Obama staffer wants ‘cognitive infiltration’ of 9/11 conspiracy groups By Daniel Tencer Raw Story Jan 13

Obama staffer wants ‘cognitive infiltration’ of 9/11 conspiracy groups

Image Descriptionhere.

Sunstein argued that "government might undertake (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories." He suggested that "government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."

"We expect such tactics from undercover cops, or FBI," Estrin writes at the Rag Blog, expressing surprise that "a high-level presidential advisor" would support such a strategy.

Estrin notes that Sunstein advocates in his article for the infiltration of "extremist" groups so that it undermines the groups' confidence to the extent that "new recruits will be suspect and participants in the group’s virtual networks will doubt each other’s bona fides."

Sunstein has been the target of numerous "conspiracy theories" himself, mostly from the right wing political echo chamber, with conservative talking heads claiming he favors enacting "a second Bill of Rights" that would do away with the Second Amendment. Sunstein's recent book, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, was criticized by some on the right as "a blueprint for online censorship."

Sunstein "wants to hold blogs and web hosting services accountable for the remarks of commenters on websites while altering libel laws to make it easier to sue for spreading 'rumors,'" wrote Ed Lasky at American Thinker.

First Reported Here by MikeZimmer

The PDF by Cass R. Goebbels

Conspiracy Theories

Cass R. Sunstein
Harvard University - Harvard Law School

Adrian Vermeule
Harvard University - Harvard Law School

January 15, 2008

Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03
U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 199
U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 387

Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.

Keywords: conspiracy theories, social networks, informational cascades, group polarization
Working Paper Series

Those who subscribe to

conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence ..." oh my, risk of violence, eh!! I guess that would be violence by a vicious totalitarian state against free thinking individuals like you and me.

Clearly, Sunstein is the one suffering from a crippled epistemology.

Our group repeatedly advocates non-violence...

Something to attenuate liabilities is a strong statement concerning non-violence along with the mission of disseminating information. (By the way, our group has given out more than 38,000 DVDs ! ) http://www.northtexas911truth.com/ [ MLK Parade 9/11 Truth march in Dallas this weekend!!!]

Our group's statement:

"North Texans for 911 Truth meets monthly to discuss the "mother" of all issues and to actively get the truth out.
We are glad you found us.

We advocate a code-of-conduct that subscribes our operations as being: (A) non-violent, (B) non-racist (C) respectful of law enforcement, and most importantly (D) respectful of life & liberty. The entire method of operation of the "9/11 Truth" is to present to the masses any combination of the following: evidence of collusion/corruption (either proven or circumstantial), factual and verifiable documents, historical analysis, expert professional opinions, private investigations, miscellaneous audio/video, forensics, public statements/speeches, credible eye-witness testimony, highly suspect events, questionable relationships of data and/or withheld, delayed, missing or obfuscated variables... of which we then allow the people to freely weigh and make their own judgements based upon the preponderance of the organized evidence we have presented. Any public demonstrations and/or public informational offerings are actuated upon and guaranteed by our Constitutional rights, conducted civilly and in open consideration and cooperation with our friends in law enforcement (of which I must say we are proud to believe we have established a mutually respectful relationship.)

It has always been our intention, is our intention now and will be our intention in the future to navigate the cause within proper channels and proper conduct in forwarding our objectives in the fight for truth and accountability."

Risk of Violence, you don't say!

Apathy Supports the Status Quo

From the abstract above: "Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence,"

No truer words were ever spoken: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Don Rumsfeld and the rest of the NeoClowns advanced the conspiracy that 12 Arab radical muslims thwarted our national defenses and brought down three buildings at free fall or near free fall rate with two jets. This conspiracy led to an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Millions were killed and maimed, many more are still being killed by violent means. Afghanistan is crucial to oil and gas pipelines routes from the Caspian Sea, and Iraq holds the second or thirds largest oil reserves, according to Dick Cheney. Evaluate the motives for the 9-11 attacks in the context of the response, invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Then evaluate the competing conspiracies based on the motives. The Muslim motive, we left military bases in the Holy Land after the first gulf war so we had to pay, this payment would inevitably lead to even more US military presence throughout the Muslim world, but the Muslilms who were smart enough to evade NORAD and the US intelligence community, weren't smart enough to figure out that attacking us would be like hitting a beehive with a stick. We would swarm all over Muslim lands. The second motive is that Enron's power plant in Dabhol, India needed gas from the Caspian Sea and this Centgas pipeline could not be completed because of the recalcitrant Taliban were not dealing with the US oil company Unocal. There was also the growing concern about peak oil and the emerging Asian markets that would need oil and gas. Whomever controlled the Caspian Sea reserves would stand to make trillions in profits. There was also a radical zionist aspect in that several top level zionest in the NeoCon camp wanted to remove the real or perceived Muslim threat to the homeland of Israel. Now we come to Means, Motive and Opportunity. We've already discussed motive, so which of these two groups had the means to shut down our air defense? Which had the opportunity to ensure that the planes would hit their targets? Who benefitted? Did the Muslims get the results they were looking for.

