It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Disinfo Alert - Warning, this site is full of it...

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   
As expected, quite a few peopleon this thread clearly haven't read the OP or looked too closely at the site concerned. However, I'm going to tackle one post in particular.


Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by rich23
 

It certainly looks like you had already made your mind up, concerning Fintan Dunne's site.


No. It just didn't take me very long. I've been looking at this stuff for a while, and it's really obvious BS.


Why don't you present some of Fintan's research and detailed reasons for placing people like AJ on the list. Your "criteria" completely misses what Fintan uses as criteria.


I gave my criteria so people would see where I was coming from. The fact that my criteria are different from his is no surprise to me: however, I did point up the fact that he attacks plenty of people, other than Alex Jones, whose integrity I've learned to respect and whose journalistic efforts I trust.

Remember where I said in the OP that this is NOT a defence of AJ? I loathe emoticons, but I'm tempted to put in the "eyes rolling" one... no, can't sink that low.

I actually wasted 9 minutes of my time listening to the YouTube segment. It's an ad hominem attack on Jones, nothing more. Yes, AJ is a dreadful blowhard, I wish he'd stop shrieking, and, yes, sometimes he gets things wrong. That doesn't make him a disinfo agent. If you think that amounts to any kind of serious attack on Jones' intentions, then you need to radically upgrade your ability to distinguish logical argument from ad hom attacks.

What makes Dunne, for me, almost certainly a disinfo agent, is his trashing of many, many trustworthy people in the area, not just of 9/11, but of alternative news generally. Have you actually looked at the list of sites he says are disinfo sources? As someone else has pointed out, Hopsicker is one of the few proper journos around, and the fact that he comes in for singular attention tells me that Dunne is almost certainly a disinfo guy. This is NOT something I say frequently or lightly.


The truth is that the document does exist.
The lie is that the document does not claim that those people are terrorists.

This is a typical disinformation scenario- lies based upon some truths.


It's boring to keep appearing to defend AJ when I'm not that keen on him myself. I think he's not that bright but his heart's in the right place, I wish he weren't so shouty. What you've shown, however, is that AJ made a mistake. It's an error, not a lie, and it's one I can see him making out of misplaced enthusiasm. As for it being a "typical disinformation scenario", it isn't. Dunne's trashing of Hopsicker's work is, however, as is Dunne's trashing of AJ, which, for all you've posted, is simply an ad hominem attack.

One other site I've found very useful over the years is www.informationclearinghouse.info - a fantastic site that pulls together a lot of news wire information that the MSM bypasses completely. This is another thing that tells me Dunne is disinfo. If he can trash a site like that, there's something VERY fishy going on.

And AlJazeera a CIA front? Come on!


As to truth in advertising, you should have included Fintan's explanation of what he considers a CIA fake:


No, not really. It's nothing new, it's nothing exclusive to Dunne, it's nothing special.


Personally, I have no skin in this game. However, I find it hard to believe that one day after finding out about his site, you can make a call that he is a disinformation agent.


Why? I've been looking at this stuff for a long time. Most of the sources I've learned to trust are on his list. His attacks don't use logic, they're a combination of appeal to authority and ad hominem, as far as I can see.

Easy. Disinfo. Obvious.


You say:



and all the information the editor, Finian Dunne, posts, treats government pronouncement like Holy Writ. It's pathetic.


and yet, in his site, he states:


Given the number of assets deployed in support of the 9/11 operation, and the operational requirements of the 9/11 attacks themselves, their origin is now clear. 9/11 was not carried out by some 'rogue group,' nor was it a fully official US Government-sanctioned operation. But it was orchestrated by the highest levels of the US Military and military-industrial complex; on behalf of the national and international politicians, corporates, and moneyed interests. It had, and still has the full support of the US Military/intelligence apparatus -who control much of the alternative media and the 9/11 movement.


