Disinformation.com: 70% hacky bullshit, 30% tame flirting with taboo topics

I think Disinformation likes to milk the term "conspiracy theory," while offering relatively little of the facts and information that back some of them up. Quit coddling the mainstream, Disinfo. It's no longer necessary.

http://www.disinfo.com/2010/05/pakistan-and-conspiracy-theory/

Calling Shenanigans on the Professional Class Propagandists, Once Again

Get a load o' this Gibronasaurus


Yeah I stopped taking this guy seriously as soon as he tried to connect Maher's skepticism of the pharmaceutical industry and the CDC's standards and practices, with "9/11 conspiracy mongering", simply by declaring it so. He draws no comparisons. He gives no fact-based examples. He simply name-drops '9/11 conspiracy theories' and then name-drops vaccine skepticism and then lazily lets his hopefully braindead audience make the unfair connection, without any critical inquiry. Rather than playing politics by dragging up the name of a political movement that may have a certain stigma for the average moron, this dude could have presented a legitimate SCIENTIFIC, not POLITICAL, critique. You'd think that would've been in order, since.. y'know.. he's a scientist, n' all.

Equating the honest and legitimate concerns of parents across this nation to a politically stigmatized movement without providing any support for that claim is just intellectually dishonest.

Reminding us of the basic theory behind vaccinations is a laughable response to skepticism and concern over a fast-tracked vaccine that has undergone utterly inadequate testing. The issue isn't whether or not there is any basis to the concept of vaccinations (there most assuredly is) but rather whether this scientific breakthrough has been politically and economically hijacked by people who, shall we say, haven't taken the hypocratic oath.

"Your brilliant line about how we know that the Bush administration did not orchestrate 9/11 (“because it worked”)"

His description of this line from Bill Maher as "brilliant" says a whole lot about him. Interpreting the "inside job" theory of 9/11 as some ridiculously unrealistic assertion that bush the nitwit is singlehandedly responsible for the attacks, reveals a mind-blowing niavete towards how intelligence organizations such as the C.I.A, MI6, and Moussad operate throughout our world. If anything, the presidency of such a dolt as Bush Jr. clearly illustrates COMPETENCY AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.. for surely only a society expertly manipulated and controlled, and pervasively propagandized, could tolerate an 8 year reign from such a stuttering "clown on the world stage," to use one of Maher's more memorable lines.

The Gibroney Hunter Vs. The Hutch, Battle 2

The Gibroney Hunter: Virtually all vaccine safety research has been conducted by the vaccine producers themselves. The FDA does not conduct its own independent studies on this issue. Therefore, the manufacturers of the vaccines themselves are the sole source of information. Also, double-blind studies, which are essential to any good science, have never been conducted. Watch the documentary "vaccine nation." It should be on youtube. The mainstream scientific community is just another corrupt and toxic institution.

The Hutch: Another corrupt and toxic institution? really? I don't feel very corrupt or toxic. I don't think any of my scientist friends are corrupt or toxic. Mostly I think everyone I've met in either community are primarily concerned with discovering things and helping people.

Regardless of how invalid you think the research is giving vaccines the clear, there is absolutely NO good research that damns them. You're operating purely on speculation. There is, however, a great deal of research on the new outbreaks and deaths of old, curable diseases caused by communities of parents opting out of vaccines. Autism isn't a life sentence. Polio is.

Lastly, there have been double-blind studies on just about every vaccine out there. I don't know where you get your info, but it seems far less reliable than the so-called corrupt and toxic medical and scientific communities.

The Gibroney Hunter: I disagree that proper double blind studies were conducted. The studies conducted by vaccine makers were pervasively flawed and incomplete. And even if they weren't, it doesn't change the fact that the makers themselves were the ones testing. And you know as well as I do that good science cannot be biased in such a way.

Interesting you should mention Polio. If you observe the line graphs on Polio statistics in the months and years leading up to the vaccination, you may be as surprised as I was to learn that the death rate and diagnosis rates had been steadily DECLINING during this time. Quite contrary to most people's basic assumptions, there is actually a huge jump in the numbers immediately after vaccinations, then the natural steady decline continues until Polio ceases to be an epidemic. This is a very telling fact because it seems to support the assertion that the Polio vaccine was ineffective at best, and completely poisonous at worst, and also that the Polio virus, like so many other viruses throughout human history, was working itself out naturally.

