Conspiracy Gatekeepers promote hoaxes

a mixture of sincere (but wrong) advocates and deliberate disinformers - whatever the motives, it's not truthful to lie

note: this page is an archive page and has not been updated in a few years - the players may change but the pattern stays the same

related page:

on this page:

Some sites promoting 9/11 hoaxes that supposedly expose official complicity are well-meaning efforts. The most effective covert operations are when the plotters are able to get outside forces (in this case, some of the 9/11 skeptics) to do their work for them without realizing that they are helping the covert operation.

It seems that some people have let the "no plane" meme travel for SO long that to backtrack on this point would be very difficult. Those who have staked their credibility in public about this find it hard to admit they were fooled.

Rumsfeld's "Pentagon missile" hoax has been debunked countless times by the media, eyewitnesses and even the 9/11 truth movement's best writers and investigators. But most groups that market themselves as "9/11 truth" still promote this disinformation, although in some cases their support is incompetent analysis not malice.

The "no Boeing at the Pentagon" theories became the most prominent claim from the "9/11 truth movment" in 2004 and 2005 -- due to a combination of flashy presentations making this claim that have led to media attacks that focus almost exclusively on this claim (while ignoring others with solid evidence). This effort to promote - and discredit - the "no plane" claim came during a tightly contested Presidential election campaign that risked having 9/11 issues disrupt the outcome. It also increased in intensity as the 9/11 skeptics increased their visibility through the Deception Dollar campaign, the March 2004 and May 2004 International Inquiries into 9/11 and other outreach efforts that reached significant percentages of the political opposition (in one form or another).

How united is the loose conglomeration roughly called the "9/11 truth movement?" There aren't any objective criteria required for claiming participation in it. There aren't any tests that one must pass in order to become a member. It is technically easy and inexpensive for anyone to create a website to say anything -- and there are many ways to mix real information with untruths in order to create the illusion of authenticity.

While nearly everyone who is a skeptic about the events of 9/11 is united in thinking that there was a deliberate effort by the Bush administration to allow it to happen, that is the main point of unity. Rigorous Intuition, written by Canadian author Jeff Wells, calls this claim "the flying wedge," since it is one of the most divisive issues among activists seeking to shift public consciousness about the "event that changed the world."

There are a variety of perspectives on the degree of technical assistance provided by the Bush regime to facilitate the attacks, some with considerable evidence, others without documentation. Some of this disagreement is among people with good intention, but not everyone uses the same standards to prove their claims.

It would be an oversimplification to judge "9/11 truth" advocates for or against this theory by their support for other claims regarding 9/11. But looking at other issues, good and bad, surrounding 9/11 truth activism does reveal patterns.

Those who don't buy the "no plane" claims are generally those who are familiar with the geography of the Washington, D.C. area, understand Peak Oil was a motivation, focus on the war games, and have shown an ability to engage in critical thinking to differentiate real research from crap research.

There are some sincere people who talk about war games and still believe "no plane," but those folks are generally not familiar with the geography of Arlington, and they absolutely do not talk about the 90 foot wide impact hole (caused by the engines and the bulky parts of the wings), the fact that hundreds of people saw the plane, or the motivation to keep the 9/11 skeptics divided and discredited.

It is ironic that the no plane promoters urge people to ignore the hundreds of eyewitnesses to the crash of Flight 77 even while recommending that alleged eyewitness testimonies that the Twin Towers were supposedly demolished with explosives.

The loudest promoters of the "no plane" hoax generally also pushes even more absurd claims -- missiles hit the WTC, the Moon Landings were faked, and Holocaust denial.

9/11 truth activists who know the "No plane" claims are a hoax

9/11 activists familiar with northern Virginia's geography

nearly all reject the "no Boeing" theories, especially those who are not far removed from knowing eyewitnesses. The various "no plane / no Boeing" theories reflect a lack of knowledge of the northern Virginia area -- it is hard to imagine that anyone who has been stuck in traffic on the nearby roads during morning rush hour (and seen the incredible flood of cars) would believe that a missile or small plane somehow was mistaken for a large Boeing 757. It is also illogical to assume that the perpetrators would have risked flying something other than Flight 77 over this densely populated area (since a single photo would have exposed the plot).

In January 2006, published a claim that someone on the Washington Metro heard other passengers exclaiming that they had seen the Pentagon Missile while waiting for a train at the Pentagon Metro station -- which is underground (and therefore a plane or missile or anything else would not be visible in the subway station). Anyone familiar with this subway system would not have published this claim since it is obviously false.

9/11 activists focused on the war games and suppressed warnings

many, if not most reject the "no Boeing" theories
Some sincere 9/11 truth activists who support the work of Mike Ruppert and other credible writers on the war games issues still support the "no Boeing" theories.

9/11 skeptics who discuss Peak Oil as a motivation for Bush administration decision to allow the attacks

many, if not most, reject or ignore the "no Boeing" theories
there are some who accept Peak Oil and also think "no plane" is real
there are a few who deny Peak Oil but also reject the "no Boeing" claims.
These include those who don't think Peak Oil will be catastrophic due to the extistence of renewable energy, biofuels and suppressed energy technologies, and others who reject Peak Oil due to the pedigree of some of the experts in the field (some have oil industry connections).

ultra-fringe claims

Moon landing was a hoax

There are a few 9/11 "truth" activists who promote the idea that the 1969 Moon landing did not happen. An excellent deconstruction of this nonsense is at

It is curious that the ultra-right-wing Fox TV aired "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" a show in February 2001 supposedly boosting the interest in this claim -- which is in turn used by the media to show how kooky people who believe in conspiracies supposedly are. Is this a serious effort to report on kooky ideas, or a fake show to promote the idea that "conspiracy theorists" really believe this stuff.

Holocaust Denial

A few voices claiming to support "9/11 truth" also promote Holocaust Denial. The distortion, lies and omissions of Holocaust Denial promoters is psychologically similar to the misinformation techniques of the no plane hoaxes (ignoring eyewitnesses, ignoring physical evidence, ignoring common sense and basic logic).


a short list of "no plane" promoters
911 Citizens Commission
(a booklet published by In Plane Site promoters to distract from the 9/11 Citizens Commission held 9/9/2004 in New York City) / / and (rival groups, both promote "no planes") / barnesreview / davidduke (organizer of Scholars for Truth about 9/11) - Center for an Informed America (CIA) (Painful Questions / Painful Deceptions) / /
Loose Change
Morgan Reynolds
Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth
Patriots Question 911
Pentagon Strike
Pilots for 911 Truth (Jimmy Walter)
Réseau Voltaire (Thierry Meyssan's Voltaire Network)
Scholars for Truth about 9/11 (creator of the "Pentagon Strike" no plane film)
team8plus (original "no plane hit WTC" site)
World Independent News Group (Wing TV)
No-757-at-Pentagon supporters (mid 2005)

A list of 27 supporters of the "no plane" hoax, including some who are probably sincere, some whose intentions are questionable, and some who may just be internet personas.


Bush II era "whistleblowers" promote "no planes on 9/11"
Married to the Octopus

Sometimes you can tell a conspiracy by the high grade of disinformation that accrues about it, including the number and quality of shadowy "renegade insiders" eager to step up, speak out and muddy the waters.

The Bush era whistleblowers who worked for G. W. Bush promote the "no plane" hoaxes:

Fred Burks, former Presidential interpretor, runs website. Received widespread coverage of his decision to quit the State Department during the Bush-Kerry election campaign. Want To Know promotes the "no plane hit Pentagon" hoax, promotes the "Pentagon Strike" and "Loose Change" hoax films. Perhaps most disturbing is Want to Know's simultaneous promotion of Holocaust denial websites as credible sources (a subtle form of discrediting 9/11 truth) while promoting ersatz motivational websites ("moment of love: every person in the world has a heart," "moment of love," "inspiring community").

Morgan Reynolds, economist for the Labor Department during GWB's first term. Reynolds promotes "no planes" for all four 9/11 crashes. While there are many sincere skeptics on 9/11 issues who still believe there is validity (or uncertainty) regarding the claims that Flight 77 supposedly did not hit the Pentagon, virtually no one believes the claims of "smaller planes hit WTC" and "no plane crashed in Pennsylvania." One hopes that a relatively senior member of the Bush administration would do their homework before making public pronouncements, if they are sincere in their statements.

Fox TV selects Mr. Reynolds as representative of the 9/11 truth movement despite (or because of) his promotion of "no planes anywhere" nonsense.

The Controlled Demolition of David Shayler?

[Mr. Shayler is an alleged whistleblower from British "intelligence" - the MI-5 - who has become a primary spokesperson for 9/11 truth in Britain. He promotes the "no planes anywhere" hoaxes, holograms used to mask missiles and even now proclaims that he is the Messiah. Is is crazy, or the British version of COINTELPRO?]
Shayler on mainstream UK News - "I'm the Messiah"



truth movement members expose false claims

I need to be more vigilant when mentioning alleged 9/11 "truth" researchers. This area of inquiry has more lunatics, plants, cranks and freaks associated with it than the UFO community.
-- Kevin Flaherty,
Jane Christensen: Holocaust Denial and 9/11 Investigation - March 17, 2005

regarding a college professor mixing racism and 9/11 "investigation"
Thoughts on the Pentagon strike theories

This is the succession of people who promoted no-757-at-the-Pentagon:

  • Thierry Meyssan publishes a book that focuses on no-757, and so gets the ball rolling - in the wrong direction.
  • Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, "accidentally" says that the object that hit the Pentagon was a missile.
  • Phil Jayhan start propagating no-757.
  • Dave vonKleist publishes the most flawed widespread 9/11 video, In Plane Site. Even the name is stupid. (On the DVD cover there's a photo that had been used earlier to debunk one of the baseless claims mentioned in the film, a fact that is rather interesting.)
  • Karl Schwarz pulls his bogus 'it was an A3 Skywarrior' theory out of thin air.
  • Avery/Rowe/Bermas release Loose Change, a very successful video that heavily promotes no-757.

It would be most surprising if nobody on that list was a disinfo agent.

note: this is relatively accurate, although Rumsfeld made his "missile" statement before Meyssan's book - but the same week that Meyssan first started up his "no plane" website. There are others who helped usher along the missile meme -
see The Complete "No Planes on 9/11" Timeline for details.

chart showing connections between James Fetzer's "Scholars for Truth" campaign, 9/11 Eyewitness, WingTV and some others promoting easily discreted nonsense

9/11 truth group pointing out false claims

Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 07:49 AM by bronco2121
i know it has become unpopular (for some reason) on DU to criticize the new direction of the... well, i wouldn't call it the '9/11 truth movement' anymore - it's now more like the 'big tent 9/11 anything-coulda-happened movement'.
so if you're the kind whose eyes might bleed if you read anything critical of either the 'scholars for 9/11 truth' or the happy shiny music video known as 'loose change'... DO NOT view these URLs:

Sunday, November 12, 2006
DID YOU HEAR? For some people, being fooled is just plain fun
By Rachel Leibrock
What's your favorite hoax?

There's a sucker born every minute - or so the saying goes. But sometimes being a sucker is fun, or, at the very least, offers a revealing glimpse into who we as a society are today. ....

