Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Craig McKee: How can ‘journalists' dismiss everything they are supposed to stand for when it comes to 9/11?



Anything that doesn’t fit with the official narrative will be attacked.
Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without 
prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with 
their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. The state of mind is not 
common, but it is essential for right thinking… – Leo Tolstoy

By Craig McKee

For the most part, I’m getting better at staying out of Facebook fights
with idiots, trolls, and those who think the word “conspiracy” is their
go-ahead to try stand-up comedy.
Better, not perfect.
On the 16th anniversary of 9/11 last week, I decided to spend the day
sharing articles and memes I’d created about this massive and
devastating false flag deception. I also dared to comment on a friend’s
tongue-in-cheek Facebook post about 9/11, leading me into a somewhat
 predictable marathon confrontation with three journalists, one I know
personally and the other two I know by reputation. Oddly enough, I  
do think it was worth it. The three, whose arrogance and non-existent
knowledge of 9/11 were exposed, went beyond having bad attitudes;
they thumbed their noses and everything journalists are supposed to
believe in.
The three fancy themselves as intelligent and well-informed but they
have fallen for the indefensible idea that anyone who questions the
official account of any important event must be a nut case. They
actually seem to believe that it doesn’t matter about evidence if the
word “conspiracy” is involved. They would deny this, but their words
give them away.
And by the way, just because I focus here on three journalists does
not mean I couldn’t have added a bunch more from past “discussions.”
I’ve gotten “face palm” as a response to one of my points, I’ve been
told that I live in a “conspiracy bubble” and, only slightly facetiously,
that I had made up my mind about 9/11 even before it happened.
(In fact, I didn’t seriously begin to doubt the official story until 2007
when I first learned what the heck Building 7 was. While I’m
embarrassed that I was so gullible for so long, I did at least approach
the new information by investigating further.)
The first member of the typing triumvirate in this case was Julien
Feldman, co-founder of the now defunct Montreal alt-weekly The 
Mirror and currently a school board commissioner in the city. He
unsuccessfully sought the New Democratic Party nomination in
the federal riding where I live, NDG-Westmount. He is described
in a CBC article on the nomination as a “former journalist.”
Batting second was David Lieber, who writes some freelance articles
(we’ve had our work appear in the same magazine more than once)
but describes himself as a communications/marketing writer and
translator. His intolerance for ideas that don’t conform to his own
seems almost absolute.  At least on Facebook it is.
And behind door number three we have Matthew Hays, who wrote
about cinema for The Mirrorand teaches cinema, journalism, and
communications at Concordia University (where I studied journalism).
Hays didn’t get into the discussion as deeply nor stay as long as the
other two, but in his few comments he made it clear that he shares
their cartoonish and condescending views on topics not deemed
acceptable by the mainstream.
Unfortunately, these attitudes aren’t unusual as every truth-seeking
activist knows too well. Media reports on 9/11 and other false flags—
when the subjects are covered at all—feature snarky and dismissive
comments that focus on the psychological state of those who dissent
along with questions about why these darned theories “persist” after
so many years. I have a thought: maybe they persist because the media
refuse to address them and refuse to help us to learn the truth about
them. Just a thought.
What struck me about all three know-it-alls in this discussion was that
they would not, or could not, offer any specifics about 9/11, the topic
they were using to justify their insinuations about my mental health.
They came up with many ways to say that 9/11 truth activists are
lunatics but no ways to refute anything we say. They actually seem to
believe this is not necessary.
Feldman particularly thought it would be great to attack 9/11 Truth
Movement’s most respected and prolific researcher, David Ray Griffin,
and accuse him of inventing facts. Either Feldman didn’t think anyone
would challenge him on this assertion, or he didn’t care because he
thought that the accusation alone would be enough to malign Griffin’s
scholarship. But I was more than prepared to call his bluff. I demanded
even one example of something Griffin had invented, and Feldman
could not comply.
