Is Blatant Dishonesty and Disinformation proof of Infiltration by Agents? Stefan Weighs In
After Stefan's recent interaction with the Church of the Pentagram Boeing over at TruthAction, I discussed with him on his blog the issues that many of us here see as proof of some sort of infiltration by agents of disinformation. Stefan has a different interpretation that I find interesting. I thought that you all would be interested in his perspective because he provides a lot of food for thought and made me re-think some of my pre-conceptions. What is your take on his take?
Here is his take from his blog (scroll down to the bottom of the page)
Hey Keenan,
Again, I have to thank you for the kind words of encouragement, but again we will have to agree to disagree on the particulars.
I see what you are getting at, when people refuse to accept, or even play fair regarding an obvious truth, I can understand why the assumption that they are disinfo might come about. But I don’t think matters are as simple as that, as human beings are complex creatures and quite capable of playing convoluted tricks on our selves to protect our pride, tribal allegiances and egos.
I used the comparison before of the majority position on 9/11, that the official conspiracy theory is an untouchable truth, if I was to make a more exact comparison I would lump those defending the official flight path with the most enthusiastic demographic of that group: the mainstream left wing activists. I’m going to make an assumption you’re American, and I don’t know if the situation is the same over there, but here in the UK there are few people who are more hell-bent in their defence of the OCT than groups like Stop The War Coalition and the Socialist Workers Party. The reason for this, I propose, is not that these gargantuan groups are disinformation operations (although few even inside the groups would disagree there must be infiltration within the movements) but that they have a stall set out – a political agenda to defend. This represents a fixed concept which is the principle obstacle to free-thought, and the precursor of cognitive dissonance.
The problem with top-down groups is that they have a policy which limits the freedom of their thinking. The truth is decided by respected senior figures and filtered down to followers. They are almost always taken with PR as a concern and not the actual truth. The anti-war movement decided early on that if they were seen to support “conspiracy theories” then they would lose credibility with the middle ground mainstream they sought to mobilise. So to protect their goals they started off with dismissing them with mockery, then as the evidence began to really mount for this particular “conspiracy theory” their grassroots started to take it more seriously so they had to progress. The leaders could not back down, so changing their mind was not on the agenda, they were now protecting a decision that had already been set in stone. So they turned to debunking sites for easy answers, then as desperation increased they turned to making out the “truth movement” was right wing, anti-Semitic, crazy and so on. Finally, there is a small group in the main stream left wing anti-war movement who propose that 9/11 truth is itself an operation to discredit the anti-war movement.
We see a perfect correlation here with the actions of the small clique at TruthAction. They are not a top-down group but this clique do see themselves as being in charge of what is good and bad info in the “truth movement”, they cringingly egotistically refer to themselves as the “backbone of the truth movement” and have clearly thought themselves into the positions of leaders even though they are actually not. Importantly, they have made pre-determined decisions regarding what is credible and what isn’t, and they are defending them. They started off with mockery then moved to move to debunking, then come the comparing anyone who disagrees with them as “no planers”, finally the grand crowning paranoia of disinfo accusations. They are in fact not giving a text book example of disinfo, they are giving a text book example of how dangerous to free-thought and integrity a fixed concept can be. As I paraphrased the Tao Te Ching to Julian after he yelled “I’VE MADE MY MIND UP!” – The tree that doesn’t bend in the breeze breaks in the storm. Fixed concepts are like mental viruses, blocking the passage of free-thought. Finding the truth and an inability to admit that you are wrong (or dispose of a fixed concept) are not remotely compatibile.
It would be easy to look at the arguments they use and say they are being dishonest, but the human mind will deceive itself to maintain its pride, to create a “goody and baddy” paradigm with themselves as the “goody” at all times. Protectors of the credibility of the movement. Their pride acts as a plinth to this sculpted concept and cognitive dissonance stops them from accepting anything which threatens it. This is perfectly and evidenced by the tendency to lose their tempers and act irrationally when challenged with a piece of evidence they cannot explain away, or a question they cannot answer. Look at the way Julian from truthmove acts whenever I ask the question as to what he makes of the CIT witnesses. He cannot answer it. Something in his head asks him “could I be wrong?” and immediately the cognitive dissonance kicks in and provides his ego with a reason to ignore it – anger. His perception of me as “baddy” artificially amplifies in order to protect his own perception of him as a “goody” and provides him with enough fury to dismiss me, and the question, and leave his fixed concept in place. “Why should I answer HIS question? HE’s the baddy. Shout at him, shout at him! SHOUT AT HIM! There… The concept is safe again. I’m still right” The result is often quite amusing as he regresses to five-year-old maturity levels in the snap of a finger. This is what I would expect of a human being in conflict, not a disinformation artist. The conflict is between ego (his “being right”, his oft demonstrated hero-worship of the people who told him what to believe, his pride) and information which if actually considered for a second would force him to change a set of concepts he finds very comforting. There is certainly dishonesty going on here, but it is completely compatible with human nature that they are being dishonest with themselves and not with their audience. Indeed within their bubble they have no conception of an audience. Through their constant backing up of each other, and the tendency of at least one moderator to lock threads and ban people when contrary views show up, they really do believe there is no disagreement with them, despite the fact that in reality they are in a tiny minority.
