In a recent article by Erik Larson of visibility911.com, where he revealed that Peter Dale Scott does not endorse a Pentagon flyover theory, he relates the following concerning calling people disinfo:
That being said, we have demonstrated that CIT and their supporters use many of the "The Rules of Disinformation" as outlined by H. Michael Sweeny, but just in case we didn't drive this point home, let me expand.
Rule #5 as outlined by Sweeny is to "Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule." Keeping that in mind...
A topic on the Loose Change Forum asked the question: "Why is CIT evidence omitted frequently?," so I thought I would provide an answer...
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes 9-11 Researcher Jim Hoffman...
http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1351
Aldo Marquis of CIT responds:
So, because of this, Marquis calls Wolsey, who hosts the longest-running podcast for 9/11 truth, a "bumbling fool." Then he calls Hoffman, arguably one of the most well respected 9/11 researchers ever, a "bumbling fool, idiot, coward", and "pathetic excuse for a truthseeking researcher." That is "name calling and ridicule" if I ever heard it!
Also, after posting the interview on the Loose Change forum, under my user name of "infowarpatriot" a CIT supporter attacked the name, stating, "'infowarpatriot'... talk about blatant disinfo. How about 'Super9-11Truther' or 'TotaleeLegitPatriot' or 'ImNotDisinfoIpromise'"
But hey, maybe CIT and their fans were victims of number #18 of the "Rules of Disinformation," maybe they were "Antagonized and Goaded" by their "opponents."
I mean how dare Wolsey and Hoffman suggest they might be disinfo, it's not like CIT dismisses hundreds of other witnesses (Disinformation Rule #19. Ignore proof presented) giving easy straw men to debunkers, (Disinformation Rule #4 Use a straw man) and accuses some witnesses of being cover-up agents, or worse, active participants.
It's not like their theory depends on an absurd amount of fakery, including: wreckage and the flight data and cockpit voice recorders found at the Pentagon, human remains and DNA indentification, the aforementioned witnesses, and sleight of hand type illusion that would make Criss Angel look like a dime-store magician (Disinformation Rule #15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions). Oh wait, yes it is, but again, insinuating disinfo is a bit beyond the pale, CIT's fans may do that, but they never would, right?
On May 9, 2008 "Reprehensor" of 911blogger.com posted the following:
And it seems that if Jim Hoffman is a coward for not debating, then so is Craig Ranke of CIT. The resident 9/11 truther at the Screw Loose Change blog, Brian Good, had this to say, "Craig Ranke demanded that I debate him. After we had some back-and-forth in an email group he ran away and never came back."
In summation: CIT critics have insinuated they were, or outright called them disinfo (including members of this blog). However, CIT is guilty of the same to a larger degree and with less solid ground to walk on. That being said, I concede that we need to be more careful with such terminolgy in the future due to only having circumstantial evidence, just like their entire theory! Direct evidence would be witnesses actually seeing a flyover!
Related Info:
The CIT Deception - Mock Trailer!
In his message giving me permission to post, Dr. Scott also said, "I am now aware of [CIT’s] ad hominem attacks on good people, which is a big reason why I am giving you this permission." In my email to him, I had included a link to the CIT forum thread titled "Face to the Name", where they post names and photos, and insult and attack those who question their methods, conclusions and behavior:These are all very good points, and everyone at this blog will be more careful with such terminology in the future.
z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=508
My name and photo are on page 4; CIT co-founder Aldo ‘Investigangsta’ Marquis claims I have made "accusations of being disinfo" against CIT. This is not correct; I have criticized CIT’s evidence, claims and behavior, but I have not accused them of ‘disinformation’, i.e. intentionally misleading the public.
Lessons from Dr. Scott’s message:
1) Labeling people or questioning their motives instead of critiquing their evidence and arguments is not persuasive to people skilled in research and debate, and may even be offensive. Facts are facts, and offensive behavior does not change the truth, but civil discussion promotes greater understanding. Personal attacks can cloud the issues and cause bad feeling and suspicion among 9/11 researchers and Truth activists. The FBI employed such techniques effectively during their COINTELPRO operation, as a means of disrupting and distracting activists. Dr. Scott wisely asks that those seeking truth "not discredit the truth movement by wanton attacks on each other."
And as 9/11 researcher Arabesque has observed:
About the issue of "disinformation" and "agents" and all of that. I think it is best to reject labels altogether and just give the information. Particularly since there are disinformation enablers who will use these kinds of characterizations and attacks to defend CIT and their endorsements of CIT. I have seen time and time again how this is used as a straw-man to deflect attention away from the bad information and behavior. Instead of addressing these issues, enablers of disinfo/misinfo will point to the "attacks" and accusations of "disinfo" and simply ignore the information.
