or fleeting reasons, and experience has shown that people are more likely to tolerate evil, while it is tolerable, than to change a familiar government. But when there is a long history of abuse and disobedience, which clearly shows a pattern of the Government overstepping its limits and depriving citizens of their liberty and heritage, it is their right and their duty to change their government and provide new safeguards for their future security. Americans have patiently suffered, and now it is time for them to restore their government. The history of the federal Government is a history of repeated failures, lies, and usurpations that demonstrate that it is no longer a government of the People, by the People, and for the People. To prove this, here are some facts for earnest people to consider.
    The Government has established elaborate districts and election laws designed to preserve the dominance of two political parties. With rare exceptions, all of our representatives and government officials are members of these two political parties. Even though one-third of Americans are politically independent and almost everyone is unhappy with the results produced by these two parties, they maintain complete control of our government.
    The Government over spends every year, and refuses to balance its budget. It has created debts and obligations that threaten our security and prosperity and that will burden future generations from birth. To support its overspending, the Government borrows extensively from countries that may not have America’s best interest at heart and spends today the money it promised the People it would save for tomorrow.
    The Government forces the People to use false money so that it and its friends can surreptitiously take wealth from us. It uses our wealth to buy allegiance with countless programs operated under the guise of fairness, progress, or safety. Baseless money is the root of profiteering, and causes inflation that robs the very people the Government claims to be helping.
    The Government has created an indecipherable tax code that cannot be applied fairly. It creates tax rebates and insists that we should be grateful for its indulgence.
    The Government passes legislation that will have sweeping consequences for all Americans by cutting outrageous and obviously unfair deals, and approves laws written by and for special interests without reading them. The Government exempts itself from laws it imposes on the rest of us.
    The Government regulates our food, the air, the water, farming, education, energy use, healthcare, housing and homeownership, business, industry, communications, labor, transportation, foreign policy, war and peace, and the currency. It manages with each new crisis, real or contrived, to expand its power. It can imprison and take the property of anyone who fails to pay for its services. It owns one-fifth of the land in the United States, and has a nationwide system of courts, attorneys, police, and prisons to enforce the law and protect its interests.
    According to the President’s Web site, “There are hundreds of federal agencies and commissions…” There are only three explanations for this state of affairs: we are savage people that must be restrained; we are stupid people incapable of solving our own problems; or the people who run the Government love power.
    Many of our representatives are unable or unwilling to explain in plain English which section of the Constitution delegates to them authority for the laws they approve, and many of them believe there are no limits on the federal Government’s powers. The people who originally approved the Constitution of the United States of America feared it would lead to the same abuses they had just fought to end. They approved the Constitution only after being assured that it gave the federal Government limited power. The Constitution and the Founders’ thoughts are written in plain English, and everyone may judge whether the laws passed by the federal Government are Constitutional.
    Some times several agencies of the Government regulate the same behavior, and many of the Government’s regulations interfere with common sense, innovation, and individual freedom.
    Every year the Government passes new laws that it says will make our lives and the world better. If they’re such good ideas, why is it necessary to subsidize them or impose them by force?
    Government programs are always more expensive than originally estimated, and even failed or obsolete programs are continued.
    A small number of people run the corporations and unions one day and then run the Government the next day. They can’t be objective under those circumstances or serve the best interests of the People. They serve only themselves and their friends.
    The Government is giving and lending the public’s money to private companies to ensure success and profit. If the individuals running these companies are the best and the brightest, then they should be able to succeed on their own without the Government bailing them out when things go badly.
    The Government is bailing out other countries, and the central bank does not have to show the public how it uses our money.
    The Government enters into treaties, contracts, and relationships with foreign entities, and relinquishes authority to international bodies, undermining America’s sovereignty.
    The Government has ruled that it can take private land from one owner and give it to another private owner if it prefers the new owner’s plans for the property.
    You are free to choose an abortion, but you aren’t allowed to smoke marijuana even if you’re dying.
    The Government’s current prohibition is fueling lawlessness and disorder, here and abroad, just like the last prohibition did. Despite the mayhem and the humiliation it causes, the Government persists in trying to control foolish and unhealthy behavior by jailing scores of otherwise innocent citizens.
    We no longer have orderly Militias, but we have many laws that infringe on our right to keep and bear arms for our own security. History’s greatest atrocities were committed by armed governments, not armed citizens.
    The Government spends billions of dollars each year to secure the homeland, yet half the time ordinary citizens stop the terrorists. Its agents violate the rights of travelers daily, and assault children, the sick, and the dying. It is developing new methods to monitor, track, and examine people without probable cause. The Government’s money and influence is gradually transforming the police from an institution that serves and protects our communities into an apparatus capable of controlling us.
    The Government’s military spending, not including the current wars, is equal to the military spending of the rest of the world combined. Why? We have oceans on either side of us, a mostly unpopulated wilderness to the north, a nation to the south barely able to defend itself against criminal gangs, and millions of people who love freedom.
    The Government has given us a War on Terror, a War on Drugs, and a War on Poverty. None of these wars were ever won.
    The Government has failed to secure our borders and points of entry, one of its Constitutional duties, despite the fact that its officials promised to faithfully execute the law, despite the fact that most Americans want secure borders, and despite the fact that other nations secure their borders.
    The Government tells us that millions of Americans need help, and it has numerous programs to provide them the necessities of life. It does this at the same time that billions of dollars are spent every month to employ people overseas and millions of people, many at great personal risk, come here legally and illegally. Most of the people who come here find work and shelter, raise their families, and are grateful for the opportunities and freedom denied them in their own lands.
    Those that come here illegally are often swindled and abused, live in deplorable conditions and fear, and never become Americans like our grandparents did. Those that come here legally are often subjected to delays and bureaucratic absurdities while trying to become Americans. The Government is planning to sweep this under the rug again by re-forming the law.
    More than a few of the people indiscriminately entering our country are vicious criminals bent on robbery, murder, or the destruction of our nation. The Government has chosen to forsake the People’s security, and instead devotes its energy to proving its own supremacy.
    The Government has given itself the power to watch us and listen to us without independent judicial approval.
    The Government meddles in the internal affairs of other countries, and recently used surrogates and secret prisons to do things that legally can’t be done here. History shows that this behavior only creates problems. A good reputation and friendship are just as important as security and freedom.
    The Government is indefinitely holding people without charges and without trial, and has identified American citizens, who have not been charged or convicted of any crime, for assassination. These are the practices of dictators and kings, not a nation of laws.
    The Government now fights undeclared wars. If we find it necessary to defend ourselves, then Congress should have the integrity and courage to declare war as required by the Constitution.
    The Government has given itself the authority to wage war at any time and in any place. Unfettered authority appears to have resulted in unending war. This will enrich arms suppliers, but will surely lead to our nation’s downfall.
    It took America three and a half years to defeat the Nazis and the Japanese empire. The Government has been at war now for the past ten years. All it has to show for it are the heads of a few ruffians on pikes, a mountain of debt, the wounded souls and maimed bodies of our countrymen, and everyone’s suspicion that AMERICA no longer exists.
    The Government trumpets virtue and decency and sacrifice to the People while pursuing power and decadence and corruption for itself and its friends.
    For many years, we have forewarned the Government of the problems associated with its growth, only to be told that we need still more Government. A government that continuously grabs power and begins to take on the characteristics that define a tyranny is not fit to be the government of a free people.
    Nor have we ignored our fellow citizens. We have warned them of the dangers of this creeping intrusion into our lives and of the accumulation of power. We have reminded them why we came here and the circumstances under which this nation was created. We have appealed to their sense of fairness and open-mindedness, and have appealed to our common interest to reject these efforts which inevitably will undermine our connections and mutual trust. They have turned a deaf ear to the voice of reason and kinship, and our efforts have often been met with accusations of heartlessness and bigotry, or the insinuation that we should be silent because our words might incite violence. Thugs and lunatics don’t need provocation – only tyrants fear dissent. Despite all that, we consider all sincere Americans friends.
    Therefore, the people of the United States of America, proclaiming our best intentions to the Supreme Judge of the world, do solemnly publish and declare, that we are disgusted with the federal Government’s illegal use of powers not given to it by the Constitution, by the States, or by the People. Five-hundred forty-five people in Washington cannot make 310 million people happy and secure; only vanity or hunger for power explain why you try. We want a government that honors the Republic, not power, privilege, and self-interest. We want a government that is financially responsible. We want sound money. We want the Government to stop redistributing our wealth under the pretext of trying to make life fair. We know you just like the power and the adulation that come from giving away what others have earned, but remember – “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” We want you to secure our borders and defend our nation. We want the Government to stop trying to solve all the world’s problems; we have enough here. We want you to stop building an empire; empires usually end in ruins. We want you to bring our men and women home – now! We want you to abide by the Constitution. It was designed to limit what you may do. Anything else is a violation of the Constitution and a threat to our Liberty. We expect you to return to their rightful owners – the PEOPLE – the freedoms you’ve stolen. If you don’t, then we will take them back.
    “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

    Reply

29. Re: Workers in the Trade Towers and Building 7—-
    Why were non union movers allowed to work in the three building before and -probably during the power down??? Movers who were ex special forces troops from a foreign country!! What country and what company? How many men, how many trucks and for how long? interesting that the trucks didn’t move only unload. All the work was “internal”.

    Reply

30. Craig,
    You like mysteries, and secrets, you say? Are the secrets about the Federal Reserve in the pasted article of interest ? Reb
    *****************
    http://www.freepatriot-press.com/2011/06/rip-off-by-federal-reserve.html

    Reply

    1. Reb, thanks for the article. I couldn’t include a 6,000-word article in the comments section so I found a link to it instead.

       Reply

       1. Well done. A few additional paragraphs have been added at http://www.scribd.com/doc/49040689
          A mathematical progress, working within the established parameters, has not been found that can produce inflation without the result of the inflation becoming a profit for the Fed ($1.4 trillion in 2010). All profit of the Fed belongs to the government. That profit is hidden by the FRBNY in its exclusive handling of the Treasury auctions. It is a crime to hide money from the government.
          The touted concept that government funds the deficit by borrowing from the public cannot produce any inflation.

          Reply

31. A new paper has been published by John Wyndham, PhD, Physics, in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
    The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact
    “The widespread belief among those who question the official account of 9/11, that a large plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11, is unsupported by the evidence. The failure of the 9/11 truth movement to reach consensus on this issue after almost a decade is largely due to a failure to rigorously apply the scientific method to each proposed theory. This paper, by so applying the evidence to each proposed theory, shows that a large plane hitting the Pentagon is by far the most plausible theory.”
    Download here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Wyndham1.pdf
    Please comment.
    Thanks,
    Karin

    Reply

    1. I definitely will be commenting on this paper very soon. This may come in the form of an article so stay tuned. It’s safe to say that I will be vigorously opposing the thesis of this paper, which refers to the “large amount” of plane debris along with the “extensive damage” to the building.
       Considering the claim that a 100-ton 757 carrying 86,000 gallons of jet fuel hit the Pentagon at more than 530 miles per hour, I would call the damage anything but extensive. Thanks for the link, Painter.

       Reply

32. Cool. I look forward to reading your thoughts.

    Reply

33. Great Website!! The sheeple people need to WAKE UP – It seems the more that happens, the more it is “in your face” so to speak, like hiding in plain sight – if that makes any good sense –

    Reply

34. Craig,
    …please contact me for EXTENSIVE and PROVEN information regarding what DID HAPPEN at the PENTAGON and the WTC….REMOTE CONTROLLED A-3 SKYWARRIOR w/ an AGM-12C BULLPUP w/ a 970lb ARMOR PIERCING/HIGH EXPLOSIVE warhead fired by proximity sensor as a “wall breaching weapon” so that the MUCH larger “MISTEL” type warhead mounted in the nose of the A-3 blew a 250′ TUNNEL right through E,D and C Rings….DEAD CENTER on the brand new offices of the OFFICE of NAVAL INTELLIGENCE(ONI) – literally RIGHT THROUGH the window of Capt Gerald DeConto …you can Google this to start but I have much more extensive info I never posted to the ‘net – yet…IDENTIFIABLE PARTS from an A-3 SKYWARRIOR WERE IN FACT FOUND AND PHOTOGRAPHED @ The PENTAGON
    tim white + darrell skurich + a-3 skywarrior + mistel warhead + pentagon attack
    regards.
    Tim White,Viet Nam Vet(USAF)
    Concerned Citizen,Researcher,Investigator,Whistleblower
    phantom.421366 @ yahoo.com
    former
    Weapons Fire Control RADAR Technician
    F-4E Phantoms
    DaNang Air Base RVN 1969-70

    Reply

    1. I’ll do that.

       Reply

35. Personally Craig, I would like to see if Tim’s evidence can be clearly presented without articles on the Illuminati and Nazis.
    It is true that the truth can sometimes be buried in garbage – but I hate having to sift through it and come up with nothing.

