Walter sabotaged AE after being fired by them. Then he joined forces with those who have been undermining AE and suppressing the Pentagon evidence for years
Thank you Craig for your tireless efforts in exposing these infiltrators.
The white-collar terrorists who carried out 9/11 never expected Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) to come along in 2006 and expose that the Pentagon had faked a plane crash on their own property. They thought that with their control of the media, they had it all wrapped up.
In response to a tsunami of support for CIT, the perps launched campaigns to discredit them and coerce some high-profile truthers, such as Jim Hoffman and David Chandler, to switch sides and make the case for a large plane crash at the Pentagon.
Evidence that the Pentagon staged a plane crash on their own property is highly incriminating and thus much more worrisome to the perps than any evidence from the WTC, because the Pentagon not only had control of that property, but has a strict hierarchy, such that an order to plant explosives in the Pentagon had to have come all the way from the top. The tight security and clear chain of command at the Pentagon put Donald Rumsfeld and other top brass in a vulnerable position.
At first, these infiltrators tried to control Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE) from within, and they succeeded in getting Richard Gage to issue a cowardly and dishonest "Complete Denial of Support for CIT" on Feb 8, 2011. But once Kelly David was running AE, their efforts to dismiss the Pentagon evidence got little traction.
Then, in September 2021, Richard was fired from AE for screwing up an HBO/Spike Lee documentary that would have exposed AE and 9/11 truth to millions. With Richard gone, donations to AE plummeted by almost 60%. Kelly David resigned in November 2022 and Ted Walter was fired in January 2023. In protest at how Kelly had been treated, Andy Steele also resigned (but has since returned).
Smelling blood in the water, the pro-impact crowd moved in, and just five months later, in June 2023, they had formed a new organization, “International Center for 9/11 Justice," apparently to replace the Toronto Hearings, the 9/11 Consensus Panel and Journal of 9/11 Studies, all of which had been pushing the official story of a large plane hitting the Pentagon.
With AE in a weakened state, International Center for 9/11 Justice is pressing its advantage and, as Craig points out in this article, trying to steal AE's thunder and elbow them out, anointing themselves as the premier 9/11 truth group.
We can't let that happen, because several of those running International Center for 9/11 Justice (namely Kevin Ryan, David Chandler and Elizabeth Woodworth) have a history of minimizing or outright rejecting the evidence that the Pentagon faked a plane crash on its own property. It appears that they are running interference for the Defense Dept perps who approved planting bombs in the building, removing light poles, staging Lloyde England's cab, etc. Of course, they want the public to remain oblivious to the role they played.
We shouldn't be surprised to see infiltrators in the 9/11 truth movement, we should be surprised if we didn't see them. Exposing them and isolating them, so no one takes them seriously, will minimize the harm they can do.
EDITOR'S NOTE: For those who might be wondering why there are more than 30 deleted comments under this article, I will tell you that this is because Gene Laratonda wrote a litany of abusive and insulting comments and later thought better of it. This isn't the first time he has done such a thing (previously on Facebook). It is self-serving for Laratonda to reach for a virtue-signallying mea culpa and to gut this comment stream after he initially polluted it.
Just so the record show it, he posted a 6,000-word screed written by David Slesinger on a site he created called Is Kelly David a Police Agent. This text was toxic and false to start with, so it is fitting that Laratonda would share it here in reaction to an article about how Kelly David was attacked and lied about by Ted Walter so that Walter could get rid of her and get her job. I mean, if Walter went after David, why should Laratonda balance that by also going after her? Right?
Why did Laratonda change his mind and apologize, before removing all his comments? Because he got caught in a monstrous lie: he had written in an email a month ago that he knew Slesinger's attack piece was "garbage." So he posted it KNOWING it was a lie. I hit him with this fact on this thread over and over again. He finally realized that I was not going to let him get away with his deceitful act. It was going to follow him. So he cut his losses, "apologized," and deleted the evidence. Fortunately, I have copies of every word (all comments appear in my inbox).
No, this doesn't end here, because he said a lot more that reveal his true character and his true agenda. His pollution of this discussion was only magnified by his girlfriend, Sandra Jelmi, in a series of disgusting posts of her own. By the way both of them proved the point of my article by attacking AE911Truth. Stay tuned.
[Edited. I apologize for my part in being inflammatory.]
My name is Gene Laratonda. I'm in the Pittsburgh area and am a 9/11 truth and justice activist. I've given over $1,500 to AE911Truth in the past few years and hope it can get back on track.
