You are here

David Ray Griffin labeled ‘disinfo’ by keyboard warrior

It sounds like an Onion headline: “David Ray Griffin labeled ‘disinfo’ by keyboard warrior.”

This has got to be a joke, right? Somebody out to make fun of the excesses and occasional idiocies of the 9/11 truth movement must have penned a very clever parody?

If only.

An unknown and unaccomplished blogger named Erik Larson (NOT Professor Eric Larsen who was the best writer in the 9/11 truth movement before he retired from politics and returned to literature) has put David Ray Griffin, whose eight 9/11 books have set the standard for 9/11 research, in the “Mis & Disinfo” category at his website. Mr. Larson, if that is indeed his real name, apparently believes that Dr. Griffin’s extensive research on alleged 9/11 cell phone calls from allegedly hijacked airliners is “Mis & Disinfo.” Larsen’s article, heavily plagiarized from Griffin-cell-phone-theory critic Andrew Kornkven, is a classic example of the “if it’s possible, no matter how improbable, then it must be so (if it confirms the official story)” fallacy so prevalent among “debunkers.”

I am not the Onion; I am not interested in an amusing “local nobody pretends to be somebody” story. So why should I care that some nobody out there in cyberland is claiming to be a truther yet defaming Dr. Griffin?

The problem is that Larson and a bunch of his fellow nobodies, nonentities, mediocrities, and pseudonyms have seized control of 911blogger — a bait n’ switch operation that established itself early as the go-to 9/11 news-and-views site, then underwent a series of putsches and bannings that have gradually aligned it with the forces of dimness. The clique behind the coup at 911blogger seems dedicated to three projects: (1) Use pseudonyms, nonentities and mediocrities to defame real, accomplished people in the 9/11 truth movement; (2) Do everything possible, from a supposedly “truther” perspective, to support the discredited hypothesis that America really was attacked by Arab/Muslim hijackers on 9/11; and (3) Keep a lid on the extensive evidence implicating the Israeli Mossad and Zionism in 9/11, while building a firewall between the 9/11 truth movement and the burgeoning pro-Palestine movement (which counts among its enthusiasts most of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims – the very constituency an honest 9/11 truth movement could enlist for truly massive support, both financial and numerical).

Let’s compare Erik Larson’s colleagues at his website, “,” with the people they love to smear and attack.

In one corner, Team Larson, a.k.a. the Nattering Nobodies of Negativism: “Arabesque,” “Col. Jenny Sparks,” “George Washington,” Jon Gold, and “Reprehensor.” “George Washington” is a real person with a law degree who happens to be a talented researcher and writer – a nice guy who shouldn’t be hanging out in a place like this. The rest are certified nonentities: keyboard warriors or worse without a shred of talent or integrity and without significant real-world accomplishments to their mostly imaginary names. “Reprehensor,” whom I met at the Vancouver conference where I was MC, was the second most nervous, ill-at-ease person I have ever seen at a 9/11 conference (the first was Jim Hoffman at the DC 9/11 Truth Emergency conference in 2005). “Reprehensor” has supposedly claimed to be from Wisconsin, though none of us who have been busting our butts for 9/11 truth here since 2003 have ever heard of him. Like the other NNNs, he has apparently never actually published anything; earned an advanced degree; engaged in real-world scholarship; written a book; organized a conference or event; or made public any kind of CV or real-world biography.

In the other corner, targeted by the NNNs:

David Ray Griffin
, one of the world’s leading generalist scholars, author of 30 books including eight on 9/11, acknowledged as the world’s leading scholar of 9/11 by near-universal consensus.

Barrie Zwicker, Canadian media critic, author of Towers of Deception, maker of The Great Conspiracy, widely regarded as the premiere early 9/11 truth leader and still ranked by some beside Dr. Griffin at the top of the field.

Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall, authors of several of the best 9/11 truth books (and, alongside Jim Marrs’ The Terror Conspiracy the only ones picked up by a major publisher).

Webster Tarpley, author of the definitive unauthorized biographies of George H.W. Bush and Obama among other important books, including 9/11: Synthetic Terror.

Yours truly (9/11 cv here, more info here and here).

Pilots for 9/11 Truth, the second-most-important professional 9/11 truth organization after Architects and Engineers.

The Rock Creek Free Press, the world’s leading truth newspaper, published in Larson’s hometown of Washington, D.C.

Citizens Investigation Team
, the moniker of Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, two of our most accomplished Pentagon researchers.

James Fetzer, founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, highly accomplished scholar, author/editor of dozens of books and articles.

Those are just the victims of explicit attacks from our crew of nay-saying nobodies. On top of that…

By rabidly affirming that real cell phone calls (or in the fallback story version cell and seatback phone calls) were made during real hijackings on 9/11, they implicitly attack the extensive research A.K. Dewdney of Scientific Panel Investigating 9/11, perhaps the most-credentialed scientist ever to have made 9/11 truth his mission. (In his anti-Griffin piece, Larson dismisses Dewdney’s research because it was done in Canada! No, I’m not kidding – but I wish I were.)

By ferociously defending the official claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, they go after Enver Masud, a highly respected and accomplished engineer who is both a Pentagon witness and a leading Pentagon researcher (and, like Dewdney and me, a key Muslim for 9/11 Truth); Barbara Honegger, another critically-important Pentagon researcher; and a long list of other first-rate researchers, including the notable European journalist Thierry Meyssan, who first broke the Pentagon story.

By doing everything they can to defend the “Muslim hijackers” narrative, the Nattering Nobodies go after Paul Zarembka’s The Hidden History of 9/11, which highlights evidence against hijackings including the credible reports that up to 10 alleged hijackers turned up alive after 9/11; and the tremendous work of Elias Davidsson, who has completely demolished the myth of Muslim hijackers.

By doing everything they can to smear and silence the people pointing to Israeli and Zionist complicity in 9/11 – which those of us who actually know something about Mideast affairs realize is by far the most logical hypothesis based on history and geopolitical motive – the Nobodies are trying to snuff out the most exciting and fastest-growing wing of the movement, featuring such luminaries as Alan Hart, Alan Sabrosky, Michael Andregg, and the whole crew at Veterans Today (including editor Gordon Duff and world citizen Ken O’Keefe)…not to mention a series of important books ranging from Justin Raimondo’s The Terror Enigma to Christopher Bollyn’s Solving 9/11.

Add it all up, and it seems the Nattering Nobodies have done their best to tarnish the image of virtually all of the best books on 9/11! Of the two dozen or so top-shelf books on the subject, the only ones to escape their mudslinging are the seminal but now-outdated The War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed, and Peter Dale Scott’s The Road to 9/11 – which is not really about 9/11 itself, and does not challenge the “Muslim hijackers” myth. (None of the Nattering Nobodies, of course, is capable of writing a publishable book…while their hero, Jim Hoffman, needed the help of Don Paul to put out one notably mediocre volume.)

While smearing virtually the entire literature of alternative 9/11 scholarship, the NNNs have also worked overtime to try to stop the most rhetorically successful 9/11 truth films from reaching a broad audience. Those films, in order of importance, are: Loose Change (especially the fast-moving earlier versions); 9/11 Mysteries; 9/11 In Plane Site; and 9/11 Ripple Effect. All were bad-mouthed by NNNs during their critical growth phases.

The NNNs, in short, are parasites that attach themselves to the high-energy parts of the truth movement in an apparent attempt to kill off that energy. Their specialty is deceptive destructive criticism: ad-hominem smear-jobs disguised as critique.

So there you have them: the Nattering Nobodies of Negativism, those passive-aggressive little dweebs huddling in their parents’ basements cranking out attacks on real authors, scholars, researchers and journalists.

20 Thoughts to “David Ray Griffin labeled ‘disinfo’ by keyboard warrior”

  1. Anonymous

    Where does Brian Good fit in to this?

  2. If I were a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I'd think all the NNNs were just more Brian Good sockpuppets.

  3. Anonymous

    Kevin, recently Kevin Ryan wrote an essay on cognitive infiltration in which he laid out the case against Fetzer. How do we reconcile this?

  4. Anonymous

    O-U-T-S-T-A-N-D-I-N-G piece Kevin. Say, can´t we get the Somebodys, like Griffin, Zwicker, Yourself, to start up a 9-11 clearinghouse to serve the purpose that the blogger once served. We can´t just sit back and allow these clowns on a power trip to control the movement. Too much at stake !! Dave Mann

  5. I'll address Kevin Ryan's accusations against Jim Fetzer in a blog post soon. Meanwhile, look them over yourself and judge whether each of Ryan's points is logical and supported by adequate evidence.

