The subject of this article is clearly stated at the start:.
"Architects & Engineers for 9/11Truth is under attack.
The source of these attacks is a collection of people who have been undermining the 9/11 Truth Movement for years. At the center of this cabal’s activities are deception and disinformation used to suppress the evidence that a plane crash was faked at the Pentagon. This is the very evidence that proves government complicity in 9/11.
Hmm… I wonder why they would want to neutralize that evidence…"
The fact is that this group of people don't think there was a faked plane crash at the Pentagon and have gone to very detailed lengths to demonstrate that fact. If these people believe there was not a faked plane crash at the Pentagon then the accusations against them of deception and disinformation and suppressing evidence are false accusations
No more video fakery, nukes, or no planes on this article! I'm going to start deleting comments and banning people. Some of you are determined to derail the comments on every article I do,
I know you are not a slanderer, nor an attacker, having spent over a year with you, faithfully, on Sunday conference calls re ReThink 9-11 CANADA - you ONLY WANT THE TRUTH - as do I
Sad to hear about all this nonsense.
Sandra, & Gene - much disappointment in. But they put it out there. The real deal, so to speak.
I will read your last bit, conclusion. Thanks for your in depth research and tenacity. Cheers
FROM THE EDITOR: Any comments about planes/no planes will be deleted. This is not the subject of the article. It's more than suspicious that every time I write something that mentions the Pentagon or AE911Truth, the discussion is hijacked by people pushing no planes. Stop or you'll be blocked!
"FROM THE EDITOR: Any comments about planes/no planes will be deleted."
Well, it's your blog, Craig, but I think it is reasonable to ask on what grounds.
On the face of it, this is an absurd position, you know. What next? Why don't you start a blog devoted to a discussion of the JFK assassination and block any discussion of bullets or firearms?
On the grounds that there appears to be an attempt to hijack every comment section, both here and on Facebook, by raising things like no planes or nukes at the towers. These are not the topics of my articles.
Yet, when we show you the fight with Gene's little playroom - you don't want to hear it - I suggest you read this article and see Gene sweat - It kinda debunks you too.
You want to do a zoom and discuss it?
Refutation of the 9/11 "truther" narratives
A special presentation refuting 10 points of contention against DEW on 9/11
What strikes home with me personally about this article Craig is the point you make about the one sided nature of Gene and Sandra's criticisms. It is true, I have never heard a word of condemnation from either of them directed at Chandler or Hoffman or any of the cabal really even though they have been particularly nasty toward CIT and those of us who know the pentagon evidence well. Double standard is putting it mildly.
The cold, hard truth of the matter is that both AE911Truth and its wannabe replacement IC911 are controlled opposition entities.
Now, to be clear, I don't mean to say that everybody involved in these things is insincere. I don't believe that to be the case. Quite possibly, the majority of grass roots activists are sincere. But regardless, these things are quite ineffective and it is surely by design.
As with any controlled opposition construct, the real purpose is to channel all the energy that should rightly go into uncovering the crime and exposing the perpetrators in directions that pose no threat to the criminals. What we see with AE911Truth is a totally singular obsession with controlled demolition and so on, yet zero investigation of other aspects of the crime. In particular, the whole question of video fakery seems to be off the table. So we are supposed to believe that these visuals of a plane just slicing into a steel-framed building are authentic videos.
So, rather than question the reality of the plane crashes (I mean in particular in Manhattan) they will espouse utterly convoluted theories. For example, they will acknowledge that passenger airliners cannot fly that fast at such a low altitude. Nor can they (obviously) slice through steel! But rather than going in the obvious direction of realizing that the plane crashes are almost certainly a hoax, they come up with really outlandish narratives. They will tell you that there were two sets of planes, the regular passenger planes that take off from the airports, and then there is a switcheroo where those planes are replaced with other planes that are flown into the buildings by remote control -- apparently those planes are capable of these feats of aviation that a stock Boeing airliner is not capable of.
In short, they just tie themselves up in knots. Not only is it difficult to imagine people sitting in some room thinking up such a Rube Goldberg machine kind of plot, but it is also hard to imagine winning over many people to believe in such a story! All the more so, when there is no actual proof of this outlandish theory!
