Careful With Disinfo Accusations.

Originally posted by talisman
Your whole premise is flawed. Your basically saying nothing is disinfo unless of course its the official story!

Dis info as in the purpose to hide what really happened.

I clearly stated that it was my opinion that no terrorists did 911 and so i don't force anyone to agree with me on that.

But for a government personal to introduce an inside job theory that is considered far fetched by some people is not a good way to hide the truth from people because it stills enters the concept that 911 was an inside job into our collective consciousness.

The people who looks at individual's separate opinions on certain theories and thinks that everyone who thinks 911 was an inside job believes the same theories as the individuals, is not a smart person.

The subject is subjective to no ends... there are so many theories going around as a result of individual opinions being voiced... It's impossible to take one theory and think everyone who thinks 911 is an inside job believes the same theory.

Selfless I totally agree with you.
In 2001 if you said the tower were brought down by CT they probabbly called paramedics on you. Now its a well accepted fact. In 2007 if you call for the no plane theory you are called all sorts of things. In 2010, once the no plane theory will be a common accepted fact, we will finally focus on the morphing technology used on 911. People are to closed minded right now they cannot accept it.
I have more doubts about the plane no plane theory than morphing technology and direct energy weapon used on 911.

What separates most of these disinfo theories from legitimate theories is that they do not pass the Occam's Razor test. For example, a preposterous theory such as space-based weapons will be presented to explain something that standard explosives could've explained just as easily.

Originally posted by jsobecky
So, if all 9/11 theories are speculation, then how can you say that the terrorist theory is disinfo?

Do you see what I mean?

Because the terrorists theory is in the official story and as I stated the first phrase of my thread (This is my opinion, please take it as such).

I personally believe that the official story is dis info because the purpose of it is to suite a corrupted agenda and to hide the true responsible criminals behind the act.

Then there are people who thinks 911 is an inside job and wants to expose the truth and so they do research and come up with individual independent theories on how it was accomplished as a result of looking at multiple evidence and so this is in the realm of subjective opinions, not dis info purposes.

I hope i could clear things up jsobecky.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
What separates most of these disinfo theories from legitimate theories is that they do not pass the Occam's Razor test. For example, a preposterous theory such as space-based weapons will be presented to explain something that standard explosives could've explained just as easily.

I really don't think these theories are put in place by the government to discredit the truth movement....

There is no way that someone can look at that theory and think that millions of people believes it.

This is the result of individual research into evidence and putting forth a independent individual opinionated theory in the collective stream of thoughts.

SUBJECTIVELY.

Originally posted by selfless
The following is my opinion, please take it as such.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's obvious by now that no terrorists did 911...

So now people know this and they are trying to figure out how it was done.

When someone introduces a theory in the realm of 911 being an inside job, people will call them disinfo if they don't agree with the theory...

This is getting ridiculous to say the least. Why can't people be open to all possibilities on how 911 was done. There are multiple evidence that suggests all kinds of theories so how can a theory be a disinfo?

The disinfo is the official story, that's about as far as disinfo can go...

You can't have disinfo if the theory is still saying 911 was an inside job. All theories on how 911 was done are speculations at this point so how is it possible to single out a theory and stamp it disinfo? It can't...

Disinfo's purpose is to hide who did the crime to the population, not say that 911 was an inside job but hide how it was done. That's like admitting to a crime but tell the police that you used a sword instead of a knife...

Simply, you can't have a disinfo if the theory still says that 911 was an inside job because the purpose of disinfo is to sway the populations that 911 was done by terrorists. Any theories that suggests inside job no matter what the claim on how it was achieved is the resulting manifestation of individuals who are doing research and putting up theories on how it was done.

These are not disinfo, but speculations and researching...

I'm not with the government and i could come up with a theory right now on how 911 was done and tell others about it.Someone might say that i am a disinfo agent but yet all i did was theorize on possibilities of methods that 911 was created and not be a disinfo agent at all...

