It's telling that the most popular category of posts on this forum is disinformation.
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
The Disinfo Distraction (22 posts)
-
Posted 17 years ago #
-
Hey Regnator, what exactly are you implying? That we're actually disinformation agents because we deconstruct disinfo on our forum?
Posted 17 years ago # -
That would make me party to the crime, I guess. No. That was not my intent. I was simply pointing out that simply introducing the threat of disinformation becomes a serious distraction. Imagine what would have happened if Einstein had been required to selectively weed through the existing body of theoretical physics carefully avoiding intentionally planted falsehoods and primrose paths.
Posted 17 years ago # -
By definition the study of 9/11 is the study of disinformation. Deconstructing the official story is one part, deconstructing the story of disruption posing as "from within" (another form of false flag) is another. Either might lead to useful conclusions.
And yes, if we really are "Einstein" (thanks for setting the bar so high), we are stuck exactly in the situation you describe. At least all anyone ever called him was an amateur retard from the Patent Office; no one accused him of advancing his ideas because he was secretly involved in the Newtonian conspiracy.
Um, welcome, new person.
Posted 17 years ago # -
simply introducing the threat of disinformation becomes a serious distraction.
It's just this type of 'logic' that continues to stall our movement. Barely even worth a comment.
Posted 17 years ago # -
By definition the study of 9/11 is the study of disinformation.
That's what I keep saying. We aren't a truth movement if we can't explain/prove/question what the truth about 9/11 is.
If we don't know why the official story is a problem, we can't question it. If we don't know what the real questions are, we can't hold them accountable for the answers.
Disinformation is the official story of 9/11. We cannot avoid the subject.
Posted 17 years ago # -
Yes!!!
Despite the controversial nature of the term disinformation, much of what our movement has to offer the public beyond the facts surrounding the events of 9/11, is education about the challenge and importance of finding responsible sources for information. One of the big things we are always telling people on the street is that we simply want them to be more skeptical in evaluating the institutional biases of their sources for news. You aren't getting the full story, and you are getting a lot of spin. Misinformation. Disinformation. All of the above. We might tell them that the '9/11 Commission Report' was also not the full story, and full of all of the above.
And most often we aren't telling these people something they don't already know. They assume they are being lied to, but just excuse it as the nature of the system. Complacency. That brings us to advocating civic duty. We are powerless when we remain uniformed, subject to outside influences. And our representatives are supposed to derive their authority from our informed consent. The Bush Administration is what you get when we let the rulers govern without our consent. We want valid information!
9/11 truth indicates how pragmatic and shrewd these present leaders really are. Something I think the members of other movements are starting to better recognize. We are all realizing just how much this government has been operating in secret, and how little we are finding out about some really huge issues. We all want the truth. And in our effort to obtain and spread more of the truth, we are inherently engaged in exposing fallacy. And that most certainly can't stop at the boundary of our movement, as we know we've been infiltrated.
It's telling that the most popular category of posts on this forum is disinformation.
Quite. It very well indicates our skepticism of sources both inside and outside the movement. And that skepticism is entirely founded in the explicit behavior of others. No gossip or innuendo to be found here. An occasional snotty remark. All the people mentioned on our Disinformation page precede themselves with a long history of negative behavior. We don't need to criticize them as much as simply present their own words and actions. No spin necessary. They have undermined their own credibility.
That being said, we welcome any caution. We certainly don't want to play into the hands of someone intending to distract us. Although we can be doing many things at once. Focus on this issue is inherent to the movement, and also just one more part of what we have to offer.
Posted 17 years ago # -
9/11 truth indicates how pragmatic and shrewd these present leaders really are. Something I think the members of other movements are starting to better recognize. We are all realizing just how much this government has been operating in secret, and how little we are finding out about some really huge issues. We all want the truth. And in our effort to obtain and spread more of the truth, we are inherently engaged in exposing fallacy. And that most certainly can't stop at the boundary of our movement, as we know we've been infiltrated.
It seems far off the mark to think of the network of perpetrators being "the government", "the Administration", "the Neocons" (though that is closer to the mark). Privatized entities are the trend.
For me 9/11 was just one in a long string of rude awakenings I've experienced. It did open my eyes to OKC, 7/7, Ruby Ridge , and Waco. I already knew there was something dreadfully wrong with what happened in the latter two incidents, but I did not realize the degree of apparent premeditated malice involved. I am convinced that McVeigh's ANFO bomb did not do most of the damage to the Murrah Building. Official malfeasance at Waco has been so overwhelmingly attested to by participants and evidence that it is beyond question.
I certainly don't agree with all of your material on disinfo. I didn't watch all of Jim Hoffman's critique of Rick Siegel's video, but what I did see was less than compelling.