But all of that is not a bug, it's a feature. The goal is impunity for the criminals and the main means of that is to run out the clock, so taking the investigation into these preposterous directions is how it is done.
Well, as regards this article, Craig, based on my own understanding of the 9/11 half-truth movement, it is very hard for me to get very excited about AE911Truth vs. IV911. Frankly, it seems akin to wanting me to get excited about WWE vs. WCW.
You've been banned from commenting for a week for spamming the same comment multiple times. You also push your own issue, which isn't the topic of the article you're commenting on.
Video fakery is debunked disinformation. Simple as that. And no I am not going to debunk it AGAIN here because this article is not about that. This article in fact has NOTHING to do with the debunked no-plane theories. I can only conclude that your comment is meant to immediately derail this conversation away from the topic in the article. That is disruption behavior Jonathan. Why are you trying to change the subject?
Colin - The 5 frames of "video" showing the blur may well be entirely fake, we do not know but that has no bearing on Craig's article. Why are you here if it isn't to discuss his article? Why the attempt to derail the discussion onto the pentagon 5 frames when the article is not about that? Seems curious to me.
The 5 frames are from the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. It shows the plane hitting the Pentagon. It is totally relevant to Craig's article since he is obsessed with the inane idea that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon and it dictates his attitude to everything and everyone to do with 9/11. His antagonism to all these people is based primarily on this inane idea that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. When maybe the most comprehensive examination ever done on the crash of a plane is done , that only increases his obsession that the people who conducted it must be part of a 'cabal' trying to hide the truth. As for derailing anything , grow up. The first thing you could do to grow up would be to stop believing foolish things. You are not a child.
Your eyes are growing heavy... Repeat after me, "the inane idea that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon... the inane idea that a plane ..." Good one, Agent Doran.
All that's needed is common sense to see it's an inane idea. But that was before some people decided to make a virtue of ignoring common sense in order to make accusations, not because it made sense but because they wanted to make accusations. So that meant they could ignore common sense, logic, evidence and everything else in order to make their accusations.
I don't think they ever provided any visuals of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Of course, if they had provided a video of a plane hitting the Pentagon, it would have been fake as well, but I don't think they ever did. I guess there was enough trauma-based mind control showing (over an over again) the plane crashes in NYC.
AGAIN you attempt to hijack the discussion away from the article. This is disruption behavior Jonathan. Why can't you discuss the article? Perhaps you have an agenda besides the truth huh?
Look, I was just answering another participant's post. Colin referred to a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. I am not aware of any such video. The fact remains that conversations just tend to develop organically and they go where they go.
Now, I previously said (I think quite reasonably) that if you're going to claim that no planes and video fakery (two very related issues, obviously) are thoroughly debunked, well, you should at least point to where they were debunked (or where you think they were...) That way I can know WTF you're talking about. Are you going to provide a link at least?
Tell me your e-mail address and I will send you the debunks of which there are several. I am not going to discuss it here or further hijack this thread.
No, I don't think so. This is just a typical disinfo tactic, to say something has been debunked when it has not been. Point me to a comprehensive debunking.
"And no I am not going to debunk it AGAIN here..."
Well, Adam, if you had already debunked it before, or somebody else had comprehensively debunked it, there would be no need for you to be debunking it "again". You could just point to where it was debunked earlier. So already you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.
"This article in fact has NOTHING to do with the debunked no-plane theories."
Well, the article is talking about a rift in the 9/11 (half) truth movement and the idea is that the "real" truth movement is AE911Truth and this other entity IC911 are usurpers or something. I don't buy into this. I think it's all controlled opposition.
Now, the planes story is basically absurd. How many people claim to have seen planes hit buildings in real-time? There's Mark Walsh, a.k.a. "Harley guy" and, I dunno, maybe a dozen other people. Or maybe two dozen even, I honestly don't know. A very small number. The whole idea that the people behind this would mount this very complex and risky (multiple points of failure) operation of flying planes for real into the buildings for the benefit of a couple of dozen random people... it's really preposterous you know. The key in all this is that hundreds of millions, even billions of people see this on the TV! That there is some small number of people who are looking in the right direction at the exact moment and don't see what they're supposed to see is not really a very big problem for the perps.
All of this is really elementary critical thinking. But I guess understanding this is not part of your job description.
Dear Mr. Jonathan Revusky, to Mr. Ruff's hypnotic suggestion -- "Video fakery is debunked disinformation" -- I agree with your response.
You wrote: "No, I don't think so. This is just a typical disinfo tactic, to say something has been debunked when it has not been. Point me to a comprehensive debunking."
It just so happens that video fakery from the likes of September Clues were a 9/11 hobby-horse that I once rode, very skilfully, I might add. But there were always nagging things about the presentation and what they were claiming as evidence. I did discover its deceit and have since many times over debunked it.
Unlike Mr. Ruff, I saved my work. Precisely for moments like this.
From Volume 3 of my "NPT@WTC Discussions", you can navigate to all 10 rounds (as in, "merry-go-rounds") of me trying to disabuse lurker readers [not the NPT disinfo agents who have agendas that won't let them admit error or change their minds] of the 9/11 NPT video fakery notion.
Just about any NPT argument you could come up with, I have probably already addressed in those 10 rounds.
However, the last seemingly out-of-place section "x582 Maxwell C. Bridges : Physical evidence of WTC planes" of the following URL was one of the major bullets that knocked the NPT@WTC 9/11 hobby-horse out from underneath me. Forced me to publicly recant and apologize.
Because I had been duped by the clever disinformation of September Clues (and others), I felt it my duty as a fellow truther (who is sincere and earnest in my efforts) to help prevent others from making the same mistakes I made. Although debunking NPT@WTC wasn't my hobby-horse, I did so as a favor to others.
FYI, video fakery did happen, for example the Pentagon parking camera. There's also four different versions of the helicopter shot. Corporate media was complicit. Nuggets of truth rescued.
However, video fakery did not happen to the extent that could conclusively proves no aircraft at the WTC.
Mr. Adam Ruff wrote: "And no I am not going to debunk it AGAIN here because this article is not about that."
I would be curious for Mr. Ruff to post the URL to where he debunked video fakery conclusively that first time (or any time), if he's going to be bragging about having done it. I suspect either (a) Mr. Ruff has no such body of work, or (b) Mr. Ruff used a sockpuppet (HybridRogue1, perhaps?) that he doesn't want to reveal or associate with himself, but that even his sockpuppet's efforts to debunk video fakery won't actually measure up.
At any rate, this off-topic thread can be ended, because I have debunked NPT@WTC, saved my work, and made it available for others. A GOTO moment that saves me from having to repeat myself or distract from the discussion.
I looked at the links you provide but, to be honest, I would not characterize this material as any sort of systematic "debunking" or rebuttal. What I see there is not even any proper essay, but rather snippets from conversations you had with various interlocutors. Basically, it's a lot of.. let's say, verbal jujitsu... and quite frankly, your end of the discussion is pretty replete with key logical fallacies. I choose not to outline them at the moment because, for one thing, it could get very lengthy, but also, it has been made clear that that would be unwelcome for some reason, and my post would most likely get deleted. Moreover, I am hardly sure you are that interested in my deconstruction of all this fallacious stuff you linked.
In any case, it was Adam Ruff who claimed that these things were thoroughly debunked, so he was the person who was supposed to provide the links, no?
Oh, and I should also add that Adam Ruff has still not sent me any email.
Dear Mr. Jonathan Revusky, good for you for attempting to look at the content of my links! I apologize that I didn't warn you that it becomes a repetitive bore, even for me. You kind of have to "expand all" and search for keywords of your premise to see where they are addressed. Or, "collapse all" and skim until a subject catches your eye.
My collection was systematic and specific to the arguments of the participant at the time that I was responding to. You're correct that when revisiting at this late date and as a whole, it isn't a proper essay, and probably never will be. Not my hobby-horse; just a favor to those that I assume are sincere seekers of truth but have been duped -- as I had been -- by a clever and crafty disinfo premise.
I did however point to the crowning jewel that I separated out into its own section, which is the physical evidence of a plane crash. That section needs to be considered and addressed by you. [Section link from my previous comment, section x582.]
All of the other sections are reference material; should you toss out some no-plane argument that I've already addressed, I'll be mining and re-purposing that material in a near copy-and-paste manner.
However, out of courtesy to this forum, any no-plane discussion should be held in a different place, because it is off-topic. You could use my blog, my substack, my Facebook, or my email [OR a venue of your choice] for such. Not here.
As for Mr. Adam Ruff, he has been legitimately proven to be a "boastful, lying, weaseling, hypocrite."
As far as I know, he has zero works (under his own name) that he can provide a URL or quote from that thoroughly and legitimately debunk any particular premise that he hypnotically suggests without substantiation is disinformation.
Wiggle room is provided that maybe he wrote something under an alias (such as HybridRogue1), but if true, it opens the door that quite possibly he was being quite deceitful by manning multiple sockpuppets in the same discussion and patting himself on the back for his effort.
I would not be holding my breath for any sort of email from Mr. Ruff.
It seems that many of my articles and Facebook posts prompt comments about no planes or nukes. It does feel like an effort to derail the discussion and to pull me into discussing those things.
The subject of this article is clearly stated at the start:.
"Architects & Engineers for 9/11Truth is under attack.
The source of these attacks is a collection of people who have been undermining the 9/11 Truth Movement for years. At the center of this cabal’s activities are deception and disinformation used to suppress the evidence that a plane crash was faked at the Pentagon. This is the very evidence that proves government complicity in 9/11.
Hmm… I wonder why they would want to neutralize that evidence…"
The fact is that this group of people don't think there was a faked plane crash at the Pentagon and have gone to very detailed lengths to demonstrate that fact. If these people believe there was not a faked plane crash at the Pentagon then the accusations against them of deception and disinformation and suppressing evidence are false accusations
No more video fakery, nukes, or no planes on this article! I'm going to start deleting comments and banning people. Some of you are determined to derail the comments on every article I do,
I invite you to s Skype call to come and refute evidence I present to you with regards to 9/11 you wont have answers to...
I still wait on your response Craig. Seems you cannot?
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
Ephesians 5:11 - Have nothing to do with the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but expose them.
Galatians 4:16 - So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?
Well done. Stay strong. Good job exposing the filth within the movement.
Thanks, Dan. I appreciate your support as well as the good work you've been doing in the movement.
Great article, Craig
I know you are not a slanderer, nor an attacker, having spent over a year with you, faithfully, on Sunday conference calls re ReThink 9-11 CANADA - you ONLY WANT THE TRUTH - as do I
Sad to hear about all this nonsense.
Sandra, & Gene - much disappointment in. But they put it out there. The real deal, so to speak.
I will read your last bit, conclusion. Thanks for your in depth research and tenacity. Cheers
FROM THE EDITOR: Any comments about planes/no planes will be deleted. This is not the subject of the article. It's more than suspicious that every time I write something that mentions the Pentagon or AE911Truth, the discussion is hijacked by people pushing no planes. Stop or you'll be blocked!
"FROM THE EDITOR: Any comments about planes/no planes will be deleted."
Well, it's your blog, Craig, but I think it is reasonable to ask on what grounds.
On the face of it, this is an absurd position, you know. What next? Why don't you start a blog devoted to a discussion of the JFK assassination and block any discussion of bullets or firearms?
On the grounds that there appears to be an attempt to hijack every comment section, both here and on Facebook, by raising things like no planes or nukes at the towers. These are not the topics of my articles.
Yet, when we show you the fight with Gene's little playroom - you don't want to hear it - I suggest you read this article and see Gene sweat - It kinda debunks you too.
You want to do a zoom and discuss it?
Refutation of the 9/11 "truther" narratives
A special presentation refuting 10 points of contention against DEW on 9/11
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/refutation-of-the-911-truther-narratives
Ephesians 5:11 - Have nothing to do with the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but expose them.
