I lost track of you for a while, Craig but am glad I found you again. You showed me and probvably loads more people the right path about 9/11.

May you long contnue.

Expand full comment

Great to hear from you, Dave. I really appreciate you saying that I helped reveal some things. Sometimes I wonder whether I'm being heard. I was pretty inactive for a while during Covid, but I'm back and producing more than I have for a number of years. And there is so much that needs saying! If you haven't subscribed to get email alerts of articles, I hope you'll do so. I have one in the works that I hope to post this week that I think you'll appreciate.

Expand full comment

Hamas used as propaganda for Israel to murder so far 30,000 Palestinian lives , their journalists, bomb Palestine’s homes , land , schools , hospitals.

Expand full comment

CLEARLY Maxwell Bridges and 9/11 Revisionist are trying to flood and overwhelm the comment section with their disinformation by constantly posting such long diatribes in between every single good comment here. It is a disinformation tactic they are using which makes it APPEAR that they are the most knowledgeable commenters when in reality they are just the most prolific spreaders of disinformation. In fact you can see how obsessive compulsive they are by the sheer volume and length of their comments. I recommend that anyone reading this comment section just skip their comments altogether. You will save lots of time and headaches trying to figure out their Alice in Wonderland "logic" which all leads back ultimately to a dead end piled high with BS.

Expand full comment

Mr. Ruff should not conflate the actions of Ms. 9/11 Revisionist with me. That is a classic disinformation tactic. I am in an entirely different class, because:

- I legitimately debunk Ms. Revisionist's Woodsian-DEW premise; she won't even acknowledge my FGNW exotic nuclear weapons premise.

- Ms. Revisionist is a "prolific spreaders of disinformation"; I am not. Examples, look at her substack presence versus mine.

- Ms. Revisionist doesn't acknowledge weaknesses in her premise and blocks those who point them out. I actively seek out debate on my premise precisely so its weaknesses can be pointed out and it can be legitimately debunked.

It is a blatant lie of Mr. Ruff to assert that my comments were inserted "in between every single good comment." My comments were not, which any lurker reader can readily verify just by skimming. Moreover, my comments were on topic and in response to either the article or other threads already in progress. Most important of all, my comments were "good comments," and there is no evidence of me inserting comments in between my own good comments.

My comments, despite being lengthy, did not "flood and overwhelm the comment section," because of "expand full comment" links.

Mr. Ruff wrote: "you can see how obsessive compulsive they are by the sheer volume and length of their comments."

For the sake of discussion, let's take that statement at face-value. "Obsessive compulsive" doesn't discredit anything. Sheer volume and length of comments also doesn't discredit anything. In fact, such character traits in, say, Dr. David Ray Griffin is what made him the patron saint of the 9/11 Truth Movement in his many 9/11 books, like "Omissions and Distortions" (of the Popular Mechanics disinfo piece.)

Did Mr. Ruff also condemn Mr. McKee for his obsessive compulsive actions: Truth-and-Shadows, Thought Crimes and Misdemeanors, and two-plus Facebook groups where Mr. McKee has a sheer volume of postings and comments? Did Mr. Ruff condemn Mr. McKee for the sheer volume of his web presence or for the length of Mr. McKee's comment in the form of the article under which these comments appear? No, Mr. Ruff did not.

As long as Mr. Ruff is calling out "disinformation tactics", such would be labeling a premise (that he refuses to read) as "disinformation" without pointing out why it is wrong. "You make a claim, you defend the claim."

Given that my comments go into specifics, if Mr. Ruff isn't going to address the specifics -- because he brags about not reading my comments and recommends "that anyone reading this comment section just skip their comments altogether" --, then Mr. Ruff has FORFEITED his right to comment on any topic that I bring up.

Mr. Ruff exhibits the classic "disinformation tactics" of avoiding meaningful and on-topic discussions by instigating flame wars instead and hypnoticly labeling things "disinfo" without details.

CLEARLY Mr. Adam Ruff is the true disinformation agent.