As anybody can see, it's absurd to accept the official conspiracy theory and Sunstein has just made himself a prime suspect in treason.

Sunstein is right, conspiracy theories do often lead to violence. Perhaps instead of swallowing the conspiracy theory advanced by the people most in line to benefit from the violence and instead of being incurious about the real motives behind the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, we should expand our enquiries into how the Ivy League universities are funded by many of the same military and industrial institutions that benefited from our current war footing. After all it is no secret that Yale is the home of Skull and Bones and it is no secret that the 2004 presidential election was between Skull and Bonesman GW Bush and Skull and Bonesman John F. Kerry. Perhaps we need to pay more attention to Antony C. Sutton's work on this group and follow his lead in about how Skull and Bonesmen are at the head of the Ivy League universities, the Historical Association and Education Association overarching policy making authorities. Sutton was a research fellow at Stanfords Hoover Institute for War Studies and documented how many of our elites in industry, finance, media and military have supported the Nazis before, during and after WWII and the Soviets while we were engaged in Violence in Vietnam.

We also have the influence of the Rockefeller/Brezinski Trilateral Association. Sponsors of Carter, Clinton and Obama. Brezinski, according to some reports, has financial interest in pipelines in the TAPI (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India) region. Obama is a product of the Trilateral Commission and of Harvard. These associations need more investigating not less. Sunstein and his ilk seem to be of the notion that persuing the truth is un-American. If the aformentiond groups and persons are innocent of any and all aspects of the 9-11 attacks, then a thourough investigation will only exonerate them so what's the worry?

I think it's time to investigate Sunstein and see if he is engaged in the possible cover up of treasonous activities.

Cheers. Choco!

Agreed! They are the conspiracy theorists; we are the power abuse theorists.

Translation from Orwellian Doublespeak to Plain English:

G..Damn Truthers: first we ignored them, then we attempted ridicule. Now it is certain that we must fight them with propaganda, disinformation, deception, unconstitutional laws, everything we got....or they are going to win.


The Truth does not need to "win" at some future time

The Truth is the Truth, always was the Truth, and Forever will be the Truth - regardless of what human beings - be they one or a multitude think or proclaim or conclude in "trials."

What we humans call "Justice" is another matter all together. I remember reading once upon a time that Clarence Darrow (famous trial lawyer) said: "There is no Justice, inside the courtroom or outside of it."

But there is no shortage of "Truth." There is only a shortage of RECOGNITION of the Truth.

As for "Justice" ................. that's another story.

'Crippled epistemology' is their stock in trade!

'Cognitive infiltration' is just some newfangled way of saying 'thought police.'

And just as the thought policeman O'Brien assured Winston Smith in '1984,' they are here to 'cure' us.

My, my--the kind of malarkey one must be willing to spew in order to elbow one's way into the ranks of the U.S. ruling class....

And no one should be surprised to see this mentality continuing under the Obama administration. This guy's rhetoric is reminiscent of the 'anti- violent radicalization' bill that was passed by a huge margin in the Democratic-controlled House back in the fall of 2007. That bill has since stalled, but the same thought-control mentality persists, as they seek some kind of means to act against us more effectively than they've thus far been able to.

But perhaps we should try to be understanding. After all, they can't help it. They're afflicted. They suffer from an aversion to facts, logic, and open debate.

Not to mention all the addictions with which they are likewise afflicted--to oil, perpetual war, perpetual fearmongering on the homefront.

Recommended Reading

Information Warfare:
Ideas as Weapons in the Era of Deception


The September 11, 2001 attack was not only bolder than previous attacks, it also likely involved the most careful planning of any psychological operation ever undertaken. We can see in its design and cover-up multiple layers of deception: should the outermost layer be exposed as fraudulent, the deeper layers will serve to continue to obscure the truth. Broadly speaking, there are three layers of cover-up:

The mainstream official story: This is the story as told by the mainstream media since the day of the attack.