The Blair Witch Project
• The story: This 1999 horror flick initially was presented as a documentary. The low-budget film claimed to chronicle the story of three filmmakers who, in 1994, became lost in a forest while shooting a documentary about the subject of a local legend, the Blair Witch.
• Sticking to it? The line between truth and fiction became blurred as the film's promotional Web site - and a corresponding Sci-Fi Channel "documentary," Curse of the Blair Witch - covered the story as if it were real, ushering in a wave of what would become known as viral marketing. "Blair Witch revealed the potential of the Internet," Boese says.
• File under: "Entertainment, harmless." The Blair Witch Project grossed more than $160 million in the United States.
• Won't get fooled again? "As long as people are entertained, they don't care if they're being fooled or having a joke played on them," Boese says. "Such (hoaxes) are effective if they're funny or scary or creepy, and they get people to interact in new ways." [emphases added]

Internet sock puppet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

An Internet sock puppet is an additional account created by an existing member of an Internet community. This account allows them to pose as a completely different user, sometimes to manufacture the illusion of support in a vote or argument. Other reasons include a desire to support or vote on an issue coupled with a desire to have one's "main" account stay away from the issue. This behaviour is sometimes seen as being dishonest by online communities and as a result these individuals are often labeled as trolls. This is often done on sites like eBay in order to bid on one's own auctions, although eBay forbids the practice.
Another type of sock puppet is sometimes referred to as a “straw man sock puppet.” They are created by users with one point of view, but act as though they have an opposing point of view, in order to make that point of view look bad. They will often make poor arguments which their “opponents” can then easily refute. This can allow them to essentially make straw man arguments. Such sock puppets thus become a personification of the straw man argument which their creators argue against. They often act unintelligent or uninformed, and may behave in an overtly bigoted manner. The effect is often to obfuscate the debate and prevent a serious discussion of the arguments from each side. Suspicion of such sock puppets is often harder to verify though, as there are often people who naturally behave in such a manner with the same effects. and

promoted by the same internet personas, seem to be the same operation - a site that echoes the "webfairy" claim that a plane did not hit the WTC.

It mixes on its "links" sites with a very careful approach to the evidence with sites that are careless in their conclusions

911blogger apparently started up in mid-spring 2005, and immediately got attention for copying a video of David Ray Griffin's lecture in Madison, Wisconsin (which was broadcast on the C-Span network). 911blogger got instant credibility from many sources for this video link, and emails were soon flying across the internet promoting this site as a place to visit for excellent videos.

911blogger features prominent links to WingTV (right-wing promoters and personal attacks of 9/11 researchers Michael Ruppert and Jim Hoffman), the DVDs 'In Plane Site' and 'Loose Change,' which promote the memes of 'No Commercial Jets,' not only at the Pentagon but also at the WTC!
The 9/11 Truth Movement wouldn't even have the David Ray Griffin video had it not been for him. Try focusing on unity, and not who is disinfo and who isn't. Pointing out who is disinformation is disinformation.

It's a nice touch that the defender of their tactic suggests that 9/11 skeptics should focus on unity (generally a good idea) even though the 911blogger site is promoting fake claims that many 9/11 skeptics are united in thinking are not true.

from a friend of 911blogger:

I have been doing this a VERY long time. One of the things I've learned is that it's more important to focus on the truth, rather than who's right, and who's wrong. The fact of the matter is, there is MORE than enough evidence to reopen the investigation. As a movement, THAT'S what we should be focusing on.
If you make a conscious effort to point out who's "disinfo", then the people who come across your site that may have visited those previous sites, may question the movement in its' entirety, and that's not what we want to happen.
Since my site is affiliated with, I would appreciate it if you would take them off of your list. I know the owner, and I KNOW that he's not disinfo. He hasn't been doing this for a very long time, so he's not aware of who's right, and who's wrong. He collects all 9/11 information, and posts it on his site, regardless of where it comes from.

This vacuum cleaner approach is not the same as carefully differentiating the hoaxes from the best information, it is not journalism.

A site in praise of the webfairy hologram theory maintained by Australian Gerard Holmgren. Holmgren makes much of the alleged fact that a government database didn't show the hijacked flights as completed flights -- so therefore, the planes didn't exist. The fact that a database might be inaccurate does not determine the nature of external reality, at least to those familiar with standards of forensic evidence. An obvious rebuttal to Holmgren's assertion is that since the planes didn't complete their flights, it might not have been appropriate to include them in a database of completed flights. Why would someone who claims to be motivated to expose official US government complicity in 9/11 make such shoddy claims? Is this explainable by an incompetence theory, or is it deliberately designed to discredit?

Holmgren's analysis of the Pentagon plane crash is circulated widely across the internet as supposed evidence for the no plane claim, but it makes serious distortions to the facts (the physical evidence and the eyewitnesses confirm that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon). Writing about events on the other side of the planet, in a place you have never visited, risks serious geographic errors.


Gerard Holmgren's brother David Holmgren is one of the co-founders of the Permaculture concept. David Holmgren's book Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability is critically important material for solutions to our global predicament at the end of cheap oil. This book also references Mike Ruppert's From the Wilderness website as an excellent reference for understanding the resource conflicts marketed as the War on Terror. David Holmgren's website is and it is much more important than anything from those shouting "no planes."

A site in praise of the webfairy hologram theory from Baltimore activist Scott Loughrey.

The website of attorney Phil Berg, former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, who rose to prominence in the 9/11 truth movement representing 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani's RICO lawsuit against Bush and others. After she withdrew from the suit, Mr Berg filed a new RICO suit on behalf of Willie Rodriguez, an employee at the WTC who survived the attacks. This RICO (Racketeering and Influence Corrupt Organizations) claim is perhaps the most problematic of any of the suits filed seeking 9/11 truths. has an excellent analysis:

In this critique of the complaint we point out some of the flaws with this lawsuit, which include:

Since receiving intense criticism of the fake claims in this RICO suit from 9/11 truth activists who previously had supported the Mariani v. Bush suit, Berg has promised to remove the "missiles fired at WTC and Pentagon" hoaxes. However, it is unlikely that all of the problems in this suit will be rectified, and even if they are, the question must be asked why a very professional attorney who had been one of the top lawyers for one of the country's larger states would file such as a sloppy lawsuit that could easily be thrown out of court for its obviously fake claims inserted into the middle of the complaint.

Whether this new suit is legal malpractice or a deceitful effort to have the case dismissed "with prejudice" (which would prevent others from filing the same claims), this case is worth ignoring and hopefully will be withdrawn. (also mirrored at and

The film "9/11: In Plane Site" is a slick production that includes most of the red herrings and hoaxes that have distracted the 9/11 Truth Movement. Detailed reviews are at

This film, released a few months before the 2004 Presidential Election, is a conglomeration of most of the red herrings surrounding the 9/11 truth movement. Nearly every piece of "evidence" in it is wrong, even if the conclusion ("inside job") is correct. "Plane Site" includes hoaxes, misinterpreted evidence, logical leaps unsupported by evidence, and some footage that is almost certainly completely fraudulent. The video clips that can be proven to be authentic are merely those plagiarized from other films, such as the WTC 7 collapse, the firefighter sequence, and the footage from Oklahoma City.

In Plane Site only promotes the "Letsroll911" website (the loudest promoter of the "pod" claim), which means that "In Plane Site" is probably a "Webfairy" production (the video operation that made "new" videos of 9/11 years after the fact).

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of this fake film is that the cover graphic shows the same photo of a Boeing 757 that was posted to the "911truthalliance" list in May 2004 pointing out that the "pod" was merely an illusion.

The manufacturers of "Plane Site" put a photo showing the "pod" is a fake claim on the cover of the DVD -- a bad joke "hidden in plain sight.

A site promoted in July 2005 for an event in Los Angeles with the producer of a film called "Loose Change" (a regurgitation of the In Plane Site hoaxes) and William Rodriguez, whose RICO suit against George W. Bush, et al, promotes the fake Plane Site claims. The only contact provided to reach this site is a pseudonymous email account and a telephone number in northern Virginia. The website states:

Many thanks to Director Paul Koslo of The Met Theatre for his generous and inspired co-hosting of "9/11 Mysteries," to Managing Editor Chris Petherick of American Free Press for its sponsorship, and to Producer Christine Blosdale of KPFK 90.7 Los Angeles for her dedicated promotion of this event

It is odd that left-wing KPFK / Pacifica Radio would promote an event from American Free Press, which works with KKK leader David Duke and promotes Holocaust Denial.

The mysteries website states that The show goes to Hollywood! - but it seems likely that someone IN Hollywood is crafting these science fiction stories.

the best analysis is at, authored by the webmaster of, which is the best "physical evidence of 9/11" website

An effort that promotes some of the best and worst books and films about 9/11. The owner of that site stated that was one of the best truth sites until it became more vocal in pointing out how the "no plane hit Pentagon" hoax was being used to discredit and distract from the real evidence.

A gossip column supposedly covering the 9/11 Truth Movement, yet it spends as much energy covering the red herrings and the "pod people" sites as the real efforts of those doing work to uncover verifiable evidence and do productive political organizing. This site claims that people who deny the reality of finite oil supplies are "progressive oil researchers" (even though the people referenced know little, if anything about petroleum geology, agriculture, energy, or other related topics), and those who point out that the "pod" claims are bogus are conducting a "smear campaign against 9/11 scientists." It's working hard to promote strange attacks on hard working volunteers, to consider evidence-less theories as somehow equal to carefully documented material, and to promote a variety of snide insults masquerading as a news report. One of its favorite tactics is to pretend that there's a big split among 9/11 skeptics whether 9/11 was allowed to happen or engineered by the Bush / Cheney regime, but the real split is between those seeking to be accurate in their analyses, and those promoting disproved material such as the "pod plane" silliness.

The author of this "blog" apparently co-created the so-called 9/11 Science and Justice Alliance, which is apparently a centralized clearinghouse for 9/11 conspiracy red herrings. This alleged "alliance" created a flyer on 9/11/2004 (archived at and, two sites promoting the "no Pentagon plane" and "pod" hoaxes) that is one of the least readable contributions toward 9/11 skepticism.

One positive contribution from this site:

In Plane Site
The ongoing success of Dave v. Kleist's video (which received most of his sources from Phil Jayhan's

It's useful to learn that the "planesite" film is largely based on the "letsroll" site, which in turn had much of its work performed by the discredited "webfairy" video site. In Plane Site = Let's Roll 911 = The Webfairy

Some of the bogus 9/11 websites, if you trace back their intellectual framework, and in some cases, their "mirror" sites, are probable candidates for being part of the "webfairy" site (an effort that started by promoting the ludicrous idea that the first 9/11 plane was really a missile masked by a King Kong sized hologram). These "webfairy" type websites proliferated and multiplied (with increasing numbers of allied website domains) through the 2004 election season, which was somewhat effective at dampening down the political impact of the 9/11 truth movement. Their "in plane site" production is much more slick and sophisticated than the easily dismissed "webfairy" site.

Update March 2005:
The 911-strike site has retracted some of its claims for no plane.

One of the earliest 9/11 sites, it has also dramatically declined in quality since its early days (after it established its bona fides). It was one of the first sites to include some of the evidence for remote control technology on 9/11, and has a good article about the Reichstag Fire posted.

Unfortunately, 911strike, published by an electronics engineer named Jerry Russell, promotes the pod people campaign, although without bothering to cite any actual evidence for these claims (he merely recycles mention of the various pod people sites, including the phony amics21 site listed above). It is interesting that nearly all of the 9/11 enthusiasts who proclaim support for this fiction are male, and it is likely that they are all people whose enthusiasm gets in the way of their fact checking abilities. It is definitely a male ego problem when people get very self righteous about their points of view, and are unable to admit error. (Russell claims to be a scientist, yet the supporters of the "pod plane" myth strenuously refuse any peer review.)

911strike also engages in "snitch jacketing" - the false accusation that someone is an agent provocateur. Mr. Russell makes evidence-less claims that Michael Ruppert ( is an agent, which is a very disruptive tactic used to wreck social movements. This sort of paranoia has disrupted countless organizations.

Mr. Russell tried to disrupt the International Inquiry into 9/11 in San Francisco in March 2004, threatening to sue the organizers for daring to put Michael Ruppert on the stage. Considering that Ruppert has done more work to expose 9/11 than probably any other investigator, it was reasonable to expect him to appear at the conference. Worse, Mr. Russell formerly had great praise for Mike's work, but perhaps this is a case of jealousy (Mike is getting more attention than he is). Whatever the ultimate cause(s), this sort of dysfunction is extremely toxic to effective organizing. (The threats to file a lawsuit against a conference that someone else was organizing is a form of misusing the judicial system to harass people, which is illegal and ridiculous.)

