[Back to Memorial] [Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments]
|
Crime & Corruption See other Crime & Corruption Articles Title: The PSYOPS of 9-11
Try to think of an ‘official’ position on 9-11 which has turned up as fact.
1. The FBI’s Robert Mueller cited the fact that no documentation linked al Qaeda to 9-11. Later phony al Qaeda “assertions” didn’t hold up under scrutiny.
2. No idiot can believe that the supposed lead hijacker’s passport could survive the WTC strikes, let alone be ‘discovered’ in the 9-11 rubble.
3. Despite the origins of the alleged hijackers, there was no in-country (Saudi Arabia & Pakistan) follow-up on the alleged hijackers’ links to terrorists. In some fashion, the alleged hijackers either disappeared, or were alleged to have used the names of seven living persons (with no identity ‘discovery’ follow-up.)
4. Bush’s frantic escape via Barksdale Air Force Base went un-explained, as it emerged that the ””…real, specific and credible” threats turned up as imaginary – and methodical.
5. The convenient ‘bureaucratic fog” – alleged to have allowed 9-11 to happen - went unexplained and un-investigated, as the American segment of the bin Laden family was immediately whisked away on private aircraft – amidst “instant” bureaucratic efficiency. Certainly, the 'convenient' failures went unpunished - if not rewarded.
6. Despite the alleged failures of Airport Security, the situation methodically deteriorated to a Gestapo joke, as huge amounts of tax dollars were insanely spent on the TSA.
7. For all the “terror” threat levels posted, the Mexican border has been forced wide open from the White House; a “terrorist’s” dream-come-true.
8. For the first time in history, not one, but THREE steel-framed buildings were taken down by fire; magically falling onto their own footprint. The events involved two different architectural design styles, two different causes, but owned/controlled by a single entity. NO QUESTIONS ASKED & NO ASSOCIATED INVESTIGATION!
9. The preponderance of evidence indicates that there was no aircraft crash at the Pentagon or in Pennsylvania. NO QUESTIONS ASKED & NO ASSOCIATED INVESTIGATION!
10. The “official” 9-11 investigation was grossly under-funded, producing approximately 800 pages of documents after the White House censorship and interference.
So, with so many inescapable indicators of 9-11 being a “Reichstag Fire,” why was nothing said, for all intents & purposes? Because the nefarious science of PSYOPS was cleverly and effectively foisted upon America – and the world – by the mass media!
WHY?
Lord Acton probably answered that question in the most simple terms - ”Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts – absolutely!” As with the physical weapons of war, psychological operations have legitimate uses. But, when those means are used on a domestic population, what then? To give a wartime pistol to a policeman, telling him to keep the domestic peace is effective. When that same pistol is then used to coerce, intimidate or threaten the domestic populace, something has to be done. It starts with knowing how that pistol operates.
ABOUT PSYOPS –
It may seem strange to suggest that the study of propaganda has relevance to contemporary domestic politics and issues. When most people think about propaganda, they think of the enormous campaigns waged by Hitler and Stalin in the 1930s – or McCarthy in the 1950s. Since nothing comparable is being disseminated in our society today, many believe that propaganda is no longer a pertinent issue. WRONG!
Propaganda can be as blatant as a ‘peace symbol’ or as subtle as a song or poem. Propaganda’s persuasive techniques are regularly applied by politicians, advertisers, journalists, radio personalities, and others who are interested in influencing human behavior. Propaganda messages can be used to accomplish positive social ends, as in campaigns to reduce drunk driving, but they are also used to win elections and to sell beer. Propaganda isn’t inherently nefarious or suspect. Often, as in typical advertising or political campaigns, propaganda is totally expected!
“Propaganda”is an advantageous presentation of information – factual or otherwise.
“Psyops”takes unfair advantage of human psychology. Therein lays the difference – “INTENT.”
The propagandist is a clever researcher and writer. The disinformationist has the added background of a psychologist – to some extent – as well as being a ‘resourceful’ and ‘surgical’ communications specialist. He operates from a time-constrained mission. Whether we want to admit it or not, PSYOPS is in our daily life – it is a serious threat. Thus, we are in a comparable position of a banker. He knows that there will always be robbers and swindlers. The gimmick is in being smarter and more resourceful than the robber-swindler. The chief effort is to let the would-be robber-swindler know that the defense mechanisms are too strong; add the risks and probability of getting caught.