    And yes, it would be great to have a central 9/11 clearinghouse. That's what was supposed to be, but the webmaster seems to be moving toward the same "it's not news unless it supports my views" attitude that brought down 911blogger.

  6. Anonymous

    Brian Good is just one of Team Larson's rabid pit bulls. Jeff Hill is another. He calls people in the middle of the night and spews profanity. Here he is attacking Dr. Griffin and others:

  7. Anonymous

    Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that Jeff Hill has one goal uppermost in his mind – to discredit anyone associated with 9/11 Truth and to sow FUD throughout the movement.

    Cass Sunstein would be proud!

  8. Anonymous

    I agree, but…
    Perhaps it's more complicated. 911Blogger got a lot of critics about its moderation policy through the years (my previous comment), but nevertheless refused to respond on criticism and refused articles that did not …serve their undefined goal or policy. They continuously considered critics as dissidents harming 'the movement', thus suggesting they're protecting the movement.

    The Movement, however, will always be an ad-hoc occurrence that will be influenced most by those scientists and other figures who employs the highest standards, morally, communicative and scientifically. That open attitude does justice to the real structure (and all its potentials) of what this movement basically is.

    911Blogger is frustrating this natural process, because one thing is obvious: based on their own definitions they decide about who is a Truther and who is a Dissident. They do not TRY to influence the status quo (based on arguments), they FORCE the status quo! This is a determined, controlled and one-sided process. In other words: this policy is purposefully.

    This behavior is killing for the studious and truth seeking mind. Dissidents are being marked and treated as disinfo agents. Fear is used the same way as we know it from MSM. Dissidents have been demonized and grilled but never got any chance to do their arguing on 911Blogger's website (or befriended websites) in a fair neutral atmosphere with opponents who used their intellect only.

    Stop endorsing!

    What I'm describing here is not a sloppy way of managing. It's an engineered, tight and consequently practiced policy. Most harmful is that some prominent scientists, due to 911Blogger's influence, tends to listen to what 911Blogger et al commands. Not by decree, but by selecting info within a tight moderation frame and demonizing their dissidents. This is causing great stress within the movement because their support and their endorsements, or their withdrawals, are tearing all who contributes to the movement apart into many fractions. These fractions will most possibly fight each other instead of fighting MSM and government lies. We as a whole will act as conspiracy theorist caricatures that MSM loves to write about.

    Wet dream Sunstein

    What I'm describing sounds almost as the wet dream of Cass Sunstein. But I've no clue if his policy about cognitive infiltration has something to do with this. Simply don’t know. We should act according to the character of this basically open structured movement and give the best quality chance to rise to the surface. No taboos, no fear. The whole project should be open according to the best traditions of science. Kindness and fearless should be our lead. I miss the great academic skills (according to its best traditions) and moral authority of David Ray Griffin. Please David, come back soon!

  9. Anonymous

    Kevin, what do you think of Richard Gage's recent coming out against CIT? He stands by 911Blogger 100 percent, as I learned from him in November. His position has fueled these NNN's to go after DRG now!
    Is Gage going to continue to ignore these guys and go on carrying his WTC message not caring to deal with the Pentagon or Mossad involvement?
    Thanks for identifying these people who care nothing for the truth of September 11, 2001. And also for naming a few of the real 911Truthers, including yourself!
    I am looking forward to a new site, 911Newscentral is not going to be the replacement for Blogger!
    Thankyou for this clarifying piece.

  10. Anonymous

    We must never forget the context we are working in: Our central problem is that the government has not released enough information to provide a clear picture of what happened, and we are falling into the trap of fighting over what cannot be known conclusively at this point. This behavior helps the government. We might as well join them, as continue in this way!

  11. I have no problem with Richard Gage remaining a WTC demolition expert who stays away from other issues. But I'm baffled by his preference for the vapid, unsupported anti-CIT piece over CIT's detailed and coherent rebuttal. He should have backed away from the Pentagon controversy in such a way as to stay neutral. Appearing to side with those putting forth incoherent arguments is a bad move on his part.

  12. Anonymous

    I agree, bad gage on Gage's part. Also,anyone
    bashing the great Doc David Ray Griffin has
    gone too far imo. Enough is enough of these

  13. Coming soon:

    I was the original owner of 911newscentral, but I was naive enough to sell it to someone who has ended up not doing the job I thought he would.

    I will have control over 911discussion. I just drafted the posting guidelines tonight.

    Stay tuned.

    -Adam Syed

  14. Anonymous

    Good luck Adam! You will make it work. Many of us are ready to join you there at 911discussion. Hurry!! I am hoping for Kevin to be right there as well!

  15. Anonymous

    I have no problem with bashing Larson as a nobody and possible cognitive infiltrator. It is sure starting to look like it. The only thing that concerns me is that Richard Gage, David Chandler and Kevin Ryan, our premier scientists and engineers, have supported the 9/11 Blogger position with regard to CIT. Their area of expertise concerns the destruction of the WTC, where they (and I) believe that explosive demolition has been scientifically demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. As scientists and experts they cannot support other hypotheses, concerning the Pentagon, etc., which may well be true. If 9/11 Blogger announce that it would restrict discussion to scientific discussion about the WTC by those whom it considers to be qualified scientists, there would be no problem. But then I would say they certainly should not publish anything by Larson as well as CIT. Larson is looking like an infiltrator and refugee from some some debunker site posing as a 9/11 truth advocate. Chandler, Ryan etc. should be warned.

    Anthony Enos Wicher
    Lake Arrowhead, CA

  16. On Israeli/Zionist/Mossad involvement in 9/11:

    Israel, that is the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, was originally conceived by Theodore Herzl in the late 19th century, but would have remained a fringe idea until the Zionists were able to make a deal with British imperialism (Devid Lloyd George) that was called the Balfour declaration. To this day, Israel represents the interests of Anglo-American imperialism first and foremost. Many Israelis who cherish their military alliance with us say proudly that they are our attack dog in the Middle East, the knife held by the Anglo-Americans at the throat of the Muslim world. (The Palestinian people are the closest to the edge of that knife.) In return, the US and Britan support Israel militarily and diplomatically, and embrace Zionism as an ideology. And so it is most accurate to speak of an Anglo-American-Israeli alliance or axis of power.

    What is the relationship of Israel/Zionism/Mossad to 9/11? It is certainly part of the Anglo-American-Israeli axis and had prior knowledge and maybe some operational involvement, but for example Saudi involvement is is much clearer. I don't see any strong relationship. By far the strongest direct relationship I see is between the Bush family and 9/11. Poppy's son was President, Cheney and all his appointees were running the White House, Rumsfeld and all his appointees were runing the Pentagon. Now, the Bush family are Anglo-American racist Nazi types, not Jews and not Zionists. In the end they would be glad to blame 9/11 on the Jews, if they can't keep pinning it on the Muslims. I fear that this blog may be serving their agenda by the way in which it emphasizes connections between Israel/Zionism/Mossad and 9/11, as if there were a strongly predetermined conclusion that "they" were behind it to be reached. It has to be acknowledged that there still is s lot of anti-Semitism in the world, and that its teltale sign is a propensity to exaggerate the power of what used to be called "international Jewry" by the Nazis back in the good old days, but is now called "Zionism". I'm asking Kevin Barrett and others not to fall into this trap. I do indeed agree that Muslims are the natural allies of the 9/11 truth movement, because they are indeed under attack and have been made patsies by the perptrators of 9/11. I oppose the Zionist ideology as undemocratic, and deeply believe that a single secular democratic state in the Holy Land that is not defined as "Jewish" or "Muslim" but is a land where people of all ethnicities and religions are truly equal is the only possible solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. The idea of a two-state solution is an illusion and a recipe for endless war. But we should not allow our opposition to Zionism, which I very much share, to get mixed with our support of 9/11 truth as I have seen being done here, that is in such a way as to get the 9/11 truth movement discredited as anti-Semitic and ultimately to serve the agenda of the enemies of all good people in this world.

    Tony Wicher
    Lake Arrowhead, CA

  17. I hate to quote Vatican II but from where I sit this says it all.

    "Let there be Unity in what is necessary (controlled demolition WTC)
    Freedom in what is unsettled (pentagon, mossad etc.)
    and Charity in any case" (give the egos a rest)


  18. Isn't it funny that 90% of the research done over at 911flogger and Lieaction is trying to debunk other truthers?!

Leave a Comment