If anyone would like free 9/11 stickers send a SASE to me at 1 Kiski Avenue, Suite 911, Leechburg, PA 15656. I'm offering $1000 to anyone that can get a copy of the shop drawing of girder A2001. I'm offering $911 to the first person to get their representative to introduce the Bobby McIlvaine World Trade Center Investigation Act (911WarRoom.com/bobby). I'm offering $100 to any student high school students that can show me that their high school physics teacher finds no fault in David Chandler's analysis of WTC7 with the physics lab (911speakout.org/physics-lab).
If all this isn't being made into a Netflix series someone is missing a trick. It's got everything, from deep state 'agents', to a femme fatale Mata Hari, to alleged double crossing lying triple-crossing manipulators, toxic in-fighting , betrayal, and even a suicide (God help her - something I never want to trivialize).
One thing I will say, anyone who sees all this dirty laundry being washed in public and has sent money to AE or any other 'truth' organisation in the past, will not even think about sending one cent to support this bs in future. What an unbelievable load of disturbing bunk.
I think I'll begin with the first line you've been writing on your social media posts while sharing this article, "This article got more views in its first day than any blog post I've done for some time", like it's some kind of achievement. That's akin to the hangman saying on the day of public hangings "Wow, there are more people in the town's center today than we've had in ages!" People's blood lust is not a good measure of something's quality, and even less of its moral character. The three posts I saw got a combined 4 "likes". Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
But ok, the article itself.
You've exposed yourself as someone who can't be trusted, capable of throwing anybody who acts, thinks, believes differently than you under the bus. Should anyone who currently supports you disagree with you at some point down the line or not act according to your code, they become fair game for you to destroy and throw to the wolves, in the crudest and unclassiest way, airing any and all dirty laundry publicly for anyone to see. And please don't come back with an attempt at whataboutism. This is about your article.
It was one-sided and nauseatingly subjective. You cannot in good faith tell me that if those you attacked lowered themselves to actually addressing the points you brought up they wouldn't present an entirely different account of some of the things that happened. Context, corrections, stuff even you weren't aware of. You're not the arbiter of the truth, Craig. There is so much history, there are so many layers and tangents, and for you to present this sensationalistic and subjective account leaves most of us feeling like we need a shower after reading it.
On more specific points, such as AE not being given credit, or mentioned in people's bios, well, can you fault those who were fired from the organization? Would you be going out of your way to credit a company that unceremoniously axed you? Is it that hard to understand that, as they're rebuilding their careers and livelihoods, they are focusing on their here and now rather than shining a bright light on the very employer who caused their misfortune?
As far as the IC "latching on" to Jimmy Dore, how does any organization have any ownership rights to podcasters? And more importantly, why can't we be happy if and when an interview opens the door to others speaking about 9/11 Truth? Are we not collectively striving for the same thing? Are we not grateful for anyone breaking down some barriers for everyone else? Did AE really not try to reach out to Clayton Morris or Kim Iversen after they interviewed Ted? Because if they did, that would be great. And if they didn't, then they just let a great opportunity get wasted, to their own detriment.
I'm also seriously concerned about the fact that some AE board members feel that it's OK to share emails directed at them with people who not only have nothing to do with their organization but cannot be trusted to safeguard their content. It's beyond unprofessional and makes me question their integrity and moral fiber. Definitely not confidence-inspiring. And the fact that they must be endorsing this article or it would have either never seen the light of day, or been taken down after it went up, well, that speaks volumes as well.
That said, whatever you may be personally convinced of, I absolutely promise you that nobody wants to see AE destroyed, and those who were once part of it the very least. We love AE, and nothing would make us happier than seeing it restored to its former glory, the authority it once was, the groundbreaking work they did. I've said it before and will say it again - AE has become a shell of itself. It sits isolated on an island of a handful of people who don't engage with anyone outside the circle, arms staunchly crossed across their chest in their conviction that they don't need anybody or anything. There are no projects, initiatives, new ideas, compelling presentations or creative ambitions. Where the mission was once to focus exclusively on the scientific evidence of WTCs 1, 2 and 7, they are now all over the place with random articles having nothing to do with 9/11 Truth, never mind the science. AE has become irrelevant - not because of outside forces seeking to "destroy" it (*chuckle*), but from their own self-sabotage and refusal to be innovative or forward-thinking.