The fun all started with a post by my good friend Frederic Serre,
another journalist, who shared this: “What’s the difference between
a cow and 9/11? Americans can’t milk a cow for 16 years.” Fred
can be a you-know-what disturber but in the best sense of the
term. He is a free thinker, and he expresses support for my position,
something that takes real courage. His post provided an opportunity
for me to insert a different perspective into what I was sure would be
predictable 9/11 anniversary hand-wringing. One person (yes, it was
yet another journalist) said Fred’s joke was “cruel” and “too soon”
and that he had friends who were killed that day. I offered this:
“I think the cruel thing is the bogus war on terror that this event has
led to. Millions have died because of this deception. Those people—
and the families of the victims from that day who continue to fight
for answers—deserve more than maudlin tributes. They deserve the
truth.”
I prepared myself for the inevitable vitriol, and it didn’t take long for
Lieber to bring “psychology” into the discussion. He wrote: “Even if
9/11 were the conspiracy that a handful of nut bars believe it was,
there’s no cause for hilarity at the commemoration of the event.
And the families of the victims are NOT ‘fighting for answers.’ They
already have it.”
I love it when people who haven’t taken five minutes to investigate
9/11 promise us that they know what the families of those killed
on 9/11 want and deserve. I pointed this out, linked to a video of
Bob McIlvaine speaking, and added: “There would never have been
a 9/11 Commission had the families not demanded an investigation.
It took more than 440 days for their demand to be met. And then
the commission was a sham and a cover-up as even members of
the commission admitted.”



Here are some revealing highlights of the discussion with every effort
made to maintain context. For the purposes of this article, I’ve removed
comments from other contributors, although some were pertinent (a
gentleman named Murray Pearson jumped into the fray and offered
excellent points to rebut Feldman).
Lieber: Of nearly three thousand victims, the chances of finding of 
a few crazies like you, Craig, is virtually guaranteed.
And we’re off…
McKee: I gave you a question, which you were afraid to even 
attempt to answer.
Lieber: What was that question again?
McKee: How did Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, come 
straight down into its own footprint at virtually free fall acceleration? 
As if it were falling through air. Without damaging adjacent buildings 
that were just a few feet away. And considering that the official NIST 
report conceded that the fires were isolated on just a few floors and 
that they were out by 4 p.m. The report also said that falling debris 
did not play a part in the collapse. So how did the 82 support columns 
all manage to fail within a millisecond of each other to make a 
symmetrical collapse possible?
At that point, Lieber hit me with the dreaded link to Popular Mechanics
– an article about Building 7 (“World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11
Conspiracy Theory to Rest”). The piece features a link to the magazine’s
 disinformation book called Debunking 9/11 Myths: How Conspiracy 
Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts. You can almost set a clock by
these people posting PM. And you can almost picture their smug faces
as they’re doing it.
McKee: I didn’t ask for a link. I know all about PM‘s whitewash. You 
pretend you know all about 9/11, so just tell me the answer. Or admit 
you don’t know. I would respect that, if you just stated honestly that 
you have not done any research.
I responded with my own link, to Griffin’s book Debunking 9/11 
Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders 
of the Official Conspiracy Theory.
McKee: Written by David Ray Griffin, who has written a dozen books 
on the subject. His new one is called Bush and Cheney: How They
Ruined America and the World. I recommend it.
Lieber: He has appeared on Alex Jones’ show and has also stated 
that 9/11 is a religious issue. That’s enough for me.
McKee: Ah, the old guilt by association thing. Griffin also appeared 
on Tucker Carlson’s show, and nobody is a bigger douche than that 
guy. Someone appearing on a show is the weakest possible argument. 
As for it being a religious issue, a lot of people would see a lot of 
things as having religious implications. Do you mock anti-war 
activists whose activism is influenced by their faith? You are
exposing yourself as someone who has nothing to offer but snarky 
quips and a couple of links. Not impressive.
Then Hays enters the fray with this: “I have to side with David here.
