The Professional 9/11 Debunker and Paid Internet Troll Playbook

My fellow Truthers continue to waste their time arguing with with Trolls about 9/11. Educating the ignorant is one thing, but ignorance is not the problem with those who are paid to disrupt and/or infiltrate the 9/11 Truth Movement.

FYI, the Pentagon has a $27 Billion per year PR [aka Propaganda] budget just to spread disinformation about 9/11. But not all Trolls are paid - some do it "just for fun."

The following are some random Troll Commets.

See if you can spot a pattern. These comments were all made after a serious presentation of factual evidence:

"9/11 truthers: They never miss a chance to proclaim their insanity."

" I don't take the tin foil hat crowed seriously and cannot take anyone seriously who does, be it the 9/11 Truthers or the Birthers off on the right."

" guys use any chance you can to peddle your stale nonsense, but of those measly "1254 architectural and engineering professionals" you mention, only a handful have any real experience and/or expertise in the subject of tall buildings, which has been pointed out again and again, and one reason why most people simply laugh at you guys. You are a hoot!"

And here's another - slightly more sophisticated - guy who signs his name "Albury." We can probably assume that it is the infamous "Albury Smith" who spends a lot of his time spreading misinformation and disinformation.

If you are reading a lot and seek the Truth of 9/11 you will spot his work (and many others) all over the Internet.

He tries to muddy the waters with doubletalk and bogus science to confuse and/or convince those who may be looking into this subject for the first time and haven't thoroughly examined the evidence. I have included his entire remarks on a recent blog post here:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "ACTION ALERT: Vote Now and Tell the World that 9/1...":

I think we should investigate Richard Gage, not the WTC collapses, which have already been investigated by much more qualified, competent, and honest people. The NIST engineers were only able to time the top 18 stories, or 242', of the collapse of WTC 7's facade, and determined that it took 5.4 seconds, yet he claims that the entire 610' collapse only took ~6.5 seconds. Did the other 368' fall in just over 1 second? How is he even able to give us a time for the entire visible portion of the collapse when NIST couldn't because buildings in the foreground blocked the view of video cameras?
How could the towers have free fallen when the loose, airborne debris from their upper stories was falling so much faster than the collapse zones, and began hitting the ground while at least 40 stories in each were still intact? Was g increased on 9/11? They fell in ~15 and ~22 seconds respectively, nowhere near the ~9.25 seconds free fall would have taken:

yet he begins every presentation with his near free-fall claim. He's also claimed that the dust clouds from the collapses were pyroclastic, but there are no reports of anyone's skin being instantly peeled off, and he's claimed that the fires in WTC 7 were minor, totally contradicting these NYC eyewitnesses:

How could his claim that 400,000 yards of concrete were turned to fine powder be true, when there was <100,000>
Has he ever seen a controlled demolition that left molten metal in the debris for months? Has he ever seen one that didn't leave even one explosively-cut column in the debris? Since he claims that explosives were planted in the core columns to start the collapses, and that it was done from elevators shafts, has he ever looked a floor plan of the cores above the 78th floor sky lobby? There were only 6 regular elevators above there, plus a freight and 2 express elevators, and they were only near 6 of the 47 core columns. Several of those were in the paths of the planes, and the perimeter columns collapsed first, so his "theory" doesn't even make sense, especially considering the fact that 30 or more stories of core framing stood 15-25 seconds after each tower's main collapse was over.
We should investigate Richard Gage, as well as his "engineers."

(Signed) Albury

Here's a good place to Troll Watch if you're inclined:


  1. For a play by play handbook of trolling use this as your guide: The 25 rules of disinformation.

    Number 5 is the most common tactic used by the less sophisticated unpaid trolls and is what you run into the most often since they greatly outnumber the true professional disinfo operatives:

    5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

    All the rules are excellent and will serve as a guide to uncovering trolls and genuine operatives.

    9/11 was an inside job.



  2. This is a great link. I repeat:

    It is worth reading and will be the subject of another post.

    Thanks Adam.

  3. I noticed that there was absolutely nothing in the article or comments here that addressed anything I wrote, and that you simply resorted to name calling and insults. You also misquoted me on the quantity of concrete above grade in the WTC towers, but facts don't seem to be one of your concerns.

  4. ALBURY: For starters I did a "cut and paste" of your comments and did NOT misquote you.

    Bothering to chase and debunk your misinformation is a total waste of my have an endless supply of cover-up fantasies that you have spread all over the internet.

    For people who are genuinely interested in the science of what really happened on 9/11 please read or watch anything by Dr. Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage and/or or Dr. David Ray Griffin. their work is footnoted and all references are given.

    A little research on your own will give you all the information necessary to debunk Albury and his ilk.

  5. I know what I wrote, and my comment stated that there was less than 100,000 yards of concrete above grade in both WTC towers combined, regardless of who misquoted me. Gage has stated that 400,000 yards were turned to fine dust in seconds, and that's an obvious impossibility.
    If you believe that anything I said in the passage you cited was incorrect, please feel free to point it out. All you've done so far is attack me personally.

    Btw, debunk these:

    Steven Jones has used photos of columns cut with oxyacetylene torches as "evidence" of nanothermite, so you're obviously partial to liars. Have you even read his Bentham farce? It presents no exemplars of anything for comparison, and simply states in its conclusions that the samples "reminded" them of nanothermite. That's research where you come from?
    Why won't they paint some on a steel column and show us how it works? Show us how it turns concrete to fine dust and keeps steel molten for months too. What utter nonsense...

  6. Have you blocked me here yet? That's what people of your "ilk" typically do when confronted with facts.

  7. Blocking my comments is straight out of the 9/11 "truth movement" playbook. Do facts really upset you that much?

  8. Your indignation is comical. As for blocking you - I am sorely tempted as you are a total waste of time and attention.....except as a good example of an "Internet Troll."

    As for "facts" - you don't present facts, you tell lies about the facts we already have. This blog is full of facts - enough to suggest to any thinking person that we need a new and honest investigation into 9/11.

    If we ever find out who you REALLY are Albury and who is paying you to spread propaganda and to suppress the truth....we'll have another piece of this massive "cover-up" puzzle.

    You appear to be working extra hard at this full time. Who writes your check for this Albury? Do you get healthcare and other benefits?


    What is so "dangerous" about Albury and his ilk, is that in order to maintain "the official story," bogus debunking websites and other Trolls like him depend on manipulating the lack of information that most people have. Unfortunately, most Americans don't know that "the official story" falls apart when one seriously looks into it.

    The number of verified architectural and engineering professionals that have called for a new investigation has passed the 1300 mark. This number continually grows. See:

    The purpose of the NHTruth blog is to give people solid, verifiable info, and let them come to their own conclusions without dogma or vitrol.

    The false claims of Albury need to be understood and dealt with accordingly. This is his "job" and he won't go away. But we can ignore him and continue our search for the truth of 9/11.

  10. Ask Albury Smith about Elias Davidsson, and you'll be rid of him for good.

    Elias Davidson 9/19/09:

    I wish to make it absolutely clear that there exists no evidence whatsoever that Muslim fanatics hijacked aircraft on 9/11 and flew those aircraft on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

    This alone destroys in one sweep the official legend of 9/11 and justifies the suspicion that the WTC buildings were destroyed by the same unidentified parties who staged the aircraft hoax. Anyone can guess who had the capabilities, motives and access to stage these events.

    Those who still believe in the legend of the 19 Muslim terrorists should either look for the evidence (that does not exist) or save time by reading my paper which demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt the non-existence of such evidence. Here:

  11. The burden of proof is on he who makes the claim. So far, there is not a shred of evidence to support the government's case.

    Evidence 19 Muslims hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into buildings: From Mark Roberts:

    "No other Boeing 767s went missing that day, from those airlines or any other.

    Phone calls from passengers and crew in the doomed airliners were recorded.

    AA11 was tracked on radar until shortly before it hit the north tower. UA175 was tracked by radar all the way from its hijacking until it hit the south tower.

    Numerous passenger remains from both planes were collected at the WTC scene and positively identified by DNA analysis.

    Numerous documents from the passengers and planes were collected at the WTC scene.

    You can view all these things on my website, along with numerous witness accounts
    that describe both airliners hitting the towers, and photos of the airliner debris.

    My girlfriend was a witness to both impacts."

    Email Response to Mark Robert's Remarks by E. Davidsson:

    Re. the phone calls, what is publicly known is that a few of the calls were recorded, not all.

    The FBI admitted that it did not formally identify the wreckage of the planes, as is the rule with aircraft crashes.

    There is no hard proof that the crashed aircraft were the same that left from the known airports with passengers.

    No passenger body was visually identified at the crash sites.

    AA11 was NOT tracked on radar continuously from Logan o NYC. Its transponder was turned off, which prevented to follow the aircraft on radar.

    Many radar blips were injected to the radar on 9/11 as phony planes as part of the military exercises (simulated hijackings) that took place on the morning of 9/11.

    Operators did not know whether the blips belonged to real or to virtual planes and were thus confused.

    Photographers were denied access to the crash sites.

    We do not, therefore, know the origin of the objects that were allegedly found at the crash sites.

    At Shanksville, eyewitnesses who were at the alleged crash site before the FBI, did not see any debris, nor bodies or blood.

    From the above one cannot conclude that NO PLANE was involved in 9/11. One can however conclude that

    (a) the US authorities have refused to produce evidence regarding the nature of the crashed objects

    (b) there is no proof that the aircraft which left with passengers were the same as the "crashed aircraft", if any

    (c) there is no proof that flights AA11, UA175, AA77 and UA93 flew towards the known crash sites

    (d) there is no proof that any passenger, crew members or "terrorist" actually boarded any aircraft (no eyewitness actually confirmed the boarding at a specific gate, time and tail number).


    "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11
    By Elias Davidsson1 10 January 20082"

    It is a pdf document that can be downloaded.

  13. I wonder how many debunker websites are banning you troofers for speaking out?

    Fricken cowards you troofers are