Dear Mr. McKee, You bring up important points to consider in the 9/11 discussion.
You wrote: "... the cabal, which I believe is a COINTELPRO operation." You continued later (with my clarification): "They (the PTB) might create a team of operatives who would gain credibility in one area of 9/11 research, like the WTC evidence, and then have those people turn to the Pentagon to push what is essentially the government’s cover story. These operatives would be sure to frequently mention their reliance on 'the scientific method.' Finally, they’d accuse those who point out this pattern of being divisive."
As part of "the scientific method," the conclusions of a hypothesis -- whether or not validated -- need to revisit any assumptions made at the onset (a) to see if the assumptions remain valid and (b) to see if modifying those assumptions to be more real-world changes the conclusions.
Thus, Mr. McKee, once you were clear about the COINTELPRO cabal hindering the Pentagon discussions, your assumptions about the cabal in their original area of 9/11 research where they gained credibility requires a new review and re-evaluation. The poisoning from a COINTELPRO-influenced cabal would have been evident in their original area of 9/11 fame (WTC). SPOILER: It was.
Case in point with regards to the WTC: the cabal made no effort to explain WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6. Success in blocking those discussions entirely! And even on the nano-thermite front, the cabal may have speculated that NT was involved, they do not speculate into probable chemical mixtures and placement in the structure to account for vaporization of metal pans and trusses and dustification of concrete (and office content) that happened with a noticably reduced decibel level. [Nevermind those pesky under-rubble hot-spots.]
You wrote: "[I]t’s ideal when people behave civilly and respect each other’s opinions. But this assumes that the people involved are authentic."
I think "sincere" is a better word in this case than "authentic."
I mean, just because someone who participates provides, say, a copy of his driver's license or thumb-print to authenticate they exist in the real-world doesn't mean that they are sincere in the position they champion.
Sincerity and objectivity are the important qualities.
Maxwell, when I use the word "authentic," I don't mean that they are giving their true name. I mean that they are really what they represent themselves to be. For example, I do not believe that Wayne Coste is authentic - that is I don't believe he is truly a truth seeker who is on the same side as me. While I would often find "sincere" to be an excellent word to use, there are times when it doesn't express what I want. Someone like Colin Doran may be sincere in opposing the "inside job" position, but that does not address whether he is authentic in presenting himself as a regular guy rather than as a government agent.
As to your view about the cabal's WTC efforts, I will repeat what I've said many times. Whether they've got every detail right or not, they are pushing the controlled demolition position, which I think has been proven. I don't see the value in taking them on in this area. I am revealing how they have used the credibility they appear to have been given by other truthers to sabotage our efforts in other areas.
I see the mini-nuke or DEW debate as a distraction and a quagmire that I think will completely grind out movement to a halt if we all get into it. I'm exposing the EXTREME and OUTRAGEOUS deceptions being spread by this group to ultimately poison the movement to death. From a strategic point of view, the course you suggest makes no sense to me. I choose to focus on the areas that clearly expose the infiltration of the movement and the efforts by the cabal to use the Pentagon to divide us. They also want the evidence that proves government complicity to be neutralized. I won't let this happen. Following the course you suggest would only make their lives easier, and I won't let that happen either.
Dear Mr. McKee, You wrote regarding the cabal's WTC efforts: "... Whether they've got every detail right or not, they are pushing the controlled demolition position, which I think has been proven."
So easily you brush off the cabal's poor WTC destruction analysis, "whether ... every detail right or not." Does your opinion change if "few of the details are right"? The details of their controlled demolition position are so thin and vague upon inspection, it could not be a benefit to anyone in court, which is a form of sabotage as well.
I mean, imagine a related 9/11 case somehow finally gets to court and the family member cries on the stand about "controlled demolition killing their loved one." Upon questioning of this and other expert testimony, the message becomes "controlled demolition using nano-thermite." But on cross-examination, the lawyer references all sorts of factoids debunking NT, maybe data-mined directly from my blog and zoom presentation to Boston 9/11 Truth. Case gets lost, because those bringing it to court did not take their research, analysis, and educated speculation to the level required to prove it.
On the other hand and before-hand, if, through our efforts, FGNW becomes the validated concensus primary-mechanism-of-destruction, then the expert testimony message becomes "controlled demolition using exotic nuclear weapons killed their loved ones", which has a different and even greater public resonance.
You wrote: "I see the mini-nuke or DEW debate as a distraction and a quagmire that I think will completely grind out movement to a halt if we all get into it."
I disagree. I think it will free a log-jam in the bowels of the 9/11 Truth Movement around the globe, constipated by the slow-walking and incomplete measures of the cabal, Woodsian-DEWers, and other COINTELPRO, and will bring relief by finally getting a true consensus mechanism of destruction that followed the scientific method where "none of the relevant evidence is ignored" (Dr. David Griffin) and that opened discussions to clear up related but clogged 9/11 spinxters (at the Pentagon). No court case can be won without it.
So, not a distraction; instead, the main show in the center ring.
Also, it won't be a quagmire. How so?
FGNW has aleady won. Already accepted as valid by the 9/11 Truth Movement is the evidence of fission (2 dust reports) and fusion (tritium report). Already accepted as valid are the NIST/FEMA videos as well as the evidence in Dr. Judy Wood's work. And then there's Dr. Andre Gsponer's work, that the naysayers cannot even acknowledge, let alone address. Plus we have the inability of the competing theories to defend themselves and address all the evidence and buildings.
All major skirmishes that could possibly discredit FGNW have already been been fought and won (my humble efforts this last decade plus), and any attempt to re-hash have URLs and copy-and-paste to knock down quickly to keep on track... Ok, ok, I have to admit that a surprising number of victories were forfeits from no-shows, gatekeeping, bad faith debaters, and blackhole treatment particularly from 9/11 celebrities. But also a surprising number of drama queens LOUDLY dinging their own integrity and reputations with hypnotic suggestion followed by proclaimations of "Go away! I won't read what you write! I won't read your references! I'll delete any further messages from you!"
Instead of a zoom conference overflowing with participants, as but two examples, both Mr. 911R and Mr. Ruff decline (and block me on FB and substack.) So far, no one is willing to zoom defend DEW.
Again it won't be a quagmire. Although FGNW will go through the motions required by the token and faux opposition, FGNW can actually claim victory right now, in this moment. You know it.
You wrote: "I'm exposing the EXTREME and OUTRAGEOUS deceptions being spread by this group to ultimately poison the movement to death."
Me, too! Only I'm exposing it on initial WTC front where the cabal supposedly built its credentials. You're exposing it on their secondary Pentagon front.
You wrote: "From a strategic point of view, the course you suggest makes no sense to me. I choose to focus on the areas that clearly expose the infiltration of the movement and the efforts by the cabal to use the Pentagon to divide us."
Bruh. The shoddy and incomplete WTC analysis even more "clearly exposes the infiltration of the movement and the efforts by the cabal ... to divide us." Look, they let some theories fester that they could have decisively debunked (but didn't); they prop up other half-baked theories that don't go the distance; and they blatantly blackhole nuclear discussions.
From a strategic point of view, my course calls out the opposition. One by one, it ought to create converts, but typically exposes agendas and dings reputations for their lack of objectivity and integrity (because FGNW is dangerous to their reputations and they're running away.) Your Pentagon cabal gets dispatched before the pentagon is even considered. You ought to be thanking me.
You wrote: "They also want the evidence that proves government complicity to be neutralized."
Exactly. Nothing screams "government complicity" quite like the revelation that 9/11 had nuclear components at the WTC, even if Mossad was boots-to-the-ground.
You wrote: "I won't let this happen."
Then don't. Get on board with FGNW.
You wrote: "Following the course you suggest would only make their lives easier, and I won't let that happen either."
*beeb* *beeb* You lost me there, Mr. McKee. Not sure who the "they" is w.r.t. "their lives easier."
