|
©Gerard Holmgren. Jan 1 2006. This article or any part of it may not be reproduced without express permission from the author in writing. This prohibition excludes quotation for reasonable reference purposes providing that the article is linked to. PREFACE TO THE DISINFORMATION SECTION THE ART OF CRITICAL THINKING Distinguishing high quality research from rubbish, hearsay and disinformation. Since this website became operational in late 2004, I have resisted posting anything relating to the bottomless pit of “infighting” amongst those who dispute the mainstream story of Sept 11. I wanted my site to focus solely on delivering good information to those willing to look at high quality research with a critical and open mind. I have confined any involvement in “infighting” to alternative media debate forums such as Indymedia. Unfortunately, due to constant attacks on my work—and on work which I recommend by other researchers, and the alarming proliferation of disinformation masquerading as Sept 11 research by many calling themselves the “911 truth movement” - I have decided that the attacks and the disinformation now require a response from this website, as I believe that the lies being told by the alternative media and the “911truth movement” have now become more serious than those of the mainstream media. I have kept this section separate from the research which exposes the mainstream story, because the information war about Sept 11 is now being fought on two fronts. The first is against the cover-up peddled by the mainstream media and the Govt. The second is against the cover-up being peddled by the alternative media and the euphemistically named “truth movement”. If you are new to Sept 11 scepticism and still unaware of the problems with the mainstream media story, then I suggest that for the moment, you ignore this section, and read the summary of evidence I have compiled, showing that the US Govt and its agencies planned and carried out the attacks of Sept 11, and then read at least some of the research and documentation which supports these charges, and some other specific research articles of mine. The lies of the alternative media and the “truth movement” won’t be properly understood unless you first understand the full scope what’s wrong with the mainstream story. INTRODUCTION— WHY THE “INFIGHTING” ? If you are already comfortable with the basic idea that the Govt was involved in Sept 11, and already familiar with the basics of the evidence and are now trying to sort your way through the maze of claim and counter claim in relation to the finer points of exactly what happened (or didn’t happen), then this section is for you. Anybody who has looked critically into the official story of Sept 11, knows that the Govt and mainstream media are lying about what really happened that day and who did it. What may not be so obvious is that most of the people putting this view forward are also lying, attempting to pick selected pieces of truth and half truth and mix it with lies to use for whatever their particular agenda might be. Many of these agenda involve making accusations of some kind of involvement on the part of the Govt , presented in a manner which is no more true than the mainstream story. Many of those crying foul over Govt involvement have standards of truth and ethics no better than those who carried out the attacks and started the phoney “war on terror”. Some people are making a lot of money and political advantage out of the Sept 11 frame up and the phoney war on terror, but there is also plenty of political advantage and money to be made out of opposing it. There is little difference between the behaviour of opportunists on either side. In addition, many of those who call themselves the “alternative media” and the “truth movement” are Govt or agency spooks of some kind, with a strategy of conceding small parts of the truth in order to gain the trust of people like yourself, and then using this trust to confuse and cover up the bigger picture, by mixing fragments of truth and half truth with alternative lies—or even supporting selected mainstream lies. YOU DON’T NEED TO “TRUST” ANYBODY The difficulty which you may be having is that you have probably heard similar claims from other websites, including those which attack my work and accuse me of spreading disinformation. How do you know who to trust ? My answer is that you shouldn't trust anyone in relation to this—including me. I suggest that you simply assess my work and the work of others– both that which I recommend and that which I dispute - by subjecting such work to a simple four point test. 1. Are the facts which it claims linked to sources which are easily accessible and checkable in the public domain ? Eg. Reports from recognized media outlets, easily accessible Govt or other official records and databases, photographs and videos with verification to support their authenticity, generally accepted laws of science etc. Or do they rely on mysterious allusions to “secret documents”, reports of private conversations which can’t be verified, boasts of “inside knowledge” by the author ? Photos and videos which appear on the web with no verifiable source ? Or perhaps clearly stated “facts”, for which no authentic source or perhaps no source at all is supplied ? Or innuendo, achieved by vaguely linking a particular person or event to some political, religious, financial or racial group as the founding basis of the analysis ? 