Cognitive Infiltration

[W. Niederhut]

        Good reference about Cass Sunstein's program of "cognitive infiltration" of social media to attack and impugn the reputations of research of scientists and scholars who have debunked false U.S. government narratives.

       Interestingly, Sunstein's main concern about so-called "conspiracy theorists" has not been with 8chan guys who buy guns and ammo at Wal-Mart, but with scientists and scholars who have debunked the U.S. government and mainstream media narratives about 9/11.

 

Cognitive Infiltration

http://www.unz.com/book/david_ray_griffin__cognitive-infiltration/

 

[W. Niederhut]

Addendum:   As a brief summary, I should mention that Professor David Ray Griffin's detailed critique here of Cass Sunstein's arguments for "cognitive infiltration" of social media sites that focus on "conspiracy theories" should be required reading for anyone who is interested in the subject of U.S. government surveillance and disruption of research forums that challenge government narratives.  (Apologies if this old hat here.)

              Griffin's analysis is especially worthwhile for it's critique of Sunstein's claim that most "conspiracy theories" that challenge U.S. government narratives are false and unjustified.

              Why does Sunstein make this bizarre foundational claim?   Because...

1)   The U.S. government almost never conspires to deceive the public about covert military and intelligence ops...   (Huh?)  😬  And,

2)   In an "open" society like the U.S., the public can always rely on the mainstream media to keep them fully informed about U.S. government ops!

Ergo, anyone who questions U.S. government narratives about covert ops is, obviously, nuts, and needs to be under surveillance.

          

 

[W. Niederhut]

Two questions for the Education Forum.

Isn't this forum regarded as, possibly, the most popular forum in the U.S. for discussions about the JFKA research and other research challenging U.S. government narratives about putative black ops?

If so, wouldn't it be a logical target for Cass Sunstein-type U.S. government "cognitive infiltrators"-- if they do, in fact, exist?

Asking for a friend.  😬

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Two questions for the Education Forum.

Isn't this forum regarded as, possibly, the most popular forum in the U.S. for discussions about the JFKA research and other research challenging U.S. government narratives about putative black ops?

If so, wouldn't it be a logical target for Cass Sunstein-type U.S. government "cognitive infiltrators"-- if they do, in fact, exist?

Asking for a friend.  😬

Not really. The forum does have an importance but, the battleground is Facebook, Instagram & TikTok. There is far more damage being done to the credibility of the state by people on these platforms. The response is censorship, shadow banning, and clever little algorithms created to prevent the public from seeing whats going on.

 

It’s also worth considering whether we are in Huxley’s world, now. A world where there is so much irrelevance that nobody knows what the truth is.  That’s essentially what has happened in the JFK case. We started with Oswald, people were suspicious, then the Cuban, Mafia, hardline right winger theories were propagated, the CIA, the MIC, as well as some more absurd theories. Now we have such a deluge of information mixed together, it feels an almost insurmountable struggle to separate truth from fiction. Just look at the way we all argue here.  
 

What I am saying is; one way of ensuring truth never comes out in a timely manner is by muddying the waters so that it confuses everyone and we get apathetic. As well as providing new distractions. 

[Michael Griffith]

Every time you and others get on this forum and defend whacky theories such as the 9/11 Truther nuttiness, you discredit this forum as a place for serious discussion on the JFK assassination. Such garbage has no business appearing in a forum on the JFK case. It has nothing to do with the case. 

There is something wrong when people who advocate fringe theories don't care that 99% of the experts who have examined those theories reject them as not just wrong but also as bizarre and ridiculous. 

JFKA conspiracy theorists who also peddle 9/11 Truther claims are a dream come true for lone-gunman theorists. If I were the CIA and wanted to discredit this forum, I would pay people to do exactly what you are doing. 

 

[W. Niederhut]

14 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Every time you and others get on this forum and defend whacky theories such as the 9/11 Truther nuttiness, you discredit this forum as a place for serious discussion on the JFK assassination. Such garbage has no business appearing in a forum on the JFK case. It has nothing to do with the case. 

There is something wrong when people who advocate fringe theories don't care that 99% of the experts who have examined those theories reject them as not just wrong but also as bizarre and ridiculous. 

