To get away with crimes, pretend to be a crime fighter

A shockingly blunt article by Eric Hufschmid, kind of a long read but worth it:

By Eric Hufschmid
11 Oct 2005

Most people think I am exaggerating when I tell them that the 9-11 "truth movement" is dominated by wolves in sheep's clothing.

Those of us who expose corruption actually face two problems:

# Convincing people that our government is corrupt beyond anything they dreamed possible

# Convincing people that most of the "truth seekers" are trying to cover up the corruption, or they are rival criminals trying to take over while Bush appears vulnerable.

The 9-11 attack is not a game
Thousands of people were murdered, billions of dollars worth of property was destroyed, and thousands are still suffering health problems from breathing the demolition debris. And wars are still going on because of the attack.

The people who did 9-11 have a lot to lose if they are exposed, and they have a lot to gain if they remain in control.

Furthermore, 9-11 was not their first crime. Many of them were involved in other crimes that they must cover up.

Do you really think these people are so foolish that they will sit idly by while people expose them? If so, take a look at some of the suspicious suicides and accidents during the past decade.

For example, Gary Webb committed suicide by shooting himself in the head, twice. Mike Ruppert insists this is possible.

Other people suspect Ruppert is a wolf in sheep's clothing who is trying to deflect attention away from the Zionists and onto the CIA, vice-president Cheney, and Peak Oil. Some sites think Mossad killed Gary Webb.

Deception is the preferred weapon
Setting up suicides and airplane accidents is expensive and risky, so they kill us only as a last resort. They prefer to pay hundreds, maybe thousands, of people to pretend to be 9-11 "truth seekers".


Which organization is of value?
There are thousands of organizations and web sites that claim to be trying to help us. However, we must judge an organization and their leaders by their accomplishments, not by what they promise.

If you belong to an organization, ask yourself, what has it done for you or the world? Be serious when answering that question. Be as critical of your organization as you are of President Bush. Don't be a hypocrite by supporting a crummy or corrupt leader while you condemn Bush for corruption and incompetence. The world does not improve from hypocrisy; it improves when people develop intelligent suggestions and do some real work.

Unless we raise standards for people in leadership position, nothing will improve. We don't need a rival group of criminals and hypocrites to replace Bush. We need to get higher quality leaders.

Link is fixed, thanks Jon!

Link is fixed, thanks Jon!

I am FURIOUS right now.

I am FURIOUS right now. With Eric. He picked the WRONG organization to use as an example.

I have PERSONAL experience with the majority of "9/11" Groups, and I can tell you that is FULL of HONEST citizens, and is full of LYING bastards who ONLY make their name by creating "havoc" within the movement.

I find NOTHING wrong with their statements regarding the demolition. They're RIGHT. There ISN'T a consensus among the movement about the collapse. I'm NOT talking about people who have been "around" for a while either.

I'm talking about the "newcomers" who believe 9/11 was allowed for as opposed to direct complicity.

Their statement allows the READER to make up their OWN mind.

What IS the consensus among the movement is that we are being LIED to by our Government about the most horrific event in our history.

I have said it before, and I will say it again.


BOTH believe that we DESERVE answers, and BOTH believe that our Government is corrupt.

BOTH theories regarding 9/11 are CRIMES to the HIGHEST extent of the law.

If those bastards in office let it happen, helped it to happen, or ORDERED to happen, we'll NEVER know unless we're unified as a movement, and articles like the one Eric just wrote HURTS this movement.

I have considered Eric a friend of mine for a long time now, but I think his efforts would have been better spent trying to UNIFY the movement rather than "splinter" it.

Articles that focus on the "infighting" serves NO PURPOSE.

I have been guilty of "infighting" in the past, but EVERY time I've partaken in those fights, I BELIEVED that if I were to put my two cents in, and MAYBE show the "newcomer" how irrelevant those fights are, MAYBE they would decide to stick around, and HELP OUT in this movement.

Those who spend ALL of their time focusing on the BULLSHIT serve no one except themselves, and WHO KNOWS ELSE.