The purpose of this kind of disinfo is, as Dunne himself states (and as I quoted in the OP) to fracture the movement and to get people to reject sources of information that TPTB find inconvenient. Of course that kind of rhetoric will be there, but what is he actually doing? Is he going out and interviewing people to flesh out the true events of 9/11, like Daniel Hopsicker? Not as far as I can see. Is he pulling disparate information into one place to make it available conveniently, like Tom Feely of information clearing house? No.

He's attacking those people.

There are plenty of people out there who espouse theories I don't much care for. The whole "no-planes" business, for example, strikes me as far-fetched. Because I think those kinds of claims can make the whole 9/11 business seem even more ridiculous to the average sleepyhead, I do think that some of those people might be disinfo agents. I don't know, and I'll never go after those people, because it just sows dissension within the ranks of people who need to pull together if there's to be any progress.

However, when I see a site like this, that exists simply to trash the work of other, better people, I have no problem at all calling it disinfo. No problem at all.


That certainly doesn't sound like he is accepting the government explanation of 9/11 as "holy writ", does it?


No, it doesn't sound like that at all... but when you look at what he's actually doing on the site, you can see it's BS.

Another person Dunne "exposes" as a CIA disinfo agent is Mike Ruppert. In case you didn't know, he was a cop who eventually realised that the reason that the people he was going after for drug dealing, particularly those high up the food chain, were getting away with it because they were protected by the CIA. His original website, copvcia.com, was brilliant and a good source of info on CIA drug deals. After he got into the 9/11 thing, a planted "volunteer" in the small organisation he was developing ruined his life and he was pretty much hounded out of the reporting business. For a little pipsqueak like Dunne to call this man a disinfo agent is, frankly, intolerable.

As I say, I've been looking at this stuff for a long time. And I'm usually prepared to give people the benefit of the doubt, but Dunne is disinfo, I'd put good money (not that you can find any these days) on it.




posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
The whole truth, most people cannot gauge the whole truth.


Truth is such a slippery concept. I long ago gave up worrying about truth and tried to concentrate on whether the model I have of what is out there has any predictive or interpretive value.


Not until they figure out the big picture or have all the puzzle pieces (like you said), then they would keep falling for disinfo.


I'd love to have all the puzzle pieces. All we can do is rearrange what we've got into what makes sense to us. Is this a piece of sky, or is it sky reflected in the lake? Is this edge piece from the side or bottom? Is this piece from a different puzzle altogether, and thrown into the box by the jigsaw puzzle gremlins?



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   
It's really funny that so many people think there are "disinfo" agents trolling ATS. I've seen friends of mine get labeled as such simply for questioning the delusional mob mindset that develops on several threads. Interesting how people project what they claim to hate unto others. Perhaps more pathetic than interesting actually.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
The whole truth, most people cannot gauge the whole truth.


Truth is such a slippery concept. I long ago gave up worrying about truth and tried to concentrate on whether the model I have of what is out there has any predictive or interpretive value.


Not until they figure out the big picture or have all the puzzle pieces (like you said), then they would keep falling for disinfo.


I'd love to have all the puzzle pieces. All we can do is rearrange what we've got into what makes sense to us. Is this a piece of sky, or is it sky reflected in the lake? Is this edge piece from the side or bottom? Is this piece from a different puzzle altogether, and thrown into the box by the jigsaw puzzle gremlins?


Is that a duck or a rabbit?



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


How about you read more of the title of the thread, like the actual OP? And then maybe check out the linked site itself? Heaven knows, that's why I put the link in there.

No, I wasn't talking about ATS, and you're just one of a disturbing number of people who've leapt to the conclusion that my use of the phrase "this site" in the thread title refers to ATS.

Had anyone read a few words into the OP they'd have seen that such was not the case.

As far as ATS is concerned, yes, there are people on here I'd definitely consider to be active disinfo people. Only a very small (but of course very active) handful. But I'm not pointing the finger at anyone on this site, it's not something I'd consider terribly profitable.