911strike's support for the pod people and his snitch-jacket accusations pale in comparison with his outrageous, racist nonsense about the Holocaust. 911strike links to neo-Nazi pseudo historians who claim that the Jews all emgrated from Poland to behind the German/Russian lines at the start of World War Two, so the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated by "the Jews" in order to justify their land grab in Palestine. This is so disgusting it probably doesn't need much of a refutation, but it is sad to see anyone so monstrously wrong about their understanding of history. See for factual material on the Holocaust, one of the greatest crimes of human history. Linking Holocaust denial and 9/11 serves the interests of the "inside job" perpetrators, since this connection serves to alienate nearly everyone from looking at the actual evidence for 9/11 complicity. So who benefits from calling Mike Ruppert a CIA agent, fellow writers "paranoid" for pointing out the pod is fiction, and that Holocaust revisionism is legitimate inquiry? It certainly isn't the 9/11 truth movement.

Created by Los Angeles resident Lynn Pentz, this site promotes the standard mix of real evidence and disinformation. Most notable for its sponsorship of showings of In Plane Site, Loose Change (a "sequel" to Plane Site), and two bizarre "Grand Jury" events that included several writers promoting numerous fake claims. Her October 2004 "Grand Jury" had no effort to evaluate the quality of alleged evidence, and as a result, two of the presenters -- Christopher Bollyn of American Free Press, and Navy employee Barbara Honegger -- mostly promoted hoaxes. Mr. Bollyn's presentation focused on the fake claims (no planes, etc), and Ms. Honegger claimed that Richard Reid (the "shoe bomber") was really Osama, a position that is either extremely incompetent or a deliberate effort to promote disinformation. One of the presenters at the alleged "Grand Jury" had to spend much of his alloted time refuting the nonsense that was being introduced, and fortunately was able to prevent the alleged Jurists from signing on to the fake claims. /

The "American Free Press" is an ultra-right-wing newspaper that also publishes the "Barnes Review," a neo-Nazi holocaust denial publication and website that has praised Hitler as worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize and sells a variety of obnoxious books that pretend the Holocaust did not happen. The so-called AFP has created a number of hoaxes (the "no plane crash in Pennsylvania" claim, possibly the "Building 6 explosion" hoax) and has been promoting others, such as "no plane crash at the Pentagon."

AFP also works closely with KKK leader David Duke (by their own admission). Barnes is named after a relatively prominent supporter of Holocaust denial. profile of Willis Carto, famous American neo-Nazi who founded AFP/Barnes Barnes Review says Hitler deserved the Nobel Peace Prize (this page does not seem to be on their website anymore - perhaps it is not the publicity that they want?) report on a neo-nazi conference in Europe that included American Free Press

A site that is long on invective toward nearly everyone who is organizing to expose 9/11, and short on evidence and articles that explain the cover-ups. Perhaps it is merely jealousy, but it is a really petty site that distracts in its gossip-mongering. One creepy article is called "The Creepy Sides of the 911 Truth Movement" -- relentlessly attacking people who work hard for no pay. The author tried to convince the webmaster of this website in March 2004 that hard working volunteers for 9/11 Visibility were really government agents (without even the slightest evidence for the accusation) and that petroleum was not really a finite material and therefore to talk about Peak Oil was to be a shill of the oil companies. However, the "Angie" person showed herself to be remarkably unfamiliar with energy issues, the use of oil in agriculture, the interrelationships of energy, ecology and economy. It is certainly true that there are some "creepy" people infiltrating the 9/11 exposure efforts, but snotty, jealous commentaries that contribute very little to the collective sum of human understanding aren't likely to teach people how to differentiate writing that are carefully constructed from those that are likely disinformation or merely incompetent. Perhaps her inability to recognize the reality of Peak Oil is rooted in a denial that is very convenient to rely upon while living in New York City, a metropolis totally dependent on massive amounts of energy to transport its food over very long distances. In fact, it is hard to find anyone who the author respects -- it is basically a rant that attacks nearly everyone whose efforts seem to get some public support. Worse, it obfuscates on critical points, in particular claiming that the issue of the "wargames" is merely propaganda being "sold" (but refuses to deal with the facts).

a website publishing 9/11 articles by Greg Syzmanski

Syzmanski is typically published by American Free Press. Here's how Syzmanski's website describes AFP:

"American Free Press The grandfather of all alternative newspapers. This insightful publication prints news you can't get from the mainstream, corporate-driven media. Take a look and buy a subscription."

Syzmanski's associated website, Arctic Beacon, states that:

"Accordingly, our intended course is formatted in a monthly, highly colorful news magazine covering but not limited to the following topics . . .
Government Secrets and Cover-ups;
Religious and Spiritual Phenomena;
Unpopular Science;
Suppressed Health Alternatives;
Legal/ Social Injustice and
Environmental Protection
Alien Presence on Earth and
UFO Phenomena."

So you can see that what's going on here, once again - sandwich in typical left causes (environment, alternative health, legal/social injustice) with UFOs and even, 'Alien Presence on Earth,' worse than just UFOs.
Here's another good one in there:

"If you think the Republic is worth saving, then donate to Public Domain Publishing . . . So join us in our fight to save the Republic by pledging your financial support to Voices of Freedom."

How many leftists do you know that refer to the US as 'the Republic,' and describe things as 'Voices of Freedom? Assuming the site is Libertarian, how many Libertarians are environmentalists and into 'legal/social justice?' Thus the site professes to be Left-oriented as far as it's goals, and lures people on the left to thinking they are being represented, but basically it puts out stories pushing rewritten nonsense about 9/11.

Here's an excerpt from the latest Syzmanski gem:

"Burn victim, Felipe David, employed by Aramark Co. and Salvatore Giambanco, a WTC office painter trapped in a basement elevator, were both unavailable for comment, but made their explosive testimony - never before released in America - to a Colombian television station in 2002 on the first anniversary of 9/11."

Both unavailable for comment. This is typical of Syzmanski - instead of real reporting, he rehashes clips from other mainstream stories and then tries to amplify them into the message he wants to send. His goal right now is to push the 'bombs in the basement' scenario on 9/11. There are a number of problems with this issue, one being that the first person involved in this, William Rodriguez, also said he saw one of the hijackers scoping the building ahead of time - that 'hijacker' turns out to be alive, according to the BBC, and so the story is tainted by this bizarre claim, which Rodriguez testified to the Omission Commission.

Rodriguez is also associated with the bogus RICO suit that promotes missiles on 9/11.

- Victoria

website of James Fetzer that promotes the "no flight 77" hoax and the claim that the Moon landings were faked in a movie studio.

Fetzer is also the primary sponsor of Scholars for Truth about 9/11, a mix of some good information and some hoaxes.
The Company We Keep
by Michael B. Green, Ph.D.
February 6, 2006

The recently announced "Scholars for 9/11 truth" is the most recent example of an outreach effort blending together quality work and sloppy support for hoaxes. The analysis listed above by psychologist Michael Green is an excellent effort to understand this phenomenon, and how it interferes with disseminating the truths of 9/11 (and related scandals).
Assassinated Science

a review of Fetzer's book "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" - Center for an Informed America (CIA)

A newsletter titled "Center for an Informed America" (CIA). The "CIA" offered accurate information about 9/11 complicity immediately after the attacks. In 2004, the "CIA" claimed that Peak Oil is not real, published numerous attacks against Michael Ruppert (without mentioning his research on the 9/11 war games), tried to disrupt planning for the International Inquiry into 9/11 (in San Francisco in March 2004), and has made extra efforts to promote the "no plane hit the Pentagon" claim even while many 9/11 Truth advocates have documented it was just a hoax.

Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Victoria Ashley"
Subject: New McGowen Article - More Personal Attacks on 9/11 Researchers Who Disagree
email excerpt:
I find writing such as this, which includes various forms of personal attacks, to be intentionally divisive and thus damaging, making me to wonder why McGowen thinks that personally attacking 9/11 researchers is a valid method to approach any sort of research, much less taking a movement forward:


'Well, I guess the jig is up. Mr. Salter, it seems, has figured out our diabolical plot.'
'Brian Salter ( posted a histrionic denunciation of Pentagon "no-plane" theorists'
[defintion of 'histrionic' - (adjective) 1 : deliberately affected : theatrical 2 : of or relating to actors, acting, or the theater Example sentence: The frustrated tourist launched into a histrionic account of his trip, shouting, moaning, waving his arms, and exaggerating every minor problem encountered
along the way]
'Two of the most aggressive of the Tattoo theorists, by the way, are Jim Hoffman and Brian Salter, both of whom were on the other side of the fence, so to speak, until fairly recently. If you have ever known someone who quit smoking and thereafter embarked on a mission to browbeat and berate every other smoker on the planet, then you have a pretty good idea of how the Tattoo theorists operate.'
'The primary strong-arm tactic of the Tattoo theorists'
'Am I the only one here who is wondering whether Mr. Judge has maybe been watching too many reruns of old Saturday Night Live skits featuring Jon Lovitz. "Yeah, John, that's it ... that's the ticket."'
'After reviewing Judge's various Pentagon rants'
'Memo to John Judge: lying isn't as easy as it may appear to be.'
'Isn't the fact that you choose to ignore his [Judge's] contributions a tacit admission that you know full well that he is lying his ass off?'
You would think that if the Pentagon attack theories were the 'straw men' that the Tattoo theorists* claim, then the 'debunkers' would be better prepared to knock those straw men down, and they would devote more print space to doing so. Instead, we find the Pentagon attack being downplayed in a major media attack on the 9-11 skeptics movement -- at the very same time, curiously enough, that a number of 9-11 skeptics have begun aggressively demanding that all "unnecessary speculation" about the Pentagon attack be dropped
*Tatoo theorist: one who claims a plane hit the Pentagon.


The issue of 'No Plane at the Pentagon' is a serious one for the movement and trying to turn the issue into a personal one is not only unnecessary and unprofessional in research, it doesn't serve our movement and attempts to divide us. I don't particularly agree with everything John Judge says, but I recognize every researcher's right to make a valid argument and not be called names or made fun of. The research itself is what will eventually bear out the validity of the theory, not the person who presents it. If our movement is to be a serious one, articles like this must be underscored as a way NOT to move forward - present your best research, don't attack our 9/11 community for the purpose of dividing and ridiculing.

[note: this "CIA" newsletter article is completely opposite of reality -- nearly all of the mass media attacks on the 9/11 skeptics have focused on the "no plane" claims in order to ridicule and discredit claims that actually have verifiable evidence -- who benefits from such distortion?]

The Alex Jones radio show seems to be an electronic vacuum cleaner that publishes virtually any claim regardless of whether there is real evidence or not. Some of the hoaxes pushed by this show include his claim that Gary Webb was stalked by government agents on his balcony before he was supposedly murdered (in reality: there wasn't a balcony on his house and his family is convinced he really did commit suicide).

Other great Jones hoaxes include
9/11 Whispers: Washington Defense Shield Deactivated Due To Wargames?
From Alex Jones's "prison planet" -- is this intentional, or merely republishing nonsense sent by hoaxers?
for REAL information on the wargames, see Mike Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon"

April 27, 2005
New Flight 175 Footage: No Pod?

Since other websites and 9/11 truth organizations began talking about the pod, this website has attempted to be balanced and air the views of both sides.

Nonsense. Infowars was pushing this long after a lot of people proved 1000% this was a hoax. In early May 2004, the 9/11 Truth Alliance list had a photo posted to it by a member that clearly showed the "pod" was a myth, a bad joke - a photo that wound up on the cover of "In Plane Site" (a "coincidence" that the movie's makers not attempted to discuss in their pathetic refutations of the extensive reviews by the 9/11 truth movement -- there is no innocent explanation for that).
Infowars is many things, but "balanced" is not one of them. Perhaps they are merely gullible, incompetent and a patsy for cointelpro disinformation (if they are sincere). People making a couple of mistakes that are corrected is one thing -- but systematically promoting hoaxes and lending credibility to people making up nonsense that is used to discredit us is not acceptable, even if they have nice rhetoric.

It is a common tactic for the government media spin machine to misdirect people's attention by getting them excited about one aspect of an issue, then later bring out evidence to debunk that aspect and thus tarnish the credibility of the entire subject.

