Who Should We Trust?

I received a great question by email today:

"[In the last couple of weeks,] the whole 911 truth movement seems to have gone to the dogs; everyone is attacking everyone else and calling them names. How to know the genuine article from the counterfeit?"

Indeed, many people are calling other people disinformation agents, or untrustworthy. How can we figure out who to trust and who not to trust?

I don't have any definitive answers. But my initial thought is that we should ask a couple of questions about someone, which will help us determine whether or not they are trustworthy.

Are they Putting Things in Context?

First, ask whether the person is helping to put 9/11 in historical context. For example, are they educating people about the history of false flag terror in Western countries? If you don't know what "false flag" means, start here.

Brzezinski, PNAC and the Bush administration are all important topics also. However, in my opinion, they are solely recent manifestations of the ancient history of false flag terror, which goes all the way back to ancient Rome. Educating people about the big picture concept of false flag terror is key.

If they are frequently discussing the larger historical context of false flag attacks, then they are doing a lot of good by educating the public about this important "secret history", and thus making it less likely that future false flag attacks will be carried out.

Alex Jones, for example, speaks frequently on false flag terror by Western governments. Therefore, he is doing a lot of good in educating Americans and others about this vital issue.

Are they Pulling a Rove?

If someone spends more time attacking others within the 9/11 truth movement than "moving the ball forward" by doing original research, writing, or activism, then they are not being very helpful. Divide and conquer is an age-old strategy of those who wish to maintain the status quo.

If someone is spending most of their energy attacking others for their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), their nationality, or other issues irrelevant to 9/11, then they are being more disruptive than helpful.

Karl Rove's technique is to attack and slime any messenger who is speaking the truth and saying something which criticizes Rove or his employers. Whether someone claims to be liberal, conservative or whatever, if they are pulling a Rove, they are not helping the movement.

What Have You Done For Me Lately?

The cheesy 80's song "What Have You Done for Me Lately?" should be one of the mottos of the truth movement. Why?

Obviously, we should judge people on their past work. Was their research accurate? Their writing or speaking powerful? Their strategies effective?

But someone might have done great work in the past, but then lost focus, gotten sloppy, burned out, or sold out.

So we should look not only at their past work, but whether they are becoming more and more helpful to the 9/11 truth movement (in which case they should be supported) or less and less helpful (in which case they should receive less support).

As one example, David Ray Griffin's work is only getting more effective, with one of his new books being published by the Presbyterian Church's main publishing arm, and other new books receiving wide praise.

Are They Doing Good In Other Areas?

If a 9/11 activist is doing good work in other areas, I am personally going to trust him or her a little bit more.

As an example, a good friend of mine is a pediatrician (a kid-doctor). Even she has heard of Professor Steve Jones' solar cookers, because they are helping to alleviate hunger in poor, third-world countries. Steve Jones was doing good in the world even before he got involved in 9/11 research. That's one of the reasons that I trust him.

Are They Empowering Others?

My final question is whether someone is empowering others to help spread 9/11 truth and to save America from anti-democratic forces which threaten it.

Do they inspire others to action? Or do they imply that only they have the power to do it, and so everyone else should just sit back and support them? Or do they imply that its hopeless?

The best leaders inspire others to take action and to become leaders themselves, to spread 9/11 truth and to help re-establish of the ideals of our founding fathers.

The above are my off-the-top-of-my-head tests for determining whether or not to trust someone. Please let me know your criteria for assessing whether or not someone is trustworthy.

More importantly, keep moving the ball of 9/11 truth forward yourself. This is largely a competition between those trying to wake up the American public and those trying to confuse, distract, scare, and intimidate the public into believing the official story about 9/11. So regardless of what the various "leaders" of the movement are doing, work as hard as you can yourself to promote the truth and demand justice.

Comments, Ideas and Criticism Welcome


if they try to discourage

if they try to discourage you they are fakers

afa I'm concerned..

