This is a very sensitive topic. Some may see it as “divisive” or inflammatory to name suspected examples and outlets of disinformation. We think it is a necessary part of democratic debate and any sort of movement dedicated to truth. Nothing is ever 100% sure, but we can confidently say that the resources named on this page are spreading information that is unsupported by factual evidence and is highly damaging to the movement.
The issue of disinformation/infiltration can easily lead to paranoia. It is essential to maintain a clear head, whether delving into this subject academically or dealing with it directly.
The objectives and methods of disinformation are quite sophisticated. Here are a few of the main strategies:
The Straw Man Argument/Sensationalism - by promoting speculative, sensational, and false evidence, opponents can setup easily debunkable or dismissable points that can be used to lend credence to their position. The opposition prefers dealing with topics that can be easily countered, or that simply make 9/11 skeptics look like kooks. 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. At TruthMove, we find controlled demolition to be a compelling hypothesis but not theories of a missile or military plane at the Pentagon. Sensational issues such as these also have a way of overshadowing the drier, more documentary evidence. If, for example, controlled demolition captures your imagination, you may not be so interested in the hundreds of other details that together make a watertight case for government complicity.
Muddying the Waters - making it harder to discern the real evidence/researchers/websites from the fake ones. This approach both frustrates efforts at understanding the subject and makes the project less focused and more frustrating to be a part of. For example, when a newcomer visits the Scholars for 9/11 Truth site, and sees that there are two exclusive, competing groups (that are each essentially calling the other “disinfo”), they might become frustrated or dismissive with the whole movement. While one may be interested in researching and “getting to the bottom of 9/11,” distinguishing between honest information and disinformation, between trustworthy and suspect sources becomes another time-consuming, distracting layer of investigation.
Bad Jacketing/Death by Association/Smear Campaign - by including the target idea/individual/movement along with another topic or personality that is disliked or discredited (UFOs, anti-semitism, nazis, etc.), the original subject can be smeared and dismissed. These smear campaigns can be extremely effective, as most people are very concerned with the image of a group or subject that they might get involved with. While not entirely due to disinformation, you can see this dynamic at work in the generalized image of “conspiracy theories.” For some reason, many diverse topics—UFOs, 9/11, JFK, Illuminati, Satanism, New World Order, Shapeshifting Aliens—are commonly conflated with each other in people’s minds.
Paranoia/Divide and Conquer - one of the most effective ways to destroy a group is to sow distrust among members. COINTELPRO is known to have supplied false information in order create suspicion between authentic progressive activists. Seemingly paradoxically, disinformation agents may actually promote discussion of disinformation/infiltration in order to increase paranoia. Such efforts may be targeted at creating suspicion around real and effective evidence/materials/activists.
Examples of Suspected Disinformation/Infiltration
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. Many of these same individuals also promote theories about “mini-nukes” or “space-beam” weapons being used to demolish the towers. 5 6 (Also, see this TM forum post, I HEARD AND SAW THE FIRST PLANE)
The “no plane at the Pentagon” theory has been called a hoax or disinfo by many within the movement. At TruthMove, we believe that most of the strongest points behind this argument have been effectively countered by honest skeptics within the movement. 7 8 9
“Criminal Politics” magazine mixes 9/11 truth with anti-semitism and other right-wing, hateful ideas. It features a mugshot-looking picture of David Ray Griffin on the cover, with the sarcastic headline, “Can This Retired Theologian Save the United States?” It seems to be a smear campaign against Griffin and the 9/11 truth movement as a whole. A direct quote: “[Michael S.] Rose - - like Professor David Ray Griffin has the courage that many Catholics have lacked to give the clear answers: - - the Jewish Masonic order was infiltrated into this church…to approve only those who tested out psychologically as having a predilection to homosexuality.”(See TM forum post)
Eric D. Williams was the webmaster and director of the “9/11 Accountability Conference.” He had written books on 9/11, fascism, the matrix, and the London bombings, yet just before the conference he released a new work of Holocaust revisionism, “The Puzzle of Auschwitz.” The association of the 9/11 truth movement to such a topic is possibly disastrous. And just the week before CNN did a piece conflating 9/11 skepticism with anti-semitism. 4 CNN
The “Plane Pod” theory appeared out of nowhere in 2004 and was widely promoted in the professionally produced “9/11: In Plane Site.” This film covers almost none of the concrete evidence for government complicity and instead makes up new “evidence” out thin air or blurry video footage. The main thesis of the film is that there were “pods” on the undersides of the planes which fired “missiles” at the buildings before impact. This is conceivably possible, but the evidence presented is simply blurry images of “flashes” as the planes enter the buildings, making this a ludicrous, damaging claim—probably a case of deliberate propaganda by someone involved in the production or promotion of this movie. 11
Recently a trailer for a new movie, “WMD at the WTC,” was released on the web. The producers have a prior track record of shoddy, flimsy “evidence” which we will not go into here. “WMD at the WTC” actually asserts that “directed energy hydrogen fusion” weapons were used to fell the towers. The trailers cites no compelling evidence, instead referring to such points as, “Decontamination procedure seen at WTC with hi-pressure water spraying…Rooftop 200,000 gallon water tanks for sprinkler system but no water in ruins.” The film asks us, “Is this Nuclear Winter at the WTC?” (Watch WMD at the WTC on Google VIdeo)
There are certain suspect web sites and individuals who almost exclusively link to and associate with one other. The consistency of those who are promoting speculative and ludicrous “evidence” to only refer to others of the same ilk is very suspicious. A good exercise is to compare 911review.org vs. 911review.com - at this point, it should be clear to you which one is genuine and which one is promoting far-out theories. (See this TM forum post: Two movements: The 9/11truth vs. 9/11speculation movements)