Poisoning the Well and Cutting the Cheese


Two highly effective forms of disinformation are spreading crazy theories and acting in a crazy manner.

Poisoning the Well

Most of us have heard the term "poisoning the well" in connection with false 9/11 theories. If you haven't, the idea is that people trying to discredit the 9/11 movement will intentionally spread false theories to discredit everyone who questions 9/11.

Spreading theories that are obviously nutty right-out-of-the box paints the entire movement with a negative color. But other theories that may at first appear to be attractive -- but are flawed or based on incomplete evidence and so can be definitively debunked by the government at a later time -- can also end up pulling the rug out from the entire 9/11 truth movement.

Many 9/11 activists have assumed that the well-poisoners are so small in number that they are not very effective. However, some of these people might have, right after 9/11 , started sending emails and making phone calls to congress critters, reporters and other high-powered people bombarding them with crazy theories, so as to poison the well from the start. In other words, these folks might have been a lot more effective than any of us have realized in poisoning the well. (I am not excusing the congress critters, reporters, etc. for failing to do their job).

Cutting the Cheese

I've recently come to believe there is a related disinformation tactic which I'll call "cutting the cheese". To continue with this humorous but unsavory analogy (I apologize for its crudeness), people can be driven away from a seminar, party or other gathering if someone really cuts the cheese.

I have run across some characters in the last couple of years who are self-proclaimed 9/11 truth activists, but who are so crazy, sleazy, slimy and plain old weird that everyone just wants to get away from them. I'm not talking about people who have less-than-ideal social skills, or who are nerdy, or who are not in the right clique. I'm talking about people who threaten to kill others, or who dress like homeless people, who accuse effective 9/11 activists of being terrorists, who yell loudly and disrupt 9/11 truth gatherings, who throw rocks at peaceful rallies, or who put out videos on you tube showing Satan and Godzilla and other bizarre images while the sound track talks about 9/11.

I have come to believe that these kind of people are paid to "cut the cheese" and "clear out the room". Newbies to 9/11 truth who run across these folks are going to want to steer clear of them, and anything associated with them. Because these folks are many newbies first introduction to 9/11 truth, they will just stay away from anything having to do with 9/11 truth.

Poisoning the well means spreading theories which are crazy. Cutting the cheese means acting in crazy manner. They are related, but separate, forms of disruption.

Have you had any experience with well-poisoners or cheese-cutters? If so, you know what I mean. If not, keep these tactics in mind so that you will know them when you see them.

Bottom line is to stick with hard science

If the 911 truth movement sticks with hard science the cheese cutters will invariably be seen for what they are and ignored.

Hard science is what put Dr. Judy Wood and her space beam theory in a box and kept it from hurting the 911 Truth movement.

I also do not mean to imply that there aren't other important avenues of investigation such as who was involved with security at the towers, the upper level FBI's squelching of investigations concerning the hijackers, etc. and these things should certainly be investigated, as they are needed to flesh out the case for complicity of certain high government officials.

However, it is hard science that will keep the movement on track, and continuing to expand.

It's not just a matter of science, but historical precedence

This notion, to 'stick with hard science', does not address the complexity of this issue and that we must address it in a multi-faceted, multi-modal approach, multi-disciplinary manner.

For example, consider the historical approach of 'precedence':

1) Precedence of the historical record for fire and its impact on steel-framed skyscrapers is a strong part of the argument that the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) cannot be true. Particularly in the case of WTC7, but also the Towers

2) Another example of precedence is the remarkable record of the "Northwoods Memo", a planning document approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This document is important to establish the historical record that the US government is not inherently 'benevolent' and has planned to kill its own citizens and other innocent people in order to stage a war, in this case, against Cuba just after the failed Bay of Pigs. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/>

both of your examples

1& 2 are documented fact, thus basically about the same as hard science. The facts are known, documented and irrefutable.

