Responding to Disinfo Trolls and the Architects and Engineers Press Conference at COTO Report

Michael Collins posted, at COTO Report, a video of the Victoria BC 9/11 folks giving a press conference, with engineer Werner Simbeck reading the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth press release. At the end, Werner gave an interview. We had marvelous coverage from a local mainstream cable TV station. This material has been posted in a couple blogs on 911 Blogger. I am part of the Victoria group, so have a particular interest in this.

The link to COTO Report is:

The video is under attack by someone I suspect is disinfo troll (or a group), or perhaps just a psuedo-skeptic. It is someone who clearly invested considerable time in looking at our material in order to trash it.

Originally I had this information posted below as a comment at this site, but wish to elevate it to the status of a blog.

It is not clear how to tackle psuedo-skeptics or disinformation trolls, nor how to readily distinguish one from the other.

I think that there IS a disinfo troll hitting the piece. The troll has shown the ability to present black as white. You should see his point by point "rebuttals" to the A&E indications of controlled demolition (below).

It is also never clear how to respond to absolute BS:
1 - post your arguments, and keep on going until both sides are exhausted;
2 - rebut once and ignore all subsequent arguments, or;
3 - ignore completely.

What are the consequences of the various strategies? Proving anything to the troll is irrelevant - and impossible in the general case, but you are trying to make a case to a wider audience. How much wider? Well Rady Ananda over at COTO Report says (going from memory) about 100,000 hits a month.

1 - So, what is the best strategy for responding to this type of comment?
2 - How much time is it worth in responding?
3 - What can we hope to accomplish by responding?
4 - When do you call it quits?

Also, if we are to respond, it would be nice to get some experts to craft the responses (this is a hint). Again, the link is:

A typical comment by the "debunker", ieaffiliates, is reproduced below:

"ieaffiliates, on February 25, 2010 at 6:36 am Said:

1. Rapid onset of “collapse”

Actually, the collapse was seen by 100+ eyewitnesses as being imminent for over 2 hours. The buckling of the lower levels was clear and hardly rapid. The onset of collapse proves neither controlled or otherwise. Proof that architects cannot investigate such occurrences.

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a full second prior to collapse

The “sounds” of explosions proves there was an uncontrolled fire in the building. In none of the videos that contained audio, was there any tell-tale explosions that re present in EVERY controlled demolition. So, you are either trying to say explosives were placed just before impact or just after, yet cannot explain how. Also, this would rule out incendiary devices also claimed without proof.

3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

Unless you have a lateral force, gravity will ALWAYS be the greatest force. Therefore, the collapse would always be symmetrical. Basic physics also proves that architects need to consult somebody other than themselves.

By claiming the greatest path of resistance, tells me you cannot explain how there would be ANY other force to push the building any other direction than straight down. This proves ignorance in physics.

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint

See #3e. Basic physics tells us that unless you have a great lateral force, you will never overcome gravity. Seeing the extensive damage to surrounding buildings, it was hardly on its own footprint. Poor choice of words.

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

Since there was no presence of a volcano, the term “pyroclastic” is moot. When ANY building made of concrete collapses, the energy created would easily be great enough to pulverize concrete as it is very brittle. Drop a concrete block from a 2nd floor and see the dust cloud, now do it from the 43rd floor. There was no heat involved, so the “pyro” term is proof that parroting a outdated phrase from 2001 tells us of no original thought or research.

6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses

Since there has NEVER been molten anything in any controlled demolition, this would prove that it couldn’t have been a controlled demolition. Unless you have ANY historical evidence of molten metal proving anything, it is also moot and proves ignorance in demolition.

7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

It was not the “signature”, but the elements of incendiary products. Since the top 5 components of incendiary products are found in building construction, this proves nothing more than a poor guess and more poor science from a Professor fired for extensive history of poor science.

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

The best point is the one that cannot be explained as how this proves anything. Here I suggest to you to explain to anybody how this proves anything other than an uncontrolled fire.

9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

Hardly corroboration. Hardly the top CD professional in EU. He was given an edited video and no other information. Once he was told all the information,. he changed his story. I wonder why CTists are never informed of his final analysis of that it couldn’t have been a CD, since he thought it was days and weeks between the crash and collapse, not hours.

10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

When you see a building with extensive damage and uncontrolled fires, it would be obvious to the event he most inexperienced of people. Those on scene were well aware that the tower would collapse as it was a matter of time when it would.

When you give an architect canned talking points and no way of explaining how they fit into a wide array of stories, they fall flat on their face. This is why you need an expert in demolition and explosives and not an architect that needs 9-11 to pay his bills.

Primary and secondary explosions would be MUCH more than an explosion on the ground floor. CD’s are done throughout the building. This is a big sign that it would have been impossible to be a CD, since CD’s just don’t occur randomly, but very precisely.

Can you find any expert in the world that can say incendiary devices are ever used in CD’s? No and you never will. "

Evidence that we have deliberate disinfo

From the comments on the site, a poster named Jersey Girl said this:

" jerseyg, on February 25, 2010 at 1:52 pm Said:

Check out his “ieaffiliates” .. He’s nothing but an advertising shill.. There’s your credentials.

My reply was:

"Mike Zimmer, on February 25, 2010 at 4:07 pm Said:

Hi Jersey Girl.

It looks like a sham website to me. There is nothing suggesting a legitimate business in my opinion. That would be consistent with my view that he is probably a shill. We will never see the pay stubs, so can only conjecture based on a number of criteria that various authors have documented. Carl Herman did write about this fairly recently for instance. I suspect that you know about the recent Cass Sunstein flap.

