New 9/11 Disinformation/Misinformation Page Up on TruthMove

I've been meaning to add this page for quite a while. Here's my first shot at it:

We'll probably be making a whole section for Disinfo eventually, as there are so many facets to the subject. We're also planning a page dedicated to "debunkers" as well.

Check it out, all suggestions welcome.


International Truth Movement

Pic of DRG

From the Department of Primacy of Visual Images: I don't think you should have a picture of DRG prominently displayed on the page. I know it's the publication you're targetting, but the initial impression it makes is not what you want. (Unless there's something about DRG I don't know.)

I disagree

It needs to be demonstrated that prominent members of this movement are having their images usurped for nefarious purposes.

In the 1960’s a antiwar group known as the Students for a Democratic Society included among their ranks Jewish activists Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Mark Rudd, and Paul Krassner. In 1969 the FBI created and distributed a leaflet depicting photos of these four activists super-imposed against swastikas over the headline "LAMPSHADES! LAMPSHADES! LAMPSHADES!"

sound familiar?

The FBI's fallback position was that the leaflets were intended to depict 'satire' and were 'just a joke.'

sound familiar?

the recent attempts to marry up the 911 Truth movement with Nazi imagery, (or what Nico Haupt refers to as "nazi satire") is right out of the same playbook.

Whether this is coincidence or not i do not know. Disinformation? Misinformation? The end result is the same. It is disruption and defamation of character of the worst kind.

Have you ever heard about

Have you ever heard about Diane Sawyer's hit piece on Ronald Reagan? She flashed dozens of examples of Ronald Reagan's manipulative photo ops on the screen while explaining how Reagan was lying with his images. The White House Press secretary called to thank her for repeating their images so prominently on television.

Images are powerful.

I don't disagree

that your point should be made. I think it is better made in text (as you do in your post.)

I'm saying that in terms of the first impression the page gives, to a casual observer, DRG=disinfo. This is just a consequence of the fact that when looking at a web page (or an ad) information that can be inferred from images (even falsely) is going to have more force than info that comes from a process of deduction (oh, I see, these guys are unfairly using DRG's image.)

Show "Albanese Uses Gestapo Tactics Against Researchers" by fred


you believe defending my church against the posting of swastikas and feces is gestapo - perhaps you shoudl have your head examined.

If you believe defending this community against people like you who post online slander - accusing me and others of planning violent acts - and inciting terrorism - and triggering the FBI counter terrorism task force to squander valuable time investigating your false claims - is gestapo - maybe you should have your head examined.

But - the police will sort this out.


more and more people are stepping forward who have been threatened. some have received mail at their home addresses with threatening content.

i hope you guys know what you are doing because all of this is getting more and more serious with each passing day.

we have now received threatening violent satanic cult materials. if you think this will stand without catching the eye of the community and media and ACLU and local police and the FBI itself you are frankly being a little stupid.

i don't know who you are Fred. I don't know if you have anything directly to do with these violent threats - or if you are just some lone wolf seeking to involve himself in events that do not really concern you. But - either way - your utter lack of respect and objectivity on this issue is unforgivable. Posting swastikas in churches? Mailing people Satanic threats? Whoever you are - i hope you are thinking LONG and HARD about what you are publicly defending - and who you are publicly attacking.

No one can FORCE you to break the law Fred. you can CHOOSE to be a conscientious objector and agree to cease and desist harassing this community.

Show "Is your attorney the attorney who stole Dr. Fetzer's website?" by Constitutionalist

No Constitutionalist/Rick

Its not.

Why don't you focus on smearing one person at a time.

Please consider changing the picture placement

The visual informational impact is negative towards Griffin. As noted by others, the visual impact is all important. Your words, located a good distance away it seemed, will have nearly zero ability to affect the impressio one gets from the picture. Which is negative towards Griffin... not the news rag. I recommend changing that configuration. For what it's worth.

Excellent work

I have a ton of material on this subject - let me know if there is anything i can do to help.

Fetzer and Siegel are doing a show on me today at 4. Commnents on Siegel's website is calling for my internment and torture - and accuses me of planning terrorist acts. All of this has been, or course, reported to the authorities.

Smells like desperation.

The more we force these subjects out into the light of day - the more useless their desperate flailing becomes.

Show "John Albanese Issues a Fatwa Against Nico Haupt" by fred

good job

You continue to add quality content to your site. Keep up the great work!

Fighting for G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, and Drugs) is available now for pre-order on Amazon.

Thank You!

Show "Speaking of disinformation..." by Killtown

911Blimp and David Shayler

911Blimp and David Shayler still believe in hologram theories.

