I only specifically characterized the 9/11 page as containing disinfo. I also suggested that I thought that Pacifica Radio had been infiltrated and implied that KPFK might be pushing crap as a result.
I'll add that I think it likely that the whole "chemtrail" issue started and is maintained largely by people trying to create distraction. Of course it's supported by a much larger group of people who have been honestly if naively misinformed.
Assuming that's what you are asking about, I'll share a bit more of my thinking on this.
The main reason I think "chemtrails" is crap is a bit abstract but honestly the most convincing to me. No one person, organization, or website promoting this issue is remotely reputable. Period. Please go ahead and find me one. None of the site devoted to the issue handle it an a scientific manner. None of the people talking about it seem to have a healthy level of skepticism.
Just look at KPFK's promo materials on the subject.
You get 4 items in all! You'll get the 4 hr DVD Don't Talk About the Weather + The California Chemtrail Convergence DVD with Clifford Carnicom and Dr Gwen Scott + Aerosol Crimes: Chemtrails in Our Skies by Clifford Carnicom - all you can make copies of to hand out freely to friends and family!
Crap. Go ahead and have a look at "Don't Talk About The Weather," KPFK's main promo item on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxNeoXkL0mM&fea...
Freakin awful. If you happen to be tuned into some of the more subtle element present you can see that the video uses propaganda tactics and that the host of the movie is not being honest. Of course not everyone is going to be good at speech analysis.
Another reason is that the mundane explanation for what people think they are seeing is totally acceptable. NASA put up a page called "Contrail Education." It suggest that the government is concerned about the extent to which contrails can affect the weather. It also totally debunks "chemtrail" claims by simply stating a couple of facts about our atmosphere.
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/faq.html
I'm not going to break down every claim here. I'll save it for my blog post in the next few weeks.
But ultimately, the whole issue is missing any strong evidence or any reputable advocates. AND...being viewed by the general public as wonky with good reason it is used to undermine other more important issues with death by association.