How nice to see Jones admit this after years of other people pointing this out, using his website as an example of how this tactic works. One of the straw men used by the Popular Mechanics debunk debuted on Infowars (the claim of the identity of the pilot who might, or might not have, shot down Flight 93 - the plane was shot down, but the only evidence that the named pilot was involved was a collaboration between letsroll911 and infowars - just at the point when many people were pointing out that letsroll911 was basing its extreme claims on apparently photoshopped images).
If Alex Jones had any shame, he'd issue a BIG apology for his role in pushing hoaxes and withdraw from the spotlight. Perhaps he could return to his show after hiring some editors and fact checkers.
While many in the 9/11 truth movement have been snared by one form of disinfo or another, most have been sincerely striving to avoid them.
Does this retraction by the pod people mean that Power Hour will now issue refunds to the people who bought their fake film?

Many analysts fear this is the case with 9/11.

Infowars has been one of the worst examples of promoting fake evidence.

For example, and others postulate that the government will eventually release clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. This will then discredit an entire portion of the 9/11 truth movement and the debunkers will have a field day. It is unclear whether the movement could take a blow of this magnitude and not be significantly damaged.

Does this mean that Alex "I'll print anything" Jones is going to backtrack on the no-planes claims too?

How can Alex Jones say "In every case we trace the peak oil energy crisis crowd back to Big Oil" without naming even one of those cases?
Is Richard Heinberg connected to “Big Oil”? NO. Mike Ruppert? NO.
Of course Matt Simmons is, Colin Campbell, and many of the scientists and geologists publishing information on peak-oil. But what a HUGE, and incorrect, claim by Jones. I’m not suprised.
Jones has already referred to conservation efforts with disdain, such as "The Nightmare Kyoto Protocol," and stating that global warming is a "chicken-little debate of the sky falling" where he says the world is merely on a "natural climate-cycle" of 12,000 years.
Jones comes from a crowd that does not like the theory of evolution. They believe in Creationism. The wrongly-claimed Abiotic origin of oil fits in with this belief system –
Also it is obvious that Jones is not following the renewable energy boom at all. Goldman Sachs just bought a major wind developer, Military & Intel (including James Woolsey and others) have publicly backed renewable energy in a major way (and the mainstream media has remained eerily silent on this). Yet Jones claims alternative energy is being suppressed right when it is having its biggest boom ever.
Of course there has been suppression of technologies for decades by Big-Oil. No question. That’s because they want to make all the money.
And OF COURSE the oil industry is happy to see all of the coverage of peak-oil now. It gives yet another reason for market volatility justifying $55 oil going on up.
That doesn’t mean peak-oil isn’t true. People point to "The Club of Rome" in the 70’s – saying they helped manipulate the oil crisis that happened then for economic gains – and say this is what is happening now. Of course – to a certain degree – there will be (and are) market manipulations. There always has been. But everyone is in a disgusting, and very frightening state of denial, in not recognizing this time around, on top of the economic crisis, there is a geological crisis.
Even if there were "endless oil" that would be TERRIBLE! Global warming would lead to a much more rapid extinction of mankind from Mother Earth.
Oh, but I forgot, according to Alex Jones and the Cato Institute THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!
Everyone should watch out for Alex Jones and Jeff Rense’s spin. Check out what links to as a permanent link on their left tool bar.
Russia Proves ‘Peak Oil’ A Misleading Zionist Scam
FTW warned about this in October of last year when we published Ugo Bardi’s masterpiece ABIOTIC OIL: SCIENCE OR POLITICS
Ugo states:

So, the abiotic oil theory is irrelevant to the debate about peak oil and it would not be worth discussing were it not for its political aspects. If people start with the intention of demonstrating that the concept of “peak oil” was created by a “Zionist conspiracy” or something like that, anything goes. In this case, however, the debate is no longer a scientific one. Fortunately, as Colin Campbell said, “Oil is ultimately controlled by events in the geological past which are immune to politics.”

A posting by an anonymous commenter: whether Jones is paid disinfo or merely sloppy, the end result is the same ...

Alex Jones is a dis-info agent and paid no doubt. His job is to include some truth to make himself look credible and then rant away like a madman discrediting, for instance, the 9/11 truth movement.
A number of times I have wanted to show people an AJ link only to think better of it after thinking I would look like a madman for supporting him. This way the truth is tainted with aliens, prison states, etc and no-one knows what to think. This is why he appears so well funded too - It ain't from DVD sales.
Once he had a guest talk about the murder of Dr David Kelly (lawyer called Michael Shrimpton, very credible) and then proceeded to talk and rant through all the most important things the guest was saying. The end result was something that sounded like Looney Radio and the truth of what was being said was tainted with it.
So, don't take him too seriously - they want to paralyse you with fear about the police state and make alternative thinkers look silly. It's crap. and

John Kaminski is an internet writer who has promoted the "webfairy" claim that the World Trade Center north tower (first to be hit) was attacked by a missile masked by a King Kong sized hologram (which is beyond ridiculous) and praises a leading advocate for Holocaust denial (a websearch for "Kaminski Zundel" will retrieve lots of articles about this). Kaminski's support for the "webfairy" disinformation campaign and for neo-Nazi Holocaust denial advocate Ernst Zundel discredits the 9/11 Truth Movement -- "no planes and no gas chambers?" He has also written "the Fatal Flaw in the Coverup" which claims that

We have security camera film at the Pentagon, which surely reveal that no jetliner hit that building, locked away in Ashcroft's vault under the phony aegis of national security. We have all the rubble of the World Trade Center, which surely would have revealed the use of nuclear explosives creating shattered beams in odd places, instantly carted away with no forensic investigation. We have transcripts - but no recordings - of these phony cellphone calls, some from people who may not have even existed.

Kaminski's summer 2004 articles claimed that the 9/11 movement had fallen apart, accomplished nothing, and that 9/11 skeptics should support the "webfairy" theories that no planes hit the WTC in order to be credible. In reality, acceptance of the basic tenet of the 9/11 truth movement -- that 9/11 was not a surprise attack -- has continued to grow and grow (which is why the disinformation about 9/11 complicity has increased). Fahrenheit 9/11 (a flawed, brilliant film) was shown in packed theaters everywhere. Over six million Deception Dollars are in circulation. More and more people joined the call for a truly independent 9/11 investigation and have made statements of support for the 9/11 truth movement.

Kaminski is one of the voices supposedly part of the 9/11 truth movement attacking the idea that Peak Oil was a primary motivation for US government complicity in 9/11. These efforts are debunked at

Mr. Kaminksi has a website titled "," in which he claims that Michael Ruppert and David Icke are "people who have done their homework." Mr. Ruppert is on record stating that he detests being associated with Mr. Icke in any way, since Mr. Icke's claims that the world is really run by alien reptiles makes the serious research look ridiculous. No planes at the World Trade Center, no gas chambers in the Holocaust, and alien reptiles run the world -- a great way to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

A February 2005 article - "The Second Wave: New Books, New Groups Fuel Smoldering Resurgence Of 911 Skeptics Movement" - claims to highlight what he calls the "Second Wave" of the 9/11 truth movement -- folks supposedly doing the real work yet most of those highlighted are mixing fake claims with real evidence (ie. Wing TV, listed below).

Perhaps the nastiest part of the article is the smear that Mike Ruppert

"was the prime saboteur of the first wave, ruining the first big 9/11 forum in San Francisco with his oil company propaganda."

You can read the transcript of Mike's main presentation to the 9/11 Inquiry to read for yourself how ridiculous this claim really is.
Michael Ruppert at the 9/11 Inquiry

Who benefits from active voices on the internet creating articles to discredit the thesis put forth by Ruppert and many other 9/11 truth activists that a primary reason that 9/11 was allowed to happen was the neo-conservatives preparation for the economic crises of Peak Oil? Kaminski has written a number of articles denying the existence of natural limits to industrial growth, and the claim that mentioning that oil is not infinite is somehow oil company propaganda is even more absurd than the hoaxes about missiles fired at the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on 9/11. It is fascinating that the internet voices attacking Ruppert never mention his book "Crossing the Rubicon" and its amazing accusations about the role of drug money or Cheney's complicity in 9/11 -- it is hard to imagine an innocent, sincere explanation for the oversight.

The "25 best writers on the internet" list is a mix of excellent commentators, journalists and some writers who promote outrageous nonsense.
As the internet becomes a more respected alternative to the corporate media, it is likely that further efforts will continue to be made to encourage the idea that the dissident voices promote hoaxes, not serious investigative journalism. Some people will fall for these kinds of bait, while many more will see the web as the domain of writers who make stuff up that is not true. As is usually the case, the middle ground is where the reality lies -- the web is a powerful alternative medium that is being targetted by mixing real and fake.

From: Leuren Moret <>
Subject: 25 Best Writers on the Internet

From: "John Kaminski"

here's my list of the ten most important writers on the Internet.

1. Dahr Jamail
2. Amy Worthington
3. Michel Chossudovsky
4. Webster Tarpley

5. Joe Vialls
6. Dave MacGowan

These two have published a variety of speculations and hoaxes mixed with real information, which makes discerning the truth much more difficult to determine. McGowan's website still flogs the dead, debunked hoax that claims that no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11 (even though hundreds, if not thousands of people saw it happen and the primary "evidence" for this consists of photoshopped images from anonymous authors).
Perhaps that hoax needs reinforcing as even some of the 9/11 complicity writers who used to believe it now realize it is a fake claim (the REAL issues of complicity are WHERE the Pentagon was hit - the nearly empty part - and WHY the Air Force did not defend its headquarters).
see for a list of sites that have archived over a hundred eyewitness accounts, photos of Boeing parts in the Pentagon rubble, and the probability that remote control technology was used to ensure that that the nearly empty, recently reconstructed sector was hit instead of a more populated part of the building.

7. Chris Floyd
8. Mark Morford

Floyd and Morford are excellent writers who probably would vehemently disagree with much of the material published by the next on this list:

9. Christopher Bollyn

Mr. Bollyn is with the so-called American Free Press, which also publishes the "Barnes Review," a publication that recently claimed that Hitler should have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize and sells a variety of books claiming that Nazi death camps were not actually death camps. Mr. Bollyn has published a variety of hoaxes on the 9/11 complicity issues, including the truly bizarre claim that there wasn't actually a plane crash in Pennsylvania (even though there were eyewitnesses and a several mile long debris field suggesting the plane was really shot down by an air-to-air missile). They do publish enough real material to snare readers -- it is a form of bait.
The author of this list (Mr. Kaminski) is associating some very good analysts with some very bad analysts who promote hoaxes about 9/11 complicity issues and support for Ernst Zundel, a notorious Holocaust Denial advocate. (a websearch for "Kaminski Zundel" will find hundreds of references to Mr. Kaminksi's praise of Mr. Zundel).
It should not be necessary to point out that Israel's genocide of the Palestinians does not justify denying / downplaying the Holocaust, just as the Holocaust does not justify Israel's destruction of the Palestinians.
It is likely that some of the Holocaust Denial voices on the web and in real life are "false flag" operations to boost support for Israeli military aggression. In other words, if the wingnuts claiming that Auschwitz and Treblinka didn't have gas chambers didn't exist, they'd have to be invented to provide cover for Israel's behavior. Who benefits? Those who deny one genocide have no right to complain about another one, since all life is precious regardless of whether they're jewish, christian, muslim or any other flavor of humanity.

from Jim Hoffman, webmaster of (widely regarded as the best "physical evidence" website examining 9/11) and (not org)

For all I know Chris [Bollyn] is a sincere (despite apparently embracing some amazing Holocaust revisionist views) hardworking investigative reporter. If that's true, however, he doesn't seem to apply a very good critical filter to the information he gathers. For example, he appears to be the source of some of the more deeply ingrained errors in the 9/11 skeptics' literature, such as the Building 6 explosion myth:
and the idea that seismic spikes preceded the collapses:
I recently spoke at an event in Los Angeles: "Solving the 9/11 Crime - A Citizens' Grand Jury", in which Chris was promoting "In Plane Site", and presenting dozens of ideas for which I see no basis in evidence. I was so disturbed at the damage he was doing to the credibility of careful research that I spent half of my talk debunking the more nonsensical ideas he advanced in his talk just before mine.  

