I recently came across
this site - The CIA Internet Fakes and was keen to have a look
at it. I try and stay alert to the possibility of disinfo and am therefore keen to see what other people think.
I was very, very disappointed, so much so that I thought I'd post a thread alerting people to what I think is the most egregious piece of disinfo
I've come across since 911Myths. The site claims to be "exposing the NWO" but when you look at it, all the sites it accuses have good information,
and all the information the editor, Finian Dunne, posts, treats government pronouncement like Holy Writ. It's pathetic.
I have a few rules of thumb when it comes to disinfo.
- Governments almost invariably lie
- things don't always make sense if you don't have all the puzzle pieces
- checking facts is always good
- good sources will often be subject to attack if they're really on the money
- over time a good source will tend to stay trustworthy but
- occasionally even the best sources may be fed disinfo and fall for it.
Over time I've built up a sense of where the good information is to be found. And this site attacks a
lot of people I find to provide
particularly trustworthy reporting and cogent analysis.
Supposedly, the purpose of the site is to expose the CIA Internet fakes whose agenda is to
-- To leverage the Fakes into position as the leadership/spokespersons
for the 9/11 skeptics movement.
-- To splinter and divide that movement.
-- To promote lame, tame and/or booby-trapped questions about 9/11.
-- To be sufficiently over-the-top as to prevent the 9/11 issue getting
any traction in the media or left-wing.
-- To ensure that the movement would not have a politically-active
leadership capable of turning it into an effective political lobby campaign.
This is actually a
perfect description of the site's own function. Check out the very next paragraph:
The questions about 9/11 were bound to be asked, the important
aspect for the perpetrators was and is ...by whom?
No. The important thing is that the questions ARE being asked. It doesn't matter if you think, as I do, that Alex Jones is a bit of a blowhard who
needs to stop screaming and talk a bit more calmly and rationally. Either what he says makes sense, or it doesn't. Sometimes, with him, it does:
sometimes I disagree.
But the point is,
the paragraph I quoted above tries to shift attention from the evidence itself to ad hominem attacks.
That's a sure sign of disinfo.
As far as Alex Jones is concerned... there are people out there who say AJ is a Zionist tool because he doesn't accuse the NWO of being Zionist.
There may be a Zionist connection: there may not. I don't see it that way myself, and I don't see it as being, necessarily, relevant. The main
thing is that he does expose a great deal of what is happening.
But this thread is NOT a defence of AJ. If you look at the site, you'll see a
huge list of sites that Fintan Dunne smears as being CIA
fronts. These include many sites that I personally trust FAR more than Alex Jones.
For example,
co-operative research/the history commons (as it's been renamed) is one of the best things
about the internet. It has evolved into a huge resource site where people have put many, many puzzle pieces together to form a fantastic resource for
those who wish to research 9/11 and other matters.
There are many other sites accused by Fintan Dunne... and the thing they all have in common is that they expose information that TPTB would rather
didn't come to light.
One such is Daniel Hopsicker's
Madcow Morning News, a site that has been particularly strong on exposing CIA
drug deals. Many threads on this site owe a great deal to Mr. Hopsicker's reporting, and one thread in particular, about
five tons of cocaine
found aboard an aircraft with CIA connections, inspired the kind of collaborative effort that occasionally makes this site worth wading through all
the moronic posts for. It's
here.
Hopsicker's site comes in for attack because he was very diligent on following up on Mohammed Atta's flight training at Huffman Aviation in Venice
Fla. He scooped an interview with Amanda Keller, Atta's ex-girlfriend. I saw the original, which lasted quite some time, and was pretty much
convinced that she was basically a pleasant girl, not incredibly bright, who had seen and described things that chip away at the usual 9/11 myth about
fanatical hijackers.
Dunne has seized on the fact that, a little while ago, Keller (after being interviewed by, if memory serves, the FBI) retracted her story. Firstly,
this doesn't wash with me - it looks more like she was pressured to retract than anything else.
Secondly, to then accuse Hopsicker (only one among
many others) of being a CIA disinformant is, to put it mildly, incautious. His track record
speaks for itself.
As does the "CIAInternetFakes" website.
There most certainly are sites out there that do all of the things that are described in the list I quoted above.
And CIAInternetFakes is
definitely one of them.
Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.
[edit on 23 Mar 09 by Gools]
