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.

 

What would be the point of "paid disinfo agents" on ATS?

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   

COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert, and often illegal,[2] projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations.


en.wikipedia.org...

What would be the point of "paid disinfo agents" on ATS?

What would be the point of the FBI targeting Martin Luther King?

Face it, history is not on your side. If the FBI would target (and assassinate) the greatest American peace activist in history, what moral barrier is stopping them from infiltrating online websites?




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert, and often illegal,[2] projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations.


en.wikipedia.org...

What would be the point of "paid disinfo agents" on ATS?

What would be the point of the FBI targeting Martin Luther King?

Face it, history is not on your side. If the FBI would target (and assassinate) the greatest American peace activist in history, what moral barrier is stopping them from infiltrating online websites?


None. But that's not my point. I can see the advantage for them in targetting King. I can't see where the advantage is in paying people (and therefore broadening their conspiracy) to hang about on a website. What would happen if the debunkers went away?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Again, why would it broaden the conspiracy? The people paid to do it don't need to be told there is a conspiracy - they could be kept in the dark and mislead like everyone else. I already posted a few pages back giving a few possible ways this could happen, I'm sure there's thousands more.

Besides, we know for a fact that there are people in this world who will kill their own family for one reason or another (usually money). It stands to reason that some people could know for a fact that there is a conspiracy and not care or even actively go along with it.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
It happens, and it happens on more websites then you'd think. Here's a schnews article I posted a few months ago. It's about goverment agencies infiltrating activist networks and websites. It has some of the posts made by the agency members on there. Now, I also post on a fairly large forum, based in London which has a small but well informed activist section, and in that article, there's a list of IP addresses acredited to these clownettes. The guy who runs the site I post on, ran a check and got a few hits. If that website is infiltrated, then this one definatly is.
www.schnews.org.uk...



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


So, by that logic, wouldn't the government agents be on the Truther side? Being on the OS side ought to be a dead giveaway.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


They would be.

The most obvious thing would be to do exactly what EdwardCurrent did, post ridiculous easily debunked videos and then selectively block comments to make truthers seem ridiculous.

It is a schoolboy prank, but schoolboys do it because it is a sure-fire way to make your intellectual superiors look stupid.

This is also the kind of stuff Castro and Stalin would pull. It is blunt, but effective.

Tactics I would propose:
1) Set up a web-site designed to debunk 9/11 in a "scientific way", using the fact that science is never settled to forestall any real conclusion.

2) Start and spread nutty rumors like the Judy Woods gang or the no-planers.

3) Invent an ideological reason to oppose one or another group of truthers.

4) Sock-puppetry from either perspective.

5) Advocate "oh well there is nothing we can do".

6) Incite unlawful or violent behavior (less effective with truthers but theoretically plausible)

7) Use of "truther montage", basically abusing the fact that you can make anybody look like an idiot with out of context snippets and suitable selection of music. People like Alex Jones are particularly susceptible to this because of their rhetorical style.

8) Repeat the lie. Every time someone says that Popular Mechanics or NatGeo represent scientific "authoritah" a bunny dies in Africa.

9) Official sources that don't say what you think it says. NIST's recommendations to changes in building code is often used as a an "official response: www.nist.gov...
Most people would be overwhelmed by the bulk, but careful reading will reveal that at best two recommendations have anything to do with 9/11 and almost half led to no action at all. But if you repeat the lie, people will prefer to not read the document.

10) All these "supportive of OS" things can be done by a sockpuppet, with a "truther" sockpuppet to fail to debunk them.

11) Use truther "sockpuppets" to make reasonable claims that go too far. Make a list of valid arguments and then segue into some real nuttery for the finale, this discredits everything that has preceded it even more than if you just straight attack it because people feel indignant for following along.


I am sure there are people who are experts in this with psychology and marketing degrees to back them up, so they will have even more and much better strategies to back them up. Creative individuals can also add to the list.
edit on 27-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Acidtastic
It happens, and it happens on more websites then you'd think. Here's a schnews article I posted a few months ago. It's about goverment agencies infiltrating activist networks and websites. It has some of the posts made by the agency members on there. Now, I also post on a fairly large forum, based in London which has a small but well informed activist section, and in that article, there's a list of IP addresses acredited to these clownettes. The guy who runs the site I post on, ran a check and got a few hits. If that website is infiltrated, then this one definatly is.
www.schnews.org.uk...


Is there any word on wether ATS can do this? Or would they even if they could? Might be interesting.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cecilofs
Again, why would it broaden the conspiracy? The people paid to do it don't need to be told there is a conspiracy - they could be kept in the dark and mislead like everyone else. I already posted a few pages back giving a few possible ways this could happen, I'm sure there's thousands more.


Thousands? Really?

If someone approached you with the proposition that you would debunk 9/11 Truth for money would you not find it at least a little odd? I think even fairly stupid people would be forced to consider that a shadowy approach from some MIBs might just suggest there was a conspiracy in place.


