9/11: Dårlig info, propaganda og desinformasjon i Norge

Hvorfor holde oss til det vi vet, når vi kan gjette oss til det vi ikke vet?

9/11-sannhet i Norge er i ferd med å drukne i spekulasjon, feilinfo og regelrett desinfo. Ikke bare fra MSMs og Skepsis.nos side, men også fra såkalte sannhetssøkere.

Tåkeprat og svadateorier er uhyre skadelig for sannhetens fremmarsj. Hvilket ofte er intensjonen.

The result is the same; the truth is obstructed with “misleading” information. How can we tell if someone is intentionally trying to mislead us? Is intent relevant? Not if the truth about 9/11 can be obfuscated by any misleading arguments regardless of intent. We do not need to distinguish intent to show that misinformation and disinformation equally harm our ability to discern the truth. Therefore, we should equally understand and combat both misinformation and disinformation.

“Does their speculation get us any closer toward building a nationwide political movement and arresting the 9-11 plotters? Or is it a divisive strawman that will isolate us from the mainstream media and average Americans? … Suddenly it appears the controlled demolition, WTC 7, NORAD stand down, hijacking drills, war games, ‘Angel is Next’ call to Bush, living hijackers, double-agent hijackers, CIA insider put options, and ‘al-Qaeda’ links to Anglo-American intelligence are not enough. Now every researcher has their own pet theory about no planes, no hijackers, no phone calls, no Pentagon Boeing, and no flight 93 crash (they claim it landed it Cleveland and the wreckage in Shanksville was, you guessed it, planted).”

Dette er en liten liste over norske 9/11-nettsteder med dårlig info.

• 9/11 Truth Norway - ingen-fly-ved-Pentagon (“hullet var for lite”-teori) og
  sivilingeniør med “bomber i kjelleren” isteden for squibs, etc …

• Xiandos info - side med desinfo/feilinfo, ugrunnede personangrep, etc …

• Rolf Kenneth - conspiratainment; desinfo/feilinfo i monn

• Berit Ås / PK Gruppen - samme som Rolf Kenneth …

Mer om de overnevntes, Skepsis-folkets og MSMs teorier / propaganda in a jiffy …

Cosmos intervjuer Jim Hoffman om desinformasjon

Hoffman: I think it’s useful to put it in a little broader context… if you look at the history of disruption in [other movements] in the past, the disinformation component isn’t as large or as important as it is in the case of 9/11… articles about COINTELPRO list… infiltration, psychological warfare, harassment through the legal system, extra-legal force and violence—those are the types of tactics that were more prominent in those operations. With 9/11… the facts of the attack are so important just disinformation… takes on a much bigger component… the main [purpose of this disinformation] is to ridicule sceptics of the official story. It becomes less viable to do really nasty things like killing people… that would actually give us more credibility. That puts all the more emphasis on the necessity to muck things up by promoting false theories, bad information, muddying the waters—all kinds of disruption to create a hostile environment in which rational critique is not possible… shrouding the verifiable evidence, clear case for an inside job—a key component of the cover-up of 9/11. . . .

• To viktige Pentagon-spørsmål

Det er på tide å skru på bullshitdetektoren, folkens. Å hoppe fra den ene dårlige teorien til den andre er ikke fremskritt.

Disinformation Distracts and Discredits - a field guide to how disinformation is used by the government

“One of the primary means of immobilizing the American people politically today is to hold them in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed and nothing can be known… nothing of significance, that is.”

– E. Martin Schotz, “History Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, and the Murder of President Kennedy”

OilEmpire.us: Disinformation Distracts and Discredits - a field guide to how disinformation is used by the government

One means that Empires use to deflect effective criticism of their crimes is to control both sides of a debate. As the United States population has become more savvy about official conspiracies against democracy, especially with the rise of the internet, efforts to misdirect government and corporate critics have also accelerated. This page links to discussions that describe this tactic.

No Planes on 9/11: hoax history

Mark Rabinowitz, OilEmpire.us: The Complete “No Planes on 9/11″ Timeline

The “no Boeing hit the Pentagon” claim is the most important and widespread 9/11 hoax. It was probably set up before the event since government agents seized surveillance camera videos within minutes of the crash (which is tentative evidence for foreknowledge, but not for “no plane”). It is extremely likely that the conspirators who allowed (and assisted) 9/11 would have created misdirecting hoaxes before the “attack,” since they are aware that segments of the population would have suspicions about the events and therefore they would “need” to disrupt skeptical inquiry with red herrings, hoaxes, false dichotomies, etc.

The “no plane” claim is based on misrepresentation of photos taken shortly after the crash, ignoring of physical evidence and documented reports from hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the plane.

There is NO credible, verifiable evidence in support of ANY of the many and varied “theories” pretending that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, and therefore, 9/11 was an inside job. . . .

To viktige Pentagon-spørsmål

“A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or ‘dangle’ that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association”

–- Michael Ruppert

. . . to create a honeypot to easily blow us out of the water when it becomes necessary with one fell swoop — just play the video of AA77 hitting the Pentagon all over the news stations over and over and over, and combine it with clips of notable members claiming a plane never could have hit there. . . .

– Victronix

Mange liker mentalgym av det spekulative slaget. Hvilket ikke bare er unyttig. Faktisk er spekulasjon avgjørende for å komme frem til en teori. Man spekulerer frem en teori på basis av (alle) tilgjengelige empiriske data. Passer alle data teorien, er den god. Passer de ikke, er den dårlig. Spekulativ.

Teorier om hva som traff - eller ikke traff - Pentagon er i stor grad basert på spekulasjon. Av det unødvendige slaget. Og nesten bare det. Har man ikke forstått det nå - i 2008 - kan et par runder i de indre topplokkgemakker være en fin ting.

Synsinger rundt angrepet har en tendens til å drukne (minst) to viktige spørsmål.

1. Hvordan kunne noe i det hele tatt treffe Pentagon? Verdens heftigste militærmakt kan ikke forsvare sitt eget hovedkvarter? Grunnet tilfeldighet eller inkompetanse??
2. Hvorfor vil Bush-administrasjonen at vi skal tro at de skjuler noe? Hvorfor kan de ikke frigi video som viser AA77 treffe Pentagon? Vi vet de har film. Vil de at vi skal spekulere?

“They have spent $13 trillion tax dollars since the end of WWII on this military/intelligence complex, and it cannot protect its own headquarters?… How were they allowed to come into the most restricted air space in the world with no challenge or defense? That is the question that answers both when Bush knew in advance and begs any rational response.”

–John Judge

“…making 9/11 complicity dependent on the no-plane claim was a brilliant tactic to discredit the real evidence for people inside the Beltway (Washington DC), both for the majority who vote against Bush and the political / military elites (especially the military officers who saw the plane crash or the plane debris)”

- OilEmpire.us om Pentagon

Michael Moore: Vis oss filmene!

• Sofistikert psykologisk operasjon, eller fantastisk tryllekunst?

Psykologisk operasjon:

Planlagt operasjon hvor nøye utvalgt informasjon plantes hos spesifikke [utenlandske] mottakere med henblikk på å påvirke deres følelser, motiver, sunne fornuft, og i siste instans hvordan myndigheter, organisasjoner, grupper og individer forholder seg.

Vi trenger ikke ingen-fly-ved-Pentagon for å bevise innsidejobb. Det er bortkastet å spekulere over ting som ikke fører noensteds hen. Og som fjerner energi og fokus fra andre langt viktigere tema. For eksempel ordentlige bevis.

***

John Judge er fra Washington DC - “inside the Beltway” - og burde kjenne topografien i Pentagonområdet bedre enn folk utenfor DC. Hvorfor topografien er viktig? Vel, er det nær på paddeflatt og åpent, ville f.eks. et missil istenden for AA77 være nokså risky butikk. PentaCons overflyvningsteori også. Det er flatt og åpent i DC-området. Et menneske med fotoapparat på rett sted til rett tid, og løgnen hadde vært avslørt. Sannsynlig risiko å ta? Neppe.

Judge har også bekjente som var vitner til hendelsen.

Noen gode Judge-artikler:

• Flight of Fantasy: Flight 77 Didn’t Hit the Pentagon [http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/f77FoF.html]

• The Pentagon Attack and American Airlines Flight 77 [http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/PAandAAF77.html]

• Pentagon and P-56 Preparations and Defenses and the Stand-Down on 9/11
  [http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/P56A.html]

My father, John Joseph Judge was a WWII Army Air Corps veteran and had been a cryptographer assigned overseas. He worked as a civilian at the Pentagon after his return from the war until his death in 1965. My mother and my aunt both worked there as civilian employees beginning in 1943 until they retired. I grew up visiting the offices of my parents, and spending time at the Pentagon library. When the weather was nice, we would all often arrange to buy some food at the canteen and walk outside into the central courtyard area to sit and eat lunch together. When I was 10 or 11, to the best of my memory, which means 1957 or 58, I recall going outside and sitting down on a silver metal box. My father told me to get off of it. When I asked why he said it was a surface to air missile. (I could be off by 2-3 years on this recollection, but it was certainly before 1961). (Emphasis added)

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don’t know
We don’t know.

– Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 12, 2002,
Department of Defense news briefing

SannhetssøkingsTips

Noe jeg har lært:

• Stol ikke blindt på noen. Begynner stødige folk plutselig å ytre mambo-jambo, styr unna og si ifra.
• Ikke påstå at Bush-administrasjonen står bak 9/11 fordi du har sett det på film. Ikke tro på TV Fakery fordi du har sett det på film, eller lest om det i Le Monde Diplomatique.
• Gjør din egen research. Snakker du om ting du ikke har greie på fungerer du egentlig som en portvokter. Stikk i strid med intensjonen. Forhåpentligvis. Det er bedre å si for lite, enn for mye.
• Gjør din egen research så du vet når folk snakker tøv.
• Gjør din egen research så vet du hvem som snakker sant.
• Bli skeptisk når såkalte prominente skikkelser i “Bevegelsen” - mer eller mindre - aggressivt pusher ingen-fly-ved-Pentagon, som om ingen-fly-teorien er opplest og vedtatt (som for eksempel David Ray Griffin). Den er ikke det. Mer om det snart.
• Studer tema som desinformasjon, COINTELPRO og psykologiske operasjoner (psy-op). Avgjørende for å forstå cover-up-mekanismene. Det er umulig å forsvare seg mot noe en ikke vet hva er.
• Ikke vær kritisk til agnostikere. Alle, og da mener jeg virkelig alle, burde ha en agnostisk holdning til hva som egentlig hendte. Vi vet at den offisielle konspirasjonsteorien ikke er korrekt. Vi vet at det er behov for en ny etterforskning. Men vi vet ikke eksakt hva som hendte.
• Bli kritisk når folk går for langt i det de sier, de vet akkurat hva som skjedde osv. Dette er også en form for portvokting. Det psykologiske spranget mellom Matrix og en eller annen ukjent og overdimensjonert sinnssyk verden kan fort bli stort. For stort.
• Ikke bland 9/11 med Illuminati, UFO osv. Nok en form for portvokting, uavhengig av om det er intensjonelt. Vanlig latterliggjørings- og tåkeleggingsteknikk.
• Avstå i størst mulig grad fra sterk språkbruk overfor meningsmotstandere. Drøy konfrontasjon skaper bare splid og barrierer, samt alle-piggene-ut-oppførsel. Lett å stikke seg.
• Ikke spam kommentarfelt. Folk leser det ikke allikevel. Mange blir også irritert. Kommentarer er flott, men ikke utallige A4-sider med copy og paste på engelsk.
• Si ifra når folk snakker tull over tid. Ta avstand.
• Si ifra når folk snakker tull over tid. Ta avstand.
• Si ifra når folk snakker tull over tid. Ta avstand.
• Si ifra når folk snakker tull over tid. Ta avstand.
• Si ifra når folk snakker tull over tid. Ta avstand.
• Vær så snill å si ifra. Man avvæpner dem da.

Free speech is always the rallying cry for attacks and disinfo. We aren’t in the business of free speech, we’re trying to expose a cover-up and the other side have lots and lots and lots of free or paid time to abuse everyone if we let them.

- Victoria Ashley

Hvor mye skade hadde Berit Ås og PK Gruppen påført 9/11-sannhet i Norge om alle sa ifra og tok avstand? Vi ville iallefall ikke blitt redusert til - i manges øyne - en gjeng med ukritiske tullebukker.

A Must Read by John Judge: Not all conspiracies are created equal

John Judge: Not all conspiracies are created equal

You get the details of the first three right, but then I doubt you did your own homework to get there. The ballistics don’t work in the MLK case either, and the rifle Ray purchased was not the murder weapon. Then again, just because someone tells you the government is lying to you it doesn’t mean they are telling you the truth. Especially not some French novel writer concocting a fantasy about what happened on 9/11 at the Pentagon.

