If It Quacks Like A Duck . . .


9/11 activists spend a lot of time trying to figure out who is a government "disinformation agent" and who is not.

I would argue that it is a total waste of time.

If someone is being disruptive, or seems to pursuing one of the 5 goals of disinformation, then he or she is causing problems and should be avoided -- or at least not given a megaphone. It doesn't matter what the motivation is: whether ego, confusion, or a government paycheck.

Sure, some people might want to understand someone's motivations to know whether or not to give him or her a second chance. That's fine.

But if it quacks like a duck, its probably a duck. Its a waste of time to try to figure out why it quacks, or whether its a mandarin duck or a mallard. Just treat it like a duck.

This is part 3 of my 3-part introduction to disinformation for busy people. Part 1 is here, and part 2 is here.

To whoever gave this a low score,

please tell me why and give constructive criticism on how to strengthen this essay, or I will assume that you are simply quacking like a duck.

BTW, just not being very impressed with my reasoning is fine -- IF YOU POINT OUT HOW YOU THINK IT COULD BE STRONGER.


Education Drains the Swamp

Thank for you writing this, and I agree with your posts. My idea of how to combat disinformation is perfectly elucidated by Barrie Zwicker:

What’s needed is politically relevant education. Education about agents of all kinds, especially agents provocateurs, their history, who employs them, their tactics… While educating ourselves and others we can simultaneously actively combat agents of the state by refraining from engaging in the types of behaviour they employ to sow dissention: name-calling, rumour-mongering, insinuation... Refraining from this does not stifle vigorous discussion and debate, based on observable facts, statements and patterns. Education drains the swamp.

I've combined all of your posts here along with links of my own:


we have some here on 911blogger who are cowardly and have insufficient integrity to explain why they vote something down. It is particularly evident in cases like this when the truth of what you wrote is self-evident. I have no respect for them (or him or her) if they are not willing to justify their actions. And yes, all they know how to do is 'quack'.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)

Okay, I voted again--another "10" ;-)

As for voting, reasonabley speaking, votes are set up to be anonymous. While I understand your irritation, "justifying every vote" would get silly after a while, not to mention cumbersome.

"I voted 9 on this blog because it had great material, but I think I could do better"
"I voted 3, because this issue should be brought up but not like this"
"I voted 1 because it's a Jenny blog"
"I voted 10 because it's a Jenny blog"
"I don't know what to think so I voted 5"
"Well I didn't vote at all because I think voting's dumb"
"I hate everyone in this thread so I'm voting 1 on all comments"

Do we really want the comments full of voter self-analysis? ;-)

Oi! What happened to my post?

Did this thread get redone?

And I gave you a 10--wherever it is...;-/

Id' quoted "and should be avoided or at least not given a megaphone"

followed by, "LMAO!!!"--because I personally know exactly these types of people.

This is like a bad TwilightZone episode...


Unless you see the payslip

Unless you see the payslip, it is pretty hard to know the motivation of a sh*t disturber, or of someone coming out with highly speculative theories. Given that identification of someone as a troll, a shill, an egomaniac, what have you, is highly unlikely, George Washington's advice here may be the most prudent course of action.

Mike Zimmer

You can't win...

You can't win unless you call it what it is, then stop wasting your time on the disruptor. If you put a lot of effort into "proving" they are a disinfo specialist, that's all time you could have spent doing something more productive. Destructive effort rather than constructive. I like your 5 D's of disinformation, because it makes clear that when you're dealing with a disinfo specialist, you need to avoid falling into their traps. Otherwise, if in your efforts to expose them you further Distract, Disrupt, Derail, Divide, or unfairly Discredit others, it's Mission Accomplished.

It's also good that you speak more broadly about all disruptive people. We have a broad name for them on the web, "trolls." We have a specific name for someone who is paid and has a specific goal, "disinfo" or "shill." But it's important to recognize that it doesn't matter which they are. The results are the same. And your method for dealing with both should be the same. Don't feed them.

Well, I don't vote but

I thought both your pieces were vacuous because terms like "making trouble", "disruptive", "obviously false theories', "disproven theories", etc, have no real, objective, mutually agreed upon meaning. hense esentially meaningless.

And there's always the chance

that its just someone being an asshole (excuse my french)

As soon as you engage them, they win.


I agree, to a degree

But what would be a better method?

"Better" terminology? Different terminology? Qualification? Elucidation?

I'm not sure myself.

It could be "the nature of the beast", as it were.

But I do think people should get off of the "disinfo agent" attacks. Most of them are fallacious. Most of the people accused are just "idiots". Just ignore them (for the most part) and they will usually go away. Spend a little time on them, but very little.

(I didn't vote on this one — I usually don't vote unless I think it deserves a 1, or a 10, or a higher or lower vote than it gets)

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

i think there is a big

i think there is a big difference between a "government agent" and a "government disinformation agent". A disinformation agent is not something that we really need to worry about because it is easy to discover who they are. If someone is intentionally misleading people and using false information, it is easy enough to prove them wrong using the facts. What i think is far more dangerous is a "government agent" who has infiltrated the 9/11 truth movement. this agent will not necessarily spread dis-information and people in the 9/11 movement will agree with the things they say for the most part. this is why it is very difficult to distinguish between a real 9/11 truther and a COINTELPRO agent. They will appear virtually the same. When the MI5 infiltrated the IRA, everyone was shocked to see that in the end, the highest level of people in the IRA were all MI5 agents. When we're looking for someone who has infiltrated 9/11 truth, we should be looking for people who have a lot of control and influence over the 9/11 movement as a whole. So we'd be looking for people who maybe control 9/11 news sites where people go to get their new information, to have control and influence over the major organizations, such as control of the scholars for 911 truth website... they will also try to point the finger at others so that you may not suspect them... they may even tell you how to identify these agents when it is really them who are the agents.

delete... it double posted

delete... it double posted

personally speaking, i find

personally speaking, i find the people that scream loudest and most often about disinfo(thus giving said disinfo the airplay it needs) are the most suspicious(sort of like-"i couldnt possibly be disinfo, look at all the time and energy i spend on exposing it!"). i didnt vote the blog down, i dont think GW is disinfo and i dont think its out of line to "expose disinfo" but when its all you really do i find it suspicious. one of the main goals of disinfo? to keep us at each others throats, "exposing" each other etc. Justin Martell from student scholars had a thread about DRG and was confronted by a self styled disinfo expert and basically made to defend himself over having an old Fetzer interview on his site. im sorry, but thats just wrong and is exactly what true disinfo would want us doing. questioning each other.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

So let's have the names GeorgeWashington

All this talk of disinformation and no one is mentioning any names. If disinformation is such a big deal here on blogger, let's hear some names GeorgeWashington?

Personally, I think your definitions are highly subjective...but I am interested.....who do you all think are agents of disinformation?

Anyone else willing to shake the shackles and actually name names?

I've only run across one person I think is disinformation for reason you've outlined in your disinformation definitions and reasons of my own. I won't name names but his initials are Jon GOld.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

jpass, I will not engage

with you, unless you agree with the basics of how to spot disinfo. In other words, if you won't admit the ground rules, we have nothing to talk about, and I will assume you are trying to waste my time, sir.