Expand full comment

Craig as usual your article is spot on. I do notice you attract a lot of trolls though whenever you post something. Getting all that flak must mean that you are over the target though. I would like to thank you for writing this and thank a couple of the commenters below for their great insights. In particular Jeffrey Strahl and John O'Malley. To the trolls pushing disinformation here I would just like to say you are outmatched and clearly not winning over any converts. The nuke theorists (AKA Maxwell Bridges) and the DEW theorists (AKA 9/11 revisionist) are transparent and totally unconvincing. Mr. Strahl is making short work of your BS. Thanks Mr Strahl and thanks Mr. McKee.

P.S. Maxwell - This comment was NOT an invitation to start a long discussion with me or for me to read your obsessive compulsive lengthy diatribes. Know this before you begin compulsively writing to me: I will not be reading any response you give nor do I want to discuss anything with you.

Expand full comment

Mr. Adam Ruff wrote to Mr. McKee: "I do notice you attract a lot of trolls though whenever you post something."

And quite quickly within his brief two comments, he demonstrates that he is the biggest TROLL. How so?

First of all, he comes to the discussion literally months after the fact to drop his shit. "Shit", because he drops hypnotic suggestion (e.g., "x is disinformation") without any substantiation. Flies in the very face of "rules for discussion" that Mr. Ruff has repeatedly asserted: "you make a claim, you defend the claim."

Talk about the proud high school graduate pawning himself, he brags: "I will not be reading any response you give..." This is not an isolated position statement identifying the (low) level of Mr. Ruff's objectivity. He's repeatedly bragged (going back over a decade) about not reading my comments, not reading my premises, and not reading my supporting material. He's prone to making derogatory statements about various books [Kevin Ryan, Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Andre Gsponer,...] while at the same time boasting neither had he read them nor would he ever read them.

Mr. Ruff the troll calls out participants by name with his libel and then seems to think that isn't "an invitation" for rebuttal.

Mr. Ruff the troll takes issue with the length of my comments. The substack technology of "expand full comment" quite literally prevents lengthy comments from "flooding" for anybody skimming the comments. In addition to supporting many commenting levels, substack has "Continue Thread" features that also hides deeper levels of discussion unless desired by the latter-day lurker-reader.

Mr. Ruff the troll and "forum flooder" posted two (short) top-level comments in a row on the same day. Because activity in the discussion had already subsided, clearly the first comment could have been post-edited with the contents of his second comment. Or his second comment could have been in response to your first, starting a thread. Way to pawn himself "forum flooder."

Proud high school graduate that Mr. Ruff the troll is, his misguided views think that when a comprehensive argument is required, it somehow serves the readers and forum BEST when broken into a series of twitter-length comments in a row shot-from-the-hip [no offline composition and editin.] FTR, that would be "forum flooding" and "forum sliding."

Mr. Ruff the troll mischaracterizes the actual outcome of my two discussions here, which I'm sure we can attribute to the truthfulness of his pompous assertions of not reading my comments.

I was involved in discussions with Ms. 9/11 Revisionist and Mr. Jeffrey Strahl. Both were losing (or lost) their debates with me, and both have blocked me as a cherry-on-top of my victory.

Unlike Mr. Ruff the troll, I can debunk legitimately Woodsian-DEW, although FGNW are technically in the category of DEW. Ms. Revisionist didn't like that I knew Dr. Wood's work better than she did and could point out its many weaknesses, which would necessitate any sincere seeker of truth to acknowledge such facts and evolve their views. Woodsian-DEWers proclaim as a strength that Dr. Wood draws no conclusions, but then get all flustered when it is pointed out that "no conclusions means it isn't an end-station." Dr. Wood did a shitty job of researching both DEW and nuclear devices.

As for Mr. Jeffrey Strahl, his efforts were very much like Mr. Ruff the troll in that he could only make derogatory hypnotic statements against 9/11 nuclear involvement but couldn't be bothered to READ what my premise and its substantiating material actually say... And then blocked me.

Mr. Ruff wrote: "To the trolls pushing disinformation here I would just like to say you are outmatched and clearly not winning over any converts."

I concur. The trolls of Ms. Revisionist, Mr. Strahl, and Mr. Ruff are outmatched and clearly not winning over any converts.

For curious latter-day lurker-readers now that this is already below the fold of "expand full comment", let me point out how Mr. Ruff the troll is also Mr. Ruff the habitual liar.