Same as the hard science, the irrefutable fact of controlled demolition.

cheese cutters

I know exactly what you mean, GW. Here in NorCal we've got this guy who shows up at practically every event, holding up a nicely made sign with absolutely insane nonsense (not even related to 9/11) on it. If there is media present, he's always trying to stand in the background in view of the camera. I'm gonna have to try and get a picture of this guy to post. His unwavering knack of appearing at just about every demo and event we hold makes me doubt that he's just a random, crazy, homeless guy. I tell him to bugger off every time he comes over, but he never fails to wander back eventually.

The answer to 1984 is 1776!
(Gold, Oil, and Drugs)

Let's hear it!

I'm from NorCal and haven't noticed him. (9/11 Film Festival, Lifting the Fog Conference, David Ray Griffin at the Grand Lake.) What does his sign say?

What about that guy at the 9/11 Film Festival who unsuccessfully tried to bait Richard Gage into endorsing antigovernment violence?

completely disagree

(response to Tony)

1) "Hard science" means nothing to most people. They did not get very good grades in science, and really don't care enough to read scientific literature.

2) "Hard science" implies you're confining your case to controlled demolition, which is also a bad idea.

3) 9/11 isn't a science issue, it's a crime first and foremost, and a political tool, a legal tool, and an intelligence operation involving numerous players with numerous witnesses and whistleblowers.

4) The bulk of evidence does not concern science at all, and when the discussion is reduced to science, you have to entertain all sorts of nutjobs, from Judy Wood on down, on the basis of "scientific inquiry."

5) The fact of a cover up is our strongest case. It is easily proven in hundreds of ways, and through hundreds/thousands of witness statements, and it leads naturally to myriad questions and leads. Cover up cannot be debunked, and it is not some theoretical mumbo jumbo. There is enough documentation for even the simplest among us to prove it, and upset and overrun the "debunkers."


#5 The Coverup is our

#5 The Coverup is our strongest case, is right on.
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

Building 7

in my opinion is the true smoking gun. In 15 seconds flat I went from a devout Republican, Bush-backing, Muslim hating, revenge filled being, to holy sh#t that's a controlled demo. That was a year and a half ago, and my life hasn't been the same ever since.

There are still many Republicans in my family that refuse to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but when you ask them about 7...they shake their heads and say it's crazy - no explanation can be given. I still think bringing building 7 out in the open will draw more people in. Far too many people have no idea this even happened.



That's the real eyeopener. Worked for me as well.

WTC7 is the smoking gun,

WTC7 is the smoking gun, agreed, but as far as who is complicit and who is responsible the coverup is the way to go for Prosecutions.
Who blew up WTC7, not sure, but who corrupted the NIST report, who derailed the 9/11 Commision, who ordered the steel to be destroyed, who lied about NORAD? This is not the bulk of it, but with this route you can see the people who if not placed the charges in WTC7, played a significant role in covering it up and out of the mainstream consciousness. This is Criminal.
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

Bldg. 7 has something to do with science

The other parts of the case, which Jon Gold and others constantly warn not to lose sight of, are extremely important and do need to be investigated and brought up in parallel with showing new people information to get them interested. Issues other than just controlled demolition are probably the deeper material after someone takes an interest and may even actually be the right initial approach to some individuals.

I applaud and encourage all of those who are investigating areas of the case other than the controlled demolition aspects. We certainly need that to be done and don't think it isn't appreciated. Many hands make for lighter work. We all need to use our talents wherever they are best suited, as this is a team effort and will not be won without the various efforts of everyone on the team.

The controlled demolition hypothesis, which the proof of starts with Bldg. 7,. while it isn't the entire structure of the case, is a keystone which can be leaned on for strength. That is all I was saying earlier.

What this thread is about though is attempts to discredit the movement and we all have to realize that 911 was a monumental crime that had to entail a great deal of intricate planning and sophistication. Any plan for a psyop of this magnitude would certainly have had to consider a continuing cover-up with provocateur activity and subtle methods used to discredit anyone who became suspicious and spoke up about it.

I do think everyone needs to be on the lookout for those who would upset the movement with off the wall behaviour and scenarios.

