Comment on use of the phrase "9/11 Truther"

I have a question for everyone. Since when have we all suddenly become "9/11 Truthers"? I find that 99% of the time this phrase is used to marginalize the work that we do and label us as "one of those people", a "nut", a "freak". I just read a comment that said something like "those truthers... I thought they went away". Let's break down the term here. There is 9/11 and Truther, thus someone who is interested in finding out the truth about 9/11. This does not necessarily imply inside job. It could be someone who believes the attack was blowback, like Noam Chomsky, but who would still like a full and truthful account of what happened that day. Thus, who on this Earth is not on some level a 9/11 Truther? This is similar to saying you are an Iraq Peacer!! But do Iraq peace activists go around saying they are Iraq Peacers? We all want truth, peace, justice, harmony, and on and on. Therefore, I often wonder what purpose the phrase 9/11 Truther serves, if it is even necessary, and if it is not doing more harm than good. I, personally, do not go by the label 9/11 Truther but rather consider myself a 9/11 truth activist... although I rarely even state this phrase unless pressed. Either one of these phrases tends to draw attention to the messenger, and not the message, and often in a slanderous way. However, on the other hand, I fully embrace the phrase 9/11 Truth Movement, as the term Movement seems to imply something big and not fringe. I see this phrase as having been very beneficial to our message and what we are trying to accomplish.

I would not bring up this subject if I did not see our movement being marginalized with the phrase 9/11 Truther. I am not talking about the people within this movement who may be using this phrase in a positive manner, so please do not take offense. Understand, I see myself being called a "truther" in the context of "one of those people" and am offended by that. I am not here to preach what is absolutely right or wrong for this movement but wanted to at least start a discussion. I was reluctant to write this blog for quite a while, and at first it seemed like a petty issue. But more and more I see the potential harm it is doing. I would just simply encourage people to think about how the phrase 9/11 Truther has suddenly permeated our entire movement and what effect it may be having.

Comments welcome...

"9/11 Research Community"

is one I like. There was one online documentary, I forget the name of it, in which the host stated: "I don't think there's much disagreement in the 9/11 research community that one of the strongest arguments that challenges the official story is the issue of 'controlled demolition.'" I remember thinking, 9/11 research community sounds good.

For one thing, the "truther" label opens up invitation for an opposing "side" to blossom and (attempt to) flourish: the "debunkers." And then, onlookers who don't have the time or strength to do the thorough research simply think, "Well, the "truthers" and the "debunkers" each have their strong and weak points, and each side has members who are real passionate that their side is correct, so I'm not sure if I know who to believe. [And then, hopelessly,] We'll probably never know what happened." The onlooker loses any hope and interest over the subject and continues shopping.

But what kind of opposition label can be sprung from "9/11 research community?" It's actually kind of humorous to ponder. "Citizens against 9/11 research"? "the anti-researchers"?

By the way, with regard to the "debunkers," the better label for them would actually be "anti-truthers." They have hijacked the word "debunker." We here are the REAL debunkers, because we were SKEPTICAL of and hence DEBUNKED the official story. People like Pat Curley go after people like Jon Gold with the same venom as they do with Nico Haupt. They are likely being paid to smear 9/11 truth seekers. They are indeed anti-truthers, in the truest sense of the word.


"By the way, with regard to the "debunkers," the better label for them would actually be "anti-truthers."


Might be able to blame me for the creation of that term. A long time ago, somebigguy and myself were taking a lot of flack on a site, and he told me how frustrating it was, etc... to me, in a private message. I said something like, "you're a 9/11 Truther, etc... etc..." in an attempt to pump him up. Since the start of my site, I've had a "9/11 Truther Forum." Personally, I am PROUD to call myself a "9/11 Truther."

However, I do understand what you're saying. You could make the same exact argument for the term, "9/11 Truth." The reason this has happened is because the media has been EXTREMELY successful over the years drilling the idea into people's heads that people who question 9/11, are insane, America hating crackpot conspiracy theorists. Those people that promote what might be considered to be "bad information" have helped them to create that image. The media, and "debunkers" have had no shortage of stupidity to focus on in an attempt to paint us all as such.

To me, the way you combat this is to make an effort to be the best possible "9/11 Truther" you can be. To promote good information, to be assertive but cordial, to be respectful of other people's opinions, etc... etc... etc.. To make it so blatantly obvious to anyone interacting with you, or reading/watching your material, that you are NOT an insane America hating crackpot conspiracy theorist, but instead, a good person, with legitimate concerns.

As Rob said below, "Whatever we call ourselves, there will be an effort to marginalize us and whatever moniker we choose."

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Agreed, Jon, and well said

I'm also proud to call myself a "9/11 truther" or "9/11 truth activist".

I think some folks spend too much time and energy worrying about the "debunkers", myself, we have them on the run and all but the most deluded know this. You can smell their desperation, even online.

Keep up the great work!


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Just as they portrayed the 9/11 attacks as per the official....

...story, the controlled media also carefully presented to the public an image of the 9/11 truther "nutjob" so as to sabotage the movement from the beginning. Only certain personalities were allowed in front of the camera to represent the movement. Fetzer seems to have been the most prominent. Some of them emphasized the no-Boeing theory at the Pentagon; some talked about the military-industrial complex or the new world order. But all of them had one narrative in common: they all pointed to the US government as the perpetrator of the attacks, and NONE of them ever mentioned Israel or Zionism...

This has been one of the biggest stumbling blocks in my efforts as a "truther." I am immediately lumped in with Fetzer, Avery & Co. It never seems to occur to anyone that I might have ideas of my own, that I may have done my own research. Just a furrowed brow and "why do you think the government did it? Huh?"

I once wrote a letter to the local paper raising a few questions about the maneuver pulled off by "Hani Hanjour" in FL77 at the Pentagon. I also wondered aloud how eight professional pilots were so easily overcome by skinny little Arabs with knives. In response a local military man wrote an outraged letter telling us how disgusted he was that conspiracy theorists blame George W. Bush for the attacks with no evidence. I wanted to write back and point out that I do not believe Bush or the government instigated the attacks, but why bother? It's my voice against O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes. Who's louder?

This technique of infiltrating and defining the opposition is no doubt very old. No doubt it was used against "JFK Truthers" as well in a previous generation. Other societies are more aware of its existence, and know how to contend with it. But as for Gullible America, we're not quite there yet.

What a sad comment on society.

What a sad comment on society that the mainstream media can spoil any form of the word truth. I know why you don't like it and I know how they use it to marginalize members of the movement. I like the term Truth Seekers, which is a term that I believe was coined by Mike Malloy in reference to various topics including 911 Truth. We could go with "official conspiracy theory debunkers". Whatever we call ourselves, there will be an effort to marginalize us and whatever moniker we choose.

9/11 Skeptic

has my vote.

has mine too

..difficult to be more would take some effort to turn the term into a negative label...

OED definition (
Skeptic / Sceptic:
"a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions".

By this definition, what sort of a life would it be to never question or doubt accepted opinions?

Independent researchers vs Government employees

911 Researchers vs Corporate controlled media


my problem with 911 Researchers is a result of the image which has been created by this website:


Just ignore the disruptors

Just ignore the disruptors and hoax advocates -- that's what they wanted, to co-opt a good term and destroy it. So do the opposite and use it.