    Reply

    1. Could you explain this more? I’m not clear on what articles or evidence you’re referring to.

       Reply

    2. got a REAL name ? and what is your background besides “painter” ? I’m quite SURE that you haven’t the background of extensive and ALL CONNECTED knowledge related to my information for you to even SAY anything at this point or perhaps ANY point…that’s usually why clowns like you never identify themselves…all you kind of guys prove to be ground clutter on my scope display…
       Tim White

       Reply

36. I did a google search and turned up stuff about the Illuminati and Nazis. It could be an attempt to smear Tim and misinform and disinform.
    Until I read this, I’d never heard of Tim or his evidence – but it sounds interesting and I would like to know more without having to sort through poorly written nonsense.
    I’d like to see those photos too.

    Reply

    1. I’m still in the dark.

       Reply

37. Uh, Tim – don’t be so thin-skinned – please just present your evidence and/or let us know where to look to find it.
    Got a link? I ask because my google search wasn’t fruitful. Tell Craig if you don’t want to talk to me…let him sift through it. He probably knows more than I do as this is an excellent blog site.
    I would very much like to see new the “extensive and proven evidence” about what hit the Pentagon – as I do not buy the official story.

    Reply

38. I DID POST an EXCERPT..but Craig BLOCKED it from posting – WHY ?

    Reply

    1. I have not blocked anything from you. If something hasn’t appeared that you sent, I would ask you to send it again.

       Reply

       1. well it’s NOT posting here…I just TRIED for the 3rd time Craig and it’s you who is holding this process up because from my very first post here – I INVITED you to send me an email so that I could send to YOU just a small part of what I’m TRYING to tell you and you have NOT taken the initiative to do so – capeche ?

          Reply

          1. Tim,
             I don’t know what “it” is that I’m supposed to be “withholding.” I have received four comments from you today: one suggesting I contact you four and half hours ago! And you’re complaining that I haven’t taken the initiative to do so? I am at work right now and have not had time to contact you.
             After that first email, you wrote a response to Painter that started with, “Got a real name?” Your third comment said: “I DID POST an EXCERPT..but Craig BLOCKED it from posting – WHY ?”
             In your fourth (which starts with “well it’s not posting…” ), you continued scolding me about something I allegedly didn’t post. WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO POST? How do you know I’m holding anything up? And why do you think it’s appropriate to start taking sarcastic shots at me when I have no idea what you’re talking about. It does little for your credibility.

             Reply

39. Maybe we should start over.
    If you sincerely want to give information about the Pentagon, I sincerely want to see/read it. Please keep sending until it arrives.
    Thanks.

    Reply

    1. yea Craig….FOUR AND ONE HALF HOURS AGO…I gave you my email address…but you “are at work” and in 4 1/2 HOURS you can’t email me BUT you are obviously taking TIME FROM WORK to read your blog/make comments and then reply about MY CREDIBILITY ?….WTF BS is this ? !…now I got an email from one of your readers wanting TO KNOW what I’ve got….

       Reply

       1. Look, buddy, I don’t know what your problem is. I’m sorry you go into attack mode when someone doesn’t get right back to you. Your approach does indeed lead me to question your credibility. If I wanted to contact someone about important proof of something I’d have the courtesy to allow them to get back to me, and I wouldn’t start scolding them. Do you usually get positive responses when you use this approach?
          I will send you an email now and if you still wish to share something with me I will read it as quickly as I can.

          Reply

          1. A bit late for this Craig,
             But I ran into Tim White at COTO just before I left the place…
             I did a sparring match with him too. The guy is a fraud. After a lot of looking into it that was my conclusion.
             I won’t go to the trouble to verify this now, as it’s all under the bridge here, but will only say, Tim’s game is disruption, which is evident and on display here.
             ~Willy

             Reply

40. Oh dear, this has really gotten out of hand and I apologize for my part in escalating it.
    TIM: I don’t know if you are aware of this, but there is much misinformation and disinformation about the Pentagon. Citizen’s Investigation Team has turned up some verrrry interesting rock-solid evidence (in my opinion) and “somebody” is going after them with all they have to discredit them.
    I do not know where your information fits into the picture. If it fits with theris, that makes a stronger case. If it doesn’t fit, we need to examine and discuss it and sort through it all.
    I very much want to know what happened at the Pentagon. If you have new information I want to see it. If you have been reading this blog, you will understand that Craig is on the side of genuine inquiry into the events of 9/11.
    There are those who will attack you and try to discredit you…you sound like someone who has already been burned. Just look at what has happened to CIT.
    But please make an effort to be a little trusting of Craig and his website and be patient.
    Just saying….

    Reply

    1. you have NO IDEA what I’ve gone through to STAY ALIVE by what I’ve exposed regarding the A-3 SKYWARRIOR=> PENTAGON….that A-3 was modified for REMOTE CONTROL at the Ft Collins Colorado Airport…the crew headed by someone I’ve named ON AIR…..you can email me at phantom.421366 @ yahoo.com and I will send you what I’ve already sent to Craig…..what I tried to post here will NOT post…you can’t imagine how well INformed I am “Painter”….been at and in this sh!t for DECADES……
       Tim White

       Reply

41. I figure that I am safe as I have no new information. I can only imagine the danger of presenting evidence that makes “somebody” nervous.
    Important witnesses have been known to get “CIA heart attacks.” Others merely get attacked in less lethal but really nasty ways.
    I just sent an email and will confirm when I get your info. (Warning – it might be tomorrow).
    May I quote, share or use any part of what you send? Please tell me what I can and cannot do with your info and I will respect that.
    Thanks.

    Reply

42. Got it Tim. Thanks.
    I’ll have to read it carefully and looks things up – as I am not as knowledgeable as Craig (and many others).
    Again – what can I do or not do with this information?

    Reply

43. ‘Da 9-11 Truth Campaign to end 65 years of Mass Murder & Squander for Fascist Gain by Shock & Shame.
    February 27, 2012, Abuse News #5003 by John Jenkel, 800-500-7083, 9-11bountyhunter@att.net
    ‘Da USAF attacked the US Navy
    The 41 minute delayed attack on the Office of Naval Intelligence at the Pentagon was by a remote controlled United States Air Force F-16 and its missile, as shown at http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/pentagon-lied-about-having-911-surveillance-video-then-refused-to-release-it/, not by Enron-sponsored al Qaeda Martyrdom Battalion goons on hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 seeking paradise and 72 virgins. The delay caused 125 unplanned murders. As desperate Enron builder Ken Lay planned it, the ONI would have been empty when attacked.
    The 41 minute delayed was caused by trying to save our first lady. Her treacherous husband left her to be a sitting duck in the White House.
    Enron-sponsored President George warmonger Bush caused 2,798 unplanned murders on 9-11 “buy trying to return to bachelorhood.”

    Reply

44. Mr. McKee, I was wondering what you’re thoughts on Alex Jones and/or Ron Paul and your own politics. I’m a “truther” but I’ve recently tired of libertarianism (I’m still a civil libertarian about issues like free speech and worrying about a future police state) but I’m tired of how to the right most of these people are on things like social safety nets, healthcare, abortion, public radio and arts funding. I think we can wring in government on matters like JFK, Waco, Oklahoma and 9/11 and still take care of people who can’t help themselves (private charities/donations are NOT enough) and provide services that the private sector aren’t giving people. I’m not voting for Obama because I can’t support his foreign policy so I’m considering voting Green Party or Libertarian (only if they don’t nominate someone like Bob Barr again). It seems like the left largely believes the official story of 9/11 these days which is disappointing. They laugh and say Bush was too dumb to orchestrate something like that(which I find odd because because they think he was smart to steal a presidential election). It seems like the only people who question or believe something else might have occured are people who think the answer to preventing the evils of government is reducing it to 1800s levels. I just resent that Alex Jones and his political ilk seem have a monopoly on the 9/11 conspiracy thing.

    Reply

    1. Hi T.J.,
       Your remarks are a breath of fresh air to me. I think we have a lot of ideas in common. I have considered myself to be well on the left of the political spectrum for a long time, and becoming an ally of so many libertarian types has me wondering what has happened to my progressive views.
       Like you, I find the progressive voices that once meant a lot to me (Chomsky, Moore, Moyers, Goodman, and others among them) have let me and all of us down when it comes to 9/11 and other government conspiracies. I agree with you that government has a vital role to play in ensuring that people have all their needs met, including food, education, a clean environment, and civil liberties.
       But I no longer believe anyone in the American left about anything. I think the Democrats (who I have always favoured) are just as bad as the Republicans when all is said and done. Yes, the Republicans are completely insane (and I mean that with all due respect), but the Dems are just as much in service of a corrupt system and the shadowy power elite that runs it.
       As for Alex Jones, I’m giving a lot of thought to whether he is a force for good or not. He certainly says a lot of the right things when it comes to the loss of civil liberties and the harm being caused to the country and the world by the bankers. But for me, the jury is still out on him.
       I will never be a libertarian (although I can see much good in what Ron Paul wants to do regarding wars, military spending, eliminating the Federal Reserve, etc.) One of my closest friends whose politics I’ve always been aligned with thinks I’ve gone off the deep end on 9/11. I can’t take her seriously anymore as a result. Very disorienting.
       I’m very glad to hear from a progressive thinking person like you who also sees how the political reality we’re shown in the media is nothing more than an illusion. There needs to be more of us.

       Reply

45. Craig, you said…”I think the Democrats (who I have always favored) are just as bad as the Republicans when all is said and done.”
    I say you haven’t been paying attention. You’d be hard put to find a party more regressive than the Tea/Republicans right now.
    Unfortunately the Democrats seldom, if ever, speak with one voice. Their “leaders” are less than perfect (understatement) but they generally do have a sense of compassion, fair play and “let’s come together” and work for the common good. If you’re as far left as I am, there’s no other place to go in this system.
    Alas, The Green Party is impotent (thanks Media) and a wasted vote.
    There is no other viable alternative to falling backward into the 13th century as far as I can see.
    Ron Paul doesn’t like “shooting wars” – but he’s an aggressive leader in waging war on public schools, women’s rights, poverty and healthcare. His 25 years of racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic newsletters are to be ignored at our peril. His supporters are bombastic fanatics – hardly capable of any conversation involving facts.
    As to speaking out about 9/11, I believe what Robert F. Kennedy said: “Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, these ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”
    When I am fortunate enough to meet someone who has the courage and curiosity to hear what I say about 9/11 or watch a DVD on the subject, I feel like I have won the lottery.
    I had to shift my mind into a space that makes it okay to speak out – just because I know it is the right thing to do. There is a zen to this and the “expectation” of an outcome is no longer a goal for me.
    As to 9/11 – we seriously underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance. I think that there is an art and science to persuasion and we get better with practice.
    I am sorry your friend “doesn’t get it” – my family and friends don’t either- but they are at least honest about it and now accept the fact that I won’t quit.
    The people that are really upsetting are the people who have drifted into the 9/11 truth movement to disrupt, misinform and disinform us about 9/11.
    They are the dangerous ones….and as in our political parties, they are sometimes the ones in charge (911blogger v CIT for example). However, the bigger and louder they get, the closer we must be to our goal…or they wouldn’t work so hard to disrupt and destroy the truth. Oddly, they give me hope.
    It can make you crazy if you let it, but telling the truth is sacred….so I keep on keeping on….
    In November, I may have to vote for the least bad candidate (Obama) so the worst one won’t win. We do what we have to, eh?
    Thanks for this blog Craig. I appreciate what you do.

    Reply

    1. Painter,
       I will write a more detail response to your comment as soon as I can. I will say this, however. I no longer see Obama as the least bad candidate. His record on foreign policy and on pushing the U.S. towards being a police state are essentially a continuation of the Bush record. Yes, I realize that the Democrats are better on social issues, but I’m increasingly seeing this as being akin to putting a band-aid on a problem while ignoring the root cause.
       Obama is just as much of a mouthpiece for the elite as Romney or Bush or anyone else you could name. The fact that he might be a “little better” brings me no comfort. The advantage of Bush was that he was so bad that people started to wake up to what was really going on. Well, it’s still going on; the real power brokers just have a more polished and articulate spokesman.
       Vote Green, vote independent, vote whatever feels right for you. But if you believe the government is lying to us all about 9/11, then you can’t vote for either Obama or the Republican nominee.

       Reply

46. I look forward to your thoughts on this subject.
    It disturbs me greatly that these things are happening under Obama. Is he really “The Manchurian Candidate?” I hope not – but I’m open to change my thinking.
    I’m reading a book “Obama on the Couch” by Justin A. Frank MD and trying to untangle my feelings/thoughts about this man.
    A few years ago Frank wrote “Bush on the Couch” and it was a first rate analysis of a sociopath and helped me understand this president and what kind of person could knowingly cause 9/11. (I confess it took me years to really wrap my brain around 9/11).
    Meanwile at home, we often have the conversation….where/when do we move? Is Canada an option?