Be careful with these disinfo accusations... The accusations them selves might be the resulting end of awareness on 911, not the actual theories that were stamped disinfo......

[edit on 3-6-2007 by selfless]

I think you are an Al Qaeda disinfo rep.

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Your thread is titled "careful with disinfo accusations," which is reasonable enough. But in reality you seem to be saying here that, BY DEFINITION, no such thing as disinfo from within the movement exists. With all due respect, that's a pretty silly thing to say. Or am I misreading?

Well what i meant is,

If a person is open minded he will not limit him self to one theory only and so the dis info label resides on the person who perceives the information, not the information it self.

I see some people accuse other people of having dis info purpose as a result of not agreeing with the persons theory, i think that's a dangerous trend and turns finding truth into trying to be right.

People should not judge the 911 events based on the people who speaks about it, is what I'm saying.

I personally don't have a problem if innocent people with no nefarious motives get labeled as a disinfo agent simply because they didn't do their homework. Don't wanna get labeled as a DA? Well, then you should do your homework. But I think more often than not posters of illegitimate theories ARE NOT innocent. Take John Lear, for instance. Everything about him seems to suggest he is a highly educated individual. Nevertheless, he's been in the habit lately of posting things (i.e. "Remote viewers told me Venus is like Earth, who cares if it goes completely against what we know about Venus and I don't have any hard evidence, I'll believe them!") that he can't possibly believe.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Naw. There is no realistic possibility that ‘terrorists’ rigged WTC-7 for demolition. So, 9-11 HAS to have been an inside job. No ifs, whens and buts. All that’s left to argue about is how it was done.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Why is there no realistic possibility? How do you know that the WTC-7 cleaning and security crews were not all Al Qaeda operatives? How is that any more unbelievable than them all being government agents?

Originally posted by talisman
I have the right to call CGI-cartoon effects on 9/11 disinfo as well.
[edit on 4-6-2007 by talisman]

Actually, I think you should read ADVISOR'S post.

You can call the cgi theory miss information based on your personal opinion but you have no way to prove that the theory was put forth by the government so this means you can't call it dis info.

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by talisman
I have the right to call CGI-cartoon effects on 9/11 disinfo as well.
[edit on 4-6-2007 by talisman]

Actually, I think you should read ADVISOR'S post.

You can call the cgi theory miss information based on your personal opinion but you have no way to prove that the theory was put forth by the government so this means you can't call it dis info.

First, disinformation exists! Just look at this link: www.ihr.org... or flashback to government engineered disinfo in the runup to the Iraq War. Second, while DA is probably never 100% provable, the likelihood of it being operative can be demonstrated if the poster of an unbelievable theory works or has worked for the government and/or he is an educated individual who shouldn't believe what they are posting.

uberarcanist,

If you want to assume someone has dis info purposes think of a person who signs up to a conspiracy message board just to come on here and embrace the official story and insult conspiracy theorists.

These conflict of interests are quite unbelievable.

Like, why would a person waste his time coming into a place just to insult people?

A conspiracy theory forum is for people who embrace conspiracy theories... not for someone who just believes the official government story. (MY opinion)

PS: An analogy to explain what i mean...

A person who comes on here to insult conspiracies or conspiracy theorists is no different then a person who goes on a vegan message board to talk about hunting or to insult vegans.

I think this type of person is possibly a dis info agent.(My opinion only)


[edit on 4-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Ahabstar
The Official Story is Theory.

The official story is fact. No one has proven anything otherwise.

[edit on 6/4/2007 by FlyersFan]

Well there is another example of omission while typing. It should read that the offical story is a theory. In fact it is a working theory presented by the government to guide their actions.

It is commonly acepted that most of OBL's anger towards the US is that we operated out of Saudi Arabia. Rationally he should be just as angery with the Saudi royal family. It could be that he is just bitter about being "fired" by the CIA and is just a disgruntled former employee.

The offical story puts full blame on OBL for pulling off 9/11, but since then we discovered that KSM was the mastermind. Not a radical departure as he was associated with OBL, but was never part of the original offical story.