The "limited hangouts": These are revelations that seem shocking to adherents to the official story, but fall far short of the whole truth. Examples are the many warnings of the attack that the administration should have acted on.

The "poison pills": These are extreme ideas that have either no basis in evidence or only an illusory one and serve to discredit evidence-based research about the core facts of the attack through guilt-by-association. Examples are the no-planes and pod-planes, ideas popularized by propaganda such as In Plane Site, and racist ideas like "the Jews did it."

Remarkably, it appears that the vast majority of propaganda supporting all three layers of deception was produced, not by attack insiders, but by people exploited by the perpetrators using psychological engineering. The perpetrators are apparently highly expert at designing memes that effectively recruit people to unwittingly support such diversions from the true nature of the attack.

But let's none of us forget...

That there is a difference between the racist (i.e. blanket generalization) insinuation that "The Jews Did It" versus providing credible information that there was some level of involvement from Israel's Mossad, such as:

It could have been Israeli far right extremists, too

I think throwing the word Mossad out there is a blanket generalization of it's own.

I think the word term "ideological extremists" is more appropriate.

"Cognitive Deficients"

Looks like the 9/11 Truth Movement is indeed making the bastards nervous. Good job, folks!

Now when it comes to NORAD, which rumor is Sunstein talking about? Is he talking about the rumor NORAD put out in 1997:

"Aircraft flying over our air space are monitored seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Much of the identifying process is done by hand."

Or is Sunstein talking about the rumor NORAD put out in 2004:

"Before 2001, 1st Air Force was charged with keeping an eye on the nation’s borders, usually looking for threats in the form of Russian aircraft skirting too close for comfort to the mainland. In those few hours, the command’s mission went from looking outward to looking inward. Now 1st Air Force — with the assistance of Canadian partners, other services, multiple federal agencies and an intricate web of control centers and defense sectors throughout the United States — watches the nation’s skies for the threat from within. Operation Noble Eagle was born."

Looks like what the government should do is to appropriate money in order to weed out "cognitive deficients" such as Cass Sunstein.

As I've been saying for some years now, the good thing about the NORAD angle of 9/11 Truth is that it is (thanks to all those pesky articles on NORAD written BEFORE September 11, 2001) fact. No theorizing is necessary.

To learn more about NORAD's three missions (which includes NORAD's 'air sovereignty' mission) on and before September 11, 2001, see the five articles on NORAD at www.DNotice.org

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Yes, and not only the nation's BORDERS:

«Today, any aircraft with radio problems is suspect, no problem routine. Fighter jets are scrambled to babysit suspect aircraft or "unknowns" three or four times a day. Before Sept. 11, that happened twice a week.
Last year, there were 425 unknowns -- pilots who didn't file or diverted from flight plans or used the wrong frequency. Jets were scrambled 129 times.»

Norad on Heightened Alert: Role of air defence agency rapidly transformed in wake of Sept. 11 terrorist attacks
by Linda Slobodian
The Calgary Herald
October 13, 2001


A Little Research Goes A Long Way When It Comes To NORAD & 9/11


I love this quote from the Calgary article:

"Another change is new computers, their screens saturated with turquoise dots -- each representing thousands of commercial and private flights the FAA tracks. A quick computer check provides data on each aircraft."

One month after 9/11 and they already have new operational computers? Impossible. It would have taken at least a month to finalize the bidding process for new computers. And that's if the bidding process was concluded with light speed quickness! LOL!

As NORAD said in 1997 about a new computer system they were going to buy:

"The FAA flight plan is now hooked up via computer with the new R/SAOCs so operators can easily track friendly aircraft THROUGH OUR AIR SPACE WITHOUT HAVING TO GET SOMEONE ON THE PHONE [emphasis mine] or thumb through written log books of flight plans."

So in 1997 NORAD WAS tracking aircraft THROUGH OUR AIR SPACE, though they had to contact the FAA or rummage through flight plans to determine if the aircraft was Friendly or not.

The Calgary article says:

"If it (an aircraft) took off from within the U.S. or Canada, Norad always assumed the law enforcement, the Federal Aviation Authority, or the air force security people had done their jobs and it wasn't going to be a threat. That's why we looked out," says Hunter. "We are prepared now more than we were previously for internal threats from the sky."

Is this true? Is General Hunter telling the truth? NORAD left air defense within America up to the FAA and the Air Force? Well, as the April 2000 Air Force Instruction 13-1AD, Volume 3 on Air Defense Command and Control Operations (which was in effect on September 11, 2001) states in Chapter 3.1, under Mission:

"The First Air Force Commander (1 AF/CC), in his role as the CONUS NORAD Region Commander, provides CINCNORAD/Commander US Element NORAD with TW/AA, surveillance and control of the airspace of the United States and appropriate response against air attack."