PSYOPS is generally about the control of human emotions; the resulting ‘processed emotions’ translating into desired intellectual (logical) decisions and subsequent actions. Think to the statement “Nobody can MAKE you feel a certain way; each person has to DECIDE how they feel about something – decide for themselves.”
Great logic! Now, go to the major sales corporations & ask them why they spend millions per year on advertising!
OR; call an “ethnic” type by their least-favorite name and see what decision is made – over the span of a split second!
The reality is that we all have the ability to inspire or persuade thoughts or emotions in others. The trick is to inspire advantageous decisions. Ask the husband/boyfriend who brought home the flowers to his lady. Were some ‘results’ forthcoming? Of course they were, whether romance – or forgiveness. Emotions = action.
The technical advance of communication tools such as the Internet, accelerate the flow of persuasive messages - dramatically. For the first time ever, citizens around the world are participating in uncensored conversations about their collective future. This seems like a wonderful development; but there is a risk.
"Information overload” is often the result of people being regularly confronted with hundreds of intense messages, each day. Common sense and personal experience dictates that many people respond to the induced pressure by processing messages as quickly as possible and, when possible, by taking mental short-cuts.
That kind of response leaves the modern propagandist or disinformationist with a mandate to devise accommodating short-cuts, so as to be effective in dealing with typical thought or emotional processing. The disinformationist reacts with an effort to effectively control/agitate emotions, exploit insecurities, capitalizing on language ambiguity – inherent or induced - and by bending or re-manufacturing the rules of logic. History demonstrates that the disinformationist can be quite successful. Gaining attention and controlling perception is the disinformationist’s first priority, in the modern mind-control equation –
That leaves specialists and even common people with the task of detecting and analyzing the disinformation and/or propaganda, so as to create the needed awareness of the tricks which disinformationists employ. The secondary obligation is to devise ways of readily recognizing and resisting the subsequent short-cuts that the disinformationists promote. In brief, disinformation/propaganda analysis is the best immediate antidote to the nefarious excesses of the Information Age. Just as the military deals with “Information Warfare” as a major munition in their arsenal, the civilian world is comparably involved in the topic – like it or not.
As an example of the seriousness associated with the modern application of domestic propaganda, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) published a series of books, including:
The IPA centers its illustrations on seven basic propaganda devices: Name-Calling, Sparkling Generality, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain Folks, Card Stacking, and Band Wagon.
In “The Fine Art of Propaganda,” the IPA makes the point that "It is essential in a democratic society that young people and adults learn how to think, learn how to make up their minds. They must learn how to think independently, and they must learn how to think together. They must come to conclusions, but at the same time they must recognize the right of other men to come to opposite conclusions. So far as individuals are concerned, the art of democracy is the art of thinking and discussing independently - together."
Another interesting book was written by Richard Brodie, “The Virus of the Mind.” The book carefully describes the creation and conditioning of certain social and political values, logic processes and seeming behavioral mandates in the mind of the American culture. The essence of the book cites the automatic mental and emotional reflexes which have been methodically conditioned into the ‘norms’ of the American society. How many times in American society has the statement ”You can’t say that” successfully stopped a conversation? It’s quite common. Imagine that statement being controlling in the proverbial ‘land of the free.’ Certainly the constraining descriptor, “Politically Correct” has been dramatically effective, amidst often mandated “diversity training.”
The book describes the “reflexive” intellectual, emotional and social reactions in terms of “memes.” While the term seems to distract, the content of the book is otherwise quite good.
Imagine the traditional American society being taken away, one slice at a time. Those old enough can testify that America has seen just that. In one secretly planned operation, “Operation Northwoods,” the comparable description is “time-phased changes.” Rather like the alcoholic asking, ”Oh, what is one more drink going to hurt?” Take enough pennies away from a dollar, and the dollar is gone! Conversely, the effect can be equally dramatic. Compare the tax rate of the Korean War era to today’s world! Then note the tax-dollar rip-off programs – if you can spot them! The incremental increase of tax rates leaves America working for the ‘government,’ not themselves. Yet, Americans are worse off, by far, than the early 1950s.
TIMING -
In real estate, the three guiding rules are ”Location, location, location!” In the world of PSYOPS, the comparable rules are ”Timing, timing, timing!” In the world of PSYOPS, the weakest tool can be effective, given the element of TIMING. One of the most important applications of ‘timing’ is the dynamic of ‘first-up;’ the proverbial ‘early bird.’ Given the dynamics behind the events of 9-11, they become a classic for all time. 9-11 was an inside-job; get used to that.