I’m shocked at the number of otherwise-sane people who believe
the inside job theories around 9/11. It’s nonsense (yes – I’ve seen
the “documentaries” on the issue and read the statements of some
engineers). Please see Chomsky’s assessment of the inside job
theory. This theory ranks up there with fluoride in the water,
vaccinations causing autism and gluten-free diets. Bunk.”
I love it how they always hasten to inform others how thoroughly
they’ve reviewed the evidence, but when you ask them a question…
McKee: I can see why you agree with David. Neither of you addresses 
any of the evidence. Just generalities and insults. And Chomsky 
doesn’t address any of the evidence either, so I see why you like 
his take.
Hays: Craig: I’ve seen and read about the “evidence.” None of it is 
convincing at all. You’ve been had.
McKee: Matthew, I don’t know what you mean by “seen and 
read about” the evidence. I can’t imagine that you have given the 
evidence fair consideration, particularly if you find “none of it” 
convincing. It’s the totality of the evidence that is convincing.
I then posted a link to my article on the documented weaponization
of the “conspiracy theory” term by the CIA in the 1960s.
Hays: Craig: by the looks of things, this conspiracy theory is a 
fixation of yours. Good luck with that. Holy fuck, the things the 
Internet have spawned……..
McKee: Matthew: Given that this deception has led to numerous wars a
nd a serious assault on privacy and civil liberties, then I think it is 
appropriate to be very concerned about people understanding the 
truth. When I was a teenager I was doing a great deal of research on 
the Kennedy assassination, so the Internet did not spawn my views. 
Research did. I’m sorry you feel the need to be dismissive and 
condescending about this, but I’m used to it. Tell me, what in the 
official conspiracy theory do you find compelling? Or did you just 
assume that the media and government wouldn’t ever tell us a lie?




McKee: I’m sure there were “patriotic” Americans in the 1960s who 
claimed that peace protesters had a “fixation” on opposing the 
Vietnam War. But it was a good fixation to have. By the way, that 
war started with a massive government lie called the Gulf of Tonkin 
incident.
Hays: David makes valid points. This is a ludicrous conspiracy 
theory which stops us from focussing on what we need to know 
and act on.
McKee: Matthew, David didn’t make ANY POINTS. And neither 
have you. Can you address any of the evidence specifically, or 
do you just rely on broad and unspecific put-downs? I’d be 
embarrassed to endorse the comments of someone who says 
there is “no issue” because “there is nothing left to learn.”
LieberO! You brave, courageous souls! Here’s something I 
dragged off the internet (the same place you drag your bullshit 
from, Craig).
A self-satisfied Lieber plopped down a link to a horrible Psychology 
Today article (“The theories are powerful because they promise to
manage fear of death. Instead of feeling poisonous worry, you name
the threat and feel heroic for uncovering the secret truth. Since the
theories are false, anxiety comes back as obsession with the theory
and efforts to convert others to believe.” Anything to distract and
misdirect…)
McKee: The refuge of those who are closed-minded and arrogant 
is to point to the “psychology” of those who dissent. It’s so much 
easier to slap down a link to a mainstream propaganda piece than 
it is to actually address the topic. But it makes sense: to address 
the topic requires knowing something about the topic, which you don’t.
Lieber: How did YOU become such a goddam expert, Craig? Whoever
 pronounced you to be an expert? You?
McKee: I did a ton of research, Dave. Even though I bought the 
official story for six years, I reacted to new information and began 
looking at the evidence. Anyone can do it.
Lieber: I know, Craig. “Anyone” can also be a doctor or a lawyer or 
a nuclear physics expert or a student of dead languages. “Anyone” 
can be a conspiracy theorist, too, except he doesn’t need any 
qualifications for that.
Huh?



McKee: That’s what I just said. Anyone can do it. Unless they think 
they already know it all. Those people cannot learn anything.
Lieber: If “anyone” can do it, I’m not impressed, Craig. It’s many, 
many years that conspiracy theorists have failed come up with 
anything resembling proof to the contrary of the intensively 
researched conclusions of experts.
