Lessons From The OSS/CIA: 9/11 "Disinfo" Vs. "Actionable Consensus"

In the 9/11 Commission Report you find the term "Actionable Intelligence" often used in reference of how they "couldn't" get Osama. Well I've adapted that term in reference to what's needed for a new 9/11 Investigation. But the problem isn't that there is a lack of Actionable Consensus, as there wasn't a lack of "AI" in the leadup to 9/11, it's that the "AC" issues have been swept aside in everybody's pursuit of the most elaborate 9/11 "truth". Here we will compare what is happening with the OSS (CIA precursor) "Psychology of Warfare" subversive disinfo training manual.



The current 9/11 environment has evolved into a sort of sectarian warfare comparable to the the Iraqi Occupation, which also followed a "Shock & Awe" assault. Everybody is pushing forward ever more elaborate theories or new explainations to support previous theories in the exotic dimension. These fuel the so-called "Skeptics" armament of things to argue against instead of having to admit that we might need action. All new logical fallacies have emerged in this chaotic environment. One example is what I call "Loosiam Changiam": 'Loose Change has holes in it, therefore there can be no conspiracy'. But today with the ever increasing parroting of ideas such as "No Planes" it's gotten even worse.

All of this in effect shifts thought away from the idea that all they had to do was allow it to happen on purpose for it to count as Actionable Consensus, because everyone is too busy arguing over highly debatable issues in matter-of-fact contexts and rhetoric. Yet isnt to say that any of my examples are true or untrue. But the fact is many of the mostly loudly parroted issues are the most debatable. If something is highly debatable then it wouldn't seem worth rabid "action", would it? People are calling for a lot more than just new investigations over 9/11.

One must note that most people are motivated to dismiss the idea of conspiracy, not the other way around. Because of this fact, and many other factors, the wilder a claim the more likely it will be looked upon as lunacy. And this is where many of the "prime" issues become the problem.

The frenzy long ago became to "prove" the most elaborate cases of manufactured terrorism possible to get the action, for many at least. If there was ana ctual conspiracy then the first thing we'd have to expect is that there will be disinfo agents fully operational in subverting any would-be "truth movement".

Upon studying the OSS Psychology of Warfare manuals you actually find a virtual playbook for charting how the perpetrators would subvert the "9/11 Truth Movement" to this day.

It begins with the definition of Psychological Warfare:


Applying this to a 9/11 disinfo campaign would mean "we" want "them" to view us as being all-powerful. The "enemy" is The People, of course. That means the more elaborate the better, because after all if they get the impression that we can pull off massive operations involving countless people at all levels it would be even more frightening than if it was percieved that GWB and his little gang of close buddies. These sorts of implications can have deep psychological implications on the typical 'subjects', while dividing their ranks & sending them in the wrong directions will create a sense of belittling pessimism in their ideas of a unified effort.

[DISINFO PLAYBOOK]
Achieve belittlement through demoralization:





That is critical because we know that


To achieve the desired demoralization begin with the classic divide and conquer. The idea is to cause .

This can be done using several classic methods, beginning with rumors:

And so on:






Of course all of that can mostly be done by spreading the most outlandish theories possible on all counts, and keep doing so until people begin parroting it themselves. Where possible, the primary official establishment must be sure to do or not do things that will later fuel the theories, such as not release any NTSB plane reports. This will make it much easier for disinfo agents in the field to propagate diversive activity.


The next step is to actually infiltrate the 9/11 ideasphere to further the divides from within:


And of course parrot the most controversial lines over and over again:

The whole point is to divert everybody away from the concrete issues for taking first actions. This is best done by infiltrating the movement, and then by spreading rumors. The role becomes that of rumor monger:

Therefore agents should seek to give the impression that they’ve achieved mouthpiece status within the movement.

To:

Which will result in:

[/DISINFO PLAYBOOK]

It’s important to keep in mind that not all theories are going to play over well with all people. In light of that, the theories need to be separated from the concrete facts as best as possible. From what I can tell, currently the theories and the facts are mixed together. When Average Joe clicks on random 9/11 website/thread he has high odds of first seeing theories and speculation. Sorry folks, but that isn’t going to get people active in demanding a new investigation.

A movement needs a solid unified sort of “manifesto” off primary talking points that ideally nobody could argue against. I’d like you to ask yourself if your talking points are absolutely the best ones for general purpose? I’d like to point out that the most exotic theories aren’t required for getting the attention everyday people, while if anything the most exotic possible with push more people away.

