The black hole created by disinfo and cointelpro

Disinformation (Disinfo):

"Disinformation is the deliberate dissemination of false information. It may include the distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or propagation of malicious rumours and fabricated intelligence. In the context of espionage or military intelligence, it is the deliberate spreading of false information to mislead an enemy as to one's position or course of action. It also includes the distortion of true information in such a way as to render it useless."

definition


Cointelpro (Counter Intelligence Program):

"COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) was a program of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO operations of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against organizations that were (at the time) considered to have politically radical elements, ranging from those whose stated goal was the violent overthrow of the U.S. government (such as the Weathermen); non-violent civil rights groups such as Martin Luther King Jr.'s Southern Christian Leadership Conference; and violent groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party. The founding document of COINTELPRO directed FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" the activities of these movements and their leaders."

definition

The two words mentioned above, Disinfo, and Conintelpro, are tossed around by the truth movement, like you or I would speak of the weather. The issue I have with its use, aside from its OVERuse, is with the paranoia behind it. Actually I should be pleased, as in many ways it has been the road block that has kept the truthers from promoting and selling their snake oil to the masses, any more than they already have.

Here is my issue. Everyone in the truth movement, thinks that others within their movement are "Disinfo" or "Cointelpro".

The "Planers" call the "No-planers" disinfo, the no-planers call the planers the same. The "pod" believers are called disinfo, by some, while others call the PFT or CIT/Pentacon disinfo. My point is this...if all of these groups are disinfo, then who is telling the truth...you got it, no one.

Now this, in a totally illogical way, makes sense to me, as I think they are all promoting lies and baseless opinion. However, from the pov of the truther, how do you reconcile this? who do you believe if you are standing on the outside, doubting 9/11, but not sure why?

Tarpley calls Jenny Sparks disinfo, Major Tom has a whole listing for Disinfo. Alex Jones has called just about everybody disinfo at one point or another...

So in a strange way I feel bad for the beginning truther, standing at the state fair infront of a row of snake oil stands, not able to choose, with all the salesmen calling the others liars...

I wonder, if you put all the truthers in a room together, and got them to yell out loud who they think is disinfo/cointelpro, would the cancelling result in the formation of a black hole?

V.I.P. Access and no less will do for some....

One of the common arguments one will often here from the truth movement members goes like this...

"Well how do we know.." Insert piece of 9/11 evidence here, "...is real. Have you seen it. How do we know they didn't just create it, or how do we know they didn't just manipulate it?"

This approach, this completely outlandish expectation really bothers me. What on earth makes these people think that they, average everyday investigooglers, some how should have access to all of the evidence from a criminal investigation. Whether the case is closed, or is likely the case in 9/11, still ongoing, there is no law that says you have access to any and all information in a criminal case. The FOIA does not guarantee access to any and all documents from all institutions, regardless of their status or context.

Do these came people think they should have access to their neighbour's medical records? Should they have access to Classified govt documents? How about Uncle Hank's bedroom videos? I know these are extreme examples, but how far is it from what the truth movement feels they should have access to?

1. Pentagon Tapes? FOIA requests have been made, and explanations given as to why they have been denied.

2. Debris from AA77? Should the truthers be paraded into a hangar somewhere and a tour guide give them pamphlets?

3. Tapes of the Cell Phone / Airfone Calls? Do the families have no right to have them withheld from the public? Do the airline companies or the phone companies have no rights to withhold the contents from whomever they wish?

No matter how much you argue with the truthers that the real world does not work like that, they are insistent that they will not believe anything until they have seen it with their own eyes, held it in their own hands...well dream on.

Peer Review for 9/11 truth "Science"?

One of the subjects that comes up in the debate on 9/11 is the issue of Peer Review. The reason it is a focus of attention with respect to the 9/11 attacks, and those who present Conspiracy Theories on the matter, is its use in 9/11 truth articles to present a false sense of legitimacy to the arguments being made by the CTist. Not false in the sense that "Peer Review" does not add such an air of enhanced worth to articles given such a stamp of approval, but false in that in most cases, the "Peer Review" is either outright bogus, misleading, or deceptive.

Here is a definition of "Peer Review",

PEER REVIEW:

Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It is used primarily by editors to select and to screen submitted manuscripts, and by funding agencies, to decide the awarding of grants. The peer review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields. Even refereed journals, however, can contain errors.

From....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

So what about an example of "peer review" for 9/11 truth?

Well the "journal" that seems to be at the center of this debate, is the alleged "Peer Reviewed" Online Journal, "Journal of 9/11 Studies".

http://www.journalof911studies.com/index.html

Here is the description given for the journal on its home page"


...The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001. All content is freely available online. Our mission is to provide evidence-based, peer-reviewed research that furthers the cause of truth and justice...

