Who’s That Messing With Your Head?

“Trust everyone but count the cards” is something my parents taught me, but all too often I forgot the counting bit. I’m very trusting by nature. Even though I’ve studied theoretical physics in my younger days (never finished, moved on to other studies, but that’s another story), and have a rather analytical mind – my natural tendency is to believe. Not uncritically, mind you, but nevertheless I trust everyone by default.

thought controlAnd so I believed the official 9/11 cover story in spite of my initial incredulity over what happened, and it took me at least 5 years to realize that something’s not right after all. All it took, at the time, was revisiting the subject and watching a documentary about it. Subsequently, in an effort to preserve my sanity, I started devouring dozens of websites, articles and documentaries about it and – not having the time to do my OWN research – again I believed.

I believed that the intentions of the producers of these various feature films and articles were honorable and their aim was to get to The Truth. Even when I disagreed with any given film’s conclusions or inferences, I continued to believe that its author’s search for truth was genuine.

Growing Up

My first encounter with what even my trusting nature (cautiously at first) labelled as “disinformation” came when I watched some documentary clips featuring one Dimitri Khalezov, an alleged former KGB agent who confidently stated that WTC towers were brought down by a small nuke pre-planted in the basement. At first, I believed him! His story was very compelling and, for a while I thought, highly credible. This is where knowing all the FACTS would have come in handy.

khalezovBut when I heard him accuse some of the most famous 9/11 Truth activists of being disinformation agents – not even having a single kind word to say about even the likes of Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones or any others – I was taken aback.

I wanted to believe Khalezov and his intentions, but it so happened that I had no doubts about the legitimacy of the researchers whom he so viciously savaged and I simply couldn’t agree with his characterizations. Had he said “they’re misguided, but decent people” – he MIGHT have had me. Instead, I started looking at his “evidence” much more deeply and it only took minutes to find the multiple – deliberate – holes.

I was now aware that some people either purposefully or accidentally mislead – and thus discredit – the 9/11 Truth Movement. But even so, I continued to embrace even the wildest theories as “not entirely implausible” even when deep down I knew they had to be wrong. That’s the problem with people who see too many grey areas!

alien scientistThe next time I stumbled on accusations of “deliberate disinfo” was when I was watching Alien Scientist’s videos on 9/11. By that time, I’ve learned to become much more critical and discerning, remembering my mindset from the long bygone years of my uni studies. Alien Scientist’s logic and arguments convinced me beyond any shadow of doubt that he at least IS the real deal. That’s because his analysis squares perfectly with logic and physics – and I’ve come to many of the same conclusions myself, even if my own preparation and research were nowhere near the quality of his. But then I heard that he referred to other 9/11 videos as blatant disinfo (all the “no planes” ones for starters, but also a few others, like Judy Wood’s EMP weapons, etc.

ace bakerNow, it’s been a long while since I’ve studied some of those videos or articles so I felt I needed to re-investigate. I had no problem rejecting the “no planers” as wrong. As much as I otherwise liked the quality of, say, Ace Baker’s documentary (who also almost-almost had me going for a while), even I could see it was shaky in its fundamental assertion (no planes) – once I gave it deeper thought. But I wasn’t so sure about some of these other videos and websites that Alien Scientist so sneeringly dismissed. My only problem was, I had no time to re-watch or re-read all that stuff, so I decided to search Google for “9/11 disinformation”.

Pandora’s Box

disinfoIt turns out that everybody is somebody else’s disinformation agent. Everybody, even Alien Scientist (a.k.a. physicist Jeremy Rys)! No one is spared. “No-Planers” accuse “Planers” of disinformation, and vice versa. Scientists on the one side smear scientists on the other.

But throwing accusations around is one thing – and proving them is another. So, if ever there was a case for using MY OWN BRAIN for a change, this was it.