McKee: That’s a laughable statement. We have tons of proof, but 
you would never know because you brush it off without even looking 
at it. What I notice about people like you is that you love to talk in 
generalities and insults, but you won’t take me on on the actual facts. 
If I were you, I wouldn’t either.
Lieber: What on earth do you mean by an “actual fact” Craig? 
And what constitutes a “ton” of proof?
McKee: You’d have to look at it to know that. I have, you haven’t. I
 don’t know why you expect broad questions like that to have short 
answers. Still waiting for you to set me straight on Building 7. Or we 
could go to other aspects of the crime. I’m easy either way.
Mr. Lieber then hit me with a Google search that he seemed to think
would deal me a death blow. I responded with a search of my own.
(See graphic.)
Lieber: … Craig looks WAY beyond the “usual sources.” I don’t find 
that at all virtuous.
Lieber: I invite anyone interested to visit Craig McKee’s FB page. It 
contains nothing but conspiracy theories, one after the other, and 
many memes from a site called “Truth and Shadows.” Craig also 
draws heavily on material from the Centre for Global Research, 
which contains, among other nonsense, filthy anti-Semitic articles 
disguised as anti-Zionist. I just read a fascinating article asserting 
that Israel instigated the Six Day War. Did I say “nut bar”?
McKee: Dave you seem to get nastier and more pompous as the day 
goes on. My page is indeed full of 9/11 posts over the past couple 
of days because it is the anniversary of 9/11. See how that works? 
Truth and Shadows is my site. Global Research does not contain 
“filthy anti-Semitic” articles. It sometimes dares to criticize Israel 
and Zionism, yes. Is that not allowed? Only nut bars do that? And 
you should do some research on the Six Day War.
Lieber then introduced a common disinformation tactic by suggesting
that I was making money from my web site (I’m not) and that I am
fooling people into thinking that Truth and Shadows the web site is
unrelated to Truth and Shadows the Facebook page (pretty sneaky
of me).
Enter Feldman (sounds like the worst Metallica song ever), who
proved even more obnoxious and ignorant than the other two. As
you’ll see, he accuses me and other “conspiracy theorists” of doing
exactly what he does – ignoring facts and abandoning reason. Irony
abounds.
Feldman: I studied the JFK conspiracy movement in depth for a 
story I wrote in the London Tely Magazine. The conspiracy nutbars 
stalked me for years afterwards and claimed I worked for the CIA!
I was tempted to ask, “So, do you?” but I resisted, mainly because I
didn’t think he’d see the humor in the question. I also could not
help wondering how truly bad that article must have been.
McKee: Did you ever study the actual evidence, or was the story
just to mock “conspiracy nutbars”? For some reason, mainstream 
journalism only seems interested in doing the latter.
Feldman: The most interesting aspect of any conspiracy theory is 
how facts are systematically re-organized – always in service of the 
conspiracy.
McKee: It’s funny: I always evaluate situations on a case-by-case 
basis. It’s neither always a conspiracy nor is it never a conspiracy. 
I have to say I don’t respect the endless generalizations used to 
attack those who question official accounts. You’ve just made a 
generalization: why don’t you relate it to something specific, and 
I’d be happy to comment?
Feldman: You need to learn how to evaluate situations on a fact-
by-fact basis!
McKee: By all means, Julien, tell me how I’m not doing that. If 
you can.
Feldman: I think you’re studious avoiding the facts. Your head 
is in the sand – a common look for conspiracy theorists.
He then posted the same dreaded Popular Mechanics link, which
I doubt he has even read. What would these people do without it?
McKee: I’ve already addressed this link, Julien. If you want to tell 
me I’m wrong about 9/11, make an argument. Tell me why you 
believe the official account. Challenge something I’ve said. 
Slapping a link down doesn’t cut it. Popular Mechanics was refuted 
by David Ray Griffin in his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking. Did 
you know PM [actually it was PM’s editor-in-chief James Meigs] 
claims the wings of the Pentagon plane were sheared off? Odd 
since they were never seen again.