JFKA conspiracy theorists who also peddle 9/11 Truther claims are a dream come true for lone-gunman theorists. If I were the CIA and wanted to discredit this forum, I would pay people to do exactly what you are doing. 

 

Well, Michael, since you, yourself, keep bringing up the subject of 9/11 here on our JFKA forum-- and making false statements about the 9/11 science data-- how about telling us what the melting point of steel is?  Is the question too difficult for you to answer?

And tell us how you explain the obvious, visible explosions seen on film during the free fall collapses of the WTC Twin Towers.

You keep dodging those basic science questions, while repeating your false tropes about the highly-educated, professionally-accredited scientists, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth being "nutty."

It's the kind of propaganda we are all used to reading in the mainstream media, and on government-funded internet propaganda websites, but it's out of place here on the Education Forum.

This is a place where we talk about the suppressed data that debunks false government narratives promoted in the M$M.

Edited April 27, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Every time you and others get on this forum and defend whacky theories such as the 9/11 Truther nuttiness, you discredit this forum as a place for serious discussion on the JFK assassination. Such garbage has no business appearing in a forum on the JFK case. It has nothing to do with the case. 

There is something wrong when people who advocate fringe theories don't care that 99% of the experts who have examined those theories reject them as not just wrong but also as bizarre and ridiculous. 

JFKA conspiracy theorists who also peddle 9/11 Truther claims are a dream come true for lone-gunman theorists. If I were the CIA and wanted to discredit this forum, I would pay people to do exactly what you are doing. 

 

I attended a COPA conference in the late 2000's that was a bit surprising, as a number of those attending were in their 20's and early 30's (far younger than the usual attendees). At one point, I noticed that these 7 or 8 guys seemed to know each other, and I started a discussion with them in the hall. It turned out that they were drawn into researching the JFK case by 9/11. When I brought up James Fetzer (who had routinely tried to drag this forum into becoming a JFK truther forum) they all cringed and groaned. They considered him an embarrassment and disgrace. They thought there was more to 9/11 than the government was letting on, but thought Fetzer's claims of space beams and holograms was ludicrous, and even questioned whether or not he was being paid to discredit their community. 

I found this surprising. While JFK researchers were wary of 9/11 truthers--and thought they discredited their community, these 9/11 researchers thought the JFK researchers then invading their community were possible disinformation agents.

A few months later, after suffering one of his frequent claims of being the most respected 9/11 researcher, or whatever, I mentioned this to Fetzer, basically telling him there was a backlash against him within the 9/11 truther community. Not surprisingly, if you knew him, he insisted this wasn't so, and that I'd misinterpreted what had happened. According to him the 9/11 truthers at the COPA conference were obvious agents, who'd been sent there to find me and feed me the falsehood that Fetzer was not both the top JFK researcher and 9/11 researcher. Having been there, and knowing full well that I approached them, etc, I knew this was garbage, and added it to my list of reasons to distrust Fetzer's critical thinking abilities. 

So, to make a long story short, I suspect there are varying degrees of 'wackiness" among 9/11 researchers just as there are varying degrees of "wackiness" among JFK researchers, and believe painting them (or us) with a broad brush is a mistake. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Well, Michael, since you, yourself, keep bringing up the subject of 9/11 here on our JFKA forum-- and making false statements about the 9/11 science data-- how about telling us what the melting point of steel is?  Is the question too difficult for you to answer?

And tell us how you explain the obvious, visible explosions seen on film during the free fall collapses of the WTC Twin Towers.

You keep dodging those basic science questions, while repeating your false tropes about the highly-educated, professionally-accredited scientists, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth being "nutty."

It's the kind of propaganda we are all used to reading in the mainstream media, and on government-funded internet propaganda websites, but it's out of place here on the Education Forum.

This is a place where we talk about the suppressed data that debunks false government narratives promoted in the M$M.