With no documentation linking al Qaeda to 9-11, per the FBI’s Robert Muelleral Qaeda became the instant villain. Osama bin Laden issued a formal denial in an audio tape; but the ‘first-up’ effect was already in place. With that background, an obviously phony video tape was played before America, attempting to implicate bin Laden. We know it worked – that’s PSYOPS. AND, look at what that PSYOPS accomplished!
(Don’t get enthralled by the effect, the 9-11 PSYOPS story is very ugly. It may mean the death of America, as we knew it. If in doubt, read the “Patriot Act.”)
“Timing” can also be a major clue to the astute observer. To be ‘first-up’ may also indicate who the villain actually is. Those who support the ‘first-up’ may be peripheral villains. In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, the ‘official line was, ”There were no warnings. When that was illustrated as a lie, the claim was changed to ”….specific warnings.” As though any perpetrator is going to advertise his intentions in the Sunday times! As time went on, more and more ‘warnings’ were illustrated; along with the history of the warnings being silenced with prejudice – from within. Out of the Hollywood version of “Godfather,” comes the same dynamic – ”…the first person…” Timing is important for many reasons.
"Bad names” have always played a tremendously powerful role in the entire history of the world; as well as in our own personal development. Names have ruined and killed people; but, they have also stirred men and women to outstanding deeds and accomplishments. Names and labels have ruined the lives of people and have sent many to prison. Names and labels have made men angry enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellow men – or to die for the declared named or labeled cause. Names and labels have been applied to people, groups, associations, churches, tribes, gangs, colleges, political parties, neighborhoods, states, regions of the country, nations, and races. Many tremendous results have been effected – just with a name or label. In American history, the “McCarthyism” ruined lives of truly great people, just with the simple implication of “Communist;” no proof required! Even today, descriptors such as ”Commie,” “Pinko” and ”Leftist” bring a programmed emotional reaction.
In Current politics, “politically undesirable” has been labeled as “evil” or “terror.” Laws have been passed on these elements, as though one could comparably outlaw the darkness of night. Yet, the strategy worked, the draconian laws were passed!
The name-calling technique of the disinformationist usually links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol, of some type. Beyond pure propaganda, the disinformationist crafts the name-calling into a form which has an emotional effect on the targeted audience. The usual style is to inject ‘distrust,’ into any association with the targeted individual/issue. The disinformationist who uses this technique hopes that the targeted audience will mentally AND emotionally reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of objectively looking at the available evidence. Again, the element of “INTENT” is key. To cite some of Bush’s cabinet members as ‘felons,’ warns the listener, however negative the image is.
The most obvious type of name calling involves generally accepted ‘negative’ names. For example, consider the following:
However, the relative position of the name-calling ‘assailant’ or the ‘victim’ is a factor. “Expensive” is bad to a buyer, but wonderful to a seller. A more subtle form of name-calling involves words or phrases that are selected because they possess or create a negative emotional charge.
A responsible Pentagon official may propose specific military budget cuts. Instead of being labeled as “wise” or “fiscally conservative,” the official gets labeled as "stingy." Either description can refer to the same behavior – with an extreme of different connotation. Other examples of negatively charged words include:
The name-calling technique leaves the casual observer with the logical mandate to ask intelligent questions when spotting “name-calling.” Not all “name calling” is inappropriate or counter-productive. If a female politician cites a colleague or opponent as a ‘sweetheart,’ the connotation isn’t particularly inappropriate or negative. To cite Saddam Hussein as a ‘monster’ is dynamic; although a highly negative imagery. However, subjectivity is important in such matters. Referring to a man as a ‘sweetheart’ may ruin the day of a feminist. Referring to Saddam as a ‘monster’ may stir a Muslim supporter to violence. The appropriate questions:
SPARKLING GENERALITIES –
Almost any culture claims to believe in, fight for and live by “virtuous words.” These “words” are normally associated with deeply set attitudes and ideas. In the USA, such words include: civilization, civic, morality, justice, equality, Americanism, God, Christianity, good, proper, right, democracy, patriotism, family, motherhood, fatherhood, science, medicine, health, natural and love.
For the purposes of propaganda/disinformation analysis, call these virtue words "Sparkling Generalities" focusing attention upon the dangerous characteristic that they have: They mean different things to different people; thus they can be used in different ways. The trick being in the controlling of context or association of the generalities.