At this point, Feldman thought it would be good strategy to toss out
a lot of ridiculous and easily-refuted attacks on Griffin.
Feldman: Craig, Griffin wrote the book, but debunking he did not do. 
The book was ridiculous and the debunking an abject failure.
McKee: Give me a specific, Julien.
Feldman: How about, who is this hack polemicist – without being 
chemist or structural engineer, nevertheless feels entitled to go 
beyond hypotheses and make authoritative judgements about the 
events of 9/11 being at odds with the official story?!
McKee: Are you a chemist or a structural engineer, Julien? And yet 
you have an opinion…
Feldman: I’m not making any judgments other than to observe
that your retired religion prof pretends to “debunk” serious 
investigations. None of the facts raised in the technical report 
appear to be any use to your man of little faith.
McKee: For example? What did he say that isn’t right?
Feldman: In a way it’s not surprising that a man of faith is 
comfortable denying science while attacking scientists as 
politically motivated and venal. That’s standard operating 
procedure on the American right.
McKee: Stop, Julien. Jesus. He’s not part of the right and he 
is not denying science. His books are meticulous about the 
evidence, including the science. Do you know anything about 
this man? His new book is called Bush and Cheney: How
They Ruined America and the World. Sound like a right winger 
to you?
McKee: I’m still waiting for one person on this post to offer 
even one specific point on 9/11. But no one can. All distractions 
and innuendos.
Feldman: Craig, your reaction to the Bldg. 7 report reveals you 
as completely alienated from the scientific idea — the notion 
that objective assessment of evidence is the way to understand 
the world.
You have to hand it to this guy. He has the balls to accuse ME
of being alienated from science and objective evidence while
being completely incapable of offering a single coherent thought
on either one.
McKee: How so? Give me a specific, Julien. I’ve asked you to do 
that several times now, and all I get is empty accusations with 
no substance.
Feldman: A serious investigation such as the one your conspiracy 
leader allegedly debunks – should be taken seriously and its 
findings analyzed. Griffin, on the other hand, focuses on opinion 
polls!
McKee: That’s false, Julien. He mentions polls but he does not 
focus on them. Have you read his book? Do you have EVEN ONE 
specific point to make about Griffin’s analysis? You obviously
don’t or you would have made it by now.
Feldman: History reveals a general consensus that Bush and 
Cheney exploited 9/11 to support their political agenda, start 
disastrous wars, etc., but Griffin’s actual (and wholly unnecessary) 
claim – in fact, referencing the same historical events – is that they 
*masterminded* 9/11. He launches into a search for physical 
clues to support the ludicrous claims of the 9/11 Truther 
movement – as if his pedestrian political theories need a 
dramatic theory to jazz ’em up.
McKee: Claims are not necessary or unnecessary, they are true 
or false. He does not “launch into a search for physical clues,” 
he looks at the official story in detail and shows where the evidence 
is contradictory and where government claims are simply impossible. 
But I guess that if you stay away from specifics – like you do – then 
it’s easy to take shots because you don’t have to support anything 
you’re saying. But I think people see through that.
Feldman: The specifics are in the Bldg 7 report. Griffin’s fake 
news is irrelevant invention and fabrication. A nice retirement 
hobby, perhaps.
McKee: That is fucking bullshit. Griffin does not peddle fake news. 
You throw words around very recklessly. What has he fabricated? 
What has he invented? What has he said that is irrelevant? Either 
back up your bogus claims or pack it in.
Sorry for the language but it reflects exactly how I felt about these
charges. I bet you can’t wait to hear what proof Feldman offered…
Feldman: I’m not making a claim at all, merely suggesting that the 
Bldg 7 report sticks to facts, while Griffin’s ambitious inquiry – 
designed to underpin a cult-like ideology, – is more suited to the 
concept of “bogus”.
The concept of bogus?