I suddenly realized how my innate naivety always makes me assume that “they mean well – even when they’re wrong”. But now I REALLY needed to decide who are the ACTIVE agents of disinformation. After all, even if they mean well, if they feed you garbage – it’s disinfo. And the 9/11 Truth Movement has enough problems even without that.

One of the problems with gaining popular support for the 9/11 Truth is that people PREFER TO FOLLOW opinions of people they respect, rather than doing their own research. Even knowledgeable and highly qualified people fall into this trap all too easily. No time for this, no head for that – tell me what the experts think and I will go along with it.

Sorting The Riff From The Raff

Let’s face it: if you don’t have enough FACTS on the table, it’s very easy to accept just about any theory as plausible. Before I started looking more deeply into the “no planes” theory, for example, I was ready to admit that it was plausible. Also, even when I finally disagreed with them, I felt that these people didn’t DELIBERATELY misrepresent anything. After all, they also presented many things “everybody” agrees with…!

So, clearly, now I needed to work this out – for the sake of my own sanity, and to complete the process of my finally growing up. At 55 it’s as good a time as any! If people like me can get their heads around this – the Movement has a chance of being unified!

riffraffThe first distinction I needed to make was between “deliberate” and “non-deliberate” disinformation. Next, I needed a simple compass to determine what actually constitutes “disinfo” – or, to put differently: non-factual or fabricated data or misrepresented and deliberately misleading data, as opposed to “wrong” or “incomplete” but not actually meant to mislead. Furthermore, I needed to separate opinions from facts.

Even the most factually-based researchers – such as Alien Scientist, David Chandler, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin and many others – do occasionally stray into the realm of personal opinion, however briefly, if only to summarize the conclusions from their research thus far.

So what makes their opinions trustworthy while those of, say, Ace Baker – “deliberate” disinfo?

Before I present my conclusions and the logic which lead me to them, let me just say that I have a problem with accusing ALL of those “wrong” sources as “deliberate” fakers, purveyors of falsehoods or government shills, etc. They may still be “disinfo” but not in the most malicious sense of the word. I can only say that MOST of the promoters of the “Official 9/11 Story” are, in my view, DELIBERATELY faking it and obfuscating the evidence as well as intentionally drawing wrong or fallacious conclusions. That said, I’m reasonably confident that there are a number among them who promote the 9/11 falsehoods in good faith. Meaning: if they could be convinced of the LOGIC and EVIDENCE of “the Truth”, to which they’re temporarily blinded, they would likely switch to the other side of the fence. That’s just my wishful thinking maybe. But I’m actually pretty sure of this.

And, equally, I’d say that MOST of these “wrong” alternative researchers ALSO believe in their versions of events. They almost certainly don’t buy the Official Story. If they’re peddling disinfo – they do it unknowingly…

Don’t they…?

And then there is one more thing. When you start looking at who is accusing whom the picture becomes much more muddy. So, for example, if you’re sure that A is disinfo, but B and C are definitely for real, then you will agree with B when he says A is disinfo, but you’re shocked when B accuses C!

As you dig deeper, it turns out that not a single “trusted” source remains untarnished by someone’s accusations!

Finally, I have no doubt whatsoever that SOME key players in practically all the different 9/11 research groups are deliberately muddying the waters, and many are – in all likelihood – paid agents of disinformation.The only question is: WHO?

Building The 9/11 Compass

9/11 compassI’m not sure I’ll be able to definitively pronounce the guilt or otherwise of ANY of my suspects, but I can, with at least a reasonable level of certainty point out certain aspects of the case that are completely factual and any disagreement with them is indeed very damning.

I won’t name all the undisputed HARD FACTS because there are literally thousands of them, but I will name just three of the most obvious:

no no planes
Planes, missiles or other flying objects DID indeed hit the towers and the Pentagon. The amount of evidence for this is overwhelming and disputing it is tantamount to accusing literally hundreds of independent eyewitness sources and all video records of ALL colluding in this mystification. The question of whether they were military planes or plane-like missiles – or the officially announced passenger planes is irrelevant at this point.

ordinary collapse
The towers did not merely collapse – they exploded and came down at or near free fall speed (while WTC was brought down using a somewhat more conventional controlled demolition). The visual – and logical – evidence is indisputable and nothing about the entire sequence of events supports a gravity-driven collapse as the result of fires or otherwise. Additionally, the speed of the demolition leaves NO science-based reasons to doubt that the buildings were wired in advance.

motive means opportunity
Motive, Means and Opportunity. Whoever demolished the towers and did all the other damage must have had clear and strong motives (profit being among the first), the organizational, technical and financial means and the preparation time/opportunity. All three – not just one or two out of three.

Furthermore, some of the OPINIONS offered by the various researchers, as well as the manner in which they are presented, can also be looked at from the point of view of either “obvious bias” or “apparent objectivity“. Not as powerful as the FACTUAL observations above, but – for me at least – nevertheless strongly indicative of the distinct possibility of foul play or trustworthiness:

blame game CATEGORICAL blaming of certain groups or individuals raises credibility flags. It’s one thing to offer a balanced and cautious conclusion and a wholly different story to operate in absolutes. Anyone who ABSOLUTELY blames any particular narrow group without SOLID PROOF – is treading on potentially shaky ground, because it can smack of bias and prejudice. I prefer it when they allow the reader or viewer to come to their own conclusions without forcefully leading them. Again, I’m mainly talking about FORM.
quack theories Proposing unsubstantiated theories about the method of demolition. If they propose exotic weapons, UFO’s or nukes – with no proof other than an extremely farfetched conjecture – that’s definitely a BIG red flag. When Khalezov insisted that it was a small nuke, he couldn’t produce one credible scientist who would back him with scientific data (because they’re all shills). When Judy Wood posited space weapons (EMP’s – Electro Magnetic Pulse weapons fired from space), she couldn’t offer much more than wild speculation that they indeed exist, nor could she address obvious problems like the amount of energy such weapons would require, etc, straining credulity all around. And positing such weapons where other, much more plausible solutions are available simply smacks of either ignorance or deliberate disinfo. Just because you thoroughly analyzed something doesn’t mean that your conclusions will necessarily be valid!
attacking each other If they indiscriminately attack others in the Truth Movement. Now, here’s a tricky one and not quite as “red” as the other red flags – because someone who becomes totally convinced that another person is a DELIBERATE disinfo agent can hardly be blamed for wanting to warn everyone else about it. But… again it’s a matter of form and style as much as anything else. Personally, I prefer it when a flag is raised and clear logical reasons given, while the invectives, accusations and smears are left for private conversations. Think about it: if you say “Jim Fetzer is a shill” you’ll be doing the man a gross injustice, never mind the low value of such an ad hominem attack. He’s shown himself to be a thoroughly decent researcher and just because we switched camps to the no-planers doesn’t make him a shill. It simply makes him wrong. Better say “Professor Fetzer has embraced the spurious ‘no-planes’ theory so I recommend viewing his latest work as misguided – or disinfo”.
scientific method If they don’t strictly adhere to logic and rigorous, scientific evaluation of evidence. I’ve been guilty of this myself, and have often come to realize my faulty reasoning only much later. Many, even some of the “good guys”, occasionally shoot from the hip and then they insist everyone go along with that. That’s almost always worrisome.
unfocused If they’re regularly vague or unfocused. This is in the realm of psychology and not everyone may be able to spot liars. Not even experts may be correct every time. But… we all have our BS-detectors. Even naive old me.

So, should you not watch the “disinfo” videos, nor visit their pages, nor read their articles? Why not? Apart from the mistaken or deliberately misleading information, there’s also a lot of valid and valuable information there. But you’ll need a compass so you don’t lose your way!