A couple points regarding your claim of a lack of evidence supporting skepticism of vaccines. Look up Guillain-Barre syndrome, if you're not already familiar. It's actually a disease caused by tainted flu vaccines in the 1970's. For an entire year, the Establishment denied any connection between mounting deaths and the vaccinations, but they finally had to admit that yes, they had been poisoning people. There's much more to be said on this, but my second point is one I believe I've basically made before, in facebook comments. It's that the lack of well-funded research contradicting vaccine makers should come as a surprise to no one, since the makers of vaccines are part of a Eugenicist agenda that owns and operates mainstream science. They censor science just like they censor the news. There is a long list of honest professionals who were blacklisted and never funded again for research, after coming out publicly against things like fluoridation of our water supply, aspartame, vaccinations, and so on.

The Hutch: " It's that the lack of well-funded research contradicting vaccine makers should come as a surprise to no one, since the makers of vaccines are part of a Eugenicist agenda that owns and operates mainstream science."

DUDE. Come ON. Really?

Why is it that conspiracy theorists are so skeptical of damn near everything, but always so sure of the crackpot theories they come up with?

The Gibroney Hunter: "DUDE. Come ON. Really?"

What an articulate and well formulated response.

You are to scientific debate what Lil John is to hip hop.

The Hutch: It ceases to be a scientific debate when you bring up global conspiracies. It's like trying to discuss biology and someone chimes in "well what about the unicorn!?" I can't prove there are no unicorns. I'm just have to common sense to assume that they're fairly improbable.

Again, I don't understand why you can be so skeptical of so many things, yet so accepting of these crackpot theories you keep coming up with.

The Gibroney Hunter: But you can state a comprehensive case as to why it seems highly improbably that unicorns exist. In fact, this should be rather easy to do from a scientific perspective. And this is precisely what you haven't done. Sadly, much of what you're saying pretty much boils down to "you're crazy" Which may or may not be true.. but as an intellectually sound rebuttal? Just doesn't cut it.

"It ceases to be a scientific debate when you bring up global conspiracies."

Why? Is the subject of global conspiracies somehow beyond the scope of science? I'm assuming your answer would be 'no' so what exactly is it that leads you to reject this idea on it's face.

Fun Fact: BOTH predominant views of the events of 9/11 are in fact conspiracy theories. Some believe the richest people in the world conspired to ensure the next century would be one firmly in their control, and some believe that a rag-tag group of muslims CONSPIRED to simultaneously hijack four airliners, permeate NORAD, the most technologically advanced air-defense system in the solar system, crash those planes into 2 buildings and make 3 of them fall down.

Regarding my skepticism, and seeming lack of it in certain areas.. I disagree. I'm skeptical of every and any thing that crosses my path. The difference is that instead of suckling from the withering teat of NPR or Scientific American, I've actually begun using my own skepticism and applying it independently. And y'know what? Alot of the stuff that alot of people are convinced is immutable fact? Turns out to be shit, rather than shinola. I did not choose to become a 'conspiracy theorist.' My loyalty to the facts and the truth has led me to a place that (not very surprisingly) is viciously opposed by the massive hordes of lemmings known as the average American citizen.

More Gibroney Huntin' (cont)

This dude not only accepts the "gross incompetence" fable, but takes it one step further, and asserts that 9/11 Truth is actually fomented and instigated by the establishment itself, in order to cover up incompetence and enforce a false notion of American omnipotence. And we're the "conspiracy theorists"?

Some Gibroney: Is there a cover-up involving 9/11? Most certainly, especially given all the evidence in the materials you've sent me. However, it is my opinion that most theories of this sort are cover stories deliberately propagated (if not created) by intelligence organs of the gov't to distract people from its periodic episodes of gross incompetence w/r/t security, exemplified by the JFK assassination and 9/11.