Now the First Air Force is NORAD, and has been so since 1997, which is why the quote above says, "The First Air Force Commander (1 AF/CC), in his role as the CONUS NORAD Region Commander..." Looks like we caught General Hunter in a whopper of a lie. If he's retired, his military pension should be suspended. If he's still active, he should be court-martialed.

Another proof that General Hunter is lying is where he says, "..Norad always assumed..." The American military assumes nothing! It gets orders/instructions that spell out everything it is supposed to do.

By the way, the above Instruction is an official order to be followed by the Air Force. As Chapter 1.1 of the Instruction says:

"General. This instruction and the references herein outline procedures TO BE FOLLOWED [emphasis mine] by units/elements of the Air Combat Command (ACC) Air Defense System (ADS)."

Thanks, Felix5!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Burning jet fuel can't alter steel beams

I personally think the most easy concept to relate to the public is scientific certainty that burning jet fuel from the airliners that hit the WTC cannot possibly burn hot enough to alter the physical performance of structural steel beams.

Burning jet fuel can be dumped/poured on structural steel beams for YEARS with nothing happening to those beams but getting sooty.

Jet fuel burns at way too low a temperature to harm structural steel.

This is simple basic reproducible lab science that can done over and over and over again every time skeptic opens their mouth. It doesn't prove what caused the Twin Towers to collapse, but it does prove what didn't.

Let's Not Exaggerate

Adam1 says, "Burning jet fuel can be dumped/poured on structural steel beams for YEARS with nothing happening to those beams but getting sooty."

Adam1, by several days the heat sink properties of the structural steel in the towers would have been exhausted, and the steel would have warped. What is certainly true is that there is no way the steel in the towers could have warped within a period of two hours.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

It worth reminding people in this connection...

... that the burnables burned out at any individual location in 20-30 minutes.

Already Infiltrated

Why is Crass Goebels commenting on "cognitive infiltration" of 9/11 sites when it's already been done? Is he now intellectualizing to try to give credence to what the government has already done? Remember to tell your Harvard buddies NOT to donate to alumni appeals this time around.

too little, too late

the goverment has been trying this for some time now. You see these guys on youtube trying to undermine many videos about 911, and some of these moles have put up there own videos,
the problem is, you can see right threw them.
Gage just had a "expert" try and debate him on the facts for a second time, it was sad. Even if they hire the smartest, brightest havard grad, its not going to hold any water to the facts that are out there.
We can see where Black Bush is on the 911 cover up, its been evident for some time now. If ever there is acountability in this country again, this administration needs to be held acountable for the continued cover up of 911

Is his proposal even legal?

Is he not himself entering into a conspiracy to mislead the public?

Does anyone know what the laws on this are--laws either permitting or prohibiting it?

JFK on secrecy and the press


Glenn Greenwald addresses this aspect in a thoughtful essay:



That is just what I was hoping to find.

I think we should disseminate info about Sunstein's essay as widely as possible. Now that it has been exposed, his beyond horrible paper deftly undermines the illegal activities he proposes. Ironically, he is himself guilty of a conspiracy, which is not hard to see and which is common, but unusual in this case because he wrote a confession, of sorts.

Here is some more recent news about Sunstein:

US: White House seeks to block new environmental regulations on coal ash

...A number of commentators have pointed to the unusual and suspicious nature of the OMB’s aggressive involvement, particularly at this early stage in the EPA’s push for new regulations. Cass Sunstein, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, located within the OMB, has held some 20 meetings since October 2009 with coal industry representatives to discuss their concerns.


JFK on secrecy and the press

Show "the truth movement was infiltrated long ago" by Sheila Casey


Study this post hard to get a good idea of how disinfo works, then just disregard.

The key to successful truth actions lies in not insulting your target audience or promoting speculation as hard fact.

study the rules real hard Zombie

here if you want to avoid being banned. The rules for 911blogger state:

"Calling another user a liar or a disinformation agent won't be tolerated."

however, this is not enforced equitably, so you may get away with it.

Still stinks though. If you have a problem with my comment, state what the problem is, not that it is disinfo.

Where did he call you an agent or a liar?

Sheila - you appear to be 'fact' challenged.

i for one agree with Zombie. your posts read LIKE intentional incitements - they SOUND like intentional disruption.

No one is saying you are an agent - but - facts are obviously not your strong suit - are they?