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Armed with just these basic thought tools, let me tell you who I believe is definitely “genuine” and who MAY not be. Or, who, at the very least, is WRONG. I base my assertions on indisputable facts  as well as on these general guidelines above.

    • Definitely the REAL DEAL: You will be on solid ground if you study websites, articles and videos featuring:
      • David Ray Griffin
      • Steven Jones
      • David Chandler
      • Richard Gage
      • Kevin Ryan
      • Alien Scientist
      • Webster Tarpley (although I sometimes dislike his style)
      • Others directly and continuously associated with them
    • Probably meaning well, but often seen promoting various errors or distortions. Much of their research is valid, but SOME of their conclusions are surprisingly unscientific or biased:
      • Jim Fetzer
      • Morgan Reynolds
      • Alex Jones
      • Dave von Kleist
      • Others whose reasoning is sometimes faulty or unsubstantiated by known facts, who promote extreme or prejudicial ideas, and who uncritically insist on promoting their theories while denigrating others who disagree
    • Almost certainly deliberate disinformation agents, whose presentations are so fraught with errors, straw-man arguments or unverifiable factoids, that it stretches credulity to accept that they act in good will. At best, SOME of these people may “mean well” but their arguments are so misleading that they make honest researchers look look like quacks – which just might be their whole mission.
      • Dimitri Khalezov
      • Ace Baker (?)
      • Judy Wood
      • Others who propose unnecessarily far-out theories like nukes, no-planes, UFO’s, “Israelis,” etc
    • Definitely invested in spreading falsehoods, whose presentations leave no doubt about their agenda, through their deliberate falsehoods, omissions and distortions, and who never acknowledge the REAL science, logic and factual evidence to the contrary – or if they do, they spin it beyond recognition:
      • The US Government
      • Most Western governments
      • Mainstream media (almost without exception)
      • Popular Mechanics
      • The History Channel
      • Mythbusters
      • Other publications and media (including many on the Web), who question the possibility of a conspiracy and who buy into the “Osama did it all” fable. (This is not to say that Osama and/or the “19 hijackers” didn’t have a part to play. Personally, I don’t doubt they had “some” role.)

So there you have it. Your key to unlocking a consistent and scientifically valid version of the events on 9/11.

9/11 Research Primer

And now, here’s a quick guide to (in my view) a few credible resources in your quest to establish what really happened:

  • Websites
  • Videos (Mostly focused on WTC, but you can use the above website links to also research the Pentagon and Shanksville episodes – as well as the ever-so-revealing aftermath of 9/11)
    • Building the World Trade Center – Here you’ll see exactly what kind of structure WTC was – and how utterly ridiculous the Official Story is, now that you’ve seen how it was built!

      • Part 1:
      • Part 2:
    • 9/11 Truth in 5 Minutes (James Corbett)– a humorous and devastating recap of the Official Story
    • Time For A Second Look (Lecture by David Ray Griffin)– this will give you a good grounding in all the basic facts and anomalies.
    • Connect The Dots– characteristically dry and thoroughly scientific look at the available data, by Alien Scientist
      • Part 1:
      • Part 2:
    • 9/11 Experiments, The Great Thermate Debate– answers the doubts and questions of all those who think thermate couldn’t have done the damage we’ve seen on 9/11
    • Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out– Eminently qualified experts share their opinions on the science of 9/11
    • ZERO: An Investigation Into 9/11– one of the best 9/11 films ever produced, by an Italian crew featuring a Nobel prize winner and many more.
    • Loose Change, An American Coup– while the previous versions of Loose Change were often accused of containing too much wrong information, this latest one (narrated by Daniel Sunjata) is largely purged of all that. The Loose Change series is THE most watched 9/11 documentary to date.

We’ve barely scratched the surface here. But if you’re interested in learning more about 9/11 and why YOU should help inform everyone you know about the FACTS, in order to eventually have a new investigation, then this is as good a place to start as any.

Related posts: