After nearly a 4-year silence on the site, 9/11 "researcher" and "journalist" Craig McKee finally posts something new at his "
Truth and Shadows" blog. And it's ... drumroll ... to complain about people who disagree with him. Specifically, it's to complain about the fact that Richard Gage recently endorsed the new
International Center for 9/11 Justice. Now, there's plenty to criticize about this site, given its
endorsement of things like
fake phone calls, skepticism over the
hijackings being legit, and
pre-plane impact explosions at the WTC. Is this the reason Craig has a problem with Gage endorsing the site? No, of course not. That would make too much sense. I will allow him explain what the problem is.
Gage is effusive in his praise for the “new” organization, which he hails as a great advance for the 9/11 Truth Movement. In doing so, he compounds past harm he has done to the movement in the form of his support for a cabal that is determined to neutralize the fundamental evidence that proves U.S. government complicity in the 9/11 crimes. As Gage and other 9/11 truth “leaders” confer false legitimacy on cabal members like David Chandler, Wayne Coste, and Ken Jenkins, they help those individuals to suppress the overwhelming evidence that a 757 crash was faked at the Pentagon. And this is very harmful to our cause because there is no other entity but the government that could have staged this event.
Yep. Because the group happens to include folks like David Chandler, who's beautifully refuted Craig's nonsense, again and again.
Why you should not trust Craig McKee
One of the reasons Craig sucks as a 9/11 researcher is his irrational, paranoid attitude about those whom he disagrees with. In Craig's world, anyone who happens to think a plane really did strike the Pentagon is doing "harm" to the Truth Movement's cause, and that there's some sort of sinister conspiracy behind it. I've written about his bizarre attitude before, and here he is again to showcase it for the world to see. Beyond the general craziness of his attitude, the real problem is that he effectively insulates himself from any and all criticism of what he says. This is not the behavior of a responsible researcher, who generally welcomes criticism of his or her work. Instead, Craig would rather act like a pouting child, thinking everyone is out to get him simply because they dare to say he's wrong.
To really see what I mean, consider how he's apparently "stunned" by the fact that so-called truthers "defend those who spend almost all of their time pushing one element of the official story after another." Yes, how dare some people in the Movement think that some theories aren't credible! Because that's the equivalent of what he's saying. Do you happen to know what else the "official story" includes Craig? The fact that planes really did strike the Twin Towers, and that the steel from the Towers was at Ground Zero and was NOT dustified. I'm sure Craig would agree with these. But if we applied his logic consistently, people who've argued the opposite would be champions of truth, and those who criticize them would be part of some evil cabal out to suppress them and "push" the official story. Do you see what I mean? Craig cannot possibly think that literally every element of the "official story" of 9/11 is false. Otherwise, he'd endorse every theory under the sun that's ever been proposed that contradicts the mainstream account of 9/11. Where exactly is his criteria for what he accepts and doesn't accept with regards to the "official story" of 9/11? I haven't seen it, because I suspect it doesn't exist. Craig's methodology sucks, simple as that. And that's not the kind of person you should put your trust in.
Craig McKee, the liar for 9/11 truth
To make matters worse, Craig is a confirmed liar who, when pressed on the fact that he lies, can't even muster up a half-way decent excuse for it. Take for example his sad display of endorsing Massimo Mazzucco's film "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor," which cites an analysis supposedly proving the footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon was doctored. After I explained to him why this is wrong (twice), he had the audacity to claim he never made the points I was calling him out on. I've asked him repeatedly to clarify his position on the film. To date he's never done it. And also to date, his original post about it remains online, uncorrected. That's how much he cares about the truth.
Not only are his lies so blatant, they're also sometimes just flat-out bizarre. In a Facebook post bad-mouthing those whom he disagrees with (because that really seems to be all he does nowadays), my name was brought up, and look at what Craig had to say.
Now, bear in mind that this was shortly
after I had an
article published in an engineering journal that indirectly argued the Towers were demolished. And in the same comment he claims I never showed evidence of him lying (a lie itself, btw), he tells a whopper of a lie about me, that I no longer believe the Towers were demolished. JonTron
puts it better than I ever could. You're probably wondering where and when exactly I'm supposed to have said this. Well, after pressing Craig on it, here's all he could come up with.
Yep. Supposedly in some interview I said not that I no longer believe demolition occurred, only that I said I have doubts about it. Astounding. And of course, when I asked in what interview I'm supposed to have said this... crickets. For what it's worth Craig, you're not the only one who's "stunned."