What's the ultimate goal of the Truth Movement? We may have different answers, but to me it's twofold - raising awareness among people outside the echo chamber so that public pressure makes it more and more difficult for the PTB not to address it - and ultimately, justice, even if it's a long shot and the odds are stacked against us. But what else is there? Is writing scathing articles about certain individuals going to get us there? Is it constructive? Helpful in any way? What exactly, Craig, did you hope to achieve with this article? Who's the one acting destructively?
You got lauded by a couple of faithfuls who already believe you can do no wrong.
The rest of us fighting for 9/11 Truth you have simply completely alienated. With your right-fighting way, you've made us even leerier of all the goings-on behind the scenes at AE, exposing the shambles they are in and the hole they have dug themselves into.
Nice job, truly. Someone having set out to destroy whatever is left of the organization couldn't have done any better.
I have never met a more sincere, genuine, dedicated and passionate advocate for this cause than Kelly David. She was the true engine of AE911Truth for so many years, and she still devotes herself selflessly to the cause to this day.
Stunning account! What ego and money can do to warp people's integrity is clearly revealed here. Very disappointing. Will Kelly David now return to AE? I hope this account is sent to Prof Hulsey right away so he is up to speed on it all.
I didn't know a lot of these details but now! Holy cow has the cabal been busy. I think they should be ashamed of what they have done and are still doing but I suppose cointelpro operatives have no shame. I think it must be a requirement to get hired on for this malevolent role that you have no morals or ethics. My experience with the cabal shows me that they don't care at all for the cause, not one bit.
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, Proof of my realness and humanity, your article brought new information to my attention and has caused me to re-evaluate my view of AE9/11Truth and to evolve further in my beliefs.
Specifically, owing to the scientific rot that I know was planted (by Dr. Steven Jones) at the core of AE9/11Truth's WTC analysis, enforcement by Mr. Richard Gage, and the subtle steering by Mr. David Chandler [whose high school physics videos applied to 9/11 I respect], I was of the opinion that AE9/11Truth deserved to die. You have convinced me otherwise. However, its new leadership must address the scientific rot, excise the fraud, and fix the scientific lax.
You wrote: "... Hulsey’s ground-breaking UAF study, published in March 2020, concludes that for the building [WTC-7] to have come down as it did, all the steel support columns had to have failed at virtually the same instant."
Neu nookiedoo just piddled all over the floor in excitement! "Is Mr. McKee finally going to get it?"
An established fact is that chemical-based explosives have a blast wave as a major portion of their yield, and these have deafening audio signatures within a quarter mile, that all sources of 9/11 lore attest were not present (at those expected audio levels) in WTC-7's destruction. Further, assuming chemical-based explosives (including NT), to achieve the effect of "all the steel support columns failing at virtually the same instant," this is not a trivial logistics endeavor, in a secure facility no less, and not feasible to be installed in half a day with the building on fire.
Guess what can instantly fail all of the steel support columns while also exhibiting a muted audio signature because much less than 20% of its yield was a blast wave and could be feasibly installed in half a day? Oops,... please mind your shoes from the neu nookiedoo in your foot's path.
You wrote: "Featured on the IC911’s board are people who have spent the past decade or more suppressing critical evidence concerning what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 – evidence that is essential for proving government complicity in the event. The board members in question are David Chandler, Kevin Ryan, and Elizabeth Woodworth."
Oh, it seems that you, Mr. McKee, are demonstrating your super-powers of being naive and trusting (until given reason not to be) -- I knew I wasn't the only one with such super-abilities! It is quite naive to think that Chandler and Ryan (within my scope of knowledge) would only have had ~ONE~ single, solitary, agenda item that "has been dividing the Truth Movement for years."
Did either Chandler or Ryan ever legitimately address (and debunk), say: Woodsian-DEW? Deep-underground nukes? Mini-nukes? This is important, because a legitimate and thorough debunking could have stopped those disinfo theories from distracting the 9/11 group-think. Two reasons why they didn't. (1) They would have had to acknowledge and rescue nuggets of truth contained within those premises, and offer an explanation. (2) Disinfo agents are strictly ordered never to legitimately and thoroughly debunk other disinfo premises.
Did either Chandler or Ryan ever legitimately address, say, the quantities and placement of their NT hobby-horse to explain, say, all of WTC-7's support columns failing at virtually the same instance? They did not.
Here's a fun factoid about Walter and IC911. I submitted in October the latest evolution of my neu nookiedoo premise [as a well-formatted HTML file with Javascript] to the IC911 journal for peer-review and publication. I've received no feedback from IC911, who kept moving deliverable goal-posts. ("Can you give me a Word or PDF file?" As if Word didn't natively support opening HTML files and outputting PDF files! I think they wanted meta-information about me -- Word version, registered software owner, etc. -- that Word inserts into even supposedly "blank" documents.)