Besides, we know for a fact that there are people in this world who will kill their own family for one reason or another (usually money).


There are hardly any of these people. A vanishingly small number. And the idea that you could locate them and be certain that they wouldn't publicise your approach - therefore endangering the conspiracy - is fanciful. Where would you advertise? Avaricious Psychopath Monthly?


It stands to reason that some people could know for a fact that there is a conspiracy and not care or even actively go along with it.


Yes. That's what a conspiracy is. But how it could be desirable to have low-grade debunkers in on something as sensitive as this I just can't fathom.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 
If anybody is looking for a group of 'low grade debunkers', they need look no further than ATS. Whatever they're paying these guys, it's too much. It's obvious that their pay is based on volume, and not content.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShadeIf someone approached you with the proposition that you would debunk 9/11 Truth for money would you not find it at least a little odd? I think even fairly stupid people would be forced to consider that a shadowy approach from some MIBs might just suggest there was a conspiracy in place.


I personally would find it dodgy, but then I have morals. You have people that come on to these forums for free and debunk theories all day (or are they govt agents? heh). Why wouldn't people do it for money? As I said, it can be framed in a way that makes it sound fine. "In the interest of national security" seems to sell well these days - can't have a bunch of people deluding themselves into thinking the govt is out to get them now can we? If enough people become "truthers" then the govt WOULD have a problem on their hands - makes perfect sense then to have controlled opposition.


There are hardly any of these people. A vanishingly small number. And the idea that you could locate them and be certain that they wouldn't publicise your approach - therefore endangering the conspiracy - is fanciful. Where would you advertise? Avaricious Psychopath Monthly?


BULL. #. There are numerous articles recently showing that psycopathy is on the increase. Numerous articles about how the corporate structure favours psycopaths. There are thousands if not millions of mercenaries, child soldiers etc active all over the world today. How are they recruited? I don't know, I'm not trying to recruit psycopaths. My point was that its possible.


Yes. That's what a conspiracy is. But how it could be desirable to have low-grade debunkers in on something as sensitive as this I just can't fathom.


Because you are making the assumption that they'd be told there was a conspiracy. They wouldn't. What's so hard to fathom about that?

I am just speaking hypothetically here, I have no idea if this actually happens, but based on historical info as posted by other people I think its possible.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I have also been accused of being a paid disinformation agent. It seems that they can believe anyone must be paid by the government who believe the actual events. I asked for proof that I was paid, and instead of attempting to offer proof, they seemed to just stomp and snort about how they weren't going to talk to me anymore.

That is the problem with conspiracy theorism, once you fall for an untruth, then you have to believe all untruths. It just makes me think that a lot of conspiracy theorists (not all of them) are open to suggestion and the tactics used by the mainstream theorists are designed to mislead people. No one questions the motives of the conspiracy theorists. Michael Moore is the most effective disinformation agent who is getting a lot of money to lead people astray, and what for? He wants people to buy his DVDs and he wants to be popular.

Michael Moore's production company is part of Disney, that also owns ABC. So if they want to go down the rabbit hole of the financial trail, let's start with him.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 
If anybody is looking for a group of 'low grade debunkers', they need look no further than ATS. Whatever they're paying these guys, it's too much. It's obvious that their pay is based on volume, and not content.



I think I would be paid for content. But I will ask again, can you provide any evidence beyond supposition and assumption based on conspiracy theories that people like me are being paid? That should be very easy to do if it were true.

You clearly demonstrate the tactic most used by conspiracy theorists, you ask a question then suggest the answer...you said "it's obvious". So if it is obvious that we must be paid, then there must be an obvious paper trail. I think it is because we disagree with popular theory. Conspiracy theories are nothing more than fun because it is fun to follow celebrities and rebels, even though there is nothing really to offer in the conspiracy theories. They are a lot of fluff based on no actual evidence and it is interesting to note that the less the conspiracies are believed, the worse their grammar becomes. Conspiracy theorists claim to be highly intellectual and yet can't piece together the facts that they are being misled. I have always questioned why they seem to be misled so easily. Perhaps they have suspended intellect because they love the romantic notion of being a rebel.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cecilofs


I personally would find it dodgy, but then I have morals. You have people that come on to these forums for free and debunk theories all day (or are they govt agents? heh). Why wouldn't people do it for money?


Some people probably would. But you're missing my point. These people have to be found and recruited, and it would only take one of them to go public and then the whole conspiracy is under threat. Why on earth would they risk such an outcome?

And your point about morals has no bearing at all. An immoral person would if anything be more likely to try to profit from the situation. Unless you think the paid debunkers are on millions for their work it would be hugely more profitable to blow the whistle. Why has nobody done that?


As I said, it can be framed in a way that makes it sound fine. "In the interest of national security" seems to sell well these days - can't have a bunch of people deluding themselves into thinking the govt is out to get them now can we? If enough people become "truthers" then the govt WOULD have a problem on their hands - makes perfect sense then to have controlled opposition.


How? These people must, by definition, know they are lying. As they researched the "facts" they would find the "Truth" - at least that is what Truthers contend - and would surely begin to realise that they were part of a conspiracy. At that point if they were 'moral' (like you and all other truthers, god bless you) they would go public. If they were immoral they would more than likely also go public. For the money.



BULL. #. There are numerous articles recently showing that psycopathy is on the increase. Numerous articles about how the corporate structure favours psycopaths. There are thousands if not millions of mercenaries, child soldiers etc active all over the world today. How are they recruited? I don't know, I'm not trying to recruit psycopaths. My point was that its possible.


You said that there are plenty of people who would kill their children for money. This is nonsense. There are a tiny few.

I've read the Hare book and it's paranoid crap. There are "mercenaries" as you say, but most believe they are doing something worthwhile. As for bringing child soldiers into this, it just shows that either you don't understand the term psychopath or you're ignorant of the circumstances involving children in warfare. Psychopathy has almost nothing to do with it.

The bottom line is that very few people do things that they consider to be "evil". Most people commit appalling acts thinking that they are the regrettable but correct and moral choice. In this case - 9/11 debunking - that would, according to the truth movement, be impossible. Hence my scepticism about the existence of paid debunkers.



Because you are making the assumption that they'd be told there was a conspiracy. They wouldn't. What's so hard to fathom about that?


According to the Truth Movement the facts, once researched, are indisputable. So even if these people started off stupid enough not to be suspicious of the initial contact, they would swiftly realise that they were being paid to cover up a crime by a shadowy contact who paid them out of the blue to make up lies. Nobody is stupid enough not to realise that that is a conspiracy, surely?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I still haven't found a satisfactory answer to the corollary of this question, which is what would happen if debunkers disappeared. The supposition implicit in the answers above - that debunkers exist to stifle the "truth's" emergence - presupposes that their disappearance would at least benefit the march of the "Truth" and possibly even send it mainstream.

What do people think? If the debunkers were defeated, or disappeared for some reason, would the "truth" about 9/11 expand as a result and reach the general public? And if not, why not?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I still haven't found a satisfactory answer to the corollary of this question, which is what would happen if debunkers disappeared. The supposition implicit in the answers above - that debunkers exist to stifle the "truth's" emergence - presupposes that their disappearance would at least benefit the march of the "Truth" and possibly even send it mainstream.

What do people think? If the debunkers were defeated, or disappeared for some reason, would the "truth" about 9/11 expand as a result and reach the general public? And if not, why not?
You pose a very good question, and to be honest in all my rage over the fact that debunkers do exist, I've not considered the alternative. I have always believed that anyone with at least a high school education, actually looked at what the govt. says happened that day, would come away convinced of a cover-up. That's why I feel so strongly about those people that waste so much time and space here.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed

]You pose a very good question, and to be honest in all my rage over the fact that debunkers do exist, I've not considered the alternative.



There's a lot of things that truthers haven't considered.

Science.

Physics.

Critical thinking.

Etc........

The only reason for truthers to even entertain the idea of cointelpro targetting them is to pump themselves up against the above things refuting their belief......



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by dillweed

]You pose a very good question, and to be honest in all my rage over the fact that debunkers do exist, I've not considered the alternative.



There's a lot of things that truthers haven't considered.

Science.

Physics.

Critical thinking.

Etc........

The only reason for truthers to even entertain the idea of cointelpro targetting them is to pump themselves up against the above things refuting their belief......


Right. Obviously, if the Government was paying people to spread disinfo, they would hire people that are good at it, right? Except on these boards, people are constantly called out for being such highly qualified disinfo agents.

Are they all just less intelligent than the average ATS'er?

Must be another waste of tax payer money becasue you all see right through them. If threatened, they could easily just send a covert assassin to take you out and nobody would ever be the wiser, but instead they hire inferior debators to make half assed posts against the Truth movement....



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Well, there is a lot of incentive to not solve the crime of the century.

Sites like this one sell advertising, so there's actually more incentive to keep the conspiracies going. If I was out to keep a myth alive but didn't want my fingerprints on it, I'd give seed money to an operative to buy a few nifty websites and cut them loose to fend for themselves. This way the paper trail to my handlers wouldn't be traced, and the operative would have their own financial incentive to keep the propaganda flowing. I'm sure arrangements like that occur all the time...the fewer paper trails the better.
edit on 26-10-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

What do people think? If the debunkers were defeated, or disappeared for some reason, would the "truth" about 9/11 expand as a result and reach the general public? And if not, why not?


People are still unwilling or unable to address this question.

I imagine the answer might be rather discomfiting.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

What do people think? If the debunkers were defeated, or disappeared for some reason, would the "truth" about 9/11 expand as a result and reach the general public? And if not, why not?


People are still unwilling or unable to address this question.

I imagine the answer might be rather discomfiting.


It would be a game-changer. The Media are knee-deep in the coverup, so are NATO governments and academia. If the truth gets out, everything really does change after 911.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join