Perhaps the 'believe' comment should be replaced by 'promote' because there are a number of sites out there that still have articles that argue hologram theories.

Show "Only two? "wow"" by Killtown
Show "Liars like John Albanese damage the movement" by fred

Once again, David Shayler

"Oh, fuck it, I'm just going to say this. Yes, I believe no planes were involved in 9/11. The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes. Watch the footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center."

International Truth Movement

Show "Wow, so ONE no-planer believes in holograms" by Killtown
Show "Oh Jules?" by Killtown

Who are the real disinformation specialists?

Looks like those who give negative ratings to people who try to stop misinformation.


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

Come on Jules, what are you afraid of?

Afraid everybody will realize you are spreading misinformation about no-planers with your page that makes it look like all/most no-planers subscribe to the hologram theory?


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

Jules = Coward & spewing disinformation

I've repeatedly asked Jules to list all the no-planers who subscribe to the hologram theory to back up Jules site which seems to suggest most no-planers subscribe to it:

Several high-profile “researchers” and supposed 9/11 skeptics have come out promoting theories that no planes actually hit the WTC towers, instead holograms and/or “TV fakery” was supposedly used to simulate the planes.

Come on Jules, where the list I asked for? Show me that most no-planers subscribe to holograms. 

Don't chicken out!


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

No Planer Hologram List? Where is it Jules?

Again, more lies and disinformation from the planehuggers and truthlings at 911 Blogger. is peddling disinformation


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

I guess soemtimes it does take one to know one, hologram dude!

Seems though that as soon as the limited hangout people start catching flak from real truthers, the hologram cavalry arrives to attack the limited hangout people to make it look like the limited hangout people are all about credibility.

What a circus.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


"Hologram dude," who is that?


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

oops, sorry--my bad

"Video fakery dude" is what I must have meant to say.

You are the heads to the limited hangout tails. The truth is that thin little rim between the two of you.

Let's roll!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


No-planers/TV-fakery are limited hangouters now?

Wow, how things change.


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.


I heard

I hope this site covers the "Ben Chertoff saying he's not related to Michael Chertoff" story.

I heard that the Chertoff family were the founding creators of the Mossad.

That is so freaking coincidental..... that is just the luck of our government.... It just seems like nothing is going their way.... weird???

Chertoff has been involved in our government for a very long time..... I wonder how he got his job?

That might be interesting information
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Simple proof that its not us who are the OPs

Q. Are the Perps infiltrating 911 truth by posting on message boards?

If so, then

Q. Do they use the voting system to bury posts they don't want to see?

If so, then

Q. Which posts are being buried?


''Probably even more destructive than actual disinformation agents has been the tendency of some members of the movement to label those who disagree with them as disinformation agents.'' DAVID RAY GRIFFIN, 5 Feb 2007

controlled demolition is a straw man?

I read your page and have to say that I am, well, confused. You seem to imply that controlled demolition is a straw man argument promoted by disinfo agents because it is "incredible", "easy to debunk", etc. You also seem to say that no plane at the Pentagon is a similar argument.

A better example of a straw man is Nico Haupt, the strawiest of straw men. Folks who want to understand REAL disinfo tactics need look no farther than the discussion on this page. Here an army of hologram, video-fakery, mininukes and space beams promoting straw men are marched out for easy knock down by a self-proclaimed "movement's most credible researcher" and disinfo identifier who I won't name.

Classic straw-man scenario, whereas on your page you seem to be doing everything possible to downplay the importance of the obvious case of controlled demolition at the WTC and the obvious fact that no big boeing hit the Pentagon. You dis in Plane Site (admittedly not one of the best, but certainly not the worst doc) simply because it includes the silly "pod theory". Well, it was also the first time this truther saw building 7 collapse. Could well be disinfo, but not for the reasons you cite.

Finally, your "eleven points" include mention of a Pakistan connection to 9/11 being suppressed, and no mention of the much more extensive suppressed Israeli connections like the dancing Israelis, the spy-ring, Silverstein's political connections, etc.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



"Finally, your "eleven points" include mention of a Pakistan connection to 9/11 being suppressed, and no mention of the much more extensive suppressed Israeli connections like the dancing Israelis, the spy-ring, Silverstein's political connections, etc."

Huh, well, IMO a money transfer to the hijackers is definitely MORE extensive and meaningful and valuable as an argument than dancing israelis, or political connections.... Not meaning to say those are worthless or meaningless, but def. not as strong.

what hijackers?