What a useless game. So how

What a useless game. So how do I know Eric Hufschmid is not one of the "thousands" of people he thinks the government is paying to cover up 9/11 while pretending to expose it? Is it because he is among those quickest to raise the accusation without actually providing evidence? (Except, of course, that some people differ in approach from him!) One might take his decision to highlight his belief that the Apollo program was a hoax to a TV team from "Bullshit" (why is he giving them ammo at all?) as a possible example of someone intentionally undermining the credibility of 9/11 skepticism. For my part, I think simple stupidity is a far likelier explanation...

I have never seen a 9/11

I have never seen a 9/11 truth web site I didn't like. Every one adds a little to the pot. I don't think in-fighting makes any difference. The whole purpose of the movement is to wake people up to the truth about 9/11. In my case A year ago I watched Ruppert's "Truth and Lies" and vonKleist's "In Plane Site". The combination caused me to wake up. At first I thought Ruppert walked on water. Now I think he is a big oil shill. What difference does it make if he is a government plant? He helped me wake up. That is all that realy matters. When enough people wake up we will reach critical mass and win this thing. This WILL happen. All the in-fighting in the world can't stop it. Trust me.

Eric's article is imperfect

Eric's article is imperfect (especially that stuff about Network Solutions near the end), so it's not a home run, but it's still a stand-up triple on my scorecard.

So thanks, Eric, for pointing out so many increasingly-obvious truths (as with John Judge's duplicitous behavior):

"we must judge an organization and their leaders by their accomplishments, not by what they promise.


Be as critical of your organization as you are of President Bush. Don't be a hypocrite by supporting a crummy or corrupt leader while you condemn Bush for corruption and incompetence."

The thing is, those of us

The thing is, those of us who are sincere in our efforts to distribute the truth should be too busy doing just that.

Anyone that spends more time raising a stink with other Truthers than working on the task at hand is suspect.

This is far too important an issue for petty squabbles. If you don't agree with someone or if someone doesn't agree with you, who cares. Move on with your work, NEVER take your eye off the ball.

Wow - that truly was a waste

Wow - that truly was a waste of time to read. Does Eric not realize the self-referentiality of his own arguments? Are we to believe that EVERYONE is secretly fighting for control of the ignorant American Herd (except him of course). This type of thing is exactly what gives 'conspiracy theorists' a bad name - because he sees a conspiracy behind every single thing apparently. As such, I think that Eric is doing a good job of turning people off of 9/11 truth, because we can all be accused of being nutjobs with articles like this floating around. Therefore, Eric is fulfilling his own argument of marginilization for 9/11 truthers, and is doing the governments job for them (covering up the truth through disinformation). Hmmm...kind of makes you think about the author's role in this (hence, the inescapable self-refentiality of such arguments)

Well if he wrote that, then

Well if he wrote that, then that's Eric Hufschmid credibility right out the window, I did actually think he did good work with his documentary “disturbing questions” or whatever. I and until about half way down that article it was a good read, but then he goes and attacks people like that Nick Levis and so that means people like Carol Brouillet as well. And uses f*cking WING TV to back up his accusations, come on that’s just straight up BULLSHIT people, not impressed at all.

I recon maybe some of those people who don't question Israeli involvement enough might be a bit suspect. But Israeli involvement especially in the US is highly taboo so it's remotely understandable. I'm sure there are a few dis-info agents spreading bullshit, all the "Pod" stuff is entirely unnecessary, and considering that even the most compelling augments for further investigation into 9/11 at first glance seem wild enough already, the “Pod” etc just makes that situation worse. To add some highly unconvincing shit like "Pods fired missiles, and look there's a flash". When to most people with eye's it's almost impossible to decipher, if I was going to throw accusations around I'd say that the "Pod" is disinfo. I mean for example that NASA satellite that collided with a commit or something recently produced a flash on impact, does that mean that it "Had a Pod and fired missiles". No it means by my reasoning at least that the flash was caused by electronics of some kind or a static charge, much like the electronics that shorted in the plane's nose cone when it hit the towers.

The truth is though that slinging mud around is highly counter productive, people need to be singing from the same hymn sheet if there is actually going to be some kind of unity in this movement. And so that means everybody putting aside differences and concentrating on the issues that everybody agrees on, like Building 7 for example. Eric Hufschmid's being largely counter productive if it was actually him that wrote that. I know WING "complete Jokers" TV actually had somebody impersonate Alex Jones once so this might not actually be Eric Hufschmid writing.

Settle down,

Settle down, everyone.

Hufschmid's point, I think, is well taken. He does not assert positively that any of the characters he mentions are, well, anything. His point that most, or even any one of the truth sites *could* be front organizations is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE.


Watch your back.
Keep your wits about you.
Don't let anything or anyone make you lose your cool.
And, don't try to convince the inconvincible.
(My dad used to have a poster up in his garage that said, "Never try to teach a pig to dance. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig." I think, somehow, that's appropriate here.)

Go meet people face to face whenever possible. Act with a goal of "the truth," not "my ideas." But at the same time, realize that we're all human. The information being discussed here takes some real work and dedication just to find. Then, it's often incomplete, inconsistent, or full of speculation. What would you expect? I think we should be encouraging each other to expand the realm of our examination and discussion. One of these theories might just hit a nerve.

People have different reasons for defending different ideas or people. If one of those defenses raises red flags, ask. If you can't get a sufficient explanation, move that authority to your "questionable" list. This piece of Hufschmid's does NOT move him to that category for me. Hufschmid's primary expertise, from what I've seen and read, is to break ideas down to their logical components. Do not rely on anybody's foregone conclusion. Each participant in this truth movement *should* be able to back up their assertions with their sources, and none of us should assert as absolute truth that which we cannot (to a reasonable extent) prove.

Let's not let our egos get in the way, everyone. If conclusive/compelling information shatters your worldview, develop a new worldview. If the information doesn't fit, maybe there's an angle you haven't considered. For me, 9-11 has posed THE most complex dilemma I've ever seen. It's forced me to see the world in a new way. I no longer speak about "the government," because the government (and every agency in it, for that matter) is composed of a multitude of competing parties. There's no way that every person in any one place has the exact same motives.

I do know one thing. Those responsible for 9-11 are ruthless and dangerous. So are the perpetrators of JFKÂ’s assassination and many of the other crimes discussed on the 'net ("Conspiracy theory" is a government propaganda term. I reject it, and I suggest you do the same). Whether they're the same people may be up for debate, but one thing is clear, and I think HufschmidÂ’s piece highlights the possibilities that their presence presents. They have no problem taking human life. They have no problem lying, about anything. They will bribe anyone, torture anyone, and smile for the cameras.

Keep the faith. Good can, and must, prevail.
I love all of you. Keep fighting the good fight.

Some of the posts here

Some of the posts here indicate that some of us failed to fully grasp the point Eric made.

"The thing is, those of us who are sincere in our efforts to distribute the truth should be too busy doing just that."

Not all of us.

The 911 truth movement, such as it is, is littered with people who place personal relationships above logic and even truth. The sincerity of their emotions does not keep them from pulling in the wrong direction, such as by unwittingly helping substantiate the government's total-BS notion that 9/11 was about "suicidal Muslim hijackers". In that sense, they are merely "useful idiots", though they also provide cover for those who intentionally push and pull [us] in the wrong directions.

As Eric wrote:

Find useful idiots to promote nonsense. It is difficult to lie. The best way to spread false information is to find a fool to do the work for you. Convince the fool that the lie is actually the truth, and then the fool will spread the lie for you. Since he believes the lie, he will be sincere when he talks about it.

Learning to recognize (and ignore) false-friend double-agents such as John Judge can only strengthen the movement of truth about 9/11. Getting us to not recognize how such misleaders are hurting us will do the opposite.

I'm sorry that we seem to have some here who cannot recognize the truth about that limited-hangout site even when it is pretty nicely explained to them...

This is far too important an

This is far too important an issue for petty squabbles. ... NEVER take your eye off the ball.

If you think that what Eric wrote was about "petty squabbles", then either,

1. you still don't get it


2. you want to prevent others from getting it by trying to link this vital strategic point with "petty squabbles" (an act which provides cover for the misleaders)

When there is only one ball, I never take my eye off of it. But when double-agents start throwing fake balls around, I can either work 10X harder trying to sift real balls from fake ones (knowing that some people will be fooled by the fakes), or I can work 2X as hard and denounce the fake friends of 911 truth along with the perpetrators of 911.