Dear completely disagree

Science is not for the uneducated. It is fact; and what keeps most of the uneducated (bottom feeders) alive in all aspects. Tell an Honorable Judge your arument and sell it to an uncontaminated Jury. "Good Luck." I go with FACT. Good old proven FACT. If it is too much to comprehend for some folk. Call them; they will come, "just like goats ." They will eat what you feed them as long as it is palatable.

Show "completely agree with disagree" by alllans2k7

parallel paths, not just one path

Why disagree?

The human brain works by massive redundancy -- if one part is taken out, other parts can step in and take up the task, or are already doing it on a different level.

We cannot have one way to approach things or we lose.

Tony says -

"I also do not mean to imply that there aren't other important avenues of investigation such as who was involved with security at the towers, the upper level FBI's squelching of investigations concerning the hijackers, etc. and these things should certainly be investigated, as they are needed to flesh out the case for complicity of certain high government officials. However, it is hard science that will keep the movement on track, and continuing to expand."

Nothing wrong with science and hard facts -- this is why you are typing on a computer right now. We don't need to reject it, we need to each find our own way and go that way, and help others who have chosen other ways.

Then expose those whose efforts function to ruin everything.

You really know how to Cut the Cheese

I'm only partly kidding.

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

American cheese makers?

First time I've heard the expression "cut the cheese". You also have the expression that something is "cheezy", which means that something is "bad".

This leads me to suspect that American cheese makers aren't the best in the world.

Scientific evidence at any murder scene is always of the utmost

importance! Most all investigations start with the physical evidence! Then they go on to means, motive, & opportunity! These same methods should be applied to the 9/11 mass murder.

Show them clear videos of the towers erupting & exploding, show them WTC-7 imploding for no other plausible reason besides controlled demolition. Throw in the clip of Silverstein saying it was "pulled" to further pique people's curiosity. (One need not be a Ph.D. in physics to realize that something is very wrong in the way these massive buildings came down like house-of-cards or stacks of dominoes.)

Then follow-up with questions like: How did Osama make our trillion-dollar defenses stand down on 9/11? Why did Lt General Mahmud Ahmad of the Pakistani ISI wire $100,000 to Mohammad Atta days before 9/11, and why is this fact still being covered-up to this day? Why are many family members calling for a new, independent investigation? Etc.

Dead wrong

"Hard science" means nothing to most people. They did not get very good grades in science, and really don't care enough to read scientific literature.

If absolute proven FACT means nothing to whatever brain dead Reich wing moron then they aren't worth wasting breath on.

Anyone that can view all the overwhelming irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition, the videos, the corroborating eye witnesses, the scientific fact and still look you in the eye and call you a conspiracy nut then just move on because there is NOTHING this Reich winger will believe simply because its not told by Faux Noise or Rush Limbaugh.

Best to lead with hard scientific fact that can be proven and then once you see you are not dealing with some nutcase then show them all the other evidence that ties it all together and gives clues to whom the culprits are.

Appropriate Actions in response to Dis-info tactics.

The solution I guess to disinfo agents and people who try to scare away newcomers with B.S., is to point people to reputable web sites, documentaries, and people. For instance.. instead of just saying "9/11 was an inside job" and leaving it at that. We should say that and on our banners have specific web sites or phrases like "911Truth.org" or "Google 9/11 Mysteries"

If you put out sidewalk chalk. Don't just say 9/11 = inside job. Which is fun, nice, and easy. But instead or along with that you have to site a source or issue. For instance "Google WTC 7". Lead them to the credible topics and issues.

Hand out reputable DVD's to newcomers.

During Street Actions have reputable sources on banners, signs etc.

When emailing the Oprah Winfrey show ask her to have specific guests like David Ray Griffin or Barrie Zwicker on. Don't just or only say "investigate 911" http://www2.oprah.com/email/tows/email_tows_main.jhtml

Ask journalists to research specific tasks. Like the Bin Laden/Bush Family connections. Don't just use the generic, although true, 9/11 was an inside job mantra.

Make it clear that 9/11 was an inside job and then lead them to the reputable sites, sources, DVD's, issues, etc. Great article GW.

