Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000)

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives.

The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key to) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluations... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid and a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the latter freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response.[examples & response-]

Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

by H. Michael Sweeney <

copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved

(Revised April 2000 - formerly SEVEN Traits)

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentatorbecome argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.

3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth:

Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.

Very illuminating stuff...

For all of us on the varied tangents of the front lines, seeing this type of info laid out can bring more clarity and better understanding of how the struggle for truth and accountability is countered. Basic familiarity with this info, along with Sun Tsu strategy outlined in the Art of War, and a basic grasp of Leo Strauss NeoCon concepts of "Strategic Deception" / "The Nobel Lie" has helped many of us move toward becoming more discerning and effective. It's deep water to swim in, and I for one can use all the help I can find.

After "sparring" in a bit of face to face conversation with the likes of Jay Rockefeller, the President of the CFR (Haass), the Director of the CIA (Hayden), and assorted scoundrels like Kerry, Frum, Pelosi, Waxman, Dean, Schwarzenegger and Ben-Venista; I can say with assurance that for me, becoming more familiar with dis-info ploys is vital. As is learning to sidestep the traps of emotional response.

Our opposition is often very experienced and skilled; not to mention innately talented and well supported in the dark arts of both overt and covert deception. Thank God we have honorable intent, persistence, and the truth on our side; These will serve as foundational cornerstones of our eventual triumph.

Thank you for the post.

Stewart Howe

"Few victories can rival the initial one of parting company with the spectators and stepping into the arena" - Stewart Howe

While were on the subject of disinfo ...

Maybe you guys could take that link to "In Plane Site" off the wacla website.

I've seen...

...too many videos with questionable or outright bogus content to remember exactly what is in which ones, but your concern is warranted and appreciated. I also should know exactly what our site links to, but I'm usually preoccupied with research and work to the point of being largely ignorant of our own site, which I don't have any direct input to. My bad. I'll alert the members who do our website to this. I've been on the steepest learning curve I can handle for several years, and I screw up or overlook important matters more often than I'd like. This concern will be addressed presently. Thank you for weighing in on the matter.



"Few victories can rival the initial one of parting company with the spectators and stepping into the arena" - Stewart Howe


That's a pleasant response. I'm so used to people having a ego based response every time they run into the least bit of criticism. "In Plane Site" features outright misrepresentation that really shouldn't be featured. I know that Bruno runs the site so I wasn't griping at you personally. Just hoping you'd pass along the concern. I have others, but small steps are worth taking.


Could you outline the disinfo in the video IN PLANE SITE. Many people love that video, so I would like to be able to describe to them the disinfo in that video. Thanks.

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -

direct email

i can't contact you, so you contact me directly if you would. thank you.

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -

In Plane Site and other disinfo/misinfo

There are so many problems with this film it's hard to begin and I don't have the time to write an essay on it. However, there was a posting that I need to update because a couple of the videos have been removed from you tube and I need to go see if I can find the originals and re link them. (I am not sure why these were removed) A short essay I did in 2007 about Mike Walter called "Stunning Example of Dis-Information at Work - Knocking the Strawman Over" is a good place to start. Jim Hoffman has also done a solid critique of the film including debunking the myth of the 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete at the Pentagon,, among other nuggets of disinfo.

Finally, I did a series of interviews in 2007 on this topic including an interview with Jim Hoffman and a discussion of this very film. This series also has an interview with Dr. William Pepper. I highly recommend folks not up to speed on this topic to hear these 4 programs.

Is there a need for more programs on this topic? An update? Feedback welcome.

An interview with:

Annie Machon.

She has worked in "counter-subversion".

Example of what the F-branch of MI5 does:

"Dockers' leader passed strike tactics to MI5 agents during national stoppage"

In Plane Site

Dis-info or not, that is the video that woke me up. Before I watched it I truly believed the "Official Story." After watching it my life has never been the same. I knew 9/11 had to be an inside job. It takes what it takes.