Fintan Dunne, though... no problem.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by owlseleven
 


Oh dear... someone else who hasn't read more than the title. Perhaps the reason you've been called a disinfo agent in the past is because you've made injudicious comments without fully understanding the context of what you're talking about.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by rightuos
In today's day and age if I had the power I believe others have I would just do it...pertaining to any crisis or "false flag". Let the details spill,.. so what, I'll have (inside secrets) spill out on this side then just watch the show. Nobody wins because each side has "real verifiable truth" but both are to stupid to see the bigger picture that both are right. I will win and keep my secret while the sheep fight amongst themselves over the years , until some point its just not important anymore. I win. Big government wins! .. because the American people are to lazy... and stupid to get off their butt and do something about it. I win you lose because you have no spine, even though you outnumber me 2000-1 I still win. I always will win. Prove me wrong.

That is a double dare.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by rightuos]

[edit on 13-3-2009 by rightuos]


Prove you wrong? I haven't a clue what you're on about.

Very amusing, though, if not exactly on-topic.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
reply to post by owlseleven
 


Oh dear... someone else who hasn't read more than the title. Perhaps the reason you've been called a disinfo agent in the past is because you've made injudicious comments without fully understanding the context of what you're talking about.


I'm perfectly aware that the OP wasn't directly referencing ATS. It's not out of context for me to make an indirect connection to the larger issue being discussed by the OP, which was disinformation. There's a lot more space for context than indicated by your reaction. That's the point of context after all. Since you're such a close reader, did I say that I'd been called a disinfo agent or that my friends had been? You're a funny guy.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by branty
 


As far as I can tell, you're someone who needs to read past the title of the thread, and look at the actual post. How about doing that? The fact that you've got a few stars for your reply suggests again that there are a worrying number of people who can't read.

I'll say it again:

The "this site" in the title does NOT refer to ATS.
This would be obvious to anyone who read the OP.
If it isn't obvious, go back and read the OP!

And, again, there are always going to be disinfo agents on a site like ATS, what I was trying to do is alert people to the possibility that Fintan Dunne's site is pure disinfo. But of course that means people have to be able to read.

I have thought about trying to change the title of the thread to remove the ambiguity... but then I thought **** it, it'll just show up the people too stupid to read the actual post properly.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by owlseleven
 


I stand corrected!

Sorry, but this is a one line post. No getting around it. Spank me.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthShine
 


Thank you for truly adding to the thread. The thought that someone like Fintan Dunne is attacking Hopsicker makes me rather cross. I've been reading his stuff for a while now and he's always on the money.

Dunne, clearly, has nothing behind his attacks, there's no intellectual basis for what he does, and the purpose of this thread is to try to raise the level of awareness of disinfo issues. There are plenty of threads for people to read on ATS that do go into how to spot disinfo. If this thread inspires a couple of people to look into it more carefully, that's a good thing: and if it means people treat Dunne's site as the disinfo site it undoubtedly is, again, that'll be a good thing.

If anyone wants to take the trouble to check out my posting history here, they'll see that I'm pretty cautious about what I label as disinfo. I don't think I've ever accused anyone on this forum of being a disinfo agent, although some people have prompted me to use the terms "disingenuous" or "intellectually dishonest". I can only call it as I see it.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
reply to post by owlseleven
 


I stand corrected!

Sorry, but this is a one line post. No getting around it. Spank me.


I was being a jerk to say that anyway, so definitely no big deal. Sarcasm has its' place, but is generally passive-aggressive. I'll check myself on that.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by owlseleven]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by owlseleven
 


Look, it's fine. You were right. I didn't read what you said properly and I just lumped you in with the people who DIDN'T read the OP, which, as you can tell, is something that gets on my tits.

Hmmm... still no action from the mods on my (first, I think) one line post. Maybe I've gotten away with it.

But what did you think of Fintan Dunne's site? What do you actually think about what I wrote?