Update. After a bit of prodding on Facebook, Craig finally said what interview he heard this in. It was my interview with Mick West, at around min. 39. However, listen for yourself and you'll see what I said there is exactly what I said here. That I regard controlled demolition as tentative, but that I'm mostly convinced it's true, is enough for him to think I doubt it, or even that I outright don't believe it anymore at all. Keep in mind that that interview was done in Aug. of 2019, and Craig made his comment in Oct. of 2022. Between that period of time, I published an article indirectly arguing for demolition in an engineering journal (twice), and did another interview in which that article was mentioned, and I explained my position on controlled demolition of the WTC. That's how well Craig keeps up with events. --AT, 14 Sept. 2023
But let's consider the options here. Either Craig (a) knows he's lying about me, or (b) doesn't get how belief works, or, even more shockingly, how journalism works. Given my experience with him in the past, I'm tempted to think option (a) is more likely. However, let's suppose option (b) is what's really going on here. The implications are pretty bad though. Because in Craig's mindset, all that's required to say someone doesn't believe in something is to have mere doubt about it. So it's all or nothing in Craig's world. No shades of gray. Frankly, I don't doubt I probably did say in some interview I wasn't 100% certain about the Towers being demolished, which is true. Because in science, theories are regarded as tentative, open to new evidence possibly refuting them. That's how I regard the idea that the Towers were demolished. I think the evidence points to demolition quite strongly, but I'm perfectly open to being proven wrong about it. Which is more than I can say for Craig and his belief a plane didn't strike the Pentagon.
And let's not overlook the incredible lapse in logic Craig's made in forming his belief about me and what I believe. Let's say I did announce in some interview that I no longer believed in demolition. Let's consider that for over a decade and a half I've researched the events of 9/11, most of that focused on the WTC collapses and controlled demolition, and that I've written extensively on the topic during all those years, published on sites such as
AE911Truth,
ScientificMethod911, and the
911 Debunkers Blog, not to mention all my writings on my
personal blog. But my declaration that I no longer believe in demolition was so meager that I only mentioned I had "doubts" about it. Here's a tip for you Craig: If I had suddenly announced to the world that I no longer believed in controlled demolition, it wouldn't be a passing comment in an interview where I said I only had doubts about it. IT WOULD BE THE WHOLE POINT OF THE INTERVIEW, not just a passing comment. A simple passing comment would be what's called "
burying the lede," something that, as a journalist, you probably should know about.
All of this is to show, again, why Craig is such a lousy researcher that you shouldn't put any faith in. Why on earth anyone would take this guy seriously is beyond me.
Craig's methodology is inconsistent and sucks
I hope this is enough to convince you why you shouldn't take Craig seriously on anything he says. Nothing he's written on his site is worth the server-space used to post it. You really should just ignore him. But if by some chance you do consider him reliable, and also think a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, then I've got a challenge for you.
Plenty has been written on why
Pentagon no-plane theories are total crap, so there's no need for me to expend energy to write about that any more. Instead, last year I produced a different kind of argument for Pentagon no-planers to consider. While there's plenty of Pentagon no-planers who also think no planes hit the Towers either, that's not Craig's position, as far as I know. In 2022 I wrote a paper titled "
Calling for Consistency: Analyzing the Approach of Pentagon No-Planers vs. WTC No-Planers." In it, I demonstrate that the arguments and evidence WTC no-planers use is of similar quality of those used by Pentagon no-planers. They use virtually the same arguments, and the evidence they cite is very similar too. The problem, therefore, is that if someone thinks a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, they would have to conclude planes didn't hit the Towers either, if they wish to be consistent. Pentagon no-planers therefore have three options:
- Explain how their methodology and evidence is better than those of the WTC no-planers.
- Abandon their Pentagon no-plane ideas.
- Start arguing that no planes struck the Towers
I made Craig aware of this paper when he started lying about me and what I believe about the WTC. To date, no response (surprising no one). Craig or any other Pentagon no-planers can take this challenge. Let's see how you do. Ball's in your court.
Final word
In the mind of Craig McKee, the world seems to be made up of two kinds of people; genuine seekers of truth who believe a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, and those who are insincere who think a plane did hit the building. And on top of that, many of those Pentagon impact supporters are part of some evil cabal out to silence the real seekers of truth, like him. There's a third option of course, one Craig apparently overlooked: he and everyone else who thinks a plane didn't hit the Pentagon are just flat-out wrong, and are really the ones doing harm to the Truth Movement.
As a closing bit of paranoia, Craig mentions that he suspects Gage's rejection of Pentagon no-plane ideas was due to "pressuring" from people like David Chandler. Rest assured Craig, no one had to pressure me to write this about you. Trust me when I say, I hate this Craig. I hate having to write about you. I hate having to waste time dealing with your BS, and I'm sure everyone else whose written about you feels the same way. That we have to take the time to correct your errors, while also trying to make the case to the public that 9/11 needs reinvestigated, essentially doubling the work we should have to do, is pretty damn infuriating.
Also rest assured that, despite our disagreements, I don't think you're part of some sinister conspiracy to discredit the Truth Movement and hurt the cause. Instead, I think you're simply some illogical, paranoid fool who can't let go of his pet theory because he can't stand the idea of being proven wrong. But that's your own lookout. Whether you know it or not, if we never achieve a new investigation, it will be because of cranks like you. So thanks for that Craig. Please do everyone a favor and go away.