You made a promise in your article: "As I unveil this whole story in the weeks and months ahead, I'll be writing more about the failure of integrity of these 9/11 truth 'celebrities' and those who enable them."
The whole story that you write has to include neu nookiedoo, because its active suppression in favor of limited hang-out NT is how those 9/11 truth 'celebrities' got created and gave them street-cred later for steering Pentagon 9/11 group-think. When you write about "the failure of integrity" exhibited by the "celebrities," their incomplete "scientific" WTC work [say, in the form of FAQ's by AE9/11Truth, or of Chandler videos missing obvious highly energetic nuclear speculation] can be exhibit number 1. You're welcome to stand on my shoulders, and ride neu nookiedoo into battle to save the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Chandler? Coste? Walter? Gage?
If my online Batman were inarticulate, illogical, unresearched, unsubstantiated, science-challenged, insincere, flame-baiting, rude, spamming, twitter-length, bot-like, unwavering (in the face of new information and counter-argument), and less-than genuine, it would make perfect sense why those "celebrities" would not want to have 9/11 discourse with me.
But I'm not. I'm the opposite of those, with a high-road legacy of (verbose) sincerity. AE9/11Truth vetted me in its first year as a signer, which gives me standing to question and point out errors. My sincerity has presented neu nookiedoo for slaughter in battle SO MANY TIMES, and she survives and evolves, at the unintended expense of the integrity of her would-be detractors and celebrities.
I left "crazy" out of the list of negative descriptive phrases. Maybe it applies to me, because my neu nookiedoo premise is contrary to both the government and the "consensus celebrity" 9/11 Truth Movement [including AE9/11Truth, IC911, Gage, Chandler, Jones, Wood.] That is somewhat "crazy" behavior, to be opposed to such powers and group-think, particularly the "celebrities" who supposedly offer the alternate and "the whole truth." [And hey, I was also opposed to COVID measures and mRNA technology -- the entire narrative -- for validated scientific reasons.]
I'll embrace "bat-shit crazy" as a self-descriptor not just for the reason above, but because thereafter (1) it loses its power against me in discussion: "You're calling me crazy? Not a slur. This was a given, making you even crazier to engage me." (2) I can bring it up at my later trial "innocent by reason of admitted bat-shit craziness."
Many times over the years, you and others have hyped what appears in your article: "In the introduction to [Mr. Kevin Ryan's] book ('Another Nineteen' p. 14), he also gave us this pearl: 'For simplicity, this alternative conspiracy should accept as much of the official account as possible, including that the alleged hijackers were on the planes.'"
This is not really something to get your panties in a wad about. How so? "For simplicity." It is a legitimate construct when writing technical papers or doing analysis. Falls into the same category as assumptions. The simplified works comes to its conclusions (and in this case is still damning to official accounts). When a more complex scenario is considered later (by the reader), do conclusions deviate from the simplified version? When the assumptions are re-evaluated and if they are found wrong, do the conclusions remain valid?
In this instance, you wrote: "Ryan virtually ignored the possibility of Israeli complicity in 9/11."
This is a more complex version, might even invalidate some assumptions, and could call into question his conclusions as being complete. THIS IS THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS.
WATCH THIS!
===
For simplicity, the 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons premise ("neu nookiedoo") accepts as much of the evidence as possible -- from official and disinfo sources -- while exposing weaknesses, holes, and omissions of the reports where they were published.
For simplicity, FGNW should be assumed to be true and valid from this point onward in all discussions, because the historic "blackhole treatment" against it does not legitimately debunk it; it strengthens it.
You're now welcome to throw the more complex cases, or to circle back to evaluate the evidence substantiating FGNW to see if that FGNW assumption holds.
Thank you Craig for your tireless efforts in exposing these infiltrators.
The white-collar terrorists who carried out 9/11 never expected Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) to come along in 2006 and expose that the Pentagon had faked a plane crash on their own property. They thought that with their control of the media, they had it all wrapped up.
In response to a tsunami of support for CIT, the perps launched campaigns to discredit them and coerce some high-profile truthers, such as Jim Hoffman and David Chandler, to switch sides and make the case for a large plane crash at the Pentagon.
