Cal State Long Beach Zine - Debunking 9/11 Truth

Cal State Long Beach's online zine,, recently featured an opinion piece that bashes 9/11 truth:

Feel free to join in the discussion to enlighten this fellow and his readers!

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes John-Michael Talboo and Stewart Bradley of Debunking the Debunkers

This episode of Visibility 9-11 welcomes John-Michael Talboo and Stewart Bradley of the blog Debunking the Debunkers.

John-Michael is the creator and administrator of where he and Bradley debunk the "debunkers" of the 9/11 truth movement. He has been a 9/11 activist since late 2004, and is a grassroots organizer listed on for the state of Indiana, is a member of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth video team, and a founding member of the central Indiana chapter of the activist organization We Are Change.

Stewart Bradley is an artist, documentary journalist, and political activist living in Lancaster Pennsylvania who runs an independent mulit-media studio. Stewart was already investigating covert government operations before 9/11 and since 9/11 has re-dedicated himself to exposing the public misconceptions behind the attack. In 2004 he wrote and produced a 9/11 docudrama titled "The Proof"and has been actively promoting 9/11 research through his website, blogs, videos, and internet debates. More at:

Topics discussed include the "debunkers" take on the new scientific paper, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, and defence thereof.

The MO and possible motives of defenders of the official story is also spoke of, and put into a larger historical context. Mentioned is a declassified CIA memo from April 1967 entitled, Countering Criticism of the Warren Report, which states that one way to achieve this goal is to...

"Employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories."

Direct download: visibility911_debunkers.mp3

My new blog: "9/11 Truth Burnout"

"This is a blog for those like myself who support the discovery and promotion of 9/11 truth but who have lost interest, stopped participating, or are generally frustrated with the movement, due to intentional disruption, ineffective leadership, counter-productive strategy, partisanship, or the promotion of poorly founded speculation."

"I hope to air out the deep frustrations of many people who want the truth but feel that the movement is not facing it's own truth. In the process I also hope to offer reasons for optimism and continued investment."

Paid "blog attack" armies flood blogs with comments

As a 9/11 truth activist, I read a fair amount of what is written about 9/11--whether in the mainstream media, the alternative media, or on sites that I have learned to trust. Frequently the comments are polarized: those of us who know the awful truth and another group, much angrier, seemingly younger and MUCH less well educated: those who are enraged that anyone would even SUGGEST that the government lied to us about 9/11.

Who are these people who are apparently oblivious to the hundreds of well documented lies from the Bush administration?

Here's a clue. A company that advertises blog armies to "flood the zone with comments from professionals who are ready to put your talking points on the blogosphere 24/7." Next time you're engaged in a nasty debate with a devotee of the OCT, who seems to have unlimited amounts of time to rebut your every point in the most scathing way possible, you might just be arguing with a member of one of these paid blog armies.

Here's the ad:

Long, sophisticated hit piece at

Hello friends,

My main question for fellow 911bloggers is this: should we tear them up in the comments section (so far 99% infested by debunkobots), and answer the questions they want us to answer (some of which are extremely infantile, like "why haven't the perps killed Dylan and DRG?"), or do we even acknowledge their presence? Obviously I'm acknowledging it here since I'm writing this entry, but should we take them out on their own turf? Is it even worth it? Do you think we'd convince a fence-sitter who might happen to be reading the Counterknowledge website?


15 questions for 9/11 "truthers" now need to answer

We Might Be Wrong

Jon Gold

During my recent debate with 9/11 Debunker Pat Curley, in his closing statement, after listing a plethora of different theories from a whole spectrum of individuals, including many I do not endorse, he asked, "would anybody in the 9/11 Truth Movement say, “well, OK, we were wrong?" if, in fact, a new investigation found that we were. He then answered his own question by saying, "and the answer is “of course not," so stop pretending that all you want is another investigation - you want another investigation that comes to the conclusions that you believe."