Disinformationists prey upon the selected words, as we typically understand them or relate to them. Through scientifically styled means/methods/techniques, disinformationists prostitute the cherished words and beliefs and attitudes of unsuspecting people.
When Americans hear the word ‘democracy,’ they typically think of their own definite ideas about democracy, the ideas learned at home and school. ”Mom, apple pie and the girl next door” come to mind. The typical reflex is to assume that the term is being used in that particular sense. The ‘virtue word’ lowers the 'caution threshold,' deferring any suspicion or mistrust; particularly when listening about the things 'the United States must do to preserve democracy.' However, when one hears of ‘democracy’ in 2003 Iraq, the proverbial ‘red flags’ pop into view. The term is the same, the ‘association’ is different; very different. The image of a burning Humvee comes to mind, along with the image of dead or wounded GIs.
In essence, the employment of the “Sparkling Generality” is the reversal of “Name Calling.” Name Calling seeks to make us fear and/or reject the cited entity. The intention is for the targeted audience to formulate a judgment to reject and condemn the victim of the name-calling, without bothering to examine the evidence. The Sparkling Generality device, conversely, seeks to make us identify with, approve and accept the generality without examining the evidence. Exporting American Democracy to Iraq sounds noble to the typical American. However, given the “Patriot Act,” what is actually being exported? In examining the “Sparkling Generality Device,” all that is said regarding Name Calling / Labeling must also be kept in mind.
The observer should ask:
An attitude is an imbedded personal style of dealing with information or events. Think to the common expressions - ”Why should I?” “What’s in it for me?” “I could care less!” “Live and let live.” “No shame in my game!” In that context, Americans are routinely conditioned to respond to information and events with a conditioned ATTITUDE. In the ‘first up’ style of the 9-11 presentation, America predictably responded in patriotic fashion. With the conditioning of such horrors as the 1993 bombing of the WTC and the Oklahoma City bombing, the mass media presentations stirred a revenge reflex; America seemingly had suffered enough “terrorism.” The ATTITUDE was highly predictable - ”I’ve had enough! Nobody is going to get away with this!”
A popular belief system asserts that it is wrong to ‘lay’ your expectations on another, demanding a specific accommodation. However, a clear mind quickly remembers that there is an animal known as the ‘reasonable expectation.’ For example, fidelity in a relationship or marriage. Reasonable expectations are all around us – but they are quickly being deleted from the American culture. America regularly witnesses the exporting of the USA critical economic infrastructure. America’s sovereignty is being dissolved faster than Americans can detect the unmistakable pattern. Whatever ‘forces’ may be in operation, Americans are facing lower-paying jobs – if any. Political discussions of job ‘numbers’ evade any discussion of job ‘quality.’ The ‘normal’ job benefits are more routinely being subsidized by the employee – if any benefits are even provided. The sovereignty of America is discounted, versus a strange and methodical imposition of an American “global responsibility,” which routinely excludes the welfare of Americans! Thus, one of the apparent rules of the ‘system’ is, ”…destroy all expectations; reasonable or otherwise.” One of the deadliest of these efforts was the overturn of the American “Equal Protection” clause in the U.S. Constitution. In the Michigan college reverse discrimination case, the ruling hinged on a “compelling interest” in removing the equal-protection provision as the issue pertains to reverse discrimination in school admissions. What America didn’t notice was the ‘style’ of the language; and what that language is destined to mean. Specifically, that phrase “compelling interest,” is destined to be applied to the selective enforcement of all American laws. That “selective enforcement” has been a relative norm for quite a while in American society. Now, however, there is essentially a Supreme Court precedent to anchor the debate for the “compelling interest” in enforcing the law only as “Politically Convenient.” In essence, “social obligation” will be openly transferred to political “obligation,” in the controlled style of “political creep.”
When disinformationists use sparkling generalities and name-calling symbols, they are attempting to impress their targeted audience with vivid, emotionally stimulating words. In certain situations, however, the disinformationist attempts to pacify the audience in order to make an unpleasant reality more palatable. This is accomplished by using words that are bland and euphemistic. The brutal is converted into the ‘kinder and gentler.’
For example, America changed the name of the War Department to the Department of Defense. “Queer” became “gay.” During war-time, civilian casualties are referred to as "collateral damage," and the word "liquidation" is used as a synonym for "murder." “Suspect” became “person of interest.” The U.S. Constitution was almost destroyed by the “Patriot Act.” From the Vietnam War, “combat fatigue,” or “shell shock” became "post-traumatic stress disorder;" the descriptor being completely disconnected from the reality of war. The “suicide bomber” became the “homicide bomber.” The “Muslims” (connected to Osama bin Laden) of the American/NATO Balkan campaign became “Ethnic Albanians.”