I dunno about you, but working 10X harder than I already work for 911 truth is simply impossible.

Sorry Blimp, I think

Sorry Blimp, I think everyone here agrees that the Bush Administration orchestrated 9/11.

Should everyone here abandon our current efforts to distribute this truth and instead focus on tracking down these disinfo agents instead? Wouldn't that mean the disinfo agents have succeeded in distracting us from our purpose?

What we need is dialog between the groups, not infighting. I was a victim of the "pod" at one time, until somebody set me straight. Not by calling me disinfo and attacking everything I was doing, but instead by using reason and common sense. It took a while for it to sink in, but I finally understood.

Lead by example, show people the best evidence to distribute. Create articles and flyers, find a specific topic you're good at and make the most compelling argument of it that you can:

Distribute this compelling evidence and accomplish something. Or, fight amongst ourselves and accomplish nothing.

You should be, Some. Maybe

You should be, Some.

Maybe you should put up an online poll here to ask "everyone here" (including "Joe's friends"). Some of the people here either suppress or harbor/support folks who suppress some of the same 9/11 evidence our lying government suppresses! One such category of evidence is that which contradicts the belief that passenger airliners hit the buildings, most notably the Naudet video "flash frame" and the 5 Pentagon video frames.

The government suppressed its own evidence (those Pentagon video frames) in its own 911 commission report. John Judge to the rescue: in 'only' 149 pages, he told us what our lying government omitted from its 571-page report. Except for a certain category of evidence...

And so John Judge has betrayed himself to be a wolf in sheepdog's clothing.

I don't require everyone to agree on what they think hit the buildings (it doesn't matter so much what our theories of 911 are, what's important is that the government's is impossible!), but I do require all fair-minded folks to agree that it is wrong to suppress any 9/11 evidence, and especially all evidence which contradicts the government's theory of 9/11, ESPECIALLY when the suppressor claims to be on our side.

John Judge, Kyle Hence, David Kubiak, and "Paul Thompson", along with other of "Joe's web sites", intentionally misdirect and distort and dismiss and suppress various bits of evidence about 9/11, and for that -- their willful efforts to gatekeep certain truths, apparently in order to perpetuate a "limited hangout" -- they should be outed for what they're doing. This isn't personal; it's not about cliques, or friends, or friendships, or bickering, or egos, or envy, or territory, or fighting among ourselves, or any of the other crap that always gets tossed out by someone whenever the gatekeepers' actual actions come under scrutiny.

Hey Blimp, let me give you

Hey Blimp, let me give you an example of this problem as I see it:

A while back I joined a BB that discussed the attacks. For two days I had to defend myself against a couple of guys who felt they were the disinfo police. I spent two days explaining my beliefs to them, defending my tactics, giving reasons for my tactics, etc.

Anyway, eventually they were satisfied with my answers and moved on. So, who wins from that little exercise?

Not me, I lost two days of activism justifying myself to these guys. Not the truth, for the same reason. Not newcomers to the movement, who expect to see a cohesive group of people working towards the same goals, and instead saw vicious infighting.

Never underestimate the damage this does to the NEW Truthers out there, who immediately feel alienated and afraid to get involved or suffer the same abuse.

So, who profitted from this pointless exercise? I lost two days of activism. I could say these other two guys lost two days of activism, but I doubt it, I'm sure they just moved on and pestered someone else.

Bush and his murderous regime profitted, that is who. The movement, at least my little part of it, was stalled for a couple of days, other people wasted their time reading the posts, newcomers read the posts and suddenly felt alienated and afraid to get involved.

Will these disinfo agents ever be successfully outed? Unlikely, they will just engage you in circular logic and waste all our time and energy, which ultimately is their goal. So is there any point in wasting our time?

Sorry, I'm not playing that game. The best defense is a good offense. I spend my days posting my articles, emailing the media, and scouring the internet for news stories. I refuse to be distracted by these "petty squabbles".

