Lessons From The OSS/CIA: 9/11 "Disinfo" Vs. "Actionable Consensus", page 1

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



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

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

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

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

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

It begins with the definition of Psychological Warfare:


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

[DISINFO PLAYBOOK]
Achieve belittlement through demoralization:





That is critical because we know that


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

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

And so on:






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


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


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

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

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

To:

Which will result in:

[/DISINFO PLAYBOOK]

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

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

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

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

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


[edit on 7-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

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

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

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

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

Related topics that dont get enough attention or memorization:

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

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



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


[edit on 7-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

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

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

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

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



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

Here is the problem of disinformation in a nutshell:

There are two types of speculation:

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

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

Agent Provocateur Tactics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit on 8-10-2007 by Arabesque]

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

www.truthmove.org...

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

reply to post by talisman

---

Interesting...

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

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

A "reverse disinfo" agent?
x = Info
0 / x = Disinfo = y
0 / y = Reverse Disinfo = x = Info

Thanks man, I needed that!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 9-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

IgnoranceIsntBlisss

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

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

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

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

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

IgnoranceIsntBlisss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arabesque911.blogspot.com...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good to be back CL, and thanks.

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

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

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

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

US Consulate Whistleblower Says 9/11 Hijackers Passports were issued by the CIA
  Posted 17 days ago with 21 member flags

9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 11 days ago with 14 member flags

In Depth Look At The Pentagon Witnessess On 9/11
  Posted 19 days ago with 12 member flags

Hollywood Stars Seek to Make Feature Film Focused on WTC Demolitions
  Posted 17 days ago with 12 member flags

9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 4 days ago with 12 member flags

Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 16 days ago with 11 member flags

An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T\'s List of Demolition Signs
  Posted 14 days ago with 11 member flags

Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 12 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: