ANYONE, INCLUDING ME, COULD BE AN AGENT for all most people know. Those who know me well probably don't think so (as well they shouldn't) but it would be a lot to ask a perfect stranger or "online-only" acquaintance to trust me fully. Why should they? Even if they agree with everything I have ever said and say right now, tomorrow I could replace WTCD with a David Icke style lizard-people did 9/11 site. The best any of us can do is gauge people's credibility based on their public statements and behavior. Using that yardstick, I find Kevin Barrett to be problematic, and think it's entirely possible that he is a paid disinfo agent. I might lean one way or the other if it weren't for the fact that he seems too perfect a foil for the more obviously fake truthers like Cosmos/YT, Jon Gold, Victronix, et al. That's why my default position is that Kevin Barrett is at least a little suspect.

As to your question of how I can trust anyone who posts on my site, the answer is I can't necessarily, and that's not really a big deal. I trust most longtime users to post responsibly (i.e. no advocating violence, bigotry, etc.) and if that trust is violated I simply block the user's account here. Since all the accounts are pseudonymous, there is nothing preventing anyone I block from re-registering and being free to post responsibly again, until they don't and get blocked.

you say: "And then I could say to myself, "hmm... am I being lured into the land of intra-movement gossip instead of spending my time organizing conferences or hitting the streets?" :)"

And I would applaud you for saying that! I've asked myself the same question before--should I ask people (including myself) to refrain from intra-movement gossip and encourage them to go out and do some real life street truthing? And there's no good answer. If we ignore the fake truthers we let them get away with what they're trying to do and newcomers to the movement will have one less resource to understand what the real truth mnovement is about. But if we fall into the trap of sacrificing real activism for endless arguments about who is fake and who isn't, or for that matter about what exactly did not hit the Pentagon, then we are not being effective activists. And I wouldn't blame people for suspecting that such a state of inefficiency might be by design, because it is without question something that a dedicated cadre of cover-up volunteers would be doing. What they would *not* be doing, and why I think the situation is salvageable from our point of view, is having this discussion in public and giving absolutely anyone in the world with an internet connection a chance to read and respond. And as JPass pointed out, it is the fake truth sites that are censored and have their memberships periodically culled of alleged "thoughtcriminals", not this one.