Some facts:

The CIA has brought radical Muslims into the US. The hijackers trained on US military bases. More military training exercises were scheduled for September 11, 2001 than usual. Hijackers were able to enter the airspace of, to say nothing of crashing a plane into, the headquarters of the most powerful military in human history and so on and so on...

We know that the US gov't has a long history of psychological operations against its own population; the UFO/alien myth for instance is propagated (probably with the collusion of Hollywood) to distract the public from the size and scope of the black military budget and the high-tech weaponry and vehicles it produces. The US gov't is also well known for its history of covert paramilitary action, but the vast majority of that is concentrated abroad, with a few exceptions (COINTELPRO being one).

As far as I can tell, there are two viable explanations that incorporate all of these facts:

1) A high-level conspiracy involving dozens, if not hundreds, of specially trained individuals and agents, none of whom are affected by the temptation to expose one of the greatest conspiracies in world history and thus become (inter)national heroes.

2) Gross incompetence (with probably some bad luck) on the part of the US intelligence/security apparatus, with a cover-up/conspiracy theory generated later to make sure the administration would not be viewed as bunglers, but as nigh-omnipotent masterminds.

The main reason we can reject explanation 1 is that any of the purported 'inside job' 9/11 schemes would have a very low chance of succeeding. Undertaking such a plan would be costly, elaborate, and difficult to keep under wraps because of the extremely high risk of detection and/or defection. If the aim of the 9/11 attacks was to drum up support for an aggressive foreign policy in general (and eventual war with Iraq in particular), a far easier plan would've been to engage in some of the things recommended by Operation Northwoods, particularly a bombing campaign. Stealing or fabricating seemingly Iraqi-made explosives is well within the powers of US intelligence, but even in that case, an eventual leak of their real source is very likely, given the amount of manpower and resources necessary for such an operation.

It is very useful to compare the events of 9/11 with those of the Kennedy assassination. They share many features: a devastating security breach, evidence for (probably unwitting) CIA involvement with the perpetrators (making the incidents a form of blowback), a deliberately avoidant and selectively informative gov't commission, and, I believe, manipulation of public paranoia in the form of deliberately and systematically withheld evidence (e.g. Kennedy's missing brain, the confiscated Pentagon security camera tapes). In both cases, the credibility of the US security apparatus is on the line. Fear is a crucial component of the power of these organizations; if they lose face they lose much of their ability to indimidate.

Machiavelli wrote that "it is better to be feared than loved", but being feared is also better than being thought a buffoon (and fessing up to criminal negligence). We need only look as far as the Bush administration's record in Afghanistan and Iraq to see how incompetent they really are when it comes to security, in both the short- and long-term. And as depicted in the video you sent me, before 9/11, high US gov't officials were either dismissive of critical intelligence (e.g. the memo infamously ignored by Condi Rice and others), or they never received it, which explains Bush & co.'s fetishistic obsession with more communication and integration among the US's various intelligence agencies. Though the CIA probably had contacts with bin Laden's organization, including several of the hijackers, it would be fallacious to then conclude that the CIA intended for those individuals to undertake terrorist acts against the United States; it seems evident to me that the authors of that video are taking Chomsky's words out of context.

The video does not address another crucial section of that particular Q&A of Chomsky's talk in Hungary, in which he discusses the nature of controlled experiments conducted in the best laboratories in the world under controlled conditions. A scientist routinely encounters strange patterns and coincidences, even apparent violations of the laws of nature under such conditions, but if (s)he approaches the experiment with scientific skepticism, (s)he will perform the experiment as many times as possible to make sure that all of the data is meaningful and there are no hidden variables. We don't have that luxury with the 9/11 attacks; they can only happen once. The precise reasons for (say) the structural collapse of the WTC complex can only be surmised, and only very sketchily modeled. There are so many variables in this case, it should come as no surprise that the conclusions of Steven Jones and others are only endorsed by a fraction of accredited architects and engineers.

In conclusion, it seems reasonable to me to surmise, based on the available evidence, that certain facts about the 9/11 attacks are indeed being downplayed, ignored, or denied by certain members of the American political establishment. But it's far more likely that they're all trying to cover their asses after carelessly letting a catastrophe unfold. It's important to maintain healthy skepticism w/r/t the actions of very powerful states, but just because they're hiding something, doesn't mean they're hiding what you (or me, or anyone else) THINKS they're hiding.