Mr. Ruff wrote on 2014-04-12: "The nuke theory is a load of crap and I am not going to deal with it again. Count me out of any nuke discussions in the future, I will not waste my time on troll bait again."

Par for his course, obviously hypnotic suggestion. But also a lie, because his 2024-01-14 comments proves he doesn't commit to his own promises.

Here's an updated version of my (2014) rebuttal:

+++ begin


- Because Mr. Ruff is out.

- Because Mr. Ruff won't read my comments anyway.

- Because Mr. Ruff won't read the material referenced [as proven with works from Dr. Wood, Kevin Ryan, Dr. Andre Gsponer, and me].

It means that Mr. Ruff FORFEITS the right to even publicly utter 'the nuke theory is a load of crap.'

Most likely, his sources for such erroneous beliefs have already had their errors and omissions exposed by me in my various works that Mr. Ruff can't be bothered to read.


+++ end

Mr. Ruff wrote: "I will not be reading any response you give nor do I want to discuss anything with you."

Mr. Ruff the troll will be HELD to his promises.

He'll be called a liar if he responds with anything, and a double-liar if his response addresses specifics from this comment that he promised he "will not be reading."

Thus we see how the trolls like Mr. Ruff are outmatched.


Expand full comment


No more nails needed for this coffin!!


You can download and read Dr Judy Wood’s Refutation of Gage’s Game:


Expand full comment

Judy Wood's hypothesis openly fails re WTC1. The antenna at the top of the building began descending before the entire section above the zone supposedly damaged by airliner impact (most likely a different sort of plane) started doing so, the entire roof line in fact descends. This demonstrates the top section began disintegrating right away, could not be a pile driver. But this had to be done by taking out the truss hat assembly which anchored the antenna, which was sitting on top of the core columns. This could not be done by a directed energy weapon located outside the building without that weapon cutting through the outside the building to get to the core, it could not "jump" over the outside and get the truss hat. No damage to the outside shows.

Judy Wood's notions had all sorts of shortcomings. I used to tell her, in 2007, when we were in close contact. She insisted that anything which didn't fit her hypothesis was fake. Totally invested in one perspective, and seemingly more interested in promoting her perspective and trashing others than in getting to the truth. She even tried to tell me that a certain Kevin Mackey was great because he wrote something trashing Griffin, never mind that he trashed the entire notion of 9/11 truth.

Expand full comment

Dear Mr. Jeffrey Strahl, I have Dr. Wood's book and recommend it, in part because it is clever disinformation with lots of nuggets of truth to be mined. She connects no dots, draws no conclusions, can't power her speculation with anything real-world operational, did a shitty job of nuclear research, and repeatedly tells her readers to look at the evidence and not what people (including herself) are saying.

The Woodsian-DEWers get tripped up in these fundamental areas.

(1) They let the DEW premise be framed almost exclusively as "beams-from-above" (despite issues with atmospheric optics, frequencies conducive for energy transfer, and energy sources). ABL is a real thing, but getting the requisite amount of source materials (e.g., chemicals) aloft (let alone into space) that can account for the energy display observed at the WTC is completely, obscenely NOT Occam Razor, when local FGNW are in the category of DEW with nuclear energy to spare.

(2) Woodsian-DEWers argue as if Dr. Wood's book were a "9/11 end-station" while at the same time praising the fact that SHE DRAWS NO CONCLUSIONS. They can't have it both ways. If Dr. Wood has no conclusions, then she can't be an end-station.

(3) If Woodsian-DEWers were sincere, they would be standing on the shoulders of Dr. Wood's work to take it to the next logical level, going to the next station on the rabbit-hole subway express to Truth. To power their DEW dreams, the Woodsian-DEWers would have been hooking up with the 9/11-Nukers to champion together the evil spawn, FGNW.

But Woodsian-DEWers aren't sincere. They don't learn, grow, or evolve.

Case in point, Ms. 9/11 Revisionist already has me blocked on substack just for me pointing out the above, and that FGNW, being in the category of DEW, are what Dr. Wood's research aspired towards but was warned off exposing. I ran across her in FB under a different alias, and the script was almost identical.