    Reply

47. There’s no way I’m voting for Obama because while I’m not a one issue voter or expect a candidate to agree with me on everything but foreign policy is a deal breaker. (which means I won’t be voting in the 2 party system for president anytime soon.) Bill Hicks could annoy me in some instances but he is responsible for one of my favorite jokes:
    ” Change? I have this feeling that whoever’s elected president, no matter what promises you make on the campaign trail – blah, blah, blah – when you win, you go into this smoky room with the powerbrokers that got you in there, and this little screen comes down… and it’s a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you’ve never seen before, which looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll…. And then the screen comes up, the lights come on, and they say to the new president, ‘Any questions?’
    ‘Just what my agenda is'”.
    I kinda wish Hicks was still around because he did call Clinton out on Waco. He was obsessed with JFK conspiracies so I’d be willing to bet he’d be a “truther” and we sure could use some more liberal ones. Alex Jones bugs me cause while he can seem cool in Richard Linklater movies in small doses at the end of the day he’s just a Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage who except that he hates both parties and see conspiricies everywhere. I used to go to infowars.com and it’s just a cheerleader site for Ron Paul’s candidacy and reall shoddily written journalism. According to Jones, to be a real truther, you need to believe global warming is a hoax, the “birther” stuff and you HAVE to be pro-life or else you’re doing exactly what those “evil eugenicists” want. I shouldn’t have to agree with Alex Jones on everything and think everything would be better if Ron Paul were president to question 9/11. and I wish he’s stop kissing the ass of every b celebrity who’ll come on his show. Charlie Sheen speaking about 9/11 does NOT help the cause, Alex.
    It is interesting how much more accepted JFK conspiracy theories are then others, isn’t it? It’s the closest one to being universally accepted by our culture. One time, my really conservative older half-brother was bitching about Ted Kennedy (this was a few years before TK died) and he joked “Man…they killed the wrooong Kennedy”. A tasteless joke but notice he said “they” instead of “he” or “Oswald”. I thought that was very telling. I’m sure a lot of this has to do with distance and the 90s played a bit part with Oliver Stone’s movie mainstreaming some of these ideas as well as the conspiracy friendly “The X Files” but I can remember seeing Woody Allen’s character in “Annie Hall” mulling over the inconsistancies in the Zapruder film in order to avoid sleeping with a girl. “Annie Hall” came out only 14 years after Kennedy was killed. I highly doubt we’re going to be seeing any fictional characters in mainstream hollywood comedies considereing any 9/11 conspiracies in the next 4 or 5 years and if we do that character will be portrayed as a whackjob.

    Reply

48. NO! ANYBODY BUT RON PAUL11
    To get a full handle on how bad Paul’s record and positions are, here is a quick rundown of his most offensive positions, those that would be the most damaging to the country.
    Ron Paul:
    Would abolish the income tax
    Would place the U.S. on the gold standard
    Would allow citizens to engage in trade using gold and silver instead of currency
    Would arbitrarily cut government regulations and believes that regulations only hurt businesses
    Would eliminate the taxation of foreign income
    Is a global warming denier
    Says that Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are unconstitutional
    Would eliminate antitrust laws
    Would eliminate the federal minimum wage
    Would eliminate the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act
    Would eliminate the estate and gift taxes
    Would tax all earners at a 10 percent rate
    Would eliminate tax credits to individuals who are not corporations
    Would eliminate the elderly tax credit, child care credit and earned income credit
    Voted to make it easier to decertify unions
    Opposes Federal Deposit Insurance
    Would revert government spending to 2004 levels and freeze it there
    Opposes raising the debt ceiling for any reason
    Would allow people to opt out of Social Security
    Says that widespread bankruptcy is the stimulus the country needs
    Opposed the auto industry bailouts
    Favors tort reform
    Opposes the regulation of tobacco
    Would protect the ‘privacy’ of online sexual predators and child pornographers on public wi-fi networks
    Would prevent federal courts from protecting citizens who have their rights denied
    Opposed the Motor Voter law
    Would allow states to ban gay marriage
    Sponsored the Marriage Protection Act
    Would repeal affirmative action
    Would limit the scope of Brown v. Board of Education
    Says that emergency rooms should be able to turn away undocumented immigrants
    Opposes the Americans With Disabilities Act
    Voted anti-choice more than 90 times as a member of Congress
    Voted to eliminate all international family planning funds
    Voted for the Stupak amendment banning abortion coverage by private health insurance companies
    Voted in favor of fetal personhood laws
    Would eliminate all funding for Planned Parenthood
    Would ban flag burning
    Would weaken regulation of dietary supplements
    Supports a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research
    Opposes subsidies for prescription drugs for seniors
    Opposes mandatory vaccinations
    Would expand offshore oil drilling
    Would increase mining on federal lands
    Would weaken the Clean Air Act
    Would repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act
    Would weaken the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
    Would eliminate departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor
    Would eliminate the Environmental Protection agency
    Would eliminate FEMA
    Would eliminate the Federal Reserve
    Would eliminate the Occupational Health and Safety Administration
    Would eliminate AmeriCorps
    Would eliminate spending to combat AIDS overseas
    Would eliminate gas taxes
    Opposes the census gathering demographic data on Americans
    Opposed the dismantling of U.S. nuclear missile silos
    Wanted to withdraw the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
    Wants to claim the Panama Canal as sovereign U.S. territory
    Opposes the International Criminal Court
    Would withdraw the U.S. from the U.N.
    Supports the electoral college and believes that the U.S. is not a democracy
    Believes that we have no right to health care
    Would eliminate birthright citizenship
    Believes that law enforcement can’t help people, only armed citizens can prevent violence
    Would allow the legal sale of unpasteurized milk
    Believes that groups of people don’t have rights, only individuals do
    Believes that government cannot redistribute wealth in any way
    Believes in the concept of ‘jury nullification’, the idea that a jury can judge not only the facts in a case but the justness of the law itself
    Believes that social welfare should be in the hands of individuals only, not government

    Reply

    1. How can I confirm for myself that this list of positions is accurate?

       Reply

49. You can google each issue and/or check out his personal voting record for all those years Ron Paul has been in Congress. His latest “pronouncement” is to claim that the victims of the recent killer tornadoes should not get any got help – they should have “bought private insurance” instead….as if someone in this economy could afford that.

    Reply

50. Another thought….you can google Ron Paul’s old newsletters (25 years worth). It is quite a collection to say the least. They make some ugly homophobic, racist, anti-Semitic and sexist reading. However, RP’s fanatical supporters reject all facts and seldom allow reality to contaminate theit fantasies about this man.
    There is also info on youTube where he dumps on 9/11 Truthers and calls us “nuts.” Where on earth do people get the idea that RP cares about “truth?”

    Reply

    1. Only Ron Paul has had the moral fortitude to declare the Syrian gas attacks to be an American false flag and pretence for yesterday’s massive cruise missile attack.

       Reply

51. I dunno….Ron Paul elected president (it isn’t gonna happen but indulge me here) with a democrat surge in the house and senate doesn’t sound so awful to me (compared with the options we’re gonna get). The dems could be there to block him from eliminating or making draconion cuts to services and welfare we needs while he could only have the power to do the things that liberals and independents like about him like bringing all the troops home and end the war on drugs. Sure, nothing progressive would pass but that won’t be happening with Obama either. While I’m pretty sure he’s gonna get a 2nd term, I don’t see him getting back a democratic majority before his 8 years are up. Obama squandered any real progressive change happening in his presidency during the healthcare debate.

    Reply

52. hi Craig,
    I have recently translated your article about 9 important stories of the 911 truth movement in 2011, and we have posted it to Indymedia Paris and Indymedia Grenoble…
    Our site: http://www.reopen911.info/News.
    ReOpen911 is a non-commercial French association, with no policital or religious link, and is animated by people dedicating time and energy for a real debate on the 911 attacks, and a new, independant investigation into these events.
    The reason why I’m sending you this email is to inform you about some recent facts related to the Indymedia organisation in Paris.
    We have published your excellent article “The 9 biggest 9/11 stories of 2011: old fights and new directions” on our News Web site, and on one of the major French “activists” Web site, “AgoraVox” However, when we submitted it 2 weeks ago to Indymedia Paris, the article was simply erased with no further notice.
    http://paris.indymedia.org/spip.php?article10306
    The article does not exist anymore and does not show up in any category, even the “Refused” section. This is not the first time Indymedia Paris bans articles related to the 911 Truth Movement. They consider us as nuts, far righted, antisemitic and antiamerican !!! Even worse, they are very close to a “ConspiracyWatch” group, whose unique goal is to discredit the 911 Truth Movement arguments and people on their site, often using personal attacks, and relayed by Indymedia Paris.
    See for example here:
    http://paris.indymedia.org/spip.php?article8802 or http://paris.indymedia.org/spip.php?article7198
    I imagine that the “Indymedia” branding still means something in terms of “freedom of speach” and “struggle against lies and disinformation”. I’m not sure it’s still the case for your Parisian branch. Can you help ?
    bravo encore
    Best regards, Corto, with geantvert (this message has been sent to indymedia bay area aswell.

    Reply

    1. Hi Corto,
       Thanks for submitting my article. I’m sorry to hear that it got pulled. I guess the Paris Indymedia people aren’t very sympathetic, as you said. I have looked at the site before, but wasn’t aware they had this bias. I’m not sure how I can help, exactly. Perhaps I can read the site a bit more and get a better sense of what they allow and what they won’t.
       Perhaps a link to the original article could be included in a comment somewhere? That doesn’t solve the problem of translation, I realize. I’ll try to better educate myself about the movement in Europe.
       Thanks again, Craig.

       Reply

53. hello Craig,
    Thanks for your comments. i was figuring out some kind of discussion with Indymedia bay area, so that you would know how they communicate with the other indymedias like Paris ? Do they work independantly, or do they have editorial meetings, or do they exchange views about each topic… ?
    If it were the case, then we could request from the Bay Area, to tune up with Paris and other main French cities.
    That was the meaning of my post, not speaking about the French translation and publishing itself on our website of course…
    keep on the good job, and let us know any + development in this “France-US” issue !
    cheers,
    C

    Reply

    1. I’ll try to find out what the connection is and how their editorial policies overlap. Certainly Indybay has never censored one of my stories.

       Reply

54. thx.
    we keep in touch,
    C

    Reply

55. after a new attempt on INDYMEDIA Paris, this time without even mentionning our “conspiracists site”, this time the article has landed on the dark side of the moon (refused, but still readable among other rejected demonic papers), but is still there at least:
    It reads:
    ! Attention !
    Cet article a été refusé.
    Son contenu n’est pas en accord avec la charte de ce site
    En lien avec des organisations conspirationistes
    Merci de Bien relire notre charte
    11-Septembre : Indymedia (US) fait un bilan positif de 2011 pour le Mouvement pour la Vérité
    which means:
    This article has not been approved. Its content doesn’t comply with our charter ( ? ) .
    This article is connected with conspiracists organisations…
    maybe they have realized that, withdrawing the article in fulll doesn’t comply with their rules…..as well ….
    but the fact is there: the truth movement can’t publish on indymedia in France. Censorship is at work.
    I would be glad to assist to a discussion between your American board of censorship and the French one within INDYMEDIA… could be funny, couldn’t it ?
    cheers,
    C

    Reply

    1. Where can I find the refused but readable article? Do you have a link?

       Reply

56. Hi Craig,
    I’m GV, from ReOpenNews, I work with Corto who sent you the link about Indymedia Paris.
    To answer your question, that’s the way indymedia works. Proposed articles are moderated by the site editors and are classided into “Accepted” or “Refused”. (occasionnaly they just disappear… as Corto mentionned)
    So if you go to http://paris.indymedia.org/ and scroll down to the bottom of the page, click on “REFUSÉS” (http://paris.indymedia.org/spip.php?page=rubrique-refus&id_rubrique=1) in the bottom right angle, you’ll access to all articles that have been “refused” by the Indymedia Paris moderators, and where you can find your article, translated by ReOpenNews.
    Here -> http://paris.indymedia.org/spip.php?article10356
    And as Corto wrote, the reason why it was refused, according to the comment at the top the article, is : “linked to conspirationnist organizations.” We just translated your text, and did not add any reference to ReOpen911.
    They mention their “Indymedia charter” which prevents them from publishing such conspiracy theories…(?) What is exactly a “conspirationist organization” ?
    As a matter of fact, other Indymedia sites in France have exactly the same behaviour ; Strasbourg, Grenoble, for example…
    Best
    –GV