The psychological mechanism of ”Transfer” is used by the disinformationist to boost an authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept. For example, most people respect and revere their church and the nation. If the disinformationist succeeds in getting ‘church’ or ‘nation’ to approve a campaign in behalf of some program, he thereby transfers its authority, sanction, and prestige to that program. Thus, we may unwittingly accept something which otherwise we might reject.
The transfer device typically uses symbols for its best effect. The cross represents the Christian Church. The flag alludes to the nation. Cartoons depicting “Uncle Sam” allude to U.S. nationalism and an implied consensus of public opinion. Those symbols reliably stimulate emotions. (Don’t forget that concept.) The visual contact/association with such symbols will INSTANTLY arouse an entire menu of feelings we have with respect to community, church or nation. A cartoon showing “Uncle Sam” as approving or disapproving something is powerful.
Thus, the ‘Transfer’ device can be readily used both for and against the target causes and ideas. The key for the casual observer is in distinguishing the intent.
”Transfer” can be effected with deeds. When a political activist closes a speech with a public prayer, the attempt is to transfer religious prestige to the ideas being advocated – and the person/entity. As with all propaganda devices, the use of this technique is not limited to one side of the political spectrum. Pacifists can pray for peace, as quickly as a chaplain can pray for victory.
Authority can be “transferred” (or taken away). The disinformationist may attempt to transfer the reputation of "Science" or "Medicine" to a particular project or set of beliefs. A slogan for a popular cold medication serves to encourage the target audiences to "Applaud the miracles of medicine." Most have seen many TV commercials, with an actor dressed in a white lab coat tell us that "Brand-X is the most powerful pain reliever which can be bought without a prescription." In both of these examples, the transfer technique is being employed. In the negative arena, the association of a Washington Post writer being a recipient of a Pulitzer Prize might be attacked by citing the faked story about the drug addicted child.
Transfer techniques can also take a nefarious/evil turn. A major engineering group prepared the Oklahoma City bombing report; using blatantly flawed data – yet, it sold! In history, the propaganda of 1939 Nazi Germany rationalized racist policies by appealing to anthropology, history, sociology and religion.
With a controlled ‘spin,’ even religion and science can be prostituted in almost any issue. The observer should be aware that any idea or program should not be accepted or rejected simply because it has been linked to a symbol such as Justice, Medicine, Science, Democracy, or Christianity. When the observer is confronted with the “transfer device,” it is appropriate to ask the following questions:
Dissociation is the reverse of “Transfer,” usually serving to produce a “Plausible Innocence.” This technique is closely associated with Name Calling/Labeling. Quoting someone who is reasonably assumed to be honest serves to effect the excuse – or a ‘safe’ distance, “Hell, I didn’t know he was lying; why would ANYBODY suspect that?” Displacing an arena allows the illusion of truth, via a shift in focus. To say that U.S. forces didn’t do something, serves to distance the Pentagon from condemnation. The close association of U.S. forces to those who did the actual act (a guerilla group, for example) operates as a ‘breakout’ device. “Nobody would have suspected that rebel bunch would do such a thing?” The guerilla unit is referred to as a “cutout.” Often the “breakout” [action] effort is cleverly programmed; the Delta Force, for example. No matter what they do, their involvement is always protected under the flag of “National Secrecy.” Their involvement also serves as a peripheral insulation. To hold a secondary group responsible might “compromise” Delta Force – a “national security interest.”
Another tactic is to use disassociation to discredit a group or person, “He/they are not qualified to say…” “He/they have a reputation for being dishonest.” “He/they are liars” “He/they are ridiculous/absurd.”
It is often enough seen that events, information or statements are methodically taken out of context. Often, context is presented with strategic information missing. Early in the accident investigation of the Egypt Air 990 crash, a set of translators insisted that the copilot began his religious chant with the statement, ”I’ve made my decision!” Yet, the ‘official’ account leaves that statement out. In the end, the report ‘diplomatically’ reads that mechanical failure could not be cited as the cause of the crash. The copilot was not cited as having committed suicide-murder. While all indications pointed to a suicide-murder, the FBI insisted that there was no criminal ‘element’ warranting their taking over the investigation. The ‘official’ omission misled the public – to say the least.