Brainwashing in the US
by Ann Pettifer
Dissident Voice
October 7, 2002
Besides accusations of conspiracy, there is a new tactic for dealing with Israel's critics: charge them with anti-Semitism. This is the ploy now being used by the President of Harvard, Lawrence Summers, as a small but growing constituency for divestment from Israel has appeared on his campus and others around the country. Summers' shamelessness is best answered by a fellow Jew, the Auschwitz survivor Primo Levi. Thomas Laqueur, reviewing three new books on Levi, calls him "one of the most resonant witnesses to the greatest human disaster of a disastrous age." However, Levi did not think the Jewish catastrophe should be used to justify "what he regarded as Israeli tribalist and aggressive actions in the name of a sacred history of unique suffering." Laqueur, (who is also Jewish) writes that the Israeli invasion (under Ariel Sharon) of Lebanon in 1982 greatly disturbed Primo Levi, "and on the eve of a trip back to Auschwitz, Levi signed a petition, together with other Jewish intellectuals, calling for the withdrawal of Israeli troops and recognition of the rights of all peoples in the region. 'Everyone is someone's Jew' he was quoted as saying in an interview 'and today the Palestinians are the Jews of the Israelis.'"

10. Xymphora
OK, let's expand it to 25.
John Pilger, Henry Makow, Kurt Nimmo, Maureen Farrell, Mike Whitney,  Bev Harris, William Blum, Sherman Skolnick, Bob Feldman, Stan Goff,  Michael Collins Piper, Paul Levy, Leuren Moret, Dr. Ron Paul, Kevin MacDonald.

Many of these are very good, but there's a couple of traps set up here ...

the best new 9/11 website  <>

The "" site is a mix of real and hoaxes -- it is run by a multimillionaire heir who is promoting a hoax film called "In Plane Site." This "film" is similar to the Karl Rove style discrediting tactic -- take a real conclusion (9/11 was an inside job) and muddy the waters with fake evidence. Rove's media operations are masters at discrediting scandals with seemingly real, but fake evidence, and were probably behind the "Bush AWOL" papers given to CBS before the "election" to discredit the truth that George W Bush went AWOL in the Air National Guard (when they started drug testing).
16 November 2004: Jimmy Walter, a sugar daddy with poison pills
(millionaire promoter of "In Plane Site" at

5. Controversial Australian journalist Joe Vialls consistently produces  the most jaw-dropping analyses of current events on the web, from  behind-the-scenes analyses of terror bombings

This guy claimed the bombing in Bali, Indonesia shortly after 9/11 was really a nuke. Mixing fake and real evidence is a great way to discredit the real evidence.

6. Dave MacGowan has written the best single overview of 9/11  <> and his Center for an  Informed America website <>

Center for an Informed America (CIA) - another bad joke?
The CIA website claims that oil is infinite and pushes the "no plane at the Pentagon" hoax.
See for analysis that points out the "abiotic" claims for oil predate the theory of plate tectonics ...

Sherman Skolnick is the mindboggling, encyclopedic investigator of  the nasty underbelly of American history. It is safe to say you'll  never be the same after reading Skolnick.

Skolnick's stuff is entertaining, but it is unlikely that all (much?) of it is true. Reader beware.

Bob Feldman is the principal revealer of the Gatekeeper syndrome, one  of the most important phenomena in understanding whatís really going on with American media.


Michael Collins Piper is the author of the best book on the Kennedy

Piper is an editor of the neo-Nazi Barnes Review ( which as mentioned above recently published an article claiming that Adolf Hitler should have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize.
This list is probably a very slick form of propaganda to discredit internet activism that will be picked up and spread around widely, faster than these comments that explain how there are some unpleasant surprises on the list that get in the way of truth and justice.
for better links about the Kennedy assassination, see

Leuren Moret is the world's foremost chronicler of America's tragic  involvement with depleted uranium weapons.

There are many authors and scientists who have been examining these sorts of issues for a much longer period of time, including those who have done primary scientific research.
One group doing organizing on this issue is the Military Toxics Project, reachable at
The film "Hidden Wars of Desert Storm" is a good resource for this, too - is a website for the film. (It includes an interview with General Schwarzkopf, who said that the military was conducting a wargame simulating Iraq invading Kuwait when the real thing happened, just like the many war games the military and intelligence agencies were doing on the morning of 9/11 that were similar in some ways to the real events.)
See also the Nuclear Information and Resource Service links to anti-nuclear and safe energy organizations.

I give you this list as a gift of hope, to show you that it is possible  that honest people CAN rule the world, if the rest of us would only  listen to the descriptions by these wonderful writers, and try to be as  honest as they are.

This is a very cynical comment from an author who mixes true evidence with nonsense.

Karl Schwarz, a self-described conservative Christian Republican who now claims opposition to President Bush, is promoting a variety of false claims about 9/11 complicity and unreliable efforts to expose this scandal (such as WingTV).

see also and

A website that emerged shortly after the March 2004 International Inquiry into 9/11, its primary thesis is that Flight 175 (which hit the South Tower - the second plane) was a substitute plane for the actual hijacking and that this substitute plane had an anomalous "pod" underneath the wing that fired a missile at the building a split second before impact. The only evidence for this extreme claim (the missile) is a very low quality video clip that looks like it has been digitally altered with Photoshop (or another program). The "pod" is just a photo of the normal bulge under the plane between the wing and fuselage. This hoax has not been very popular within the 9/11 truth movement, but it has given mainstream media defenders of the official story ammunitiion to discredit all allegations of complicity.


Loose Change

Loose Change is essentially a second edition of 911: In Plane Site, using some of the same footage and making many of the same erroneous claims. Both Plane Site and Loose Change made a similar psychological trick, issuing a revised second edition that supposedly removed the wrong parts even though most of the errors are still in the newer version.

"Loose Change" An analysis
by Michael B. Green
August 3, 2005

I have great respect for the courage of all the legitimate 911 researchers who try to find the truth and tell it to others, but they often forget a simple essential point. Because 911 (JFK, etc.) are not ordinary crimes, but crimes of state, they cannot be proven by simple forensic means. The proof of any such crimes requires rethinking our picture of the means of government from the ground up. People naturally do not wish to do this, and are propagandized to believe the contrary, so any effort to get their attention should be with evidence that is simple, clear, and convincing, not abstract, obscure, dubious or debatable. I do not pretend that this is enough. Orwellian "stop think" provides that "protective stupidity" that allows us to function in comfort and it is both difficult and painful to abandon. My best friend of nearly 40 years, and former co-author, now ensconced at Harvard, has trouble taking me seriously when I discuss 911. Within the past months he admitted not knowing that a 47 story steel building (WTC7) not hit by anything, and with only a few small fires, had collapsed as a perfect implosion would, nor did he know that the 911 Commission had refused even to mention WTC7 in its report, nor did he think much of these facts nor of his ignorance of them. This is a very smart man, open-minded in many respects, but giving up the world-view he inhabits is simply too hard, especially when there is nothing coherent with which to replace it. ....

If a film-maker or live lecturer has the good fortune of having the attention of someone like this, or good solid middle-Americans, for an hour-long DVD, or for a 2-3 hour live presentation, he had better use clear hard facts for persuasion, and not iffy, vaguely or ambiguously supported possibilities. The intelligence agencies that do the crimes try to control the counter-community's response by infiltrating moles that infect it with large falsehoods and impossible-to-prove technical questions (micro-analysis). The large falsehoods are designed to prove the community wrong and nuts if the need arises. The microanalysis into pointless or unanswerable questions, or into just plain dumb ones, is to divert its energies from using the clear hard facts to tell the story simply and clearly. ....

The DVD "Loose Change" by rising media artist Dylan Avery has been touted by some members of the 911-truth community as the best presentation yet, as the "best evidence" (a reference to David Lifton’s book, "Best Evidence" on the JFK assassination). This review will show that the DVD is anything but that; if it is not naive, foolish, uninformed and ignorant, then it is the work of a calculating mole or at best a naïf who has been used by such.


Morgan Reynolds (Bush official pushing "no planes" bait)

From: jim hoffman
Date: October 17, 2005
Subject: New Critique on Morgan Reynolds' Trojan Horse

Dear Activists,
I'm announcing a new critique of the not-so-new article in the Boulder Weekly featuring Morgan Reynolds hyping his no-jetliner theories:

"Boulder Weekly Trots Out Morgan Reynolds' Trojan Horse"
by Jim Hoffman and Gregg Roberts

I gave Reynolds the benefit of the doubt when I first critiqued his article: "Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?," about 40% of which pushes the no-jetliners poison pill, sandwiched in-beteen a reasonably good summary of the case for the controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7:

911Research even published Part I of Reynolds' response to my critique:

But the promised Part II has not been forthcomming. Instead, Reynolds has become more strident in pushing the no-jetliner nonsense, on the Coast-to-Coast radio broadcast and in the recent Boulder Weekly article.

Here are the results I get by searching Google for sites linking to:
( the URL for "Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?" )

All of these sites uncritically link to the article, thus serving its trojan horse agenda.

Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The Frutrating Fraud
December 29 2006



Painful Deceptions / Painful Questions / Eric Hufschmid
The Company We Keep
by Michael B. Green, Ph.D.
Version 1.2, February 15, 2006

I frequently use the pictures in Painful Questions to show receptive folk that the Towers were exploded, but urge them not to read the book itself because it is so full of misinformation and peculiar reasoning. I do not wish to burden the reader with details of his forensics, which are often roughly right but written with peculiar or bizarre commentary guaranteed to alienate many readers. ....

Hufschmid also denies that a Boeing hit the Pentagon. Joël van der Reijden, a very rational gentleman whose website is now, presented a powerful case that a Boeing did hit the Pentagon, and engaged Hufschmid in debate. Hufschmid refused to answer any of the substantive points ....

Hufschmid is also a Holocaust denier, and proud of it. In a January 6, 2006 essay, he wrote, “People who question the official story of the Holocaust are not Holocaust Deniers. Rather, they are Holocaust Truth Seekers, or HoloHoax Exposers.”
Mr. Hufschmid is questioned about his Pentagon Missile / Global Hawk theory, and declines to provide evidence for his assertions, responding with strange insults instead of documentation.


Patriots Question 911

May 10, 2007 at 10:47:01
Election Fraud Meets 911
by Michael Green

The sane evidence-based 911 activists know that we have been infiltrated and sabotaged by the USG intelligence community that manages as part of its handiwork to fund and promote the genuine loons and fools who are naturally drawn to such repugnant ideas as that the major acts of domestic terror are of government/military/intelligence origins, and who have bizarre if not nutty theories of how these events are staged, and are thus easily discredited. The natural mix of loons is then seasoned with moles. We have thus been blessed by support from such champions of truth as Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., the former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor under Bush 43, whose official position is that 911 is an "inside job" as evidenced by his deranged assertion that no plane hit either the Pentagon or either of the Twin Towers, the damage to which were caused respectively by a missile and internal explosives. There is also a growingly popular "Patriots Question 911" full of high ranking former military officials who claim to doubt the official story based on their patently false claim that no Boeing hit the Pentagon. Since the Boeing crash, wreckage and carnage were witnessed by Pentagon personnel, basing objections to the official 911 story on the claim that no Boeing hit the Pentagon is calculated to antagonize all the innocent military against the 911 movement as nutcakes. We are similarly inundated with "scientists" who expose 911 as an inside job basing their bizarre claims that the Towers were destroyed by space-based energy beams, or destroyed by small nuclear bombs. The sane branch of the 911 movement is also blessed by comrades-in-arms who with one hand denounce 911 as an inside job and with the other deny the Holocaust. With friends like this, who needs (more!) enemies? [emphases added]

Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11
Victoria Ashley

Version 1.2, August 13, 2007

The website makes a strong case for the important fact that hundreds of notable, credible, professional, and experienced people have serious questions about the official story of the 9/11 attacks. These include government officials, scholars, household-name actors, retired military officers, pilots, and even 9/11 family members, shown in rich color photographs and paired with quotes in their own words along with relevant links. Creator Alan Miller and others helping him have done a laudable job of tracking down and documenting these hundreds of individuals of note and presenting them in an appealing format for easy public understanding of the scope of concerns with the official story.

Unfortunately, the site currently also functions in a different and opposite way, albeit subtle. By presenting, directly alongside the serious and professional notable individuals, the advocates of ridiculous nonsense claims about the 9/11 attacks -- space weapons, nukes, "TV fakery" and even holograms -- the website functions to undermine a serious reader's overall belief that the site, the community, and the individuals are actually as credible as their titles suggest. This is not an extensive criticism of the site, but a specific concern which can easily be corrected, but yet has not been. Currently, individuals like Norman Mineta, Curt Weldon, Daniel Ellsberg and Richard Heinberg are placed on the same lists with Morgan Reynolds, David Shayler, Judy Wood and James Fetzer. Given the history of these individuals in the 9/11 community, such mixing serves the opposite purpose of the ostensible premise of the site.

If one actually clicks on the links of these last four individuals, listens to the talks, or reads the material, there is no question that mixed with the real claims, the bizarre core of what they are advocating amounts to utter nonsense.


Pentagon Strike

A film released in late summer 2004 promoting the "no plane at Pentagon" hoax -- the sequel to "In Plane Site?"

A video clip that was posted to numerous sites in late summer 2004 supposedly documents the "no plane" at the Pentagon claims. It was released shortly after "In Plane Site" -- but only focuses on the "no plane at Pentagon" hoax. It is probable that "Pentagon Strike" was the sequel to "Plane Site," since "Plane Site" had so many crackpot claims in it that it encountered considerable opposition in its effort to redefine 9/11. Pentagon Strike is focused solely on the "no plane at Pentagon" hoax, which unfortunately has been treated more seriously.

This film is slick propaganda that avoids most of the evidence, flashes quickly from point to point, distracts the viewer with rock music (perhaps a type of "bait" to snare youthful web surfers?), and would not qualify as forensic evidence in any courtroom. It is a form of "disinfotainment."

Pentagon Strike is only a couple minutes long, and a couple megabytes in size - easily downloadable, even without high speed internet. It has been hosted on countless websites. Pentagon Strike has been much more effective at spreading disinformation than In Plane Site. Read the Washington Post's review of this film - which was very effective at discrediting 9/11 truth issues in the national capital area a month before the pseudo-election of 2004.



A site marketed as the "Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven" (SPINE).

Physics911 offers the science fiction story "Operation Pearl," which theorizes that the passengers on the four planes were all escorted onto Flight 93, perhaps in Harrisburg, PA, and then Flight 93 then was shot down while the other three planes were dumped into the Atlantic. The odds of this being true are about the same as winning the lottery, since this would have made it much less likely to keep the operation secret and compartmentalized to the minimum number of people possible. Physics911 states that they prefer to invent hypotheses and then see if there's evidence that fits their story (although there isn't actually any evidence to support "Operation Pearl"). However, it is more scientific to stick to the best evidence (which is triple checked) and then see what scenario could possibly fit the provable evidence.

Physics911 has attacked 9/11 Research's Jim Hoffman, a story detailed at Hoffman's site at Physics911 falsely promoted the claim that Hoffman was claiming to be a medical doctor and was part of SPINE's advisory board. It took a long time for Physics911 to remove their false claims from their site despite numerous requests from Hoffman.



Plane Substitution?
The plane substitution hoax is the core of "physics 911," and it is discussed in two articles by an internet persona called "Woody Box"

Flight 11 - The Twin Flight

The Cleveland Airport Mystery

There's not any verifiable evidence for these articles -- there needs to be more than mere assertion before adopting these claims as proven. This skepticism is especially necessary, given that the "woodybox" persona has written that the pod story is scientific research. The only "research" underway with the "pod" hoax is a form of psychology research, to see how far this misinformation can be spread by 9/11 skeptics.

A form of "plane substitution" WAS apparently used in the KAL 007 scandal in 1983.

The KAL 007 scandal involved a 747 merging very close to an NSA spy plane on the USSR border (which formed a single radar blip), and then the 747 headed into Soviet air space. The Russians thought it was the spy plane that entered, but it was merely the passenger plane. It probably wasn't carrying surveillance equipment, but it triggered the Russian air defense system to activate its standard operating procedures, radars, communication systems, etc. -- which were vacuumed up by numerous external platforms, including the Space Shuttle orbiting overhead. See "Shootdown: Flight 007 and the American Connection" by R.W. Johnson and "KAL 007: The Coverup, why the true story has never been told" by David Pearson. Note: Seymour Hersh's book "The Target is Destroyed" claims that the official story the plane was innocently off-course is difficult to believe given the evidence in the Johnson and Pearson books. The thesis of those two books is KAL 007 was not actually a surveillance plane, but was part of a covert "passive probe" surveillance operation. A previous KAL overflight of the Soviet Union had been forced to land a few years earlier, so the risk of the passenger plane containing sophisticated spy equipment was too dangerous. But an allegedly innocent commercial jet that flew over sensitive military facilities (clearly marked on all aviation maps as a dangerous area to avoid) would not risk the international incident of a deliberate intrusion of their airspace. When KAL 007 strayed into Soviet territory, the air defenses were activated as their Air Force tried to figure out what was underay. The US military carefully watched this response, which was an intelligence bonanza. If KAL 007 was in fact innocently off course, there is no evidence that the US military attempted to warn the plane's pilots that they were headed for trouble (that area is one of the most monitored on the planet, and if a US - Russia nuclear war happens, many observers have speculated it would probably be triggered where the US Navy confronts Russian forces in the northwest Pacific. There do not appear to be any good websites that discuss this scandal -- the best compilations of evidence of the KAL 007 scandal predates the internet, so this information is only available in books (an archaic concept it seems in the age of websites).


Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
June 27 2007
last updated September 15 2007

A new press release boosting Pilots for 9/11 Truth as “driv[ing] another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission” was just released by Scholars for 9/11 Truth (the Fetzer wing). Co-founder of the recently-divided organization James Fetzer in fact seems to have written up the release, titled “New study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.” It was released on June 21 and picked up by Yahoo news, apparently a bit of an achievement, and has been widely republished since then.

A site that publishes good material and red herrings. The kindest interpretation is that it desperately needs an editor.

Rense is useful for seeing what the latest nonsense is from the hoaxers trying to disrupt the 9/11 truth movement in the same way that reading the New York Times or Washington Post is useful for understanding what the mainstream spin is in the news.

Rense prominently links to Holocaust denial. Rense has numerous promotions on their main page - as of March 2005 - to neo-nazi Ernst Zundel, one of the heroes of holocaust denial advocates. Rense is also promoting an article claiming that Peak Oil is a "zionist conspiracy" which is part of a propaganda effort to counter growing awareness of Peak Oil through publication of articles claiming that petroleum is "abiotic" and therefore unlimited.

Rense published attacks on Michael Ruppert when his book Crossing the Rubicon was published -- see No one seems to have written a direct attack on the contents of "Crossing the Rubicon," although the volume of mud being thrown at Mike has increased substantially.

Rense claims that they try to separate the wheat from the chaff, and get over 1,000 emails per day, making this determination difficult to do at times. A good rule to follow is that outlandish claims based on blurry pictures of questionable authenticity that are only sourced to websites should be ignored, not used as the basis to pretend that there's new "news" about the 9/11 investigations. Websites that operate as an electronic vacuum cleaner sucking up all claims without making even a small effort to differentiate facts from rumors, truths from disinformation are not reliable as news sources, even if some of the articles they post are excellent.

In February 2006, Rense published Nazi propaganda that smears the peace movement. Written by long term Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson, it tries to persuade the naive and the uninformed that if they oppose Israeli military policies and/or the threatened US war on Iran, that they should embrace Holocaust denial. There is no innocent way to interpret this effort to bait the peace movement into instantly discrediting themselves.
The Fight For
Historical Factualism
By Robert Faurisson

from Michael Kane, From the Wilderness

Soon after we published our Ptech series at FTW:
Jeff Rense attacked Mike Ruppert - one of the most vicious attacks I've ever seen. Rense put Ruppert's face on the top of his homepage and linked to one after another Ruppert-trashing 'article.'
What's the connection?
In both part 1 & 2 we talked in-depth about the "New Right" marriage between (neo)-Nazis and Islamic extremists. Take a good look at Jeff's site and you will see that it is part of that "New Right" marriage.
Jeff goes out of his way to make Israeli's look like Nazis while defending Nazi supporters like Zundel. Right after we talked in-depth about this "New Right" marriage and its link to 9/11 Mike Ruppert was attacked viciously at his
This has nothing to do with Israel being a vicious, cruel, inhumane state just like the U.S. is - we know what Israel is and we don't need Rense, AFP, or Infowars reports to make sense of it.
This has to do with a hidden agenda.

An effort by multi-millionaire Jimmy Walter who suddenly started promoting "In Plane Site" after this "film" received tremendous criticism and scorn from the 9/11 truth movement. His site promotes "planesite" as among the best pieces of work from the independent investigations despite numerous efforts by writers, investigators and activists to educate him about the actual evidence.

Whatever Mr. Walter's motivations are, the "planesite" film acquired a benefactor who spent considerable money to promote a film that is mostly made up of disproved material that distracts from real evidence.

Walter has spent a couple of million dollars on flamboyant newspaper ads and TV infomercials pushing a mix of disinformation (no plane at Pentagon) and real evidence (the collapse of Building 7). These millions were not spent on supporting the best researchers, websites and activist efforts which would have had a more positive outcome.

Due to Walter's large budget, he got a lot of media exposure in the mainstream press -- and performed poorly in the spotlight. The mainstream media (ie. New York Times) focused more on Mr. Walter than investigators who unearthed verifiable evidence of official complicity.

On September 11, 2004, Walter sponsored a large forum in New York titled "Confronting the Evidence." He insisted in putting the main person behind "In Plane Site" on the program despite several diplomatic efforts from sober activists and writers more familiar with the topics that this would be a poor choice. A science editor for a major national publication, who had been impressed with some of the best material of the 9/11 truth movement, was told by Mr. Walter that the twin towers were blown up with nuclear explosives -- and this editor immediately dropped further interest in covering these issues. If Walter was trying to dissuade the media from taking 9/11 truth seriously, then the event was a big success.

Walter's event, by nearly all accounts, was a public relations disaster. Several of the key organizers who worked to make the event happen were fired by Walter and expelled from the auditorium mid-way through the show. The speakers were a mix of very good and really awful -- which makes it hard for ordinary citizens interested in the topics to comprehend what is going on. This event was much lower quality than other major presentations (such as the International Inquiries in San Francisco and Toronto) and logistically bizarre -- a direct contrast to an extremely high quality, professional presentation two days prior (the Citizens Commission on 9/11, with Cynthia McKinney, Kyle Hence, Michael Ruppert, Barrie Zwicker, Indira Singh, John Judge and many others).

In late winter 2005, Walter promised that he was moving to Europe (mission accomplished?), and subsequently announced plans for an international tour to promote his unique views on 9/11. But before moving, he announced that had made 100,000 DVDs of his 9/11/2004 event to distribute as widely as possible (in May 2005, that figure became 250,000 DVDs). If Walter is not working consciously to undermine the 9/11 truth movement, then he is the patsy of the disinformation campaign. His publicist is Ilene Proctor, whose normal clientele consists of minor Hollywood celebrities and pop stars. One of her clients was the lip-synching Milli Vanilli (perhaps Jimmy Walter is the political equivalent of lip-synching?). Ms. Proctor is now distributing David Von Kleist's comments on the March 2005 Popular Mechanics article that focused on the 9/11 hoaxes that Von Kleist promotes. It is likely that Von Kleist, the narrator of "In Plane Site," coached Jimmy Walter on what to say and do about 9/11 issues.

May 2005 update: Walter's seclusion in Europe did not last long. He (or his publicists) arranged a multi-nation tour of 9/11 skeptics to speak on these issues, arranging for some very good authors and experts along with some hoaxers pushing discredited disinformation. One of the good activists was expelled from the tour for complaining about the presence of a writer for one of America's most widespread neo-Nazi newspapers -- a more sensible strategy would have been to expel the neo-Nazi newspaper from the tour, not a New York City based activist seeking justice for the environmental damage caused to human health by rushing to reopen Wall Street when it was not yet safe to do so.