The Gibroney Hunter: Thanks for taking the time to respond, it's amazing how rare it is for people to be willing to seriously debate or discuss the matter, rather than resorting to arguing like children. I'll try to address some of your points.

The "gross incompetence" theory is commonly offered as a response to the abundance of incriminating evidence indicating federal involvement. I could find some merit in this if the case against the establishment was based solely on a few instances of counterintelligence. Unfortunately, however, much of the evidence is far too direct and damning to be accounted for by such a theory.

For example, the video evidence of building 7's collapse is in no way consistent with a collapse caused by fire. A photograph clearly showing smoke rising from the lower levels of the north tower, before either building was hit by aircraft. The fact that the federal government promised to have a large amount of evidence linking Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to the attacks. 8 years on, they have yet to reveal any of this evidence whatsoever. Which would seem counterintuitive, since the single best way to disprove us "conspiracy theorists" would be to simply provide us with the evidence that we were, after all, promised by the government shortly after the attacks. (The "smoking gun" video evidence, which in my opinion features an obvious body double with darker skin and higher cheekbones, is the sole article offered to the public)

If all of this evidence (which is by no means the bulk of it all) is to be explained as merely part of an elaborate disinformation campaign, then that would seem to clash with the "gross incompetence" theory, since that very incompetence should logically be expected to result in the uncovering of this supposed disinformation. It's important to keep in mind that there are numerous independent journalists, investigators, and truth seekers working daily to uncover any and all information regarding 9/11. As far as I know, no one has provided hard evidence of such a disinformation campaign (as opposed to the disinformation that is the official story, for which there is overwhelming evidence of it's existence)

I find it very difficult to believe that if, for example, Steven Jones' evidence of nano-thermite was falsified, no one would uncover this fact or at the very least uncover reasons to be suspicious of that fact. To summarize, the reason I don't give much credence to the theory that the 9/11 Truth movement is the result of disinformation, intended to serve as a smokescreen for incompetence, is because there's simply no evidence to support this claim. If you're aware of any, I'd be very interested to see it.

The main reason the cause of the structural collapse of the buildings can only be surmised is because the steel debris, which should have been treated as evidence in a massive crime scene, was sold off to China to be recycled. It's highly likely that a forensic study of that steel would have resulted in a conclusive analysis of the towers' collapse.

I believe the reason Steven Jones' work has been ignored by mainstream science is blacklisting, plain and simple. Assuming the establishment's story is true, it should be in their best interest to have his work peer-reviewed, in order to finally quell this controversy. Instead he's fired from his job and ignored by all major scientific journals. The sad truth is that the financiers of scientific and medical research have far too big a say in the direction of that research, and this generally explains why ideas such as Jones' are whitewashed. Also, a Danish scientist, along with 8 others, recently reached the same conclusions as Jones, and his findings have been gaining attention and traction since he presented them. Anyone even vaguely familiar with the history of science is aware that new ideas are not always welcomed with open arms, and often it's a gradual process of awareness.

Why The Hate For The No-Planers?

Why can't we stop using cunty terms like no-planer, and truther? That's another good question, but today let's focus on why the "mainstream" of the 9/11 truth movement so vehemently resists any open discussion of the possibility that the images we were spoonfed from the military industrial media complex that day could have been digitally manipulated.

I follow the rule that one shouldn't speak with absolute certainty unless one is absolutely certain. So I'll say what I'm certain of. I'm certain that much of the evidence presented by these mysterious "no-planers" is very compelling indeed. I'm equally certain of how repellent I find the instinctively closed-minded response of most of the 9/11 truth "establishment" regarding this issue.