2. Having established the authenticity of the sources, are the facts cited from those sources correctly described and not chosen in a selective manner designed to be misleading ? 3.Having established that the facts are correct, balanced and authentically sourced , is the argument built from those facts logical ? 4. Does the quality of information and argument presented transcend any necessity to trust the author ? In other words, had the identical article been written by someone else, or if the author fell under a bus tomorrow, would the research remain just as valid and just as checkable for authenticity of sources, fact and quality of logic ? If you critically examine everyone’s work—including mine—always keeping these four principles in mind, then it is not necessary to trust anybody. The good research will naturally rise above the disinformation and hearsay. and transcend any guesses or preconceptions about who to trust and who not to trust. . I invite the most critical standards of such scrutiny to my work and that by others which I recommend, based on this four point test, because I have no agenda other than the whole truth, have nothing to hide, and have confidence that this work stands up to such scrutiny. In spite of years of ferocious attacks from the “truth movement” ,no-one has identified any significant error in this work on the basis of the four principles above. The word “disinformation” gets thrown around a lot by the “truth movement”, but it is seldom backed it up with analysis based on the four principles above. In the disinformation section I will show that much of the writing by what calls itself the “911 truth movement” and the alternative media fails to meet the four principles above and can therefore be justifiably described as “disinformation” . Attacks on my work and on that by others which I recommend are easily exposed as nothing but empty bluster. Additionally, we will see that what little of the good research is acknowledged by the “truth movement” is plagiarized or adapted from the same authors who they attempt to discredit in relation to other issues and then carefully re-arranged to fit into a bigger lie. As soon as good research appears, it is attacked not only directly, but also by proliferation of poorly presented imitations, spinning off into endless distorted variations, which raise the level of background noise to the point where the original high quality research becomes smothered by the competing babble. To understand the process of disinformation, we need to hone our critical analysis skills in assessing adherence to the four principles above. Below are links to two articles, to give you contrasting examples. The first article meticulously follows the four principles above. The second article is hearsay, relying on blind trust, and a puffed up personality cult. We have no way of knowing whether the interview which is the subject of the article even took place, or if it did, whether the interviewee is telling the truth. We can’t prove that it didn’t happen ,and are left simply with the choice to either believe the author or not believe the author. If we want to call this “research “ or “information”, then we can go to the pub to hear stuff just as reliable. Or make it up ourselves just to see how easily this can be done. If the principle wasn’t clear to you from comparing those two articles, here are two more examples. This article meets the four criteria above. This article does not meet any of them. As I’ll show in later writings, yet to be posted, it takes about 20 minutes to make up and write up stuff like this. Although if I was making it up, I wouldn't be so stupid as to cite an alleged event on the Polish/Austrian border, considering that no such border exists. (Note: after the author of this hilarious faux pax received a public roasting over it, he tweaked the article, changing his mind in relation to which particular international border the alleged incident took place on—this time managing to find a border which actually exists in the real world.) Hopefully, these examples have given you an insight into how some of the lies are so brazen, that they can slip past you if you’re not careful, because it simply doesn't occur to you that someone could so obviously and blatantly lie in full view, a technique used just as much by the alternative media and the “truth” movement as the mainstream media. Hopefully, you have now grasped the basic process which is required to separate good research from hearsay and disinformation. If so, then you are ready to continue to the disinformation section , where I identify and deconstruct some of the disinformation, hearsay and personality cult promotion peddled by the alternative media and what euphemistically calls itself the “truth “ movement. This exposure will never be complete because the volume of absolute garbage calling itself “911 truth “ is so large—and growing all the time—that no one could possibly deconstruct all of it. Hopefully, that isn’t necessary, because what I hope to do is deconstruct some of the more important and obnoxious material, central to the alterative lies, and also some which, while perhaps peripheral in the importance of the content, make good case studies for developing the necessary skills to be able to see through this kind of spin more easily. |