Galatians 4:16 - So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?
Warring AGAINST free speech, open discourse and the truth of what really happened on 9/11
A War Room... Or a padded playroom, safe space?
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/cowards-for-911-truth
Ephesians 5:11 - Have nothing to do with the unfruitful deeds of darkness but expose them.
Galatians 4:16 - So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?
What strikes home with me personally about this article Craig is the point you make about the one sided nature of Gene and Sandra's criticisms. It is true, I have never heard a word of condemnation from either of them directed at Chandler or Hoffman or any of the cabal really even though they have been particularly nasty toward CIT and those of us who know the pentagon evidence well. Double standard is putting it mildly.
The cold, hard truth of the matter is that both AE911Truth and its wannabe replacement IC911 are controlled opposition entities.
Now, to be clear, I don't mean to say that everybody involved in these things is insincere. I don't believe that to be the case. Quite possibly, the majority of grass roots activists are sincere. But regardless, these things are quite ineffective and it is surely by design.
As with any controlled opposition construct, the real purpose is to channel all the energy that should rightly go into uncovering the crime and exposing the perpetrators in directions that pose no threat to the criminals. What we see with AE911Truth is a totally singular obsession with controlled demolition and so on, yet zero investigation of other aspects of the crime. In particular, the whole question of video fakery seems to be off the table. So we are supposed to believe that these visuals of a plane just slicing into a steel-framed building are authentic videos.
So, rather than question the reality of the plane crashes (I mean in particular in Manhattan) they will espouse utterly convoluted theories. For example, they will acknowledge that passenger airliners cannot fly that fast at such a low altitude. Nor can they (obviously) slice through steel! But rather than going in the obvious direction of realizing that the plane crashes are almost certainly a hoax, they come up with really outlandish narratives. They will tell you that there were two sets of planes, the regular passenger planes that take off from the airports, and then there is a switcheroo where those planes are replaced with other planes that are flown into the buildings by remote control -- apparently those planes are capable of these feats of aviation that a stock Boeing airliner is not capable of.
In short, they just tie themselves up in knots. Not only is it difficult to imagine people sitting in some room thinking up such a Rube Goldberg machine kind of plot, but it is also hard to imagine winning over many people to believe in such a story! All the more so, when there is no actual proof of this outlandish theory!
But all of that is not a bug, it's a feature. The goal is impunity for the criminals and the main means of that is to run out the clock, so taking the investigation into these preposterous directions is how it is done.
Well, as regards this article, Craig, based on my own understanding of the 9/11 half-truth movement, it is very hard for me to get very excited about AE911Truth vs. IV911. Frankly, it seems akin to wanting me to get excited about WWE vs. WCW.
You've been banned from commenting for a week for spamming the same comment multiple times. You also push your own issue, which isn't the topic of the article you're commenting on.
Ephesians 5:11 - Have nothing to do with the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but expose them.
Galatians 4:16 - So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?
Video fakery is debunked disinformation. Simple as that. And no I am not going to debunk it AGAIN here because this article is not about that. This article in fact has NOTHING to do with the debunked no-plane theories. I can only conclude that your comment is meant to immediately derail this conversation away from the topic in the article. That is disruption behavior Jonathan. Why are you trying to change the subject?
I thought the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon was faked?... according to Craig McKee and those who think AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon...
Colin - The 5 frames of "video" showing the blur may well be entirely fake, we do not know but that has no bearing on Craig's article. Why are you here if it isn't to discuss his article? Why the attempt to derail the discussion onto the pentagon 5 frames when the article is not about that? Seems curious to me.
The 5 frames are from the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. It shows the plane hitting the Pentagon. It is totally relevant to Craig's article since he is obsessed with the inane idea that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon and it dictates his attitude to everything and everyone to do with 9/11. His antagonism to all these people is based primarily on this inane idea that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. When maybe the most comprehensive examination ever done on the crash of a plane is done , that only increases his obsession that the people who conducted it must be part of a 'cabal' trying to hide the truth. As for derailing anything , grow up. The first thing you could do to grow up would be to stop believing foolish things. You are not a child.