I sometimes need to pause and remind myself of how truly inappropriate and unwelcome our "conspiracy theorist" title is. I was simply pursuing reliable information and genuine knowledge, and Conspiracy Theorist is the condescending title I ended up with. (Apparently, the irony is completely lost on these twits, that if there were no conspiracy theorists, no crimes would ever be solved, since the entire essence of law enforcement consists of theorizing about how, when, where, and why a suspect conspired to commit a crime.) It's precisely this kind of narrow-minded labeling, and dismissal that helped turn me off to the mainstream media, and attract me to the truth movement to begin with. And it dismays me to see people within the movement act like kool aid drinkers themselves by declaring certain things taboo. Our time here is too short to worry about taboos. That's what a Gibroney would do.

Common Sense - What really happened on September 11th? (part 1)

My approach toward difficult questions has been largely shaped by the late Carl Sagan, who believed, to paraphrase, that empirical data and the scientific method should be revered as an undeniable path to the truth, while at the same time one has no right to have a completely closed mind toward anything but the relatively few things that can be proven conclusively to be false. For example, one has a right not to believe that Bigfoot exists, because of scant evidence or questionable human testimony. However, it would be incorrect to counter this belief with your own belief in the non-existence of such a thing, no matter how far fetched. This is simply because science is much better at confirming truths than it is at denying them.

I raise these points not because I believe in the Yeti Monster, which I don't, but because these types of truths tend to frustrate the narrow-minded the most. This is because they deny one the privilege of dismissing points of view almost immediately before any serious examination of facts. Sadly this practice of prematurely dismissing ideas because they don't fit into convention has become all the more prevalent in America since those ungodly attacks.

For example, we were told that the terrorist attacks signified a need for our nation to revise its post-cold war mentality, to 'think outside the box,' in terms of foreign policy and our world-view. However, if someone were to think so far outside 'the box' as to suggest the possibility that 9/11 was some form of sabotage attack waged by the richest men in the world, against their own soil, then that someone is promptly and enthusiastically neutralized; by dismissal and mockery to begin with, then with intimidation, torture, and murder if the need should arise. Sometimes it's hard to find the patience to maintain a dialogue with a majority that vehemently rejects and condemns a point of view without offering any rebuttal of the most central and crucial tenants of that belief. This fact becomes even more intellectually insulting when one considers that the average supporter of the mainstream explanation of 9/11 demonstrates no understanding of the need of such supporting facts when posing a good counter-argument.

This apparent lack of understanding, on the part of the mainstream media and its adherents, of how a debate works, or how a criminal investigation should be properly conducted is not only disturbing and insulting, it is simply childish. For example, it is ridiculous that someone who moments before was not even aware that a third building had collapsed that day, would then accuse me of being completely out of line for pointing out the striking similarities between the collapse of building 7 and every other controlled demolition. One moment they're completely uninformed, the next moment they're casually dismissing an extensive body of evidence years in the making. This fact compels me to repeat the comparison between 9/11 mainstreamers and children. And that's a discredit to a lot of bright children.

But what about the 9/11 Commission report? After Dr. David Ray Griffin's utterly overwhelming critique, it's difficult to find much trustworthy information left within it. There are ample reasons why this report cannot be taken at face value. One of the most striking, however, is the fact that Philip Zelikow, the man essentially in charge of the commission, is a close friend of the Bush Administration, and had even co-authored a book with Condolezza Rice. No credible investigative body would allow such a conflict of interest, especially not from the director of the entire affair!

Not only is much of the 9/11 Commission report unreliable to the critical observer, but entire aspects of the attacks are ignored completely. Building 7's collapse is ignored entirely. Not one word is spent on the third steel structure to collapse that day, and the first in the world to ever collapse due simply to fire, at least according to the official story.

Q: If Al Qaeda didn't do it who did?
A: How should I know? It doesn't make sense that one should be expected to know who did commit a crime before determining who didn't. According to that logic, since I can confidently state that my uncle Eddie did not kill Jimmy Hoffa, then I should obviously know who did.

Q: How could it have been an inside job, when it would require such intense secrecy and elaborate planning for members of our own government to conspire on such a level?
A: It would have required elaborate planning and secrecy for anyone to have perpetrated the attacks. If given the choice between members of the U.S government, who had control over NORAD (and therefore the skies), and a group of terrorists who would have faced the challenges of training pilots, successfully hijacking four aircraft simultaneously, and then permeating our air defenses four consecutive times in one day, then I'd be inclined to choose the former.