I propose a sort of scale in lining up the attention value of issues. It would seem logical to apply such a thing to how much time is spent beating them to death in addition to functioning as a guide to what should be the first issues in discussions with new people. For example in the most famous movie on the subject, basically the first thing discussed at length is the Pentagon. Many others follow similar sequences. This isn’t to say the issues are without merit or warrant, but the question is should we be talking about them first. Similarly, should movies like that be peoples first introduction to 9/11 skepticism?

That’s what I call a top down approach. I view the bottom up approach as being the ideal sequence. For example, films like “Press For Truth” and “E verybody’s Gotta Learn Sometime” would be a bottom up approach, and as it turns out there’s very little room for debate or mor eimportantly dismissal for seeming too outlandish.

I also propose a different sort of rhetoric, stronger at least, to drive those issues home. With just what’s in Press For Truth action should be a no-brainer. Powerful language such as HOW DARE THEY SUBVERT THE COMMISSION should be used. The same could be said of how they don’t just release the Pentagon tapes. But the second focus of my rhetoric proposition is the removal unmerited Absolutist terminology. Normally 9/11 is presented in a sort of binary fashion. For example, the “Debunkers” will say there were no NTSB reports because of incompetence and being overwhelmed, whereas “Truthers” will usually say that no reports proves there were no planes. It’s said in absolutist terms, either way, and then nobody can agree that either way action for new official investigations is due.


[edit on 7-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

But those lines are mostly already drawn, and for the rest who are still ‘vanilla’ on the issue at large they see the irrational bickering and are turned away at best. (Most rhetoric involving absolutes is irrational and fallacious, regardless of who is using it.) At worst they’ll jump on the side that is the least outlandish. Don’t forget that most people are motivated to not believe in a government conspiracy of this magnitude.

For these reasons I propose that these highly debatable issues should be second tier and should certainly avoid absolutist talk. It’s already pretty obvious which ones are debatable. Unless of course nobody cares about new investigations ASAP.

But I have proposed alternative ways of arguing those less concrete issues. Don’t limit yourself to my ideas, but maybe do limit your arguments to the directives mentioned just above. It’s all about distinguishing the CLEAR FACTS that demand action, from the QUESTIONS & POSSIBILITIES that warrant action.

I don’t have all the answers, but I do have some ideas for how to present the case for action. I’d like to hear everybody else’s views of how to classify what in a tiered layout of the materials. Some things seem quite obvious to me *cough*no planes*hack* where they should go on the ‘Action Item List’.

Related topics that dont get enough attention or memorization:

Key Warnings (91)
Warning Signs (362)
Al-Qaeda in Balkans (128)
Insider Trading/ Foreknowledge (43)
Hunt for Bin Laden (123)
Pipeline Politics (61)
Osama Bin Laden (96)
CIA Hiding Alhazmi & Almihdhar (77)
Bayoumi and Basan Saudi Connection (28)
Able Danger (59)

And plenty of other categories from Paul Thompsons 9/11 Timeline.



Don't let me do all the talking here...


[edit on 7-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Wow! I haven't read the whole thing yet, but so far, there are too many perfect quotes to bother quoting. These tactics and their intended effect is palpably real and omnipresent in the movement, at least as I've been experiencing it. Divide and conquer, promote false ideas, sow confusion, antagonism, despair. Whether by design or not, this is happening. Case in point: the current Kennebunkport warning controversy. Almost makes one want to throw their hands up in despair/surrender.

The official story for the movement's failures along these lines will be will be the looines turned their paranoia inward, an inevitable online Stalinist purge in all direction with cartoons and smileys attached. Confused idiots fighting a confusiong idiotic turf war. It's partly true of course, but also more complex as we can see from the inside.

The internet of course only enhances these older and prescient OSS tactics; the individual humanity of each online entity one encounters remains unsure, for one thing. This on top of the questions of rationality/sanity of the real organic humanoids involved (I'll chat with werewolves, CHUDs, and swamp things, just not bots) plus the magnifying effect of certain well-placed bits of disinformation, and opposed almost solely by 'everything's all right' debunker-types, leave a climate where rational debate becomes nigh impossible and 'actionable consensus' as unreachable as the sun.

A lot of good discussion possible here, but that's all I can add for now. Peace and strength.



