The art of disinformation.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

During the 1960s the American SDS was literally riddled with FBI agents and informers, these Guys were always the wildest, most out there members, urging others in the group to ever more extreeme political acts, usually involving violence. The aim was twofold, 1 discredit the SDS in the eyes of wider society, 2, pervert its original, peaceful aims. This is a powerful and distructive strategy, and, in a essentially open group, almost impossible to defend against.

Within days of 911, rumours and conjecture were spreading like weeds over the internet, and certain newspapers who seem to specialise in damage limitation and left gatekeeping. A work colleague told me, less than two days after the event, that he knew for a fact that all Jewish workers in the Towers had been told not to go to work that day, another, within the same timespan, that it was obvious that a missile, not a plane, had impacted with the Pentagon. When I asked them where they wrer getting this "information" I was told "its all over the net"

In my own research around 911, I have often come across similar wild, totally unsubstantiated claims, many would appear to be the ravings of unhinged minds, "there were no arab hijackers" " the planes were a 3d image" " UFOs can be seen observing the carnage" etc, etc etc. Madness right? or disinformationists taring anybody who wants to look deeper into possible Government insider knowledge, with the old Wo Wo brush.

[Jack White]

This very website is populated with several obvious agents provocateur, spreading both

disinformation and misinformation. Some have even managed to become """"moderators"""".

What a joke! Some content themselves with being hellraisers.

Jack

[Guest Stephen Turner]

This very website is populated with several obvious agents provocateur, spreading both

disinformation and misinformation. Some have even managed to become """"moderators"""".

What a joke! Some content themselves with being hellraisers.

Jack

And some try to keep an open mind. So do you agree or disagree with my observations, nothing in your post gives me a clue.

For those interested in further reference see the thread "Strategy of tension" Which deals with Operation stay behind, and its attempts, through false flag terror to blacken the European left. (MI6 and the CIA up to their old tricks again)

[Kevin M. West]

During the 1960s the American SDS was literally riddled with FBI agents and informers, these Guys were always the wildest, most out there members, urging others in the group to ever more extreeme political acts, usually involving violence. The aim was twofold, 1 discredit the SDS in the eyes of wider society, 2, pervert its original, peaceful aims. This is a powerful and distructive strategy, and, in a essentially open group, almost impossible to defend against.

Within days of 911, rumours and conjecture were spreading like weeds over the internet, and certain newspapers who seem to specialise in damage limitation and left gatekeeping. A work colleague told me, less than two days after the event, that he knew for a fact that all Jewish workers in the Towers had been told not to go to work that day, another, within the same timespan, that it was obvious that a missile, not a plane, had impacted with the Pentagon. When I asked them where they wrer getting this "information" I was told "its all over the net"

In my own research around 911, I have often come across similar wild, totally unsubstantiated claims, many would appear to be the ravings of unhinged minds, "there were no arab hijackers" " the planes were a 3d image" " UFOs can be seen observing the carnage" etc, etc etc. Madness right? or disinformationists taring anybody who wants to look deeper into possible Government insider knowledge, with the old Wo Wo brush.

I disagree, there are more than enough nutjobs on the internet already, the government has no need to seed this kind of disinformation.

[Len Colby]

This very website is populated with several obvious agents provocateur, spreading both

disinformation and misinformation. Some have even managed to become """"moderators"""".

What a joke! Some content themselves with being hellraisers.

Jack

You have repeated this libel various times but have never been able to offer a shred of evidence to support it. Despite promising correction when proven you have repeatedly failed to do so. One recent example is when you accused Evan of locking a thread when in fact it never had been locked. You failed to admit error or apologize. The only time I remember you admitting error is when I proved you had misidentified the impact point of the Pentagon.

Kevin wrote: "...there are more than enough nutjobs on the internet already..."

This very website is populated with several obvious agents provocateur examples, spreading both

disinformation and misinformation. Some have even managed to become """"moderators"""". well respected JFK assassination researchers. What a joke! Some content themselves with being hellraisers insulting fellow members.

