by Joe Giambrone

“FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information.”


It was by then a nightmarish media environment. Most so-called “alternative” press wouldn’t listen to actual, substantial complaints with corroborated evidence of government malfeasance and lying about 9/11. Accusing the government of criminal activity made one a “conspiracy theorist” by definition, even if the crimes were true. “Conspiracy theorist” describes every police investigator in the world; that’s what they do. Intelligent writers who pushed to discredit the government’s treasonous 9/11 cover-up were ignored.

-US Constitution

The Bush White House committed Treason the moment they shielded the Saudi Arabian government from accountability, after the Saudis were caught giving material aid to the San Diego hijacker cell. This protection of the Saudi regime was, and remains, “Aid and Comfort,” as per the US Constitution.




Author Thomas Pynchon wrote, “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” I’ll go one better and in the process explain modern cyber disinformation: If they can get you asking stupid questions, then their lapdog media can dismiss you as a “nut.”

That’s how it works, people. Well beyond questions, they have long lassoed a whole generation of newbies into reposting pseudo evidence about the 9/11 attacks, as if these were established facts. That’s FUD, using bogus evidence to taint those who choose to pass it on.


Photographs or sound bites are taken out of context to fabricate some new angle that no one had ever noticed before. More often than not, that was because these new findings were patently false. So much sloppy research and twisted factoids peppered the 9/11 “Truth” universe that the very concept of truth itself was devalued in the process.

WHAT IS TRUTH? provides a clue:

“1. the true or actual state of a matter…
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement…”

Gravity holds us down on planet earth. True. It always has, and this is reinforced by countless experiments, observations and measurements. It is undisputed, and it cannot be disproven.

Things are much less clear when we consider the complex events leading to the September 11th 2001 attacks, the day itself and the aftermath. Matters are so cloudy that often we simply cannot know the truth of a specific question from the available public data.


Many aspects of the 9/11 attacks are unprovable, covered-up. Numerous crucial questions about the 9/11 plot remain outstanding, and many answers are simply not publicly knowable at this time. The first step to pursuing the real truth is to accept that you don’t know the answer already. The 9/11 “Truth” Movement, however, overflows with people who not only know it all, but they will accuse you of being an agent provocateur if you disagree with them about anything. Asking them to provide actual specific, relevant evidence for an outrageous claim is a sure way to invite howls for your banishment. That’s not a “truth” movement; that’s a belief movement. A bottomless chasm of difference separates the two.

To pursue the truth one must carefully analyze the evidence and assess what has been hidden from public view. That is a path toward the truth. Posting sarcastic propaganda and photographs with bumper-sticker pet theories is simply not analogous. That behavior indicates cultists, religious fanatics, dogmatists and more than a few dolts, racists and even the occasional red-blooded psychopath.

The propensity to simply pass along unverified information without investigating it has torpedoed the 9/11 “Truth” Movement, perhaps permanently. Due diligence requires analyzing a new claim and finding out what evidence supports or refutes it before posting it to some website or Facebook group (yes I’ve been guilty too; consider this my penance). Due diligence is extremely rare. Mis/Disinformation spreads without containment.

Some 9/11 claims can be discarded as ridiculous and at odds with other known, corroborated facts. But that doesn’t prevent them from being repeated ad nauseum. The claim that a missile destroyed the Pentagon lives on, probably the first major 9/11 disinformation coup, and it has long been cited by international corporate media as a sure indicator of mental illness or stupidity. You can point at 42 Pentagon witnesses who saw a plane, noting that zero eyewitnesses ever reported a missile, but, in a self-reinforcing religious mind wash, contrary evidence is handily dismissed. The messenger is bludgeoned. A steaming case of a “honey pot” trap, this Pentagon/missile theory originated from a website that called itself “Silent But Deadly,” hosted in France starting in June of 2003 (Warning: link to disinformation website). This missile theory popped up nearly two years after the actual 9/11 attacks and after a Congressional investigation needed to be censored by the White House, in order to protect their Saudi friends and possible co-conspirators.

“Silent but deadly” is, of course, a euphemism for flatulation! Not just any fart either, but the worst kind.