That being said, we have demonstrated that CIT and their supporters use many of the "The Rules of Disinformation" as outlined by H. Michael Sweeny, but just in case we didn't drive this point home, let me expand.
Rule #5 as outlined by Sweeny is to "Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule." Keeping that in mind...
A topic on the Loose Change Forum asked the question: "Why is CIT evidence omitted frequently?," so I thought I would provide an answer...
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes 9-11 Researcher Jim Hoffman...
http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1351
Aldo Marquis of CIT responds:
And? Your point? Doesn't that belong in the skeptics section?First off, Michael Wolsey did not say that CIT was definitely engaged in disinformation, he actually said he could not prove such a thing, but that he can point towards behavior. I'll let Jim Hoffman's analysis speak for itself and only add that I recently had the chance to see the Pentagon while on a bus ride and my first thoughts were how ridiculous a flyover theory is! I would have seen it!
So does someone want to inform my daughter, my mom, my family, my friends that I am a disinformation operative for the gov't? Michael Wolsey is a bumbling fool.
Speaking of bumbling fools...
Jim Hoffman is wrong on so many levels. I mean the guy fucking used Google Earth to provid POV'sfor flyover witness (using the old absence of evidence argument) and claim us driving around the highways with a video camera is deceptive. The idiot uses Google Earth flattened out then writes an article on it, then advises everyone to use Google Maps Street View which is what he should have used in the first place. Which,keep in mind, also is a camera sitting mounted a feet on the roof of a car, not a person sitting inside of a car.
The guy sites people who weren't even at the Pentagon as witnesses.
Ask him why he refused to debate or discuss his concerns with us? We called his house and left a message, no return call. Because he is a coward who would rather cobble together a weak ass argument to save face and not admit he was wrong. What a pathetic excuse for a truthseeking researcher."
So, because of this, Marquis calls Wolsey, who hosts the longest-running podcast for 9/11 truth, a "bumbling fool." Then he calls Hoffman, arguably one of the most well respected 9/11 researchers ever, a "bumbling fool, idiot, coward", and "pathetic excuse for a truthseeking researcher." That is "name calling and ridicule" if I ever heard it!
Also, after posting the interview on the Loose Change forum, under my user name of "infowarpatriot" a CIT supporter attacked the name, stating, "'infowarpatriot'... talk about blatant disinfo. How about 'Super9-11Truther' or 'TotaleeLegitPatriot' or 'ImNotDisinfoIpromise'"
But hey, maybe CIT and their fans were victims of number #18 of the "Rules of Disinformation," maybe they were "Antagonized and Goaded" by their "opponents."
I mean how dare Wolsey and Hoffman suggest they might be disinfo, it's not like CIT dismisses hundreds of other witnesses (Disinformation Rule #19. Ignore proof presented) giving easy straw men to debunkers, (Disinformation Rule #4 Use a straw man) and accuses some witnesses of being cover-up agents, or worse, active participants.
It's not like their theory depends on an absurd amount of fakery, including: wreckage and the flight data and cockpit voice recorders found at the Pentagon, human remains and DNA indentification, the aforementioned witnesses, and sleight of hand type illusion that would make Criss Angel look like a dime-store magician (Disinformation Rule #15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions). Oh wait, yes it is, but again, insinuating disinfo is a bit beyond the pale, CIT's fans may do that, but they never would, right?
On May 9, 2008 "Reprehensor" of 911blogger.com posted the following:
Posting these critical resources for 911blogger users to examine, when evaluating the Pentagon Fly-over theory and eyewitness evidence as presented by the CIT team... Users should be aware of this criticism:Aldo Marquis of CIT responds, "You are now guilty of promoting disinformation."
John Farmer's blog:
http://911files.info/blog/index.php
Caustic Logic:
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com
Arabesque:
http://www.arabesque911.blogspot.com
I have no further comment on these blogs other than to say that they exist.
And it seems that if Jim Hoffman is a coward for not debating, then so is Craig Ranke of CIT. The resident 9/11 truther at the Screw Loose Change blog, Brian Good, had this to say, "Craig Ranke demanded that I debate him. After we had some back-and-forth in an email group he ran away and never came back."
In summation: CIT critics have insinuated they were, or outright called them disinfo (including members of this blog). However, CIT is guilty of the same to a larger degree and with less solid ground to walk on. That being said, I concede that we need to be more careful with such terminolgy in the future due to only having circumstantial evidence, just like their entire theory! Direct evidence would be witnesses actually seeing a flyover!
Related Info:
The CIT Deception - Mock Trailer!