Your eyes are growing heavy... Repeat after me, "the inane idea that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon... the inane idea that a plane ..." Good one, Agent Doran.
The PentaCon on 9/11
When even a missile did not hit a target
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-pentacon-on-911
Ephesians 5:11 - Have nothing to do with the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but expose them.
Galatians 4:16 - So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?
All that's needed is common sense to see it's an inane idea. But that was before some people decided to make a virtue of ignoring common sense in order to make accusations, not because it made sense but because they wanted to make accusations. So that meant they could ignore common sense, logic, evidence and everything else in order to make their accusations.
I don't think they ever provided any visuals of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Of course, if they had provided a video of a plane hitting the Pentagon, it would have been fake as well, but I don't think they ever did. I guess there was enough trauma-based mind control showing (over an over again) the plane crashes in NYC.
AGAIN you attempt to hijack the discussion away from the article. This is disruption behavior Jonathan. Why can't you discuss the article? Perhaps you have an agenda besides the truth huh?
Look, I was just answering another participant's post. Colin referred to a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. I am not aware of any such video. The fact remains that conversations just tend to develop organically and they go where they go.
Now, I previously said (I think quite reasonably) that if you're going to claim that no planes and video fakery (two very related issues, obviously) are thoroughly debunked, well, you should at least point to where they were debunked (or where you think they were...) That way I can know WTF you're talking about. Are you going to provide a link at least?
Tell me your e-mail address and I will send you the debunks of which there are several. I am not going to discuss it here or further hijack this thread.
My PentaCon article is dropping this Friday...
"Video fakery is debunked disinformation."
No, I don't think so. This is just a typical disinfo tactic, to say something has been debunked when it has not been. Point me to a comprehensive debunking.
"And no I am not going to debunk it AGAIN here..."
Well, Adam, if you had already debunked it before, or somebody else had comprehensively debunked it, there would be no need for you to be debunking it "again". You could just point to where it was debunked earlier. So already you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.
"This article in fact has NOTHING to do with the debunked no-plane theories."
Well, the article is talking about a rift in the 9/11 (half) truth movement and the idea is that the "real" truth movement is AE911Truth and this other entity IC911 are usurpers or something. I don't buy into this. I think it's all controlled opposition.
Now, the planes story is basically absurd. How many people claim to have seen planes hit buildings in real-time? There's Mark Walsh, a.k.a. "Harley guy" and, I dunno, maybe a dozen other people. Or maybe two dozen even, I honestly don't know. A very small number. The whole idea that the people behind this would mount this very complex and risky (multiple points of failure) operation of flying planes for real into the buildings for the benefit of a couple of dozen random people... it's really preposterous you know. The key in all this is that hundreds of millions, even billions of people see this on the TV! That there is some small number of people who are looking in the right direction at the exact moment and don't see what they're supposed to see is not really a very big problem for the perps.
All of this is really elementary critical thinking. But I guess understanding this is not part of your job description.
Dear Mr. Jonathan Revusky, to Mr. Ruff's hypnotic suggestion -- "Video fakery is debunked disinformation" -- I agree with your response.
You wrote: "No, I don't think so. This is just a typical disinfo tactic, to say something has been debunked when it has not been. Point me to a comprehensive debunking."
It just so happens that video fakery from the likes of September Clues were a 9/11 hobby-horse that I once rode, very skilfully, I might add. But there were always nagging things about the presentation and what they were claiming as evidence. I did discover its deceit and have since many times over debunked it.
Unlike Mr. Ruff, I saved my work. Precisely for moments like this.
From Volume 3 of my "NPT@WTC Discussions", you can navigate to all 10 rounds (as in, "merry-go-rounds") of me trying to disabuse lurker readers [not the NPT disinfo agents who have agendas that won't let them admit error or change their minds] of the 9/11 NPT video fakery notion.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/10/nptwtc-discussions-vol-3.html
Just about any NPT argument you could come up with, I have probably already addressed in those 10 rounds.