Shortly before Walter's European tour started, was given a substantial overall that massively increased the nuttiness quotient on the site -- the most notorious is now an outrageous suggestion that the Twin Towers were blown up with nukes. Reopen911 put these claims on its homepage just in time for the European media to examine what is marketed as the best material from the 9/11 truth movement in the United States.

Were the Twin Towers brought down by a Nuclear Detonation?
Hunter Thompson Killed over explosives evidence.

Mr. Walter should get an award for the most stupid claim from someone pretending to be a 9/11 truth activist.

a much better event on these topics was held in New York on September 9, 2004 -
video clips from that event can be downloaded at
Jimmy Walter: A sugar daddy with poison pills

The truly serious matter, however, is that Walter has set about promoting some of the most dubious and questionable claims that have emerged of late — many of which are already denounced by a wide range of 9/11 activists as obvious disinfo — and he has also shown himself to be reckless and inaccurate in his handling of the evidence.

Walter is apparently just making stuff up. Or, he has been duped by someone coaching him with bogus info. It might worthwhile to investigate which "9/11 activists" have been working closely with him...
... How much of a fool does one have to be to MAKE GERALD POSNER LOOK GOOD? Even worse, the fact that he is focusing so strongly on the WTC7 issue means that this substantive and powerful part of the 9/11 skeptic's case will be discredited by association with the faulty claims he's promoting alongside it.
I'm willing to believe that he is a well-intentioned "eccentric", but thus far, Jimmy Walter's newfound status as a figurehead of 9/11 skepticism is shaping up to be a disaster. Frankly, there are times when good intentions just aren't enough, and this is one of those times.


Scholars for Truth about 9/11

The "Scholars" group was founded in the winter of 2005 by Professors Steven Jones and James Fetzer.

Jones is a serious, apparently sincere scholar of physics who has been examining the claims for controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7.

The other co-founder, James Fetzer, promotes hoaxes -- no planes on 9/11, no moon landing, no Zapruder film (JFK). One hopes hope for his sake that he doesn't really believe those things. Muddling the Evidence
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, Feb. 12, 2006

Scholars For 9/11 Truth was formed by James Fetzer and Steven Jones in the wake of a huge wave of interest in his paper Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? The concept of such a group is a noble one. Bringing together a group of scholarly researchers to examine the unanswered questions surrounding the 9/11/01 attack is an excellent way to garner credibility for the 9/11 Truth Movement. As of this writing, the group includes several individuals notable for their expertise in fields relevant to analyzing the attack.
The website serves as the public face of the Scholars For 9/11 Truth group, but the website's content is not necessarily representative of the views of the group's members. Unfortunately, even a cursory examination of the website suggests that, instead of amplifying the excellent work of Steven Jones and some of the group's other researchers, it promises to undermine that work, and possibly the work of all scholars raising questions about the official story.
Since the tragedy itself, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been plagued by both misinformation, and by deliberate disinformation that has been injected into the debate in order to discredit challenges to the official account. Documenting these poison pills has not redeemed the 9/11 Truth Movement in public opinion because few in the Movement have taken a stand, fearing that to do so would be "divisive." One need look no further than the attack pieces by Popular Mechanics and Scientific American to understand how flimsy, easily debunked claims are highlighted by defenders of the official account to tar the entire community of skeptics as loony conspiracy theorists whose conclusions are not supported by the facts.
Despite the evidence, has thus far failed to acknowledge that the promotion of nonsensical claims is part of a deliberate strategy to undermine the Truth Movement. Even worse, the website uncritically links to many websites featuring work that is, at best, thoroughly unscientific. ....

The "serendipity" site was probably the first website to claim that the twin towers were demolished (almost immediately after 9/11), and its hosting of a variety of quality information about covert scandals provided considerable credibility to many seeking alternative explanations for 9/11.

But Serendipity also hosts hateful attacks on some of the hardest working 9/11 activists (see for a particularly ugly example), and promotes the webfairy / pod hoaxes.

Their page purports to be a comprehensive list of 9/11 pages, yet it is a mix of accurate information and suspect claims. The Serendipity comments about Mike Ruppert's site blatantly misleads the reader:

This has long been regarded as one of the most perceptive sites concerning both 9/11 and peak oil. That Ruppert supports the official lie that 9/11 was an "Al Qaeda" operation should make one wonder.

A simple review of virtually any article at quickly exposes Serendipity's claims as false. Why does "Serendipity" promote disinformation about Ruppert's work -- it should make one wonder. Perhaps Serendipity is trying to discourage people from reading Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon," which details Cheney's complicity in 9/11. Who benefits from that outcome?

A site specializing in fringe material, claiming to expose information about aliens and beings living in other dimensions. While this could theoretically be possible, it could also be a slick means to discredit more sober investigations into actual conspiracies that have real evidence for them.

This site created the slick disinformation film "Pentagon Strike" in the summer of 2004 -- a rock video posted on the internet that flashes quickly from blurry image to blurry image, carefully cherry picking evidence (and omitting crucial context) in support of the "no plane at the Pentagon" hoax. This film, and the fact they claim to communicate with beings in other dimensions, was used by the Washington Post to ridicule David Ray Griffin's book "The New Pearl Harbor" about a month before the November 2004 "election." This smear effort needed this fringe site to make Griffin's book look kooky and ridiculous, since his book was the first 9/11 truth book to reach a somewhat mainstream audience and most of the book is a well-written, sober analysis of the evidence that 9/11 was allowed to happen (and given technical assistance to ensure its success). is a nasty example of disinformation smearing Michael Ruppert that would take several pages to refute and correct. is a "journalism" site that has promoted a number of good claims about 9/11 complicity and some garbage. It is aggressively promoting "In Plane Site" and a similar film that is essentially the same tripe in a new package: available at TOM
Devastating TV Film Evidence Points to 9-11 Treason
Unlitigated Payouts Ignore Obvious and Massive Twin Tower Insurance Fraud
"LOOSE CHANGE" new, explosive 911 evidence
directed, written and narrated by Dylan Avery
"...The best packaged DVD footage for sharing actual TV coverage and interviews shown only once during WTC / Pentagon attacks--evidence strangely removed from repeat broadcasts ...striking visual and narrative analysis--shown frame by frame --pointing to government-linked mass murder and a new Pearl Harbor." Tom Flocco is an article that pretends that Barbara Olsen, who was on the doomed Flight 77 (which hit the Pentagon) was really arrested on the "Polish - Austrian" border. Every verifiable piece of information in Flocco's article is provable as fake.
9-11 crash victim Barbara Olson arrested in Europe
Date: Thursday, September 22
Topic: 9-11 Investigations

9-11 crash victim Barbara Olson arrested in Europe
by Tom Flocco

Austria--September 22, and American intelligence agents have arrested Barbara Olson, the wife of a former Bush administration official, a few days ago on the Polish-Austrian border, according to agents close to and with knowledge of the incident.

There has not been a "Polish - Austrian" border since the Austro-Hungarian empire, which ceased to exist during World War I (the war to end all wars). Note: Flocco's page has supposedly changed this reference to Ms. Olson's alleged arrest on the Polish-German border. That geographic fix is the least of the problems with this phony story.

The alleged 9.11 Pentagon crash victim was found to be in possession of millions in fake interbank Italian lyra currency, according to the agents.

The Italian economy has used Euro currency for several years. The Italian currency used to be called the lira, not the lyra.

Olson was also reportedly in possession of a fraudulent Vatican passport and was held on charges of counterfeiting.
Barbara K. Olson
The former Fox News TV commentator and Independent Women's Forum activist was said to have called her husband Theodore Olson from her plane to seek help in countering hijackers who had allegedly taken over American flight 77 which the Bush administration said was crashed into the Pentagon - although the impact only left an opening approximately 16 feet across.

In reality, the hole in the Pentagon was about 90 feet wide, and the full impact zone was at least 141 feet across.

Ted Olson is the former Bush 43 Solicitor General who had previously argued the President's legal interests in the controversial Bush-Gore 2000 election recount case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Theodore (Ted) B. Olson
Mrs. Olson's alleged cell phone call to her husband was employed by the administration and the 9.11 Commission as partial proof that American 77 crashed into the Pentagon, despite physical evidence to the contrary.
The Pentagon crash evidence was ignored and obstructed by both the Commission and previously by the Joint Congressional Intelligence Committee in its own separate probe.
Due to the ongoing sensitive nature of the arrest, investigation and questioning, one source who declined to be named for this story, told that Olson's call to her husband was a fraud and that another projectile impacted the Pentagon other than Olson's plane.
The agents were said to have closed in to arrest the former television pundit because the evidence of counterfeiting and passport violations was obvious and that the timing was right.
According to the agents, Barbara Olson is reportedly considered to be a conspirator to the obstruction of justice in the mass murders of 3,000 individuals on September 11, 2001 in the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the alleged crash in southwestern Pennsylvania.
Olson's arrest and potential appearance at trial in the United States would undoubtedly have a profound impact upon current "Able Danger" hearings in the Senate and past probes by both the Joint Congressional Intelligence Committee and the 9.11 Commission.

The website, published by former State Dept interpreter turned internet political activist Fred Burks, considered The Washington Post’s review of New Pearl Harbor to be a great breakthrough, not a discrediting attack.

A month before the 2004 election, The Washington Post published a review that focused exclusively on the “no plane hit the Pentagon” claims and ignored the other 90% of the book. The review put the mention of Griffin’s book in the middle of a discussion of the creators of the “Pentagon Strike” hoax film, highlighting their claim that they talk to alien beings living in other dimensions from their European palace (thus ensuring that “9/11 truth” would be considered lunacy). Limiting the discussion of 9/11 complicity to whether a plane hit the Pentagon ensured that this would not become a political issue in the Washington area during the final weeks of the campaign.

In Burks wrote that:

“We are thankful for any media attention, even that which refutes the 9/11 movement, as any press brings the subject more fully into public awareness.”

Unfortunately, not all publicity is good publicity. The corporate media wants the public to know that there are people who think 9/11 was an inside job -- as long as the claims contain poison pills that can be used to alienate and discredit.

Wanttoknow promotes the Pentagon Strike hoax film, and is among the 9/11 “truth” websites that bought into the “no plane” hoax and now is unable to admit having made a mistake.

Wanttoknow also promotes Rense, What Really Happened and Arctic Bulletin, websites that promote poison pill claims about 9/11 Rense pushes the “abiotic oil” hoax and has praised Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel (What Really Happened also has promoted Zundel). Arctic Bulletin aggressively promotes “no planes” and writes for American Free Press, a long time promoter of Holocaust Denial that works with KKK leader David Duke.

Some left wing groups explicitly refuse to address 9/11 complicity because they have figured out that some of the claims are traceable back to neo-Nazis.

April 3, 2006 -- Want to Know promotes Thierry Meyssan's hoax book (again), years after it was exposed as a mix of real and fake claims that discredit serious investigation.
"Horrifying Fraud" was Meyssan's first book claiming a plane didn't hit the Pentagon (Monsieur Meyssan publicly claimed that a truck bomb was used, which is absurd - especially since hundreds of commuters and bystanders saw the plane as it swooped around Arlington County to zero in on the nearly empty part of the Pentagon). His sequel "Pentagate" is the book that has a photo of Boeing parts on the front cover, a bad joke hidden in plain sight.
Want to Know is promoting the film "Loose Change," a slick mix of real evidence and absurd nonsense claims that is a recycling of the discredited hoax film In Plane Site
(the main difference is Loose Change is about half true and half fake, while In Plane Site was about 90% fake).

This message is available online at

French buy into 9/11 conspiracy
June 26, 2002, CNN
Throughout the spring, and into this summer, a leading bestseller in France has not been some great work of French literature but a $17-dollar paperback called the "Horrifying Fraud." The book casts doubt on the official version of the events of September 11, substituting an elaborate conspiracy concocted by America's military-industrial complex in order to increase U.S. military budgets. It has sold more than 200,000 copies here. Thierry Meyssan, author of "The Horrifying Fraud"...insists, among other things, that it was not a hijacked American Airlines 757 that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 but a missile fired by the military itself. Meyssan said: "The official version is incomplete and on certain points is wrong. In addition to selling hundreds of thousands of copies of his first book, Meyssan's follow-up sold 15,000 copies two days after launch and is now number seven on one bestseller list.