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


What do you want poster's to do , mirror your opinion's and nod like bobble heads?

you want people to agree that Fintan Dunne's site is disinfo ?

You really need to do all this for those answers.

Yes there are scary dis-info site's . ooooooooo

Yes Fintan is probly dis-info . oooooooo

My youve uncovered some scary stuff there



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Sorry Prof. but I could do what this guy does. He is just playing both sides of the coin. If you deny or don't deny, you must be CIA.

If you can't beat them, join them? and both sides are guilty?
Hell we are all now officially CIA!

Wow! Put us on the Board!

I did not hear one fact that this guy is using to prove his point. This is one of those deals, where in order to prove it, you need hard evidence.

Now if he comes up with some contact connection with AJ and the CIA, then I would give it a look. But just to say what he does, he is just hoping to stir enough traffic to make a living. Which by the way, takes a hell of alot to do.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by owlseleven
 


The one's that stand out the most on ATS are the one's that are flipping an opinion like a hot potato. They are the one's that give the strong sence that they are just getting kicks.
Now, for this discussion, are they just getting kicks by jerking someone's chain, or are they really dis-info agents.

Does the CIA, FBI, etc, really give a hoot about a bunch of fanatics in a delusional world on the Internet?



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by branty
reply to post by rich23
 


What do you want poster's to do , mirror your opinion's and nod like bobble heads?



No. I'd just like them to read the posts, not the title, and add something intelligent to the discussion. Is that so wrong? You might try it yourself.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by j2000
 


I take your point... but what makes me more than usually certain that this guy is disinfo is his choice of targets and his methods. Hell, it's a tough world and we've all got to make a living. Paid agent? He should be, he's doing a superb job.


...just to say what he does, he is just hoping to stir enough traffic to make a living. Which by the way, takes a hell of alot to do.


Here's the thing: if that were all he was trying to do, it wouldn't be so bad. But there's a really obvious connection between his ostensible position, and the sites he attacks: most of the people and sites he attacks are, as far as I'm concerned, quite genuine - and that's not a conclusion I've reached hastily. So, to me, it goes beyond mere sensation-seeking or contrarianism.

And as you have noticed, he doesn't have any concrete evidence to fall back on. When it comes to something like Amanda Keller's testimony, he prefers to say, "oh, she retracted her statement, look at what a fantastic and hilarious actress she was in the Hopsicker interview", rather than "wow, someone got to her and got her to retract", which is more obvious if you genuinely think that 9/11 needs proper investigation.


Does the CIA, FBI, etc, really give a hoot about a bunch of fanatics in a delusional world on the Internet?


As far back as the early days of the Bush admin, the Pentagon realised that more people were turning to the net for information and news not available through mainstream sources. The term "fighting the net" dates as far back as 2000, and possibly further.

So to answer your question, yes, they do.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
One thing I've noticed in the general area of conspiracy is that individuals seem to get uptight over arguing specifics or will discount everything based on one piece of disinformation.

When you deal with lots of events over a large period of time is helpful to step back from the issue as far as you can and take in the entire picture.

It is similar to one of those big collage pictures that is made up of individual pictures to form a face. Up close, it is hundreds of disparate images that seem to mean nothing or even conflict but from a distance it actually forms something else entirely.

It's a crude analogy but it is useful sometimes. It also allows us to look past conflicting details and see more of the grand scheme.

When it comes down to a pool of information as big as the one we have of the world we live in, disinfo is just static, the picture can still be seen if we look at the whole thing.

Kind of like an old black and white tv that needs the antennae adjusted.
It won't ever be crystal clear, but you can still follow the game.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
SpeakFree is right. We must be united in our quest for truth. 99% of the anti AJ stuff i've looked is an absolute waste of time. the quality of research is poor, knowledge of AJ's opinion are often miss-interpreted. i'm a long time listener.

the only theory on aj which may hold any water is the jesuit/vatican thing. i haven't researched this yet.

i'm fed up with infighting. it's about waking people up.




top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join