In OBL's tapes, I have to accept on faith that the translated subtitles are correct. Since I know no arabic languages, OBL could be talking about wanting to go to Disneyland, ride Space Mountain and have an ice cream afterwards. But I doubt that is what he is talking about. However, it could just be a "bible study" on Mohammad's teachings and verses in the Koran.

Ultimately OBL might not have had anything to do with 9/11, but after the fall of the Taliban and being forced into hiding it is a good bet that he considers himself involved now. That is, if he is still alive. It has been some time since we heard anything. He could be laying low about to spring something new or might be dead.

One thing I did notice while looking at some ABC footage was an interview between Peter Jennings and a top terrorist expert was that he mentioned that terrorist activity worldwide had been very low just before 9/11. I think that could be a foretelling sign in the future. So long as we keep having foiled terror plots then terrorists are active. It is the quiet that will get my attention.

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Your thread is titled "careful with disinfo accusations," which is reasonable enough. But in reality you seem to be saying here that, BY DEFINITION, no such thing as disinfo from within the movement exists. With all due respect, that's a pretty silly thing to say. Or am I misreading?

Well what i meant is,

If a person is open minded he will not limit him self to one theory only and so the dis info label resides on the person who perceives the information, not the information it self.

I see some people accuse other people of having dis info purpose as a result of not agreeing with the persons theory, i think that's a dangerous trend and turns finding truth into trying to be right.

People should not judge the 911 events based on the people who speaks about it, is what I'm saying.

So what should a regular. rounded US citiz en do for the truth? Who do you feel they should listen to? Should they start at PrisonPlanet or Debunking911.com?

The first place to start is the 9/11 commision report. I shake my head when someone seays that it is a Bush and Co document that means nothing. Actually, it totally destroyed the credibility of our intelligence departments clear back to the early 90's, and they admitted to it. If you look at the report in that fashion, you are not open minded. Start there. Then buy a few books from the left AND the right, and put the common ground together. In there you will find the truth.

Terrorists perputrated 9/11. They trained for years. It was a catastrophic intel failure and nothing more. Our country gained nothing from 9/11, nor the did administration except failing poll numbers 5 years later.

There is so much information out there, that it still puzzles me that people believe anything other than what really happened. Notice I did not say the official story, but what happened. Disinfo makes you concentrate on one thing and not expand to find truth. Think about that for a minute.

Originally posted by esdad71
Disinfo makes you concentrate on one thing and not expand to find truth. Think about that for a minute.

Yes and that's exactly what the official story is designed to do.

Couldn't have said it better my self.


[edit on 4-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless
If you want to assume someone has dis info purposes think of a person who signs up to a conspiracy message board just to come on here and embrace the official story and insult conspiracy theorists.

Interesting thread selfless...and a worthwhile conversation.

I will call you out on the above statement though, because I think it is a great example of attaching nefarious meaning to completely innocent actions.

I originally signed up on ATS because I wanted to talk about Bigfoot. I am fascinated by cryptozoology and I saw that forum as a GREAT way to spend my time when I should be working.

Out of curiousity one time, I clicked on a 9/11 thread. Within a month I needed the 9/11 forum like CRACK.

ATS is a VERY large site that addresses many topics, and every single forum here is filled with believers and skeptics (aliens, paranormal, crypto, etc.).

To take a perfectly innocent web-surfer who happens to be intrigued by the 9/11 discussion and label them a disinfo agent simply because they disagree with you is exactly the type of judgement that is damaging the progress of the Truth movement.

It's taking the actions of an individual and MANUFACTURING their MOTIVES to fit your purpose.

This is a bad idea whether you're talking about Osama, George Bush, NORAD, Larry Silverstein, or a new poster on ATS. Question someone's facts. If they cling to their facts once you have, without a doubt, proven them to be incorrect...THEN question their motives.