[edit on 8-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Here is the problem of disinformation in a nutshell:

There are two types of speculation:

1. Speculation that can be answered through confirmation/evidence/experiments/additional investigation, etc. (example: I see molten metal. I speculate thermite caused it. I test and confirm variant thermate)
2. Non-falsifiable speculation: can never be confirmed/proven false. (example: I speculate that an unknown laser beam destroyed the WTC. No experiment/evidence can disprove this theory because the "unknown" laser is unknown to us. Therefore, it can not be proven false.)

The non-falsifiable theories work like this: no evidence can prove them wrong (everything else is labeled "faked/planted/disinfo" evidence).

Agent Provocateur Tactics.

These are pretty much highlighted in this post, and these sources you quoted are very interesting.

“An agent provocateur (plural: agents provocateurs, French for "inciting agent") is a person who secretly disrupts a group's activities from within the group. Agents provocateurs typically represent the interests of another group, or are agents directly assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate, or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group.”

Provocateurs deliberately “try to disrupt a group by creating discord between group members.”

Their methods include:
1. Attacking individuals rather than critiquing their theories
2. Encourage divisiveness rather than constructive debate.
3. Use of ridicule, sarcasm, accusations and ad-hominem to bait personal battles rather than constructive dialog. Name calling/ad-hominem, personal commentary, past battles, etc are all used for the purpose of irrelevant debate.
4. A refusal to debate or acknowledge contrary opinions or evidence and instead attack an individual.

The ad-hominem is the primary weapon of disinformation because it works at an emotional level.

Straw-man, special pleading, and omission are the other most commonly used techniques. I recommend my discussion here:
arabesque911.blogspot.com...

Thanks for this information, I might quote some of it in something I'm doing.

[edit on 8-10-2007 by Arabesque]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I don’t have all the answers, but I do have some ideas for how to present the case for action. I’d like to hear everybody else’s views of how to classify what in a tiered layout of the materials. Some things seem quite obvious to me *cough*no planes*hack* where they should go on the ‘Action Item List’.

IIB, great post!

Sadly, in my opinion the powers that be may have already won. It's close to checkmate unless something is done quickly.

Let me explain in simple terms.

The fraud of 9/11 was covered up by the 9/11 Commission. The Co-Chair of the 9/11 Commission was Lee Hamilton, a life-long NWO democrat connected to the most influential of the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission members.

Unless he died and I missed the story, Lee Hamilton works for Sandy Berger's political consulting firm. Sandy Berger was a key player in the entire 9/11 story, the only person actually guilty of a crime involving destroying terrorist related documents.

Sandy Berger is now working as a consultant to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Enough said.

The man closest to exposing a true vein into the conspiracy was Curt Weldon when he uncovered the Able Danger cover-up. Weldon and his daughter were targeted for destruction by none other than Sandy Berger and his allies working within his consulting firm.

Oh... and I forgot to mention that Jamie Gorelick, a Clinton appointed member of the Justice Department, the author of the famous "wall" memo that prevented the sharing of intelligence, and member of the 9/11 Commission, is also waiting in the wings to be part of the next Clinton administration.

So in short, the powers that be in the Democratic party are still in power, and they have shown they will cover up the truth re 9/11.

That leaves the Republican party. The Republican party's best hope, Rudy Guliani, is campaigning almost entirely on his 9/11 record. For Guliani to have credibility, the 9/11 official story has to be true.

Bottom line -Republicans aren't going to do anything to question the truth of 9/11, especially after seeing what happened to Curt Weldon.

So where does that leave us? Hoping that the mainstream media will help expose the truth? That's not going to happen because the media is owned and operated by the same NWO/CFR crowd that hand-picked the Presidential line of succession dating at least back to Jimmy Carter.

I hate to sound so defeatist, but this is the reality. Republicans + Democrats + Media isn't going to do anything but try to embarrass and discredit those who question the official story.

Again, where does that leave us? There will be no government help in exposing 9/11, and there will be no media coverage even if THE smoking gun were produced. Even when Fox News did an expose on Berger they completely left out the fact that Berger hired Hamilton to work for him in his consulting company.

IMO, anybody attempting to break through the mass brainwashing will simply be labeled a nutcase, and lumped in with the nutcases who propose things like the hologram theories, etc.

The only hope I see is starting with the 9/11 families. They have to be where the demand for a re-opening of the investigation comes from. They are the only people who both have a reason to be pissed off, and have the moral high ground from which to make their case.