Evidence that the Pentagon staged a plane crash on their own property is highly incriminating and thus much more worrisome to the perps than any evidence from the WTC, because the Pentagon not only had control of that property, but has a strict hierarchy, such that an order to plant explosives in the Pentagon had to have come all the way from the top. The tight security and clear chain of command at the Pentagon put Donald Rumsfeld and other top brass in a vulnerable position.
At first, these infiltrators tried to control Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE) from within, and they succeeded in getting Richard Gage to issue a cowardly and dishonest "Complete Denial of Support for CIT" on Feb 8, 2011. But once Kelly David was running AE, their efforts to dismiss the Pentagon evidence got little traction.
Then, in September 2021, Richard was fired from AE for screwing up an HBO/Spike Lee documentary that would have exposed AE and 9/11 truth to millions. With Richard gone, donations to AE plummeted by almost 60%. Kelly David resigned in November 2022 and Ted Walter was fired in January 2023. In protest at how Kelly had been treated, Andy Steele also resigned (but has since returned).
Smelling blood in the water, the pro-impact crowd moved in, and just five months later, in June 2023, they had formed a new organization, “International Center for 9/11 Justice," apparently to replace the Toronto Hearings, the 9/11 Consensus Panel and Journal of 9/11 Studies, all of which had been pushing the official story of a large plane hitting the Pentagon.
With AE in a weakened state, International Center for 9/11 Justice is pressing its advantage and, as Craig points out in this article, trying to steal AE's thunder and elbow them out, anointing themselves as the premier 9/11 truth group.
We can't let that happen, because several of those running International Center for 9/11 Justice (namely Kevin Ryan, David Chandler and Elizabeth Woodworth) have a history of minimizing or outright rejecting the evidence that the Pentagon faked a plane crash on its own property. It appears that they are running interference for the Defense Dept perps who approved planting bombs in the building, removing light poles, staging Lloyde England's cab, etc. Of course, they want the public to remain oblivious to the role they played.
We shouldn't be surprised to see infiltrators in the 9/11 truth movement, we should be surprised if we didn't see them. Exposing them and isolating them, so no one takes them seriously, will minimize the harm they can do.
Unfortunately architects for an engineered truth as well as the 9/11 justice suppression group are all part of the distraction...
Is the 9/11 "truth" movement a distraction movement?
What happens if you ask TRUTH questions?
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/questions-for-the-911-truther-talking
The disingenuous search for 9/11 Justice.
An approach set up to fail.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-disingenuous-search-for-911-justice
The Nuking of Joe Olsen and James Fetzer
It's laughable how people can be so wrong.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-nuking-of-joe-olsen-and-james
9/11 and the Debunking Olympics.
It's been ongoing since 2005 and the truth seems to be lurking in the shadows.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-and-the-debunking-olympics
Calling out ALL the 9/11 "truther" talking heads
It's time to chat Richard Gage, Ted Walter, David Chandler, AE911 & Gene Laratonda
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/calling-out-all-the-911-truther-talking
EDITOR'S NOTE: For those who might be wondering why there are more than 30 deleted comments under this article, I will tell you that this is because Gene Laratonda wrote a litany of abusive and insulting comments and later thought better of it. This isn't the first time he has done such a thing (previously on Facebook). It is self-serving for Laratonda to reach for a virtue-signallying mea culpa and to gut this comment stream after he initially polluted it.
Just so the record show it, he posted a 6,000-word screed written by David Slesinger on a site he created called Is Kelly David a Police Agent. This text was toxic and false to start with, so it is fitting that Laratonda would share it here in reaction to an article about how Kelly David was attacked and lied about by Ted Walter so that Walter could get rid of her and get her job. I mean, if Walter went after David, why should Laratonda balance that by also going after her? Right?
Why did Laratonda change his mind and apologize, before removing all his comments? Because he got caught in a monstrous lie: he had written in an email a month ago that he knew Slesinger's attack piece was "garbage." So he posted it KNOWING it was a lie. I hit him with this fact on this thread over and over again. He finally realized that I was not going to let him get away with his deceitful act. It was going to follow him. So he cut his losses, "apologized," and deleted the evidence. Fortunately, I have copies of every word (all comments appear in my inbox).
No, this doesn't end here, because he said a lot more that reveal his true character and his true agenda. His pollution of this discussion was only magnified by his girlfriend, Sandra Jelmi, in a series of disgusting posts of her own. By the way both of them proved the point of my article by attacking AE911Truth. Stay tuned.
Hi,
[Edited. I apologize for my part in being inflammatory.]
