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.
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, the actions of Mr. Gene Laratonda are exactly why I tend to save off-line, not just the words I'm writing, but the words of those I am responding to. It helps with accurate quotations, but also in situations like this.
It would have been worse had it been on Facebook, because there if you have the top-level comment, its removal trashes all threads underneath it.
My first conversation on FB with Mr. Laratonda about neu nookiedoo ended up disappearing in such a manner. He did go to my blog to leave a canned rebuttal. I addressed all six points of his rebuttal on my blog, and also sent him an email letting him know, "hey, I've addressed your issues and advanced the conversation; here is its new state."
Silence.
Post-edit: Because Mr. Adam Ruff didn't seem to know what "spamming", "forum-sliding", and "forum-flooding" were, the reply-to-his-own-comment actions from Mr. Laratonda that created a nested series of comments was on its face-value not any of those, because each comment had unique new information as part of a much longer work that necessitated being broken up by character limitations in substack.
The nesting levels of substack levels has me rethinking the cordial way to submit replies that are more comprehensive (and maybe more links). In Facebook, you'd make one and only one top-level comment that was replied to multiple times by you with 2nd level comments that break your work into chunks according to FB character and URL limitations. This then allows a third level of comments (threads) for others to discuss things from each 2nd level comment. The way FB collapses things up into "see more..." groups, such efforts would not be spamming.
In substack multi-levels, the technique of "replying-to-self" into multi-levels works well for keeping your words together. However, any replies to specifics in a given chunk (x-th level comment) had better quote liberally from that chunk, because lurker readers will otherwise not be able to follow the discussion, worse is if each chunk/level inspires discussion.
When it became known to the reading audience through the comments that (a) the information posted in sequence had many errors and (b) the poster knew about the errors and posted it anyway without identifying the errors to the readers, then negative motivations and intentions are presumed to be at play, turning the scholarly posting effort into spam. [Mr. Ruff, take note and refrain from accusing others of such willy-nilly.]
Thank goodness substack leaves a placeholder for comments anchoring threads that get deleted by the author (or admin). Other older venues had a real publication issue with orphaned comments. Facebook can't handle it at all, so when you delete a comment at (n) level is deleted, all orphaned children (n+1) get deleted. [Deleted from public view. FB at your trial will be able to retrieve every single comment you ever made.]
The deletion of your own comments is a powerful tool for good and evil. Gets foiled when other participants in the discussion include quotations that they are responding to. The wannabe-deleter-of-words loses control of those words in the sense, if it is an accurate quotation with proper attribution given and its accuracy isn't disputed in the discussion, then the deleter-of-words cannot later deny association despite their purging actions.
Post-edit #2: I just saw the spamming that Ms. 9/11 Revisionist did for her Woodsian-DEW. Spamming because it was copied and therefore cannot possibly be relevant to every thread she posted it in.
[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.
It is utterly fatuous and pointless to argue that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Planes hit the WTC , AA77 hit the Pentagon and UA93 hit the ground in Pennsylvania. Anyone who believes otherwise has really lost touch with reality. Some people make a virtue of losing touch with reality and thinking anything can be said to be true and they regard themselves as patriotic truth seekers if they believe it and regard others as dishonest 'operatives' if they don't. The 9/11 truth movement is founded on false myths of controlled demolition, sabotaged air defenses , no planes, invisible planes, missiles and all the other inventive alternatives to the cold basic reality of a group of people hijacking planes and crashing them. It's simple. A simple straightforward plan to hit at the US and send a message to a country they hate and see as responsible for and backing the injustices and deaths that have been visited on them over decades.
I would say you don't face the truth. I have been looking into the facts about 9/11 for at least 20 years and know as much about it as anyone. And I know as much about the 9/11 truth movement too. Unfortunately some people seem very concerned about the 9/11 truth movement as if that was the important thing and not the actual truth. What happened on 9/11 was what happened. It can't be changed one iota by movements trying to convince people to believe one thing or another thing, or pushing this theory or that theory. It doesn't and can't change what happened in the past.
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.
Sandra, you’ve now exposed yourself as a disingenuous person whose agenda is not what you pretend it is. It’s now very clear that your self-righteous “neutrality” and defense of “unity” is nothing more than a façade. Your long comment here exposes the real agenda, and the hypocrisy, behind your feigned outrage.
First, I’ll comment on what you DIDN’T say, because that is more revealing about your true intentions, which obviously have nothing to do with truth. You didn’t even make reference to the exchange between me and your beau, Gene Laratonda. And I don’t blame you for not mentioning it; I wouldn’t either if I were you. But since you have unleashed a barrage of insults at me, it is only fair to look at whether you apply the same standards to others.
In his unhinged tantrum in this comment section, Gene got caught in just about the grossest lie I’ve ever seen in the Truth Movement. And that’s saying something. He copy/pasted thousands of words from a disgusting propaganda website with the subtle title, Is Kelly David a Police Agent. It’s the site that got its creator, AE911Truth-basher Dave Slesinger, expelled from the 9/11 and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference.
The text features mainly insults and gossip – nothing to prove anyone is a police agent. But as a direct attack on the then chief operating officer of AE911Truth, it was the sign of things to come. Those attacks on the organization (and her, even though she no longer works there) are intensifying now, as I fully expected they would. No wonder Gene quoted from something as vile as this since he literally spent years harassing AE911Truth and Andy Steele to the point that they had to send him a cease and desist letter.
Gene, who constantly postures as the guy who hates personal attacks and who thinks we should focus on evidence not people, does the opposite by slandering Kelly for no reason (what the hell did she do to him?). But here’s the best part – while Gene is sharing a disgusting eight-year-old piece of disinformation, we find that less than four weeks ago he was admitting to a dozen people, including some from the board of AE911Truth, that he knows that Slesinger’s text is “garbage” and that HE KNOWS IT IS NOT TRUE.
HE POSTED A HORRIBLE PERSONAL ATTACK ON KELLY KNOWING IT TO BE FALSE!!!!!
And your reaction? Your only concern is that the email was shown to me. Trying to destroy Kelly’s reputation based on a lie is okay with you, but me seeing an email that was written to about a dozen people, most of whom aren’t connected to AE is somehow a scandal? (You were one of the dozen yourself.)
You question the “integrity and moral fiber” of AE board members even though you have no idea who shared the email with me. Do you have the integrity to apologize for this baseless claim? And it’s no surprise that you have no problem with Ted Walter raiding AE911Truth after he was fired, including trying to poison Leroy Hulsey against AE. What you attack and what you refuse to even criticize reveal a lot about your character and your agenda.
As for me violating the “trust to safeguard their content,” what proof do you have (or even hint) that I shared information that I had been entrusted with safeguarding? I betrayed no trust in quoting from the email, but that doesn’t matter to you. Clearly you’re just throwing a pile of insults and innuendoes at the wall in the hope that something will stick.
Tell me, Sandra, do you approve of attacking people with information that the attacker knows to be false? How do you justify Gene doing this? And how can you attack me for catching him in a disgusting lie but not have a problem with the lie itself? You decry the “blood lust” that you think accounts for the number of people who have read my article, but you have no problem when Gene is one lusting after blood. Didn’t Kelly used to be your friend? Oh well, what’s a friendship here or there?
You have a higher calling: defending and running interference for an anti-truth operation that wants to destroy AE911Truth and take control of the Truth Movement. No wonder you and Gene run the biggest 9/11 Facebook group. That’s how gatekeeping works, right?
You justified why someone wouldn’t mention AE in their bio (because they were fired). But I guess you weren’t reading very closely because I said nothing about Ted Walter’s bio (although he did take a fully shot AE film and claim it had been made by the International Center for 9/11 Justice). The bios I was referring to were those of Bob McIlvaine and Matt Campbell who were never employees of AE and were never “fired.”
You’re also overusing the “I need a shower” line. You used that in an email about my article about Richard Gage. (It made you feel “dirty.”) I sense that you have a guilty conscience and it’s your own dishonesty that you need to wash away.
And your own attacks on AE place you right in the middle of the clique that I’m writing about. Thank you for showing why the article is necessary. Your disgusting attacks on AE are based on nothing except piling on with Ted Walter’s backroom undermining of the organization responsible for most of the great 9/11 truth ideas and initiatives. What great ideas have you come up with? Don’t answer that; I know what your ideas are.
I’ve been watching the machinations of this cabal for 13 years now, and I see your comment was just like one made around the same time by Wayne Coste, who is right up there with Gene when it comes to despicable acts. Your projection is obvious. I’m the guy destroying the organization with one article? No, it’s you and Gene, Ted, David Chandler, and the rest of the gang at the International Center thing.
I make my case with facts. I show patterns –reinforced by you and your best boy – that reveal the campaign to marginalize AE. How can you claim to love AE when you say what you did in this comment about it?
And your fourth paragraph exposes your projection even more. Clearly you were never the friend I thought you were. There’s another thing Kelly and I have in common. Neither of us will ever trust you again. And you have the nerve to say I can’t be trusted. Adam’s right; you’re no truther.
If I’ve alienated anyone who thinks like you and your pals, then good. It means I’m on the right track.