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

Zombie said others should study my post why?

Oh, excuse me! Zombie didn't say that I was spreading disinfo. He said that others should study my post to get "a good idea of how disinfo works."

I'm sure there's a vast difference between the two.

Sheila's provocative post vs. responsible activism

Sheila, please provide evidence to support your inflammatory charges:

Sheila: "the truth movement was infiltrated long ago. It can be seen in the number of so-called truthers who devote their energies to propping of the official conspiracy theory in various ways. Mostly we see them unwilling to admit that there were no, zero, zilch Muslim hijackers on those planes, there were no calls made from planes that day, and no plane hit the Pentagon."

Sheila has implied that any truther who does not embrace her professed opinion as fact are "so-called truthers", "fake truthers" and that those who dispute the above points are evidence of "infiltration" in the truth movement. The points she listed are in fact speculative, not proven and contradicted by evidence. For that reason, the promotion of them as fact is controversial in the movement.

Sheila: "Most importantly, for the fake truthers, the genocide of millions of innocents in the middle east is not a big concern -- cause the lives of the few thousand Americans who died on 9/11 matter more."

Afaik, no activist i respect has said or behaved in a way that indicates they believe Americans "matter more"- and many, including myself, acknowledge, decry and demand justice for the over 1 million killed by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq- and the millions more killed as a direct result of US interventions in other nations around the world. By responsibly publicizing solid evidence of falsehoods and wrong doing- as opposed to claiming speculation as fact- the truth movement will gain favor with the public and move closer to the goal of truth and justice for 9/11 and all the related crimes before and after September 11, 2001.

From Marc Estrin's article:
"It's easy to destroy groups with "cognitive diversity." You just take up meeting time with arguments to the point where people don't come back. You make protest signs which alienate 90% of colleagues. You demand revolutionary violence from pacifist groups."

Love that quote.

Dead on too. The FBI learned some very valuable lessons when they brought down the Panthers. Some folk are almost textbook cases I reckon.

The key to successful truth actions lies in not insulting your target audience or promoting speculation as hard fact.


This link is to page 89 from Book 2 of the Church Committee report; it's a list of things FBI HQ "prodded" field offices to do- all of them provided useful insights on past and current disruption of 'alternative' movements, but 11) gave me a weird sense of deja vu: "use cartoons ... to 'ridicule' the New Left"

Even though the program was 'officially' shut down, what reason is there to expect it really stopped? It was effective, and there was no meaningful accountability- the public and Congressional attention only meant that the operations had to be removed from institutions subject to public oversight- they may have been outsourced to private companies funded by black budgets.

Black PR and proof of Paid Internet Shills

EDIT: this thread looks like a good place for:
“Hey, Hot Shot" by George Washington



So shall I assume that blogger rules have now changed?

And it is no longer forbidden to accuse a specific individual of posting disinformation?

Please clarify if this is so. If Zombie Bill Hicks' irresponsible and provocative assertion about my post is not removed, I will assume that I am now free to label disinfo as such where ever I see it.

This is the post in question:



The rules have not changed.

And I'd hope my post not be deleted, if purely for the educational value alone. Accusing you of being some sort of disinfo agent is vastly different than merely implying that your post had all the hallmarks of it. And of course, I would never do that because I dont think even your worst posts are worthy of a paid disinfo agent. No, I just think you're terribly misguided, if that helps clear things up at all.

Now, we can read betwixt the lines all day long, but I dont see it ending in a positive place if you elect to travel down that road.

Have a nice night,

zombie bill hicks

The key to successful truth actions lies in not insulting your target audience or promoting speculation as hard fact.

Commenters take note; the rules have not changed

Accusations, among other things, are off-limits. Violating the rules will result in warnings and eventual banning. http://www.911blogger.com/rules

Accusations are disruptive; they breed hostility, suspicion and division- that's why accusations were a cointelpro tactic. So if you don't want people suspecting you are- don't do it.
See (2) and(3) http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book2/html/ChurchB2_005...

I didn't interpret ZBH's comment as a 'veiled' accusation of disinfo, and he's clarified his opinion: "Accusing you of being some sort of disinfo agent is vastly different than merely implying that your post had all the hallmarks of it. And of course, I would never do that because I dont think even your worst posts are worthy of a paid disinfo agent. No, I just think you're terribly misguided, if that helps clear things up at all."

In other words, ZBH would seem to be speculating that this phenomena is at work, which Vic quoted above: "Remarkably, it appears that the vast majority of propaganda supporting all three layers of deception was produced, not by attack insiders, but by people exploited by the perpetrators using psychological engineering. The perpetrators are apparently highly expert at designing memes that effectively recruit people to unwittingly support such diversions from the true nature of the attack." http://911review.com/infowars.html

I do my best to avoid making judgments one way or the other about who people really are behind their online persona, and simply focus on their words and actions, and the effect they have. Some at 911blogger may be paid provocateurs, and some may simply have bad digestion, personality issues, bad judgment, etc.

It could be said that Sheila's comment above "the truth movement was infiltrated long ago" about "fake truthers" is an accusation, but as it wasn't targeting a specific person, I'm not going to remove it- plus, it, and the string of comments it inspired, have great "educational value". Sheila, would you care to clarify what you meant? I notice that you haven't provided evidence to support your claims.

If anyone has a complaint, including about me and my moderation (I'm not the only mod, and I'm not a site administrator), use the contact form above.


For the record

Sheila, would you care to clarify what you meant?

Sheila has unfortunately been queued, but is working on a response to the above post. I hope it gets posted. She doesn't know why she's been queued; Loose Nuke, would you care to enlighten her about what rules she broke?

Let's keep it a level playing field though.

Sheila is hardly the only party at blogger who has made subtle insinuations with the disclaimers like "so-called truthers."

For example, the very top of jimd3100's essay (and to which Griffin recently responded) which attempted to prove Griffin wrong on faked phone calls, said the following in the very first sentence:

There seems to be a bit of controversy in the so called "9/11 Truth Movement" on whether the phone calls from the planes were fake or not.

So he uses the disclaimer of so called in addition to scare quotes around the name of our movement.

Similar examples follow in the essay, yet this was not just a comment, but a blog entry. And his not-so-subtle insinuation is that anyone who does not share his view on the phone calls is a "so called truther."

He's also quite famous for comments such as: "Pentagon no-planers. How embarrassing." And similar things.

But wow how people come down hard on Sheila when she's "guilty" of essentially the same thing!

I'm all in favor of standards of civility, but let's keep the standards on an even playing field!


He wrote “Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech”

(quote) "Sunstein proposes what he calls a "New Deal" for speech, a reformulation which abandons the prevailing "marketplace of ideas" model of free expression, in favor of a Madisonian conception based on deliberative democracy."

ok. so?

well - it is his opinion...

(quote) "In general, government cannot regulate speech of any sort on the basis of (1) its own disagreement with the ideas that have been expressed, (2) its perception of the government's (as opposed to the public's) self- interest, (3) its fear that people will be persuaded or influenced by ideas, and (4) its desire to ensure that people are not offended by the ideas that speech contains (p. 155)."

so how can someone with this position advocate governmental interference in the 9/11 Truth movement?

i'm scratching my head.

(quote) "He explains, "I certainly do not mean to argue that large national bureaucracies should be overseeing our system of free expression for 'political correctness' or for good content" (p. 35)."

so exactly what does this man stand for?

(quote) "But by using tax and subsidy mechanisms to provide more "serious," "quality" programming and reporting in the media, or by making judgments over what art, literature, or (even) hate speech contributes to public discussion and what does not, government will ultimately be in the oversight business."

it appears that this man speaks with forked tongue

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

Obama is just a blue version of Bush -maybe more dangerous

Hope and Change huh?

I agree clintfuller

Right now Obama is the most dangerous man on the planet. Well at least hid handlers are. I have a feeling we are in for a rough ride the next few years.

Article by David Coady

'Conspiracy Theories and Official Stories':


'Conspiracy Theories: The philisophical debate':


David Coady doesn't get 9/11 ...

This is Coady's opinion of 9/11 ....

In the case of 9/11 the question is "Who are the conspirators, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, or George Bush and the American security services?" The correct answer to this question is so well established by now that nothing further I can say here could be expected to convince the 9/11 truthers.

The problem with the 9/11 truthers is that they are committed to an irrational and false theory (a theory which happens, like its true rival, to be a conspiracy theory).

from http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2251734.htm

"They" are going to have fun infiltrating

Japan, Germany, France, Italy etc. etc.


New Zealand, Canada, Britain, Ireland, etc etc



All the more reason to study the truth behind the truth about power by listening to this interview and better still, reading Mr. Baker's fabulously disturbing book.



also, I wonder if what we're seeing here is a trend in right center politics....this guy supported John Roberts to the Supreme Court, and appears to be an advocate for animal rights. He believes that the internet is a divisive force creating what he refers to as "Internet Balkanization" . Adopting this latest 9-11 view is a wide swing towards attacks on freedom of speech and the right to assemble. So, it would seem, to gain credibility within progressive political circles, you espouse some of their views and went you need to put metal to the pedal, you come out with a whacked out neocon view like this.