However, the last seemingly out-of-place section "x582 Maxwell C. Bridges : Physical evidence of WTC planes" of the following URL was one of the major bullets that knocked the NPT@WTC 9/11 hobby-horse out from underneath me. Forced me to publicly recant and apologize.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html
Because I had been duped by the clever disinformation of September Clues (and others), I felt it my duty as a fellow truther (who is sincere and earnest in my efforts) to help prevent others from making the same mistakes I made. Although debunking NPT@WTC wasn't my hobby-horse, I did so as a favor to others.
FYI, video fakery did happen, for example the Pentagon parking camera. There's also four different versions of the helicopter shot. Corporate media was complicit. Nuggets of truth rescued.
However, video fakery did not happen to the extent that could conclusively proves no aircraft at the WTC.
Mr. Adam Ruff wrote: "And no I am not going to debunk it AGAIN here because this article is not about that."
I would be curious for Mr. Ruff to post the URL to where he debunked video fakery conclusively that first time (or any time), if he's going to be bragging about having done it. I suspect either (a) Mr. Ruff has no such body of work, or (b) Mr. Ruff used a sockpuppet (HybridRogue1, perhaps?) that he doesn't want to reveal or associate with himself, but that even his sockpuppet's efforts to debunk video fakery won't actually measure up.
At any rate, this off-topic thread can be ended, because I have debunked NPT@WTC, saved my work, and made it available for others. A GOTO moment that saves me from having to repeat myself or distract from the discussion.
//
I looked at the links you provide but, to be honest, I would not characterize this material as any sort of systematic "debunking" or rebuttal. What I see there is not even any proper essay, but rather snippets from conversations you had with various interlocutors. Basically, it's a lot of.. let's say, verbal jujitsu... and quite frankly, your end of the discussion is pretty replete with key logical fallacies. I choose not to outline them at the moment because, for one thing, it could get very lengthy, but also, it has been made clear that that would be unwelcome for some reason, and my post would most likely get deleted. Moreover, I am hardly sure you are that interested in my deconstruction of all this fallacious stuff you linked.
In any case, it was Adam Ruff who claimed that these things were thoroughly debunked, so he was the person who was supposed to provide the links, no?
Oh, and I should also add that Adam Ruff has still not sent me any email.
Dear Mr. Jonathan Revusky, good for you for attempting to look at the content of my links! I apologize that I didn't warn you that it becomes a repetitive bore, even for me. You kind of have to "expand all" and search for keywords of your premise to see where they are addressed. Or, "collapse all" and skim until a subject catches your eye.
My collection was systematic and specific to the arguments of the participant at the time that I was responding to. You're correct that when revisiting at this late date and as a whole, it isn't a proper essay, and probably never will be. Not my hobby-horse; just a favor to those that I assume are sincere seekers of truth but have been duped -- as I had been -- by a clever and crafty disinfo premise.
I did however point to the crowning jewel that I separated out into its own section, which is the physical evidence of a plane crash. That section needs to be considered and addressed by you. [Section link from my previous comment, section x582.]
All of the other sections are reference material; should you toss out some no-plane argument that I've already addressed, I'll be mining and re-purposing that material in a near copy-and-paste manner.
However, out of courtesy to this forum, any no-plane discussion should be held in a different place, because it is off-topic. You could use my blog, my substack, my Facebook, or my email [OR a venue of your choice] for such. Not here.
As for Mr. Adam Ruff, he has been legitimately proven to be a "boastful, lying, weaseling, hypocrite."
As far as I know, he has zero works (under his own name) that he can provide a URL or quote from that thoroughly and legitimately debunk any particular premise that he hypnotically suggests without substantiation is disinformation.
Wiggle room is provided that maybe he wrote something under an alias (such as HybridRogue1), but if true, it opens the door that quite possibly he was being quite deceitful by manning multiple sockpuppets in the same discussion and patting himself on the back for his effort.
I would not be holding my breath for any sort of email from Mr. Ruff.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html
//
If you have no intention of discussing the article why are you here? My opinion is that you are here to intentionally derail the conversation.
It seems that many of my articles and Facebook posts prompt comments about no planes or nukes. It does feel like an effort to derail the discussion and to pull me into discussing those things.