We should still be sure to push forward with activism, even while we deal with more internal issues like Cointell or disinfo problems & solutions :)


"We should still be sure to push forward with activism, even while we deal with more internal issues like Cointell or disinfo problems & solutions"

Indeed, the best ways of dealing with this disinfo/disruption problem are education about the issue and pushing harder than ever before with our activism. All of us who have been under attack recently should take it as encouragement that we are indeed on the right path. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother! Keep up the great work everyone and redouble your efforts!

ps: beware of the issues with google - it's probably best these days to send people directly to the best sites available.

Great series of blogs, GW - thanks!

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Eyes on the prize

Borrowing the term from the successful civil rights movement, "eyes on the prize." The prize is universal recognition of the truth of WHO was responsible for 9/11/2001 and holding them accountable.

It doesn't matter whether cell phones work at 10,000 feet or mini nukes were used. What matters is WHO, not HOW. The official story of the Pentagon attack is absolutely ridiculous. That is what matters most, not WHAT struck the Pentagon .

Let us begin a new phase of 9/11 truth with EYES ON THE PRIZE, universal acceptance of MIHOP.

Thats what we need to do

Good post and generally correct thinking.

However, I do believe that we need to know something of the how as well since that leads to the who and to keep up the research into all areas of the crime and continue all of the activism at an expanding rate. I am very proud of all of the people getting out there and trying to educate others and confront leaders who aren't doing anything about it or who were perhaps complicit.

We are marketers and salemen

We are marketers and salesmen, and must understand the techniques used to sell. In this case, we are selling ideas, ideas that we hope will lead to the truth. We need to research and learn the techniques of persuasion. This can be done ethically. Google marketing, google sales, google persuasion, google framing, google communications strategies. Become experts.

Agree with Mike Zimmer

Attempting to confine ourselves to "hard science" isn't good marketing.

A lot of people dont' know the difference between physics and chemistry. They are just as likely to believe your science, as some pseudo-science dressed up to look like "facts."

And I'm not all that sure that science has proven much about 9/11/01. We have what is likely, not what is proven and irrefutable. That's what 99% of you don't get. Likely and irrefutable are two different things.

Likely is enough to get you a new investigation, however. That's where we are.

My original point that limiting our approach to someone's idea of "hard science" is only one strategy. There are numerous others, and I don't need to be lectured about what facts are by newbies without any track record whatsoever.

I'll put my list of 9/11 facts up against any of your work:


Then you must be brain dead

if you think there is any other valid answer as to how those 3 buildings collapsed.

It is absolutely impossible (not unlikely) but IMPOSSIBLE for those buildings to have collapsed in any other way than controlled demolition.
The laws of physics do not lie.

We need to move our

We need to move our attention to the WHOS as the HOWS have been wrapped up to the point of certainty that 9/11 was carried out by criminal elements in the US Government.

We need NAMES, people to be prosecuted, held up to scrutiny. Building cases, legal cases, for real jail time.

The people that are responsible would like nothing more then for the Truth Movement to squabble of details instead of focusing our gaze on them.

The point of disinformation of this operation is for the people responsible to avoid prosecution, they could care less about the truth getting out, as long as they don't get tried with Treason.

Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

good starting point:


edit: who voted this down? can i ask why? do you also vote down 911blogger.com for having the same link i posted just to the left?

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

So bell the cats that cut the cheese

If you get a good picture of someone pulling these tactics in a public space, posting their picture sounds like a good idea. A part of the site could serve as "disinfo school", not only for alerting people to the tactic, but possibly identifying some of the characters themselves. It probably isn't necessary to ID them by name so much as to know them by sight.

After all, police take pictures of demonstrators at public demonstrations. What could be the objection to taking pictures of someone behaving so overtly in a recognized public space?

A good example of the exposure of a related tactic was the recent (about a month ago) pictures of "demonstrators" at a Canadian anti-globalist rally, where the demo organizers exposed some interlopers as undercover officers apparently ready to act as agents provocateurs to give the "regular" riot cops reason to bust up the demonstration. What really clinched it was the close-up photos of the boots of the interlopers, which turned out to be identical to the police who were forced to "arrest" them. Really, a few pictures or video clips of these sorts being outed can carry a strong lesson.