(…)

How do I know Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? First, local news immediately interviewed and broadcast eyewitness accounts of the plane going in. I have since interviewed many local people who watched the plane and even ducked as it flew so low overhead. …

(…)

Not all “conspiracies” are created equal. The government did kill JFK, and they lied about it. That does not mean there was never a Holocaust, or that the world is run by the Illuminati. The blindness of Chomsky and the other left structuralists is that they make the class out to be monolithic and without mechanisms to carry out its will. …

(…)

Until we know, we cannot act. And if we act on rumor and impulse then we are no less a slave than those who live in the denial that the propaganda machines promote. So, be cynical and question things, but be analytical and scientific so you can approach the truth when you speak. …

About John Judge

“You can call me a conspiracy theorist,
if you call everyone else a coincidence theorist.
I prefer to say I’m an alternate historian.”

- John Judge

In Unity towards Stupidity: Berit Ås sprer 9/11-desinformasjon, “sannhetssøkerene” ikke så opptatt av sannhet allikevel

“Den mest forræderske måte å skade en sak på, er å med vilje forsvare den med falske argumenter.”

- Friedrich Nietzsche

“Får de deg til å stille feil spørsmål, behøver de ikke bekymre seg for svar.”

- Thomas Pynchon, Jr.

*** *** ***

BERIT ÅS sprer (beviselig) desinformasjon, og “skeptikerenes” tastatur går naturlig nok varme:

Berit Vås rir igjen

SV-nestor: USA stod bak 9-11

USA-hat som drivkraft

“Til sammenligning er det tilsynelatende ingen ledende SVere som er uenige i teorien om at Bush-administrasjonen stod bak terrorangrepene 11. september.”

Her snakker vi ikke bare om “teorien om at Bush-administrasjonen stod bak”, men også at terroren (les: bedraget) ble gjennomført ved hjelp av bla. videomanipulasjon og energistråler fra verdensrommet.

Sterk kost i diskusjonsforeningen

Tviler på 9/11

BERIT ÅS sprer desinformasjon, latterliggjør og ødelegger, men fraskriver seg ethvert ansvar:

- Jeg presiserer at dette ikke er mine egne påstander, det er gjengivelser av de spørsmål som har blitt reist av andre. Jeg har ikke tatt noe standpunkt i denne saken, jeg ønsker kun å stille spørsmålene, sier Ås til Nettavisen.

Hacks And Spooks - Close Encounters Of A Strange Kind

Richard Keeble, medialens.org: Hacks And Spooks - Close Encounters Of A Strange Kind

While it might be difficult to identify precisely the impact of the spooks (variously represented in the press as “intelligence”, “security”, “Whitehall” or “Home Office” sources) on mainstream politics and media, from the limited evidence it looks to be enormous.

As Roy Greenslade, media specialist at the Telegraph (formerly the Guardian), commented: “Most tabloid newspapers - or even newspapers in general - are playthings of MI5.” Bloch and Fitzgerald, in their examination of covert UK warfare, report the editor of “one of Britain’s most distinguished journals” as believing that more than half its foreign correspondents were on the MI6 payroll. And in 1991, Richard Norton-Taylor revealed in the Guardian that 500 prominent Britons paid by the CIA and the now defunct Bank of Commerce and Credit International, included 90 journalists. (Emphasis added/uthevelse tilføyet)

(…)

***

En annen aktuell artikkel:

After leaving The Washington Post in 1977, Carl Bernstein spent six months looking at the relationship of the CIA and the press during the Cold War years. His 25,000-word cover story, published in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977, is reprinted below.

THE CIA AND THE MEDIA

How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up

http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

Videoserie: Media, CIA, FBI & desinformasjon

Kilde: Reprehensor’s Blog

***

MLK Conspiracy Trial: William Schaap gives expert, informed testimony on the US Government’s use of the media to disseminate disinformation via the FBI and CIA.

MLK Conspiracy Trial Transcript:

Testimony of Mr. William Schaap

***

William Schaap - The Media, CIA, FBI & Disinfo. (Part 2/8)

“[During WW II] Disinformation was a powerful and valuable weapon for a country to have… the disadvantages of lying to the American people were outweighed by the advantages of being able to manipulate the media… the OSS was transformed into the CIA… and existed in peace time… with disinformation as a major part of its work… in fact, THE largest single part of the CIA’s operations.”