    Reply

    1. Hi GV,
       Thanks for the info. I’m really surprised at this site’s approach. I guess I assumed Europe was more open to 9/11 Truth. That’s what you get for assuming.
       I read their charter, and it strikes me as ridiculous and hypocritical. They’re against censorship and corporate domination of media but then they write about things NOT acceptable on their site: “Messages unrelated to the Indymedia project content like posts that are illegible or incomprehensible, mystical delusions, conspiracy, etc…”
       Absolutely moronic. Thanks for pointing this out.
       Craig

       Reply

57. so what’s the big mystery here ?
    Livestream of Today’s ‘Global Revolution’ Provided by Van Jones …
    rbo2.com/…/livestram-of-todays-global-revolution-provided-by-van-…Cached
    17 Sep 2011 – Indymedia is funded by the Tides Foundation, which supports a slew of… Indymedia has also received funding from George Soros’ Open …
    portland imc – 2002.12.28 – GEORGE SOROS’ EVIL EMPIRE IS …
    portland.indymedia.org/en/2002/12/39402.shtmlCached
    28 Dec 2002 – Soros has also provided funding to Indymedia (!) with its contribution to LA Indymedia during the protests at the Democratic Party convention in …
    GEORGE SOROS’ EVIL EMPIRE IS EXPOSED (Attn: LA Indymedia …
    la.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/24903.phpCached
    28 Dec 2002 – with its contribution to LA Indymedia during the protests at the Democratic Party convention in 2000. QuestionsQuestions. George Soros’ …
    Occupy Wall Street Journal is Funded By George Soros’ Tides, Code …
    http://www.politicalforum.com 11 Oct 2011 – Occupy Wall Street Journal is Funded By George Soros’ Tides, Code Pink … The Independent Media Center (a.k.a. Indymedia, or IMC)

    Reply

58. Thanks Tim White for this info.
    We might publish a translation of this “Portland” article on ReOpen911 France, it helps understand how much the alternative media are infiltrated, not only in the USA.
    Another Indymedia site (Grenoble, where I live) in France has just refused today the exact same article as the one we proposed in Paris : http://grenoble.indymedia.org/2012-03-19-11-Septembre-Indymedia-US-fait-un
    … which was the accurate French translation of Craig’s article.
    Reason invoked by Indymedia Grenoble : “article linked to conspirationist sites.”
    –GV

    Reply

59. Did not enjoy being unnecessarily ridiculed by the trolls (hybridrogue1) you for some reason allow to infiltrate your otherwise very informative site.

    Reply

    1. If you just stick to facts, then your opponents will have to do the same or look bad. Your implication that I “allow” trolls to operate here isn’t fair. It’s easy for anyone to point the finger at someone and call them a troll. When it’s your site you can’t just ban people because someone has a suspicion.

       Reply

       1. I misunderstood the premise of your forum then. It is not my intention to combat “opponents”. hybridrogue1 apparently thrives on it employing ridicule, name-calling and profanity, which makes his persistent and divisive presence here highly suspect to me.

          Reply

60. You’re right; opponents is the wrong word. But deciding who is a troll is not easy. But I also can do without the ridicule.

    Reply

61. Craig,
    I’m surprised I’m just now learning about your blog and am really looking forward to exploring it.
    You and your readers may be interested in this link – http://www.scribd.com/doc/80934810/FALSE-FLAG-%C2%A9 – emailed to me by Fred Burks, of wanttoknow.info.
    I may possibly have contacted you before and I’m sure others have on behalf of FALSE FLAG, my fact-based screenplay w/fictional characters about the 9/11 cover-up, but in case it’s not on (or has dropped off) your radar screen, I’m emailing you this link, where you can read it yourself and/or direct others. (I continue to improve it.)
    Thanks to the Internet and an increasing number of enterprising and courageous individuals like yourself, the information now available on a 9/11 cover-up is voluminous and convincing. But my perception is that the audience for acting on it is a small fraction of what it could and needs to be. And I suspect that even the most damning, irrefutable additional evidence won’t grow it substantially. The choir is being preached to with brilliance and passion, but it’s time to enlarge the congregation. Exponentially.
    All this evidential intelligence needs to be presented in such a way that it permeates the cultural equivalent of the blood-brain barrier. How can we bypass that impregnable human defense system known as denial? Drama is certainly one way. That’s what Aristophanes was up to with The Birds, after all.
    The fictional dramatic screenplay FALSE FLAG draws heavily on two primary sources to tell the story of the 9/11 cover-up. One is the brilliant “Miracles” essay by David Ray Griffin, who read the script and provided additional invaluable feedback. The other is a heavily researched and footnoted 58-page essay by E.P. Heidner which “ties together many previously unexplained threads in the 9/11 mystery that are most compelling,” in the words of Fred Burks, on whose website the essay appeared. Following is the script’s premise:
    FRANK lost his 26-year-old daughter LISA. ANNA lost her husband ARTURO, a cook anticipating promotion to sous-chef at Windows on the World. ANITA’s husband ALEX was one of 658 employees of Cantor Fitzgerald who lost their lives in the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. Through the eyes and the stories of these fictional characters, we gain new compassion for the victims, and new perspective on the events, of 9/11.
    Thanks to Fred and his many contacts, as well as my own efforts, this screenplay is now in the process of going viral globally. If you’re inclined to notify others of its existence, that would be great. Again, the link is http://www.scribd.com/doc/80934810/FALSE-FLAG-%C2%A9 .
    Thanks!
    Dick Croy

    Reply

    1. Hi Dick,
       Thanks for the link. I’d be very interested to read your script. I like the title.

       Reply

62. Thanks, Craig. You’ll find it on scribd.com at the link I sent you. Your fellow Canadian Barry Zwicker was one of the first, and only, people to reply directly to me when I began emailing the link to people I thought might be interested and in a position to relay it to others, saying, “This is great stuff.” That simple reply, followed by others like yours just now, has kept me slogging away on this, hoping eventually to locate a producer and/or director who could turn it into a movie for YouTube distribution – the most likely way to “exponentially” increase 9/11 cover-up believers in my opinion. Looking forward to diving into the wealth of material you’ve put togther.

    Reply

    1. Well, good for you for doing it. It’s not easy to devote hundreds or thousands of hours to trying to further the cause of 9/11 truth. It’s easy to begin wondering if it’s achieving anything. But my conclusion is that it’s a fight worth fighting. So keep it up.

       Reply

63. You bet!

    Reply

64. Hi Craig, just wanted to say ‘hi’ – came across your site a couple of days ago (I forget directed from where now, I follow so many links that prove uninteresting I just don’t have my aging short-term memory set up to keep track of such trails) – anyway, great site, I also believe that keeping on this ‘one of the greatest crimes of our time’ stuff is important, and continuing to try to educate people and push for a new and honest investigation of what really happened that day. I agree with most of what you believe according to your writings that I have been perusing, notably we can’t be entirely sure at this point what brought the WTC buildings down (all 3 of them), but it is pretty clear the ‘official story’ is some combination of lies and fantasy, and that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it’s pretty obvious no plane, at least no large commercial airliner such as a 757, hit the building. Some interesting reading on your site, but a lot of rehashing of old stuff in the discussions as well, with the appearance of some obvious trolls, as most places trying to talk rationally about this stuff seem to have (I participated in a few such disucssions on Rabble in earlier years, which as a site pretty much pushes the ‘official’ theory, or lie if you prefer, but at least lets the members talk about it, although there were a few resident trolls who managed to keep things pretty much harmless with their name-calling and mockery and diversive/divisive tactics – but I got booted from there last year for unrepentant continual crossing of their political correctness boundaries, which they are quite serious about. No great loss, at least for me, but I do enjoy the odd intelligent exchange with others about one thing or another, and miss the exchanges a bit – maybe I’ll see a place to add something to your discussions sometime.
    Anyway, no particular reason to write except to say hello, and let you know I think you’re doing a good thing giving Cdns a place to get educated about what happened (really) on 911, and keeping it all alive, yours seems to be the only, or at least the best, such Cdn site. My own small writing contribution to the overall 911 situation I penned a few years ago, I think perhaps when I was getting involved with the Rabble discussions, just to lay down my thoughts with a fuller explanation than you can do in relatively quick comments on discussion lists – A 911 Thought Experiment http://www.rudemacedon.ca/vgi/backgrounders/911-thoughtex-vgi.html ) – quite long, not for the attention-challenged, which so many people seem to be today (I can tell you are not one, you like to write long and carefully too) – it’s part of the dumbing down movement, of course, that is one of the many things keeping Cdns and others from understanding what is happening, or having the strength to challenge what is being done.
    And I just thought I’d mention this – if you ever get a bit bored with this (I don’t mean to forget it, at all, just if you sometimes find yourself wondering if there might be something else you might be doing whilst waiting for others to catch up, which may be a long wait) – have you done any looking into what is going on with ‘our’ money, or thinking about monetary reform? In short, the government ‘debts’, some trillion dollars currently (fed + prov), upon which ‘we’ have paid some two trillion in ‘interest’ the last ~30 years, in the name of which they are dismantling our democracy and imposing their new feudalism (along with the so-called ‘war’ on terror, of course), is a massive scam, a complete fraud, as ‘our’ government, which should be creating and controlling ‘our’ money, has turned this most fundamental of any ‘sovereign’ power over to a private banking cartel, which is using it to manipulate the economy and rob us blind in the process. What they do is create money out of thin air – and then charge interest on that money!! – a complete scam (not the creating money or credit out of thin air, that is fine as long as the *sovereign* gov controls things for the benefit of the people – it is that a private business controls this creation for their own interests, and charge interest on it as well, that is the problem). In its way, this is a far, far FAR bigger conspiracy than 911, has been going on for much longer, and has cost us a great deal more, in many ways – they are stealing our country (and world, but I concentrate mostly on Cdn stuff, as a Cdn), and pushing us all back to some kind of feudal state based on this ‘debt’ stuff, which is a total fraud and scam. I’ve got a longer essay on the whole thing here – What Happened http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html – with a few links to other places at the end and throughout that fill things out. Having someone with your readership to start getting information out to a wider number of Cdns about this even more important (in my opinion) situation/problem/scam would be at least as useful as the work you are doing trying to get more people to understand what ‘really’ happened (or, I suppose, what *didn’t* happen that they claim did) on 911.
    Anyway, won’t keep you, as they say – and keep up the great work.
    Dave Patterson
    Toronto, PEI, Green Island http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greenisland.html
    (my own somewhat erratic blog on what is going on in ‘our’ country – View from Green Island – http://www.rudemacedon.ca/view-gi-home.html )

    Reply

    1. Hi Dave,
       Sorry, your comment ended up in my spam folder (which has been happening a lot lately). So I’ve approved it belatedly.
       Thanks for the encouragement and for the links. I look forward to checking out your blog. We Canadian bloggers need to support each other, I figure.
       Thanks for reading.
       Craig

       Reply

65. The Most Dangerous Book in the World – 9/11 as Mass Ritual
    TheMostDangerousBookintheWorld.com
    The Most Dangerous Book in the World
    On this, the 236th anniversary of the American Revolution, and in the spirit that drove our founding Fathers to declare themselves, “… absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown,” it seems the perfect moment to announce The Most Dangerous Book in the World, by S.K. Bain, coming in September 2012.
    For those who have the stomach for unflinching inquiry, The Most Dangerous Book in the World will take you deeper into this historical rabbit-hole than you ever thought you could go.
    (PRWEB) July 04, 2012
    On this, the 236th anniversary of the American Revolution, and in the spirit that drove our founding Fathers to declare themselves, “… absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown,” it seems the perfect moment to announce The Most Dangerous Book in the World, by S.K. Bain, coming in September 2012.
    Bain’s book is TrineDay’s latest declaration of independence from the mass hypnosis that has been directed at suffering humanity for so many years.
    TrineDay publisher Kris Millegan states: “Like the murder of JFK, the ‘events of 9/11’ were a gigantic hammer-blow to the American psyche, but the fallout from the second tragedy has also had immediate and catastrophic global consequences, and this was no accident.”
    In the confusing swamp of lies, half-truths, contradictions and wild speculation surrounding 9/11, it is our natural inclination to throw up our hands and close our eyes to an evil we simply do not want to believe in. For those who have the stomach for unflinching inquiry, The Most Dangerous Book in the World will take you deeper into this historical rabbit-hole than you ever thought you could go.
    Maintaining a humorously cocked eye, Bain meticulously lays out an “occult script” for a satanic “mega-ritual” that was planned for decades, using age-old tools of mass mind control by terror, fine-tuned for the New World Order. Far from a fundamentalist conspiracy rant, the scenario is firmly grounded in serious knowledge of arcane practices, and the people, buildings and airplanes involved in 9/11, revealing a compelling tapestry of dark design scarier than anything Lord Sauron himself might have concocted – except it’s real. As the overlapping of dates, flight numbers, symbols, architecture, and personalities multiply, it becomes ever harder to shrug the evidence off as mere coincidence.
    One need not believe in the existence of Satan and his evil minions to accept that ritual “magic” has been used to frighten and manipulate large groups of people many times for many purposes, including political and financial dominion. It is not even necessary that those who use these “powers” actually believe in the demons they symbolically unleash. The effect is what counts, and, as S.K. Bain shows us, it works like a charm.

