If that makes me sound as if I support the "official theory" as posited in the 9/11 Commission Report, then you haven't been paying very close attention.
Some of these disinformaiton artists are obvious, such as Nico Haupt, who has firmly and maniacally pushed the "no planes" nonsense for quite a while.
Others are more subtle, and more formidable as opponents. Dr. James Fetzer could be the real thing, at first glance, someone pushing for "truth." But, once you see Fetzer's behind the scenes activity, attacking the character of people like Dr. Steven Jones, and Fetzer's embrace of the "no planes" and "space beams" theories, his credibility begins to crumble.
Another character to be wary of is "Fintan Dunne," who has basically called most of the genuine 9/11 investigators "CIA Fakes," on his website. This divide and conquer strategy appears to have come straight from Langley, and manifests itself in a number of places in "the movement."
Recently Webster Tarpley has opened up a front in the divide and conquer battleground. Many were in awe of Tarpley's impressive rhetorical skills and prolific talent for writing about 9/11. But, was Tarpley's work non-fiction? In 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism, Tarpley's highly selling book on September 11th, he pushes the "directed energy weapons" theory (at the end of chapter 6), that a giant laser/maser what-have-you, brought down the Twin Towers.
If someone repeats this "theory" to the mainstream journalist crowd, they are going to look like an imbecile. They are going to be given the cold shoulder. They are going to distance even the best intentioned reporters from listening any further.
Long term disinformation peddler The Webfairy, aka. "Rosalie Grable," is someone to avoid like the plague. Many bogus Photoshopped hoaxes have originated there. Webfairy is linked to several other disinfo types, and to a website called "terrorize.dk."
A new website called "911researchers.com" exists to trash talk those who reject the "no planes" and "directed energy weapon" disinformation. You can see many of their low-level parrot troops at open message boards where 9/11 is discussed. They generally reduce the quality of discussion to nil.
"THE BEDUNKERS"
I have focused upon false "truther" sites. There is also a gigantic "debunker" community that regularly attacks the very notion that anything could have been amiss on 9/11.
Not everything the "debunkers" say is in fact false. Some are intelligent, though misquided by dogmatism (that the US government couldn't/wouldn't have done it, a priori). An "a priori" argument is "existing in the mind prior to and independent of experience, as a faculty or character trait."
One of the most referenced of these debunker sites is 911myths.com, which has done some meticulous research in their goal of discrediting specific claims made by some 9/11 skeptics. You should investigate this site to see what the other side is saying. They have exposed a number of claims as weak or poorly supported. Other claims that the 911myths.com website has made are themselves poor and/or incorrect.
As an example of their bogus reasoning, their page on WTC7 makes the claim that the massive amount of smoke visible in the photo is coming from building WTC7, when that is patently false. Buildings 5 and 6, located across the street, were both raging infernos, and the source of most of that smoke (interestingly, neither building 5 nor 6 collapsed into its own footprint, and both remained standing despite far more serious fires than building 7, or Tower 1 or 2 for that matter).
The site authors have had quite a while to go back and correct their claims, and to provide for the alternate explanation, yet they never did. Credibility lacking.
This September 11th, say something. Say something to someone. Let them know that we have been lied to, and you can back it up in black and white, with solid evidence. Then do so.
1 | 2
