An Important Message for All 9-11 Truth Activists

An Important Message from Michael

2006 represented a turning point for all 9-11 Truth Activists in that we saw several high profile "members" of the so-called 9-11 Truth Movement escalate an already established campaign of Infiltration, Dis-Information, Ad-Hominem Attacks on serious researchers and activists, and other forms of Information Sabotage designed to discredit our work and relegate us to the dustbins of history.

As I witnessed the engineered break-up of Scholars for 9-11 Truth among many other COINTELPRO style tactics, I realized that the destruction of our movement from within could no longer be ignored. In February of 2007, I conducted a series of interviews focusing on this topic which included a frank talk with film maker John Albanese. If you haven't done so already, please take the time to hear this important Special Report. Then watch the trailer for Mr. Albanese's new film, Disinformation in the Information Age, due out sometime in 2007.

I was not the only one to take on this extremely important topic in an attempt to educate ALL activists on the reality of, and the history of COINTELPRO in the United States. Below is a short list of some who have taken the lead in educating YOU on the destruction occurring within our movement.

Jim Hoffman
Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice


If you really care about holding accountable, those who are responsible for the crimes and cover-up of 9-11, you will educate yourself, and then take appropriate action to first, identify dis-information and its' purveyors, and then work to expose, and then distance yourself from these people and their poisonous venom. This is not a game!


"Pods/Flashes", "No planes @

"Pods/Flashes", "No planes @ wtc", "Space Beams", "Mini Nukes", "Jews did it" - are blatant pieces of disinfo that we all agree to reject.

The more divisive issues that some of us regard as disinfo and others adamantly believe in are largely non-9/11 related, things like "Peak Oil", "Global Warming", "Religion" etc are things that we need to not let ourselves be needlessly divided by.

The Pentagon debate is the only valid point of contention that I can see, personally I don't think a Boeing struck that building, although there does seem to have been one in the area according to corroborated eyewitness accounts. But regardless of my personal assessment what's more important is the fact the building was even struck in the first place, where it was struck and why are we not allowed to see all the definitive footage of the impact etc? "What hit it" is rendered almost irrelevant alongside those just as important and equally damning questions.

Not so fast...

Dem Bruce Lee wrote:

"Pods/Flashes", "No planes @ wtc", "Space Beams", "Mini Nukes", "Jews did it" - are blatant pieces of disinfo that we all agree to reject."

I agree about everything but the pods/flashes. I watched In Plane Sight and it made a very strong case for pods/flashes under the plane that hit the South Tower. Maybe both, I can't remember now. But in any case, I don't see what the problem is with that particular scenario. Maybe the planes were specially fitted with missile launchers to be sure they fully penetrated the buildings? In any case, I don't see how holding that theory discredits the Controlled Demolition thesis.

The impact flashes are undeniable...

The "pods" are not...

There are other pictures of the plane approaching the south tower (including head-on and angled) shots, that show that the "pods" are nothing but light and shadows, with the main one being the wing-root fairing.

People will believe what they want, all I can say is that I have thoroughly checked it out and I'm far from convinced.

More at :

Best wishes

Show "Faked videos were broadcast on 9/11" by Ningen
Show "Faked radar blips may also have been transmitted" by Ningen


COINTELPRO has succeeded the moment someone accuses someone else of being a disinfo agent without SOLID PROOF. This is not a game. No one should ever be accused without PROOF (like a paycheck stub from an alphabet agency)

Otherwise all you have is your opinion, and those are like assholes - everyone has one.

It is important to be aware of COINTELPRO programs, but you can't do anything about them except stick to the facts and the truth and NOT stoop to attacking others who may have a different point of view. A different point of view, not matter how lunatic-seeming, does not in itself make someone an agent.

Trying to protect people from bad info is patronizing. Don't try to protect the innocent from bad information, show them WHY it is incorrect or unlikely, without irrelevant ad hominems.

This is indeed not a game. Stick to the FACTS and avoid the personality clashes.

If you think someone is promoting bad information, counter it with good information.

COINTELPRO is at least as much about sowing doubt and suspicion among movement members and getting them to attack each other as it is about infiltration. Either one is a success.

Rise above that game.

Good point, yarrow

The truism is that when the attack dogs go after you,
you're hitting where it hurts.

Has anybody else noticed that it's theories that point to
military involvement that are most rabidly attacked?

I say let's keep open minds. The more you attack other
people, the more impossible it is to admit it when you
were wrong.