McKee: The building 7 NIST report is completely unscientific. 
It was even disavowed by a former NIST engineer named Peter 
Michael Ketcham, who now supports the 9/11 Truth Movement. 
So you’re wrong about that. And you have just added more empty 
assertions that you can’t back up about Griffin’s work. “Designed 
to underpin a cult-like ideology”? That sounds like gibberish to 
me. Again, you offer no specific point where Griffin is “bogus.” 
But no worries; I’ve adjusted my expectations so low now that 
you are guaranteed to meet them every time.
McKee: I’ll ask again: What has he invented? What has he fabricated?
A gentleman named Tim Rideout interjected a comment at this point
 that I got a smile out of: “Omg. Best. Thread. Ever. The Internets t
hank you all for your contributions.”
Feldman: The WTC 7 NIST report resulted in more than 20 changes 
in the U.S. model building and fire codes which have already been 
 adopted based on the findings and recommendations from the 
investigation. I suppose Griffin would recommend that future tenants 
forego any safety concerns and measures other than arrest of the 
government conspirators.
McKee: Julien, no one is going to have a problem with improved 
safety codes, but in this case any changes are based on a false
premise that fire and faulty construction brought Building 7 down. 
The buildings were brought down with explosives, which your 
precious NIST admitted they never investigated. (By the way, how 
do you explain the presence of molten metal under all three towers
for three months after 9/11, along with the presence of unignited 
thermite and tons of iron microspheres in the dust that are a bi-
product of a thermite reaction? In the Deutsche Bank Building, 
almost 6% of the dust that entered from the towers’ destruction 
was iron microspheres.) Your supposition about Griffin is once
again both false and irrelevant. Too bad you have to attack him 
for words you put in his mouth instead of addressing what he
actually has said. You seem incapable of dealing with actual facts. 
And your claim that Griffin invents and fabricates evidence is 
clearly invented and/or fabricated itself. I’m still waiting for 
you to provide an example of something he has fabricated.
Feldman: There’s no actual evidence of any kind government 
conspiracy. Plenty of evidence was found of the hijackers’ 
conspiracy – and subsequently, the crude effort to fabricate 
a case for war involving claims of Iraq’s alleged WMD program.
McKee: And the claim that there is no evidence of a government 
conspiracy is laughable. To take one example of hundreds, we 
know that the surveillance video from the Pentagon was doctored 
because two synchronized camera views from almost identical angles 
show exactly the same thing EXCEPT in the frame where the alleged 
“plane” appears. In every other frame we know they are synchronized 
because the smoke cloud is precisely the same shape. As to the 
hijackers, their identities changed multiple times, and we cannot 
look at who was on the plane because the official flight manifests
have been kept secret. In fact, there is no proof that any of the 19 
accused ever boarded any of the planes.
Feldman: That’s not evidence, just more speculation!
McKee: Doctored video is speculation? How so? As for the “hijackers”: 
these  19 men have been accused of mass murder. Don’t you think 
there should be proof they were on the planes? If you were accused 
of mass murder, wouldn’t you expect someone to prove you were 
even at the scene of the crime?
Feldman: It’s speculation that it’s “doctored”. As detectives, 
conspiracy theorists are notoriously lazy. Where there’s no 
evidence you just make it up. No problem, as the entire theory 
of the case is a fabrication anyways.
We’re notoriously lazy says the man who hasn’t done enough
research to be able to make a single specific point about 9/11
or about Griffin’s work.
McKee: Again, Julien, you prove that it is YOU who is lazy and 
you who simply fabricates. In fact, you just lie. Tell me what e
vidence I have ever made up! Tell me what evidence Griffin has 
made up. Show some integrity. Here is my article discussing the 
evidence for doctored video.
McKee: And how can a theory be a fabrication? Never mind. Tell 
us one example of evidence that I, or Griffin, or Murray, has “made 
up.” Just one example.