World Trade Center “owner” Larry Silverstein’s “pull it” out of context blurb will never die either, despite its illogic. Most of those 9/11 “Truth” claims should have bitten the dust years ago, but on the Internet nothing ever dies.

This doesn’t mean that obsessed 9/11 “debunkers” have a dedication to the actual truth either, as it remains largely still covered-up. But that is a topic for another article.

We also have the very touchy matter of Israeli agents arrested in a van on September 11th 2001 after allegedly celebrating a jetliner’s impact into a World Trade Center tower. The full story of these men and Urban Moving Systems, where they worked, has been disappeared from public consciousness. It’s long censored by foundation-funded media, instead of being investigated.

“The lawyer for the five [arrested Israelis] will later note that one photograph developed by the FBI shows one of the men, Sivan Kurzberg, holding a lighted lighter in the foreground, with the burning WTC in the background.”
-History Commons

That’s a delicate matter because blatant neo-Nazi styled rants often accompany propaganda on this topic. Unapologetic anti-Semitic biases, censorship and counter-propaganda muddy this issue and push us further from the truth, as opposed to closer toward it.

This article is probably a waste of my time because I’m not sold that the “Truth Movement” actually wants truth! I’m fairly convinced that the general public does not want the truth either. It’s a minority within a minority that presses to really know and to discard bogus claims. That’s just not enough momentum.

Hopefully that “Rethink 9/11” meme will get people to defer to the architectural and engineering experts, rather than trying to explain controlled demolition themselves. It is entirely possible that controlled demolition played a part in the World Trade Center’s destruction. Maybe even Sivan Kurzberg had a role in it.

It’s not proven. It’s not provable so far. It is one of those “known unknowns,” which Donald Rumsfeld put into the popular lexicon. Maybe it was, and maybe it wasn’t. Wild-eyed religious nut types with high school educations aren’t likely to convince anyone either way. Without verifiable, meticulous sourcing and corroboration, opinions are worthless. If they would let the people who know those technical fields make their cases as best they can we may inch closer toward the real truth.

Maybe they’ll dig up the WTC landfill and analyze all that buried dust. Maybe we’ll see more whistleblowers like Coleen Rowley, Sibel Edmonds, Senator Bob Graham, Kevin Ryan, Willie Rodriguez, J. Michael Springmann, Robert Wright, Indira Singh, Barry Jennings, Richard Grove, Thomas Drake, Anthony Shaffer, Tom Pickard, Ruben Garcia, even Norman Mineta and Richard Clarke.

Anyway, trying to argue sense with the 9/11 clown posse has proven illusory at best. Most don’t like it when they are shown to be in error, and they don’t want to hear contradictory evidence, no matter how true it is. Indicators suggest that most will continue mindlessly forwarding nonsense as “truth” without the slightest accountability to fact check or tailor their claims to the realm of the provable, the factual, the — a-hum — truth.

Joe Giambrone, American author, filmmaker, publishes Political Film Blog.

  1. You write that there is no proof of controlled demolition, but there is. The simple proof is that WTC 7 collapsed at free fall acceleration. Which means that all the building’s potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. Which means that there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.

    You also write, “Maybe they’ll dig up the WTC landfill and analyze all that buried dust”, which implies that analysis of the dust has not already been done. But there has been analyses of the dust. The dust has been studied by the US Geological Survey and the RJ Lee Group, for example. An independent team of scientists also studied red/gray chips found in the dust and published a paper in a peer reviewed journal on them finding that they are consistent with nanothermite. To date, their findings have not been challenged in any peer reviewed publication.

  2. Editor says:

    And (again), that is not the topic of the paper, which is disinformation.

    I’m not going to debate controlled demolition with you Jeremy. You post evidence, not “proof.” Your points are tangential, and do not address the thesis of the paper at all. I could also talk about 100,000 other things somewhat related to 9/11, but the point was to highlight how disinformation works, and how it has derailed the investigations of the September 11th attacks and the movement supposedly demanding new investigations.

    And (again), there is no implication about past studies in the actual article. That’s coming from you. The dust buried in the landfill remains untouched and inaccessible. The statement reads: “Maybe they’ll dig up the WTC landfill and analyze all that buried dust.” Nothing at all is implied about previous studies except the baggage you bring to this issue. Write your own article if you think you can explain the crimes of 9/11. This article details how disinformation has impacted the movement to push for new independent investigations.

  3. Editor says:

    In the interest of full disclosure, I signed the AE911 statement as a non-credentialed “supporter,” to press for a new independent investigation. The statement makes no claims about what supposedly happened, and reads:

    “Please take notice that:
    The Undersigned”

    The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth make no definitive claim to know exactly what happened, and yet Jeremy is demanding that I accept his hypothesis.

  4. Albury Smith says:

    Please don’t just sign the ae911truth petition, Joe; ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to demonstrate for you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges,﻿ 3.07″ webs, and﻿ 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7’s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:

    *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:

    btw, I’m banned from commenting at Progressive-Tough-Liberal OpEdNews for no legitimate reason at all, but if the photo you posted in the comments following this article there is actually of Osama bin Laden with Zbigniew Brzezinsky as claimed by you, and not some Central American rebel whose only similarity is the beard, then I’m the Easter Bunny. That’s your idea of seeking the truth?

  5. Editor says:

    Ahh. Albury has a problem with a new investigation into whether or not explosives were used. That’s what the AE911 petition actually says. It’s already posted here in the comments. If Albury thinks that a lone architect needs to conduct his own physical structural experiments, to Albury’s satisfaction, before demanding that the government stop its negligence and cover up then I’m afraid I disagree with him as well.

    If Albury is the expert he presents himself to be then he knows that at least 118 witnesses reported explosions, blasts inside the towers. His science fair experiments have no bearing on that. Molten steel was evident at many locations at the sites for a long time after the attacks. This has no credible explanation in the official narrative.

    The photo of Zbig and Osama is not from me, but from If you believe it is labeled erroneously, then take it up with them. It looks quite a lot like Osama.

    Question for Albury, before I post any more of his complaints: are you a real person? Who are you? Why is there nothing about you on the big wide web?

  6. Editor says:

    Surprise, surprise, Albury’s back spewing ad hominems and mischaracterizing several things. Unfortunately this suspected sock puppet isn’t real enough.

    My one concern was that he show he was a real person with a real name, and he failed to do so. So fuck off, “Albury.”

  7. Editor says:

    The sock puppet keeps returning. Perhaps he gets paid by the post?

    He sure does love his witty slanders, “box boy,” “troofer,” etc.

  8. […] Disinformation Killed 9/11 “Truth” […]

  9. Schlüter says:

    See also:
    Weekend regards

  10. Philip J. Dennany says:

    There in fact is abundant proof that 9-11 was an inside demolitions operation, with an intentionally included a mixture of types of demolition applied to confuse any that might do research to find the ultimate truth. Those officially named as suspects could not have pulled the treason. The Political film was just another intentionally added confuser installed to again distract those still wanting the truth, but are incapable of figuring it out on their own and might read your garbage as reasonable and swallow it..

  11. Editor says:

    Oh yeah? After I specifically said: ” It is entirely possible that controlled demolition played a part in the World Trade Center’s destruction.”

    You added exactly nothing of substance to the debate. Not one perpetrator. Who exactly planted what where? You don’t know. You don’t even know the nationality! Nevermind the identities. So you call it an “inside demolitions operation,” a made-up term. It’s quite unlikely Americans would do such a thing on American soil, and you have, as I said, zero suspects to back up your rant.

    We don’t prosecute nameless enigmas for maybe doing something nefarious. Or is that not obvious to you?

    What we can do is prosecute named officials for their actual deeds and see where that leads. But, then again, maybe you live in a cartoon reality where facts, evidence, suspects, and convictions are unimportant.

    “The Political film was just another intentionally added confuser installed to again distract those still wanting the truth…”

    I have done more to raise awareness about prosecutable crimes surrounding 9/11 than you and every ass clown you know. So go fuck yourself, Special Ed. Learn reading comprehension.

    9/11 & 28 Pages of Treason

Your Comment


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s