Eric D. Williams was the webmaster and director of the “9/11 Accountability Conference.†He had written books on 9/11, fascism, the matrix, and the London bombings, yet just before the conference he released a new work of Holocaust revisionism, “The Puzzle of Auschwitz.†The association of the 9/11 truth movement to such a topic is possibly disastrous. And just the week before CNN did a piece conflating 9/11 skepticism with anti-semitism.
I guess I fail to understand why a revisionist history regarding an epoch from five dozen years ago in a different country would really have a significant detrimental impact. Besides, in a field where Kenneth McVay represents the standard of Scholarship, there is plenty of room for improvement. I really have no idea what Williams might have written, so I am not endorsing his views. I have to ask, however, is there even a concern on your part about who is right regarding that issue? Or are you simply trying to pick and chose which truth you believe should be suppressed and which should be exposed? I'm really not seeking to be confrontational by asking the question. I am very serious.
It appears ill-advised to reject people or their work simply because they hold controversial views on history. What if they have done sound and good research and are capable, sincere and well informed? I hate to tell you this, but you aren't in a buyers market when it comes to recruiting qualified researchers.
Posted 17 years ago # -
I certainly don't agree with all of your material on disinfo. I didn't watch all of Jim Hoffman's critique of Rick Siegel's video, but what I did see was less than compelling.
Is this compelling to you?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3211807290...
You've clearly looked at our Disinformation page. I would suggest that you follow some of the links in the resources section and continue to read.
Let me ask you a question: What do you think is an example of disinformation in the 9/11 truth movement?
I have to ask, however, is there even a concern on your part about who is right regarding that issue? Or are you simply trying to pick and chose which truth you believe should be suppressed and which should be exposed?
Yeah, we make decisions based on our evaluation of evidence, legitimacy, and effectiveness of various claims and associations. That's how you make a website. That's how you say things.
Posted 17 years ago # -
David Ray Griffin's name no longer shows up on the member list at Scholars for 9/11 Truth. He is still a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_con...
Posted 17 years ago # -
It appears ill-advised to reject people or their work simply because they hold controversial views on history. What if they have done sound and good research and are capable, sincere and well informed?
Were you referring to us? ;) Like some of our previous posters, you have much to say about something that you admit understanding less than we do. But we're an educational bunch here, and ready to inform.
I guess I fail to understand why a revisionist history regarding an epoch from five dozen years ago in a different country would really have a significant detrimental impact.
Epoch? If my great-grandparents had any less money with their seven kids, and hadn't escaped the spread of fascism, my grandmother would have been born in Poland and only lived to the age of maybe 21. No me. She was born in the US, and died at the age of 78 when I was 21. It wasn't that long ago, and should be considered along with every other genocide in our history as an example of humanity at its worst.
You will find no sympathy for Eric Williams here. And that is with good reason. Detrimental impact. This occurrence was utilized by the mainstream media to negatively characterize the movement as anti-Semitic. He published his book on Holocaust revision three weeks before the 9/11 event that he has helped coordinate. He had never published these views previously, having established himself in the movement with some fairly derivative books about related topics. Referring to our history I would note that this is a classic bait and switch tactic from the counter-intelligence play book. We have heard nothing from Williams since then.
Most of those posting to this forum are active in the movement and also highly concerned with its present state. What is the truth of the Truth Movement? Disruption by infiltration is one truth of the Truth Movement. And so our actions must be guided more by principle than association.
The present state of the movement has a lot to do with the 'big tent' approach, and the role it has played in undermining its credibility and effectiveness. Very genuine people are mislead to identify unity as making no distinction between truth and fallacy in a truth movement. That cuts to the very definition of what it is we are trying to accomplish. We can't be calling for more truth and yet be promoting fallacy at the same time. So what is the 9/11 truth movement? Do we really include those who promote lies?
TruthMove does not. Neither do many in the movement. This is nothing absolute in that we are all trying our best not to misinform. It's not that hard to be inaccurate at times. Truths become fallacies. Yet the distinction is so clear between those who are willing to adapt based on suggestion, and those who only respond in defense. Determining the truth is an adaptive process as we seek to refute our own hypotheses. The scientific method at work. In that process, you can't be more committed to the university than your data. You can't be more committed to your opinions or ideologies than the data. The data stands. If the data refutes your very favorite hypothesis, you must be committed to adapting.
Our adaptive process has lead us to our view of that which is strong about this movement, and also its weaknesses. We are committed to promoting its strengths. We have also come to recognize that we must be candid about its weaknesses, as the very definition of the movement is at stake. We would like to set one example among others of a project that takes the basic principles of the Truth Movement very seriously.
Posted 17 years ago # -
"Besides, in a field where Kenneth McVay represents the standard of Scholarship, there is plenty of room for improvement."