Now at first, one might think...

"Well ok, it is not claiming to be anything more that a journal concerning 9/11 research. "

On the surface, that is indeed how it would appear. In fact, most of the advisory Editorial Board are made up of other 9/11 researchers, so it seems the "peer review" aspect of this would be ok, however, lets take a closer look.

The credentials of the Editors and Advisory Board, are as follows...

Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
Physicist (BYU) and Archaeometrist

Kevin Ryan
Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories

Frank Carmen Ph.D.
Physicist (BYU)

Alex Floum
Lawyer

Marcus Ford Ph.D.
Professor of Humanities

Derrick Grimmer Ph.D.
Physicist

Richard McGinn Ph.D.
Professor of Linguistics

Kimberly Moore
No credentials found

Robert Moore
Lawyer

Paul Zarembka
Professor of Economics

Joseph Phelps MS CE PE
Civil Engineer(ret)

Diane Ralph Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Social Work

Lon Waters Ph.D.
Mathematics

So we have 3 physicists, 1 Engineer, 1 Mathematics Prof, A Social Work Prof, 2 Lawyers, a Humanities Prof, an Economics Prof, A linguistics Prof, and a couple of others with no definitive credentials given (academically).

Seems to me that if this is the group from which selection is made to perform "Peer Review" (and I am not sure of this, as the Journal NEVER lists anywhere who is on their Peer Review committee/board, or how it is selected), then it is seriously lacking in several areas of relevant science. There is no chemistry member, only one civil/structural engineering member. There is no demolitions expert. There is no aviation expert. How do we know that their single engineer is qualified to "Peer Review" articles concerning building structure and engineering?

Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps they have a separate list of "Peer Reviewers" which they go to, and choose from based on the nature of the article submitted. If this is the case, I guess we will have to take the word of the editors that this is the case (if they ever indicate this is how it is done), as they list or describe NOWHERE, any policy or procedure concerning their "Peer Review Process".

They are academics, no doubt, and so they are more than qualified to "Peer Review" articles of GENERAL ACADEMICS. However, I fail to see how the above panel/committee is anywhere close to "Peer Review" articles on Structural Engineering, Chemistry, Demolitions, Aeronautics, Aviation, Computer Imaging, and a number of other relevant scientific fields.

Lets not pussyfoot with language here though. The fact is that this is a Conspiracy Theory based Journal, where the editors and board members are known 9/11 truth Conspiracy Theorists. There is NO NEUTRALITY on this board. Now if they would come clean with this, be upfront about what kind of journal it is, and what kind of "Peer Review" they are doing, then fine, but the idea that they are using the "Peer Review" label to somehow legitimize the pseudo-science of their movement is...well, no surprise, misleading and perhaps even false.

So I ask that for the sake of fairness and transparency, that the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" publish on their site, clear and defined procedures and policies on the selection of their "Peer Review" board or members, and what is involved in said review.

-----

Ask yourself this question. If this journal is full of excellent "Peer Reviewed" articles concerning various scientific elements of the 9/11 attacks, then why has not one of the articles been published in any well established scientific journal?

9/11 Truth - Searching For the Thread That Unravels

If the historical record of 9/11 was a blanket, then one could say the 9/11 truth movement followers spend all their time looking for that one end of thread, that when pulled, would unravel the whole thing. The trouble is, there is no such thread. They find lots of little bits, little ends of thread, but when they pull them, the bits simply come out into their hands like discarded lint.

For example, recently David Ray Griffin has been going on (once again) about how the phone (fone) calls from UA Flight 93 were faked, etc...

This has spawned conversations concerning the calls made by passenger and hero, Tom Burnett. You see in one of the calls he made, he mentioned that one of the hijackers (the same ones Griffin and others declared did not exist, or were still alive) had a gun. This little "bit" along with another bit, an American Airlines report to the FAA that someone was possibly "shot" on AA Flight 11, have sent the truthers scurrying to pull the magic thread out, hoping it is the one that will unravel the Historical 9/11 blanket...sorry, just like the rest of the bits, it will end immediately after you remove it.

Of all the dialogue from passenger to family, from attendant to officials, not ONE SINGLE other account of the hijackers having guns. Burnett's word did not say he saw a gun. The report to the FAA mentioning of someone being "shot" on AA11, once again, not backed up by one piece of corroberating evidence. All other accounts from AA11 (Ong and Sweeney conversations) mention knives and someone being stabbed...no mention of a gun or someone being shot.

So once again the "bits" are just that, "bits", not the magical thread.