My name is Gene Laratonda. I'm in the Pittsburgh area and am a 9/11 truth and justice activist. I've given over $1,500 to AE911Truth in the past few years and hope it can get back on track.
If anyone would like free 9/11 stickers send a SASE to me at 1 Kiski Avenue, Suite 911, Leechburg, PA 15656. I'm offering $1000 to anyone that can get a copy of the shop drawing of girder A2001. I'm offering $911 to the first person to get their representative to introduce the Bobby McIlvaine World Trade Center Investigation Act (911WarRoom.com/bobby). I'm offering $100 to any student high school students that can show me that their high school physics teacher finds no fault in David Chandler's analysis of WTC7 with the physics lab (911speakout.org/physics-lab).
Kind regards,
Gene
gene@laratonda.com
724.826.1001
911WarRoom.com A weekly roundtable discussion every Sunday 5PM ET.
If all this isn't being made into a Netflix series someone is missing a trick. It's got everything, from deep state 'agents', to a femme fatale Mata Hari, to alleged double crossing lying triple-crossing manipulators, toxic in-fighting , betrayal, and even a suicide (God help her - something I never want to trivialize).
One thing I will say, anyone who sees all this dirty laundry being washed in public and has sent money to AE or any other 'truth' organisation in the past, will not even think about sending one cent to support this bs in future. What an unbelievable load of disturbing bunk.
All I can say is you are welcome to one another.
Oh boy, where to start...
I think I'll begin with the first line you've been writing on your social media posts while sharing this article, "This article got more views in its first day than any blog post I've done for some time", like it's some kind of achievement. That's akin to the hangman saying on the day of public hangings "Wow, there are more people in the town's center today than we've had in ages!" People's blood lust is not a good measure of something's quality, and even less of its moral character. The three posts I saw got a combined 4 "likes". Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
But ok, the article itself.
You've exposed yourself as someone who can't be trusted, capable of throwing anybody who acts, thinks, believes differently than you under the bus. Should anyone who currently supports you disagree with you at some point down the line or not act according to your code, they become fair game for you to destroy and throw to the wolves, in the crudest and unclassiest way, airing any and all dirty laundry publicly for anyone to see. And please don't come back with an attempt at whataboutism. This is about your article.
It was one-sided and nauseatingly subjective. You cannot in good faith tell me that if those you attacked lowered themselves to actually addressing the points you brought up they wouldn't present an entirely different account of some of the things that happened. Context, corrections, stuff even you weren't aware of. You're not the arbiter of the truth, Craig. There is so much history, there are so many layers and tangents, and for you to present this sensationalistic and subjective account leaves most of us feeling like we need a shower after reading it.
On more specific points, such as AE not being given credit, or mentioned in people's bios, well, can you fault those who were fired from the organization? Would you be going out of your way to credit a company that unceremoniously axed you? Is it that hard to understand that, as they're rebuilding their careers and livelihoods, they are focusing on their here and now rather than shining a bright light on the very employer who caused their misfortune?
As far as the IC "latching on" to Jimmy Dore, how does any organization have any ownership rights to podcasters? And more importantly, why can't we be happy if and when an interview opens the door to others speaking about 9/11 Truth? Are we not collectively striving for the same thing? Are we not grateful for anyone breaking down some barriers for everyone else? Did AE really not try to reach out to Clayton Morris or Kim Iversen after they interviewed Ted? Because if they did, that would be great. And if they didn't, then they just let a great opportunity get wasted, to their own detriment.
I'm also seriously concerned about the fact that some AE board members feel that it's OK to share emails directed at them with people who not only have nothing to do with their organization but cannot be trusted to safeguard their content. It's beyond unprofessional and makes me question their integrity and moral fiber. Definitely not confidence-inspiring. And the fact that they must be endorsing this article or it would have either never seen the light of day, or been taken down after it went up, well, that speaks volumes as well.
That said, whatever you may be personally convinced of, I absolutely promise you that nobody wants to see AE destroyed, and those who were once part of it the very least. We love AE, and nothing would make us happier than seeing it restored to its former glory, the authority it once was, the groundbreaking work they did. I've said it before and will say it again - AE has become a shell of itself. It sits isolated on an island of a handful of people who don't engage with anyone outside the circle, arms staunchly crossed across their chest in their conviction that they don't need anybody or anything. There are no projects, initiatives, new ideas, compelling presentations or creative ambitions. Where the mission was once to focus exclusively on the scientific evidence of WTCs 1, 2 and 7, they are now all over the place with random articles having nothing to do with 9/11 Truth, never mind the science. AE has become irrelevant - not because of outside forces seeking to "destroy" it (*chuckle*), but from their own self-sabotage and refusal to be innovative or forward-thinking.