In Plane Site was the first "DVD" I watched.

I saw it within weeks of its release. I was left wanting more. I think it is fair to say "misinfo" in place of "disinfo" in many cases.

DISINFO- intentionally incorrect
MISINFO- accidentally incorrect

You must remember when Von Kliest doing his research. Pretty early on. I think he could be correct about the pods. Maybe a napalm bomb attached to the drones to guarantee spectacular shock and awe.

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?

Once again, "In Plane Site" contains intentional disinformation.

"Stunning Example of Dis-Information at Work - Knocking the Strawman Over"

>>I think he could be

>>I think he could be correct about the pods.

Nothing more necessary here.

From the link above:

"After watching the full clip of the interview, it is obvious that film maker Dave von Kleist is not being honest when he uses Mike Walter’s words and clearly takes them out of context. My friends, whether you choose to admit it or not, this is blatant disinformation and all well meaning people who recommend this film are guilty of spreading misinformation, which is hurting the 9-11 movement."

Not much more to say there either -- the statements of a witness were edited to create a false impression for film viewers. That's not a mistake, as in mis-info. That's the other one. Films don't edit themselves.

My favorite example. Thanks Micheal.


Here is a very prominent example that Micheal mentions. One of my favorite demonstrations of explicit and obviously intentional disinformation.

"Stunning Example of Dis-Information at Work - Knocking the Strawman Over"

I don't see any need to prove how well I've personally memorized all the problems with the movie. They are well documented and your apparent concern, which I appreciate, can lead you to looking into it yourself.

I also don't care how much people like the movie or whether it was their introduction to the movement. They should have been watching something more responsible and more convincing which should have had a similar impact.

Naustalgia doesn't override factual responsibility.

Thanks again for your attention on this matter.


The clip that you are calling disinformation is the one where the CNN reporter says he saw a missile hit the Pentagon - that the clip was taken out of context, and the reporter actually was saying that Flight 77 looked like a missile. Just want to confirm that's the disinformation of IN PLANE SITE that you are referring to.

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -

Do you also think the pods

Do you also think the pods are real?

Just wondering.

Strange question. I would

Strange question. I would instead ask what do you think the lumps are.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

the "pods" are the fairing

In Plane Site was the film that got me to go looking for info, but i'll never recommend it

interesting how a film that promotes so many speculative/nonsense claims has turned so many onto real questions- as John Albanese observed to the world in a reply to Gin Putzer shortly before he was banned from blogger;

"it remains to be seen if your work (and i do not mean your research) will WORK in the 21st century. it may just be that disinformation becomes counter-productive to your cause as a result of the information superhighway. you've taught classes on this - so surely you are interested in how all this plays out."

That thread is from an article on disinfo/disruption by GW, and is well worth the read:

“Hey, Hot Shot" by George Washington

And here's some links to other helpful articles:

An Open Letter about the Subject of Disinformation and Disruption within the 9/11 Truth Movement by Arabesque

9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Masterlist by Arabesque

You are responding to my

You are responding to my post, and your answer is?

I don't understand why there is so much effort to "guide" people. See this, don't see that. The lump on the 2nd plane is there and anyone with curiosity is lectured away from it.

I think 911 Ripple Effect is a great film.

Why are people so threatened. There is so much rigidity on this blog. OK, vote me into the basement. It doesn't lessen the glare of the control freaks. See 911 Ripple Effect, or not. The growth of our consciousness is in our own hands. We each should accept or reject, not wait for others to tell us.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

why call it a "lump" when it's the fairing?

BreezyinVA- "I don't understand why there is so much effort to "guide" people. See this, don't see that. The lump on the 2nd plane is there and anyone with curiosity is lectured away from it."

Why is it so important to pretend it's a "pod", i.e. something that shouldn't be there, when it's part of the normal aircraft structure? What's so 'threatening' about seeing it for what it is?

The OCT is disinfo and needs debunking- and disinfo is being seeded into the 9/11 Truth Movement, and this needs to be exposed as well. Who wants to be part of spreading misinfo; confusing/distracting people and discrediting themselves?

You can see it as you like and call it whatever you want; i'm clarifying the record for the benefit of people who care.

The amazingly fast responses on 911 forums

This is one of the things I saw as a reason that there had to be an active disinformation campaign. The responses are amazingly fast by certain individuals. It is as though they have nothing else to do but watch that forum all day.

One would think it unnatural and surreal for the average person, let alone several different average persons, to see something, think about it, and then respond within minutes. However, this seems to happen as a matter of course on many forums, concerning responses to a point being made which shows that there is more than meets the eye with 911 and that what happened is not what we have been told.

I have also seen the delayed reaction of 48 to 72 hours that is mentioned in this posting, especially concerning a point which breaks new ground and is hard to refute. It seems as though 48 to 72 hours goes by and then there is a ground swell of various attempted refutations and spin thrown at the point, which was met two or three days earlier by virtual silence. It seems clear that this shows a team effort and brainstorming, on how to best approach the issue, is being used in certain hard to handle cases.

That was the very first thing I noticed about JREF

when I first heard of it; a troll from there who had infested the old Randi Rhodes forum while it was still good, invited me (a newbie truther at the time) to come and bring my arguments to the "critical thinkers" over at James Randi. I registered there and started a thread, and the quick and numerous attacks on me were enough to convince me that those folks are paid. I mean, 16,000 posts in 2 years, from some of them?!

After a long debate

on the 49er, which is still ongoing. it occured to me to make a list of the tehcniques that have been used by the so-called "debunkers." I'll offer my own short list, which may overlap with the above, in the hopes that others will share theirs.

1. Continually citing links without spelling out an entire argument. It makes the debater appear as if he has clinched the argument, even though the links may lead nowhere, or even contradict his/her position. "See here, here, and here."

2. Citing the sensibilities of victims as a justification for refusing to investigate a matter or examine evidence.

3. The use of the word "debunking" actually assumes what one wants to prove, and so it results in a tautological argument. What may at first appear to be a strength shows up to be a weakness.

4. Spouting deliberate lies to bolster one's argument.

5. Ignoring successful rebuttals of one's position, or saying that the question was not important, or was a "red herring" anyway.

6. Applying logic lopsidedly. For example, lack of engineering experience means one cannot understand the argument of controlled demolition, but that would be equally applicable to the Official Conspiracy Theory of the planes and fires causing the collapses.

7. Claiming critics are merely anti-government, or unpatriotic.

8. HIding behind the cloak of a religion to accuse critics of being anti-religious, or anti- a particular religion, rather than substantively addressing a particular issue.

Engaging in debates helps to improve one's skills, reveals the weakneses and the techniques of one's opponents over time, and may even win over a few people to one's side.

Thanks, Free, for bringing up this topic.

Good post


What is the problem with In Plane Sight?

Will somebody tell me why "In Plane Sight" is controversial?

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

In Plane Sight

The worst is the claim of a large explosion at the base of the North Tower, which is in fact the South Tower collapsing.

The other claims include the "pod" claim and the flash claim. The "pod" claim is unresolved in my humble opinion (long and boring story), but discussing it will probably do more harm than good. It is regarded as disinformation. The flash claim, well I haven't looked at it much since.

Then there is the disproportionate attention to what happened at the Pentagon (also with many errors) and the general sensationalist tone.

In Plane Site helped to wake me up, but I have since moved on, and In Plane Site is mostly discredited. (And some of this is admitted by Von Kleist)

Sources (Oil Empire, Jim Hoffman, Eric Salter)

I don't want to debate flight 77 but....

Your first link to oilempire contains the following statement:

Some hoaxers claim that the eyewitnesses are not reliable, and the "physical evidence" should be used instead -- except the physical evidence shows that Flight 77 definitely hit the Pentagon.

The claim that "the physical evidence shows that Flight 77 definitely hit the Pentagon." Has to my knowledge NOT been proven. When a single part with an identifiable serial number is produced I would like to be notified and I would also like to know when either of the two multi ton engines are found as well. From my perspective all the physical evidence that has been shown to the public is small enough for a single person to carry and has no identifiable serial numbers. Now I am not interested in rehashing the pentagon issues and there are many but I am interested with this post in pointing out what I consider a factually incorrect statement from your first link.

Another side point about your third link is that although that is an excellent debunking of the no planes hit the towers theory, In Plane Site does not make the claim that no planes hit the towers and therefore that article does not apply to Von Kleists film.

God I sense I have opened a can of worms, sorry in advance if I did. It is not my intention to do so.

No problem

I posted these for further reference. My mind is my own, and I disagree with some things too. I owe no allegiance to anybody but to the truth.

(IOW: apply critical thinking to both friendly and hostile sources)

Oilempire site

Oilempire is a handy site for topics like disinfo and left gatekeepers, because it was one of the first 9/11-related websites to try to approach such topics systematically. I looooved all the links it provided showing the defects of much of the so-called 'alternative' press. That said, Robinowitz is--like many of us--opinionated, and that can lead to presenting as fact what is actually an opinion (some better-founded than others, but still maybe not as much as one would like to think).

As I recall, he was also dismissive of William Rodriguez's account of explosions in the subbasement levels at the WTC, and I don't know whether his position on this has changed, or even if he's updated the website anytime recently.

It suggests missile pods mounted to the planes.

In Plane Site spends much of it's time promoting the "pod theory" which is the theory that an extra module is mounted on the planes which struck the towers. The film suggests these pods were weapon mounts and it further suggests the pods launched missiles just before impact. The problem with the theory is that the only evidence that could prove the theory one way or the other is very distant grainy inconclusive video frames and pictures. There just is no way to say one way or the other for sure on the pod theory and other evidence such as the evidence for CD for example is considered much more powerful evidence and more fruitful to pursue. There is also if I recall a suggestion in the film that flight 77 is not what hit the pentagon. Truthers are still to this day split on this point. Generally speaking though In Plane Site is not considered one of the strongest 9/11 documentaries and the over emphassis on the pod theory makes it suspect in many peoples minds. I recommend ZERO an Investigation into 9/11, Loose Change Final Cut, and 9/11 Mysteries as much stronger films on 9/11. I Hope that helps.

Despite its shortcomings,

Despite its shortcomings, "In Plane Sight" breaks down the Pentagon anomalies clearly. It covers the intact, pre-cave-in facade, the absurdity of no plane parts anywhere to be seen, and so forth. Its a good set up for this:

I am encouraged that the truth of the destruction WTC 1, 2, and 7 has surfaced, albeit slowly. Rational analysis has been key. Sticking to major areas of agreement has been key. It seems that the Pentagon analysis has matured and is ready for massive spreading. Why the lag?

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

The biggest secret

that many people don't know about is how the Pentagon was built. Just a tip.

Pray, tell.

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

For example

The columns were encased in such a manner that impact damage makes them buckle but the encasing holds them up still.

The whole building was designed for war. Then you have that section that was hit, which was specifically (and additionally) reinforced.

DoD of course isn't that particularly happy about disclosing the characteristics of their HQ's blast and impact resistance, but suffice to say that any plane impacting it doesn't stand much of a chance. This is the thing that isn't spoken about much in the media.

That leaves me worried about a contradiction: the exit hole. Call me overly suspicious, but if it's not like a bunker buster, It seems contrived. I don't understand how the plane could both largely disintegrate on impact AND cause all the damage internally to the columns in its path AND ALSO cause the exit hole.

Some say this is fluid mechanics. I don't know. I have a lot to learn about the Pentagon still.

Similar thoughts

'Call me overly suspicious, but if it's not like a bunker buster, It seems contrived. I don't understand how the plane could both largely disintegrate on impact AND cause all the damage internally to the columns in its path AND ALSO cause the exit hole.'