Just to show him that we're not the close-minded people he thinks we are, here's a list of some things we might be wrong about.

We might be wrong to think that people like Dick Cheney and George Bush should have wanted to investigate anything and everything that led to the horrible attacks of 9/11, instead of trying to "limit the scope" of those investigations, and fight against the families who wanted them, and rightfully so.

A fake hunt for Bin Laden...? (A test for Obama) -

(See also Juan Cole's report on the "no-hunt" story: -rep.) is a popular "liberal" blogger who is now buying into a "conspiracy theory";

"I do feel certain, or at least persuaded, that the American people were never told the full truth about what happened at Tora Bora."

This is someone who, in a links list titled "The Real 9/11 Truth Movement", links to to "debunk" demolition theories- and in the same links list, links (several times) to articles at that debunk the "no 757 at the Pentagon" and other disinformation. Strange disconnect, as also debunks the disinformation that plane damage, jet-fueled office fires and building mass turned the WTC towers into rapidly inflating dust clouds and small piles of rubble.

Ask Any "Debunker" Revisited

The other day I made a short movie entitled, "Ask Any "Debunker" to address "debunkers." Walter Ego, on a site filled with "debunkers" known as "JREF" posted my movie.

David Ray Griffin Debunks Popular Mechanics

David Ray Griffin Debunks Popular Mechanics
from the Osaka 9/11 Truth Conference, November 1, 2008

Et Tu Lindorff?

Facts to the contrary, there just are no conspiracies

David Lindorff has finally stuck his foot in his mouth, over at, a notorious anti-truth gatekeeping site. I suppose we should all just abandon even the hope for justice, truth and reconciliation and take orders from the establishment Democrats?

Lindorff mixes irrational hyperbole with some revisionist whitewashing, all in an effort to put those pesky "conspiracy theories" behind us -- in the service of "the left." This tactic was employed previously by Alexander Cockburn among others, and is quite simply shameful.

Bad Faith: WTC 7 and the Official Lies

Crimes of the State

With the release of the NIST final report on Building 7 we can safely say that the government remains committed to the ongoing cover-up, and that crucial evidence was simply ignored, fairy tales were manufactured, and that's good enough for a lot of media. Perhaps a super-majority of media.

As media, "the press," will not perform its function as society's government watchdog, and will not pursue the gaping holes in this wizard's curtain, it's basically left to us -- you and me -- to clear up this matter for our fellow citizens. We are at a serious disadvantage, and yet the task is not so daunting as rabid "debunkers" would have you believe.

Let's defer to one of their own, the former head of NIST's Fire Science Division (the federal government organization which produced the sham report linked above).

Mark Roberts: 9/11 "Debunker" or just Dishonest?

Mark Roberts: 9/11 "Debunker" or just Dishonest?

By Arabesque

Mark Roberts is most well known as a 9/11 truth "Debunker". One of the more common statements that he repeatedly makes is:

"The 9/11 "Truth" movement has made a few hundred significant claims in the past few years, none of which have been true. Don't believe me? Then name a significant claim that you get right, and prove it."

Another Debunk of "If 9/11 Was an Inside Job, the Hijackers Would Have Been Iraqi"

GeorgeWashington's excellent essay a couple weeks back hit the nail on the head as to how to answer the claim, asked by newbies and exploited as a main debunker talking point, that if 9/11 were an inside job, the hijackers would have been Iraqi.

This reminded me of a post I made on Amazon over a year ago, while debating a guy called Steve Farrell. Steve was an interesting guy by the way. He started out being very civil, so you believe he's a genuine newbie. But a couple hundred posts later, after his points had been continuously answered or rebutted, he became increasingly hostile and JREF-like. Anyway, in an arrogant tone, he said to me:

Were there Hijackers? - (or Conspiracy Theory 101)

I started to write this as a comment in reply to a comment appended to George Washington's excellent post, but I decided to I see that this subject confuses many, so I will weigh in with a few observations. Before I do, some important reminders for us "conspiracy theorists":