Steve you forgot the 'Barbra Olsen (sic) was arrested on the nonexistent Polish-Austrian boarder with a few thousand dollars worth of a non existent form of Italian lyra (sic) years after currency had been replaced by the Euro' story.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Len Colby

[Duane Daman]

Thanks once again for proving Jack's point , disinformation artist Colby .... Here are the Twenty Five to Suppress the Truth ... Also known as The 25 Rules of Disinformation .

You just used several of them .... Like number 5 , 10 , 15 , 17 , and last but certainly not least , number 18 !!

Congrats on being one of the most obvious of disinfo artists on this forum .

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil

2. Become incredulous and indignant

3. Create rumor mongers

4. Use a straw man

* 5. SIDETRACK OPPONENTS WITH NAME CALLING , RIDICULE

6. Hit and Run

7. Question motives

8. Invoke authority

9. Play Dumb

* 10. ASSOCIATE OPPONENT CHARGES WITH OLD NEWS

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions

12. Enigmas have no solution

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic

14. Demand complete solutions

* 15. FIT THE FACTS TO ALTERNATE CONCLUSIONS

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses

* 17. CHANGE THE SUBJECT

* 18. EMOTIONALIZE, ANTAGONIZE, AND GOAD

19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs

20. False evidence

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor

22. Manufacture a new truth

23. Create bigger distractions

24. Silence critics

25. Vanish

[Duane Daman]

"I disagree, there are more than enough nutjobs on the internet already, the government has no need to seed this kind of disinformation. "

That would be number 5 ... Thank you for also proving Jack right ... again .

So then why do you continue to seed your disinformation here , artist West ? ... Don't you have anything else better to do with your time than to try to debunk "nutjobs " ?? .. LOL

[Len Colby]

So Duane how many of those "25 ways" apply to Jack's post on this thread or his posts in general? What about your posts such when you without provocation call your opponents "idiots"?

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Steven, I agree with your conjecture that there are deliberate agents spreading false thoeries in order to prevent an concensus alternative theory from forming that has enough adherents to challenge the Governments theory in a pubic forum. Oh, then there is the problem of a public forum. There are none, anymore, unless you are the government or one of its press minions.

Of course this does not exclude the reality that there are also just a lot of free lance idiots!

In my opinion, one of the number one tasks of the agents was to get the 9/11 sceptics bogged down in arguments about the physical evidence. Why? This would require mediation by experts. The dimplomatic evidence was stronger, and didn't require the need of experts.

The agents have certainly succeeded on this front.

[John Dolva]

So Duane how many of those "25 ways" apply to Jack's post on this thread or his posts in general? What about your posts such when you without provocation call your opponents "idiots"?

These '25 ways', and similar lists, are, to put it mildly, 'daft'. They contribute nothing of consequence. They are used liberally by proponents and antagonists to 'prove' points, and consequently prove nothing.

[Evan Burton]

Stephen, I think that there are true aspects of all the possibilities. There are nutters. There are troublemakers (flamers). There are disinformation agents. There are people who repeat what they have heard as gospel, and there are people just trying to understand.

Don't assume just because someone states inaccurate data that they are a "disinfo agent". That is why it is so important to double / triple check facts as best you can, verify what has been stated.

[Evan Burton]

Thanks once again for proving Jack's point , disinformation artist Colby .... Here are the Twenty Five to Suppress the Truth ... Also known as The 25 Rules of Disinformation .

You just used several of them .... Like number 5 , 10 , 15 , 17 , and last but certainly not least , number 18 !!

Congrats on being one of the most obvious of disinfo artists on this forum .

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil

2. Become incredulous and indignant

3. Create rumor mongers

4. Use a straw man

* 5. SIDETRACK OPPONENTS WITH NAME CALLING , RIDICULE

6. Hit and Run

7. Question motives

8. Invoke authority

9. Play Dumb

* 10. ASSOCIATE OPPONENT CHARGES WITH OLD NEWS

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions

12. Enigmas have no solution

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic

14. Demand complete solutions

* 15. FIT THE FACTS TO ALTERNATE CONCLUSIONS

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses

* 17. CHANGE THE SUBJECT

* 18. EMOTIONALIZE, ANTAGONIZE, AND GOAD

19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs

20. False evidence

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor

22. Manufacture a new truth

23. Create bigger distractions

24. Silence critics

25. Vanish

You keep playing the same record. One would expect that if you were posting information that would threaten national security by revealing such a massive cover up of enormous proportions, you'd have to be "silenced".