Whether we're talking the cabal or the US government, a 9/11 Truth Movement woken up to the stark, clear, obvious validity of WTC nuclear components will not make "their lives easier". [Evolution in 9/11 understanding and apologies are their only viable outs to maintain any semblance of integrity and reputation.]
To be clear about my suggested course, I'm saying that the cabal is weakest on the WTC front, the science. Figurative nuclear fallout from their non-efforts and deceitful misdirections -- unless they evolve and apologize -- will put a nuclear crater in the middle of their reputations that also guts their credibility and reliability on the Pentagon. "Unfaithful in the small, unfaithful in the large."
So in my suggested course, I'm just trying to have a rational discussion "DEW versus NT versus FGNW. My premise is documented, so if the cabal follows in Dr. Griffin's footsteps, they ought to be able to debunk it section-by-section, paragraph-by-paragraph, providing its wrong. If it's right, their objectivity ought to allow them to admit such. [FTR, neither DEW nor NT are documented w.r.t. composition, input, output, placement. Not nearly enough scientific analysis and speculation.]
Lo and behold, instead what do I get? Go re-read Mr. Ruff's responding email to my invitation to have him serve as a BIASED moderator to a "DEW verus FGNW" zoom discussion.
Mr. Adam Ruff called me "an unstable dangerous person." Unstable? Is that because I'm not psyops controlled nor overly influenced by faux-consensus? Dangerous, because FGNW without really even trying tends to ding the integrity and objectivity of its (insincere and not genuine) opposition. The sincere opposition? In the light of FGNW's Truths, the sincere ought to become its followers and champions and nuclear energize their other endeavors into 9/11 (and subsequent global crises). "Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!"
[Hope the 2-minute TED talk video works. It is all about the importance of the "first follower" as demonstrated by the lone-nut crazy dancer at a concert and how the first follower made it virally acceptable for others to crazy dance. I'm the lone-nut on FGNW in need of first follower.]
My near term agenda is to get my first followers and disciples, and have the FGNW virally spread from there.
P.S. Although Mr. 911R has been baiting me into discussion, his substack blocking of me demonstrates that he is not sincere in having a rational discussion. He is sincere in being an energy vampire and be a distraction for your forum. So out of respect to you and this forum, I won't engage directly here.
Mr. 911R has an "RFC to NIST" bot-glitch, a poorly written subroutine repetitively called that he thinks is worthy of being a new goalpost added to the middle of the playing field. Yet, he refuses to dig a hole for his RFC goalpost by providing the URLs to the RFC guidelines and to the NIST submission process for such. I mean, if I had that simple information, I would write up the RFC to NIST about FGNW according to the guidelines and submit it, just like I did for IC911; no problem-o. But without that simple URL and information on what is expected in the submission, Mr. 911R is simply requesting busy-work like the energy vampire that he is.
Maxwell, my dear, I'll just copy and paste my previous answer to your feeble attempts to make yourself relevant.
You and I have interacted more than enough on various platforms and I have found you and your research lacking, wonderful how you project what I have accused you for. A limited hangout of note you are. And co-opting the "energy vampire" description I gave you in our private emails to and fro, again points to your laziness.
You've been researching your FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons for 20 years, yet no one knows of you or your work.
After 20 years, you should be so certain of your "evidence" that you would have taken some actual action, yet you have not. Why?
Put your money where your mouth is....
RFC (request for correction) to NIST.
Or take your pick out of 23 NIST subcontractors and SUE them for science fraud.
Show us what a great researcher you are and find their details on how to file, I'm not your assistant.
NO ONE has to date except 2 professors in 2007 have filed Qui-Tam whistleblower cases against NIST for science fraud....
Not even "architects for an engineered truth" has filed "molten metal or thermite" in their RFC to NIST - my pleasure for bringing that to your attention after you've been "studying" 9/11 and the COINTELPRO agents for 20 years.
Now run along - There is a Mason meeting you need to get to.
Craig - Re your comment "when I use the word "authentic," I don't mean that they are giving their true name. I mean that they are really what they represent themselves to be."
You then fail to realise I'm on the same page as you with regards to Wayne Coste, Ted Walter and the "International Center for 9/11 Justice", suppression.
However - You do have a blind spot, that needs to be pointed at one day...
Would you actually want to share some notes on these government narrative toting COINTELPRO agents?
Thank you - it's important to look at the ulterior purpose of insisting on "unity." Calling for "unity" is used to control what people communicate and who gets to communicate. For instance (like you said) it has been used to shut down attempts to address infiltration. I once witnessed someone who tried to bring up a discussion of infiltration in a 9/11 group. Others in the group literally shouted abuse at them until they shrugged and left in silence. Instead of addressing infiltration, they accused that person of being disruptive to the unity of the group. There was no reason to avoid a discussion of infiltration, unless of course there were infiltrators present. That is what I concluded at the time.
I think that most genuine truthers would be shocked to learn just how many infiltrators have penetrated our movement to sow discord and suppress essential evidence.
I challenge you again Craig - Face me live for a talk about these points - We can start demolishing Chandler, Walter, Coste and Cole together and then we can get into the nitty gritty of what you don't want to admit to...
I have told you why I delete certain comments. You are taking advantage of my blog to post numerous links to advertise your work rather than to truly engage with mine.
Just because I have no interest in PERSONALLY wading into DEW or mini-nukes (see my comment to Maxwell Bridges) does not make me a limited hangout. I think you should pursue the evidence that you think is important. You have a website where you do that. You've posted many links on my posts pointing people to your work. That's fine up to a point. What is not fine is merely using my posts as an excuse to push your stuff. If you addressed the specifics in my article, even posting a particular link to illustrate a point, I'd have no problem. But 10 or 15 links is just taking advantage and, as Adam Ruff says, hijacking the thread.
As I said to Maxwell, I think the way you want to oppose the cabal will actually make their lives easier, and I won't participate in that. I don't duck challenges, but I don't think engaging with you about your positions is going to achieve what I'm after. I'm happy to have people consider your positions, but that doesn't mean I have to wade into them.
Not trying to take advantage of your blog at all. After all, we both are seeking accountability for the events of 9/11 no?
Now, you state: "I have no interest in PERSONALLY wading into DEW or mini-nukes" - You and I know that the whole mini nukes / buried nukes narrative is complete and utter hogwash - The seismic readings of the day already debunks that narrative hands down, as well as the ridiculous theory Maxwell Bridges is spewing, with no one giving him the time of day...
How is this for a 50 / 50 compromise - Let's discuss old Teddy boy, Chandler and Coste in a discussion - I have some interactions you might find amusing...
It will be a way for you and i to introduce ourselves and get to know each other better....
Nothing else, just a dismantling of the "International Center for 9/11 Justice" suppression as a start.
You game? You have my email - Let's make it happen.... The ball is in your court, you willing to follow through?
You make a number of important points in this article. I agree that the "unity at all costs" tactic is being used against us and it is sucking people in that are otherwise well meaning and sincere. Part of the problem is that many of these well meaning and sincere individuals just don't know the pentagon evidence very well and they don't understand how crucial it is for the perps to suppress that evidence. These well meaning individuals are woefully naïve about the cointelpro tactics that the government uses on a regular basis. They assume, quite mistakenly, that everyone who claims to be a truther really is one. That assumption can prove fatal for a movement like ours. Look for example how quickly trolls and discussion hijackers pounce on every article you write Craig. That is not an accident. I recommend others take a stroll through your other articles and pay attention to the people who come in and immediately attempt to hijack the discussion. Those are either witting or unwitting cointelpro agents operating there. I lean toward them being real operatives because of their characteristics. Allow me to quote from the 8 traits of a disinformationalist rule #8:
"8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin."
Notice who is quickest to comment on your threads Craig and also pay attention to how quickly they reply to comments. For example today when I made a comment to 9/11 Revisionist he was able to reply almost immediately. Pay attention to what they say though and notice in particular their attempts to change the subject. Allow me to quote from the 25 rules of disinformation:
"17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues."
Alas this same "time constant" trait is evident with Mr. Ruff's participation, and how quickly and deftly he "#17 changes the subject" and cranks several distracting carousel spins about "YOU'RE hijacking the discussion" with two different participants to really poison Mr. McKee's substack discussion.
I'm sure Mr. Ruff is disappointed that my on-topic contributions are several days late.
Trait 4 of the disinformationalist: <i>"Teamwork. ... Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength."</i>
On display here, Mr. 9/11 Revisionist (911R) champions quite poorly the (proven-by-me disinfo) premise of Woodsian-DEW. He spams the discussion, because doesn't relate his (repetitive and canned) message to the threads under which he posts. In turn, this triggers Mr. Ruff, his teammate in dilution.
Mr. Ruff wrote: "These well meaning individuals ... assume, quite mistakenly, that everyone who claims to be a truther really is one."
Exactly.
Both Mr. 911R and Mr. Ruff claim to be truthers. Neither of them are, from my personal experience with them across various forums.
Trait 1 of the disinformationalist: <i>"Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility."</i>
Avoidance is part and partial to both Mr. 911R and Mr. Ruff, both who block me on Facebook and substack, and do not desire email discussion.
Recently, I've been floating the idea of a zoom discussion "DEW versus FGNW" (FGNW is my 9/11 hobby-horse). Mr. 911R was invited to participate, and Mr. Ruff was invited to be a BIASED moderator/participant, given he's been antagonistic to both theories.
Mr. 911R wrote through e-mails (cherry-picked here): "Your condescending tone in the opening of your email, just proves that you're a disingenuous troll and not worth my time... There is absolutely no reason for me to get into a discussion that is inferior to the evidence presented [in Dr. Judy Wood's book]... Your FGNW premise is based on speculation, end of story... I'll not have my time wasted by you, as that is exactly what you are - An energy vampire - https://youtu.be/_Dk1YGQjBo8 and https://youtu.be/4A7BLMA1LIw and thus I'll not entertain you in my substack comments or on my FB..."
RECOMMENDATION: The two energy vampire videos are pretty funny and offer an accurate reflection of Mr. 911R's efforts.
Mr. Ruff recently wrote through e-mail: "Your bait is declined... [Y]ou can just go away. I want nothing to do with you or your madness. ... I do not wish any contact with you. ... I do not wish ANY engagement with you about it... Rational discourse is not possible between us nor is it welcomed. Go away!... From here forward I am deleting all messages from you..."
FTR, (1) This is why Mr. Ruff is addressed in the third-person; and (2) the failing is entirely Mr. Ruff's that "rational discourse is not possible between us nor is it welcomed." It isn't as if I haven't tried.
+++ POST-EDIT 2024-04-18 +++
The reply-comment to this from Mr. 911R on 2024-04-17 is a lame chatGPT-bot copy-and-paste with minor-edit and sentence re-ordering of bot-database entries that were already deployed several times in exchanges with me (on Facebook, via e-mail, in substack.)
Playing along, his concerns were addressed point-by-point. The conversation, whether on substack or through e-mail, is supposed to advance.
But Mr. 911R is a carnie energy vampire, always cranking carousel spins while remaining shallow, unspecific, and repetitive. "RFC to NIST" is a great example.
Mr. 911R thinks that "RFC to NIST" is the ultimate goal. The way Mr. 911R repeats it again and again and again, this new goalpost seemingly has to be planted and cemented right into the middle of the DEW vs. FGNW playing field! When you ask him for the URLs to the RFC guidelines and to the NIST submission process ("dig a hole for your RFC goalpost") which would prove such to be a real thing with a real process, the 911R chatGPT-bot hasn't the depth to pony-up except to meaninglessly parrot "RFC to NIST", "RFC to NIST", "RFC to NIST"...
I would gladly write up the RFC to NIST about FGNW according to the NIST guidelines and submit it. [I did a similiar re-write for IC911; no problem-o.] But without guidelines or a place to submit it, this has some appearance of "busy-work" that Mr. 911R will promptly ignore.
Maxwell, my dear - You and I have interacted more than enough on various platforms and i have found you and your research lacking, wonderful how you project what I have accused you for. A limited hangout of note you are.
You've been researching your FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons for 20 years, yet no one knows of you or your work.
After 20 years, you should be so certain of your "evidence" that you would have taken some actual action, yet you have not. Why?
Put your money where your mouth is....
RFC (request for correction) to NIST.
Or take your pick out of 23 NIST subcontractors and SUE them for science fraud.
NO ONE has to date except 2 professors in 2007...
Not even "architects for an engineered truth" has filed "molten metal or thermite" in their RFC to NIST - my pleasure for bringing that to your attention after you've been "studying" 9/11 and the COINTELPRO agents for 20 years.
Now run along - There is a Mason meeting you need to get to.
O, the character assignation. So, you have an issue just because I happened to be in front of my PC when the substack notifications happen to come through?
I was actually agreeing with Craig and sharing my interactions with the COINTELPRO agents.
My two comments were directed at Craig and Andy - You're the one that was hijacking the the topic - Go re-read my comment to Craig, with comprehension, BUT alas, Craig DELETED them, why? Because the articles I linked completely shows what COINTELPRO agents they are, and the shortcomings there are in their so called truth sharing...
Well written. Of course, I'm most disturbed by the behavior and sabotage that is exercised by the crowd that now pushes this phony "unity" call. Ironically, these people have perpetuated the most disunity of anyone in the movement, and I have a hard time believing it's genuine blind passion for their position. The gaslighting and dishonesty is just too thick to not be on purpose.
First of all, "unity" itself an empty catchphrase. It's like Obama's "Hope" and "Change." It's an easy thing to say that sounds uplifting without really offering any substance.
What does it mean for 9/11 Truth? You have to deal with every crazy person that shows up? Someone displaying dishonest and destructive behavior, you're obligated to put up with it? People threatening your organization when they can't manipulate it... hey, it's cool. They happened to watch the same YouTube videos as you about 9/11, and they SAY they're a truther, so...
This attitude wouldn't fly for any successful group in the real world. (When I tell friends outside the movement of some of the insane shit I've had to encounter, they're like "WTF None of that makes any sense.") What a perfect umbrella standard to shield agents from consequences. Just keep them planted to cause problems whenever any progress might start happening and tell anyone who calls them out or refuses to work with them that they're the ones who are being "divisive." It's so brazenly manipulative, I'm baffled as to how people can't see this.
Unfortunately, the culture of this attitude was pushed for so long by certain leaders (mainly I'm thinking of one) who were more concerned with their bottom-line and being surrounded by groupies that flatter them, that they enabled it and it became entrenched. Normal people who could have been helpful and productive got scared away and the movement was left with this very vocal and toxic clique that are now trying to act as gatekeeper brownshirts if anyone dare question the actions of those they're trying to push as the 9/11 pharisees. It's such a shame, and those people who died on 9/11 deserve so much better.
Thank you, Craig, for having the balls and energy to write the things that should have been said a long time ago. Kind of ironic that there's so few actual voices of truth in a truth movement. Of course, I try not to reference "the movement" these days because it's unfortunately mixed with a lot of slimy opportunists that have turned it into more an industry. I don't do anything for "the movement" anymore. I do it for "the cause," which is way more important.
“When I tell friends outside the movement of some of the insane shit I've had to encounter, they're like "WTF None of that makes any sense." I can relate to this statement.
So immediately in this comment thread you attempt to hijack the discussion onto a side issue of your own making. Not only that but you use the first comment to promote yourself and your dubious "research" rather than addressing the point of the article. That is trolling, that is intentional disruption behavior, that is an attempt to hijack the discussion, that is just wrong on every level.
Hijackers like you are so pathetic, so obvious. I hope the government isn't paying you much for your ineffective attempts to hijack these discussions? You go ahead and run along yourself agent "revisionist". I will be ignoring you hence forth except maybe to point out your hijacking attempts that will come a plenty in the future. Now I will be discussing Craig's excellent article, not you. Bye bye hijacker agent.
My comments were directed to Andy and Craig alone.
Try and read with comprehension. They are grown men and can speak for themselves. Now run along.
Maybe you should go and read my articles on the same COINTELPRO agents this feeble article covers. At leas I have video evidence as well as email evidence of my interactions and their failures.
Let me know when you'd like to sign up to be demolished, live on air.
If you're wondering why your comments have been removed it is not because you criticized me or Andy. It is because you used your comments as an excuse to paste in a bunch of links. You seem quite uninterested in actually addressing what I have written about. Too bad.
What ever became of the no planner controversy? No planes at the Pentagon can be seen as part of the larger story of no planes at all... not North Tower where the explosion points out, not in; where the outline of plane in broken steel beams seems really fake. Not South Tower where steel beams don't even slow down aluminum plane. And then there is the disappearing plane sucked up and dematerialized into the earth. And what about the all sweetness and light in the whodunnit category where it seems polite unified people don't dare discuss much how PNAC/Israel First outshines bin Laden/al-Qaeda? The 10/7 controversy resembles 9/11 in so many ways. Both were pre-planned events exploited to justify immediate wars that turned history in a different direction before any formal investigation at all takes place? Netanyahu seems suspiciously close to both episodes.
What do you mean "an attempt:? I'm simply raising the issue of planes or no planes. Or should we all be harmoniously unified and take the easy way out of any controversies?
Sept 11 is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence. Before it can be determined who did it, it must first be determined what was done and how it was done.
The order of crime solving is to determine
1) WHAT happened, then
2) HOW it happened (e.g., what weapon), then
3) WHO did it. And only then can we address
4) WHY they did it (i.e. motive).
Let us remember what is required to (legally) convict someone of a crime.
You cannot convict someone of a crime based on belief.
You cannot convict someone of a crime if you don’t even know what crime to charge them with.
If you accuse someone of murder using a gun, you’d better be sure the body has a bullet hole in it. And yet before noon on 9/11/01, we were told who did it, how they did it, and why they did it (they hate us for our freedoms); before any investigation had been conducted to determine what had even been done.
Many people have speculated as to who committed the crimes of 9/11 and/or how they did so. But without addressing what happened, speculation of this kind is nothing more than conspiracy theory, a phrase that also describes the 19 bad guys with box cutters story we were given before noon on 9/11/01.
Dr Wood’s research is not speculation and she’s been the closest to getting to the bottom of the who dunnit.
Dr Wood did a forensics investigation of what happened to the WTC complex on 9/11/01.
She does not address who did it, nor am I concerned with that question right now.
Before issues of that kind can be addressed, we must first determine what happened.
By definition, research that is purely empirical cannot be about and has nothing to do with conspiracy theory of any kind.
The fact that others (in the mainstream media, the alternative media, and the so-called 9/11 truth movement) promote various theories about 9/11 is irrelevant to Dr Wood’s research. On the other hand, to determine what happened, we must address all of the available evidence.
Anyone declaring who did what or how they did it before they have determined what was done is merely promoting either speculation or propaganda.
The popular chant, “9/11 was an inside job,” is, scientifically speaking, no different from the chant that “19 bad guys with box cutters did it.” Neither one is the result of a scientific investigation supported by evidence that would be admissible in court.
Neither identifies what crime was committed or how it was committed.
There are a lot of coincidences with regards to the build up, on the day and the days after 9/11. There are suspects as to who might have had some sort of involvement in the events of 9/11, but for now it’s all they are. Suspects.
Dr Wood sued 23 NIST subcontractors who were tasked with security and clean up at ground zero. These companies also helped write reports that made up the scientifically flawed, 10 000 NIST report. Two of the main defendants in the case were ARA and SAIC, who specialise in psychological warfare, weather manipulation and directed energy weapons, DEW.
If Dr Wood’s 2009 US Supreme Court Case wasn’t railroaded by the judge, she would have been able to depose these 23 companies and in so doing, would have been closer to determining exactly HOW and then we’d get a lot closer to WHO and WHY.
But we can have our suspects for now, but we need hard evidence to convict.
With regards to the technology used on 9/11, you are missing the bigger picture!
Just as the hazardous and wasteful technology behind a nuclear bomb can also be used to provide hazardous and wasteful nuclear power, the the technology which caused the clean and effortless molecular dissociation of the twin towers could also be used to give the whole world effortless clean energy.
Exposing this clean free energy technology means and end to the ruling elite's ability to control and exploit the general population through scarce, expensive, dirty and inefficient resources such as oil, coal, nuclear and "renewables".
Any group with an interest in maintaining the current paradigm of artificial scarcity and crappy energy technologies, which keeps the general population enslaved, would have an interest in helping to maintain the 9/11 cover up, because exposing the crime also exposes the TECHNOLOGY to commit it.
Maybe the people who did 9/11 operate under a code of conduct where they have to show this technology to the people, so they have the opportunity to claim it.
And if the people are too stupid or apathetic to show any interest, they will then feel justified in keeping it for themselves and continuing to control and exploit the human herd, like the CATTLE they have shown themselves to be.
You might think it's insane, and it is, but remember we're talking about a group of people who are willing to turn skyscrapers to DUST, live on TV.
In the final analysis there is no "grand" deception" or cover up.
There is only BLUFF!
Because everyone can see what happened to the buildings was clearly and PROVABLY NOT a structural failure (collapse) or a conventional controlled demolition by ANY thermal or kinetic mechanism!
Official narrative – Jet fuel.
Option behind door no 1 – explosives,
door no 2 – thermite,
door no 3 – buried or mini nukes.
Just don’t look at where the EVIDENCE points to.
You can download the Refutation of Gage’s Game in 2008 AND 2023:
Not interested in a debate with an entity that decides to hide his, her, or their identity. Maybe you are AI. What do you have to hide? If you refuse to take responsibility for your arguments, why should anyone take them seriously?
I won't be running along agent. Nor will I be provoked by your childish Jr. high school insults. I will be here to point out the fact that you are unable to discuss the actual topic but rather always attempt to hijack the thread.
My two comments were directed at Craig and Andy - You're the one hijacking the the topic - Go re-read my comment to Craig, with comprehension.
I was actually agreeing with Craig and sharing my interactions with the COINTELPRO agents. Seems you're the one with a high school level reading comprehension. Now run along, kiddo.
Dear Mr. McKee, You bring up important points to consider in the 9/11 discussion.
You wrote: "... the cabal, which I believe is a COINTELPRO operation." You continued later (with my clarification): "They (the PTB) might create a team of operatives who would gain credibility in one area of 9/11 research, like the WTC evidence, and then have those people turn to the Pentagon to push what is essentially the government’s cover story. These operatives would be sure to frequently mention their reliance on 'the scientific method.' Finally, they’d accuse those who point out this pattern of being divisive."
As part of "the scientific method," the conclusions of a hypothesis -- whether or not validated -- need to revisit any assumptions made at the onset (a) to see if the assumptions remain valid and (b) to see if modifying those assumptions to be more real-world changes the conclusions.
Thus, Mr. McKee, once you were clear about the COINTELPRO cabal hindering the Pentagon discussions, your assumptions about the cabal in their original area of 9/11 research where they gained credibility requires a new review and re-evaluation. The poisoning from a COINTELPRO-influenced cabal would have been evident in their original area of 9/11 fame (WTC). SPOILER: It was.
Case in point with regards to the WTC: the cabal made no effort to explain WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6. Success in blocking those discussions entirely! And even on the nano-thermite front, the cabal may have speculated that NT was involved, they do not speculate into probable chemical mixtures and placement in the structure to account for vaporization of metal pans and trusses and dustification of concrete (and office content) that happened with a noticably reduced decibel level. [Nevermind those pesky under-rubble hot-spots.]
You wrote: "[I]t’s ideal when people behave civilly and respect each other’s opinions. But this assumes that the people involved are authentic."
I think "sincere" is a better word in this case than "authentic."
I mean, just because someone who participates provides, say, a copy of his driver's license or thumb-print to authenticate they exist in the real-world doesn't mean that they are sincere in the position they champion.