How about just challenging this nimrod to a public debate?

These idiots always operate in secrecy, because protecting secrets and confusing people is their business.

Openly challenge him and any of his "experts" to a fairly-moderated high- profile debate.

They have just admitted to their own propaganda ministry

You know, this might serve our purposes. We now have the recognizable, stated purpose of the government, to derail the movement.
However, the facts DO speak for themselves. This, like so many other things, attempts to derail us, tweaks curiosity. When an honest, intelligent, objective person looks at the factual presentation by those like Richard Gage, Stephen Jones, and our many remarkable professionals, whose relevant fields only give our side more credence, and more growth!

We can also now prove, after all that efforts are being made to change the ever growing awareness among the population (over 80%). We don't need to go to any extremes trying to say that, the Powers that Be, are sending "muddlers" in to take us down. Heck, here THEY are saying it. It can only be to our advantage. We now have a source to refer people to, a government source, in which, they state their propaganda agenda. WE ALL NEED TO DOWNLOAD IT BEFORE IT DISAPPEARS OFF THE WEB!!!

The most severe form of learning disorders are owned by those that "already know everything."

Speaking of stuff that has disappeared from the web

anybody know what happened to the full version of the pilot show of the "lone gunmen?"

It's all over the place. I found 91 versions

Though not the FULL version.

The FULL version was on the web a couple of years ago

It is very powerful in its entirety. Now it has completely disappeared.

I get your point

Blubonnet, I think you've highlighted the most important revelation: that the Obama administration as an appointed watchdog who has among his missions trying to squash the 911T movement -- and it's public record.

At least we know his name now. Sunstein should now be considered among the ranks of people like Zelikow.

During the 2008 election

I told everyone that Mr. Obama was a psyop, just like 9/11, and the two are related. I think this becomes more obvious every day.

We are making progress, brothers and sisters, let's make 2010 the year we finally break through the national denial.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.


I think it's great that they're going to "infiltrate" our online groups. In doing so, they'll gain better exposure to 9/11 truth facts and ideas.

Way to think positively Mekt_Ranzz

Great perspective.



well, that's a way of looking at it, but consider this, when society collapses, as it will within our lifetime, they will do what China has and is doing- censoring the internet or shutting off parts of it, or snooping on it.

Time to think about hinternet, mesh networks, short-wave internet and similar strategies.

That's true

They and the debate they want to introduce is merely the "foil" so to speak, against which is illuminated the truth to the masses.

Bring it on!
On the 11th day, of every month.

What's next?

Are they going to rewrite the laws of physics too (to explain the official story about the twin towers and building 7) and then use HAARP technology to patrol and manipulate our thoughts..?

shiney side out!
On the 11th day, of every month.

Wouldn't surprise me...

If it's already happened...


Some fear that something like COINTELPRO may again be at hand. There are undercover agents infiltrating peaceful protests in America. Pretending to be political activists, local law enforcement officials are monitoring the activities of advocacy and protest groups based on what one judge calls those organizations’ "political philosophies and conduct protected under the First Amendment."


Soon after the 9/11 attacks, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft authorized the FBI to dramatically expand its domestic surveillance activities. He expanded that authority again in 2003, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey followed suit with further expansions in December, 2008. Ostensibly crafted to enhance counterterrorism efforts, the resulting surveillance came to serve political purposes: in at least several cases, it was directed against activist groups and individuals advancing goals opposed to those of the Bush administration.


Disclosure of a confidential memorandum sent by the FBI to local police disclosing a massive program of infiltration and surveillance of lawful anti-war and anti-WTO protest movements confirms what most progressives and leftists in the U.S. knew already--that the Bush Administration and the Ashcroft "Justice" Department have ushered in a full-fledged return to the Nixon-era practice of employing police-state tactics against opposition movements.


As noted here, Ashcroft has revived the FBI's totally discredited COINTELPRO program, which flourished from 1956 to 1971, during the anti-war and civil rights movements. In those years, the bureau monitored, infiltrated, and disrupted an array of religious and political organizations that were critical of various government policies. One of its targets, wiretapped and bugged, was Martin Luther King.


Undercover Maryland state troopers infiltrated three groups advocating peace and protesting the death penalty — attending meetings and sending reports on their activities to U.S. intelligence and military agencies, according to documents released Thursday.