Sorry em7, I must have missed the evdience for Atta having hijacked, let alone boarded, a flight out of Boston on September 11. The only video shows him flying out of Portland, Maine. What convinced you that he indeed hijacked anything? Was it his passport being found in the streets of New York around the WTC? Because..giggle..hmmmrrrmmph...HAHAHAHA!

Seriously though, you believe Atta was on that plane? Or are you just saying that he should be tried for being wired $100,000?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



well, ok, you have a point there. No, i dont believe that Atta really hijacked a flight on 911.
But, i DO think he DID have a role , just not the one we're told (and not the one HE was told either).
So, now , you mean to say because there is no proof that he hijacked a plane its meaningless that there is a connection between the ISI and the alleged hijackers??
The fact that he most probably did not hijack anything (at least not in 'real life'...maybe he did 'as a drill'....) does not change the fact that this IMO is a smoking gun.

ok gotcha

Sorry for being snippy. I do think it's interesting, I do think Atta had a mission, a role to play. I don't trust Pakistani intelligence any more than I do Mossad, CIA, MI6, or any other covert group. I just think that it is a minor detail surely to be investigated but unfortunately lending credence to unproven claims about what happened on 9/11. Since a lot of people seem to accept on faith that the hijacker part of the story is true I have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to mentions of the Pakistan connection... workin' on it!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



Ok, i see your angle. I never thought of this story as lending credence to the actual hijacking-with-boxcutters-fairy tale. Ill do my best from now on to not forget to put 'alleged' in front of 'hijackers'.
And btw, i dont agree that this is a minor detail (yuk, that sounds a bit like the omission report), but im happy to disagree here. Theres better things to do than fight over that...

Read again.

First of all, to get my big gripe out of the way, our CD page NEVER implies that CD is a "straw man argument promoted by disinfo agents." I think this is very clear, so it would seem to me that you are just trying to provoke us. Please clarify. Why have so many others read the page and not misunderstood as you have?

From the Demoltion & WTC 7 page at TruthMove:

"While it may sound outlandish, the total collapse of the World Trade Center towers cannot be adequately explained by the official story of crash damage and fire. In fact, the evidence much more accurately fits the hypothesis of controlled demolition through the use of explosives."

"Controlled demolition started as a somewhat controversial theory within the 9/11 Truth Movement. But in the last year or two, it has become widely accepted and increasingly well documented. However, there is a danger that the movement could become too closely tied to the sensational-sounding, “They blew up the Towers with explosives!!!”

Our page makes it very clear that we take the CD hypothesis very seriously, while also acknowledging the extent to which it has been used by the mainstream media to discredit the movement. We can talk about CD, while not sensationalizing its every detail. We can discuss the Pentagon, without supposing where the plane went. And we feel that there is a valid reason to do so.

As Mike Ruppert made clear, two months after 9/11, in the "Truth and Lies of 9/11," (putting peak oil aside for the moment) the case for complicity, means, motive, opportunity, and probable cause are established without the ever compelling contribution of the physical evidence.

Now I'm not trying to start a debate about the validity of the physical evidence, but rather, trying to clarify why TruthMove has chosen to frame the issues of CD and Flight 77 in a specific manner. We don't think people should over-emphasize these subjects, when they are the very subjects used by the MSM to discredit us, and in many cases (not all), not essential to our probable cause. If people are going to promote these hypotheses, they should seek to clarify the very best evidence involved. And while that seems to go without saying, it is quite often not the case.

For instance, the fact that Donald Rumsfeld supposedly sat in his office for over a half hour, under imminent threat to his life, while Dick Cheney knew Flight 77 was approaching, indicates that someone must be lying. This story is not credible. It's just not reasonable that Cheney didn't warn Rumsfeld.

Now contrast that with the suggestion that the hole in the Pentagon was only 16' wide...I don't know what else to say. One of these things really gets your brain going about who might have answers that we need, while the other is just false.

The TruthMove Insight pages are all meant to be basic and accessible summaries of the subjects, from a Truth Movement perspective. 9/11 truth is only one of many issues we are concerned with, and so our 9/11 truth section is not meant to be exhaustive. Its meant to be an intro to the subject, that opens people minds with the most compelling evidence rather than closing their minds with a bunch of evidence that appears, even on first glance (and sometimes that's all you get) to be sensational or overly speculative.

Once people have been introduced to the subject, and become more curious about what happened, then we hope people will explore a wide range of the evidence, including that which is more speculative. But people really need to understand the probable cause this movement is all about, before they get caught up in all the intricate details

International Truth Movement

I stand by my critique Jules

From your disinfo page:

The Straw Man Argument - by promoting speculative, sensational, and false evidence, opponents can setup easily debunkable points that can be used to lend credence to their position. The opposition prefers dealing with points that can be countered or dismissed; controlled demolition and no plane at the Pentagon are some of the most incredible theories in the movement. Whether or not there is prevalent evidence to support these theories almost doesn’t matter if the public is likely to be incredulous and quickly dismiss them.