    Reply

66. What do you think was the contingency plan in the event that flights 11 and/or 175 did not hit the tower buildings?

    Reply

    1. I don’t think there was any chance of that happening.

       Reply

67. Absolutely, the op was done with remote control. A patsy gets framed and dies. A patsy is not allowed into a position where he can effect the outcome of the op.
    Peace,
    K

    Reply

68. An intelligent guy such as you should not be single – where have all the single truth loving females gone? Keep up the good work – have you discovered Islam? Would you like to be an actor in our movie: http://www.ummahphantom.wordpress.com

    Reply

69. Would just like to say Hello, And once i have gone through various posts i will leave my reply. Great site.

    Reply

70. Hello craig. I have just finished writing an exhaustive report that examines the four different narratives of what happened to the planes and passengers on 911. Each scenario is examined in as impartial a manner as possible, using various metrics to judge their plausibility. The conclusion is very discomforting, and my attempts to release the document to the public (through ‘respected’ truth publications) have been rebuffed. Would you be able to help me get my report out to a wider audience? Contact me by e-mail if you are interested!

    Reply

    1. I’d be glad to read it.

       Reply

       1. Thanks. Hopefully you like what you see (though I’m still doing last minute updates), and can help me break through the blockade. This doc will really shake things up if it gets proper attention from the public!

          Reply

71. Craig,
    A year and a half ago I notified you about my screenplay FALSE FLAG, which draws heavily on two primary sources to tell the story of the 9/11 cover-up. One is the brilliant “Miracles” essay by David Ray Griffin, who read the script and provided additional invaluable feedback. The other is a heavily researched and footnoted 2-part essay by E.P. Heidner which “ties together many previously unexplained threads in the 9/11 mystery that are most compelling,” in the words of Fred Burks, on whose website wanttoknow.info the essay appeared.
    FALSE FLAG is now a more reader-friendly 90-page narrative with fictional characters, which I hope you’ll take a moment to check out at this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/142983438/FALSE-FLAG.
    Thanks to the Internet and an increasing number of enterprising and courageous individuals like yourself, the information now available on a 9/11 cover-up is voluminous and convincing. But my perception is that the audience for acting on it is a small fraction of what it could and needs to be. And I suspect that even the most damning, irrefutable additional evidence won’t grow it substantially. The choir is being preached to with brilliance and passion, but it’s time to enlarge the congregation. Exponentially.
    All this evidential intelligence needs to be presented in such a way that it permeates the cultural equivalent of the blood-brain barrier. How can we bypass that impregnable human defense system known as denial? Story-telling, fiction, is certainly one way. As I state at the end of FALSE FLAG, “Although its central characters are fictional, the story you have just read is based on the tragedy we all know so well – or, more correctly for many of us, not so well.”
    If FF has the narrative drive intended – and previous readers assure me that it does – your read and favorable mention, given your blog’s global reach, could help enhance the response that this monstrous state crime against the planet deserves. No matter what each of us is doing to improve life on earth for humanity and the biosphere itself, we need to know what we’re up against.
    (Included is an appendix w/a link to http://www.patriotsquestion911.com listing the more than 3,500 architects, engineers, professional pilots, & influential people in government, the military, intelligence & law enforcement either calling for a new investigation of 9/11 or who actually refer to a 9/11 cover-up.)
    Thanks!
    Dick Croy

    Reply

72. A new 9/11 book is out.
    In 2010, Dimitri Khalezov told us that the WTC was demolished by three 150 kiloton thermonuclear devices that had been built into the foundations of the WTC. This is his background:
    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_154.htm
    He has spent 10 years researching and writing his book on the 9/11 truth.
    His latest Youtube video gives the download links to this book. He also gives links to his collection of genuine “ground zero” definitions from hundreds of pre-9/11 dictionaries:
    Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0pdmokX9s8
    This is his message:
    Links are below. Please, download this book on nuclear demolition of the WTC and re-distribute it as widely as possible:
    http://www.mediafire.com/download/i5qvsnpdvl3ivur/9-11thology-third_truth_v4_full.zip
    http://www.mediafire.com/download/p8kdj6mhzcaccr6/9-11thology-third_truth_v4_full.zip
    https://rapidshare.com/#!download|812p1|3252256303|9-11thology-third_truth_v4_full.zip
    http://www.share-online.biz/dl/ZNB7H0SM5EJ
    http://uploaded.net/file/3zxme82x
    http://www.911-truth.net/9-11thology-third_truth_v4_full.zip
    Please, download also this archive with the biggest collection of genuine “ground zero” definitions from hundreds of pre-9/11 dictionaries:
    http://www.share-online.biz/dl/65Z783SMO1V
    https://rapidshare.com/#!download|968p2|2977105591|pre-911_dictionaries_ground_zero4.zip
    http://uploaded.net/file/kocsbtll
    http://www.911-truth.net/pre-911_dictionaries_ground_zero4.zip
    Feel free to share this with other people too!
    I urge you to create alternative download links for both of these files and share them via torrents! Please, be in a hurry, these links may not last!

    Reply

73. Craig–
    Just looking over your site for the first time. Can’t find the series you announced in March by Zwicker on false flag operations. Second, in one of your articles I find the phrase “left gatekeeepers.” Hadn’t heard that phrase before. I’m guessing it would mean politically left investigators who whose stance is ‘this far and no farther.’ If so, the book I’m just starting to read, Dirty Wars, by Jeremy Scahill, would be an example. The book is a searching, deeply researched investigation of the perversions of US foreign policy which took off like a rocket after 911, but it proceeds from the premise the official story of 911 is the truth. Utterly remarkable!
    However, this is my main reason for writing, apropo of the phrase “left gatekeepers.” I have been a UFO investigator for 30 years. I find that no matter how big the mountain of evidence for the reality and the extraterrestrial nature of the UFO phenomena gets, I can’t interest any of you left radical writers in it. All of you, you’re so cool, so intellectual, and SO ALERT. Why, it seems nothing can get past you guys. Every day, it would appear, you work your little fingers to the bone ferreting out deeper and deeper secrets in the arena of “deep politics,” but you refuse to look at the UFO coverup. What is it? Is it that UFOs are so “working class”? It doesn’t have the right patina for you–that must be it. To this day, hundreds (about 500) UFO sightings are reported monthly. Why doesn’t that get your attention?
    Craig, the contentions of the UFO research community are simple: based on the testimony of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide since WW II and before, there is aerial technology operating in the skies that humans didn’t build. And no, they’re not “secret government aircraft” because they have been reported since the 1920s, even before–just lots more since WW II. And there’s more. There are reports, lots of them, of these craft landing, and people getting out, people who don’t look like us. After that, there’s more. There are reports, lots of them, of the people who don’t look like us carrying off human beings for brief periods. From these reports, we have amassed considerable information as to what the modus operendi and the purpose of these people who don’t look like us, who travel in aircraft not built by humans, is. It’s all quite interesting when you get into it. We, in our little ghettoized UFO research community, have collected a huge quantity of evidence bearing on the reality of what I am describing. So why is it not me or any other UFO researcher I know can interest any of you cool left radical deep political writers in it? You’ve given me a new phrase to describe you people: left gatekeepers! I thank you.
    Now Craig, I realize I have an advantage over you in discussing this subject because I’ve gotten through the “gee wiz!” phase in connection with UFOs. For you to embrace what I’m telling you, you’d have to go through that tiresome gee wiz phase (it takes about 2 years). That’s where you continuously rub your eyes and say, “Wow! You mean the outer space people are here?” Ok, so let’s just pretend you’ve gotten through it. Now we can get to the meat of the subject (or one of them): the US government’s UFO coverup.
    For 70 years (that’s 10 x 7), the US government has prevented really smart people like you from seeing UFOs. By “seeing,” I mean prevented you from realizing the reality I’m talking about. Oh, and of course, the Canadian government too, since you’re from Canada. My question to you is this: what kind of a bureaucracy do you think it would take to accomplish that? Answer: A big bureaucracy, with lots and lots of power and money, to stifle mass awareness, silence the media, and stonewall its way through 70 years of what is, arguably, the most revolutionary development to confront the human race, ever. Why Craig! It would be a bureaucracy probably big and deeply rooted enough to pull off 911! And that bureaucracy might–probably would!–have access to some weird, unrecognizable technologies they could use to bring down the twin towers. Don’t forget Miss Judy! Good trick, don’t you think? To use some technology that nobody knows exists so nobody can figure out how they did it.
    Craig, it appears to me from my lowly position as a lowly UFO researcher that in 1947 our dear government discovered an ET presence on this planet and they decided not to tell us about it. It’s not surprising, really. And since that time they’ve never found the proper occasion to tell us about it. But, in the meantime, do you suppose our governments did nothing about this new reality? Do you suppose decision-makers said, ‘Oh well. ETs flying around, we can’t shoot them down, in and out of our airspace at will abducting people, establishing bases on earth, occupying the Moon and Mars–no big deal’? I don’t think so. I think they did a whole bunch of stuff in response, especially since the UFO “phenomena” is extremely dynamic, manifesting a lot of purpose (for those with eyes to see).
    I could go on, Craig, I really could, but I better not. I just thought, after I read your column today, and I found that phrase “left gatekeepers,” and you named a bunch of them (which I didn’t mind, cause I agreed with you)–but you mentioning the left gatekeepers, with scorn, I figured you wouldn’t want to be among them. So I thought maybe I could use that to awaken you to this level of deep politics, to this most magnificent of all secrets, the secret which lies at heart of the US national security state which has nourished it with uncountable resources and power for 70 years, permitting it to maintain a psyop in North America and worldwide for 7×10 years.
    One main purpose of that psyop (“dialogue control”) was to turn the subject of UFOs into a joke, ridicule anyone who brings it up, un-do the careers of any middle class person who did, turn it into a taboo the press will not touch. I’m trying to tell you, Craig, that you’ve fallen for that. As radical as you are, as untouched by propaganda you think you are, as much as you believe all the illusions have fallen from your eyes, they haven’t. You’ve been cued to turn away from this and you’ve followed the suggestions. You are a left gatekeeper and I’m trying to wake you up. Can I?

    Reply

    1. Elaine, I thank you for your comment. I hope to return to it during the day (alas I’m running out the door right now). It does strike me that you make some assumptions about what I have and haven’t fallen for that I don’t think are borne out by what I’ve written. But let me answer you more fully soon.

       Reply

       1. Indeed you are right Craig. I have made the assumption you reject the UFO issue out of hand. I did this based on probabilities, not knowledge about you. This is a hobby of mine. I write to you brilliant left radicals with a spiel something like the above. Always, I get no reply. One time, tho, I got the shock of my life. I telephoned the author of an important recent book (on the subject of CIA abuses) and he told me, obliquely, that he is a UFO “abductee.” That is the term we use for the people who are carried off. I stammered and stuttered and he said to me, coldly, “It’s not important.” In other words, yes, there are ETs operating on this planet and that is “not important” according to this brilliant left radical gatekeeper.
          Craig, 911 that was done to us, it was a huge, enormous crime. My question to anyone concerned about it, if I had their ear, is: Where do you think the bureaucracy with that much power and control and nerve came from? And where do you think they got the, uh, unfamiliar technology they used? I think I know.

          Reply

74. Craig,
    What is your email address? I have written an Insider Analysis of AE911Truth with recommendations for improving it. I want to share it with you.
    Mark Graham

    Reply

    1. I sent you my address privately. If you didn’t get it, please let me know.

       Reply

75. So Craig, I see you have not responded to my letter above about the UFO coverup and “gatekeepers.” Is there anything I can do to help?