The first hop of the white-rabbit of Truth is from here to my substack. Your desire to see the references will have you hop to my rabbit-hole blog. The Easter Eggs are in the reference notes, so be sure to expand whenever you run across one. Spoiler alert: Reference note 22 debunks Dr. Wood. Reference note 8 debunks AE9/11Truth's FAQ about "nuclear blasts." Reference notes 14, 15, and "nano-thermite" debunk Dr. Steven Jones.


Did you see what happened in a parallel thread with Mr. Adam Ruff? He brags about "refusing to read" my postings and also has me substack blocked. Good for him, because our documented history -- re-purposed on my blog -- shows how he was a lying blowhard weasel on the topics of Dr. Wood and my "neu nookiedoo" hobby-horse premise. ["Neutron Nuclear DEW" was how I once described it.]

And just today, I tried to post something on Richard Gage's substack article. It got deleted already from his substack. So I re-purposed the comment under my substack article. The "black-holing" of nuclear 9/11 premises is alive and well.

I would be most appreciative to get your feedback.

NOT HERE, but under my substack or blog.

Out of respect for Mr. McKee, who doesn't value what (validated) 9/11 nuclear premises can do for the public's awareness and activism. As you'll see from collected exchanges with him on my blog (if you go exploring/skimming just how deep my "bat-shit crazy" runs), I expressed to him that a public revelation of "9/11 nuclear anything" (regardless of the spin of it being "low-radiation") could/would/should have FIGURATIVE nuclear fallout even today on elected leaders (then and now), agencies, institutions, corporate media, etc. Hence the "black-hole" cover-up still going today.


Expand full comment

Thanks, but no thanks. I had more than enough dealings with her personally, i.e. via email daily and several hour-plus phone conversations per week, for a year and a half. She has nothing to stand on, period.

Expand full comment

Dear Mr. Jeffrey Strahl, I share your pain, but only limited to Facebook -- not email or telephone.

I agree that Ms. 9/11 Revisionist has nothing to stand on; she's got cognitive dissonance really bad and refuses to acknowledge that Dr. Wood's work was not an end-station, so shouldn't be promoted and defended as if it were.

My FGNW premise is different, and won't be nearly as much of a time-suck. It certainly won't be bot-ish repetition.

I am sincere in desiring your feedback on my FGNW hobby-horse premise.


A year and a half of daily emails and several hour-plus phone conversations per week?!!! Wow! Respect. I wouldn't give out my telephone number for that. Emails? Maybe, but I'm lazy and won't tolerate new carousel spins.

I'm only asking for a one-time reading (5 minutes) and commentary into my FGNW premises issues.


Expand full comment

No evidence of electric pulses which nukes would generate. Period.

Expand full comment

Incorrect. Go read my premise next time before making stupid mistakes.

Section "Evidence in WTC Destruction" in the blog version has a bullet for "torched cars" that suffices to prove evidence of EMP. "Period."


Expand full comment

O, Jeffrey - What problem are you trying to solve? Or are you just trying to debunk Dr Wood, so that you could get a pat on the back?

We already had a to and fro on my Odysee channel comment section, where you showed you aren't open to taking in any information.

I have an idea, go stand in front of a mirror and then pat yourself on the back, because that is just how far you'd come on trying to debunk what is contained in her 500 page handbook with regards to what happened at the WTC complex...

Have you even read the book, it seems not, otherwise you wouldn't be asking silly questions and raising an uninformed opinion. You can order it here: https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com/

Now, with regards to your antenna question, which disregards all the other anomalies, contained in WDTTG, now WHAT do you think caused that?

Was it kinetic or thermal energy? It's as easy to debunk KE as the destructive mechanism as it is "laser beams from space" as well as thermal energy.

You want to try and debunk directed energy, you are trying to elude to some sort of beam, so do you know the work of John Hutchison? Has he got a bunch of laser beams in his lab causing all the metal transmutations?

What he does is in the realm of field effects, directing energy in a way as to get some sort of effect, so that is why it is classified under the umbrella of "directed energy" weapons.

So, do you see your very weak argument against Dr Wood's work?

You might also want to read this comment by jammonius, June 8, 2012 - https://truthandshadows.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/#comment-6282

Now, I suggest you go read the book and educate yourself with regards to what happened to 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on September 11, 2001

Have a great day.