Sincerity and objectivity are the important qualities.
//
Maxwell, when I use the word "authentic," I don't mean that they are giving their true name. I mean that they are really what they represent themselves to be. For example, I do not believe that Wayne Coste is authentic - that is I don't believe he is truly a truth seeker who is on the same side as me. While I would often find "sincere" to be an excellent word to use, there are times when it doesn't express what I want. Someone like Colin Doran may be sincere in opposing the "inside job" position, but that does not address whether he is authentic in presenting himself as a regular guy rather than as a government agent.
As to your view about the cabal's WTC efforts, I will repeat what I've said many times. Whether they've got every detail right or not, they are pushing the controlled demolition position, which I think has been proven. I don't see the value in taking them on in this area. I am revealing how they have used the credibility they appear to have been given by other truthers to sabotage our efforts in other areas.
I see the mini-nuke or DEW debate as a distraction and a quagmire that I think will completely grind out movement to a halt if we all get into it. I'm exposing the EXTREME and OUTRAGEOUS deceptions being spread by this group to ultimately poison the movement to death. From a strategic point of view, the course you suggest makes no sense to me. I choose to focus on the areas that clearly expose the infiltration of the movement and the efforts by the cabal to use the Pentagon to divide us. They also want the evidence that proves government complicity to be neutralized. I won't let this happen. Following the course you suggest would only make their lives easier, and I won't let that happen either.
Dear Mr. McKee, You wrote regarding the cabal's WTC efforts: "... Whether they've got every detail right or not, they are pushing the controlled demolition position, which I think has been proven."
So easily you brush off the cabal's poor WTC destruction analysis, "whether ... every detail right or not." Does your opinion change if "few of the details are right"? The details of their controlled demolition position are so thin and vague upon inspection, it could not be a benefit to anyone in court, which is a form of sabotage as well.
I mean, imagine a related 9/11 case somehow finally gets to court and the family member cries on the stand about "controlled demolition killing their loved one." Upon questioning of this and other expert testimony, the message becomes "controlled demolition using nano-thermite." But on cross-examination, the lawyer references all sorts of factoids debunking NT, maybe data-mined directly from my blog and zoom presentation to Boston 9/11 Truth. Case gets lost, because those bringing it to court did not take their research, analysis, and educated speculation to the level required to prove it.
On the other hand and before-hand, if, through our efforts, FGNW becomes the validated concensus primary-mechanism-of-destruction, then the expert testimony message becomes "controlled demolition using exotic nuclear weapons killed their loved ones", which has a different and even greater public resonance.
You wrote: "I see the mini-nuke or DEW debate as a distraction and a quagmire that I think will completely grind out movement to a halt if we all get into it."
I disagree. I think it will free a log-jam in the bowels of the 9/11 Truth Movement around the globe, constipated by the slow-walking and incomplete measures of the cabal, Woodsian-DEWers, and other COINTELPRO, and will bring relief by finally getting a true consensus mechanism of destruction that followed the scientific method where "none of the relevant evidence is ignored" (Dr. David Griffin) and that opened discussions to clear up related but clogged 9/11 spinxters (at the Pentagon). No court case can be won without it.
So, not a distraction; instead, the main show in the center ring.
Also, it won't be a quagmire. How so?
FGNW has aleady won. Already accepted as valid by the 9/11 Truth Movement is the evidence of fission (2 dust reports) and fusion (tritium report). Already accepted as valid are the NIST/FEMA videos as well as the evidence in Dr. Judy Wood's work. And then there's Dr. Andre Gsponer's work, that the naysayers cannot even acknowledge, let alone address. Plus we have the inability of the competing theories to defend themselves and address all the evidence and buildings.
All major skirmishes that could possibly discredit FGNW have already been been fought and won (my humble efforts this last decade plus), and any attempt to re-hash have URLs and copy-and-paste to knock down quickly to keep on track... Ok, ok, I have to admit that a surprising number of victories were forfeits from no-shows, gatekeeping, bad faith debaters, and blackhole treatment particularly from 9/11 celebrities. But also a surprising number of drama queens LOUDLY dinging their own integrity and reputations with hypnotic suggestion followed by proclaimations of "Go away! I won't read what you write! I won't read your references! I'll delete any further messages from you!"
Instead of a zoom conference overflowing with participants, as but two examples, both Mr. 911R and Mr. Ruff decline (and block me on FB and substack.) So far, no one is willing to zoom defend DEW.
Again it won't be a quagmire. Although FGNW will go through the motions required by the token and faux opposition, FGNW can actually claim victory right now, in this moment. You know it.
You wrote: "I'm exposing the EXTREME and OUTRAGEOUS deceptions being spread by this group to ultimately poison the movement to death."
Me, too! Only I'm exposing it on initial WTC front where the cabal supposedly built its credentials. You're exposing it on their secondary Pentagon front.
You wrote: "From a strategic point of view, the course you suggest makes no sense to me. I choose to focus on the areas that clearly expose the infiltration of the movement and the efforts by the cabal to use the Pentagon to divide us."
Bruh. The shoddy and incomplete WTC analysis even more "clearly exposes the infiltration of the movement and the efforts by the cabal ... to divide us." Look, they let some theories fester that they could have decisively debunked (but didn't); they prop up other half-baked theories that don't go the distance; and they blatantly blackhole nuclear discussions.
From a strategic point of view, my course calls out the opposition. One by one, it ought to create converts, but typically exposes agendas and dings reputations for their lack of objectivity and integrity (because FGNW is dangerous to their reputations and they're running away.) Your Pentagon cabal gets dispatched before the pentagon is even considered. You ought to be thanking me.
You wrote: "They also want the evidence that proves government complicity to be neutralized."
Exactly. Nothing screams "government complicity" quite like the revelation that 9/11 had nuclear components at the WTC, even if Mossad was boots-to-the-ground.
You wrote: "I won't let this happen."
Then don't. Get on board with FGNW.
You wrote: "Following the course you suggest would only make their lives easier, and I won't let that happen either."
*beeb* *beeb* You lost me there, Mr. McKee. Not sure who the "they" is w.r.t. "their lives easier."
Whether we're talking the cabal or the US government, a 9/11 Truth Movement woken up to the stark, clear, obvious validity of WTC nuclear components will not make "their lives easier". [Evolution in 9/11 understanding and apologies are their only viable outs to maintain any semblance of integrity and reputation.]
To be clear about my suggested course, I'm saying that the cabal is weakest on the WTC front, the science. Figurative nuclear fallout from their non-efforts and deceitful misdirections -- unless they evolve and apologize -- will put a nuclear crater in the middle of their reputations that also guts their credibility and reliability on the Pentagon. "Unfaithful in the small, unfaithful in the large."
So in my suggested course, I'm just trying to have a rational discussion "DEW versus NT versus FGNW. My premise is documented, so if the cabal follows in Dr. Griffin's footsteps, they ought to be able to debunk it section-by-section, paragraph-by-paragraph, providing its wrong. If it's right, their objectivity ought to allow them to admit such. [FTR, neither DEW nor NT are documented w.r.t. composition, input, output, placement. Not nearly enough scientific analysis and speculation.]
Lo and behold, instead what do I get? Go re-read Mr. Ruff's responding email to my invitation to have him serve as a BIASED moderator to a "DEW verus FGNW" zoom discussion.
Mr. Adam Ruff called me "an unstable dangerous person." Unstable? Is that because I'm not psyops controlled nor overly influenced by faux-consensus? Dangerous, because FGNW without really even trying tends to ding the integrity and objectivity of its (insincere and not genuine) opposition. The sincere opposition? In the light of FGNW's Truths, the sincere ought to become its followers and champions and nuclear energize their other endeavors into 9/11 (and subsequent global crises). "Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!"
[Hope the 2-minute TED talk video works. It is all about the importance of the "first follower" as demonstrated by the lone-nut crazy dancer at a concert and how the first follower made it virally acceptable for others to crazy dance. I'm the lone-nut on FGNW in need of first follower.]
https://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movement
My near term agenda is to get my first followers and disciples, and have the FGNW virally spread from there.