Feldman: Virtually everything underpinning the “theory” is a 
fabrication. It’s a theory looking for evidence. Where it finds none, 
it’s made up from whole cloth! The “doctored” video, for example – 
or Dr. Jones’ WTC dust.
McKee: If virtually everything is a fabrication, then you should be 
able to give examples and tell us why they are fabrications. Why is 
the video a fabrication? And please back up your new unsubstantiated 
claim that Steven Jones’s evidence is made up. Can you? No, I didn’t 
think so.
McKee: Watching you flail away with broad attacks that have no meaning 
is embarrassing. I’m embarrassed for you.
Feldman: Asking the sane world to disprove inane absurdities is as 
ridiculous as it sounds.
McKee: Thank you, Julien, for continuing to illustrate my points so well. 
But all you and the other “sane” people have to do is prove your own story. 
But you can’t, so you rely on silly sentences like the one you just posted. 
You are twisting yourself in knots to avoid addressing any of the hundreds 
of legitimate questions about 9/11. Is it an inane absurdity to ask how 
Building 7 came down when it wasn’t hit by a plane? We can’t even ask the 
question without being called names? But I understand: if my knowledge 
was as poor as yours, I’d look for distractions too.
Feldman came back the next day, showing that Google searching is among
his skills. He started with a link to the pointless video of a guy showing
how he can bend steel rods by heating them up. (Here is Richard Gage’s
take-off on that video.)
Feldman: Here’s a detail that shows how flimsy most conspiracies really are: 
a waste of time.
He then posted a long quote that he called “moronic” from Griffin that addressed
the issue of whether steel melted or just weakened. But again he would not, or
could not, say why it is moronic.
Feldman (quoting Griffin): “There have been claims, to be sure, that the fires 
were very hot. Some television specials claimed that the towers collapsed 
because the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. For example, an early 
BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as saying: “steel melts, and 24,000 
gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel.” Another man, presented as a 
structural engineer, said: “It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s 
nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount 
of fuel burning. . . . The columns would have melted” (Barter, 2001).[7]
These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until 
it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit.[8] And yet open fires fueled by 
hydrocarbons, such as kerosene—which is what jet fuel is—can at most rise 
to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.[9] 
We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their 
steel columns melted.[10]
Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. 
They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so 
much of its strength that it buckled.[11] For example, Thomas Eagar, saying 
that steel loses 80 percent of its strength when it is heated to 1,300˚F, argues 
that this is what happened. But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would 
have still had to be pretty hot.”
At the time I responded to the use of this quote, I didn’t know where it was
from or what the context was. But I tracked it down and found it in an essay
of Griffin’s called “The destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the official
account cannot be true” that appeared in the Paul Zarembka edited volume  
The Hidden History of 9-11. When I read the passage in the essay, in context,
I realized why Feldman stopped quoting where he did.




Here is the paragraph that immediately followed “But for even this claim
to be plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot”:
“But they were not. Claims have been made as we have seen, about the
jet fuel. Much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs
produced when the planes hit the buildings, and the rest was gone
within 10 minutes, after which the flames died down. Photographs
of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and
lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas
Eager, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only
about 1,200 or 1,300 degrees F.”
Did Feldman just grab a random chunk of one of Griffin’s essays, or
did he choose this one and end it where he did to deliberately
mislead? [Griffin’s footnote here points out that Shyam Sunder, the
lead investigator for the NIST report, said that the jet fuel fires
“probably burned out in less than 10 minutes,” and that the NIST
report itself noted on page 179 that, “The initial jet fuel fires
themselves lasted at most a few minutes.”] Anyway, back to my real
time response:
McKee: Ah, Julien, you’re back! And after being incapable of 
making a single actual point the other day, you’ve done some frantic 
Googling, and now, armed with a quote from David Ray Griffin and 
the word “moronic” you’re ready to salvage your non-existent 
arguments. But this attempt just further confirms that you don’t 
know anything about the evidence. First of all, it was 9/11 
Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton who told [the CBC’s] Evan 
Solomon in 2006 that the steel in the towers melted and didn’t 
just lose strength.