As stated in my last post, this forum was once inundated with 9/11 threads. Tink Thompson actually participated in a few. It turned out that Tink--one of the most famous conspiracy theorists in America--had been hired by a potential litigant in his capacity as a private detective and investigator to study the collapse of building 7. He ended up writing a long and detailed report on it--that he shared with this forum. (it's probably still online somewhere.) In any event, he concluded it was not a controlled demolition. I found it quite convincing, far more convincing than anything by any of the "experts" cited by Fetzer ad nauseam. I mean, really? Laser beams from space? Holograms? A missile striking the Pentagon with all the airplane debris being trucked in afterwards? Fetzer had "evidence" and "experts" supporting all this crud. So...beware "professionally accredited scientists, Architects, and Engineers". They can be as full of crud as anyone.  

Edited April 27, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

24 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I attended a COPA conference in the late 2000's that was a bit surprising, as a number of those attending were in their 20's and early 30's (far younger than the usual attendees). At one point, I noticed that these 7 or 8 guys seemed to know each other, and I started a discussion with them in the hall. It turned out that they were drawn into researching the JFK case by 9/11. When I brought up James Fetzer (who had routinely tried to drag this forum into becoming a JFK truther forum) they all cringed and groaned. They considered him an embarrassment and disgrace. They thought there was more to 9/11 than the government was letting on, but thought Fetzer's claims of space beams and holograms was ludicrous, and even questioned whether or not he was being paid to discredit their community. 

I found this surprising. While JFK researchers were wary of 9/11 truthers--and thought they discredited their community, these 9/11 researchers thought the JFK researchers then invading their community were possible disinformation agents.

A few months later, after suffering one of his frequent claims of being the most respected 9/11 researcher, or whatever, I mentioned this to Fetzer, basically telling him there was a backlash against him within the 9/11 truther community. Not surprisingly, if you knew him, he insisted this wasn't so, and that I'd misinterpreted what had happened. According to him the 9/11 truthers at the COPA conference were obvious agents, who'd been sent there to find me and feed me the falsehood that Fetzer was not both the top JFK researcher and 9/11 researcher. Having been there, and knowing full well that I approached them, etc, I knew this was garbage, and added it to my list of reasons to distrust Fetzer's critical thinking abilities. 

So, to make a long story short, I suspect there are varying degrees of 'wackiness" among 9/11 researchers just as there are varying degrees of "wackiness" among JFK researchers, and believe painting them (or us) with a broad brush is a mistake. 

Any 9/11 theory that says the attacks were an inside job, that an airliner did not hit the Pentagon but that a missile did, and that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled explosions is nutty, absurd, and embarrassing, not to mention that it has been demolished to the satisfaction of 99% of the educated population.

I have no issue with people who argue that the 9/11 Commission didn't get the whole truth about intelligence snafus or about Bush administration efforts to cover up the Saudi angle, etc. But when someone crosses the line into the whack-job theories of the 9/11 Truthers, they enter into fringe, bizarre territory. Such garbage has no place in any forum on the JFK case. 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Any 9/11 theory that says the attacks were an inside job, that an airliner did not hit the Pentagon but that a missile did, and that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled explosions is nutty, absurd, and embarrassing, not to mention that it has been demolished to the satisfaction of 99% of the educated population.

I have no issue with people who argue that the 9/11 Commission didn't get the whole truth about intelligence snafus or about Bush administration efforts to cover up the Saudi angle, etc. But when someone crosses the line into the whack-job theories of the 9/11 Truthers, they enter into fringe, bizarre territory. Such garbage has no place in any forum on the JFK case. 

What were those Israeli’s doing filming and celebrating the event? 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

As stated in my last post, this forum was once inundated with 9/11 threads. Tink Thompson actually participated in a few. It turned out that Tink--one of the most famous conspiracy theorists in America--had been hired by a potential litigant in his capacity as a private detective and investigator to study the collapse of building 7. He ended up writing a long and detailed report on it--that he shared with this forum. (it's probably still online somewhere.) In any event, he concluded it was not a controlled demolition. I found it quite convincing, far more convincing than anything by any of the "experts" cited by Fetzer ad nauseam. I mean, really? Laser beams from space? Holograms? A missile striking the Pentagon with all the airplane debris being trucked in afterwards? Fetzer had "evidence" and "experts" supporting all this crud. So...beware "professionally accredited scientists, Architects, and Engineers". They can be as full of crud as anyone.  