Not to throw stones...I jump to conclusions all the time...but it's simply a horrible way to put together a rock-solid theory that would hold up in a court of law. And, in the end, isn't that the goal here?

No no, i didn't mean that everyone who believes the official story is a dis info agent.

I meant that if there are any dis info agents they will most likely embrace the official story ( My opinion )

And also those who insults conspiracy theorists are more likely to be dis info agents (In my opinion again)

Sorry if i was not clear on that point.

Edit: I think i should have said: Those who come on here just to insult conspiracy theorists are more likely to be trolls.

That makes more sense.

[edit on 4-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless
This is getting ridiculous to say the least. Why can't people be open to all possibilities on how 911 was done.

Sure, but after something has been debunked 6 ways to sunday it's time to let it go. I've observed you do this and derail at least one of my threads for some 3+ pages with ad hominem flame attacks for debunking your treasured nuke melted the cars theory.

There are multiple evidence that suggests all kinds of theories so how can a theory be a disinfo?

Your logical error is that disinfo is only the disinformative "official version". That by definition counts as disinfo. But that's not all there is to Disinfo. To grasp this you should take note that Modern American Propaganda is the science of persuasion AND diversion.

The disinfo is the official story, that's about as far as disinfo can go...

I think you missed this one, but I had you and a few others in mind when I wrote it:
ATS as a Disinfo-Agents Tool (Understanding Disinfo)
(How NOT to be a disinfo agent)

A Disinfo Agent's purpose is to disrupt and divert. When one unwittngly taakes on this role they in effect become the unsuspectng tools of any would-be disinfo agent.

You can't have disinfo if the theory is still saying 911 was an inside job.

That sentence doesn't even make sense.

All theories on how 911 was done are speculations at this point so how is it possible to single out a theory and stamp it disinfo? It can't...

Quite the contrary. There are scores of theories which have been solidly debunked (nukes melted the cars, pods under the planes, hologram jets, etc). These are what we would call classic disinfo theories that are easily debunkable yet there still seems to be fountainheads that push these insane theories to disrupt the ovement and make people look like fools. Even if they didn't originate from diversionary disinfo sources, they're still perfect under the diversionary disinfo model, and those who continue to push and disrupt with them are unwittingly tools of diversion.

uberachanist and selfless,

By using your combined logic then I must be the head spook of all time that makes Hoover look like a crossdressing fool.

In my younger years I met many politicans especially in 1988, I did a few acting gigs that were partially funded by state and federal money. Was friends with many counselors and psychologists that worked for the state. I even recieved training from them. Later in life I was a truck driver and worked for a company that hauled ammo, money and other things for the government. I never personally had any such load that I know about, but could have.

At a prior job I would often deliver to bulk mail facilities and trust me, have jumped less hoops going onto Jacksonville NAS during the ramp up for the first gulf war than getting into some postal facilities. Like Dallas, Atlanta, Cincinnati and Jacksonville.

Many people on here would say that all I do is debunk ideas and theories. Of course that might have something to do with there being no firm connection to reality in some of those ideas and I will sometimes challenge an idea that is fairly good by playing devil's advocate sometimes pro and sometimes con. In some posts that have their own little flame war starting I try to take the high ground and inject some much needed humor instead of just saying to settle down...oddly enough those are the posts that are applauded by staff members.

So I guess it depends on your personal feeling as to if I am a paid disinfo agent or just a guy with reasonable thoughts that can sometimes be a pain in the butt. But I can tell you I have seen what I thought was a UFO, have had many paranormal experiences and currently believe that the Truth Movement is about to sink itself by accepting nearly everything that anyone can think up and get 5 people to agree with them.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
uberachanist and selfless,

By using your combined logic then I must be the head spook of all time that makes Hoover look like a crossdressing fool.

I don't know what that means...

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by Ahabstar
uberachanist and selfless,

By using your combined logic then I must be the head spook of all time that makes Hoover look like a crossdressing fool.

I don't know what that means...

Oh, do you mean that we must think you are a dis info agent?

Well I don't think you are.