Often, information or statements are methodically taken out of context. When citing regulations, for example, supporting information can often be quoted as though the particular statement is totally governing. In the FAA regulations, for example, there is a regulation prohibiting a pilot from leaving the flight deck for arbitrary reasons. Such events as a bathroom break or attending to an emergency are excepted. However, by leaving out the stated exceptions, a captain couldn’t legally leave the cockpit – for any reason. Absurd? It’s happened! The FAA took the supporting language out of context, and successfully processed a violation – committing a felony, in the process!
The alleged assassin of Bobby Kennedy plead guilty - now serving a life sentence. The world bought off on the idea that Sirhan killed Bobby Kennedy. However, the autopsy demonstrated that Sirhan didn’t hit Bobby with a single round! The fatal bullets came from an alternate direction and range. The media recordings identified four more shots than Sirhan’s weapon was capable of firing. Yet, what does the world believe???
Panic, confusion & chaos are opportunity environments for those who have the capacity to know – or estimate - the limits of the presented ‘threat.’ Survival and security become the first-up priorities, versus ‘facts.’ These scenarios also allow those in power to manufacture a reality, as the populace will normally grant leaders total ‘trust,’ hoping to receive survival and safety in return. The world has rarely seen such panic and chaos as the events following 9-11. The damage was factual – but the deaths were distorted out of proportion. Despite early and relatively accurate data, the actual number of deaths at the World Trade Center was kept hidden for months. The original figures being kept incredibly high – until after the Afghan invasion was well under way. During the ‘assumed fatalities’ period, several national charities received huge sums of money. Amidst that ‘chaos,’ it took an investigative reporter to reveal that the greater percentage of the charity money was being kept by the charities, versus being distributed to the intended victims. In the shadows of the 9-11, the pre-written “Patriot Act” was scammed into law. Americans never dreamed that the ‘law’ would usurp the U.S. Constitution. Amazingly, most Americans related 9-11 to Pearl Harbor, without questioning the possibility of a similar internal government facilitation – which was factual. More amazingly, the early ‘official’ claims of “no warnings” were quickly debunked. Even then, most America didn’t ask the obvious questions.
”Assumption” is a major element in the world of PSYOPS. The application of ‘Assumption’ is reliably operated from the “conditioning” of the targeted audience. One assumes that the President would never do anything wrong. It is assumed that the justice system works; after all, didn’t Clinton nearly get impeached? Yet, the post 9-11 events are filled with Bush’s violations of his Federal Oath of Office, ”…to uphold and support the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Yet, he quickly signed the infamous “Patriot Act,” which removed America’s entitlement to the key elements in the Bill of Rights. With his knowledge and consent, at least two “suspects” rotted in a military prison, because there was no ‘evidence’ to charge them in a federal court. They were denied legal council, despite court orders. They were interrogated relentlessly, under the guise of ‘national security.’ In the Iraq invasion, the assumption was that the USA would NEVER do something terribly immoral; let alone commit a war crime. Wrong, wrong, wrong! The invasion was a war crime, by itself. After the ‘formal’ combat was finished and Iraq had no army, the Hussein brothers were killed in a combat operation. There was no arrest attempt, they were just killed. Possibly, they deserved to die at the hands of a court; they didn’t deserve to be murdered in a U.S. military attack. WHY? Because of the international agreements which the U.S. is a signatory to; however unpopular the idea ma be. Yet, ‘Assumption’ worked for the ‘system’ – beautifully!
Too much of America’s history is fraught with false information. Thus, except for natural disasters, one should quickly ask:
It’s unusual for the U.S. to uniquely conduct a military invasion, versus being part of a U.N. effort. Given the horror of 9-11 (as presented) America was ready to take on the world – single-handedly. In hindsight, we discover many fallacies associated with 9-11, leading to the question, ”Was 9-11 an inside-job?”
The issues don’t end with the consideration of a simple possible mistake, made in the proverbial heat of battle. Given the facts – as they were known at the time – there was no legitimate provocation for war. Although it appeared that there was a time pressure, few looked past the end of their noses at such documents as the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Accords and the Nuremberg Charter. If they had, it would have been discovered that the Afghan and Iraq invasions constituted war crimes. In the assumption that America was totally above committing a war crime, few Americans ever looked at the pertinent documents – not even the military!
In the ‘convenient’ void of ignorance, Americans didn’t relate to the meaning of the opium fields of Afghanistan being re-planted (following the Taliban destruction of those fields). The replanting of those fields meant cheaper heroin being supplied to European and American drug dealers!