After writing this, and after having to live with the vile things you and Gene have written, it’s me who needs a shower.
Most of your rebuttal is about what I didn't say. If only you knew how many more things I didn't say...
But to that particular point, I was addressing your article, nothing else. Gene's a big boy. We're two distinct individuals. I don't speak for him and he doesn't speak for me. I wouldn't put you on the hook for something Adam said. Plus, it's the very thing I asked you not to do, whataboutism. Deflection.
If I made an assumption about the AE board forwarding you an email, then I have no trouble apologizing. So it was someone else then.
As for the bios, I guess my question would be who wrote them. If it was Ted (I really don't know what bios you're referring to), then my argument still stands. Maybe after AE kicked him out it's understandable that he doesn't want to go out of his way to spotlight them. Just sayin'.
I guess I should also scan a decade of previous communications between us to ensure I don't relay the same sentiment twice. Although it's baffling that this would even make the list of things you needed to address.
Regarding AE, all I did was express my perception of, and sadness about, the state they are in, and I'd love for you to tell me with a straight face that you think the organization is thriving. I'd also love to tell you exactly how I know it's not, but out of respect for this once splendid organization, I won't.
And finally, I'll address what you mentioned about my friendship with Kelly in a private message to you, because that too does not belong out in public.
Oh no, did I fail to follow your instructions about how I could answer? Truth is I’m sick of you trying to tell me what I can and can’t say when I respond. How I respond is not for you to say. Especially given the poison you spewed today.
Your excuse that you and Gene are separate people is disingenuous at best. No, you’re not responsible for him, but if you refuse to say publicly when he is wrong then you don’t get to pretend you are completely independent of each other. You specifically commented on the Slesinger/David thing but only to attack me and the AE board. To comment on the issue without admitting it was wrong what Gene did makes you look as dishonest as he is. Of course, you’ll spin this somehow yet again.
Here’s another chance: Do you think it was wrong for Gene to post a 6,000-word attack on Kelly that he had already stated privately was false? Simple question. If you can’t say it’s wrong then why would anyone respect anything you say again?
You can’t even concede that it’s wrong for Walter to try to get Hulsey to abandon AE. If you can’t see that that’s wrong then you have no moral compass whatsoever.
You questioned the professionalism and integrity of the AE board based on nothing. And now you want marks for being “willing” to apologize? Then by all means, DO. But if you had any integrity you would not have taken that shot at the board in the first place. You clearly revealed your bias and your animus towards AE. Clearly you are fully part of IC911/Pentagon cabal group now. You prove that by your refusal to ever call out Chandler or Walter or Coste or any of them. And, no, calling Fitzgerald and his troll friends “the rude boys” does not count as calling anyone out.
And about me not “safeguarding” the information? You were wrong about that, too.
And about someone who was fired leaving out mention of AE in the IC911 bio? You were wrong about that, too. And guessing that it was Ted that wrote the bios so it’s understandable he would remove any reference to AE is just crazy. It’s crazy to justify that. And you don’t even know if it’s true.
You and Gene have proven yourselves to be utterly reprehensible people. I will never trust either of you again.
You started this exchange by calling me a yellow journalist and said that my article is “trash” and “shit.”. You said God was going to “cut me down.” You said you couldn’t wait for AE911Truth to blow up, and you called its leadership “corrupt.” You pasted in 6,000 words of slander by Dave Slesinger about Kelly David that you admitted a month ago was “garbage”!!!! You tried to defame her with stuff you know is false! And now you accuse me of being on an Adderall binge. That’s legally libelous, Gene. You could get sued over a comment like that.
So, tell us how honorable it is for you to post a 6,000-word slander against a real truther THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED IS GARBAGE. I’m waiting, Gene…
Gene you are unhinged. Your attempted smear of Craig reminds me of Bill Maher's smear against all truthers from years ago. In fact your comment is so similar I think I will quote Maher:
"New rule, crazy people who still think the government brought down the twin towers in a controlled explosion have to stop pretending that I'm the one who is being naïve. How big a lunatic do you have to be to believe two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours and then think "well if you believe that was the cause". Stop asking me to raise this ridiculous question on my show and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for you."
For the record your Adderall smear is a classic disinfo tactic:
"5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues."
BTW I never put gloves on in the first place. Gloves are the problem, not the solution Gene. I imagine that real journalists like Craig piss off the subjects of their investigations all the time. Pfizer is not happy with James O'Keefe for example. The fact you are not happy about Craig's truth telling says a lot about you Gene although you don't realize it.
Anyway I am done with you and Sandra both, neither one of you is credible as a legitimate truther as far as I am concerned. You have about the same credibility as the corporate whore media jackals like Bill Maher have. Craig and Kelly David on the other hand, I will stand in the fire with either one of them to the end. They unlike you and Sandra are real truthers. The fact Craig is being attacked by so called "truthers" for telling the truth is the absolute pinnacle of irony.
The burden is on you to prove your allegation. Of course, you can't. That makes it libel. Please continue along this line. It is your own reputation that is dissolving away before everyone's eyes. How much more weight do you think you'll carry the next time you say someone should "refrain from personal attacks." And your remarks on the last Boston 9/11 Truth about "love" are hilarious in light of what you're showing here. Keep it up.
Sandra, by your outward appearance, you live in the same dream world Gene does. A fantasy land where everyone that says they are a "truther" really is one. That version of you, if it were genuine, makes you so obtuse it is frightening. I don't believe you live in that dream world however Sandra, your behavior tells a different story.
I notice that even when Craig exposes a liar pretending to be a truther dead to rights with evidence, as he has done many times, you say nothing. You do nothing. You ask them no questions. You take no stand whatsoever. You simply pretend that you saw no evidence of foul play, Craig made no points, there is nothing to consider or address within his commentary, and that everyone Craig exposes is just a poor victim of his mean spiritedness. In other words, you pretend to be so obtuse that it is literally frightening.
No matter what evidence Craig brings to light of dirty deeds being done by bad actors among us you try to turn it around and paint him as the bad guy for exposing it. That shows me that you are not a genuine truther at all but rather are something else.
Real truthers have the courage to call out bad actors in our midst. You not only don't call out any bad actors in our midst, you apparently according to your outward appearance don't believe there are any bad actors among us. That is either, hopelessly naïve or you are being obtuse intentionally, purposely, and with malice in your heart.
I do not believe personally that you really are hopelessly naïve. I believe you are an actress playing a role. In fact Sandra I found this little gem in the 25 rules of disinformation that fits you like a glove:
Rule #9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
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.
I agree. Kelly David is the best of the best of us. Gene should be ashamed of himself for posting that Slesinger trash. He isn't ashamed of himself though because he isn't genuine. Consider this commentary from the 8 traits of the disinformationalist:
"6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up."
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 think it's unlikely that Kelly returns to AE because she is now working elsewhere, but she continues to support the organization and to provide feedback and counsel when needed. Kelly demonstrates real integrity, and loyalty, that people like Ted Walter obviously know nothing about.
Gene, you're the gift that keeps on giving. This is one lunatic temper tantrum too many. You've just revealed yourself to be a complete fraud, and I can prove it. To do this I'm going to quote from an email you wrote the the board of AE911Truth less than a month ago (Dec. 27, to be exact).
You wrote: "Back then David Slessinger got in my ear with all that garbage about Kelly being an agent and I bought into it. People say there are some mean emails from me and I'm sure there are, but nothing so outrageous as what I'm hearing people think I did. I honestly don't remember. I've gone through the old emails between Andy and me and I don't see anything outrageous. If someone has them, please send them to me because I think someone may have set me up with fake emails."
You wrote a month ago that what Slesinger wrote about Kelly was "garbage" and that you "bought into it." And today you copy and paste a big chunk of Slesinger's slander. YOU KNOW IT'S GARBAGE BUT THEN YOU SHARE IT HERE AS IF IT'S TRUE? Do you have any integrity at all? You pretend to care about "unity" and you tell me not to engage in personal attacks, and then you do this.
For others reading this, Slesinger was expelled by the 9/11 and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference over this. By the way, he created a whole site to say this, and in a 66,000-word rant he offered no evidence to support his claim.
Gene, reproducing this massive and pointless lump of text WHEN YOU'VE ALREADY ADMITTED PRIVATELY THAT IT'S GARGAGE exposes you completely as a dishonest fraud. But I'm fine with that; I am glad that others can see the truth about you.
Dear Mr. Ruff, short of sending you an unspunnewz email (because I know you don't like that), I did all in my power to invite you to my 2024-03-21 presentation to Boston 9/11 Truth. Missed you in the attendance roster.
Thankfully, Boston 9/11 Truth recorded it, so you can view it now at your leisure.
When the total comment count was 43, Mr. Adam Ruff wrote: "Remember Craig, Maxwell's function here is to flood the comment section with his disinformation."
The stats on the participants with more than one comment tells a different story:
- Gene Laratonda had 19.
- Craig McKee had 11.
- Adam Ruff had 6.
- Maxwell Bridges had only 5. Although this very comment increments that tally to 6 to tie with Adam Ruff.
So, how is it that five (5) comments is considered "flooding the comment section" when those stats are significantly lower than Mr. McKee's and Mr. Laratonda's?