Second, in order to sway people's opinions, the campaign must be non-partisan, and it must be made through non-traditional media, i.e., not the major networks. I would suggest using viral online marketing techniques.

Again, it must be non-partisan to take hold.

I would suggest starting with videos of WTC7's collapse in a viral, tell-a-friend online marketing campaign. Maybe show the video on a website, and have a simple question presented as part of a contest to win something:

Win an Ipod by Answering this question!

[Show Flash video of WTC7]

Was this building attacked by terrorists on 9/11???

Maybe capture people's name and email address too.

Another point... the battle isn't going to be won via forums like ATS or any other forum for that matter because of the exact reasons you outlined. It must be top down, planned, and executed by like-minded people who can agree to the substantive issues. It should also remain nameless and faceless, unlike Alex Jones-style, so that no individual can be demonized to bring down the entire message.

Dissenting opinions as well as outlandish theories will both dilute the message.

Just my 2 cents...

IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Thank you for taking the time to post this. I find it very revealing and I think many can quickly see what is going wrong with the 9/11 "TRUTH" movement. The very things that we see certain people doing, by sowing seeds of mistrust and proposing the most ludicrous ideas and theories that fly smack in the face of good reason is a sign of what we are up against.

I will take my time looking at this, this in my view is timely and we should discuss this more.

Wow, great responses everybody!

I'd like to add 2 short arguments/questions, for now:

1) If the case for action over 9/11 cannot be made without demolitions, no planes, pentagon whatever, and so on... Then what case is there to begin with? If the case can be made without those things, then why even put much effort into them?

2) If there was/is a 9/11 Conspiracy, then you can bet your life that the Disinfo Campaign aforementioned does exist. If this is the case, then shouldn't we be sure we follow a sort of "Occam's Razor" in regards to being careful about keeping the talking points as simple, yet powerful as possible? The point is that in this dis-infowar, it seems dangerous to go out on limbs, especially if there's solid irrefutable and undebatable talking points that are simplistic and not over-the-top.

3) I mentioned my disregard for "absolutism terminology". But I think I forgot to stress the issue that when you do have an absolute argument... you push it to the limit and don't stop stressing it.


I'm hoping this discussion will continue and others will help us work towards building an itemized list of rock solid cases and arguments that even the "Skeptics" out there could get behind. We have to start somewhere, and the further we get from that date the more futile it becomes.

[edit on 9-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

You guys gave me alot to repsond to... here's an important one I can't pass up for now:

Originally posted by robert z
Second, in order to sway people's opinions, the campaign must be non-partisan, and it must be made through non-traditional media, i.e., not the major networks. I would suggest using viral online marketing techniques.

Again, it must be non-partisan to take hold.

Precisely. The partisan issue is mindblowing, and is the steepest uphill. This is why I'm more catious about using the "Loos eChange arguments", because it seems to me that the more over-the-top things are presented the more likely partisan brains (especially neocon leaners) would be to discount it and move on.

WTC7 is an interesting one, however, I'm still catious about that. I'm not saying the issues should be ignored, but at least the language used in prsenting them should be cautious. For example, if details are declared in absolutes, but are un-absolute worthy, when the person checks up on the details and finds them to be unabsolute they will then say "o, s/he was wrong and irrational, perhaps it's not what it was presented as being... now I can go back to sleep".

Here is an excellent link on the Disinformation going on right now

www.truthmove.org...

One thing is clear, is that most of the disinformation sticks out like a sore thumb.

reply to post by talisman


Interesting...

Paranoia/Divide and Conquer - one of the most effective ways to destroy a group is to sow distrust among members. COINTELPRO is known to have supplied false information in order create suspicion between authentic progressive activists. Seemingly paradoxically, disinformation agents may actually promote discussion of disinformation/infiltration in order to increase paranoia. Such efforts may be targeted at creating suspicion around real and effective evidence/materials/activists.
www.truthmove.org...

Wow. I'm surprised nobody has turned this one on me

The only dividing I'm advocating is dividing the No Plane noise away form the actual "movement". The mistrust I promote is anything that is connected or said by the Establishment. I do find it harder and harder to not directly refer to No Planers such as Rick Seigel or James Fetzer as disinfo agents. How funny that that site lists Rick (who I came to the disinfo conclusion on my own, from talking to him on Myspace and observing other behavior, before I knew he was a Micronuke/No Planer) and they point out how the 9/11 Scholars site is split in half (apparently mostly thanks to Fetzers shinanigans).

Actually, once somebody did call me a "Reverse Dsinfo Agent" and that's why it's in my miniprofile. Here's my response:

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by Lexion
You sound like a reverse disinfo agent,

A "reverse disinfo" agent?

x = Info
0 / x = Disinfo = y
0 / y = Reverse Disinfo = x = Info

Thanks man, I needed that!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 9-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

IgnoranceIsntBlisss

On this link
visibility911.libsyn.com...#

William F Pepper suggests that the 9/11 truth movement be built on 'factual brick by factual brick' to deal with this Cointelpro.

In my view it is obvious and self evident what is disinformation.

For example, when someone comes out and starts talking about "NO-PLANES" I don't think to many people need to be convinced, it is clearly disinformation.

But I think many people should educate themselves on this, as I have to as well. But if we try and stick to the facts as much as possible and search for truth then no matter what I believe the right thing should prevail.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Precisely. The partisan issue is mindblowing, and is the steepest uphill. This is why I'm more catious about using the "Loos eChange arguments", because it seems to me that the more over-the-top things are presented the more likely partisan brains (especially neocon leaners) would be to discount it and move on.

Maybe now is the time to turn the tables on the partisan issue. With the elections coming up next year, it might be easier to bait neocons into pushing stories that connect Clinton, Berger, et al. into a 9/11 scenario.

For the liberal side, what needs to be done is something that will reel in their zeal for looking for ANY (i.e., easily debunked) excuse to make the republicans out to be villains. E.g., no more Rosie O'Donnell going on about how fire can't melt steel, etc.

That said, maybe focusing on Guliani sending the steel to China and India might work.

WTC7 is an interesting one, however, I'm still catious about that. I'm not saying the issues should be ignored, but at least the language used in prsenting them should be cautious. For example, if details are declared in absolutes, but are un-absolute worthy, when the person checks up on the details and finds them to be unabsolute they will then say "o, s/he was wrong and irrational, perhaps it's not what it was presented as being... now I can go back to sleep".

WTC7, imo, is the most visually dramatic, and the most under-reported event of 9/11. I have very right-wing friends who see the video of WTC7 collapsing for the first time and they go away convinced of the government being involved somehow. Plus, WTC7 will not offend anybody because there was nobody killed at WTC7. It avoids the entire subject of dealing with the missing passengers.

In any case, your points about disinfo are dead on. If there was a conspiracy involving the government, the disinfo campaign could not have been scripted any better.

The only other option I see is targeting a tiny congressional district and getting a truther to run for office for the sole purpose of stirring the pot re the 9/11 investigation. The dems imported a candidate to take out Weldon in PA. Why not run a candidate somewhere to take over a vulnerable congressional seat?

Okay, a citation then:

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
1) If the case for action over 9/11 cannot be made without demolitions, no planes, pentagon whatever, and so on... Then what case is there to begin with? If the case can be made without those things, then why even put much effort into them?

Word. You say you can prove such-and-such, and you know people will ask why. So you offer it - for empire. Ah! Then it makes sense. Reason? People already know, or suspect. But rather than explaining/clarifying that these suspicions are correct, such an approach actually taps into EXISTING but ill-defined supicions and in some cases anyway weakens them with demonstratably idiotic 'proofs." Thus such an approach is in effect a parasitic one.

2) If there was/is a 9/11 Conspiracy, then you can bet your life that the Disinfo Campaign aforementioned does exist. If this is the case, then shouldn't we be sure we follow a sort of "Occam's Razor" in regards to being careful about keeping the talking points as simple, yet powerful as possible? The point is that in this dis-infowar, it seems dangerous to go out on limbs, especially if there's solid irrefutable and undebatable talking points that are simplistic and not over-the-top.

I advise care - but also an open mind regarding the range of possibilities in such a mammoth event. I advise this on all levels. One sad thing about having to spend so much time weeding out the hologram stuff and whatever else that's overly-obvious in its stupidity, we miss the more subtle weeds that threaten even the good arguments. Even wehn talking about foreknowledge, war games, air defense 'stand-down,' and especially demolitions,
be aware if you care
there are those out there
who would lie (or at least err)
to 'truthers' ensnare.

I didn't mean to do that till halfway through

In a sense, we will never really KNOW what happened. But we can take some good guesses, right?



[edit on 10-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Robert Z: WTC7 is certainly a better case than some, and I don't mean to de-rail into specific subjects, but right there I couldn't achieve actionable consensus with that as the key plank. Maybe it's just my bias, having seen the once near-unanymous no-757-at-the-Pentagon talking points fall down like light poles smacked by the barreling obvious truth. I wonder what else might be wrong... the building was damaged fairly bad, maybe real bad, which peole seem to try their best to ignore or downplay, etc.

And part of the reason I'm cautious is I'm aware how many peoples' suspicions are vague at best, they half-think everything's fine with 9/11, and either demos or overflights might fly over their heads unless they could more clearly see
1) how plausible really?
2) why?

Therefore, regarding the evasive notion of actionable agreement, i'd say let's look at it like this:
1) Core concept of 9/11 Truth movement is in the title - we don't have the truth yet and must discover it. I think we all by default agree on this.
2) The administratiion and other elites have manipullated the tragedy for their own massive goals. The list is simply too big to bother citing - wars, patriotism, fear and compliance, etc... Even most non-truthers can see this, and it's what opens the door to...
3) They let it hapen. If there were real and legit warnings (I think some might be made up for political reasons, etc.) they were ignored. Air defenses failed bad. There were war games, leaderhip shakeups, etc... This can make much sense when we see the benefits addressed in 2)
4) Al Qaeda did it for them - CIA links, 'ignored warnings,' protection of perps/patsies, etc... selection of targets, allowance as seen above...
5) They made it happen - demos, remote control, missiles, etc. Could well be, but this is where it can get weird. I wish we could entertain all possibilities and admit some are weird but worthy, instead of PRETENDING it's all logical and proven and whatnot...

Okay, so that's kind of a progression of thinking if we were trying to approach someone not already on-board. I feel work on parts 1 and 2 first for those who can't see it, and 3 when they're ready. 4 if you think it bears mentioning, 5 if you have good reason to suspect a particular method.

If you wat to turn people off, go right to 5 from zero and just watch the lights go out. This is the most common approach around, unfortunately.

[edit on 10-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

I wasn't meaning to killt eh thread there. I just got carried away. Sorry.

IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Firstly, great post. Thought-provoking and on the money.

As for drawing up a list of 'rock-like' absolutes as a platform to press for the truth, I don't see any - do you? Almost all of our arguments are countered adequately enough to ensure some degree of ambiguity, and where they're not (as in the case with WTC-7), they soon will be.

For a long time now, anyone who's been bothered enough to read my humble contribution to this debate will know that I believe the very best way of understanding 9/11 is to take a step back and look at the bigger, historical picture. If you try to examine the detail, it soon becomes a 'can't see the wood for the trees' scenario. If you examine the major geopolitical drivers throughout history, however, the motivation and the likely means by which the opportunity was taken are clear-cut, in my view.

I don't mean to dismiss those who dedicate themselves to the study of particular aspects of 9/11 - they play a critical role in further developing peoples' understanding once they are open to the possibility that 9/11 was a conspiracy. But in order to get people to listen, I think the 'truth movement' needs to present a broader, high-level perspective.

The first question a sceptic will ask when confronted with the suggestion that 9/11 was an inside job is, "Why?"

Bombard them with the details of anomalies in the towers' collapse sequence; or errors and omissions in the recording of the flight tail numbers; or the discrepancies that appear when one analyses the alleged movements of the alleged hijackers, and they'll quickly lose interest. Alternatively, they’ll see the counter-arguments and be put off by their inability to draw a conclusion.

Talk instead about global power struggles and the emergence of US hegemony; about the way superpowers use 'agents' to do their bidding (mujahideen in Afghanistan, for example); about some extraordinary and under-reported false flag precedents (Operation Gladio and The Strategy of Tension are prime examples); and the threat that rapidly depleting global oil reserves present to countries that are oil-dependent, and people are more likely to grasp why leaders might be motivated to consider carrying out 9/11-style self-inflicted wounds.

I tried to take this approach with my blog but have since all but given up because I have suffered from the very effect your article describes - defeatism.

In sum, if you want absolute ‘rocks’ upon which to get peoples’ attention, then the closest we're going to get, for me, include Pearl Harbour (including The McCollum Memo), The Truman Doctrine, The Bretton Woods’ Agreement, Operation Gladio and the Strategy of Tension, The Great Game leading to Operation Cyclone, petrodollar recycling and Peak Oil.

I put together a series of five articles that give an introduction to these themes, if you’re interested – nothing ‘original’ as such, just a collation of apparently disparate histroical events, which really ought to be seen as intricately connected.