One more thing, I know you take offense to the phrase "petty squabbles", unfortunately that is what they are. A contingent of troublemakers in each group who insist on pushing their agendas down everyone's throat. If they feel so strongly about their evidence, then they should promote it, positively, using the most compelling evidence they have instead of attacking people in bulletin boards.

I just received information

I just received information last night from a VERY reputable source. Blimp Pilot has been harassing people in the 9/11 Truth Movement for the last 2+ years.

blimp pilot, or "Dave" from

blimp pilot, or "Dave" from Colorado Springs has been aggressively attacking members especially over the last 2+ years.

2 years of non-stop attacks, and he won't even give his real name.

As SBG said, "Anyone that spends more time raising a stink with other Truthers than working on the task at hand is suspect."

Well, I've wasted too much

Well, I've wasted too much time on this nonsense and so has everyone else. Actions speak louder than words. Time to spread the word. What follows is my contribution to this movement, and I distribute it every day. I suggest everyone else decide what evidence is most compelling to them and do the same.

Simple Logic Exposes the Truth:

Simple Logic Part II:

Bush Knew Flyer:

Sorry, I screwed up, here's

Sorry, I screwed up, here's my Bush Knew flyer:

My Contribution There's one

My Contribution

There's one of mine.

Let others decide who is

Let others decide who is behaving like "Joe's friends".

The site owner here, Roger, feels free to call anything he doesn't like "slanderous". (That amounts to libel on the part of Roger. But I'm the only one who can say that because Roger didn't let others see the post which was critical of his 911 truth suppressing behavior [ie, it outed him as a hijacker-hugger].) We already know that we can't blame the collapses of the towers on airplanes, but Roger and others here 'think' we should still waste our precious time concerning ourselves with "hijackers".

The lovely and charming Jon Gold, who I wasn't even talking to (he's behaved atrociously here (and via email), but another of Joe's friends, Roger, doesn't seem to mind that at all because, among Joe's friends, being a friend of Joe's counts for more than anything), responded with baseless ad hominem attacks. IOW, disinfo. Good yellow journalism, too, Jon. I haven't seen such defamatory garbage since it was published by the disingenuous Carol Brouillet on her web site earlier this year. (It seems that Joe's friends don't like having their lying bluffs called.)

And Some just ignored my post, and John Judge's treacherous behavior, as if he cannot read or does not care, and tried to revert the discussion to being about our beliefs and theories once again, a tactic which was totally refuted in my previous post. Some's misidrection is another form of disinformation. John Judge, by his own actions, has outed himself as a disinformation agent, and Some says he can't afford the time to be "distracted by 'petty squabbles'"!!!???!!!

911blogger is clearly one of Joe's friends' sites. Circle the wagons and just keep outing yourselves as enemies of 911 truth, guys -- you're getting very good at it! You're behaving very much as illustrated in Eric's article. Pretending that you think it would take too much time or effort to recognize the traitors in our midst is a good one, and may even fool an honest person or two...

Hey Blimp, most of my work

Hey Blimp, most of my work deals with controlled demolition, which is entirely government sponsored terror. Furthermore, it directs readers to your site, so lets stop pretending we have different agendas.

Secondly, by Eric's and your own admission, the truth movement is based almost entirely of disinformation agents, should we stop what were doing and track all of them down????

When you mentioned I ignored John's behavior, you are correct, I did ignore his behavior, I don't even know what the behavior in question is, and as you pointed out, I don't care.

I really don't. I don't know anything about these people you are claiming are disinfo agents, I can't be bothered fighting with the 80% or so of disinfo agents out there, its a meaningless fight, I'm here to spread the truth, not fight with everyone I don't agree with.

You might want to re-read Eric's article to refresh yourself as to what disruptive behavior a disinfo agent might cause:

# To disrupt other people's web sites
# To spread viruses and spam

Furthermore, Eric did not mention that we should all start attacking perceived disinfo sites, he suggested we be critical of any organization we are a member of.

That is it. I will not be distracted by you and your nonsense again. I have important work to do and so do you, time to move on.

The funny thing is... I just

The funny thing is... I just accused blimp pilot of harassing other 9/11 Truthers for 2+ years, and he didn't even bother to deny it. Scumbag.