    Reply

    1. Elaine,
       My apologies for taking so long to respond to you properly. It reflects more on my time management issues than it does any lack of interest in the subject you addressed in your initial comment.
       While I don’t know the details of your findings over those 30 years of UFO research, I support your determination not to let resistance on the part of others stop you.
       My interest in conspiracies like the Kennedy assassination(s), the Martin Luther King assassination and other events goes back to my teenage years. But it was really a combination of learning about 9/11 and finding out that it is very easy to start your own blog in 2010 that started me on my present course. Every day I learn new things – including just how much I don’t know.
       Your interpretation of what I meant by “left gatekeepers” is accurate. Some of the very people who I admired and was influenced by have turned out to be the worst of the “this far and no farther” crowd.
       I am extremely open to many areas of research (particularly where cover-ups are involved) even if those areas might be beyond my ability to fully plunge into right now. I am an avid reader of Zecharia Sitchin’s books, and I find his contention that extra-terrestrials were involved in genetically engineering the human race to be quite persuasive. I very much do not believe in the establishment view of where the pyramids and other ancient constructions came from.
       So I don’t believe I am a gatekeeper, as you suggest (you really did jump to a conclusion there). I do admit that I haven’t pronounced myself on all the subjects that intrigue and concern me, but one has to do what one can. If I spread myself too thin, too soon then I might fail to even influence anyone on my primary topics.
       The ridicule that you describe that makes UFO researchers the butt of jokes (as a way of discrediting them and marginalizing what they have to say) is the very same ridicule that other “conspiracy” researchers face. This is something I speak out about every day (often on social media, which is probably not a good use of my time – but I can’t resist).
       If I am being careful, it is not to avoid certain subjects or to stop short of the real truths, it is
       to avoid making statements that I don’t have the knowledge to back up. I am open to any sources of information that you would recommend.
       Craig

       Reply

       1. Dear Mr. McKee, you wrote:

          This is something I speak out about every day (often on social media, which is probably not a good use of my time – but I can’t resist).

          You should look into (a) that aspect of “can’t resist (social media)”, (b) that aspect that makes social media “probably not a good use of [your] time”.
          Concerning (a), here is How is Facebook Addiction Affecting Our Minds? Withdrawl can be a bugger.
          Concerning (b), the shares and postings come in so fast even for moderate users, that a two or three day pause can have lots of important information from important people scroll right off (many screens), never to be seen. If you want to find out about someone’s online activities, you have to (1) think of them, (2) search on them, and (3) review their page. Can be a big challenge with lots of “friends”.
          What I find is that even the general organizing of postings (news to oldest) on someone’s FB page isn’t guaranteed. Comments and when they came in seems to affect ordering of the posting itself even on your own FB page.
          I find that when I refresh FB, I can get a re-arranged set of postings, if not a different set of postings, and scrolling doesn’t always reveal exactly what I had viewed previously. A subscription to something (an organization) worked by a team with a goal of so-many-postings-per-day can stilt their importance in the scrolling. Same is true for ads now within the “shares”.
          By design, FB is not a good forum to discuss serious things. They want it light and airy.
          It’s tough to admit or personally do something about, but FB is the poster-child for “internet addiction”.
          Your efforts are better spent writing new articles (or comments) for your blog, then “sharing” a link to your blog on FB once a week or so.
          //

          Reply
76. Pingback: The science of mind control and how we learn to love our own slavery: Richard Grove on State of Mind

77. Hi Craig. Just nominated you for a Liebster Award. It’s a good way to extend your reach further and to give due credence to the blogger in question. It’s a bit of good honest relief from the research as well… Should you choose to accept it that is. Either way, well done on a fine blog.

    Reply

    1. I really appreciate that. How does it work? What do I have to do to accept?

       Reply

78. Sorry,should’ve pointed you in the right direction. You’ll get the gist by reading my post here: http://infrakshun.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/before-resuming/ Click on the “Libster Award” link in my spiel and that’ll take you to the rules.
    All the best.

    Reply

79. It is interesting that the topics of the unexplained, or very poorly explained, WTC building collapses are still as relevant, and unsolved today as the were over 12 years ago.

    Reply

80. Hello ‘der,
    I like your enthusiasm for correcting the misinformation about 911. However, the tactics used on the site are in question. Let’s talk sometime. How many buildings were destroyed (or more correctly) vanished on that day in New York? Was it three?
    I don’t think you, or your readers for that matter, have actually read or comprehended Dr. Wood’s work. I can cite examples. Many in fact. But maybe that isn’t what this site is about. I don’t want to waste your time or mine. Therefore, we can have long discussion if you are actually serious about this topic. However, you may not be. It isn’t obvious right now. Let me know.
    It would be good to go through this in more detail! Truth is important and remarkably powerful.
    best,
    jeff

    Reply

    1. Dear Mr. Jeff, you wrote:

       I don’t think you, or your readers for that matter, have actually read or comprehended Dr. Wood’s work.

       I have. [I’m not Craig McKee.]
       Her main problem is that she doesn’t take her efforts far enough. How does she power her DEW? She proposed (and then later backed-off into dropping dangling innuendo) Hurricane Erin and Tesla energy from space. Why not nuclear means, because this fits right in with late-3rd-generation / early-adopter-4th-generation nuclear devices, which ultimately is what Dr. Wood describes, but she don’t go there.
       The evidence? Look into Dr. Wood’s work about the dirt trucked in, spread out, later scooped up, and then trucked out. Classic radiation mitigation techniques, yet her website stops short. Dr. Wood gives very short shrift to the under-rubble hot-spots, which failed but fizzling nuclear devices could explain. To brush off the hot-spots, she relies on government reports on thermal images unquestioned and unchallenged. [All it would take would be to mislabel a thermal image from a much later date like November as being earlier in September.]
       A person can’t even say there was no radiation, because the major flaws in such a position is that nothing was measured PROMPTLY or systematically, leaving sufficient delay for alpha/beta/gamma radiation from a neutron variant devices to dissipate. The tritium efforts were a joke to cover over the red flag that tritium was even present.
       I’m open to the concept that cold-fusion may have powered such multiple DEW devices, but too many gaps are present in explaining it. And if you’ve got variants of neutron devices in these 4th generation nukes, the need for weaponized cold-fusion might not be there.
       You can contact me off-list. Here’s a re-purposed FB discussion on the matter that can help you locate me off-list.
       //

       Reply

81. Ok.
    But, I am not sure that discussing how someone might power a DEW of some kind is a central part of the forensic analysis Dr. Wood undertook. Furthermore, and I think she would be the first to admit this, although I can’t speak for her, how would she know that? In the book, if you have read it, you would note that it contains a proper engineering analysis using established forensic methods. There is no need to speculate. What does that have to with the seismic data NIST published in their report as an example?
    The book and the evidence, which is what I am happy to discuss, take the reader to the point where they can hopefully understand that the tech used on that day does not have a signature that matches any conventional weapon/explosive/mechanical equipment we are familiar with. It needn’t go any further, although I do agree that Dr. Wood has searched out some examples that look sort of similar including Hutchison’s work. I can say, as a responsible and prudent engineer, and after personally reviewing Hutchison’s work, that he has indeed produced some highly unusual results. That is another discussion however. Also, I happen to know how much energy he used so I am quite prepared to discuss that, only with the understanding that it has nothing to do with Dr. Wood’s work however.
    Dr. Jenkins couldn’t grasp that unfortunately. Whether that was a case of him being deliberately obtuse or merely a mental block only he can answer. But, I can assure you, his calculations start out from the wrong place with wrong understanding of the problem. From that point on, his work appears sound. My question is, who would want to read it, when there is such an obvious blunder in the very set up of the problem.
    Let me give a simple example. In the potash mining industry you can use drills, crushers and conveyors to retrieve the potash and salt from deep underground and then smash it up in little uneven bits for sale to people who produce food. That takes quite a bit of energy. Every good engineer would know how to calculate how much energy would be needed to run all of those hoists, conveyors, crushers, drills, etc. That would be an important number for someone designing the electrical system or paying the hydro bill. But no one else would really care.
    However, you can also use a solution mining tech which dissolves the potash in a brine. The energy requirements are vastly different. Further, one is victorian era tech and other is much more modern system that takes advantage of a natural process which is dissolution of potash into an ionic solution. I can tell, the solution approach uses a fraction of the energy to achieve the same or better results. Jenkins approached the problem like a victorian era engineer. He missed the point entirely. I can’t be bothered to look at his stuff beyond explaining how he got wrong. I won’t be drawn into this kind of discussion. If you don’t know, you don’t know and I am not responsible for explain that point to people.
    I have question for you. Is your response designed to waste my time or do you have an actual concern that this is a real issue? If the later is true, could you explain why knowing the energy requirements of an private/military domain technology matters in any way to the empirical evidence and engineering analysis Dr. Wood presents. Do you know how much fuel a jet uses crossing the Atlantic Ocean? And do you know how much fuel a fighter jet would use crossing the Atlantic Ocean? Or how much fuel a hot air balloon would use crossing the Atlantic?
    I don’t think you are being serious. I have looked at some of your posts (not all fortunately). I wonder what your agenda is and I have to ask what is the web site administrator doing using this kind of framework for this sort of study. It clearly opens up the discussion to nut-job bloggers who don’t have any idea of what they are talking about and how they waste countless hours in spurious discussion.
    If you are serious, then prove it by using reasonable methods to discuss evidence and information that would advance everyone’s understanding of an extremely important event.
    Best…

    Reply

    1. Dear Mr. Jeff,
       This Dr. Wood / nuclear discussion does not belong under a thread called “About Me [Craig McKee]”.
       Chances are high that Mr. McKee hasn’t even seen your comment yet. He’s had other priorities and isn’t monitoring the threads as carefully as before.
       Moreover, you should know that the themes of Dr. Wood and nuclear devices have been discussed. I won’t argue that they have been discussed thoroughly in an A-Z manner. They resulted in many comments, but also brought about some bad behavior in the participants. In my opinion much of that bad behavior was calculated to force the moderator’s hand in having to shut down such discussions.
       To date, no new forum on Truth & Shadows has been created for these themes, because Mr. McKee has other priorities, and these themes can be so derisive that they turn readers away.
       To that end, I am doing something that I don’t normally do. I’m promoting a new place on my blog where you and I (and potentially others) can explore these themes objectively and rationally: “Dr. Wood and Late-3rd Generation Nuclear Devices”.
       I have taken the liberty of re-purposing your words to get the discussion going. My response to your lengthy comment from yesterday is the last part of the posting.
       If you want to continue this discussion, you can make a comment there.
       Further discussion of these Dr. Wood or nuclear themes here on Truth & Shadows will result in them getting purged [… until Mr. McKee sees fit to open a new home for the discussion to bloom.] I harbor no ill-will towards Mr. McKee, even though I am the resident champion of those themes and impacted by the consequences of the bad behavior. If you persist in your promotion here [until such a new venue is open], ~~I~~ will be the one calling it to Mr. McKee’s attention.
       With the links to my blog, I’m doing (a) Mr. McKee, (b) Truth & Shadows, and (c)_ these Dr. Wood & nuclear themes a valued service. They take this off-list in the hopes of avoiding the purposeful bad behavior while allowing for the arguments to get honed and improved, before a new venue is created on T&S.
       Full disclosure: Yes, my blog does give me home-court advantage, and I do moderate the comments before allowing them to be posted. But I’ll be objective and fair. Because of this home-court advantage and because it will never be my duty to preserve the entirety of your words, it might benefit you to maintain in parallel your own blog with your version of the discussion.
       At any rate, the response to your T&S comment is the last one in the top-level posting. Neither of us should make any more comments in this thread on these themes.
       Sincerely,
       //

       Reply

82. Great. Thanks. My comments stand. If the moderator chooses to remove this text that is fine. it is his site.
    At a meta level, having a discussion about Dr. Wood where the emphasis is on her and not her work is kind of what triggered me to write something. Also, without some kind of formal structure, there is just too much nonsense for people to follow it.
    For example, in your notes, you haven’t responded to anything I wrote. This kind of tactic, while effective in dissuading readings from taking the discussion seriously, is a complete waste of time.
    My criticism therefore remains in place. The person maintaining this site is obviously a sophisticated individual. He undoubtedly has the ability to structure the discussion in a way to limit this kind of thing. It is volition to have or to allow the wild bunch untrammeled opportunities to take pot shots at Dr. Wood’s work.
    Your comments are a case in point. On first glance, it sounds like you have a legitimate question about Dr. Wood’s work. But on review, we can see that that isn’t true. The next move is an immediate change of course to a new topic. Ok. But, I would be naive to think that you are not smart enough to be fully cognizant of what is taking place. Hence my response.
    If this site is what is purports to be then there should be a legitimate effort to vet Dr. Wood’s work and in light of that effort explore the implications for other so-called truthers. In this regard, this site is an unmitigated failure. That can’t be an accident.
    This is the difference between what I am doing and what you are doing. My comments have remained consistent with my initial post. I have stayed on topic.
    Let’s take another simple example. Often people state that Dr. Wood used fake photos. Really? This kind of statement should have brought an immediate response from the moderator because it delegitimizes Dr. Wood and her work quite viciously. Yet, those comments are allowed to stand.
    If this were true, then there would be proof. Also, as you have undoubtedly noticed, the book uses photos as evidence but is also uses several other sources of information to corroborate that evidence. It is a thorough forensic review.
    Making those kind of statements without proof actually looks slanderous to me (I am not a lawyer). What did the moderator do when this occurred?
    So in response for your request to move our interaction to another location, I do not accept. There is a reason I put this information in this location. It is a comment on this site! The exchanges we have had are merely examples for clever readers to see what I was concerned about.
    The tactics used here a commonplace unfortunately. I can’t and I won’t try to correct this wherever it occurs.
    Thanks for taking the time to prove my point!
    Best…

    Reply

83. Please move any discussion about Judy Wood to the post on that subject. Thank you.
    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/

    Reply

    1. Dear Mr. McKee,
       The comments to “The Judy Wood enigma: a discussion of the most controversial figure in 9/11 research” are already over 500 making it load slow. They were juked as well which, together with bad behavior, contributed to COMMENTS BEING CLOSED.
       Until a “Dr. Wood Discussion Part 2 with Nookiedoo” placeholder article can be published (that doesn’t even have to say much), the following link is where I’m trying to divert our activities to discuss it.
       http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html#x6
       Dear Mr. Jeff,
       I’ve addressed there your first and second comments posted here. I went through your 2nd comment point by point. I’m working on a response to your third comment. It isn’t as if you’ve been ignored. We’re just trying to find a place to have a discussion which will serve to educate us both and to help us hone our arguments.
       //

       Reply

84. Yes, I had forgotten that. Thank you, Señor for pointing it out.There is no place at the moment for a discussion of Dr. Wood on this blog, so continuing on Señor’s blog is a great idea.