Are you honestly saying that this phrasing does not seem to imply that CD and the Pentagon are straw man arguments?

Our disagreement seems to be about what evidence is best to focus on in outreach. I happen to think that because the physical evidence is what got most people I know interested in the topic, that that's the way to go. I constantly hear people like you say that "the media uses it against us". I am not going to change anything I do in response to the media unless you can prove to me that the media's attempts to ridicule the physical evidence are actually convincing anyone.

Your Pentagon example above is also disingenuous. Do you not see that Cheney not telling Rumsfeld could be explained away in a number of ways? They couldn't reach him. They did but he didn't do anything. They did but he misunderstood. They were confused. Et cetera. At worst, we get LIHOP--OH so Cheney let the terrorists hit the Pentagon?

Compare that to the obvious fact that no plane the size of a Boeing could have crashed there as anyone who is being honest can plainly see. Pretending that the pictures don't make it obvious is pointless. It's obvious to most people, which is one reason why a lot of us are truthers today.

Simply put, I don't like your approach, and while you have a lovely looking site, I don't see what it contributes other than one more point on the spectrum somewhere between LIHOP and MIHOP.

Finally, here is what a search for "Israel" turns up on your site:

Results for 'israel'

One result on a page that mentions Mossad in passing--it's actually about the CIA. Come on Jules, who do you think you're talking to here? We're about substance--not style.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



"I am not going to change anything I do in response to the media unless you can prove to me that the media's attempts to ridicule the physical evidence are actually convincing anyone."

Wow! So you honestly think the latest hit piece on Paula Zahn has no negative impact on the movement? I refer you to the first comment by Jon Gold at this thread.

Its become predictable, but that says a great deal about how the MSM has chosen to frame our movement, and we are in a PR battle to counter that impression. I'm not saying that we bend to the will of the MSM, I'm saying that our message does not NEED to over-emphasize those things that ARE used to make us look bad. No one is talking about suppressing evidence.

If you really wanted to make a point and have it heard, you should have been specific, and a little less confrontational in the first place. I now get your point, and think it has some merit, and we will talk about how to appropriately respond. We generally try to respond as quickly as we can to any suggestions we find essential or helpful.

Once again, we are not trying to say that CD and Pentagon evidence are irrelevant or simply disinformation. I suppose if you were to take these comments out of the context of the CD page, one click away, it might look that way. But why would you do that?

We asked people in the original post for their input. There was no reason for you to assume that we would not respond, and yet you began to stereotype our behavior and strategy right off the bat. My response would not have been so blustery if you had just put things a different way. I try so hard to keep my cool.

Anyway, your comments are noted, and please assume next time that your future comments, if remotely polite, will be taken seriously.

About Israel. As I have said above, the TruthMove 9/11 truth page is trying to summarize just the most convincing evidence for those who visit, as an intro to the subject of 9/11 truth. And while the movement may gain greater insight into the events of 9/11 by this line of inquiry, it just didn't make the cut for our general summary of this issue. We remain open to further evidence and analysis.

Fight Club

If anyone is getting bored you could join me at

I'm trying to wake some college people up in Bloomington, Illinois
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Fantastic presentation, Donkadonk.

Do I really have to join another forum though? I've got my hands full right now as we speak... my own family has finally started to receive my material with far less disdain and snickering... I've got to work it while the iron is hot.

Not trying to skirt assisting you any way I could, but your material really is a great example of a stand alone effort. I might just cut and past it to other locations instead of pilling on where you already have. But I'll check it again after it gestates a little longer. Best to you,


"that is what the military does when there is nothing else to do." -911truthiness

Show "Why don't the CIA vote us up if we're disinfo?" by Hereward

So the proof that you are

So the proof that you are right is that everyone disagrees with you? That makes sense.

You are indirectly calling everyone who disagrees with you (and your tactics) agents, which is ironic given your quoting of Dr. Griffin. Perhaps a roll call of disagreement needs to be done? That way you can directly call those that vote your never-ending beam weapon bullshit down agents to their faces?

You are a broken record. Did you ever stop to think that maybe people just don't find the argument convincing? Do you think by attacking everyone who disagrees with you it will make them change their minds? Evidence speaks for itself (when it is strong enough).


I have updated both the Disinformation and Controlled Demolition pages to better explain our positions.

International Truth Movement