P.S. Although Mr. 911R has been baiting me into discussion, his substack blocking of me demonstrates that he is not sincere in having a rational discussion. He is sincere in being an energy vampire and be a distraction for your forum. So out of respect to you and this forum, I won't engage directly here.
Mr. 911R has an "RFC to NIST" bot-glitch, a poorly written subroutine repetitively called that he thinks is worthy of being a new goalpost added to the middle of the playing field. Yet, he refuses to dig a hole for his RFC goalpost by providing the URLs to the RFC guidelines and to the NIST submission process for such. I mean, if I had that simple information, I would write up the RFC to NIST about FGNW according to the guidelines and submit it, just like I did for IC911; no problem-o. But without that simple URL and information on what is expected in the submission, Mr. 911R is simply requesting busy-work like the energy vampire that he is.
//
Maxwell, my dear, I'll just copy and paste my previous answer to your feeble attempts to make yourself relevant.
You and I have interacted more than enough on various platforms and I have found you and your research lacking, wonderful how you project what I have accused you for. A limited hangout of note you are. And co-opting the "energy vampire" description I gave you in our private emails to and fro, again points to your laziness.
You've been researching your FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons for 20 years, yet no one knows of you or your work.
After 20 years, you should be so certain of your "evidence" that you would have taken some actual action, yet you have not. Why?
Put your money where your mouth is....
RFC (request for correction) to NIST.
Or take your pick out of 23 NIST subcontractors and SUE them for science fraud.
Show us what a great researcher you are and find their details on how to file, I'm not your assistant.
NO ONE has to date except 2 professors in 2007 have filed Qui-Tam whistleblower cases against NIST for science fraud....
Not even "architects for an engineered truth" has filed "molten metal or thermite" in their RFC to NIST - my pleasure for bringing that to your attention after you've been "studying" 9/11 and the COINTELPRO agents for 20 years.
Now run along - There is a Mason meeting you need to get to.
I bid you adjure...
Craig - Re your comment "when I use the word "authentic," I don't mean that they are giving their true name. I mean that they are really what they represent themselves to be."
You then fail to realise I'm on the same page as you with regards to Wayne Coste, Ted Walter and the "International Center for 9/11 Justice", suppression.
However - You do have a blind spot, that needs to be pointed at one day...
Would you actually want to share some notes on these government narrative toting COINTELPRO agents?
Thank you - it's important to look at the ulterior purpose of insisting on "unity." Calling for "unity" is used to control what people communicate and who gets to communicate. For instance (like you said) it has been used to shut down attempts to address infiltration. I once witnessed someone who tried to bring up a discussion of infiltration in a 9/11 group. Others in the group literally shouted abuse at them until they shrugged and left in silence. Instead of addressing infiltration, they accused that person of being disruptive to the unity of the group. There was no reason to avoid a discussion of infiltration, unless of course there were infiltrators present. That is what I concluded at the time.
I think that most genuine truthers would be shocked to learn just how many infiltrators have penetrated our movement to sow discord and suppress essential evidence.
Many will also be shocked to see what a limited hangout you are...
Is that why you are so afraid people read my articles and you delete my comments, Craig?
I'm waiting for your response on this Craig - https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-and-the-debunking-olympics
I know why you don't want people to work through my COINTELPRO agent interactions, because then this will happen: https://911revision.substack.com/p/september-11-2001-an-ai-generated/comment/54027436
I challenge you again Craig - Face me live for a talk about these points - We can start demolishing Chandler, Walter, Coste and Cole together and then we can get into the nitty gritty of what you don't want to admit to...
I have told you why I delete certain comments. You are taking advantage of my blog to post numerous links to advertise your work rather than to truly engage with mine.
Just because I have no interest in PERSONALLY wading into DEW or mini-nukes (see my comment to Maxwell Bridges) does not make me a limited hangout. I think you should pursue the evidence that you think is important. You have a website where you do that. You've posted many links on my posts pointing people to your work. That's fine up to a point. What is not fine is merely using my posts as an excuse to push your stuff. If you addressed the specifics in my article, even posting a particular link to illustrate a point, I'd have no problem. But 10 or 15 links is just taking advantage and, as Adam Ruff says, hijacking the thread.
As I said to Maxwell, I think the way you want to oppose the cabal will actually make their lives easier, and I won't participate in that. I don't duck challenges, but I don't think engaging with you about your positions is going to achieve what I'm after. I'm happy to have people consider your positions, but that doesn't mean I have to wade into them.
Not trying to take advantage of your blog at all. After all, we both are seeking accountability for the events of 9/11 no?
Now, you state: "I have no interest in PERSONALLY wading into DEW or mini-nukes" - You and I know that the whole mini nukes / buried nukes narrative is complete and utter hogwash - The seismic readings of the day already debunks that narrative hands down, as well as the ridiculous theory Maxwell Bridges is spewing, with no one giving him the time of day...
How is this for a 50 / 50 compromise - Let's discuss old Teddy boy, Chandler and Coste in a discussion - I have some interactions you might find amusing...
It will be a way for you and i to introduce ourselves and get to know each other better....
Nothing else, just a dismantling of the "International Center for 9/11 Justice" suppression as a start.
You game? You have my email - Let's make it happen.... The ball is in your court, you willing to follow through?
After all, I'm just a dumb African.
So Craig,
You make a number of important points in this article. I agree that the "unity at all costs" tactic is being used against us and it is sucking people in that are otherwise well meaning and sincere. Part of the problem is that many of these well meaning and sincere individuals just don't know the pentagon evidence very well and they don't understand how crucial it is for the perps to suppress that evidence. These well meaning individuals are woefully naïve about the cointelpro tactics that the government uses on a regular basis. They assume, quite mistakenly, that everyone who claims to be a truther really is one. That assumption can prove fatal for a movement like ours. Look for example how quickly trolls and discussion hijackers pounce on every article you write Craig. That is not an accident. I recommend others take a stroll through your other articles and pay attention to the people who come in and immediately attempt to hijack the discussion. Those are either witting or unwitting cointelpro agents operating there. I lean toward them being real operatives because of their characteristics. Allow me to quote from the 8 traits of a disinformationalist rule #8:
"8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin."
Notice who is quickest to comment on your threads Craig and also pay attention to how quickly they reply to comments. For example today when I made a comment to 9/11 Revisionist he was able to reply almost immediately. Pay attention to what they say though and notice in particular their attempts to change the subject. Allow me to quote from the 25 rules of disinformation:
"17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues."
Dear Beloved Latter-Day Lurker-Readers,
I applaud Mr. Adam Ruff for quoting the "time constant" bonus trait from "Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist" by H. Michael Sweeney copyright (c) 1997, 2000 [that is copied here: https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2009/07/eight-traits-of-disinformationalist.html ]
Alas this same "time constant" trait is evident with Mr. Ruff's participation, and how quickly and deftly he "#17 changes the subject" and cranks several distracting carousel spins about "YOU'RE hijacking the discussion" with two different participants to really poison Mr. McKee's substack discussion.
I'm sure Mr. Ruff is disappointed that my on-topic contributions are several days late.
Trait 4 of the disinformationalist: <i>"Teamwork. ... Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength."</i>
On display here, Mr. 9/11 Revisionist (911R) champions quite poorly the (proven-by-me disinfo) premise of Woodsian-DEW. He spams the discussion, because doesn't relate his (repetitive and canned) message to the threads under which he posts. In turn, this triggers Mr. Ruff, his teammate in dilution.
Mr. Ruff wrote: "These well meaning individuals ... assume, quite mistakenly, that everyone who claims to be a truther really is one."
Exactly.
Both Mr. 911R and Mr. Ruff claim to be truthers. Neither of them are, from my personal experience with them across various forums.
Trait 1 of the disinformationalist: <i>"Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility."</i>
Avoidance is part and partial to both Mr. 911R and Mr. Ruff, both who block me on Facebook and substack, and do not desire email discussion.
Recently, I've been floating the idea of a zoom discussion "DEW versus FGNW" (FGNW is my 9/11 hobby-horse). Mr. 911R was invited to participate, and Mr. Ruff was invited to be a BIASED moderator/participant, given he's been antagonistic to both theories.
Mr. 911R wrote through e-mails (cherry-picked here): "Your condescending tone in the opening of your email, just proves that you're a disingenuous troll and not worth my time... There is absolutely no reason for me to get into a discussion that is inferior to the evidence presented [in Dr. Judy Wood's book]... Your FGNW premise is based on speculation, end of story... I'll not have my time wasted by you, as that is exactly what you are - An energy vampire - https://youtu.be/_Dk1YGQjBo8 and https://youtu.be/4A7BLMA1LIw and thus I'll not entertain you in my substack comments or on my FB..."
RECOMMENDATION: The two energy vampire videos are pretty funny and offer an accurate reflection of Mr. 911R's efforts.
Mr. Ruff recently wrote through e-mail: "Your bait is declined... [Y]ou can just go away. I want nothing to do with you or your madness. ... I do not wish any contact with you. ... I do not wish ANY engagement with you about it... Rational discourse is not possible between us nor is it welcomed. Go away!... From here forward I am deleting all messages from you..."
FTR, (1) This is why Mr. Ruff is addressed in the third-person; and (2) the failing is entirely Mr. Ruff's that "rational discourse is not possible between us nor is it welcomed." It isn't as if I haven't tried.
+++ POST-EDIT 2024-04-18 +++
The reply-comment to this from Mr. 911R on 2024-04-17 is a lame chatGPT-bot copy-and-paste with minor-edit and sentence re-ordering of bot-database entries that were already deployed several times in exchanges with me (on Facebook, via e-mail, in substack.)
Playing along, his concerns were addressed point-by-point. The conversation, whether on substack or through e-mail, is supposed to advance.
But Mr. 911R is a carnie energy vampire, always cranking carousel spins while remaining shallow, unspecific, and repetitive. "RFC to NIST" is a great example.
Mr. 911R thinks that "RFC to NIST" is the ultimate goal. The way Mr. 911R repeats it again and again and again, this new goalpost seemingly has to be planted and cemented right into the middle of the DEW vs. FGNW playing field! When you ask him for the URLs to the RFC guidelines and to the NIST submission process ("dig a hole for your RFC goalpost") which would prove such to be a real thing with a real process, the 911R chatGPT-bot hasn't the depth to pony-up except to meaninglessly parrot "RFC to NIST", "RFC to NIST", "RFC to NIST"...
I would gladly write up the RFC to NIST about FGNW according to the NIST guidelines and submit it. [I did a similiar re-write for IC911; no problem-o.] But without guidelines or a place to submit it, this has some appearance of "busy-work" that Mr. 911R will promptly ignore.
//
//
Maxwell, my dear - You and I have interacted more than enough on various platforms and i have found you and your research lacking, wonderful how you project what I have accused you for. A limited hangout of note you are.
You've been researching your FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons for 20 years, yet no one knows of you or your work.
After 20 years, you should be so certain of your "evidence" that you would have taken some actual action, yet you have not. Why?
Put your money where your mouth is....
RFC (request for correction) to NIST.
Or take your pick out of 23 NIST subcontractors and SUE them for science fraud.
NO ONE has to date except 2 professors in 2007...
Not even "architects for an engineered truth" has filed "molten metal or thermite" in their RFC to NIST - my pleasure for bringing that to your attention after you've been "studying" 9/11 and the COINTELPRO agents for 20 years.
Now run along - There is a Mason meeting you need to get to.
I bid you adjure...
O, the character assignation. So, you have an issue just because I happened to be in front of my PC when the substack notifications happen to come through?
I was actually agreeing with Craig and sharing my interactions with the COINTELPRO agents.
My two comments were directed at Craig and Andy - You're the one that was hijacking the the topic - Go re-read my comment to Craig, with comprehension, BUT alas, Craig DELETED them, why? Because the articles I linked completely shows what COINTELPRO agents they are, and the shortcomings there are in their so called truth sharing...
Even Craig has been struggling to defend his 2012 article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-and-the-debunking-olympics
You seem to hate being called out, just as much as Craig and Andy?
I happily follow Craig and accept his views above all others. We should all thank him for his work on this subject.
Thank you, Dave.
Well written. Of course, I'm most disturbed by the behavior and sabotage that is exercised by the crowd that now pushes this phony "unity" call. Ironically, these people have perpetuated the most disunity of anyone in the movement, and I have a hard time believing it's genuine blind passion for their position. The gaslighting and dishonesty is just too thick to not be on purpose.
First of all, "unity" itself an empty catchphrase. It's like Obama's "Hope" and "Change." It's an easy thing to say that sounds uplifting without really offering any substance.
What does it mean for 9/11 Truth? You have to deal with every crazy person that shows up? Someone displaying dishonest and destructive behavior, you're obligated to put up with it? People threatening your organization when they can't manipulate it... hey, it's cool. They happened to watch the same YouTube videos as you about 9/11, and they SAY they're a truther, so...
This attitude wouldn't fly for any successful group in the real world. (When I tell friends outside the movement of some of the insane shit I've had to encounter, they're like "WTF None of that makes any sense.") What a perfect umbrella standard to shield agents from consequences. Just keep them planted to cause problems whenever any progress might start happening and tell anyone who calls them out or refuses to work with them that they're the ones who are being "divisive." It's so brazenly manipulative, I'm baffled as to how people can't see this.
Unfortunately, the culture of this attitude was pushed for so long by certain leaders (mainly I'm thinking of one) who were more concerned with their bottom-line and being surrounded by groupies that flatter them, that they enabled it and it became entrenched. Normal people who could have been helpful and productive got scared away and the movement was left with this very vocal and toxic clique that are now trying to act as gatekeeper brownshirts if anyone dare question the actions of those they're trying to push as the 9/11 pharisees. It's such a shame, and those people who died on 9/11 deserve so much better.
Thank you, Craig, for having the balls and energy to write the things that should have been said a long time ago. Kind of ironic that there's so few actual voices of truth in a truth movement. Of course, I try not to reference "the movement" these days because it's unfortunately mixed with a lot of slimy opportunists that have turned it into more an industry. I don't do anything for "the movement" anymore. I do it for "the cause," which is way more important.
“When I tell friends outside the movement of some of the insane shit I've had to encounter, they're like "WTF None of that makes any sense." I can relate to this statement.
Hey Andy
This vid is for you and the architects for an engineered truth - https://rumble.com/v4p8aix-thermite-on-911-the-ultimate-debunk.html
So immediately in this comment thread you attempt to hijack the discussion onto a side issue of your own making. Not only that but you use the first comment to promote yourself and your dubious "research" rather than addressing the point of the article. That is trolling, that is intentional disruption behavior, that is an attempt to hijack the discussion, that is just wrong on every level.
Nope - It was directed to Andy and Andy alone.
Now run along.
Hijackers like you are so pathetic, so obvious. I hope the government isn't paying you much for your ineffective attempts to hijack these discussions? You go ahead and run along yourself agent "revisionist". I will be ignoring you hence forth except maybe to point out your hijacking attempts that will come a plenty in the future. Now I will be discussing Craig's excellent article, not you. Bye bye hijacker agent.
My comments were directed to Andy and Craig alone.
Try and read with comprehension. They are grown men and can speak for themselves. Now run along.
Maybe you should go and read my articles on the same COINTELPRO agents this feeble article covers. At leas I have video evidence as well as email evidence of my interactions and their failures.
Let me know when you'd like to sign up to be demolished, live on air.
BTW, I apologize that I deleted my comment twice before posting it. Will edit in advance next time...
You seem like an open minded person - Give this comment a read and mull it over.
https://911revision.substack.com/p/september-11-2001-an-ai-generated/comment/54027436
9/11 revisionist, you have the behavior of a troll. You continually overpost on this substack.