    Reply

85. Much appreciation coming your way from Southern California! I am often called a conspiracy nut, but my thirst for truth is insatiable- once one’s mind is piqued, there is no going back to mainstream junk media. You and the Centre for Global Research with Michel Chussodovsky are my top Canadians!

    Reply

86. Hi Craig,
    I have been following the 9/11 truth movement for a long time. I have seen pretty well all of the damning videos and know the details quite well. I am contacting you because I was watching a video yesterday and was stunned to see, not only something I’ve never seen before, but have never once heard mentioned from all the docs out there. The video I was watching is called What Happened to the 9-11 Planes and Hijackers? – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YtSVnz7FeA
    At the 2:02 mark of the film, just after the beginning, you will see the second plane approaching the building and about to make impact. What I saw, and would draw your attention to, is the undercarriage of the plane as it’s about to hit. You can clearly see something is being fired, launched, from the belly of the plane into the wall of the building. This is not the “flash prior to impact” that everyone is so familiar with, this is a clear launch, a firing into the wall. There has always been the speculation that something was evident on the belly of the second plane but this I’ve never heard mention of. Please have a look and let me know if you can corroborate this observation.
    Gary H

    Reply

    1. It appears to be a white flash of sunlight on the fuselage.

       Reply

87. You are cray cray !

    Reply

    1. You might be right about that!

       Reply

88. Good article. Unfortunately, the fact is no one has detailed sufficient evidence to objectively determine what happened at the pentagon. That fact, in and of itself, is telling. Whatever happened, it seems to be directly related to the other inexplicable event of that day. For example, why did the pentagon almost immediately cover the entire lawn in front of the crash site with loads of fresh dirt? This is not unlike what was done at the WTC, removing (contaminated?) dirt and replacing it with truckloads of fresh dirt. I have come to believe the only way to get a firm grip on what happened on 9/11 is by studying and understanding how military deception and false information effectively disguise events. This is a subject studied at war colleges and it is well defined. “Deception is a traditional component of political and military conflict …” (Deception 101-Primer on Deception by Dr. Joseph Caldwell, can be found at fas.org/rp/eprint/deception.pdf.) The perps are experts at deception, i.e., one cannot expect to explain the events of 9/11 without understanding how experts use deception and false information to achieve their goals. Simply understanding the difference between fabrication and manipulation of false information, or whether events were active or passive deception, or, if passive deception was used, whether it was type “A” or type “M,” would go a long way toward unraveling the mysteries of 9/11.

    Reply

89. Craig,
    I had taken my son to the park just a couple of days ago. Short and sweet, it was a nice time, but we got there late and it was getting dark when we left. As we were walking out I mentioned to him how everybody was looking down, that I found it disturbing…
    You know that phrase ‘looking down’ may acquire a whole new meaning in the near future from this behavior… it is everywhere now isn’t it? Of course everyone was looking at their cell phones. Well my son- he is just 7 years old- says to me, it seems out of the blue, “Its mind control…” And I follow-up his comment with something like, “You may have something there…”
    These are strange days. Truth and Shadows has a place in these strange days. You have I think an important voice, and your site has become a kind of ‘watering hole’ for me… I come back to it to see what is going on..!
    And what is going on with 911..? I still remember watching the towers come down. It was an eerie thing… and the whole UFO nonsense has a part in these strange days too. It’s good to see you have an open mind on that topic… something is going on there. No doubt. Shakespeare too… kind of refreshing to see that aside here!
    Keep up the good work!! Your explorations of the rabbit hole(s)- quite a fitting term as well- is (are) much needed!!
    James

    Reply

    1. I appreciate that very much, James.

       Reply

90. James,
    In response to your question about 9/11, check this out: Serious fact-based fiction about the 9/11 cover-up: http://www.scribd.com/doc/142983438/FALSE-FLAG – Truth & Story vs. Denial. (Free download.)
    Thanks!
    Dick Croy

    Reply

91. Well I did take the time to look at this False Flag thing… it is a good intro and I have already suggested it as reading to some friends.
    I had gone far enough into the 911catastrophe to convince myself of the ‘metastatic’, and labyrinthine aspects of its … skeleton… And then I stopped. False Flag does introduce you to some competing viewpoints. I had never read Heidner. His piece is eye-opening and pathetic in its detail. The Black Flag Trust… Money from the Reich and Japanese sources… so much it is hard to believe. Bush turned a key… one of many keys that had to be turned to unlock the catastrophe that was 911… this from Heidner…
    “The father of the assassin that put Bush in power was John (a.k.a. Jack) Hinckley, Sr., who was the owner of Vanderbilt Oil. Hinckley had been giving maximum donations every year to George H.W. Bush since he started running for Congress. “When the Hinckley oil company, Vanderbilt Oil started to fail in the 1960s, Bush, Sr.’s, Zapata Oil financially bailed out Hinckley’s company. Hinckley had been running an operation with six dead wells, but he began making several million dollars a year after the Bush bailout.” John Hinckley, Sr., had also been extensively involved in an executive position with U.S. Ministries for World Vision, a widely reported CIA front operation. After the Jonestown Massacre, World Vision took over Jonestown. . In The Black Hole of Guyana: The Untold Story of the Jonestown Massacre, John Judge painstakingly documents that Jonestown was a CIA operation for converting dispossessed and lonely refugees into assassins. In an operation that was falling under Congressional investigation, the evidence had to be eliminated – and nearly all the inhabitants were murdered to prevent disclosure.”
    A lot going on… Its easy not to look at 911 with the kind of sight it takes to really see it. It is scary and will open your eyes a lot more than you may want them opened. I think not wanting to know the truth is the biggest stumbling block when it comes to 911. The rest is out there… you can begin to see the outlines of the shadow. But if you are too afraid of shadows to look … well there is the problem.

    Reply

    1. Thanks, James, for recommending it to friends!

       Reply

92. Should have read uh..not Black Flag Trust…but the Black Eagle Trust… The Reich’s gold bullion apparently was ’embossed’ with a black eagle…

    Reply

93. I dont think they will read it… but I did recommend. It is hard to get this stuff across… you have to want to really get it. You know 911 is a little like a magic trick in some ways.
    It is an incredible thing… to begin to see the logistics, to see how and why it was done… a lot of people dont even care. A lot of time its only other magicians that want to know…

    Reply

94. What is your opinion of the 9/11 info being presented as serious fiction? Following is a portion of the (too lengthy) pitch I was making when I initially introduced FALSE FLAG to potential readers:
    Can serious fact-based fiction play a role in creating a better understanding of critical contemporary social/political issues like 9/11? Is there a body of 9/11-related fiction? This seems to me a subject worthy of editorial inquiry.
    Thanks to the Internet and an increasing number of enterprising and courageous individuals, the information now available on a 9/11 cover-up is voluminous and convincing. But my perception is that the world’s understanding of this wealth of evidence, or willingness even to consider it, is a small fraction of what it could and needs to be for the good of the planet and the people who inhabit it. The choir is being preached to with brilliance and passion, but it’s time to enlarge the congregation. Exponentially.
    All this evidential intelligence needs to be presented in such a way that it permeates the cultural equivalent of the blood-brain barrier. How can we bypass that impregnable human defense system known as denial? Story-telling, fiction, is certainly one way. As I state at the end of my novella False Flag, “Although its central characters are fictional, the story you have just read is based on the tragedy we all know so well – or, more correctly for many of us, not so well.”

    Reply

95. I think your attempt was a good introduction actually… the average person is not going to wade through all the data and all the narrative about what really happened. I cant do that either.
    As a kind of summary and appreciation of its true significance I think you did a good job. I think you made an effort to show how and why people are trying to gauge its real meaning with not much truth to guide them… and you left the mystery.
    It is still a mysterious thing isnt it? It is mysterious not just in the way it happened but in our reactions to this disaster. Many of us have shrugged it off as just one more disaster though we may have seen it happen… and realized this was not something ordinary.
    It is ordinary now. Or at least many of us seem to think so…. but it wasn’t ordinary at all was it… so that is a bit mysterious to my mind too. I think the comparison to a magic trick is a little too apt… Of course the amount of disinformation has multiplied … there are a few people out there that dont want us to know the truth arent there..?

    Reply

96. Thanks for the benefit of your expertise!

    Reply

97. Some overlooked info
    https://sites.google.com/site/thefactsofthebbostonbombing/black-ops-did-it

    Reply

98. Here’s another Canadian to be proud and amazed by.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-and-peace-the-lost-principles-of-science-and-value/5456055
    Mn. does this guy get the heart of it..

    Reply

99. Those who are interested in Physics, may find here https://www.academia.edu/13907138/World_Trade_Center_Collapse_as_Inelastic_Collision_and_the_Problem_of_Variable-Mass_in_Physics
    new compelling evidence, explaining why top WTC2 and WTC1 (whose mass was just 10% of the total mass of building) did not have energy enough to crush down the whole buildings beneath.
    Only a controlled demolition of basement can explain the total collapses of Twin Towers.

    Reply

    1. Albert said:
       “Only a controlled demolition of basement can explain the total collapses of Twin Towers”
       The basement had NOTHING to do with the explosion of the Towers.
       The Towers didn’t collapse…..they were blown to smithereens from the top down.
       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDoGuLpirc

       Reply

       1. WRONG

          Reply

          1. huh?

             Reply

100. Can you tell me what happened at the last annual meeting of Architects of America. I had heard that Mr. Gage had put forth a motion to conclude that bldg 7 was a controlled demo. Did they actually get to a vote or was it “mysteriously” removed from the agenda?

     Reply

     1. No, it was voted on and overwhelmingly defeated, I’m said to say. Only 4% of the delegates voted yes. It is clear that the members forgot about science and made a political choice.

        Reply

101. This seems to be the only route to direct comment to CM, albeit an old one. My only comment is to take a look at The “common core” directives for education in America. I am a secondary teacher and like many teachers (and parents and students) find the methods unnecessarily complicated to the point of being meaningless. Math teachers must spend hour and hours day and weeks in “inservice” meetings getting re-grooved so that they can teach the convoluted vocabulary. Maybe it is just another “new math”. But in other subjects, the directives seem to emphasize training over teaching, replication over originality , acquiring skills over learning to think. It seems like indoctrination disguised as critical thinking. Critical thinking deracinated from it’s reason or meaning. I am a genuine pragmatist and came to teaching mid life from a career in journalism so at first exposure I welcomed the new Common Core as emphasizing learning to write a an objective report over learning to analyze poetry (an appalling practice anyway) . On closer examination I thought of Gandhi’s (maybe apocryphal) retort to praise of the British for their investment in education in India. He said “they are merely training legions of clerks to serve the empire.”

     Reply

102. Truth and Shadows appeared in my email box this morning. I was about to delete it as spam, but the name piqued my interest. Glad I opened the link! Your well-written expose of the Orlando false flag asked (and answered) questions about the event that have bothered me from the moment I saw the calm individuals carrying stony-faced “victims” back toward the Pulse nightclub. Please keep up the good work!

     Reply

     1. Thanks very much.

        Reply

103. Life on Mars? Whoah … that’s beyond me.

     Reply

104. Dear ladies and gentlemen,
     the german physicist Heinz Pommer answered my questions on the nuclear demolition of the WTC on 9/11 which D. Khalezov left over. He ist in my opinion the completest debunker of 911:
     http://911history.de
     All the best
     Uwe

     Reply

105. Just comparing photos from Thailand bombings (12/8/16) to false flag bombings within America, Thailand real blood, USA bombings fake blood. Anyone else thinking the same way?

     Reply

106. Hello Mr. MacQueen, could you tell me more about the Center for Peace Studies please, I wanna know more about it, thanks.

     Reply

107. Hello, Craig!
     I hope you preserve the comments on the Bob McIlvaine thread for future reference of people’s positions, even if you lock the thread.
     Thank you!

     Reply

     1. I debated wiping the whole thing clean but decided against it. I will likely offer a detailed comment and then open the discussion again. But with strict rules about personal attacks.

        Reply

        1. Thank you!

           Reply

108. Story vs. Denial. Serious fact-based fiction about the 9/11 cover-up: http://www.scribd.com/doc/142983438/FALSE-FLAG (FREE on scribd, $.99 on Amazon)

     Reply

109. And among all the melted cars and powdered concrete they find Atta’s passport just lying there in the street? All nice and undamaged? Even with all the new documentaries showing the perfect hole in the Pentagon, people still buy that it was a jetliner which flew 6 feet above the ground for miles before impact!!! Unbelievable. I can’t even mention these things to friends and family because they have not done their own investigation – therefore they tout the official line!

     Reply

     1. I just checked the petition – 29 signatories (according to them!). That is what they do – fix the numbers, time and again. They did the same with the A&E petition, and have done with others as well.
        I live in the UK, and we have a similar Government petition site. Britain has many faults, but that petition site works well (not that we get the results we want). For instance, a petition ‘Prevent Donald Trump from making a State Visit to the United Kingdom’ got 1,863,047 signatures; you could watch the numbers spinning higher and higher; I wish it had been a fruit machine!
        But the Whitehouse Petition site is worse than farcical.

        Reply

110. Hello Craig: What’s your take on Rebekah Roth? I have read all her books and find her stuff fascinating.

     Reply

     1. Hi Vic. I am not a supporter of Roth’s, and I believe her background story has been shown to be untruthful. But I have not really spent much time examining her claims. But the books could indeed be fascinating without actually being based on truth, I imagine. There is an article on this blog about her, written by my friend Paul Zarembka. I recommend reading that. I’d love to have your comments once you have. The link for the piece is below:
        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/a-novel-idea-rebekah-roths-methodical-illusion-and-what-happened-to-the-planes-on-9-11/

        Reply

        1. I don’t know about Roth, but I believe all four planes were lost to radar for a short time, then detected again, and that all these ‘loss of radar’ were in the proximity of USAF bases, Northwoods-style.
           I’m going from memory, but the flight paths were mapped in the video.
           Quite a few of my family live near Westover (my stepfather was USAF) but none of them want to know about 9/11 Truth, unfortunately.

           Reply

111. Hi Craig!
     Hope you are well.
     I wanted to make you aware of a newly created Unified Whitehouse.gov petition requesting a legitimate, impartial investigation into the events of 9/11.
     While many 9/11 Truther organizations have put out literally hundreds of petitions in the years since 9/11, most citizen-truthers are not even aware of the existence of these organizations or petitions so the participation is limited and uneffective.
     As part of this Unified Petition, email letters have been sent to over a dozen 9/11 Truther organizations asking for support, We are hoping to pull in everyone in order to achieve the signatures we need to force this matter to the White House’s attention.
     If we can achieve 100,000 signatures in the next 30 days, the White House will give an official acknowledgement and response to the petition.
     The petition can be found here:
     https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reopen-investigation-events-911-and-deliver-justice-american-911-victims
     We ask that if you are truly invested in helping the cause that you consider signing and supporting this effort.
     Thank you, and God bless!
     Jon States

     Reply

     1. The official theory is a bad one because the steel beams are not falling away form the fasade in big groups in many clips.
        The amount of rubble seems to be too small, so that three underground nuclear explosions are the best explanation I suppose. The heard conventional explosions, squibs, thermite, no plane theory and so on seem to be only a deception. The purpose was to produce a lot of 9-11 theories, in order to hide among them the real causes.

        Reply

112. Hi Barrie, could you please email me; I used to have your email addresses, but you must have changed them.

     Reply

113. The bombs Dzhokhar and Tamerlan were accused of placing were, according photos, and FBI forensics, and the statements of agent in charge Richard DeLauriers, and the actual indictment of Dzhokhar were PLACED IN BLACK BACKPACKS, whereas all photos of the brothers with their backpacks at the Marathon show Tamerlan’s pack to have been gray and Dzhokhar’s bright white with thin black trim. Never has mainstream media blackout of the facts been more obvious than in this case. Also, it is likely that Tamerlan may have learned of McCain’s plot against Ukraine, when Ukriane was turning from Europe and its debt crisis to Putin, when Tamerlan was visiting his CIA-connected uncle, and that both T and D were killed to keep them quiet. There is more to be said, about media, FBI, the prosecution, the public defenders, and Obama’s Justice and State Departments. Clearly organized crime still rules.

     Reply

114. Hi Craig,
     Thank you for your articles and pursuit of the truth. Please can you message me your email address. I have some credible research I’d like to discuss with you.

     Reply

115. I have written a stage play called, The 9-11 Investigation, A Farce. I have been trying to raise enthusiasm for the project among 9-11 Truthers, but most of what I get back are disputes with minor issues in the script (planes or no planes, thermite or other explosives, terrorists on planes or not). The truther movement has got to stop bickering and unite around the need for a new investigation. When we finally find out the truth, those who were “correct” can take their bows, but nothing will happen if we focus on in-fighting. If anyone has interest in my project please feel free to contact me. Thanks.

     Reply

116. It is pure fallacy and blatant bias to start with a conclusion, e.g., “No 757 hit the Pentagon” and then see if you can fit the evidence to it. That’s not how forensics are done. And that’s how our government and media has so wrongly approached it. A legitimate investigation starts with the evidence and hopefully is led to the truth by the evidence. As new evidence is uncovered, a person with an open mind will consider it and re-evaluate their speculations of what the ultimate truth may be.
     This website asks if I (and anyone else) believe in a particular theory, and if I do, then I can join with others who believe the same, and together we can try to silence others with theories just as rational, or arguably even more rational who may disagree. This is the complete opposite of your implied goal of uniting the truth movement. It is asking people to take a side. Taking a side simply strengthens any division. I cannot sign on to this because I cannot say with certainty that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.
     Evidence is the ingredient necessary to discover the truth. I see this website as pushing a particular theory and a call to ignore and bash others who seek the truth of 9/11 who have differing theories, or present evidence that challenges the statement “No 757 at the Pentagon”.
     This site attacks David Chandler for presenting evidence, as Chandler puts it, “that is consistent with a 757”. He NEVER says he believes conclusively that a 757 hit the Pentagon, yet he is attacked in no uncertain terms on this site. He makes a point of saying without reservation that his speculations are indeed speculations, but he DOES NOT say that his speculations are the absolute truth, as this site presumes. He makes a point of announcing when he is citing evidence and when he is speculating. He is accused of “muddying the waters again” on this site. But I have to ask, when did he “muddy the waters” previously — was it when he proved NIST wrong, forcing them to admit free-fall acceleration of WTC7? Is that muddying the waters? Sounds more like getting to the truth to me. Chandler is further accused of “supporting” the official story, when in reality he is only presenting the evidential story for consideration. For that, he gets attacked? To say he is pushing the official story is absurd, vile and obvious attempt to discredit him with a false association.
     My idea of a goal for the 9/11 Truth Movement is to uncover hard evidence that can survive in a court of law, and to let it take us where it leads, not where someone may think it should lead.
     As far as I’m concerned, this site represents an (unintentional) effort to divide the truth seeking community and to push a specific, yes, I said specific theory that claims ‘no 757’.
     Who am I? I have made a number of videos of people who have come to Seattle to present their theories. Most notably, I made and authored DVDs of Barbara Honegger’s “Behind the Smoke Curtain” and “9/11 Museum Virtual Walking Tour”. I am good friends with Barbara because we have spent a lot of time working on making these videos. I approach my video hobby as a journalist. That means I present the views of the person I’m filming whether I agree or not. I do not personally agree with Barbara’s theory of what flew at the Pentagon (or didn’t), however, I think her research is not without validity when it comes to the who may have been involved in the crime. I mention this to demonstrate that I keep an open mind and can function in UNITY with those who know 9/11 wasn’t what we were told, even if we have disagreements about details. When you have thousands of people pursuing a cause, all with their own idea of what happened (because of lack of evidence, bias or whatever), unity can only occur when there is tolerance between the members.
     I was originally convinced by the early, incomplete “evidence” that something other than a large plane hit the Pentagon, but in the light of evidence that has surfaced since, I can no longer make that speculation without defying evidence. I am not willing to draw a conclusion that “no 757 hit the Pentagon” because I have seen a lot of evidence to the contrary, and nothing but speculation to support a ‘no 757’ conclusion.
     I think it’s safe to say that people who seek 9/11 truth began doing so at least in part because they have an open mind. Don’t close it!
     I would sign on to a group called “We have not been told the truth about 9/11”, but I can’t claim to know the truth before all the evidence is in. And neither can any court of law, and that’s where it must ultimately count if the movement is to succeed.

     Reply

     1. Yours: “My idea of a goal for the 9/11 Truth Movement is to uncover hard evidence that can survive in a court of law, and to let it take us where it leads, not where someone may think it should lead.”
        My idea of a goal for the 9-11 Truth Movement is to convince enough and the right people that we need a new, serious, criminal investigation.
        We can award prizes to the people who got it right after we save the world from itself. This bickering is keeping us from getting the word spread. I’m not satisfied with being right among the already aware. That will keep us “conspiracy theorists” forever.

        Reply

117. My favorite quote from your ‘About Me’ page;
     “As long as Dick Cheney’s face continues to make me mad, I won’t get bored of writing about 9/11.”
     Over the years, I’ve seen interviews with 1st responders, hours and hours of footage, loads and loads of articles, from experts with differing views…
     No matter which side of the fence one sits, in regards to this sad affair…one thing is felt across the board. Something always feels a little ‘off’, when this subject comes up. There’s always the feeling that something just isn’t right with the official narrative.
     Keep on digging and sharing. db

     Reply
118. Pingback: THE AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM MYTH AND THE SELLING OF U.S. DOMINATION – The Greanville Post

119. Bombs were real Victims were real No doubt about it
     I am 67 years old US Army Veteran
     Been on the case since day 1
     My research here
     https://backpacs.blogspot.com/2018/07/on-subject-of-tsarnaev-backpacks-where.html

     Reply

120. Hi Craig,
     Logic dictates what the evidence bears out: that the perps would not have killed 3,000 or injured 6,000 on 9/11. That would not have been part of their modus operandi. Apart from anything else there would have been too many people jumping up and down saying “The buildings came down by controlled demolition which means YOU killed my husband, son, wife, daughter etc.” Real loved ones would not be politely and so very ineffectually (of course) challenging Kissinger with a question about the Bin Laden family being a client. No sirree!
     But also it would have been a matter of honour and pride to do the psyop properly – not wimp out by actually killing people to make it real. No waaayyyyy. Way too crude. When they know that they can put forward the most ludicrous photos of the “injured” as evidence and unconvincing fake splattered bodies to easily persuade people of death and injury why on earth would they consider killing people for real? Perhaps it’s slightly tricky to get all the names of the dead – a combination of still alive people, made up people, already dead people, criminals, etc. but that’s what intelligence agencies are for after all. And it’s a hell of a lot easier than dealing with real loved ones.
     Took me four years to figure it out but I got there in the end. It’s an extremely important truth and people need to get it.
     http://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html

     Reply

121. Hi Mr. McKee,
     I just read your great article about 9/11 in Vancouver’s Common Ground magazine. I appreciated your 2015 article about his fascism. Trump had an awareness that we have not been told the truth about 9/11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt-ldMj9y9w. Will you comment on this, and his apparent resistance to intervention?
     Solidarity,
     Larry Wartels

     Reply

     1. Thank you, Larry. I must confess that the article about Trump from a couple of years ago was written by Barrie Zwicker, not by me, for this blog. But I appreciate your comment about my Common Ground piece. I will take a look at the video you just shared.

        Reply

122. Mr. McKee,
     Just found this through Twitter of all places and looking forward to plowing through the mountains of information. My own research led me in the direction of dot-connecting and believe there remains an element missed by most: that the cognitive dissonance comes from an inability to accept anyone regardless of reward, wealth or power would be willing to go so far. I think we, the people, are dealing with something beyond our limited physical rationale. I’ve been compelled to compile down in the most basic format possible with a heavy dose of satire. Keep fighting the good fight and hope you enjoy the free preview: https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Anonymous_Busch_yeht?id=rga1DwAAQBAJ

     Reply