Second, there is the problem of the molten metal seen pouring 
from one of the towers (lots of video available on that) and also 
reported by many sources under all three towers. The fires under 
the buildings were so hot that it took firefighters three months 
to extinguish them. They were in fact vastly hotter than anything 
that could be produced by jet fuel and burning office materials. 
And keep in mind that Building 7 was not hit by a plane and so 
molten metal there was not even helped along by jet fuel. The 
other day I mentioned the billions of iron microspheres that 
could only be produced by the cooling in air of molten iron. I 
also  mentioned the presence in the dust of traces of thermite 
(nanothermite, actually). What do your Googling skills tells you 
caused all of that? And how did damage near the top of the 
building lead to the top section crushing the bottom four-fifths 
of the building?
There have been many high-rise fires that have engulfed 
buildings and burned for many hours without collapsing. And 
yet it took the South Tower just 56 minutes for its steel to 
“lose strength.” The only three skyscrapers in history to collapse 
because of fire happened on that day. And it is the official account, 
by the way, that says that the plane impacts did not play a 
significant role. And did I mention that Building 7 was not hit 
by a plane?
Feldman: Lol. The report on Bldg. 7 mentions in passing what 
happens when when [sic] steel structural members failed!
McKee: Not only is your sentence unclear, but your use of an 
exclamation point is a mystery. As is the reason for you laughing 
out loud.
Feldman: As in, the building collapsed. Lol, as in, your conspiratorial 
refutations are as delusional as they are absurd.
McKee: …  Tell me, what in my refutations was either delusional or 
absurd? Can you respond to the points with actual arguments? What 
created molten metal that remained molten for three months? How 
did the building fall as quickly as if it were falling through air? Did 
you know that NIST, authors of your precious Building 7 report, 
admitted that the building fell at free fall for the first 2.25 seconds? 
How can that happen without something removing  the structural 
support? If my arguments are “absurd” then it shouldn’t be hard 
for you to refute them…
He did not refute them. He did not make any points about 9/11. He
offered no analysis, no evidence of his own. Nothing.
And that is the usual pattern. Those who aggressively support the
official narrative—like many journalists, academics, and others—will
very rarely discuss actual evidence. First of all, they’re usually
unfamiliar with it. They will replace knowledge with “attitude.” They
will try to get others to believe that they are responding to theories
that are so outlandish they do not merit serious responses. So
instead, they condescend and mock and ridicule.
In this discussion, I raised the free-fall of the towers; the symmetrical
“collapse” of Building 7, along with its isolated and short-lived fires;
the molten metal under all three towers that remained that way for
three months; the doctored Pentagon video; the disappearing wings
of “Flight 77”; the alleged hijackers who can’t be proven to have
boarded any planes; and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. And I was
prepared to go into any number of other elements of the bogus 9/11
official story. (How about the incredible plane that buried itself in a
field in Shanksville while creating a debris field eight miles away?)
But I would not have received a straight answer to any of those either.
On the other side the ledger we heard that conspiracy theorists are
fixated obsessed nut bar crazies who make ludicrous arguments, are
notoriously lazy, commonly bury their heads in the sand, reorganize
facts to serve the conspiracy, and make up their whole case “out of
whole cloth.” What scares me isn’t that people even make these kinds
of empty accusations, what scares me are those who think this is all
you have to do to dismiss questions about 9/11 and other false flags.
It would be bad enough if Feldman made these simple-minded non-
arguments because he just had to distract people from the fact that he
was getting his ass kicked. But I’m not convinced he isn’t pleased as
punch about how he set me, and David Ray Griffin, straight. That’s the
really disturbing part.
I’m reminded of Al Franken’s old Saturday Night Live impression of
Senator Paul Simon who thought to himself during a debate of
Democratic presidential hopefuls, “I think I scored big with the bow tie.”
I rarely hear journalists mocking 9/11 “conspiracy kooks” who don’t
think they scored big with the bow tie.