The fact that they just do not see this is evidenced by Jenny Sparks, who has a tendency to hint that if there is more than one person on the forum expressing a contrary view to the clique that they must be somehow colluding, or sock puppets, or a coordinated effort to bolster the case. It doesn’t occur to her that these two people agree because the evidence leads them to. Within the bubble she has no conception that her position is in fact a minority held view – after all everyone around her agrees – CIT is disinformation. The fact that the open banning and deleting of the threads of Aldo and Craig when they clearly were not breaking any rules sent a message – disagree with the big kids on this one at your own risk. I get PMs from people at TruthAction encouraging me to continue. I wish they would ignore the bullies and get involved themselves, but they want to stay in the in-group and instead cheerlead in whispers.
I agree Arabesque has been incredibly dishonest. The fact that he has not updated his lists of “witnesses” years after being informed several of them were not even there is a disgrace, But since he has a fixed concept, he is prone to irrationality, to deciding the means justify the ends. I personally think Victoria Ashley has more than shown her credentials as a genuine and valuable truth activist by her support of the journal of 9/11 studies and promotion of the nano-thermite paper. She’s wrong on this one but let’s not lose perspective. From her constantly getting the facts of what CIT say wrong it is pretty clear she has never properly attended to the source material and is deferring to the opinion of other activists she has a misplaced trust in (ie. Arabesque). Julian is simply a groupie. I do not and will not get involved in the merry-go-round of accusing each other of being ops. This is happening to me and my group right now by Daniel Obachike (who claims to be a victim of 7/7) and I think it is the most serious accusation that should not be made without concrete proof. It is also a continuation of the soap-opera-ism of the “truth movement”, which is the biggest threat to our success there is. Nobody we are trying to reach with this info cares about internal politics and squabbles and personalities. They are completely internal concerns that will distance us from our audience and turn us into an irrelevant and incomprehensible sub-culture.
If I have a disagreement with these people, say over the flight path of the Pentagon jet and what the implication of this is, then we can discuss that issue on an evidential level. I am more than satisfied that while I will not change their minds, the audience of neutrals reading it will benefit from my arguments. If it starts becoming about me and them as people then we are not only getting distracted from the point of all this (9/11 Truth, remember) we are also running a risk of accusing well meaning but misinformed genuine activists of essentially being complicit in the murder of 3000 people… which is not on. It’s not on when Arcterus calls CIT a disinformation op. It wasn’t on when CIT called Arabesque an op. I’m not taking sides. It’s just not on unless you have proof.
Ultimately this is the final victory of the no-planers. Their ghost still haunts this movement. At this point the government does not need to employ disinformation, the seed has been sown and they can sit back and laugh at us as we do their job for them, constantly suspecting and accusing one another with less and less evidence or proof each time. We’re doing their job for them, and doing it very well.
Anyway, I’m not trying to get on your case here, and I really do appreciate your positive feedback, and respect your right to your opinion. But this is how I feel about this. Let’s just focus on the facts and the arguments we frame them in. The truth always wins in the end, so long as we stay focussed on it and not the soap opera.
Cheers,
Stefan
- Keenan's blog
- Login to post comments
he's probably wrong, but it's a good thing...
I mean, everything he says about cognitive dissonance is true, but whether it applies to the folks at truthaction or for that matter to the hidden hand of the antiwar movement leaders is what is at question. just because its possible for people to act like the aforementioned groups with no malicious intent, the opposite is also possible and i think *probable* in both cases. or for that matter let's look at Popular Mechanics and their ilk, the self-styled "debunkers". We could argue that they are hopelessly cognitively dissonant, confused souls thinking they are doing a good thing. Indeed, I've run into a few people on the street who seeme dto fall into that category--these have tended to be not the brightest bulbs in the attic, if you will. Can we forgive Popular Mechanics on the same score, that they're just not too bright and so are easy prey for those who would have them believe a fictional account of 9/11? Obviously not.