What's the ultimate goal of the Truth Movement? We may have different answers, but to me it's twofold - raising awareness among people outside the echo chamber so that public pressure makes it more and more difficult for the PTB not to address it - and ultimately, justice, even if it's a long shot and the odds are stacked against us. But what else is there? Is writing scathing articles about certain individuals going to get us there? Is it constructive? Helpful in any way? What exactly, Craig, did you hope to achieve with this article? Who's the one acting destructively?
You got lauded by a couple of faithfuls who already believe you can do no wrong.
The rest of us fighting for 9/11 Truth you have simply completely alienated. With your right-fighting way, you've made us even leerier of all the goings-on behind the scenes at AE, exposing the shambles they are in and the hole they have dug themselves into.
Nice job, truly. Someone having set out to destroy whatever is left of the organization couldn't have done any better.
I have never met a more sincere, genuine, dedicated and passionate advocate for this cause than Kelly David. She was the true engine of AE911Truth for so many years, and she still devotes herself selflessly to the cause to this day.
Stunning account! What ego and money can do to warp people's integrity is clearly revealed here. Very disappointing. Will Kelly David now return to AE? I hope this account is sent to Prof Hulsey right away so he is up to speed on it all.
Remember Craig, Maxwell's function here is to flood the comment section with his disinformation.
I didn't know a lot of these details but now! Holy cow has the cabal been busy. I think they should be ashamed of what they have done and are still doing but I suppose cointelpro operatives have no shame. I think it must be a requirement to get hired on for this malevolent role that you have no morals or ethics. My experience with the cabal shows me that they don't care at all for the cause, not one bit.
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, Proof of my realness and humanity, your article brought new information to my attention and has caused me to re-evaluate my view of AE9/11Truth and to evolve further in my beliefs.
Specifically, owing to the scientific rot that I know was planted (by Dr. Steven Jones) at the core of AE9/11Truth's WTC analysis, enforcement by Mr. Richard Gage, and the subtle steering by Mr. David Chandler [whose high school physics videos applied to 9/11 I respect], I was of the opinion that AE9/11Truth deserved to die. You have convinced me otherwise. However, its new leadership must address the scientific rot, excise the fraud, and fix the scientific lax.
You wrote: "... Hulsey’s ground-breaking UAF study, published in March 2020, concludes that for the building [WTC-7] to have come down as it did, all the steel support columns had to have failed at virtually the same instant."
Neu nookiedoo just piddled all over the floor in excitement! "Is Mr. McKee finally going to get it?"
An established fact is that chemical-based explosives have a blast wave as a major portion of their yield, and these have deafening audio signatures within a quarter mile, that all sources of 9/11 lore attest were not present (at those expected audio levels) in WTC-7's destruction. Further, assuming chemical-based explosives (including NT), to achieve the effect of "all the steel support columns failing at virtually the same instant," this is not a trivial logistics endeavor, in a secure facility no less, and not feasible to be installed in half a day with the building on fire.
Guess what can instantly fail all of the steel support columns while also exhibiting a muted audio signature because much less than 20% of its yield was a blast wave and could be feasibly installed in half a day? Oops,... please mind your shoes from the neu nookiedoo in your foot's path.
You wrote: "Featured on the IC911’s board are people who have spent the past decade or more suppressing critical evidence concerning what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 – evidence that is essential for proving government complicity in the event. The board members in question are David Chandler, Kevin Ryan, and Elizabeth Woodworth."
Oh, it seems that you, Mr. McKee, are demonstrating your super-powers of being naive and trusting (until given reason not to be) -- I knew I wasn't the only one with such super-abilities! It is quite naive to think that Chandler and Ryan (within my scope of knowledge) would only have had ~ONE~ single, solitary, agenda item that "has been dividing the Truth Movement for years."
Did either Chandler or Ryan ever legitimately address (and debunk), say: Woodsian-DEW? Deep-underground nukes? Mini-nukes? This is important, because a legitimate and thorough debunking could have stopped those disinfo theories from distracting the 9/11 group-think. Two reasons why they didn't. (1) They would have had to acknowledge and rescue nuggets of truth contained within those premises, and offer an explanation. (2) Disinfo agents are strictly ordered never to legitimately and thoroughly debunk other disinfo premises.
Did either Chandler or Ryan ever legitimately address, say, the quantities and placement of their NT hobby-horse to explain, say, all of WTC-7's support columns failing at virtually the same instance? They did not.
Here's a fun factoid about Walter and IC911. I submitted in October the latest evolution of my neu nookiedoo premise [as a well-formatted HTML file with Javascript] to the IC911 journal for peer-review and publication. I've received no feedback from IC911, who kept moving deliverable goal-posts. ("Can you give me a Word or PDF file?" As if Word didn't natively support opening HTML files and outputting PDF files! I think they wanted meta-information about me -- Word version, registered software owner, etc. -- that Word inserts into even supposedly "blank" documents.)
You made a promise in your article: "As I unveil this whole story in the weeks and months ahead, I'll be writing more about the failure of integrity of these 9/11 truth 'celebrities' and those who enable them."
The whole story that you write has to include neu nookiedoo, because its active suppression in favor of limited hang-out NT is how those 9/11 truth 'celebrities' got created and gave them street-cred later for steering Pentagon 9/11 group-think. When you write about "the failure of integrity" exhibited by the "celebrities," their incomplete "scientific" WTC work [say, in the form of FAQ's by AE9/11Truth, or of Chandler videos missing obvious highly energetic nuclear speculation] can be exhibit number 1. You're welcome to stand on my shoulders, and ride neu nookiedoo into battle to save the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Chandler? Coste? Walter? Gage?
If my online Batman were inarticulate, illogical, unresearched, unsubstantiated, science-challenged, insincere, flame-baiting, rude, spamming, twitter-length, bot-like, unwavering (in the face of new information and counter-argument), and less-than genuine, it would make perfect sense why those "celebrities" would not want to have 9/11 discourse with me.
But I'm not. I'm the opposite of those, with a high-road legacy of (verbose) sincerity. AE9/11Truth vetted me in its first year as a signer, which gives me standing to question and point out errors. My sincerity has presented neu nookiedoo for slaughter in battle SO MANY TIMES, and she survives and evolves, at the unintended expense of the integrity of her would-be detractors and celebrities.
I left "crazy" out of the list of negative descriptive phrases. Maybe it applies to me, because my neu nookiedoo premise is contrary to both the government and the "consensus celebrity" 9/11 Truth Movement [including AE9/11Truth, IC911, Gage, Chandler, Jones, Wood.] That is somewhat "crazy" behavior, to be opposed to such powers and group-think, particularly the "celebrities" who supposedly offer the alternate and "the whole truth." [And hey, I was also opposed to COVID measures and mRNA technology -- the entire narrative -- for validated scientific reasons.]
I'll embrace "bat-shit crazy" as a self-descriptor not just for the reason above, but because thereafter (1) it loses its power against me in discussion: "You're calling me crazy? Not a slur. This was a given, making you even crazier to engage me." (2) I can bring it up at my later trial "innocent by reason of admitted bat-shit craziness."
Many times over the years, you and others have hyped what appears in your article: "In the introduction to [Mr. Kevin Ryan's] book ('Another Nineteen' p. 14), he also gave us this pearl: 'For simplicity, this alternative conspiracy should accept as much of the official account as possible, including that the alleged hijackers were on the planes.'"
This is not really something to get your panties in a wad about. How so? "For simplicity." It is a legitimate construct when writing technical papers or doing analysis. Falls into the same category as assumptions. The simplified works comes to its conclusions (and in this case is still damning to official accounts). When a more complex scenario is considered later (by the reader), do conclusions deviate from the simplified version? When the assumptions are re-evaluated and if they are found wrong, do the conclusions remain valid?
In this instance, you wrote: "Ryan virtually ignored the possibility of Israeli complicity in 9/11."
This is a more complex version, might even invalidate some assumptions, and could call into question his conclusions as being complete. THIS IS THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS.
WATCH THIS!
===
For simplicity, the 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons premise ("neu nookiedoo") accepts as much of the evidence as possible -- from official and disinfo sources -- while exposing weaknesses, holes, and omissions of the reports where they were published.
For simplicity, FGNW should be assumed to be true and valid from this point onward in all discussions, because the historic "blackhole treatment" against it does not legitimately debunk it; it strengthens it.
You're now welcome to throw the more complex cases, or to circle back to evaluate the evidence substantiating FGNW to see if that FGNW assumption holds.
//
Airing this publicly does nothing for the greater 9/11 truth movement. This is an absolutely terrible piece of journalism.