So when you point this out to members of the truth movement, they will often reply back "yes but there are just too many coincidences", which we can translate to "there are just to many bits". Ah yes, there are many "bits" in the blanket that is the historical weave of the 9/11 attacks, but in the end, they are nothing more than the thin fragments sticking out of a complex tapestry...exposing them for what they are, anomalies as a result of the chaos and horror of the events, only makes the historical record stronger, much like touching up a suit by removing the lint.

There are many such "coincidences", many things that make your eyebrow raise a little, but in the end, my truther friends, there is no magic thread to pull and unravel the blanket.

SHOW ME THE SCIENCE!

From time to time one will hear a member of the 9/11 truth movement cry out...

"Yah, well what about the 190 architects and engineers, what about the 100 military officials, what about the 150 scientists who all have problems with the official story?"

Well here is my reply...

What about them? JUST because they are academics does not make their opinions on matters unrelated to their expertise right. Even if they are speaking to areas they are "experts" in, without some proof, a scientific paper, or a scientific analysis of the data supporting their opinions, their opinions are just that OPINIONS. We all have them, we are all entitled to them, but they carry little weight.

You have "Scholars for 9/11 truth", "Scholars for 9/11 truth & justice", Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth", "patriots question 9/11", with supposed hundreds of professionals, academics, politicians, all doubting the official story, yet all we hear from them are the same tired, debunked truther canards. Where are the papers...sure there are a few, but nowhere near what you would expect for a group of revolutionary professionals and academics. And when they do produce papers, they are lacking in science, hugely if not completely opinion pieces, or simply rewordings of the good old truth movement staples.

So my response, in Cuba Gooding Jr. fashion, is this...

"SHOW ME THE SCIENCE!" "SHOW ME THE STUDIES!" "SHOW ME THE PAPERS"

You want educated people to take you seriously, do what you know is needed...produce scientifically sound papers with your calculations, results, and then your conclusions. Show us something that could at least attempt to pass a REAL peer review.

Thanks in advance...

Munchausen's by 9/11

Recently we have seen a rash of stories related to 9/11, that has me wondering if such an event, catastrophic and "society changing" in nature, acts as a catalyst or a magnet for "wannabes" and attention seekers. In fact, others I have spoken to, have I think rightfully suggested, that such behaviors may be a variation of the mental illness known as "Munchausen's Disease".

Munchausen's Disease or Syndrome, named after the tall tale telling Baron VonMunchausen of the late 18th century, involves the fabrication of symptoms/signs consistent with a medical illness in order to gain sympathy and medical attention. Unlike malingering, the patient/victim is not creating their story/illness for financial or material gain.

An example of the illness would be someone who takes chemical cleaner and purposely exposes their skin to such, in order to create welts/rash that would then be presented to a clinician for assessment/investigation.


So how does this relate to 9/11. There are a growing number of such cases, but lets take a look at two.

Case #1: Tania Head.

NY TIMES ARTICLE

She has alleged that she was in the WTC when the 9/11 attacks occured.
She claims to have been burned from the fires that raged, and treated in a hospital afterward. Now, however, it has come to light that (A) her Fiance's/husband's family deny she was ever in a relationship with him, and (B) her alleged employer has no record of her ever working for them.

So the question is, if she was lieing, why? Perhaps one could make an argument for financial gain. Has she profited financially from her story? I do not know. I do know that she has gained considerable fame, and a tremendous amount of attention from the story. Sympathy was thrown upon her like a big cozy blanket. So is this a variation on Munchausen's? Is this a form of factitious disorder? If true, I think so.

Case #2: Kevin McPadden.

PRISONPLANET ARTICLE

This man, claiming to be a soldier and medic, also claims to have been at GZ on 9/11. However, he also claims to have been on the scene near WTC7 when it was about to collapse, AND he claims he heard a COUNTDOWN to the collapse over a radio nearby.

Now his story is not backed up by anyone else who was with him that day. His credentials as soldier seem to check out, although the title of medic may be in question.

More disturbing than his hearsay fantasy, is how it has evolved as he has garnished more and more attention from the 9/11 truth movement. At first what he heard was incomprehensible but "pulsatile" talk over the nearby radio. Now however, the man claims to have clearly heard a countdown to the collapse, which he claims intentional, of WTC7. Over the time his story has changed, Mr. McPadden has become a hero to the movement, talking before crowds, and interviewed for radio and websites. He is the Rosetta Stone for the truth movement, a whistleblower who was there...but was he, and if he was, is his story true, or an attention seeking lie fabricated and/or exaggerated in order to gain a cult following?


So if Kevin McPadden's or Tania Head's stories turn out to be false, or greatly exaggerated, are they examples of Munchausen's by Catastrophe, or in this case, "Munchausen's by 9/11"?

Only time will tell.