That all said, what may well be Stefan's own cognitive dissonance in believing the truthaction crowd to be honest may be consciously or unconsciously a defense mechanism that helps him keep his cool. By believing in the (unlikely in my opinion) good faith of the discussants over there he is able to keep his cool and be much more convincing to the casual reader of the site--more so than we would be if we were to allow ourselves to be baited into mutual accusations and name-calling. We would be right of course, but the casual reader may not see that and come away focusing more on the personal acrimony than on the facts. Stefan's method denudes the opposition to its core beliefs at which point the causal reader sees very clearly what is going on--one rational calm person presents facts that the others cannot refute and therefore resort to all manner of giveaway non-arguments.
Stefan's analysis is astute
but I also have difficulty with the idea that the in-crowd over there is acting in good faith. In particular, Victronix's use of disparagement-spiked rhetoric is so methodical that it seems like strategy. That includes use of "no-planers" to refer to Pentagon Boeing skeptics (knowing full well what the connotations are and in fact using it for that reason), liberal use of "hoax" (which implies deliberate effort to mislead) to refer to theories with which she disagrees, and so forth. The fact that she HAS accomplished a lot for the controlled demolition of the WTC side of 9/11 Truth is a good thing -- it is also the "truther capital" she is deliberately exploiting when she goes on to bully Pentagon skeptics. Exactly the same dynamic is at work with Arabesque -- I remember when he used to say he had no opinion about the Pentagon and would argue CD with the hard-core CD deniers like John A. He built up a lot of cred that way and he is now spending it in his battle with CIT. I'm thinking he may need a bailout one day soon, however.
Good points, I pretty much agree
There is no question in my mind that at least some of these liars/dividers are disinformation agents and not just 'groupies' with no ability to be objective. I guess whether they are 'Disinformation Agents' or 'disinformation agents' (in the sense of not being employed by a specific intelligence agency, but are purposely peddling disinformation for some other reason/interest) is something I'm less sure of.
There's a good reason not to get into disinfo accusations...
What does saying someone is an agent mean?
It means you are claiming they are complicit in the murder of nearly 3000 innocent people, and that they are supporting a facilitating the War On Terror; essentially colluding in the murder of over 1 million innocent people and the destruction of our freedom, democracy and rights.
This is hardly an accusation that can be made lightly. If you're wrong then it's a pretty low thing to say, so you have to be 100% certain it is the case. Suspicion, even if based in a logical argument, is not enough.
I'm not naïve by any means, of course I realise that the online 9/11 truth community must be infiltrated, I assume it is and get on with things.
I'm also not saying anyone is right or wrong in their accusations per se. I'm assuming they are wrong because the proof doesn't exist to say they are right. To assume innocence should be the default position, as it is in the justice system.
In the above post I was pointing out that there are other options for dishonesty than being in the employ of the perpertrators, very mundane and human reasons. And also how unhelpful making the claim is as well. It creates a culture where people are more concerned with other activists and less concerned with the key audience - everyone except for activists.
I agree it can be unhelpful...
But I disagree that assuming innocence should be the default position as in a court of law. We, unlike courts of law, do not have the power to incarcerate or execute people. And that said, I fully support ANYONE, regardless of how heinous their alleged crime, getting a fair trial, even if that means that some may feel "justice was not done".
What I consider unconscionable is to allow a movement to be hijacked and perverted by individuals whose intent is to continue to lay blame at the hands of innocents who have already been made to suffer unacceptably and allow the real perpetrators to evade accountability for their actions. In fighting for justice I will not be deterred by the worry that there is a 1% chance I may be wrong about someone's intentions. For legal reasons I would also never claim to be 100% sure if I was not in fact 100% sure. My suspicions based on reasoned analysis of people's behavior over a period of years, however, I will certainly express, given the likelihood that I am right and that the behavior I am attempting to expose is far far lower than airing a suspicion without being 100% sure of someone's guilt.
After all, that is Jon Gold's argument--Larry Silverstein cannot even be suspected of complicity in the destruction of his insured property unless his guilt can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt (his words). If that were the requirement for a case to be brought against someone as opposed to getting a conviction (for which it isn't even the standard) then few but the very obviously guilty would be investigated let alone charged with crimes.
I should also say that there is a place...
...for politics, and a time. That time is not when we are doing outreach in public. When I am outside, in person, talking to people, I do not gripe about the controlled discourse on 9/11 truth sites. In fact I only promote two things--architects and engineers for 9/11 truth and the books of David Griffin. That's it. No mention of this site, no mention of any other website or forum. No warnings about the "fake truthers".
Online, however, I think that a rigorous and (as necessary) contentious debate is extremely healthy--the opposite of what most of the "brand name" truth sites seem to believe. Banning people simply for disagreeing with Jon Gold, or for being known to also contribute to "forbidden sites" like WTCD, are both signs that there is a (mostly) unspoken code which must be followed in order to participate in discussion on these sites.
It amounts to this--if you criticize one of the "protected" people or positions (e.g. Jon Gold and the Pakistani Pork Chop Transfer) too effectively, you'll soon be gone. Criticize "unprotected" people or positions such as "AA77 did not hit the Pentagon" and you can be as over the top in your criticism and accusations and you will be fine.
Important here is that the illusion of a genuine debate be maintained--as Goebbels put it "ostensible diversity masking actual uniformity." To the extent that "uncontrolled opposition" is ineffective, it is tolerated in order to give the appearance of the desired viewpoints winning in a real (not rigged) marketplace of ideas.
If providing this analysis and considering the likeliest conclusions amounts to being unfair to certain individuals, that is a risk I'm willing to take in order to advance the cause of a more legitimate, effective, and just truth movement. We owe nothing less to the still growing list of victims around the world of this despicable lie and cover-up, in which the fake truthers have been key players. If anyone is uncomfortable with the prospect of someday being held to account for their role in the truth movement then they really need to start thinking hard about what they're doing and not dig themselves deeper. There are no lifeboats on a sinking ship of lies.
Hi Stefan, If we had to have
Hi Stefan,
If we had to have 100% certainty all the time before advancing a statement, then we would have critiqued Dr. David Ray Griffin for accusing the government of involvement in the attacks on it's own people on 9-11. That was a very serious accusation back then. Nowadays we have the evidence from Jones, Harrit and others to back up our arguments, but at one time, all we had were suspicions and conjectures based on the analysis of available but incomplete information. If Dr Griffin or the other pioneers at the time did not venture to accuse the government of complicity, then I think the people who followed by doing the scientific analysis would never have done so. It is a big decision to accuse someone of disinformation, but holding back the accusation can be as bad or worse than not to do so. This is just my own opinion, based on my observations.
Some very thoughtful responses here, thank you.
I particularly agree with greatvo's points about debate being healthy. Despite constant mewing about "the scientific method" from those most supportive of censorship in 9/11 truth, the scientific method is all about disagreement. One person makes a case for one hypothesis that is challenged by another, challenged by another, challenged by another. Science is dynamic and reactive and continues to evolve.
The problem with creating a set of "guidelines and principles" or a "declaration" is that however logical it may have been when it was thought up, the evidence on which we base our claims continues to grow. So the adherents to that faith are stuck in 2006 when the evidence regarding the Pentagon was inconclusive and shaky. Now in 2009 it is overwhelmingly in support of the fact that the plane did not hit the Pentagon. There is a comparison to be made with fundamentalist Christians sticking with Genesis and then not just ignoring by fighting the evidence for evolution with ever more absurd and untenable arguments. Fundamental "Declarationists" are sticking with the view that the Pentagon is a woolly area, and fighting against all the new evidence appearing to protect what is essentially a piece of paper from being damaged by the truth. They have placed faith in their holy document and don't care what the facts might say to challenge it.
I think these people, with their prayers to the god of PR and their holy declaration of truthiness should have a think about what their might propaganda god would think about how they would look to their precious mainstream audience if they had their way: If there is no debate within the 9/11 truth community it is then that accusations that it is a cult, and not a collection of free thinkers interrogating the evidence and spreading awareness of the anomalies and questions it brings, will have some real clout. Really, what would come next after they have made sure everyone is in lock-step, making the exact same arguments about the exact same topics, when everyone who questions this wisdom is thrown out? Uniforms? There is no doubt in my mind that to a casual observer a healthy level of debate looks a lot healthier and less "out there" than a disciplined army of truth clones with a single opinion between them.
Obviously some of you guys think these people are disinfo agents. I can just see a lot of very human reasons for their behaviour, but let me take this from another angle… Let's say for a second that Arabesque, Victoria Ashley et al are agents. I don't think they are but let's just take on that possibility hypothetically. What do we gain by saying it?
If the nature of their disinformation is to put out deceptive and dishonest arguments in an attempt to suppress evidence and genuine research, then we can just as easily combat that by showing their arguments to be false by making cogent counterpoints. What does saying they are “fake truthers” or “disinfo agents” bring into the mix other than to make it very easy for them to make a villain out of you in the eyes of the neutral? Don’t forget that these people’s arguments are most powerful to those who admire them, and are thus approaching the topic with a level of bias against your view preinstalled. Do you think throwing in an accusation that their hero is complicit in the murder of 3000 people is a good sales pitch to them? Or do you think that it might lead them to reject any logical point you are about to make before you’ve even made it?
Yes you can combat an
Yes you can combat an assertion with a more convincing one, that is if you are allowed to. When supporters of one side of an argument are thrown out of a forum, whenever they are winning the argument, then only one side is allowed to be disseminated to the readers. Not all readers are aware that this happens, it does so in 911blogger.com which I have experienced myself and at truthaction as others have written on above.
I agree
I think it's pretty poor form how the offending moderator (I assume Siddhartha) doesn't announce it when he bans someone, even when people on the thread are saying that person is not responding or "dodging" a point (as was the case with Element) he kept quiet about the fact that he had no ability to respond.
But this doesn't change the fact that calling people agents adds nothing and if anything takes away from the strength of your argument.
The bottom line is that unfair tactics are being used, and of course I understand how frustrating that is first hand. But if we keep to the higher ground we lose nothing and gain much.
I'm seriously considering starting a new truth forum with a 100% free speech policy at this point...
Funk That
"But this doesn't change the fact that calling people agents adds nothing and if anything takes away from the strength of your argument."
Unless your argument is that certain people are agents...
I've dealt with the same divisive characters for over 5 years now. My conversations have been blocked, my threads locked, deleted and I've been banned with no explanation what so ever.
At this point I'm done pulling punches.
THESE PEOPLE ARE AGENTS OF DISINFORMATION AND THEY HAVE BEEN CONTROLLING DIALOG AND CENSORING RESEARCH.
What more do we need?
When is it 'ok' to call out those who restrict dialog and spread disinformation? When they talk about space beams or hologram planes? Only then is it safe to claim disinformation agent?
What do I need? A presidential executive signed by Bush and directing Reprehensor and Arabesque to moderate a fake 9/11 Truth websites for the sake of national security?
Those who spread disinformation such as the myth that Islamic extremism was responsible for 9/11, should be called out and not coddled because they 'might not be' agents. Who cares. They are spreading racist disinformation that has no basis in fact or evidence.
"I think it's pretty poor form how the offending moderator (I assume Siddhartha) doesn't announce it when he bans someone"
'Pretty poor' is what I use to describe bad grammar. My grammar is pretty poor. Someone banning people and restricting discourse with absolutely no repercussions or public accountability....is a disgrace to the pursuit of truth.
Do consider the possibility
Do consider the possibility that the mods who act as they do, and the losers who are persistently pushing the discredited info are in it together.
Keeping silent on the disinfo going around is a disservice to readers who may be clueless about it. It's about time spades are called spades. If we suspect someone, and have clear information on why we think so, then we can share both the suspicion and the information that was used to arrive at that conclusion.
This is very important for the simple reason that 9-11 was not just a crime of mass murder, it is also an information war. Disinformation is the prime weapon being used by the perpetrators in order to hijack the military of the US to effect their goals. A lot of information is being concealed, which is why to this day we cannot say exactly who did what. The same information war is going on in the forums which is why some people continue to insist on peddling bad information no matter how many times others may point out to them in simple, clear, unmistakable terms that they are incorrect.