Show "Military use of media is most rabidly attacked" by Ningen

great point Yarrow, see this

great point Yarrow, see this thread for some ugly examples of what you speak:

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA



didn't we do this when Fetzer flipped?
/deja vu

do what exactly? im not

do what exactly? im not sticking up for Shayler or vouching for him, im simply pointing out how absurd it is that some of us around here think that when people see the BBC doc he had a part in they will be completely turned off to alternative 9/11 information because of it. as if even 5% will even know or follow up on who he is. its a short little online documentary that rips the BBC apart and serves a good purpose in that sense. i agree its a problem when Shayler shows up on Sky TV or whatever talking about holograms but thats not what this is here. but do what exactly? what did you mean by that?

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

I don't have a problem with

I don't have a problem with you, and it is obvious that our views on the subject are different.

Moving onward, and upward...

ok, dont explain what you

ok, dont explain what you meant then. thats fine. i really was curious though, i just dont think this is the same situation as the Fetzer flip. i dont have a problem with you either by the way, its insignificant when we disagree on something like this when our larger goals are probably the same(9/11 truth and justice).

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Very good points

Whenever someone says "don't trust this person", it is really missing the point. I've seen many of these "guilty by association" rants, or whatever... they are pretty juvenile. The best thing to do is educate ourselves on the tactics of division, disinformation, misinformation and the like, and let people think for themselves who the disrupters are. I think many are smart enough to figure out who these people are, because it is pretty obvious.

Telling us to not trust someone is one of their favorite tactics. This isn't a game, and the perps are NOT going to play fair. They are going to play "dirty". Expose their tactics, educate yourselves and most of all think for yourself.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

i totally agree, guilt by

i totally agree, guilt by association is completely unfair and the people who use that tactic usually use a double standard. take DRG for instance, hes extremely well respected in the movement(with good reason in my opinion)yet some people might say that his views on the Pentagon or the cell phone/airphone calls etc. are unconventional or even worse(i would respectfully disagree). this just highlights how it should always be more about the information than the personality. and not to continue an argument but this is why i find the BBC video from Shayler to be a pretty fine and effective piece of work despite Shayler's obvious problems. its all about context. im ok with Shayler ripping apart the BBC like he did online. im not ok with him going on British television talking about holograms. again, big difference. its all about perspective though.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA



We can all agree however, that DRG is not disrupting the movement. It is perfectly reasonable to have differing views on 9/11 as long as the one holding them is open to honest debate and a re-evaluation of the evidence and doesn't attack someone personally for holding contrary views. This really gets us nowhere. I don't object to those who are willing to honestly debate contrary views, but those who are not, it is best to leave it alone and spend our energies elsewhere. Some of contrarian views can simply arise because of the nature of 9/11 attacks and that the perpetrators are withholding evidence (WTC7 videos, WTC 7 photos of the "damage", WTC steel, Pentagon videos, etc), leading to speculations.

I personally feel we should stick to what we can prove with dead certainty--scientific proof. The weak arguments are always highlighted by the MSM in a straw-man to discredit by "guilt by association" our strongest evidence. I believe that there may even be a two-part disinformation/MSM strategy to create/highlight hoaxes. You only have to look at the amount of times certain individuals within the movement are given airtime on TV interviews/documentaries to espouse their views over other activists.

While I suppose this could be a coincidence, I fear that it is not.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

I also am not OK

with Shayler going on British television talking about holograms. But actually, he said that in the article "Meet the No-Planers" in the New Statesman, which misrepresented Shayler's hologram theory as representing the views of no-planers.

The article quoted him as saying "There is a Zionist conspiracy; that's a fact. And they were behind 9/11." It also said Shayler's leaflet had a link to lizard man David Icke. Then, as if to say that lizard men running the world was not nearly as kooky, the article says, "things really go off the rails." Shayler claims no planes, then says "the only explanation" is holograms.

Of course, there is another, more plausible and much more widely accepted view, which is simply that the videos were faked. Whatever you think of that, you must agree that holograms are not "the only explanation," and not the most widely held

This performance has led many to believe that former MI5 man Shayler is still an intelligence officer. Maybe, maybe not, but he hit three disinfo buttons --- Jews, aliens, and holograms. He was subjected to much criticism as a result, and perhaps as a result, has changed his argument.

In the interview on Britain's Sky News in December 2006, he did not make a hologram claim, and actually made an argument that should be beyond dispute by anyone serious about getting at the truth of 9/11.

His argument was simply that there is a international legal requirement that any air crash be investigated, and that there were no air crash investigations for any of the four alleged planes. This is a fact, right? There have been no official NTSB investigations, which presumably are required under the treaty of the International Civil Aviation Organization as well as under federal law. (Though federal law appears to have changed after TWA 800.)