Expand full comment

I know well what her work is about, as i said we used to talk (on the phone) frequently. Like other fans of hers. And i sure know Hutchison, i remember well when they met. That was a big hint to me to move on.

You have not responded to my question! Any of the weapons you talk about could not have taken out the antenna supports INTERNALLY without damage first showing on the outside. And we haven't even mentioned the numerous large steel members cast out for hundreds of feet (again, not something any of her weaponry suggestions would do) or the ample evidence of molten steel and iron which she attempted to dismiss as "fake,:".......

Expand full comment

No, you don't know her work at and speaking to her 3 years before her book came out and then NOT reading it, you prove just how disingenuous you are.

Your question on the antenna was answered by me asking YOU what you think it was?

I stated: "Was it kinetic or thermal energy? It's as easy to debunk KE as the destructive mechanism as it is "laser beams from space" as well as thermal energy."

If you have bothered to read Dr Wood's book, you'd be well aware that most of the contents was dustified before the final demise & accelerated via gravity and the buildings went down faster than a billiard ball dropped from the same height as the towers.

Your statement: "And we haven't even mentioned the numerous large steel members cast out for hundreds of feet (again, not something any of her weaponry suggestions would do) or the ample evidence of molten steel and iron which she attempted to dismiss as "fake,:""

Again - IF YOU READ HER book, you'd be well aware she addresses the ABSURDITY of thermite, explosives and the FAKE cover story of "molten steel".

Even Gage, Wayne Costa and friends, confirmed the LACK of molten steel during cleanup as you'd see in this interaction I had with these fools during 2023, where they put their foot in their mouth - What clowns they are, so click the link and see how they inadvertently debunk themselves. I just can't stop rewatching this mix video I made: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/911-Truth-can-Alex-Jones-be-trusted:e

Then as an added bonus, here is Dr Wood's 2023 updated version of her "Refutation of Gage’s Game": https://truthsummit.info/media-files/DrJudyWood-refutation-RichardGage-claims.pdf

It was fun talking to you - I've met numerous people so far that suffer from the following;

There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11:

1. POOR Problem solving skills

2. Group Think (Peer Pressure, running with the herd)

3. They just can't handle the implications (they wish it weren't true)

Tell me, how much money did Gage or any of the other poo-ba 9/11 “truther” organisations extort from you the last 16 odd years? You sound financially and emotionally invested to the 2nd and 3rd layer of the cover up?

Want to see more of these "truthers" not being able to answer simple questions?

Then read this article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/questions-for-the-911-truther-talking

But thank you for trying to push the government or 9/11 "truther" narrative put out there by the architects for an engineered truth.

And remember DON'T you dare reading this VERY SCARY book: https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com/

Expand full comment

Lots of bluster, but you still haven't answered a few simple questions. :-) Was the iron-spheres-enriched dust in the basement of Deutsche Bank fake too? LOL.

Expand full comment

No bluster - Just facts....

Answered the questions. Iron sphere dust is proof of metal transmutation.

Read the book, it's discussed in great detail, no need for me to re-write it.

Pages: 321 to 339 - https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com/

Expand full comment
Oct 31, 2023Liked by Craig McKee

Great article Craig. I'm curious, how do these disinformation people respond when confronted with the fact that security camera footage from the Pentagon was confiscated and never shown? I had one person say "As to why no videotape has been released... think about this... why would one of the most secure buildings in the world give up videotape of how it was breached? I think its partly a security issue as well as one of protecting ones pride." This reply makes no sense, in that case why would they show photos of the aftermath?

Expand full comment

All the videos have been released.

Expand full comment


Expand full comment
Dec 31, 2023·edited Dec 31, 2023

You must have seen the videos from the parking lot ,from the Citgo and from the Doubletree..

Expand full comment

You're right, Peter, their reply makes no sense at all. There is actually some video released but it's very low quality and just from the parking booth area. But even with this, we know thanks to Xander Arena's research that the blur that is supposed to be Flight 77 is not long enough to be a 757. This blows the official story out of the water, which David Chandler, Wayne Coste, Ken Jenkins, and their whole cabal cannot allow.