Assuming integrity in the White House, Americans couldn’t grasp the significance of the U.S. interests militarily seizing control of Iraq’s oil production. Few Americans have even heard of Zbigniew Brezenski’s book, “The Grand Chessboard.” The book essentially lays out the American control/takeover of the Middle-East, in the spirit of “America’s Manifest Destiny.” Fewer Americans connect the “Corporate America,” versus the “American Government.” Imagine the U.S. Military doing the dirty work for Unocal, Chevron, et al! They did it! Few Americans know of Bush’s Presidential Executive Order No. 13303. That Order laid claim to Iraq’s oil production. Iraq could not even decide who could buy their oil! For all intents & purposes, Iraq became an American corporate colony. Yet Americans believed that ‘democracy’ was the intent of the continued American military presence in Iraq! While post 9-11 “Homeland Security” seemed to take on a mandatory mission, few Americans caught the political sleight-of-hand which substituted the content of the “Homeland Security Act,” at the last minute. The result was billions of dollars in “pork.” Amidst the ‘reliable ignorance,’ the tax-dollar rip off missions successfully flew. Given the routine and convenient omissions in the American mass media, it’s clearly wise to ask:
The well-documented history of political events in America display a clear nefarious intent from the nation’s leaders; dating to at least Bill Clinton’s election. During the Clinton terms in office, a host of anti-terror laws were written; tailored to 9-11, including the “Patriot Act.” Likewise, the military “Project for a New American Century” was developed. BUT, not by a military group! Among other matters, the PNAC – as it’s called – cites America’s global military “Constabulary Duties.” Holding North Korea at bay is one thing, but playing “Globo-Cop” is another! Post 9-11 was pre-planned in the shadows of the Clinton years!
Amazingly, America seems to be oblivious to another effort; the implementation of the Gestapo-style “Model Emerengcy Health Powers Acts.” The “model” is a generic statute, intended to be enacted by the individual states. As “suggested,” the individual state health personnel could ultimately wind up under the control of the federal government; expected to act as a police force. Their ‘emergency powers’ would be Gestapo in nature, including the power to arrest people who refuse to take prescribed “immunizations,” or carting them off to “Quarantine Camps.” The associated civil rights would not be worth talking about. Doubts? Look HERE
For a copy of the proposed law, look HERE Any state which adopts such a law gets an immediate five-million dollar “signing bonus.” The federal subsidies increase dramatically, from there.
The questions:
Babe Ruth is on the cereal box, promoting a breakfast cereal as part of a balanced breakfast. Britney is presented in a commercial endorsing a specific line of clothes. A church member attests to a ‘miracle.’
Such is the classic use of the Testimonial Device which readily comes to the minds of most, when the term ‘testimonial’ is used.
When we hear/read that“The New York Times said,” “John L. Lewis said...,” “Herbert Hoover said...,” “The President said...,” “My doctor said...,” “Our minister said...”
The “Testimonials” may simply emphasize a legitimate, valid and accurate idea - a ‘fair use’ of the device. In other cases, however, the “Testimonial(s)” may represent the sugar-coating of a clever distortion, a blatant lie, a misunderstood notion; or any anti-social suggestion. Such “Testimonials” may have the element of “association creep.” For example, when speaking to priests convicted of pedophilia, the overt expression may be, “…these God-hated priests…” when directly referring to the pedophilia issue. However, there is the risk/intent that the subconscious GENERAL association will uniquely be “…these God-hated priests.” Thus, the discounting of priests, in general, can occur, whether by accident or design. There is nothing inherently wrong with citing a qualified source; the testimonial technique can be used to construct a fair and well-balanced position or debate. However, it is often used in ways that are unfair and blatantly misleading.
With respect to a “Testimonial, the “Transfer” device can also be used as a “Trojan Horse,” in the case of a prominent personality duped into making a false statement. Or, conversely, such a prominent personality forced to issue a denial or distortion of an otherwise obvious fact.
Another PSYOPS application of a “Testimonial” - as a “Transfer Device” – is essentially a bank-shot. An alternate source is quoted (Testimonial) in such a fashion as to lead someone to believe that they are a uniquely qualified – or unqualified - source. The reader/viewer is misled into believing a given slant. Often, the intent of the quotation (Testimonial) is lost in an unwitting presumption of an honest debate. For example, the American segment of the bin Laden family was factually evacuated by private aircraft, immediately following 9-11! One person may cite the fact in a debate, while the clever disinformationist “bonds” the discussion to the same ‘revelation’ by America’s ‘favorite,’ Michael Moore. The ‘first-up’ effect tends to seal the fate of such discussions, despite the fact that the debate originator was actually quoting from the Tampa Tribune, but failed to cite the source, in the beginning.