Pat,

     The collapse of WTC7 was, obviously, an expert, controlled demolition, and the ignorance and denial on the subject is, frankly, depressing.  It's not rocket science.  Steel skyscrapers don't abruptly collapse to the ground in an abrupt-onset free fall as a result of office fires.

     In fact, WTC7 collapsed in an abrupt-onset, symmetrical free fall on 9/11 after owner Larry Silverstein " told them to pull it."  To whom was he referring as "them?"

      Your point about valid and wacky theories existing on a spectrum is a good one.  The scientific "9/11 Truth" research that I have referred to here is that of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and the excellent analyses of Professor David Ray Griffin.

      I'm not familiar with Fetzer, et.al.

      And Michael Griffith continues to post utter nonsense about the obvious explosive demolitions of the WTC Twin Towers.

       The serial explosions that pulverized the concrete and rapidly demolished the massive steel sub-structures of WTC1 and WTC2 are clearly visible and audible on film.

 

 

Edited April 27, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Pat Speer]

6 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Pat,

     The collapse of WTC7 was, obviously, an expert, controlled demolition, and the ignorance and denial on the subject is, frankly, depressing.  It's not rocket science.  Steel skyscrapers don't abruptly collapse to the ground in an abrupt-onset free fall as a result of office fires.

     In fact, WTC7 collapsed in an abrupt-onset, symmetrical free fall on 9/11 after owner Larry Silverstein " told them to pull it."  To whom was he referring as "them?"

      Your point about valid and wacky theories existing on a spectrum is a good one.  The scientific "9/11 Truth" research that I have referred to here is that of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and the excellent analyses of Professor David Ray Griffin.

      I'm not familiar with Fetzer, et.al.

      And Michael Griffith continues to post utter nonsense about the obvious explosive demolitions of the WTC Twin Towers.

       The serial explosions that pulverized the concrete and rapidly demolished the massive steel sub-structures of WTC1 and WTC2 are clearly visible and audible on film.

 

 

Have you read Tink's paper on this? if not, then you should. A lot of what we were told to make us doubt the building could collapse on its own was smoke and mirrors. 

Another point brought up repeatedly on this forum and elsewhere was the bit about the melting point of the welds within the twin towers. It turned out that was nonsense, and that the burning temp of rocket fuel was much higher than the melting point of the welds holding the buildings together. if I recall, there was a proposed lawsuit about this, as the welds were not as strong as they were supposed to have been. 

 

[W. Niederhut]

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Have you read Tink's paper on this? if not, then you should. A lot of what we were told to make us doubt the building could collapse on its own was smoke and mirrors. 

Another point brought up repeatedly on this forum and elsewhere was the bit about the melting point of the welds within the twin towers. It turned out that was nonsense, and that the burning temp of rocket fuel was much higher than the melting point of the welds holding the buildings together. if I recall, there was a proposed lawsuit about this, as the welds were not as strong as they were supposed to have been. 

 

Pat,

   Molten steel was "flowing like a foundry" at Ground Zero, and visibly cascading from the towers.

   If you study basic chemistry, you will learn that jet fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel into a liquid state.  Period.

   Nor was there sufficient jet fuel to burn those massive steel substructures (not to mention the visible explosive pulverization of hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete!) Most of the jet fuel exploded in a fireball on impact with the high upper floors.

   That false "jet fuel" narrative was promulgated in the mainstream media immediately after the towers were explosively demolished-- by the same man who was in charge of WTC security during the weeks prior to 9/11.  It was a coordinated psy op-- analogous to the mass media narrative about Oswald on 11/22/63.

 

 

   

Edited April 27, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Matthew Koch]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

What were those Israeli’s doing filming and celebrating the event? 

Bump!

https://rumble.com/v2f9i7q-urban-moving-systems-aka-the-dancing-isralies.html

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

Bump!

https://rumble.com/v2f9i7q-urban-moving-systems-aka-the-dancing-isralies.html

Did John Miller and Penelope Pinkjacket get nominated for a Razzle award the following year?