9/11 Truth and Division: Disinformation, Agent Provocateurs, and False Adversaries

arabesque911.blogspot.com...

Good to see you back around, CM! Wunderbar post!

Originally posted by coughymachine
As for drawing up a list of 'rock-like' absolutes as a platform to press for the truth, I don't see any - do you? Almost all of our arguments are countered adequately enough to ensure some degree of ambiguity, and where they're not (as in the case with WTC-7), they soon will be.

that sounds like a prophecy, and I suspect it'll be proven right. There is no smoking gun with 9/11. It's not that kind of case.

For a long time now, anyone who's been bothered enough to read my humble contribution to this debate will know that I believe the very best way of understanding 9/11 is to take a step back and look at the bigger, historical picture. If you try to examine the detail, it soon becomes a 'can't see the wood for the trees' scenario. If you examine the major geopolitical drivers throughout history, however, the motivation and the likely means by which the opportunity was taken are clear-cut, in my view.

Yes, I believe it's that kind of case. The idea of finding 'proof' has obscured the quite-reachable goal of opening peoples' minds to the possibility 9/11 was an inside job or, at best, allowed. Or rather, to supporting this latent suspicion that's already in many peoples' minds, and preparing them for immunity against the next attempt.

[...]in order to get people to listen, I think the 'truth movement' needs to present a broader, high-level perspective.
[...]
I tried to take this approach with my blog but have since all but given up because I have suffered from the very effect your article describes - defeatism.

Giving up in despir is never good, but there is a place for stepping back and focussing on other things if you feel your voice isn't getting the attention it deserves. I've been there, and am there and it's an old problem - what difference can each of us make? I personally dig the stuff you write and would like to see more. (Not to say I WILL read it all like I should - that's another old problem... limited time and focus).

In sum, if you want absolute ‘rocks’ upon which to get peoples’ attention, then the closest we're going to get, for me, include Pearl Harbour (including The McCollum Memo), The Truman Doctrine, The Bretton Woods’ Agreement, Operation Gladio and the Strategy of Tension, The Great Game leading to Operation Cyclone, petrodollar recycling and Peak Oil.

I put together a series of five articles that give an introduction to these themes, if you’re interested – nothing ‘original’ as such, just a collation of apparently disparate histroical events, which really ought to be seen as intricately connected.

Grand patterns of scripted (?) history, unfolding in broad daylight but too large for most to see or want to - but virtually every war this country has ever fought (as well as many major non-war events/issues/crusades) has been based on self-interest masked with manufactured crises, a sudden vicious attack by idiotic enemies that open a can of whoop-ass all over themselves. Time and again arise solid circumstantial clues and even hard evidence that each event was provoked, allowed, exaggerrated, distorted, or outright fabricated to fit the master script. Why on Earth would 9/11 be any different?

Well it is different: the precision of the attack and failed defense are unparalleled. The high-tech nature of it leads to the higher-than-usual possibility of total fabrication. The previous co-option and use of the enemy is more relevant and illustrated than in previous cases. The scale and psychological impact of it hitting so hard at America's center of muscle and business, the very forces the master script wanted to provoke into action.

All these make this event more terrifying in its implications than what's come before, necessitating, as I promote, 'vigilance and calm.' The PTB may go ahead nd do what they want anyway, but we can try to keep them from getting a mandate from a wised-up citizenry.

For a historical perspective )it's my major if I ever get back to college), I've compiled some info on the Pearl Harbor set-up here for the curious: @ The 12/7-9/11 Treadmill

Good to see you back around, CM! Wunderbar post!

Good to be back CL, and thanks.

I've kinda expanded upon my post in another thread - check out the If they planned it... WHY!? thread.

I think you're right - 9/11 is of a different order of magnitude to the political games of the past. But as I set out in the other thread, I think the nature of the game has changed. Which is why we're playing by different rules.

Whereas post-war US policy had been all about establishing its dominance on the global scene, I believe more recent policy, leading up to 9/11, was more about protecting its interests, even though that required it to extert even more influence.

If your familair with Miller Heiman strategic selling, you'll understand what I mean by way of an analogy. Pre c.1970, the US was in growth mode. Post c.1990, it's been in trouble mode. By establishing the pertodollar recycling scam in the early 70's, the US averted a major economic crisis. Now, by gaining control in the Middle East, it hopes to avert another one.