Expand full comment

I've seen that video. It's amazing that some people accept it as proof of a plane crash. One person even said sarcastically "Of course, it's fake right?"

Expand full comment
Oct 30, 2023Liked by Craig McKee

Comments on the large plane hit the Pentagon hypothesis

When I worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, I worked in Wedge #1. Wedge #1 was the site of the attack. This gives me some insight into the pictures of the Pentagon taken on 911 because I worked there. A 757 is far too wide to fit the hole. There is no wreckage of the plane outside the hole. The lawn that would have been torn up by the engines is relatively untouched.

If you study the history of disinformation campaigns, you will notice that most disinformation campaigns have at their core one or more absurdities. This helps you to know it is a disinformation campaign. The idea that a large airliner hit the Pentagon is an absurdity.

Two questions:

1. Does what you are being told contain an absurdity (plane too big to fit hole)?

2. Does the person seem to be too intelligent to believe what they are telling you?

It is easy to understand why so many truthers believe the “757 hit the Pentagon Group” is an organized team of disinformation agents working to:

1. Create disruption and disharmony within the 911 Truth Movement

2. Get people to believe something closer to the Official Story

3. Make people waste their time on an unproductive effort

If one believes our mission is to “wake people up”, spending time and effort going around trying to make people believe a 757 might have hit the Pentagon, is a waste of time. What would be the motivation of people doing that?

With regard to individuals with a past history of doing good things in the Truth Movement but who now seemed to have changed, one cannot disregard the possibility of pharmaceutically enabled hypnosis.

Expand full comment

9/11 The Plane / No Plane debate settled.

Most probably the best distraction of WHAT happened on September 11, 2001

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-the-plane-no-plane-argument

Expand full comment

Thanks, John, you have made some fantastic points, and I agree with you. I wish it was easier to get other truthers to see what you and I see so clearly. There is a very long list of absurdities that this group pushes. One that I'll be writing about is the incredible claim by David Chandler that William Lagasse really saw the plane on the official flight path and that he said Lagasse got port and starboard mixed up when he said he saw the starboard side of the plane as it passed him. Or the claim hje and Wayne Coste make that the tiny hole in the backseat of England's cab is just what you'd expect when a light pole impales the car after the pole was hit by a 90-ton jet going 530 mph.

I do have a slightly different take on those who have a good history on the towers seeming to change. Given that this disinformation campaign was well under way in 2006, and given that Chandler and Jonathan Cole wrote their hit piece against CIT back in 2011, I don't think they were ever truthers. Chandler built his credibility with his WTC work and has gotten tons of mileage out of the NIST admission of the partial free fall of Building 7. And Kevin Ryan gained much respect for being fired. Now they're both board members of the International Center for 9/11 Distraction (I mean Justice) along with Elizabeth Woodworth, who has her own role to play in this drama. But it's certainly possible that some members of this cabal were honest and were then turned somehow. Maybe it's some of both scenarios.

Expand full comment

Why not save yourself some time and have a look at this little 1h summary I put together of my interaction with the so called 9/11 "truthers" in 2023: https://youtu.be/IYDCNvn0PSg

Only thing is you don't want to talk directly, just like the "truther" talking heads...

I have also written extensively on the subject...

The question is, will they ever have the balls, to discuss the evidence this book contains: https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com/

After all Gage was asked about this in 2011 already, yet he denies any knowledge thereof: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/Richard-Gage-AE911Truth-caught-with-his-pants-down:9

A whole industry has been built supressing this information that Gage, Chandler, AE911 and Ted Walter cannot explain...

Expand full comment

Thanks a bunch, Craig.

This is something my late friend Tod Fletcher, who was the editor for all of Griffin's 9/11 books except the first, till his death in 2014, wrote about the Pentagon. The damage and casualties were pretty much all in a different area than the one hit by whatever impacted the building, and a bunch of clocks stopped at 9:34AM, 4 minutes before the alleged impact.


Journal of 9/11 Studies, letters, November 2012, The Pentagon Attack in Context: a Reply to John Wyndham. By Tod Fletcher and Timothy E. Eastman

Expand full comment

I appreciate you sharing that with me, Jeffrey. I was very sorry to hear that Tod had passed away. Do you know when Elizabeth Woodworth starting becoming involved in Griffin's books?