Anyone refusing to "look at the information" with an open mind, and instead resorts to childish namecalling and insults, are fake truthers.

NO ONE should discourage others from looking at information.

There's a difference...

Between looking at information, and passing off bad information as fact. If you do the latter consistently, over and over and over again, either you don't have the ability to admit when you're wrong, or there's another reason.

Passing off bad information as fact does two things.

It makes the movement look bad, and it causes division within the movement.

You said "NO ONE should discourage others from looking at information", and I agree.

However there's nothing wrong with saying, "There isn't much to David Icke's assertion that our leaders are actually reptillian, but it makes for an interesting story..."

As opposed to... "Take a look at David Icke man... Reptiles are ruling the planet..."

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

where am I passing "bad" infomation?

you let me know and I'll apologize

Feeling Guilty About Something?

Did I say "cb_brooklyn" passes off bad information or did I make a general statement?

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi


I guess I said "you", and I should have said "someone", but that statement was not directed at you.

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

huh..... you certainly inpllied it.

Either way, I'm sure you agree Jon, that these chit chat debates are not productive. I'm gonna head to your site for some newspaper emails.

btw I don't believe I passed bad information. But if I did, it was accidental and with the best of intentions

it's pretty simple actually

When enough people get together to solve a problem, even if if a handful are dishonest, the truth tends to out. the majority of honest truthseekers will tend to come to the same conclusions. there has been disagreement about a few different issues in the truth movement and slowly but surely the disagreement on most issues fades as people study the issue, come down on one side or another, see what others think, revise their position, etc. that's why anonymous posters are to be trusted less--they might be the same person trying to multiply their apparent numbers to skew things. As we can see, no-planes has been around for a while and has not built up a very big following. it COULD be true MAYBE as far as I'm concerned, but it seems VERY unlikely. As unlikely as controlled demolition once seemed, belief in it does seem to have grown steadily. not so no-planes. i'm not advocating a sheep mentality, just a balance between thinking for yourself and being open to hearing what others think.

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

you're assuming the whole country buys CD

and that's just not the case. The Scripps survey shows only 16% of the country believe the controlled demolition. And it wasn't that long ago that CD was considered "absurd" and "silly" by many within the Truth Movement itself. It took time for many truthers to see it, simply because of the shock effect of 9/11. NPT (or some type of variant) is no different. It will take time. The shock effect may have worn down for many, but seeing the NPT may still be difficult due to its bizarre nature. But the science is there. And people WILL look. 911Blogger is seeing a lot more traffic these days thank God, and I personally am very exicted about that. Only those interested in NPT will look into it. People who come to this site are interested in learning about 9/11. They'll believe what makes sense to them. Truthers not buying NPT should NOT be distracted and should NOT waste time debating the issue, unless they actually think NPT could be real. Any debates should be real and not ad hominem. Only those interested in looking at the science should participate. All others should NOT waste their time, but instead should continue doing what they do best and educate others on the 9/11 truths that they know most about, and the 9/11 truths they feel most confident in speaking about.

more people ARE looking at

more people ARE looking at 911blogger.com now aren't they? that can only be a good thing.
everyone should maybe just stick to what they're most comfortable with as far as awaring new people - and i've found that one of the best ways to gain a better understanding of a particular issue is to put it in your own words and explain it to others.



Trust yourself

Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

Good Advice...


"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

GW, this blog should be

GW, this blog should be called "Who should we ban"? These people advocating "no planes" are hacking shit now, they definitely hacked that petition. And even though that petition didn’t even mean much anyway, it's the principle of it. These people need to be banned not just distrusted, they don’t deserve to be here anymore.

the no buildings petition

the no buildings petition was hacked in a false-flag hack with the intention of swaying blogger opinion against so-called no-planers. who stands to gain the most from framing the no-planers by hacking the petition?
click my name to see the many flaws in the individual images of ua175 that were presented to us by the mcmedia on 9/11.