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

***

William Schaap: Attorney. Graduated from the University of Chicago Law School in 1964. Has been a practicing lawyer since then. A member of the bar of the State of New York and of the District of Columbia. Specialized in the 1970’s in military law. Practiced military law in Asia and Europe. later became the editor in chief of the Military Law Reporter in Washington for a number of years. In the 70’s and 80’s he was a staff counsel of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City. In the late 1980’s was an adjunct professor at John J. College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York where I taught courses on propaganda and disinformation.
Since 1977 or ‘78, in addition to being a practicing lawyer, was a journalist and a publisher and a writer specializing in intelligence-related matters and particularly their relationship to the media.

Kevin Barrett’s Support for 9/11 Disinformation

Arabesque: 9/11 Truth: Kevin Barrett

Kevin Barrett is a prominent 9/11 activist. While he has significantly contributed awareness for the 9/11 truth movement, he has also damaged its credibility with damaging associations, discrediting theories, and controversial statements.

Barrett has supported 9/11 disinformation conferences such as The Science and the Politics of 9/11: What’s Controversial, What’s Not? [1] On 911blogger Barrett promoted this conference with the plea to “Join the cutting edge of the movement to save our planet.”[2] As Jim Hoffman observes, “Jim Fetzer’s conference in Madison in August of 2007… included Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood, Dave Von Kleist, Barbara Honegger, and others, and featured conclusively debunked theories, such as hologram planes and Tower-vaporizing space beam weapons.”

(…)

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

From the Resonant Resurrections Dept: This wise little version of “Cover-ups for Dummies” has been floating on the Net since the late ’90s at least. Given the government/media handling of 9/11, the resulting wars, and recent electoral fraud it often seems our top officials must read it everyday. If we’re to bring the truth alive (…) it may help to occasionally remind ourselves how the pros play the game.

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

Desinformasjon

“In the information society, bad information drives out good information. The proliferation of misinformation causes the dilution of good, factual information. Valuable information on actual cover-ups, for instance, is discredited when other alleged, but non-factual and misleading, conspiracy theories are given undue currency. In short, bad conspiracy theories discredit all assertions of conspiracy, making for fertile ground in which actual conspiracies thrive.” (Emphasis added/uthevelse tilføyet)

www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/08-23-2004/facts.htm

“It should go without saying that an investigation of a conspiracy like 9/11 will always a two-front war against disinformation. On one side are the gatekeepers pursuing a limited hangout. On the other side are crackpots and disinfo agents pushing bogus, discrediting evidence. Weeding out bogus claims is neither gatekeeping nor censorship but an absolutely critical activity.” (Emphasis added/uthevelse tilføyet)

- Eric Salter, A Critical Review of WTC ‘No Plane’ Theories

“Disinformation, in order to be effective, must be 90% accurate.”

- Peter Dale Scott

*** *** ***

“It’s not a matter of what is true that counts but a matter of what is perceived to be true.”
- Henry Kissinger

Big Media and The New World Order: The Murdoch Empire

by Stephen Lendman

Global Research, February 7, 2008

For Big Media, truth is a scarce commodity and in times of war it’s the first casualty, or as esteemed journalist John Pilger noted: “Journalism (not truth) is the first casualty (of war). Not only that: it(’s)….a weapon of war (by its) virulent censorship….by omission (and its) power….can mean….life and death for people in faraway countries, such as Iraq.”

Famed journalist George Seldes put it another way by condemning the “prostitution of the press” in an earlier era when he covered WW I, the rise of fascism, and most major world and national events until his death in 1995 at age 104. He also confronted the media in books like “Lords of the Press.” In it and others, he condemned their corruption, suppression of the truth, and news censorship before the television age, and said “The most sacred cow of the press is the press itself, (and the press is) the most powerful force against the general welfare of the majority of the people.”

Orwell also knew a thing or two about truth and said telling it is a “revolutionary act in times of universal deceit. ” Much else he said applies to the man this article addresses and the state of today’s media. He was at his allegorical best in “Animal Farm” where power overwhelms freedom, and “All animals are equal but some….are more equal than others.” And he observed in “Nineteen Eighty-Four” that “Those who control the present control the future (and) Those who control the future control the past.”

Today’s media barons control the world as opinion makers. Like in Orwell’s world, they’re our national thought control police gatekeepers sanitizing news so only the cleansed residue portion gets through with everything people want most left out - the full truth all the time. They manipulate our minds and beliefs, program our thoughts, divert our attention, and effectively destroy the free marketplace of ideas essential to a healthy democracy they won’t tolerate.