I assume this comment refers to:
Ken McVay's website - one of the best debunks of the neo-Nazis
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
has a good discussion of propaganda techniques
holocaust denial is not a neutral topic of historical inquiry, it's a lure cast by Nazi apologists for vulnerably open minds, which exploits their fresh sense of distrust of history by suggesting that this, too, must be a lie. -- Jeff Wells, Rigorous Intuition http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/03/inoc...
Those who deny Auschwitz would be ready to remake it. -- Primo Levi, survivor of a year's imprisonment in Auschwitz
Posted 17 years ago # -
I'm not going to go into details about the historical questions of Auschwitz, etc., on this forum. I will tell you the suggestion that 'denier = Nazi' is ludicrous. Sure, there are some deniers who also consider themselves Nazis, but the vast majority are simply people who hold views different from the OCT of that era. People such as John Sack and David Cole are worth studying in this regard.
Note that the statement"You would have to be crazy to claim the Holocaust didn't happen." is distinct from "It didn't happen." Sack makes the former statement. I had an engineer tell me exactly the same thing about 9/11 after implicitly confirming that the buildings were destroyed by CD. AAMOF, I believe his words were something like 'When I was in the military I was part of a CD team. I know what CD looks like. You would have to be insane to tell people that the destruction of the WTC was CD.' I believe that is the same person who told me 'there are procedures for doing things like CD, they would have to have been following the protocols'.
Posted 17 years ago # -
That's what I keep saying. We aren't a truth movement if we can't explain/prove/question what the truth about 9/11 is. If we don't know why the official story is a problem, we can't question it. If we don't know what the real questions are, we can't hold them accountable for the answers. Disinformation is the official story of 9/11. We cannot avoid the subject.
There are many forms and techniques of disinformation. Disinformation is not the only clandestine strategy at work.
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6516948938564003792 Dogs Part 1) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2641082085378347014 Dogs Part 2)
You got to be crazy, you gotta have a real need You gotta sleep on your toes, and when you're on the street You gotta be able to pick out the easy meat with your eyes closed
And then moving in silently, down wind and out of sight You gotta strike when the moment is right without thinking.
After a while, you can work on points for style Like the club tie, and the firm handshake A certain look in the eye, and an easy smile
You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to
So that when they turn their backs on you
You'll get the chance to put the knife in.
You gotta keep one eye looking over your shoulder You know it's going to get harder, and harder, and harder as you get older
And in the end you'll pack up, fly down south Hide your head in the sand Just another sad old man All alone and dying of cancer.
And when you loose control, you'll reap the harvest that you've sown
And as the fear grows, the bad blood slows and turns to stone And it's too late to loose the weight you used to need to throw around So have a good drown, as you go down, alone Dragged down by the stone.
Got to admit that I'm a little bit confused Sometimes it seems to me as if I'm just being used Got to wake up, try and shake off this creeping malaise If I don't stand my own ground, how can I find my way out of this maze?
Deaf, dumb, and blind, you just keep on pretending
That everyone's expendable and no-one has a real friend
And it seems to you the thing to do would be to isolate the winner
And everything's done under the sun
And you believe at heart, everyone's a killer.
-
Who was born in a house full of pain
Who was trained not to spit in the fan
Who was told what to do by the man
Who was broken by trained personnel
Who was fitted with collar and chain
Who was given a pat on the back
Who was breaking away from the pack
Who was only a stranger at home
Who was ground down in the end
Who was found dead on the phone
Who was dragged down by the stone.
Posted 17 years ago # -
Is this compelling to you?
I was talking about Rick's illustration of the parabolic trajectories of flying debris, and Jim's claim that Rick was talking about dust cloud outlines.
You've clearly looked at our Disinformation page. I would suggest that you follow some of the links in the resources section and continue to read.
I've seen most of it before. I've actually gone much further than most of the sources you reference.
Yeah, we make decisions based on our evaluation of evidence, legitimacy, and effectiveness of various claims and associations. That's how you make a website. That's how you say things.
I cannot discuss this matter further.
Posted 17 years ago # -
I'm not sure whether it's worth it for me to discuss the matter further, but...
I was an outspoken opponent of Eric D. Williams participation in the Arizona conference. His coming out of nowhere with a book on Auschwitz immediately before the event and the way that fact was pounced upon by the usual suspects of 9/11 truth opposition, made me think it was highly probable that he was an intentional disruptor. Seeing his smirking face among the conference-goers when it had been stated that he would withdraw altogether increased that probability in my mind. Hearing (but not seeing for myself) that he was running a swatiska screensaver on his laptop at his table in the vending area increased it even more. Learning that his "book" was in fact a shameless plagiarization of the narration of Jewish historian David Cole's film about Auschwitz clinched it. My opinion is that Williams was strategic, planted disruption, who is not necessarily even a Holocaust "denier" but who hit upon one of the most effective ways to undermine 9/11 truth -- by mixing it with Jew-hatred.
Posted 17 years ago # -
OK, what I meant by not being able to discuss the matter further is that I do not wish to debate the merits of the works of people such as Germar Rudolf and David Irving on this forum. As for the specific actions of individuals currently involved in the truth movement, they are worthy of discussion so long as people can remain objective, or at least dispassionate. For me, the Swastika has meanings well beyond its appearance in Nazi symbolism, so seeing it displayed, per se, is not provocative on its own. Now, if it is displayed in a context clearly reminiscent of Nazi Germany's use of it, I would have to question the motives of the person displaying it. Showing up at a 9/11 event with the Swastika displayed openly on you computer in a way that is clearly intended to be noticed is certainly a reason for suspicion.
I really don't know the validity of your admittedly secondhand reports of EDW's conduct. If he is on the up-n-up, people would likely want to discredit him by exaggerating or lying about his conduct. If he is sincere and your reports are valid, I would have to conclude that he is not very wise. If your reports are accurate, it is likely that the man does have ulterior motives.
This seems worth mentioning in this context [experiments with cellphones] (http://www.physics911.ca/Rudolf:_Cellphone_Experiments_In_Airlines)
Posted 17 years ago # -
Am I to assume this indicates an unwillingness to carry on a rational discussion on this topic?
Posted 17 years ago # -
You're the one who has refused to engage in respectful, honest, rational discussion.
Posted 17 years ago # -
Have you even attempted to engage in respectful, honest and rational discussion with me? It's kind of like on the advance physics forum where posting a link to a page more or less directly extracted from the NIST report results in a warning from the moderator to stop posting links to "conspiracy sites" and to cite only peer reviewed research, but she is more than willing to link to http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm . Dr. Jones certainly doesn't share your assessment of my willingness to communicate honestly and intelligently. AAMOF, he thanked me warmly for my honest and insightful contributions.
Posted 17 years ago # -
Have you even attempted to engage in respectful, honest and rational discussion with me?
Yes. Actually I spent many hours (now) in the last couple of days trying to engage you around these issues. And if you were to read more of the contents of our forum, you would find that our discussion of these issues indicates a fair degree of concern for both who is attacking us, and how we should respond in a responsible manner.
A number of questions have been asked of you, and you have not responded. Nor have you directly responded to the many statements here that question your approach. In other words, it seems that you are here to dish it, but can't take it, and that's not what this place is about.
Are you here to educate and be educated or not? If so, that comes with a bit of humility. I don't know about many things. I assume that you know many things that I do not. I am open to that discovery. Despite my ignorance and along with my expertise, I know that together with all these people, we've got a lot of bases covered.
It appears that you would like to be a part of the discussion happening here on disinformation. But that signifies that you will have to join the discussion. A discussion already in progress.
I would say that the people posting here are experts on the subject of the 9/11 truth movement, among other things. What is your expertise? You have implied that you have a deep understanding of disinformation, and yet have not made that knowledge accessible, while making excuses for EDW. As we said, that looked like 'counter-intelligence tactics 101.' Our experience and knowledge talking. And yet you basically dismissed our concern, despite our collectively having greater knowledge of this issue. It seemed to me that you were making an excuse for Eric Williams behavior on the premise that Holocaust denial isn't really all that bad, and you didn't respond when I brought this up.
Once again, don't dish it if you can't take it.
I hope that your having re-registered after having been blocked signifies an intention to respect the people here, the parameters of our project, and our Forum Guidelines. If so, please do us a couple of favors. Suggestions. Be more concise. Look around and get a sense of the manner in which other people are posting here. Don't be posting more that anyone else. And please, for your part of the educational process, assume that people in here know a great many things that you do not.
Now, it is apparent that some in here might rather that we just block you again. But if you are willing to take it easy, and have a bit more humility, I can imagine that you would be able to make a positive contribution.
Posted 17 years ago # -
I would say that the people posting here are experts on the subject of the 9/11 truth movement, among other things. What is your expertise? You have implied that you have a deep understanding of disinformation, and yet have not made that knowledge accessible, while making excuses for EDW. As we said, that looked like 'counter-intelligence tactics 101.' Our experience and knowledge talking. And yet you basically dismissed our concern, despite our collectively having greater knowledge of this issue. It seemed to me that you were making an excuse for Eric Williams behavior on the premise that Holocaust denial isn't really all that bad, and you didn't respond when I brought this up.
No. I gave you my measured assessment of the evidence that I had. Just because someone says somebody did something doesn't mean it is true, and the circumstance can be far different from what a report might indicate, even if the "facts" are correct. For obvious reasons I am not willing to discuss the possible merits of EDW's work.
As for sharing my insights, I have become far less willing to do so in the past several weeks.
I have looked at some of the material on your site, and not just the disinfo stuff. To a large extent, you and I appear to see things in a similar way. http://www.wkjo.com
Posted 17 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.