Yet you can still freely post here, a board which many non-members consider a respectable and valuable source of information.

You have claimed that you have been banned elsewhere because they presumably do not want to know the "truth" and fear your discoveries - yet others still freely post.

Consider Turbonium - a poster on UM, ApolloHoax, and BAUT. A person who believes that the Moon landings were faked just as fervently as you. A person who presents well thought out (for the most part) arguments in support of their views.

A person who is mercilessly taken to task over their views by those that disagree - yet they are still able to post... on all the various boards. They are even considered to be a 'valuable member' despite their contrary views.

Yet you claim that you have been banned, or cannot post, or that your posts are altered, or that your websites are hacked, etc, etc.

Please, PLEASE tell me you think Turbo is some type of "disinformation agent" - I want to tell him myself if you do.

Why don't you let your posts stand or fall on their own merits? That's how science works - a theory must be able to withstand attack by critics. If it doesn't, then its value must be re-examined.

I'm sure that you will claim that myself, as a moderator, will prevent you from showing the "truth"; that I will edit out the most damning of your revelations?

Well, here's an offer - start a thread regarding your most persuasive and damning evidence showing that Apollo was somehow faked.

I will NOT moderate the thread, or yourself for what has been said in the thread, in any way shape or form.

I will also refrain from contacting any of the other moderators regarding any posts you make within that thread. Any replies I have will be open and contained within the thread. I will also refrain from asking publicly for the mods to act in any way with regard to the thread. I will restrain myself to addressing your arguments, and no more.

Furthermore, I'll request that the other mods not involve themselves in your posts, regardless of how it affects me, UNLESS it is a flagrant violation of decency which would threaten the board as a whole. That means personal attacks on me are fair game, whilst I cannot respond in the same way to you (I am still bound by the board rules).

This gives you ALL the advantage whilst restraining me.

How about it?

Edited July 19, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Guest David Guyatt]

Don't assume just because someone states inaccurate data that they are a "disinfo agent". That is why it is so important to double / triple check facts as best you can, verify what has been stated.

Never a truer word spoken, Evan.

People's misinformed opinion does not make them a disinfo agent. It's easy to label someone.

Meanwhile, the so called "25 Rules of Disinformation" - so far as I can tell (that's a caveat to one and all, btw) - appeared in 2000 on the New Republic website (which self describes itself as a Conservative News Forum - an interesting description -- is "Conservative" news different to ordinary news?). They were written anonymously and the reason why that is, is because they appear to have been ripped-off the website of one H. Michael Sweeney of Oregon, who first wrote them circa 1997. This essay was, itself, based upon "The Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression" by David Martin, author of America's Dreyfus Affair - the death of Vince Foster - that was placed online by J Orlin Grabbe. These thirteen went on to become "Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression" by DC Dave, (who I haven't heard of in years and years).

The point I'm making here is that this list has evolved along the way. To start with it was an opinion piece and not written in stone. --- not sureptitiously lifted from some covert psyops manual. In other words it was and remains the opinion of observers, and is not fact based. So far as I can see, anyway.

Now if you want facts, I do still have a copy - bearing personal handwritten annotations - of Major Michael Aquino and Col Paul E Vallely's "From Psyop to Mindwar - The Psychology of Victory" (bearing the words "TOP SECRET"). Michael Aquino is, or was, as many already know, the Pentagon's pet Satanist. Nice guy to bump into on a dark night if the perfume of candlewax is in the air, one imagines. General Vallely, now retired, was a long serving US Army specialist in "Special Operations, Psychological and Civil-Military Operations".

Their above referenced joint-paper was sent to a variety of people and places including the US Army's War College. It almost certainly went on (in my view) to form the basis of the US Army War College/Strategic Studies Institutue "The Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War" by Steve Metz and James Kievit, that was published in 1994.

Now for those who want to understand psyops and the setting in which disinformation is used, this publication is worth reading. "Behaviour modification is a key component of peace enforcement" assert the authors. "Enforcing the peace" as opposed to "keeping the peace" is just so butch don't you think? Anyway, the reason the authors were so keen on this aspect is that the paper they undoubtedly drew on for guidance and ideas - namely Col. Vallely's and Maj. Michael Aquino's forementioned paper - was itself founded on the writing of LTC John Alexander's paper on "psychotronic intelligence and operational employment of ESP" That's the same LTC John B Alexander who's code name PENGUIN did the round in UFO circles.

That's right! These xxxxers have found a way to digitally doodle your mind. Remotely. No wires, no hand-faster-then-the-eye card palming shuffles, no illusions, no mirrors, no trick cabinets with sneaky back doors. Just plain old wireless transmissions straight into the cerebal cortex and bingo! Peace is enforced. "Find a happy place" as Jim Carey exclaimed in the movie Dumb & Dumber. "Happy" in this context being what "they" consider safe to make them even safer from nassy ol' you.

You might wonder what this has to do with you. A lot. We all know from NASA that lots of military innovation has nifty commercial spinoffs. One of these, for example, is the everyday use by all sorts of commercial entities, as well as government agencies, of Voice Stress Analysis Software. This can and is hooked up to the phone and used during ordinary telephone conversations to see if you are lying to questions asked. It is estimated that, unlike the polygraph that has only a 66 odd% effectiveness rating, this technology goes as high as 99.6%.

Wave farewell to all those false or partly untrue insurance claims. In the course of a conversation they KNOW when you're lying and know what areas to focus on more deeply before dismissing your claim and increasing your premium -- AND doubtless telling all their other isurance industries buddies that you are an inherent risk. The result? Your insurance premiums jacked up all round and all your future claims declined. Money for old rope.

Of course, you are not told that this equipment is being used on you, nor is your permission asked to be subjected to it. They just go ahead and violate your freedom to fib. And fibbing is as much a part of being human as picking your nose, or scratching your bum. We all do it at one time or another.

But the technology doesn't stop there. These days your thoughts can be remotely read and analysed.

Listen and weep. The mental gulag is alive and grinning....

David

[Guest David Guyatt]

Colonel Aquino, for those unfamiliar with him, is chief infant eater of the Temple of Set an openly Satanic Church. He is reported to have a rabid fixation on SS-1 Heinrich Himmler and apparently had the clout to get into Himmler's Wewelsburg Castle (where all the top dogs of the SS hung out) in order to conduct a blacj magic ceremony.

David

[Len Colby]

Steven, I agree with your conjecture that there are deliberate agents spreading false thoeries in order to prevent an concensus alternative theory from forming that has enough adherents to challenge the Governments theory in a pubic forum. Oh, then there is the problem of a public forum. There are none, anymore, unless you are the government or one of its press minions.

Of course this does not exclude the reality that there are also just a lot of free lance idiots!

In my opinion, one of the number one tasks of the agents was to get the 9/11 sceptics bogged down in arguments about the physical evidence. Why? This would require mediation by experts. The dimplomatic evidence was stronger, and didn't require the need of experts.

The agents have certainly succeeded on this front.

1) Do you have any evidence that any (let alone a significant number) of the people who disagree with your position are "deliberate agents"? Or is this merely a baseless presumption?

2) Actually truthers, including computer programmers, theologians, philosophy professors, librarians etc, of their own accord started pushing technical arguments talking of “energy deficits”, “pyroclastic flows”, “faster than free fall collapses”, “the path of least resistance”, “fire ratings”, “seismic evidence” etc etc. The problem no one qualified in the respective fields backs their conclusions. I guess the forces of darkness are able to control every qualified expert in the world but are somehow unable to do the same with others.

3) What did you mean by “dimplomatic evidence” (sic)? Even “diplomatic evidence” doesn’t make sense.