You may, as you say, still have a lot to learn about the Pentagon; but here you have summed up the basic problem I continue to have as well--notwithstanding all the truthers who are satisified that the damage could have been caused by a jetliner.

I would link to the more

I would link to the more current version 911 Ripple Effect.

It has military speaking out. I notice that when I try to open the acutal website it keeps shifting. It makes it impossible to buy the DVD. Luckily I already have it.

In the Zero 911 Investigation movie (Italian made) there is the survivor who was above the impact in the second building. He heard two giant booms one right after the other. No one questions that. Could it have been a missile opening the bulding to make sure the plane completely went in. Why two booms to describe the plane hitting?

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

I wouldn't have anything to do with Dave VonKleist.

You know, I hear he's a nice guy. Irrelevant. I hear he's done some work for the movement. Irrelevant.

As soon as he produced and distributed a video with very obviously intentional disinformation he should be entirely written off. Making an unintentional mistake is forgivable. Deceiving people is not.

I heard he made over $1m on

I heard he made over $1m on IPS.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but

are there any other examples of planes disintegrating upon impact to the degree that the commercial aircraft that some say hit the Pentagon did? It seems that, whatever may have caused the damage to the Pentagon, it was not a large commercial airliner because of the absence of of substantial wreckage. The airliner would have experienced deceleration upon impact and the back portions of the aircraft would not have splintered. Is there any way a commercial airliner could have made the turn it did at such high speeds without falling apart? What are the speeds posted from the flight data recorder?

Looking at the outside of the Pentagon after it was damaged, I cannot garner the faith necessary to believe that a commercial airliner hit that building. The story smacks of total fakquery, and the fact that the "gentlemen" who wrote a book about it hid behind the sensibilities of the relatives of victims in addressing certain questions is disingenuous at best, but more probably is indicative of a disinformation effort.

ERROR: 'Aircraft Crashes

ERROR: 'Aircraft Crashes Always Leave Large Debris'

Photographs of the Pentagon attack site show an absence of large intact debris such as recognizable pieces of the tail or wings. Since the areas of punctured walls in the facade were not large enough to admit the outer halves of the wings and the vertical stabilizer of a 757, the absence of large pieces of these components is cited as evidence that a 757 did not crash there.

It's an inelastic collision

Energy is converted into deformation, heat, and sound. Then there is the explosive energy released from the fuel tanks.

Flight 11 and flight 175 also flew into a building, and they didn't leave much debris either. An engine landed on the streets, pieces of hull, landing gear: all somewhat similar to the Pentagon.

I remember studying more photos of debris from the Pentagon (because everybody is looking at them closely) than I remember looking at photos from the WTC debris.

Everybody considers planes at the WTC self-evident because both were captured on camera AND confirmed by witnesses AND the facade showed convincing damage. (And additional reasons, such as the fact that the towers oscillated)

However, the Pentagon facade is built for war, AND it was recently additionally reinforced. (See my comment above) It was built to resist plane impact even more so than the WTC, which was a commercial and not a military building. The result is the very odd looking facade damage. The Pentagon did what it was built to do.

Am I 100% certain a plane hit the Pentagon? No. There is contradictory evidence. The OCT is somewhat problematic, and this is amplified by the USG's extremely secretive behavior. But I don't want to get into that again, after that long-winded discussion on the CIT thread.

Maybe Amsterdam's Bijlmer plane crash sheds some light on the subject. Plane crashes into buildings or nose dive into the ground may leave debris, but not very recognizable [1], as opposed to planes that e.g. crash while attempting to land. [2]

[1] (1992 EL AL crash in Amsterdam's Bijlmer borough)
[2] (Turkish airlines crash at Schiphol this year, low and nose up)


Condemnation without investigation is the height of Ignorance
Albert Einstein

It would be great if this discussion could get back to the topic at hand (disinforamtion and their tools).