Expand full comment

You are welcome, Craig. More on Tod, here.


I don't know exactly when Woodworth became involved, i do remember Tod being increasingly unhappy about it. I was recently exasperated to learn (via her writing) that she pushed Griffin into becoming "less insistent" about the impossibility of cell phone calls from the "hijacked" airliners.

Expand full comment

Dear Mr. Craig McKee, well-written and thought-out as expected. You wrote: "a well-organized and relentless COINTELPRO operation that has been steadily and deceitfully poisoning the Truth Movement." How true. The effort was multi-prong and "had" to take over the 9/11 Truth Movement, because the government and PTB could only maintain their plausible deniability if they were never forced to acknowledge, and thus validate in some form, inconvenient truths.

Multi-prong, because the operation's right-hand was slowly stroking egos that the minimal was being done, while its left-hand was cranking disinformation themes to poison the well and get the TM spinning in circles promoting and debunking.

Rational, sincere people can acknowledge a premise and evaluate its merits and demerits.

A sign of disinformation stake holders is an inability to legitimately debunk other disinformation premises, if you can get them to fairly acknowledge the existence of the premise.


Expand full comment

Nearly one month ago after being notified of Mr. Craig McKee's new substack article, "The assassination of a movement: the rats appear…", I made an on-topic comment.

I'm sure that Mr. Adam Ruff interprets my participation as validating "the rats appearing" to poison the 9/11 well. Except that I did not mention my FGNW hobby-horse.

Ms. 9/11 Revisionist, however, replied to my comment with a canned set of links, trying to nudge me into discussion on Woodsian-DEW. She succeeded. Out of respect for Mr. Craig McKee, I did not engage here, though.

Evidently from the record above, a few days later Ms. Revisionist did get Mr. Jeffrey Strahl to engage in Woodsian-DEW carousel spinning discussions.

I followed her invitation links, read her premises on her substack, (learned thereby her gender, which only matters so that honorifics intended as a sign of respect do not unintentionally insult,) saw 9/11 images of lesser studied WTC buildings, and then engaged her in discussion. [I do not know whose exchange with Ms. Revisionist happend first: Mr. Strahl's or mine.]

Under two different substack articles, I authored unique commentary relating specifically to each article. Maybe Ms. Revisionist's reply to my first comment was unique, original, and related specifically to my comment. But under the second article in reply to my unique comment, Ms. Revisionist posted the exact same reply. I authored a unique reply, but posted it twice, once under each threads in reply to her copies. As I recall, identical exchanges under each thread continued for only a few more volleys before Ms. Revisionist blocked me from commenting further and from following her substack. Then, of course, all evidence of the exchanges and my participation were purged from her substack.

Of course, her comments from the get-go were sounding a bit canned, repetitive, and scripted. Turns out, Ms. Revisionist's pasted text was remarkably similar to a Facebook exchange I had had a just a couple months earlier with a (supposedly) different online entity. Not really of importance, except that in acknowledging that she (under a different alias) had had previous exchanges with me (who uses a consistent alias), the onus would have been on her to advance and further what the previous discussion laid out, rather than bot-ishly repeating the previous discussion (in parallel.)

Maybe owing to its repetitiveness, I wasn't saving my work, so can't accurately quote myself from the purged text. As I recall, the ideas causing Ms. Revisionist the most pain were the weaknesses in Dr. Wood's premises -- dangling innuendo, no dot connection, no conclusion, shitty nuclear research -- that would necessitate any sincere 9/11 Truther to keep looking beyond Dr. Wood's work, which Dr. Wood's herself as much stated was not an end-station in 9/11 Truth, making it disceitful of her champions and followers to frame it as such.

Ms. Revisionist wasn't willing to accept that FGNW stands on Dr. Wood's shoulders (and re-purposes her evidence), is one or two stations down the line and next-level Woodsian-DEW: the nuclear powered DEW that Dr. Wood was prevented from speculating about in a valid fashion.

I wrote:

"A sign of disinformation stake holders is an inability to legitimately debunk other disinformation premises, if you can get them to fairly acknowledge the existence of the premise."