My compatriot Peter Ewart has written on this:

Part 3 – Conspiracy theories, government spooks, and Cass Sunstein
By Peter Ewart Previous installments in…
posted on Thursday, January 28, 2010 03:45 AM with 9 comments

Part 2 – Conspiracy theories, online government spooks, and Cass Sunstein
By Peter Ewart In the first article in…
posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 03:46 AM with 26 comments

Conspiracy theories, online government spooks, and Cass Sunstein – Part 1
By Peter Ewart An increasingly…
posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 03:46 AM with 8 comments"

Disinfobot Website

With reference to the above comment, the website that seems to have been set up by "ieaffiliates" as a dummy site is:

The "About" page is Wordpress boilerplate:


This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of WordPress.
Leave a Comment"

Symmetry in the case of a

Symmetry in the case of a structure with such a high aspect ratio proves nothing. If there was severe asymmetrical damage the mass above would develop a moment and topple over. We saw this in the top of the south tower. But it wouldn't have gone very far and if had (it seems to have been exploded apart before it fell over) it would have crashed down close to the base... like a felled tree - the top is translated but the damaged is where the pivot point is and it ends up pretty much where it was when the tree was standing.

Whether the building was destroyed by explosives and incendiaries (it was) or it collapse by any other failure.. unless those failure were asymmetrical and localized at the bottom somewhere it would fall down.

The core sections of the twins "fell down" because of gravity and explosions dismantling enough of the perimeter of the core structure. The facade fell outward pushed by some of explosions destroyed the perimeter core and floors. The facades fell away in a cross pattern, much the way a playing card would fall over it stood on edge. They had there joints weakened by incendiaries and explosives and broke apart on the way over (and down).

The key thing about the dust cloud racing through the streets was the extreme heat they contained.

How do we respond?

Good comments from all, but I have to go back to my original questions:

1 - So, what is the best strategy for responding to this type of comment?
2 - How much time is it worth in responding?
3 - What can we hope to accomplish by responding?
4 - When do you call it quits?


I don't think you have to

I don't think you have to respond if you have presented an iron clad explanation of the evidence... Some evidence is more conclusive than others. Some evidence can represent two or more causes. If you take several pieces of less conclusive evidence it might be more conclusive... might be.

With all three towers the only thing you need is to show that in all three at some point all three exhibited some time of free fall acceleration... and that's telling and conclusive of simultaneous destruction throughout the entire plan.

It's easy to spot the ones

It's easy to spot the ones who get paid to try and neutralize the truth movement because they have seemingly unlimited amounts of time to defend the official story, or various aspects thereof.

Also, look at between what hours they post their "debunking" crap.

I used to debate disinfo shills on the Amazon forums who were attacking DRG's books, particularly Debunking 9/11 Debunking. (That book in particular really earned the wrath and ire of our opposition.) I also debated them on the Popular Mechanics book page.

There was one particular shill who posted ONLY between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. (EST). Between those hours, he posted prolifically. I would make a post, and within seconds this guy would vote it down and then within minutes would make a "rebuttal" post with all the pseudoskeptic drivel.

But after 5 p.m., this guy's silence was deafening until the next morning after 9. I would make a whole slew of posts and he wouldn't comment on any of them until just after 9 the next morning.

Clearly it was the dude's day job.

I heard from someone else that Wayne Madsen had uncovered a fact about a bureau of close to 1,000 people whose specific job it is to neutralize 9/11 truth on the web. I'd like to follow up and try to confirm this.

"Paid Shills"


Good catch Adam. There have been news reports on this in the past, but I did not record the links as far as I know.

More info

Thanks for the link

Thanks for the link YT. That is the sort of information I am looking for.



Thanks Sandero, but can we come up with some rules of thumb?

Thanks Sandero, for your reasoned replies above.

I guess my concern is that we need to communicate to a audience that might not grasp intuitively just how damming the free-fall acceleration is and the topic might not be WTC, but false flags in general, or some other topic where disinformation would be brought in to play. Also, we do get shills denying the WTC evidence, telling bare faced lies. For instance "there was no molten metal in the basement" or "there was no free fall."

My previous comment was not just for Sandero, so I probably posted at the wrong level on the thread.

I am really trying to come to grips with how to approach disinformation in general. I have a blog and get hit with such disinformation stuff on all manner of topics, not just 911. So, am trying to formulate some rules of thumb. Also, as I said somewhere in this read, we are not trying to convert the shills, but others who may be reading the posts and following the comments.

I personally find it upsetting to have to deal with the trolls, so would prefer not to interact with them, but we are being info-warriors,l so we have to fight when it makes strategic and tactical sense. Can't say that the phrase "loves a good fight" ever made any sense to me.

Michael Zimmer

1000 paid shills on 9/11

Adam Syed wrote:

"I heard from someone else that Wayne Madsen had uncovered a fact about a bureau of close to 1,000 people whose specific job it is to neutralize 9/11 truth on the web. I'd like to follow up and try to confirm this"

Adam, I hope that you can get this clarified, but even if Madsen said it, he seldom sources anything, so a lot of people, myself included, are not too sure how much credence to give to his information. However, I am sure that such a bureau does exist. We know that programs existed in the past, we have seen the adds for disinformation bloggers (your post and others), we have seen the Sunstein views, and more. It you look outside of the US you can see reports on programs in other nations.

I am not sure who has cataloged all of this stuff best, but I am seriously considering starting a blog just to handle disinformation: how to recognize it, how to counter it. Gatecreepers have done a fairly good job on some of this, but it is still not the "handbook" that I am looking for. Also, they bring in topics that I am uncomfortable with. See:

Of course, to do this, I need to study it at a deep level. I don't know yet if I am up to it.

Mike Zimmer

I followed up

Sometimes, when word of mouth spreads from person to person it can get distorted, and I have no idea who first came up with the thousand number.

Here's what Madsen does claim, and has done so on Russia Today. There's a special unit within the NSA called the "Q" group.