So if Mr. Ruff is going to have Mr. McKee recollect anything from our past, let it be that Mr. Ruff is prone to boastful hyperbole verging on blatant lies that any latter-day lurker reader who can count can see.
Or is Mr. Ruff complaining about the length of my articulate, well-reasoned, and substantiated comments and want them twitter-length so they don't hurt "his widdle bwain" and don't invoke algorithms to hide things under "Expand full comment" link breaks? Is he saying that he'd prefer each of my contributions divided into many tweets so that the resulting comment count would indeed flood the forum and finally make his accusations correct and not the lies they are today?
Moreover, if Mr. Ruff makes a claim, he needs to defend the claim. Else it gets called out as hypnotic suggestion and lies.
- Mr. Ruff said my "function is to flood the comment section." Please provide a tally of all of Mr. McKee's (new) Truth & Shadows articles, Thought Crimes and Misdemeanors postings, and McKee postings to his FB wall and various groups; and then point out the statistics (a) where I participated and (b) where my participation flooded the comment section. FTR, if any of Mr. McKee's venues / postings have zero comments from me, then a "function" wasn't in play.
- Mr. Ruff seems to imply that my lengthy comments are "disinformation" without a lick of proof, which is in complete violation to many instances of him plopping down "rules for discussion" including what he spoke about in last month's presentation to McKee's panel.
Of course Mr. Ruff just pawned himself.
Here below the "Expand full comment" fold, allow me to summarize Mr. Adam Ruff's track record.
- Mr. Ruff is prone to popping-squats on books and articles [e.g., Kevin Ryan, Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Andre Gsponer, my blog] (a) that he had not read and (b) that he brags about not ever reading.
- Mr. Ruff bragged about having wonderous debunking text on Dr. Judy Wood's work and on nuclear speculation. When cornered to defend his boasting, (a) no URLs were provided, (b) no quotations from his wonderful composition were given, and (c) nothing remembered from the debunking could be freshly authored.
- Mr. Ruff does a lot of "appealing to authority," particularly if they have PhDs. Supposedly, their assessment of a given work is sufficient to become his assessment, and no amount of pointing out weaknesses and errors in such analysis will ever get him to admit to error.
Where is this headed?
I am at a point in life where I can afford to be a bit more public and give actual VOICE to the latest evolution of my neu nookiedoo hobby-horse. I hope to present it to Mr. McKee's 9/11 panel.
I encourage Mr. Ruff to attend, because he will learn some things that might get him to change his mind. That is his one pass: his attendance.
Just setting expectations. Mr. Ruff's "one" pass to allow him to attend the panel is just my super-powers of being naive and trusting (until given reason not to be) overriding my rational and logical self when Mr. Ruff's track record has given plenty of reasons not to trust Mr. Ruff [will be open-minded and objective.]
Mr. Ruff wrote 2014-04-12: "The nuke theory is a load of crap and I am not going to deal with it again. Count me out of any nuke discussions in the future, I will not waste my time on troll bait again."
My response back then: "Fine. Because Mr. Ruff is out, because Mr. Ruff won't read my comments anyway, and because Mr. Ruff won't read the material referenced [as proven with books from Dr. Wood and Kevin Ryan], it means that Mr. Ruff forfeits the right to even publicly utter 'the nuke theory is a load of crap.' Most likely, his sources for such erroneous beliefs have already had their errors and omissions exposed by me in my various works that Mr. Ruff can't be bothered to read."
My reply will be very short. You constantly troll Craig's blogs by posting your ridiculous mini nuke theory in an attempt to hijack the discussion away from the subject of Craig's articles. That is disruption behavior, troll behavior, and it is also an attempt to poison the well with disinformation. I will not be speaking to you any further BTW. You are not a truther, quite the opposite.
All of Mr. Ruff's replies are short, because he isn't a deep thinker and doesn't take time to compose his words. However, even a very short reply dings his integrity and proves he can't keep his own promises, such as [2024-01-14]: "I will not be reading any response you give nor do I want to discuss anything with you."
This comment addresses Mr. Ruff's statements out-of-sequence.
Mr. Ruff claims [2024-01-24]: "[Maxwell C. Bridges is] not a truther, quite the opposite."
Mr. Ruff's definitions of truther:
[2015-10-05] "A truther (a real one) does not shy away from addressing challenges to his or her work. In fact real truthers relish the opportunity to debate 9/11 issues and either prove their hypothesis correct or accept that it is in error and abandon it for a better one."
[2015-10-29] "A genuine truther would face opponents in the open and if he was shown to be in error he would change his stance and embrace the truth regardless of personal considerations. That is what real truthers do."
What part of me writing up my 9/11 FGNW thesis and shopping it around 9/11 Truth groups precisely for the purpose of having its weaknesses exposed and getting it debunked (if possible) fits into the category of "not being a real truther?"
[2015-10-05] Mr. Ruff: "To me the fact that the 'team' refuses all discussion of these issues indicates deception on their part."
[2024-01-24] Mr. Ruff: "I will not be speaking to you any further BTW."
According to his own definition, this "indicates deception" on Mr. Ruff's part. Doubly so when we point out our conversations have not been oral, but written.
Mr. Ruff has nothing to substantiate or defend his claims of me "not being a truther." It falls into the category of "hypnotic suggestion" and backfires in his face of Mr. Ruff "not being a truther."
Mr. Ruff wrote: "You constantly troll Craig's blogs by posting your ridiculous mini nuke theory in an attempt to hijack the discussion away from the subject of Craig's articles."
- The adverb "constantly" is wrong. "Frequently" or "often" might be more accurate.
- The verb "troll" is wrong. I "participate." I don't spam. I don't post "shoot-from-the-hip" twitter-length ego-based responses. Most important of all, I am sincere.
- The phrase "ridiculous mini nuke theory" is wrong. Aside from being a mischaracterization of the FGNW technology, it is the direct frivilous outcome of someone who brags about not reading it, never mind understanding it.
- The phrase "hijack the discussion" is wrong. My top-level comments have all been on topic, which of late has been about the cabal. "In for a penny, in for pound." Their deceit at the Pentagon runs parallel to their deceit in the WTC destruction analysis. If Mr. Ruff had read the comments, he would know this.
Taking Mr. Ruff's words and aiming them back at him.
Mr. Ruff constantly troll Mr. McKee's blogs to take pot-shots at me personally, at my articulate (if verbose) style, and at my thesis, while out of the other side of his mouth brags about not reading my efforts, hypnotically encourages others not to read them, and promises not to engage further. Mr. Ruff's own words: "That is disruption behavior, troll behavior, and it is also an attempt to poison the well with disinformation."
If I'm invited to give a presentation on my 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons, I sincerely hope that Mr. Ruff attends (with an open-mind) so that he can learn something. However, in order to help him keep his promise, he'll probably be mussled/muted.
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.
No, they don't. As I've written in past Truth and Shadows articles, you can't lie about the evidence and be a truther. You also can't lie about the positions of other truthers. And, in terms of the article above, you can't whitewash and try to rewrite the history of the Truth Movement, as the IC911 has been attempting to do for the months now.
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.
Oh I could not disagree more. Craig's article does a great service for the real truth movement by exposing the machinations of a group of people that are NOT truthers at all. Your naiveté is almost super human at this point Gene. Or is it naiveté?
A hell of a lot more than you Gene. BTW I do NOT have to explain myself to you. If you don't like me, great! I don't care. When you are ready to be a real truther you let me know Gene. Until then you are just a hindrance.
Gene, you are so predictable. And predictably wrong. Do you think that a coordinated effort to erase AE911Truth is good for the movement? Please explain SPECIFICALLY what you are objecting to. I'm interested in understanding why you criticize when I call people out but you NEVER call out people who are causing the problem I'm commenting on. Your feigned outrage is hollow and one-sided. Tell me, with reference to things I actually wrote, what I've written that isn't both correct and troubling for the movement.
How about you quit telling other people how to behave Gene. You know literally nothing about the cointelpro operation, which Craig describes above, that is hell bent on stopping the truth movement from succeeding. Literally you know nothing about it. You live in a fantasy world Gene. A world where everyone that says they are a truther really is one. Put another way, you are either a dupe or you are one of the operatives yourself. Just get the hell out of the way Gene real truthers are working here and you are out of your depth. You and Sandra both are NOT the truth movements thought police force. You want me to be nice? The answer is NO! I will not be nice to frauds or partial truthers.
Gene, I try to give you the benefit of the doubt and think you are just naive and misguided, but the more you "seem" incapable of seeing the harmful machinations of this cabal, the more I find it hard to see you as genuine. Tell me, Gene...
1. Was it right for Walter to push Hulsey to leave AE?
2. Is it right that the IC911 has given no credit to AE or Kelly David for its part in the MacQueen film?
3. Is it right that Walter took the Campbell case with him after AE had spent all the money on it?
4. Is it right that AE isn't mentioned in Campbell's or McIlvaine's bios on the IC911 site?
I could go on, but do me the favor of answering these. Based on your answers we might have a better idea of whose true colors have been revealed.
Your constant reference to "personal attacks" is disingenuous and dishonest. What I am saying is NOT PERSONAL! I commented on FACTS that show an effort to hijack the Truth Movement by erasing AE911Truth, and all you can do is keep pushing the disinformation that I'm engaging in personal attacks. Jesus, man, why don't you comment on the substance of what I'm saying. Your comments never do that.
Dear Mr. Gene Laratonda, I disagree. The greater 9/11 Truth Movement needs to see the depths that they were infiltrated, and established groups (AE9/11Truth) steered away from the Truth.
You decry Mr. McKee's article as being "an absolutely terrible piece of journalism."
Allow me to foist up an example of YOU, Mr. Laratonda, being less than sincere or genuine and you misused your "scientific credentials" in a dubious manner.
For latter-day lurker readers, I have a 9/11 neu nookiedoo premise that has undergone several evolutions. Kudos to Mr. Laratonda for making some learned and seemingly substantiated comments on an earlier version of my premise. The first issue with his comments is that they were "hit-and-run." Mr. Laratonda did not defend them, either on my blog or on Facebook.
The second issue of the six points of his (somewhat "canned") rebuttal is that each were rebutted and proven non-gating, thus invalidating his conclusion and validating FGNW.
Stated another way, my neu nookiedoo hobby-horse done didth battle with Mr. Laratonda on scientific matters and prevailed, survived, and got stronger. In contrast, Mr. Laratonda's got weaker with several dings to his integrity for not defending his claims and doing hit-and-runs.
For the curious, here's the latest published evolution of the neu nookiedoo 9/11 hobby-horse, "9/11 FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons." And get this, it was submitted to Mr. Laratonda's IC911 group through Mr. Walter for peer-review and publication.
Dear Mr. Gene Laratonda, You wrote in one comment: "I'm not about arguing evidence." And then followed that with a second comment that does just that and plops down the discredited work of Dr. Steven Jones.
You cannot ADVANCE a conversation on a topic if you continually go BACKWARDS to old material that has been addressed and DEBUNKED already in subsequent work. FAIL.
No, in order to ADVANCE the conversation to a point of resolution, you have to start with the subsequent work and its valid criticism, and BUILD the discussion (vetting or debunking) from that point.
My criticism of that very paper by Dr. Steven Jones appears in this earlier evolution of my FGNW premise, section 12. "Report 3: Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers"
That section 12 advanced the nuclear conversation and is the current state of the conversation. To advance the discussion further, acknowledge the criticism of Dr. Jones paper and either defend Dr. Jones' work or admit the validity of the weaknesses. Move the conversation FORWARD.
On September 21, 2023, you made a six point comment under that very article. None of your six points acknowledged or addressed anything from the "section 12" rebuttal of Dr. Jones' work. And all of your six points were addressed and determined non-gating, advancing the discussion in further. That is the point from which you need to start.
Latter-day lurker readers can come to their own conclusions about: (1) why Facebook communication -- where our discussion started -- was severed; (2) why you didn't defend your six points on my blog, on Facebook, or by email when informed that a response to your six points existed.
You wrote: "Arguing with people online about evidence or who is the good guy or who is the bad guy is DOING NOTHING FOR THE GREATER 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT."
From my perspective watching your efforts to pop-a-squat on my FGNW premise with retread-debunked-disinfo while at the same time not defending your comments/beliefs, you are the bad guy.
Repeating what you wrote: "Arguing with people online about evidence..."
What makes this a "bad guy" statement is that there is no "argument about the evidence." Because everyone uses the same official reports in various degrees about the dust, about tritium, about radioactive elements, about the observed dustification of content, about the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, about the arches/sags & horseshoes & steel doobies.
THE argument is in the extent in which that evidence is down-played, only partially acknowledged (if at all), and pawned-off on disjointed lesser explanations by the "bad guys" instead of extrapolating to see the big picture when all of the evidence is brought together.
The "bad guys" can turn into "good guys" by recognizing the power of the big picture that connects all of the evidence as well as the orchestrated and coordinated deceitful actions to lead the public astray and apologizing.
Identifying the "bad guys" by deceitful actions in one area helps in a guilt-by-association manner identify other areas where the "bad guys" were active but that might also be untrue. "(Dis)trust but verify" to paraphrase Reagan. "In for a penny, in for a pound." If they lie about A, maybe they lied about B which is where they got their 9/11 street-cred.
At any rate, I have advanced the 9/11 nuclear discuss beyond both Dr. Jones' disinfo efforts and your six-point rebuttal. FGNW has been successfully defended and advanced at every discussion opportunity. It is the state-of-the-art.
If you are sincere in your ideas on "the power of the people relative to grand juries" and "filing (your) own grand jury petitions," know that the evidence of FGNW -- that is documented everywhere but somewhat consolidated with me -- will only nuclear-energize your grand jury efforts to bring 9/11 Truth to the fruition you desire.
Division of labor: my job is to consolidate the evidence of 9/11 FGNW. Your job is to take it (and many other thigns) and go to the grand juries.
Dear Mr. Gene Laratonda, The motto of the Christian Science Monitor was: "First the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear." This was evident in their reporting since the newspapers inception in the early 1900's when yellow journalism was rampant and everywhere. Their reporting showed the stages leading up to world events which didn't happen on a lark.
You wrote: "DO SOMETHING WITH YOUR EVIDENCE MAX."
Your emphatic reply seems to imply that I'm not doing anything with my evidence. Or that I am personally responsible for taking such evidence to the next level.
FTR, the first thing I did (the blade) with "my evidence" of FGNW was to collect it together from all sorts of sources and to create a cohesive whole theory.
The second thing I did (the ear) was to shop it around the internet [on my own, so mostly Facebook, Mr. McKee's forums] and try to initiate rational discussion that would either debunk it or vet it. I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on this topic.
My surprise in the effort shouldn't have been. Specifically, if an official source proclaims "yes" or "no", both responses can be appealed but the issue somehow is validated in terms of being a real thing requiring a response, even if wrong. Therefore, real power is in NOT deciding "yes" or "no", in keeping it in limbo, in running out the clock. This was my surprise, that real power was exerted against my premise, where my premise was neither debunked nor vetted, at the expense of the integrity of others in a spectacular fashion. The "blackhole treatment" -- no acknowledgment whatsoever of individual pieces of evidence -- became more and more obvious at top-levels of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
The third thing I'm doing (the full corn in the ear) is to get this to the (9/11) public via the 9/11 influencers and gate-keepers. Like Mr. McKee. Like AE9/11Truth's new leadership. Maybe even like you.
It is beyond the scope of my abilities to take the ear full of corn grains and cook it for mass consumption. Corn, corn syrup, and corn by-products have many uses.
But just like corn can literally contribute to fueling your car and your belly, the full FGNW can literally nuclear-energize your 9/11 grand-jury efforts and give you clarity. The grand jury is going to need specifics. You can't just tell them: "Controlled demolition destroyed the WTC, but we don't know what form that was because the infiltrated leadership of our truth movement slow-walked and distracted with limited hang-out and "blackholed" valid discussion.
Nope. You get to stand on my shoulders, leverage my research and efforts, and cook for the grand juries the grains from the full ears of my premise in a manner that they can digest.
Yes, we know how much you hate it when anyone is disrespectful. And we know how much you love having the power to silence people by blocking them from groups.
Like the respect you gave Kelly David when you posted a claim that she was a police agent? A claim you stated a month ago that you knew to be false? Is that your idea of respect?
Is that the leadership that snubbed you after you harassed the organization for years? Didn't they have to write a cease and desist letter to get you to stop harassing them? It sounds like you just want revenge. And the drooling delight you're revealing over the idea of AE "crumbling" is a perfect confirmation of the thesis of my article. Thanks a bunch for that.
And what about this anonymous engineer. Where is that interview, and where in the interview can I find the reference to Project Due Diligence? How do you know this person is authentic if they remained anonymous?
And about your lies to slander Kelly David? I'm still waiting for an answer...
You seem thrilled about the difficulties A+E is having. You are almost salivating that it may not make it. I get it though Gene you want your efforts to yield fruit. You want the cabal to take over. You lay down with dogs you get up with flee's Gene, remember that in your collaborations with the disinfo trolls over there at your new hangout.
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.
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, the actions of Mr. Gene Laratonda are exactly why I tend to save off-line, not just the words I'm writing, but the words of those I am responding to. It helps with accurate quotations, but also in situations like this.
It would have been worse had it been on Facebook, because there if you have the top-level comment, its removal trashes all threads underneath it.
My first conversation on FB with Mr. Laratonda about neu nookiedoo ended up disappearing in such a manner. He did go to my blog to leave a canned rebuttal. I addressed all six points of his rebuttal on my blog, and also sent him an email letting him know, "hey, I've addressed your issues and advanced the conversation; here is its new state."
Silence.
Post-edit: Because Mr. Adam Ruff didn't seem to know what "spamming", "forum-sliding", and "forum-flooding" were, the reply-to-his-own-comment actions from Mr. Laratonda that created a nested series of comments was on its face-value not any of those, because each comment had unique new information as part of a much longer work that necessitated being broken up by character limitations in substack.
The nesting levels of substack levels has me rethinking the cordial way to submit replies that are more comprehensive (and maybe more links). In Facebook, you'd make one and only one top-level comment that was replied to multiple times by you with 2nd level comments that break your work into chunks according to FB character and URL limitations. This then allows a third level of comments (threads) for others to discuss things from each 2nd level comment. The way FB collapses things up into "see more..." groups, such efforts would not be spamming.
In substack multi-levels, the technique of "replying-to-self" into multi-levels works well for keeping your words together. However, any replies to specifics in a given chunk (x-th level comment) had better quote liberally from that chunk, because lurker readers will otherwise not be able to follow the discussion, worse is if each chunk/level inspires discussion.
When it became known to the reading audience through the comments that (a) the information posted in sequence had many errors and (b) the poster knew about the errors and posted it anyway without identifying the errors to the readers, then negative motivations and intentions are presumed to be at play, turning the scholarly posting effort into spam. [Mr. Ruff, take note and refrain from accusing others of such willy-nilly.]
Thank goodness substack leaves a placeholder for comments anchoring threads that get deleted by the author (or admin). Other older venues had a real publication issue with orphaned comments. Facebook can't handle it at all, so when you delete a comment at (n) level is deleted, all orphaned children (n+1) get deleted. [Deleted from public view. FB at your trial will be able to retrieve every single comment you ever made.]
The deletion of your own comments is a powerful tool for good and evil. Gets foiled when other participants in the discussion include quotations that they are responding to. The wannabe-deleter-of-words loses control of those words in the sense, if it is an accurate quotation with proper attribution given and its accuracy isn't disputed in the discussion, then the deleter-of-words cannot later deny association despite their purging actions.
Post-edit #2: I just saw the spamming that Ms. 9/11 Revisionist did for her Woodsian-DEW. Spamming because it was copied and therefore cannot possibly be relevant to every thread she posted it in.
//
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.
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
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.
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
The in-fighting is of course all the fault of the other side. It is pathetic to read all this stuff.
It is utterly fatuous and pointless to argue that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Planes hit the WTC , AA77 hit the Pentagon and UA93 hit the ground in Pennsylvania. Anyone who believes otherwise has really lost touch with reality. Some people make a virtue of losing touch with reality and thinking anything can be said to be true and they regard themselves as patriotic truth seekers if they believe it and regard others as dishonest 'operatives' if they don't. The 9/11 truth movement is founded on false myths of controlled demolition, sabotaged air defenses , no planes, invisible planes, missiles and all the other inventive alternatives to the cold basic reality of a group of people hijacking planes and crashing them. It's simple. A simple straightforward plan to hit at the US and send a message to a country they hate and see as responsible for and backing the injustices and deaths that have been visited on them over decades.
I would say you don't face the truth. I have been looking into the facts about 9/11 for at least 20 years and know as much about it as anyone. And I know as much about the 9/11 truth movement too. Unfortunately some people seem very concerned about the 9/11 truth movement as if that was the important thing and not the actual truth. What happened on 9/11 was what happened. It can't be changed one iota by movements trying to convince people to believe one thing or another thing, or pushing this theory or that theory. It doesn't and can't change what happened in the past.
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.
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
Sandra, you’ve now exposed yourself as a disingenuous person whose agenda is not what you pretend it is. It’s now very clear that your self-righteous “neutrality” and defense of “unity” is nothing more than a façade. Your long comment here exposes the real agenda, and the hypocrisy, behind your feigned outrage.
First, I’ll comment on what you DIDN’T say, because that is more revealing about your true intentions, which obviously have nothing to do with truth. You didn’t even make reference to the exchange between me and your beau, Gene Laratonda. And I don’t blame you for not mentioning it; I wouldn’t either if I were you. But since you have unleashed a barrage of insults at me, it is only fair to look at whether you apply the same standards to others.
In his unhinged tantrum in this comment section, Gene got caught in just about the grossest lie I’ve ever seen in the Truth Movement. And that’s saying something. He copy/pasted thousands of words from a disgusting propaganda website with the subtle title, Is Kelly David a Police Agent. It’s the site that got its creator, AE911Truth-basher Dave Slesinger, expelled from the 9/11 and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference.
The text features mainly insults and gossip – nothing to prove anyone is a police agent. But as a direct attack on the then chief operating officer of AE911Truth, it was the sign of things to come. Those attacks on the organization (and her, even though she no longer works there) are intensifying now, as I fully expected they would. No wonder Gene quoted from something as vile as this since he literally spent years harassing AE911Truth and Andy Steele to the point that they had to send him a cease and desist letter.
Gene, who constantly postures as the guy who hates personal attacks and who thinks we should focus on evidence not people, does the opposite by slandering Kelly for no reason (what the hell did she do to him?). But here’s the best part – while Gene is sharing a disgusting eight-year-old piece of disinformation, we find that less than four weeks ago he was admitting to a dozen people, including some from the board of AE911Truth, that he knows that Slesinger’s text is “garbage” and that HE KNOWS IT IS NOT TRUE.
HE POSTED A HORRIBLE PERSONAL ATTACK ON KELLY KNOWING IT TO BE FALSE!!!!!
And your reaction? Your only concern is that the email was shown to me. Trying to destroy Kelly’s reputation based on a lie is okay with you, but me seeing an email that was written to about a dozen people, most of whom aren’t connected to AE is somehow a scandal? (You were one of the dozen yourself.)
You question the “integrity and moral fiber” of AE board members even though you have no idea who shared the email with me. Do you have the integrity to apologize for this baseless claim? And it’s no surprise that you have no problem with Ted Walter raiding AE911Truth after he was fired, including trying to poison Leroy Hulsey against AE. What you attack and what you refuse to even criticize reveal a lot about your character and your agenda.
As for me violating the “trust to safeguard their content,” what proof do you have (or even hint) that I shared information that I had been entrusted with safeguarding? I betrayed no trust in quoting from the email, but that doesn’t matter to you. Clearly you’re just throwing a pile of insults and innuendoes at the wall in the hope that something will stick.
Tell me, Sandra, do you approve of attacking people with information that the attacker knows to be false? How do you justify Gene doing this? And how can you attack me for catching him in a disgusting lie but not have a problem with the lie itself? You decry the “blood lust” that you think accounts for the number of people who have read my article, but you have no problem when Gene is one lusting after blood. Didn’t Kelly used to be your friend? Oh well, what’s a friendship here or there?
You have a higher calling: defending and running interference for an anti-truth operation that wants to destroy AE911Truth and take control of the Truth Movement. No wonder you and Gene run the biggest 9/11 Facebook group. That’s how gatekeeping works, right?
You justified why someone wouldn’t mention AE in their bio (because they were fired). But I guess you weren’t reading very closely because I said nothing about Ted Walter’s bio (although he did take a fully shot AE film and claim it had been made by the International Center for 9/11 Justice). The bios I was referring to were those of Bob McIlvaine and Matt Campbell who were never employees of AE and were never “fired.”
You’re also overusing the “I need a shower” line. You used that in an email about my article about Richard Gage. (It made you feel “dirty.”) I sense that you have a guilty conscience and it’s your own dishonesty that you need to wash away.
And your own attacks on AE place you right in the middle of the clique that I’m writing about. Thank you for showing why the article is necessary. Your disgusting attacks on AE are based on nothing except piling on with Ted Walter’s backroom undermining of the organization responsible for most of the great 9/11 truth ideas and initiatives. What great ideas have you come up with? Don’t answer that; I know what your ideas are.
I’ve been watching the machinations of this cabal for 13 years now, and I see your comment was just like one made around the same time by Wayne Coste, who is right up there with Gene when it comes to despicable acts. Your projection is obvious. I’m the guy destroying the organization with one article? No, it’s you and Gene, Ted, David Chandler, and the rest of the gang at the International Center thing.
I make my case with facts. I show patterns –reinforced by you and your best boy – that reveal the campaign to marginalize AE. How can you claim to love AE when you say what you did in this comment about it?
And your fourth paragraph exposes your projection even more. Clearly you were never the friend I thought you were. There’s another thing Kelly and I have in common. Neither of us will ever trust you again. And you have the nerve to say I can’t be trusted. Adam’s right; you’re no truther.
If I’ve alienated anyone who thinks like you and your pals, then good. It means I’m on the right track.
After writing this, and after having to live with the vile things you and Gene have written, it’s me who needs a shower.
Most of your rebuttal is about what I didn't say. If only you knew how many more things I didn't say...
But to that particular point, I was addressing your article, nothing else. Gene's a big boy. We're two distinct individuals. I don't speak for him and he doesn't speak for me. I wouldn't put you on the hook for something Adam said. Plus, it's the very thing I asked you not to do, whataboutism. Deflection.
If I made an assumption about the AE board forwarding you an email, then I have no trouble apologizing. So it was someone else then.
As for the bios, I guess my question would be who wrote them. If it was Ted (I really don't know what bios you're referring to), then my argument still stands. Maybe after AE kicked him out it's understandable that he doesn't want to go out of his way to spotlight them. Just sayin'.
I guess I should also scan a decade of previous communications between us to ensure I don't relay the same sentiment twice. Although it's baffling that this would even make the list of things you needed to address.
Regarding AE, all I did was express my perception of, and sadness about, the state they are in, and I'd love for you to tell me with a straight face that you think the organization is thriving. I'd also love to tell you exactly how I know it's not, but out of respect for this once splendid organization, I won't.
And finally, I'll address what you mentioned about my friendship with Kelly in a private message to you, because that too does not belong out in public.
Oh no, did I fail to follow your instructions about how I could answer? Truth is I’m sick of you trying to tell me what I can and can’t say when I respond. How I respond is not for you to say. Especially given the poison you spewed today.
Your excuse that you and Gene are separate people is disingenuous at best. No, you’re not responsible for him, but if you refuse to say publicly when he is wrong then you don’t get to pretend you are completely independent of each other. You specifically commented on the Slesinger/David thing but only to attack me and the AE board. To comment on the issue without admitting it was wrong what Gene did makes you look as dishonest as he is. Of course, you’ll spin this somehow yet again.
Here’s another chance: Do you think it was wrong for Gene to post a 6,000-word attack on Kelly that he had already stated privately was false? Simple question. If you can’t say it’s wrong then why would anyone respect anything you say again?
You can’t even concede that it’s wrong for Walter to try to get Hulsey to abandon AE. If you can’t see that that’s wrong then you have no moral compass whatsoever.
You questioned the professionalism and integrity of the AE board based on nothing. And now you want marks for being “willing” to apologize? Then by all means, DO. But if you had any integrity you would not have taken that shot at the board in the first place. You clearly revealed your bias and your animus towards AE. Clearly you are fully part of IC911/Pentagon cabal group now. You prove that by your refusal to ever call out Chandler or Walter or Coste or any of them. And, no, calling Fitzgerald and his troll friends “the rude boys” does not count as calling anyone out.
And about me not “safeguarding” the information? You were wrong about that, too.
And about someone who was fired leaving out mention of AE in the IC911 bio? You were wrong about that, too. And guessing that it was Ted that wrote the bios so it’s understandable he would remove any reference to AE is just crazy. It’s crazy to justify that. And you don’t even know if it’s true.
You and Gene have proven yourselves to be utterly reprehensible people. I will never trust either of you again.
Now the gloves are off?
You started this exchange by calling me a yellow journalist and said that my article is “trash” and “shit.”. You said God was going to “cut me down.” You said you couldn’t wait for AE911Truth to blow up, and you called its leadership “corrupt.” You pasted in 6,000 words of slander by Dave Slesinger about Kelly David that you admitted a month ago was “garbage”!!!! You tried to defame her with stuff you know is false! And now you accuse me of being on an Adderall binge. That’s legally libelous, Gene. You could get sued over a comment like that.
So, tell us how honorable it is for you to post a 6,000-word slander against a real truther THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED IS GARBAGE. I’m waiting, Gene…
Gene you are unhinged. Your attempted smear of Craig reminds me of Bill Maher's smear against all truthers from years ago. In fact your comment is so similar I think I will quote Maher:
"New rule, crazy people who still think the government brought down the twin towers in a controlled explosion have to stop pretending that I'm the one who is being naïve. How big a lunatic do you have to be to believe two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours and then think "well if you believe that was the cause". Stop asking me to raise this ridiculous question on my show and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for you."
For the record your Adderall smear is a classic disinfo tactic:
"5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues."
BTW I never put gloves on in the first place. Gloves are the problem, not the solution Gene. I imagine that real journalists like Craig piss off the subjects of their investigations all the time. Pfizer is not happy with James O'Keefe for example. The fact you are not happy about Craig's truth telling says a lot about you Gene although you don't realize it.
Anyway I am done with you and Sandra both, neither one of you is credible as a legitimate truther as far as I am concerned. You have about the same credibility as the corporate whore media jackals like Bill Maher have. Craig and Kelly David on the other hand, I will stand in the fire with either one of them to the end. They unlike you and Sandra are real truthers. The fact Craig is being attacked by so called "truthers" for telling the truth is the absolute pinnacle of irony.
The burden is on you to prove your allegation. Of course, you can't. That makes it libel. Please continue along this line. It is your own reputation that is dissolving away before everyone's eyes. How much more weight do you think you'll carry the next time you say someone should "refrain from personal attacks." And your remarks on the last Boston 9/11 Truth about "love" are hilarious in light of what you're showing here. Keep it up.
Sandra, by your outward appearance, you live in the same dream world Gene does. A fantasy land where everyone that says they are a "truther" really is one. That version of you, if it were genuine, makes you so obtuse it is frightening. I don't believe you live in that dream world however Sandra, your behavior tells a different story.
I notice that even when Craig exposes a liar pretending to be a truther dead to rights with evidence, as he has done many times, you say nothing. You do nothing. You ask them no questions. You take no stand whatsoever. You simply pretend that you saw no evidence of foul play, Craig made no points, there is nothing to consider or address within his commentary, and that everyone Craig exposes is just a poor victim of his mean spiritedness. In other words, you pretend to be so obtuse that it is literally frightening.
No matter what evidence Craig brings to light of dirty deeds being done by bad actors among us you try to turn it around and paint him as the bad guy for exposing it. That shows me that you are not a genuine truther at all but rather are something else.
Real truthers have the courage to call out bad actors in our midst. You not only don't call out any bad actors in our midst, you apparently according to your outward appearance don't believe there are any bad actors among us. That is either, hopelessly naïve or you are being obtuse intentionally, purposely, and with malice in your heart.
I do not believe personally that you really are hopelessly naïve. I believe you are an actress playing a role. In fact Sandra I found this little gem in the 25 rules of disinformation that fits you like a glove:
Rule #9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
Alright Adam, since you say so, which means it must be true, I'm obtuse and not a real Truther then. Glad we got that cleared up. I wasn't sure.
Your reply is EXACTLY what I expected. Obtuse. Yes I am glad we got that cleared up.
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.
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
I agree. Kelly David is the best of the best of us. Gene should be ashamed of himself for posting that Slesinger trash. He isn't ashamed of himself though because he isn't genuine. Consider this commentary from the 8 traits of the disinformationalist:
"6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up."
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.
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
I think it's unlikely that Kelly returns to AE because she is now working elsewhere, but she continues to support the organization and to provide feedback and counsel when needed. Kelly demonstrates real integrity, and loyalty, that people like Ted Walter obviously know nothing about.
Gene, you're the gift that keeps on giving. This is one lunatic temper tantrum too many. You've just revealed yourself to be a complete fraud, and I can prove it. To do this I'm going to quote from an email you wrote the the board of AE911Truth less than a month ago (Dec. 27, to be exact).
You wrote: "Back then David Slessinger got in my ear with all that garbage about Kelly being an agent and I bought into it. People say there are some mean emails from me and I'm sure there are, but nothing so outrageous as what I'm hearing people think I did. I honestly don't remember. I've gone through the old emails between Andy and me and I don't see anything outrageous. If someone has them, please send them to me because I think someone may have set me up with fake emails."
You wrote a month ago that what Slesinger wrote about Kelly was "garbage" and that you "bought into it." And today you copy and paste a big chunk of Slesinger's slander. YOU KNOW IT'S GARBAGE BUT THEN YOU SHARE IT HERE AS IF IT'S TRUE? Do you have any integrity at all? You pretend to care about "unity" and you tell me not to engage in personal attacks, and then you do this.
For others reading this, Slesinger was expelled by the 9/11 and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference over this. By the way, he created a whole site to say this, and in a 66,000-word rant he offered no evidence to support his claim.
Gene, reproducing this massive and pointless lump of text WHEN YOU'VE ALREADY ADMITTED PRIVATELY THAT IT'S GARGAGE exposes you completely as a dishonest fraud. But I'm fine with that; I am glad that others can see the truth about you.
Remember Craig, Maxwell's function here is to flood the comment section with his disinformation.
Dear Mr. Ruff, short of sending you an unspunnewz email (because I know you don't like that), I did all in my power to invite you to my 2024-03-21 presentation to Boston 9/11 Truth. Missed you in the attendance roster.
Thankfully, Boston 9/11 Truth recorded it, so you can view it now at your leisure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN_27Xtq19o
//
When the total comment count was 43, Mr. Adam Ruff wrote: "Remember Craig, Maxwell's function here is to flood the comment section with his disinformation."
The stats on the participants with more than one comment tells a different story:
- Gene Laratonda had 19.
- Craig McKee had 11.
- Adam Ruff had 6.
- Maxwell Bridges had only 5. Although this very comment increments that tally to 6 to tie with Adam Ruff.
So, how is it that five (5) comments is considered "flooding the comment section" when those stats are significantly lower than Mr. McKee's and Mr. Laratonda's?
So if Mr. Ruff is going to have Mr. McKee recollect anything from our past, let it be that Mr. Ruff is prone to boastful hyperbole verging on blatant lies that any latter-day lurker reader who can count can see.
Or is Mr. Ruff complaining about the length of my articulate, well-reasoned, and substantiated comments and want them twitter-length so they don't hurt "his widdle bwain" and don't invoke algorithms to hide things under "Expand full comment" link breaks? Is he saying that he'd prefer each of my contributions divided into many tweets so that the resulting comment count would indeed flood the forum and finally make his accusations correct and not the lies they are today?
Moreover, if Mr. Ruff makes a claim, he needs to defend the claim. Else it gets called out as hypnotic suggestion and lies.
- Mr. Ruff said my "function is to flood the comment section." Please provide a tally of all of Mr. McKee's (new) Truth & Shadows articles, Thought Crimes and Misdemeanors postings, and McKee postings to his FB wall and various groups; and then point out the statistics (a) where I participated and (b) where my participation flooded the comment section. FTR, if any of Mr. McKee's venues / postings have zero comments from me, then a "function" wasn't in play.
- Mr. Ruff seems to imply that my lengthy comments are "disinformation" without a lick of proof, which is in complete violation to many instances of him plopping down "rules for discussion" including what he spoke about in last month's presentation to McKee's panel.
Of course Mr. Ruff just pawned himself.
Here below the "Expand full comment" fold, allow me to summarize Mr. Adam Ruff's track record.
- Mr. Ruff is prone to popping-squats on books and articles [e.g., Kevin Ryan, Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Andre Gsponer, my blog] (a) that he had not read and (b) that he brags about not ever reading.
- Mr. Ruff bragged about having wonderous debunking text on Dr. Judy Wood's work and on nuclear speculation. When cornered to defend his boasting, (a) no URLs were provided, (b) no quotations from his wonderful composition were given, and (c) nothing remembered from the debunking could be freshly authored.
- Mr. Ruff does a lot of "appealing to authority," particularly if they have PhDs. Supposedly, their assessment of a given work is sufficient to become his assessment, and no amount of pointing out weaknesses and errors in such analysis will ever get him to admit to error.
Where is this headed?
I am at a point in life where I can afford to be a bit more public and give actual VOICE to the latest evolution of my neu nookiedoo hobby-horse. I hope to present it to Mr. McKee's 9/11 panel.
I encourage Mr. Ruff to attend, because he will learn some things that might get him to change his mind. That is his one pass: his attendance.
Just setting expectations. Mr. Ruff's "one" pass to allow him to attend the panel is just my super-powers of being naive and trusting (until given reason not to be) overriding my rational and logical self when Mr. Ruff's track record has given plenty of reasons not to trust Mr. Ruff [will be open-minded and objective.]
Mr. Ruff wrote 2014-04-12: "The nuke theory is a load of crap and I am not going to deal with it again. Count me out of any nuke discussions in the future, I will not waste my time on troll bait again."
My response back then: "Fine. Because Mr. Ruff is out, because Mr. Ruff won't read my comments anyway, and because Mr. Ruff won't read the material referenced [as proven with books from Dr. Wood and Kevin Ryan], it means that Mr. Ruff forfeits the right to even publicly utter 'the nuke theory is a load of crap.' Most likely, his sources for such erroneous beliefs have already had their errors and omissions exposed by me in my various works that Mr. Ruff can't be bothered to read."
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html
//
My reply will be very short. You constantly troll Craig's blogs by posting your ridiculous mini nuke theory in an attempt to hijack the discussion away from the subject of Craig's articles. That is disruption behavior, troll behavior, and it is also an attempt to poison the well with disinformation. I will not be speaking to you any further BTW. You are not a truther, quite the opposite.
All of Mr. Ruff's replies are short, because he isn't a deep thinker and doesn't take time to compose his words. However, even a very short reply dings his integrity and proves he can't keep his own promises, such as [2024-01-14]: "I will not be reading any response you give nor do I want to discuss anything with you."
This comment addresses Mr. Ruff's statements out-of-sequence.
Mr. Ruff claims [2024-01-24]: "[Maxwell C. Bridges is] not a truther, quite the opposite."
Mr. Ruff's definitions of truther:
[2015-10-05] "A truther (a real one) does not shy away from addressing challenges to his or her work. In fact real truthers relish the opportunity to debate 9/11 issues and either prove their hypothesis correct or accept that it is in error and abandon it for a better one."
[2015-10-29] "A genuine truther would face opponents in the open and if he was shown to be in error he would change his stance and embrace the truth regardless of personal considerations. That is what real truthers do."
What part of me writing up my 9/11 FGNW thesis and shopping it around 9/11 Truth groups precisely for the purpose of having its weaknesses exposed and getting it debunked (if possible) fits into the category of "not being a real truther?"
[2015-10-05] Mr. Ruff: "To me the fact that the 'team' refuses all discussion of these issues indicates deception on their part."
[2024-01-24] Mr. Ruff: "I will not be speaking to you any further BTW."
According to his own definition, this "indicates deception" on Mr. Ruff's part. Doubly so when we point out our conversations have not been oral, but written.
Mr. Ruff has nothing to substantiate or defend his claims of me "not being a truther." It falls into the category of "hypnotic suggestion" and backfires in his face of Mr. Ruff "not being a truther."
Mr. Ruff wrote: "You constantly troll Craig's blogs by posting your ridiculous mini nuke theory in an attempt to hijack the discussion away from the subject of Craig's articles."
- The adverb "constantly" is wrong. "Frequently" or "often" might be more accurate.
- The verb "troll" is wrong. I "participate." I don't spam. I don't post "shoot-from-the-hip" twitter-length ego-based responses. Most important of all, I am sincere.
- The phrase "ridiculous mini nuke theory" is wrong. Aside from being a mischaracterization of the FGNW technology, it is the direct frivilous outcome of someone who brags about not reading it, never mind understanding it.
- The phrase "hijack the discussion" is wrong. My top-level comments have all been on topic, which of late has been about the cabal. "In for a penny, in for pound." Their deceit at the Pentagon runs parallel to their deceit in the WTC destruction analysis. If Mr. Ruff had read the comments, he would know this.
Taking Mr. Ruff's words and aiming them back at him.
Mr. Ruff constantly troll Mr. McKee's blogs to take pot-shots at me personally, at my articulate (if verbose) style, and at my thesis, while out of the other side of his mouth brags about not reading my efforts, hypnotically encourages others not to read them, and promises not to engage further. Mr. Ruff's own words: "That is disruption behavior, troll behavior, and it is also an attempt to poison the well with disinformation."
If I'm invited to give a presentation on my 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons, I sincerely hope that Mr. Ruff attends (with an open-mind) so that he can learn something. However, in order to help him keep his promise, he'll probably be mussled/muted.
//
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.
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
No, they don't. As I've written in past Truth and Shadows articles, you can't lie about the evidence and be a truther. You also can't lie about the positions of other truthers. And, in terms of the article above, you can't whitewash and try to rewrite the history of the Truth Movement, as the IC911 has been attempting to do for the months now.
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.
Oh I could not disagree more. Craig's article does a great service for the real truth movement by exposing the machinations of a group of people that are NOT truthers at all. Your naiveté is almost super human at this point Gene. Or is it naiveté?
A hell of a lot more than you Gene. BTW I do NOT have to explain myself to you. If you don't like me, great! I don't care. When you are ready to be a real truther you let me know Gene. Until then you are just a hindrance.
Gene, you are so predictable. And predictably wrong. Do you think that a coordinated effort to erase AE911Truth is good for the movement? Please explain SPECIFICALLY what you are objecting to. I'm interested in understanding why you criticize when I call people out but you NEVER call out people who are causing the problem I'm commenting on. Your feigned outrage is hollow and one-sided. Tell me, with reference to things I actually wrote, what I've written that isn't both correct and troubling for the movement.
How about you quit telling other people how to behave Gene. You know literally nothing about the cointelpro operation, which Craig describes above, that is hell bent on stopping the truth movement from succeeding. Literally you know nothing about it. You live in a fantasy world Gene. A world where everyone that says they are a truther really is one. Put another way, you are either a dupe or you are one of the operatives yourself. Just get the hell out of the way Gene real truthers are working here and you are out of your depth. You and Sandra both are NOT the truth movements thought police force. You want me to be nice? The answer is NO! I will not be nice to frauds or partial truthers.
Gene, I try to give you the benefit of the doubt and think you are just naive and misguided, but the more you "seem" incapable of seeing the harmful machinations of this cabal, the more I find it hard to see you as genuine. Tell me, Gene...
1. Was it right for Walter to push Hulsey to leave AE?
2. Is it right that the IC911 has given no credit to AE or Kelly David for its part in the MacQueen film?
3. Is it right that Walter took the Campbell case with him after AE had spent all the money on it?
4. Is it right that AE isn't mentioned in Campbell's or McIlvaine's bios on the IC911 site?
I could go on, but do me the favor of answering these. Based on your answers we might have a better idea of whose true colors have been revealed.
Your constant reference to "personal attacks" is disingenuous and dishonest. What I am saying is NOT PERSONAL! I commented on FACTS that show an effort to hijack the Truth Movement by erasing AE911Truth, and all you can do is keep pushing the disinformation that I'm engaging in personal attacks. Jesus, man, why don't you comment on the substance of what I'm saying. Your comments never do that.
Dear Mr. Gene Laratonda, I disagree. The greater 9/11 Truth Movement needs to see the depths that they were infiltrated, and established groups (AE9/11Truth) steered away from the Truth.
You decry Mr. McKee's article as being "an absolutely terrible piece of journalism."
Allow me to foist up an example of YOU, Mr. Laratonda, being less than sincere or genuine and you misused your "scientific credentials" in a dubious manner.
For latter-day lurker readers, I have a 9/11 neu nookiedoo premise that has undergone several evolutions. Kudos to Mr. Laratonda for making some learned and seemingly substantiated comments on an earlier version of my premise. The first issue with his comments is that they were "hit-and-run." Mr. Laratonda did not defend them, either on my blog or on Facebook.
The second issue of the six points of his (somewhat "canned") rebuttal is that each were rebutted and proven non-gating, thus invalidating his conclusion and validating FGNW.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/10/fgnw-discussions-vol-4.html
Stated another way, my neu nookiedoo hobby-horse done didth battle with Mr. Laratonda on scientific matters and prevailed, survived, and got stronger. In contrast, Mr. Laratonda's got weaker with several dings to his integrity for not defending his claims and doing hit-and-runs.
For the curious, here's the latest published evolution of the neu nookiedoo 9/11 hobby-horse, "9/11 FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons." And get this, it was submitted to Mr. Laratonda's IC911 group through Mr. Walter for peer-review and publication.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
//
Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers
Letter, by Dr. Steven E. Jones
28 Sept 2006 (Updated Jan. 2007, peer-reviewed, accepted for publication 7 Jan 2007. Appendix A added 16 January 2007.)
https://ic911.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2007.01_hard-evidence-rebudiates-the-hypothesis-that-mini-nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf
Dear Mr. Gene Laratonda, You wrote in one comment: "I'm not about arguing evidence." And then followed that with a second comment that does just that and plops down the discredited work of Dr. Steven Jones.
You cannot ADVANCE a conversation on a topic if you continually go BACKWARDS to old material that has been addressed and DEBUNKED already in subsequent work. FAIL.
No, in order to ADVANCE the conversation to a point of resolution, you have to start with the subsequent work and its valid criticism, and BUILD the discussion (vetting or debunking) from that point.
My criticism of that very paper by Dr. Steven Jones appears in this earlier evolution of my FGNW premise, section 12. "Report 3: Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers"
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
That section 12 advanced the nuclear conversation and is the current state of the conversation. To advance the discussion further, acknowledge the criticism of Dr. Jones paper and either defend Dr. Jones' work or admit the validity of the weaknesses. Move the conversation FORWARD.
On September 21, 2023, you made a six point comment under that very article. None of your six points acknowledged or addressed anything from the "section 12" rebuttal of Dr. Jones' work. And all of your six points were addressed and determined non-gating, advancing the discussion in further. That is the point from which you need to start.
Latter-day lurker readers can come to their own conclusions about: (1) why Facebook communication -- where our discussion started -- was severed; (2) why you didn't defend your six points on my blog, on Facebook, or by email when informed that a response to your six points existed.
You wrote: "Arguing with people online about evidence or who is the good guy or who is the bad guy is DOING NOTHING FOR THE GREATER 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT."
From my perspective watching your efforts to pop-a-squat on my FGNW premise with retread-debunked-disinfo while at the same time not defending your comments/beliefs, you are the bad guy.
Repeating what you wrote: "Arguing with people online about evidence..."
What makes this a "bad guy" statement is that there is no "argument about the evidence." Because everyone uses the same official reports in various degrees about the dust, about tritium, about radioactive elements, about the observed dustification of content, about the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, about the arches/sags & horseshoes & steel doobies.
THE argument is in the extent in which that evidence is down-played, only partially acknowledged (if at all), and pawned-off on disjointed lesser explanations by the "bad guys" instead of extrapolating to see the big picture when all of the evidence is brought together.
The "bad guys" can turn into "good guys" by recognizing the power of the big picture that connects all of the evidence as well as the orchestrated and coordinated deceitful actions to lead the public astray and apologizing.
Identifying the "bad guys" by deceitful actions in one area helps in a guilt-by-association manner identify other areas where the "bad guys" were active but that might also be untrue. "(Dis)trust but verify" to paraphrase Reagan. "In for a penny, in for a pound." If they lie about A, maybe they lied about B which is where they got their 9/11 street-cred.
At any rate, I have advanced the 9/11 nuclear discuss beyond both Dr. Jones' disinfo efforts and your six-point rebuttal. FGNW has been successfully defended and advanced at every discussion opportunity. It is the state-of-the-art.
If you are sincere in your ideas on "the power of the people relative to grand juries" and "filing (your) own grand jury petitions," know that the evidence of FGNW -- that is documented everywhere but somewhat consolidated with me -- will only nuclear-energize your grand jury efforts to bring 9/11 Truth to the fruition you desire.
Division of labor: my job is to consolidate the evidence of 9/11 FGNW. Your job is to take it (and many other thigns) and go to the grand juries.
//
Dear Mr. Gene Laratonda, The motto of the Christian Science Monitor was: "First the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear." This was evident in their reporting since the newspapers inception in the early 1900's when yellow journalism was rampant and everywhere. Their reporting showed the stages leading up to world events which didn't happen on a lark.
You wrote: "DO SOMETHING WITH YOUR EVIDENCE MAX."
Your emphatic reply seems to imply that I'm not doing anything with my evidence. Or that I am personally responsible for taking such evidence to the next level.
FTR, the first thing I did (the blade) with "my evidence" of FGNW was to collect it together from all sorts of sources and to create a cohesive whole theory.
The second thing I did (the ear) was to shop it around the internet [on my own, so mostly Facebook, Mr. McKee's forums] and try to initiate rational discussion that would either debunk it or vet it. I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on this topic.
My surprise in the effort shouldn't have been. Specifically, if an official source proclaims "yes" or "no", both responses can be appealed but the issue somehow is validated in terms of being a real thing requiring a response, even if wrong. Therefore, real power is in NOT deciding "yes" or "no", in keeping it in limbo, in running out the clock. This was my surprise, that real power was exerted against my premise, where my premise was neither debunked nor vetted, at the expense of the integrity of others in a spectacular fashion. The "blackhole treatment" -- no acknowledgment whatsoever of individual pieces of evidence -- became more and more obvious at top-levels of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
The third thing I'm doing (the full corn in the ear) is to get this to the (9/11) public via the 9/11 influencers and gate-keepers. Like Mr. McKee. Like AE9/11Truth's new leadership. Maybe even like you.
It is beyond the scope of my abilities to take the ear full of corn grains and cook it for mass consumption. Corn, corn syrup, and corn by-products have many uses.
But just like corn can literally contribute to fueling your car and your belly, the full FGNW can literally nuclear-energize your 9/11 grand-jury efforts and give you clarity. The grand jury is going to need specifics. You can't just tell them: "Controlled demolition destroyed the WTC, but we don't know what form that was because the infiltrated leadership of our truth movement slow-walked and distracted with limited hang-out and "blackholed" valid discussion.
Nope. You get to stand on my shoulders, leverage my research and efforts, and cook for the grand juries the grains from the full ears of my premise in a manner that they can digest.
//
Yes, we know how much you hate it when anyone is disrespectful. And we know how much you love having the power to silence people by blocking them from groups.
The gift that keeps on giving.
Keep showing that class, Gene. Keep letting people really get to know you.
Like the respect you gave Kelly David when you posted a claim that she was a police agent? A claim you stated a month ago that you knew to be false? Is that your idea of respect?
I apologize for that. I'll delete it.
Do not delete it. Apologize if you wish but do not delete anything.
I apologize. All of this is terrible of all of us. We're all behaving poorly. I'm sorry. I won't do this anymore. I'll try my damndest not to do this.
Actually Gene you sound like Salacious B. Crumb: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Y6YfDBmh8
You sound like a lunatic. Do go on...
Is that the leadership that snubbed you after you harassed the organization for years? Didn't they have to write a cease and desist letter to get you to stop harassing them? It sounds like you just want revenge. And the drooling delight you're revealing over the idea of AE "crumbling" is a perfect confirmation of the thesis of my article. Thanks a bunch for that.
And what about this anonymous engineer. Where is that interview, and where in the interview can I find the reference to Project Due Diligence? How do you know this person is authentic if they remained anonymous?
And about your lies to slander Kelly David? I'm still waiting for an answer...
You seem thrilled about the difficulties A+E is having. You are almost salivating that it may not make it. I get it though Gene you want your efforts to yield fruit. You want the cabal to take over. You lay down with dogs you get up with flee's Gene, remember that in your collaborations with the disinfo trolls over there at your new hangout.
So, just to sum up the highlights from your comments about "evidence":
• Trash hit piece.
• Shitty article.
• Let the hate flow through you.
• Enjoy the bottom feeding destructive attempts to take down your cabal or whoever you want to vilify.
• Keep being the toxic best you are good at.
• You two illustrate the content of your character for all to see.
• Yellow journalism; it's what you're good at.
• I've spent too much time stirring this shit post, I mean shit pot.
• What a waste of journalistic talent, if you had any.
• Terrible piece of journalism.
• Were you guys not loved enough as kids?
• Let your colors shine for all to see.
• Do you need a safe space?
Does that about sum up your evidence-based response, Gene?