Military, intelligence agency and police work is also coming together in numerous "fusion centers" around the country in a joint program run by the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security that has received little public attention. At present, there are 43 current and planned fusion centers in the United States where information from intelligence agencies, the FBI, local police, private sector databases and anonymous tipsters is combined and analyzed by counterterrorism analysts. DHS hopes to create a wide network of such centers that would be tied into the agency's day-to-day activities, according to the Electronic Privacy Information Center. The project, according to EPIC, "inculcates DHS with enormous domestic surveillance powers and evokes comparisons with the publicly condemned domestic surveillance program of COINTELPRO," the 1960s program by the FBI aimed at destroying groups on the American political left.


From Glenn Greenwald...


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

I pronounce it as

Coin Tel Pro

as opposed to Co Intel Pro

I don't know why I posted that, just always thought it somewhat amuzing..
On the 11th day, of every month.



A public school teacher was arrested today at John F. Kennedy
International Airport as he attempted to board a flight while in
possession of a ruler, a protractor, a compass, a slide-rule and a

At a morning press conference, the Attorney General said he believes
the man is a member of the notorious Al-Gebra movement. He did not
identify the man, who has been charged by the FBI with carrying
weapons of math instruction.

'Al-Gebra is a problem for us', the Attorney General said. 'They
derive solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on
tangents in search of absolute values.' They use secret code names
like 'X' and 'Y' and refer to themselves as 'unknowns', but we have
determined that they belong to a common denominator of the axis of
medieval with coordinates in every country.

As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, 'There are 3 sides to
every triangle'.

When asked to comment on the arrest, President Obama said, 'If God had
wanted us to have better weapons of math instruction, he would have
given us more fingers and toes.'

White House aides told reporters they could not recall a more
intelligent or profound statement by the President. It is believed
that the Nobel Prize for Physiques will follow--

Michael Shafir
Chair, International Relations,
Faculy of European Studies

This subject is on fire!!!!!!!!

Apathy Supports the Status Quo

I added my say over at the Raw Story site and as of now there are about 798 responses. I am encouraged by this as I think the 9-11 people are getting more vocal and more sure of the facts. You might want to check out the dialogs over at Raw Story and especially a troll called McComment. At some point there might be a world wide agreement to start investigating 9-11, the crime AND THE COVER UP and people like McComment land Sunstein should be thouroughly questioned.

More information on Sunstein...

More on Cass Sunstein: According to the introduction of the paper, polls suggest that roughly one-third of Americans subscribe to a ‘conspiracy theory’ about the September 11th attacks in NYC.

This guy is just creepy

Does it not seem to be a chilly reflection of how bad things have gotten,
and how much of a fraud Obama is, that what amounts to the PRIVACY commisioner
is advocating the infiltration of groups that think differently?

I mean, if he's not going to an advocate for free-speech, privacy, then who is?

Homer Simpson?

Sheds new light

on why Van Jones decided to quit the Obama team.


I think you mean 'forced to quit,' as in 'given the heave-ho.' As I recall, he basically recanted his support for an investigation in an attempt to hang on to his job. Of course, that wasn't enough for them. To update the question asked of suspected Communists by HUAC: 'Do you now question, or have you ever questioned, the government's account of 9/11?' Only those who can answer 'no' to that question need apply to serve in the federal government.

We're winning

I just finished all 30 pages and concluded that if Sunstein's proposals are the example of what the govt. is doing to shut us up and end the theories:

1) They've got the mechanics of how we operate figured out, on an academic level better than we know ourselves (we could actually learn a lot of good stuff about the effects of what we do by reading this paper);

2) They have no idea how to stop it and anything they try they're just guessing.

3) They won't be able to stop it.

I got really angry when I first read this and now I'm excited.

The Three Stages of Truth

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.

Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

~ Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

For more, click on the link in my sig.
On the 11th day, of every month.


I like that word, with emphasis on coin.

In truth, that is precisely what he's advocating for, and it's utterly Orwellian in its implications for the future, enough to make a person shudder, or vomit.

But it is the debate we've been looking for all along, and we all know how this information gets forwarded in a non-linear fashion via that debate..

So I say again, bring it on - and let them, the cointelpro OCT myth supporters wear the tinfoil shiney side out..! ;-D

We actually NEED them, to help forward our case.

First it is ridiculed and second, it is voilently opposed, and then...

it becomes accepted, as self evident.

So bring it on Sunstein, bring it on! We welcome the debate! (tee he he)
On the 11th day, of every month.