Note: Though this article is almost four years old, I only recently received the above link to the article on the CNN website from a supporter. If you want to be educated on this extremely important topic, I cannot recommend highly enough the Google video "Loose Change," which is filled with verifiable information on 9/11 at I urge to watch even just the first 10 or 15 minutes of this highly educational documentary. By educating ourselves, we can work more effectively to build a build a better world.

the most absurd claim: 9/11 was supposedly done with missiles masked by King Kong sized holograms, not planes

Perhaps the single most bizarre 9/11 website, it claims that a plane did not hit the north tower of the World Trade Center. Instead, the "webfairy" theorizes that King Kong sized holograms were used to fool bystanders, and missiles were fired at the towers. The fact that the hole in the side of the North Tower is the same size as the cross section of a 767 and even shows the impact of the wings is irrelevant to this incredibly paranoid site.

The "hologram" theory was probably created after the "no plane hit Pentagon" hoax became popular, but the hologram theory never received much of an audience.

The fairy godmother of this modus operandi is an internet persona called "webfairy," aka Rosalee Grable, a grandmother in Chicago who has learned how to do sophisticated video analysis and hosts a website that hosts lots of video clips of the 9/11 attacks. Webfairy has spent years creating "new footage" of the 9/11 attacks.


Webfairy, Letsroll911 and In Plane Site

At the very least, the Webfairy and Letsroll sites are closely allied. Some spam (unsolicited emails) from the pod theorists has stated that the webfairy has done photographic work for the letsroll site. Letsroll hosts webfairy's video work on their website. And the "In Plane Site" pod promotion film directs viewers to look at the Letsroll website, not the credible investigations based on verifiable evidence and logic.


Questions Questions debunks the "webfairy"

New at an analysis by Eric Salter, refuting several widely-circulated claims about the WTC airliner impacts on 9/11. These include the claims that original video recordings of the impacts were fabricated or altered using computer graphics, that aircraft other than 767s struck the the towers, and even that no planes hit the two towers, the planes supposedly being replaced by super high-tech "holographic" illusions [!]. The analysis shows that these claims, which unfortunately have been lingering around for some time, have no solid basis in the evidence -- video, photographic, or otherwise -- nor any solid basis in logic, and could help to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement.
The WTC Impacts: 767s or "Whatzits"?

Additionally, we already know that the hole in the north tower is the size of a 767. Here is a frontal diagram of a 767 superimposed in scale over the tower (WTC width = 207 ft., 767 wingspan = 156 ft.) and rotated to align with the impact hole. Quite a good fit:

.... When mainstream skeptics dismiss conspiracy theorists as crackpots who see things that aren't there, this is the kind of stuff they point to:

.... Even setting all the technical issues aside, the no-plane analysis simply defies common sense. There were thousands of people on the ground and on rooftops, and none after the fact have complained that what is replayed on TV is not what they saw. In the age of the internet, we should have heard volumes about this if the planes on TV were not the planes in real life. It would be very simple for an ordinary person to write an email to a 9/11 investigator saying "that's not what I saw," or even to write their own online articles about it. New York produced half a million anti-war marchers, including many 9/11 Truth activists, but we're supposed to believe that after more than two years, NONE of the eyewitnesses would have taken the opportunity to speak out over this? The whole of New York must be in on the conspiracy!
Are we also to believe that the planners of 9/11 would fly an incongruous small plane into a city whose attention was riveted on the WTC, and which is always swarming with camera-toting tourists to begin with? One good image would have brought the official story down and the 'War on Terror' with it. What would the planners have to gain by rolling the dice on such elaborate high-tech trickery, when crashing airliners into the WTC towers was very probably the simplest and most easily executed part of the whole operation? It would be an example of infinite risk for no gain. Moreover, since there is no substantive and compelling reason to believe that a 767 did not hit the South tower, by analogy there is also no logical reason to suspect anything different concerning the preceding North tower impact, even though it is comparatively poorly documented.
I'm alarmed at the current situation. .... large portions of the 9/11 truth movement stand to be tainted through this association. The debunkers would approach it like this: "Within the community of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, broad support is given to a man that believes that no 767s hit the World Trade Center." Guilt by association may not be an honorable debating tactic, but the other side is anything but honorable. The anti-conspiracy article in the May 2004 issue of Vanity Fair ("Welcome to the Conspiracy") uses Paul Joseph Watson's analysis of the first hit at the WTC to illustrate how absurd 9/11 conspiracy theories are. Though Watson doesn't go as far as the no-planers, his claims about multiple missile firings and the different sizes of the plane and the hole are erroneous enough to give the debunkers plenty of ammunition. It goes to show how risky this kind of speculation can be. The WTC no-plane theories are a danger to the 9/11 truth movement and should be vigorously rejected.
The WTC Impacts: 767s or "Whatzits", Part 2
The no-planers respond
Eric Salter,, 25 May 2004

.... Mature, conscientious and responsible individuals place truth before their egos, feel regret when they make mistakes, and place importance on treating their collegues fairly. Webfairy and Scott Loughrey fail on all these counts. Their rebuttals were far more erroneous and absurd than anything I outlined in the original article, which is saying a lot. Their strategy of willfully denying even the most obvious facts is immature and well below the minimum level of intellectual debate that the 9/11 truth movement should expect from everyone involved.
Webfairy has repeatedly charged that I and others who oppose her ideas are disinformation agents. I have tried to stick to the facts and avoid venturing into this issue. My opinion all along is that the no-plane theories are a threat to the 9/11 truth movement simply because they are completely unproven, crackpot notions. I have never concluded that the no-planers were agents. I will say, however, that Webfairy's approach in particular mimics typical COINTELPRO tactics, which are to poison the atmosphere in activist circles by being antagonistic and making divisive and paranoid accusations and to introduce ridiculous ideas that discredit the movement in the eyes of the public.

[Afterword, from QQ Editor: The feedback from the previous article on the WTC no-plane theories has been overwhelmingly positive, including thanks from other researchers who didn't have the knowledge of video to take on the crackpot no-plane theories. I'm glad that we could fill the gap. A couple readers expressed some concern that the original article was perhaps too harsh, risking putting a chill on open-minded discussion of forensics and physical evidence subjects within the 9/11 Truth Movement. I think that these new responses from Webfairy and Scott Loughrey show plainly that there was nothing gratuitious or unfair in the character of Eric's original critique (I would note that in addition to what is quoted here, Webfairy has continued to mock her critics as "teletubbies" and "plane huggers"), and I hope it remains clear that the position of QQ is strongly supportive of any such inquiries which meet reasonable standards (my first choice in this area is the highly anomalous collapse of WTC 7). Moreover, I have to note that I and a number of others have been patiently debating Webfairy and other no-plane theorists on and off for more than a year and a half [!] using many of the same type of arguments that Eric has now elaborated and strengthened with much more professional expertise. We found long ago that this was an exercise in futility, every carefully and fairly reasoned argument being dismissed with the same kind of haughty, sloppy ridicule that is exhibited above, over and over again. Barring the unexpected emergence of some truly extraordinary new level of evidence along with expert supporting analysis, it is long overdue for the WTC no-plane theories to be put to bed. Period. Neither Eric nor I can in principle state this opinion in any softer terms, especially in light of the paranoid and mean-spirited rug chewing offered by Webfairy and Loughrey in lieu of any coherent rebuttals.


Wing TV

A shoddy effort to discredit Michael Ruppert's work while ignoring the information in "Crossing the Rubicon" Michael Ruppert refutes some of the sleaziest attacks from Wing TV. Jim Hoffman refutes deceptive attacks from "Wing TV"

The pseudonymous author of "Wing TV" is also the author of a self-published book called "Christ Killers."


Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:54:20 -0800 (PST)
From: "Victoria Ashley"
To: "911truthalliance"
Subject: [911truthalliance] WING TV - why another attack piece?
I was dissapointed recently to see that Wing TV's Victor Thorn wrote up and posted another attack piece like what was done to Mike Ruppert, only much smaller (1 page, not over 30) and this time, on webmaster Jim Hoffman. Why? Because Jim has changed his position on the Pentagon. He went back and looked at the eye witness testimony carefully, which he had never really done, and decided that so many eye witnesses reporting the same thing, just might have a point. But for this is now treated to public attacks.
What's with Thorn's attacking of people?
If someone disagrees with a theory, why not debate it, rather than try to degrade someone? Does this help the movement at all? To attack researchers publically when you have never even debated an issue with them?
Thorn writes about Jim with these phrases:
"this sly old prankster"
"his sudden lack of sound reasoning skills"
"Hoffman's 'false deconstruction put-on' that drips with irony"
"he really isn't convinced of his newfound stance"
"Continuing his spoof"
"Hoffman is pulling our leg"
"Hoffman should know better because I've researched airliner crashes"
"Hoffman proves once-and-for-all that heís deliberately toying with us"
"not only are his arguments disingenuous, they're also flimsy and lightweight beyond words"
"he wrote a completely ridiculous piece that he knew everyone would trash"
"Isn't it obvious what Hoffmanís motives are?"
"It was all an exercise in reverse-psychology - a grand charade"

While Thorn may think its funny or cleverly written - I really don't know - it doesn't feel that way to me. It feels derogatory and attacking.

[note: "reverse psychology" might apply to some of the hoaxers inserting fake claims of complicity while pretending to be government opponents]

From a review posted to
Beware: Anti-Ruppert Campaign Has Started!, November 11, 2004
Reviewer: <> Jason R. Stanson

Mike Ruppert is unquestionably a great American hero. His book, Crossing the Rubicon, is the single most important book written in the last fifty years at least. The Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the lies about WMDs in Iraq have created a growing sense of unease in the collective unconscious. As a result, a growing number of intellectuals and every day citizens are begining to see the Truth and more and more people are begining to wake up every day. Crossing the Rubicon is at the forefront of this new awareness. Most reviewers here have already done a great job summarizing the content of Mike's book. The many five star reviews are well deserved.
I want to write a note about the campaign to discredit Mike Ruppert and his book, a campaign which has apparently begun full blast. Another reviewer has already correctly noted how the few one-star reviews on this site follow the standard rules of organized disinformation campaigns. Through the use of innuendo, character assasination, and classic misdirection, several reviewers make it appear that the book rests its case on a handful of issues, such as the Vreeland case. In fact, all 696 pages are saturated with enough well documented and diverse evidence to prove the 911 criminal conspiracy many times over while adhering to the highest possible journalistic standards. Mike makes a case that could actually hold up in a court of law, whereas the establishment case for 911 could not even hold up in a high school debate. Quite a pathetic comment on the state of our society but I digress.
The most comically pathetic aspect of the disinformation campaign is a new "conspiracy website TV show" which proceeds to slam Ruppert in a laughable thirty-minute video. They make such shocking claims that Ruppert is "rude...impolite...a liar, blah, blah, blah" without offering anything substantive to back up their "claims". Anyone with even a degree of clear perception can clearly see that these people are either operatives with very poor acting skills or low grade actors hired by operatives. The lack of sincerity in their eyes, their nervous body language and laughable "faux-left-wing" wardrobe and demeanor betray an obvious Wag the Dog operation. A little research into their website and published books indicate that the entire operation has been slapped together in the last few months, no doubt to coincide with the publication of Crossing the Rubicon. This type of thing might fool the sheeple who think CNN is their friend. But those of us who have already seen the underbelly of the Propaganda Beast can only shake our heads in sad amusement. What a joke. Ruppert is wise to simply briefly address their libel on his own site but otherwise ignore them.
As Crossing the Rubicon gains ground, one can only imagine what new lows the disinformation campaign will hit. What's next? Websites that scream: Mike Ruppert Married Satan and Gave Birth to a Pink Alien Octopus who Molested your Mother!! Don't TRUST HIM!!
Hang in there Mr. Ruppert. Heroes are rarely recognized in their own time. You may or may not get the adulation you deserve in this lifetime but your work will help many people survive the coming storm.

Generations will owe you.