Ms. Revisionist tried to debunk straw-man "9/11 Nukes", but showed no aptitude for reading the FGNW premise to see how not only how FGNW differs from "nukes", but also how FGNW in the category of DEW addresses more easily all of Dr. Wood's collected evidence that gets framed as "beams from above". [Valid premises but difficult to make applicable to 9/11 owing to optics and source energy sufficient for observed energy at target.]

The Easter Eggs are in the reference links, which don't work on substack but is the first hop of the white-rabbit of Truth to get to a rabbit-hole version where they do work.


This new "FGNW exotic nuclear weapons" branded version owes a debt of gratitude to Ms. Revisionist's efforts that were data-mined for nuggets of truth that helped flesh out a new section on WTC damage from FGNW.

A couple of ironies. In another thread, Ms. Revisionist calls on Mr. McKee for more articles like the above that expose the 9/11 Truther Rats.


I find it conspiratorial suspicious that Mr. Ruff's comment to Mr. Craig McKee (to block Maxwell C. Bridges) appears under a thread by Ms. Revisionist promoting her substack works.

Is it a coincidence that in my very short tenure in substack, already two online entities are so moved by my participation that they block me, prevent me from subscribing, purge my comments, and hypnotically assert that I am poison to the discussion.

Funnier still. Mr. Ruff is very anti-Woodsian-DEW with "Woodsian-debunking like you've never seen" [boasted-about and reputation-burned almost a decade ago], and Ms. Revisionist is a bot-ish champion of "Woodsian-DEW".

If Woodsian-DEW and FGNW-exotic-nuclear-weapons are disinformation, why does Truther-extraordiare Mr. Adam Ruff complain only about the latter and not the former? [See my quote above.] Agents for disinfo X are prevented from debunking seriously or legitimately disinfo Y championed by sibling agents, and vice versa. I don't have such limitations, and can legitimately debunk beams-from-above Woodsian-DEW, (conventional) nukes, NT and chemical-based explosives.

Both Ms. Revisionist and Mr. Ruff allegedly have me blocked, so won't be dinged by this comment's appearance and prevent themselves from replying even if they did eventually see it.


Expand full comment

Is the 9/11 "truth" movement a distraction movement?

What happens if you ask TRUTH questions?

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/questions-for-the-911-truther-talking

Building 7 didn't go down due to fires or controlled demolition.

Truth seekers have been bamboozled by the "trusted experts" for nearly 2 decades.

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-operation-reason-building-7-didnt

Building 7 - the Ted Walter cut.

International Center for 9/11 Justice, suppression.

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/building-7-the-ted-walter-cut

Was every BOOM a bomb on 9/11?

Not everything that goes boom is a bomb.

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/was-every-boom-a-bomb-on-911

The controlled demolition of the thermite theory

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-controlled-demolition-of-thermite

Expand full comment

Thanks Craig;

New World Order Couo begun by those involved COINTELPRO,

Fascism ,

Big money seekers , religious groups , profit seeking corporations violating biblical human rights laws , militants

Wars taking moneys public resources.

Education, Health care , transportation, fair housing .

Because of life threatening situations in my life when couo begdn

Total surveillance my life;

Followed by in 2000

While I was wrong justices

All elections out of control

PNAC created

For full spectrum military dominance.


While Palestinian being deprived food , water , their homes taken

Hamas was not for 2 state solution

He wanted all Palestine returned to Palestinians ;

Every block where I live

On blaming Hamas and Palestinian

(By big money seeking Jews ;

Motto of Israeli Mossad

By way of deception thou shalt do war—-

And I believe

After 9/11/01

Silverstein and Netanyahu on phone together every Sunday night

Rebuilding Ground Zero Crime Site

As Fascist Corporate Conglomerate Shopping and Performance Center;

Tishman Corporation my family DNA involved in building cop city

To change our democracy into fascist state such as in Nazi Germany .

All since 1989

Related to fascism

Glorification of wars



Expand full comment

Hamas was against "two state" solution, which was promised in the "Oslo Accords", brokered by porn-president Clinton in 1993, because what was then granted to Palestinians, was less than 10% of historic Palestine!

Expand full comment
Oct 30, 2023Liked by Craig McKee

Well said!

Expand full comment