Therefore, he said, there is no evidence that Flight 11 or Flight 175 hit the towers. The same argument would apply to the crashes of Flight 93 and Flight 77.

Whether there were air crash investigations is debateable, but after TWA 800 the FBI got lead agency status if the cause was criminal, and the FBI is not releasing information. Here is what NTSB says:

Shayler's argument about no investigations does not necessarily mean no planes, as it would also apply to the remote controlled plane theory that is often promoted here.

But the interviewer asked Shayler about the WTC videos, and he simply answered that he would invite the viewers to slow the video down and make their own conclusions about what happened there. A good answer, as the videos speak for themselves.

Shayler went on to talk about controlled demolitions and thermate, and about the general motives for false flag terror by the neocons and the military/industrial/oil complex, which is also backing off the "Zionist conspiracy" argument. All in all, not so bad even if you are convinced that no planes is disinformation. The problem is that Shayler earlier poisoned the well with his holograms, lizards, and Zionists, whether intentionally or not.

All this begins about 9 minutes into the video.

Show "Speaking of disinformation" by Ningen

great point

"If you really care about holding accountable, those who are responsible for the crimes and cover-up of 9-11, you will educate yourself, and then take appropriate action to first, identify dis-information and its' purveyors, and then work to expose, and then distance yourself from these people and their poisonous venom."

It is my personal view that the story about the Pakistani ISI / General Mahmood connection is disinformation. I've studied it more then most and there are too many instances of crafty wording in news article sources and unsubstantiated 'inteligence sources' for me to take seriously.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Ironically, it was probably

Ironically, it was probably inserted by the ISI into the Indian "paper of record". just my 2 cents.

just a hunch?

Is that a hunch / gut feeling?

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

yup - a "hunch" - It's a

yup - a "hunch" - It's a single source story - and most of what intelligence agencies do (in regards to covert ops) is insert cover stories via dis/misinformation. It would be naive to think Pakistan doesn't have assets working in India's media for the same purpose.

Note I am not making the statement that Pakistan is not involved in 9/11, I am just saying the story is probably misdirection.

Should I return David Ray Griffin's book?

You cite Truthmove, which says:

Early in the movement, some came to speculate that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Over time, this hypothesis was effectively challenged and refuted, as evidence supports the impact of an aircraft. However, some have since chosen to ignore the available evidence, and continue to make this assertion. Whatever their intentions, it is essential that we focus on only the best supported facts related to this issue, and find sources for those facts that do not equate fact with fantasy.

David Ray Griffin, on pages 261-282 of Debunking 9/11 Debunking, questions the evidence of an aircraft impact at the Pentagon.

Griffin cites, among others, Russell Pickering:

Griffin shows the absurdity of the crash physics as claimed by Purdue and the Pentagon Building Performance Report, who say that the plane was pulverized due to mass and velocity, and states at 271-272:

For one thing, in NIST's account of the Twin Towers, which [Popular Mechanics] endorses, the "mass and velocity" of the planes is used to make the opposite argument: they would not only sever the perimeter steel columns but also the massive core columns. Here, by contrast, the mass-and-velocity argument is used to explain why the plane, hitting a building with much less steel, would itself disintegrate. Is this not special pleading?

Griffin further states at 274:

Just as computer simulations worked miracles in relation to the Twin Towers, they seem to have done the same at the Pentagon--although in the former case they explained why an aircraft would cause so much damage, in the latter case, why so little.

Griffin is implicitly explaining why the analogy to the Sandia test, oft-cited by Jim Hoffman, is fundamentally flawed, and in fact shows the opposite of what Hoffman claims. A disintegrating plane does not keep passing through the barrier.

I have problems with some of the doublethink in Griffin's work, because he does not apply the same logic to the Twin Towers that he applies to the Pentagon, and even in the case of the Pentagon, uses the absurdity of the flight path and the ineptness of Hanjour to argue for a remote controlled plane that would be subject to the same crash physics as Flight 77 flown by Hanjour. However, on the whole, his book is an excellent exposition of the evidence and the flawed thinking inherent in the official story and the attempts to support it.

David Ray Griffin is supported by 9/11

Yet 9/11 is attacking many of his arguments as disinformation. I'm confused. You seem to be calling some of his arguments "poisonous venom" and saying I should distance myself from those arguments, unless they are made by David Ray Griffin.

You also seem to be supporting the absurd computer simulations of the Purdue crew.

Have I mistated your logic?