Back to Basics (Truth v. Lies)

In a recent blog, a highly placed truther (Griffin?) suggests ignoring the specific disinformation agents, and focusing on the historical record of disinformation tactics.

This may be more of an academic exercise than a public relations strategy, however.

I would suggest rather that we instead frame the issue on our terms (in places where a mainstream audience dwells). This would render the "theories" moot and irrelevant.

1. Validating the need for truth.

How many lies can you find uttered by high ranking government officials? We should start a web page with just that debunking of official statements. My own favorite is Ari Fleischer aboard air force one on 9/11: "No warnings."

2. Similarly, we have the omissions, the substantial facts that were never investigated. Another page could list exhaustively all the omissions we can find. Griffin's work is excellent in this regard.

3. The synthesis: They lie, so we want the truth.

If we can prove dishonesty, omission, and worse, we are vindicated. We retain the high ground, as well as a solid grounding not based on flights of fancy, opinion, or deception.

It is the theorizing that should be discarded, especially when dealing with mainstream journals and websites. That's what they complain about, so shift the focus, outflank their by-the-numbers arguments, and come around the rear.

Documented lies prompt us to seek the truth. If they didn't lie and cover up, we wouldn't be wasting our lives exposing it. There would be nothing to talk about.

Even the sneering "debunkers" often acknowledge the statements of Kean and Hamilton that they did provide a half baked pack of lies -- or however they phrased it. This is an opportunity to expand on a front that they themselves have opened.

As for the in-your-face tireless assaults of the disinformation agents, I've already made my position on them pretty clear. And I hope there's a special circle (jerk) in hell for those twats.

Play fair

from your website article 'The Suppressed September 11th'
"Tarpley's highly selling book on September 11th, he pushes the "directed energy weapons" theory (at the end of chapter 6), that a giant laser/maser what-have-you, brought down the Twin Towers"

while i wholey agree on the majority of the article, I want to take issue with your above statement, if you read what tarpley says, it is clear that he does NOT endorse (push) directed energy weapons - your statement is mis-information.

(first paragraph on page 245) of Tarpley's Synthetic Terror:
"High energy microwave interferometry using coaxial beams for constructive and destructive interference might be a possibilty. However Ken Jenkins has pointed out that this would require so much energy that, if it had to be delivered as conventional electric current, it would necessitate a cable about half a meter in diameter- and there is no evidence of this. So the problem is intractable and will require more time and research."

This one paragraph is his only mention of directed energy weapons in a 500 page book, and its not even a positive endorsement. I would hope that you take another look at your otherwise excellent article with a view to removing your comment or at least giving a fairer appraisal....truth vs lies? come fair!

....your blog is excellent by the way !


I suppose I should have quoted Tarpley at length. Here is the offending passage:

"For a possible explanation of what kind of energy source could have been at work, we must turn our attention to the realm of new physical principles, and thus to the class of directed energy weapons which are probably most familiar to the general public in connection with President Reagan's so-called star wars speech of March 23, 1983."--Synthetic Terror, p 25 (emphasis added)

No. We MUSTN'T. That's nonsense. That's garbage. It is not an imperative to link "Star Wars" to September 11th 2001. This is a clear bit of disinformation -- or at the very least, intentional misdirection -- in Tarpley's book, which I find highly revealing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the very first instance of the "directed energy beam hypothesis" to be found in print anywhere. It is stated as an imperative. It is clearly not a logical conclusion, given the numerous reports of explosions (which provide very conventional forms of energy), as well as the kinetic energy of the structures falling to earth.

Buildings are routinely brought down by conventional energy sources, and no Death Ray Alien Technology TM is required. Pretending that these buildings could not be brought down by "conventional" means is dishonest and indicative of a disinformation tactic.

This is like a test marketing exercise to see if the wacky idea sticks. It evidently has. Other loons have taken it up under the cover of "science." Science fiction is not science. This is a fake bit of misdirection put out there to make us look like gibbering idiots. Tarpley is implicated by his own words.

That's my "fair" take on that passage.

Not Griffin

I don't think Dr. Griffin was the author of the message in that blog. Not his language.

You're probably right.

It doesn't matter.

Yes Back to Basics!

The meme of Truth should spread to all movements of dissent, whether it's the 9-11 truth movement or the antiwar movement. Full spectrum dominance of the truth.
All should be asking questions, demanding the truth and exposing lies.