Just take controlled demolitions, do you know that to this day there are "truthers" such as NYCActivist claiming WTC was not really demolished. This is from someone who claims to be a scientist of sorts. She used to believe in CD, now she doesn't. David Chandler showed just how impossible it was for WTC 7 to not have come down due to CD using high school physics which I presume NYCActivist knows of. If I don't point this out, it would be a disservice not only to the people she may fool with her disinfo but also to the people who will be killed because the GWOT went on while we let the perps and their helpers control the information battlefield.
read about her here: http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2318
Hi Stefan, It is easier to
Hi Stefan,
It is easier to comprehend why we accuse some as disinfo agents if you can wrap your head on the possibility that it is not the whole of the 9-11 plot and not all the perps, but only a subset of them that the agents are trying to protect.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2291
sigh, you're right on a lot of this
Specifically that the constructive criticism approach is probably better in a PR sense to the more accusatory tone we take here. But then, we don't have much a public to relate to on this site--we are pretty much resigned to not being a "mainstream" 9/11 truth site because we will never be linked to by the mutual masturbation clique of 911blogger, truthaction, and (sadly) even sites like ae911truth.org. The only site that ever linked to us was the distasteful "prothink" site, until we began criticizing them and they removed their link to us (thank god!)
The way I see it, we fill an important niche which is to be vocal and forceful critics of what we see as a compromised and corrupted truth movement. I think it's important that people take seriously the existence of infiltration and specifically the exact forms it takes. As I mentioned above, I at least am an activist in real life--this online gig is more about deep analysis. This is for posterity more than it is for the here and now, though I'm sure we reach a few hundred readers quite regularly based on our stats. We're just a node in the vast decentralized network, and that is actually perfectly acceptable to me.
Finally, I would like to think that the fake truthers have some common sense and may actually think twice about what they're doing if they realize that some people are on to them and have every intention of continuing to expose them--while what they have been doing may not be obvious to everyone at this point, when the whole truth comes out and people can read about what the fake truthers were promoting, and see how different the two versions are, the fakers will be hard pressed to claim they were simply mistaken, when they were so carefully protecting those "mistakes" from any possibility of correction. A complete investigation into the crime however may find links between guilty parties and some in the truth movement. This will then form the basis for charges to be filed as accessories after the fact. Understand that once the truth about 9/11 comes out people are going to be mad as hell and will be demanding a full accounting--for real this time, and the analyses (like ours, I think) that best matched the truth will be sought out by those who in the future will be writing the history of the exposing of the hoax of the 21st century.
Hi G, Your pointing out
Hi G,
Your pointing out that Jon Gold was a disinfo helped me understand the dynamics going on back then at 911B. I think it was a positive contribution to all readers who were really after the truth. If you had kept silent, I would have had a harder time figuring out if he was just an idiot for insisting on his version of 9-11.
The perps who did 9-11 will complete their crime by having their version of the truth written into history books and taught to every generation onwards. The thin line holding this back are the genuine truthers who are pushing back. They did it with JFK, they are doing it with 9-11.
In Closing...
"Do consider the possibility that the mods who act as they do, and the losers who are persistently pushing the discredited info are in it together."
Of course I do consider that possibility; I'm not naïve. But a possibility is all it is.
We need to look at what the evidence actually supports:
" THEY HAVE BEEN CONTROLLING DIALOG AND CENSORING RESEARCH."
Yes…
"THESE PEOPLE ARE AGENTS OF DISINFORMATION"
No.
There are other possibilities and that is what I have been trying to outline. Is it because they are paid disinformation artists, or is it because they are part of an in-group who have egotistically designated themselves protectors of the truth movement and have decided the general public are so stupid all they can digest is a watered down version of the truth?
I don't know, and since there is actually no discernable benefit or gain in calling them disinfo artists, why would I go ahead and do that?
“Keeping silent on the disinfo going around is a disservice to readers who may be clueless about it.”
Unless it’s not true, in which case you are sowing paranoia and accusing people who are only guilty of bad behaviour in defending their idea of a truth movement of being mass murderers…
“It's about time spades are called spades. If we suspect someone, and have clear information on why we think so, then we can share both the suspicion and the information that was used to arrive at that conclusion.”
Share the information by all means, I think every time someone acts in a dishonest way it should be noted and documented. Their poor and deceptive arguments challenged and deconstructed. But where exactly does adding the disinfo artist angle change anything for the better?
Not really asking for an answer there, just ending on a question. ;-)
I’ve made my point now so no point in labouring on it.
I respect that you think
I respect that you think differently of those who control the forums. Time will tell which view is correct.
See ya.
"Unless it’s not true"But
"Unless it’s not true"
But it is true. The self-appointed leaders of the online 9/11 Truth movement are constantly pimping disinformation and are simultaneously restricting dialog by moderating the conversation. Deleting dialog and banning users all in secret with no public accountability.
That's really happening and has been occurring for years. It's as obvious as the demolition of World Trade Center 7.