I cannot understand why you're deleting your comments the whole time.
Here is a quick video I put together on thermite: https://rumble.com/v4p8aix-thermite-on-911-the-ultimate-debunk.html
I hope you're brave enough to watch it.
Nope - If you read the comments, you'd notice I sent a message to you, Craig and Andy, and then Adam had a mental breakdown.
Now, if you're the truth seeker you claim to be, you might want to read this comment - https://911revision.substack.com/p/september-11-2001-an-ai-generated/comment/54027436
If you're wondering why your comments have been removed it is not because you criticized me or Andy. It is because you used your comments as an excuse to paste in a bunch of links. You seem quite uninterested in actually addressing what I have written about. Too bad.
What ever became of the no planner controversy? No planes at the Pentagon can be seen as part of the larger story of no planes at all... not North Tower where the explosion points out, not in; where the outline of plane in broken steel beams seems really fake. Not South Tower where steel beams don't even slow down aluminum plane. And then there is the disappearing plane sucked up and dematerialized into the earth. And what about the all sweetness and light in the whodunnit category where it seems polite unified people don't dare discuss much how PNAC/Israel First outshines bin Laden/al-Qaeda? The 10/7 controversy resembles 9/11 in so many ways. Both were pre-planned events exploited to justify immediate wars that turned history in a different direction before any formal investigation at all takes place? Netanyahu seems suspiciously close to both episodes.
So here we have an attempt to hijack this discussion onto no plane theories? Say it isn't so.
What do you mean "an attempt:? I'm simply raising the issue of planes or no planes. Or should we all be harmoniously unified and take the easy way out of any controversies?
My comments were directed to Andy and Craig alone.
Try and read with comprehension. They are grown men and can speak for themselves. Now run along.
Sept 11 is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence. Before it can be determined who did it, it must first be determined what was done and how it was done.
The order of crime solving is to determine
1) WHAT happened, then
2) HOW it happened (e.g., what weapon), then
3) WHO did it. And only then can we address
4) WHY they did it (i.e. motive).
Let us remember what is required to (legally) convict someone of a crime.
You cannot convict someone of a crime based on belief.
You cannot convict someone of a crime if you don’t even know what crime to charge them with.
If you accuse someone of murder using a gun, you’d better be sure the body has a bullet hole in it. And yet before noon on 9/11/01, we were told who did it, how they did it, and why they did it (they hate us for our freedoms); before any investigation had been conducted to determine what had even been done.
Many people have speculated as to who committed the crimes of 9/11 and/or how they did so. But without addressing what happened, speculation of this kind is nothing more than conspiracy theory, a phrase that also describes the 19 bad guys with box cutters story we were given before noon on 9/11/01.
Dr Wood’s research is not speculation and she’s been the closest to getting to the bottom of the who dunnit.
Dr Wood did a forensics investigation of what happened to the WTC complex on 9/11/01.
She does not address who did it, nor am I concerned with that question right now.
Before issues of that kind can be addressed, we must first determine what happened.
By definition, research that is purely empirical cannot be about and has nothing to do with conspiracy theory of any kind.
The fact that others (in the mainstream media, the alternative media, and the so-called 9/11 truth movement) promote various theories about 9/11 is irrelevant to Dr Wood’s research. On the other hand, to determine what happened, we must address all of the available evidence.
Anyone declaring who did what or how they did it before they have determined what was done is merely promoting either speculation or propaganda.
The popular chant, “9/11 was an inside job,” is, scientifically speaking, no different from the chant that “19 bad guys with box cutters did it.” Neither one is the result of a scientific investigation supported by evidence that would be admissible in court.
Neither identifies what crime was committed or how it was committed.
There are a lot of coincidences with regards to the build up, on the day and the days after 9/11. There are suspects as to who might have had some sort of involvement in the events of 9/11, but for now it’s all they are. Suspects.
Dr Wood sued 23 NIST subcontractors who were tasked with security and clean up at ground zero. These companies also helped write reports that made up the scientifically flawed, 10 000 NIST report. Two of the main defendants in the case were ARA and SAIC, who specialise in psychological warfare, weather manipulation and directed energy weapons, DEW.
If Dr Wood’s 2009 US Supreme Court Case wasn’t railroaded by the judge, she would have been able to depose these 23 companies and in so doing, would have been closer to determining exactly HOW and then we’d get a lot closer to WHO and WHY.
But we can have our suspects for now, but we need hard evidence to convict.
Read Dr Wood’s book: Where did the towers go? https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com/
With regards to the technology used on 9/11, you are missing the bigger picture!
Just as the hazardous and wasteful technology behind a nuclear bomb can also be used to provide hazardous and wasteful nuclear power, the the technology which caused the clean and effortless molecular dissociation of the twin towers could also be used to give the whole world effortless clean energy.
Exposing this clean free energy technology means and end to the ruling elite's ability to control and exploit the general population through scarce, expensive, dirty and inefficient resources such as oil, coal, nuclear and "renewables".
Any group with an interest in maintaining the current paradigm of artificial scarcity and crappy energy technologies, which keeps the general population enslaved, would have an interest in helping to maintain the 9/11 cover up, because exposing the crime also exposes the TECHNOLOGY to commit it.
Maybe the people who did 9/11 operate under a code of conduct where they have to show this technology to the people, so they have the opportunity to claim it.
And if the people are too stupid or apathetic to show any interest, they will then feel justified in keeping it for themselves and continuing to control and exploit the human herd, like the CATTLE they have shown themselves to be.
You might think it's insane, and it is, but remember we're talking about a group of people who are willing to turn skyscrapers to DUST, live on TV.
In the final analysis there is no "grand" deception" or cover up.
There is only BLUFF!
Because everyone can see what happened to the buildings was clearly and PROVABLY NOT a structural failure (collapse) or a conventional controlled demolition by ANY thermal or kinetic mechanism!
Official narrative – Jet fuel.
Option behind door no 1 – explosives,
door no 2 – thermite,
door no 3 – buried or mini nukes.
Just don’t look at where the EVIDENCE points to.
You can download the Refutation of Gage’s Game in 2008 AND 2023:
https://truthsummit.info/media-files/DrJudyWood-refutation-RichardGage-claims.pdf
Read Dr Wood’s book: Where did the towers go? https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com
For more information check out Andrew Johnson’s research go to http://CheckTheEvidence.com
Andrew Johnson's two FREE E-Books on 9/11;
1. 9/11 – Finding the Truth - http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/pdf/9-11%20-%20Finding%20the%20Truth.pdf
2. 9/11 – Holding the Truth - http://checktheevidencecom.ipage.com/checktheevidence.com/pdf/911%20Holding%20The%20Truth%20-Andrew%20Johnson%20-%202017.pdf
Now we have an attempt to hijack the discussion a second time onto Judy Wood's baseless DEW theory. Say it isn't so.
I was making a statement, try and read with comprehension.
Now run along.
Not interested in a debate with an entity that decides to hide his, her, or their identity. Maybe you are AI. What do you have to hide? If you refuse to take responsibility for your arguments, why should anyone take them seriously?
Now an "argument" breaks out between the two topic hijackers? Say it isn't so.
I was making a statement, try and read with comprehension.
Now run along.
I won't be running along agent. Nor will I be provoked by your childish Jr. high school insults. I will be here to point out the fact that you are unable to discuss the actual topic but rather always attempt to hijack the thread.
My two comments were directed at Craig and Andy - You're the one hijacking the the topic - Go re-read my comment to Craig, with comprehension.
I was actually agreeing with Craig and sharing my interactions with the COINTELPRO agents. Seems you're the one with a high school level reading comprehension. Now run along, kiddo.
Where did I mention that I would want to debate you?
Run along.
I do want to speak with Craig and ol Andy....
Now a debate is proposed between the two topic hijackers? Say it isn't so.
My comments were directed to Andy and Craig alone.
They are grown men and can speak for themselves. Now run along.