A “Testimonial” can be centered on a seemingly authoritative document. For example, in the 9-11 affair, a Tom Kenney was quoted from a conversation with Dan Rather as implying – at least – that a FEMA rescue team arrived in New York the night before 9-11 – in preparation. In the ensuing debate, an individual polled FEMA – via the “Freedom of Information Act” (FOIA) - using an incorrect name, “Tom Kennedy.” The FOIA response (authoritative Testimonial) came back in the essence of “No information was responsive to your request.” The mis-spelling might have been deliberate. However, the real name was “Kenney,” not Kennedy.” The illusion (Testimonial) was that the assertion that FEMA rescue arrived the night before 9-11 was FALSE. The requested information was NOT forthcoming. The illusion of a straight-forward FOIA response served as a Testimonial, whatever the actual facts may – or may not - be.
The most common misuse of the testimonial involves citing individuals – such as celebrities - who are not qualified to make judgments about a particular issue or person. In 1992, Barbara Streisand supported Bill Clinton; Arnold Schwarzenegger threw his weight behind George Bush. While both are popular performers, in their own right, there is no viable reason to think that they know what is best for America. The “Testimonial” takes advantage of the psychological device, known as “identification.” The false testimonial is not bound by any restraints. In the Oklahoma City bombing, the FBI “expert” was caught both unqualified and in a lie, as to the explosive substance in the truck. His fate was a promotion!
Unfair testimonials are usually obvious; most people have seen through the obviously rhetorical trick at some time or another. In the experience of human nature, however, this probably happened when the testimonial was provided by a celebrity whom we did not respect. Conversely, if the testimony is provided by an admired celebrity, we are much less likely to be critical.
When encountering the obvious “Testimonial,” it is appropriate to ask:
Honest people are vulnerable to the disinformationist; the honest person thinks in honest terms. Honest people simply don’t expect to be given blatantly dishonest treatment, as a victim or an observer. Thus, there is the risk/probability that an honest statement can be methodically and forcibly associated with a bad source.
To cite the imagery of the burning Pentagon in the early AP picture, citing the lack of evidence of an aircraft impact can result in the claim, ”Oh, you’re obviously referring to the picture on the cover of that socialist Frenchman Theirry Meyssan – the conspiracy nut!” The reality may be that the speaker had ONLY seen the AP photo. Still, the ‘first-up’ effect and the injected association will have a dramatic effect on the casual observer.
Even in text presentations, ‘passion’ and ‘tone of voice’ can be conveyed – and quite effectively. With that in mind, it’s academic that a passionately told lie creates the illusion of truth. Thereafter, the tactical use of language is important to observe. An honest person rarely needs to resort to the tools used by the disinformationist. However, when passionate rhetoric is used in an obviously styled manner, suspicion – at a minimum – is in order. This is particularly true when associated with unreasonable discounting of an issue, source or personality. Dynamic communication skills are to be admired – but not when they are utilized for a nefarious purpose. Again, the key is in distinguishing the intent of the message.
Long after the fact, the White House abruptly announced that they were dealing with faulty information, when deciding to invade Iraq. The presentation was in the spirit of ”See, it wasn’t our fault; the information came from dishonest people, whom we were duped into believing!”
If one’s attention is fixed to that latest position (scope), the position sounds good, until one remembers (expanded scope) that – prior to the Iraq invasion - countries were lined up telling the White House that the information was false. France and Germany – in particular - trashed their diplomatic relationship with the USA, in an effort to prevent a senseless bloodbath.
Just prior to the invasion announcement, the U.N. inspection team was reporting increasing evidence that Saddam had – in fact – destroyed his prescribed weaponry. “Selective trust” (limited scope) is no excuse in that picture; too many were attesting to Saddam’s actual compliance and the lack of any viable evidence of WMDs. Yet, the White House statement would have the reader believe that there is only one side to the issue - ”See, we were lied to; it’s not our fault. It was an innocent mistake, see?” The attempt was to “Repackage” the truth with the device of “Plausible Assertion.”
When encountering the obvious “Repackaging,” it is necessary to ask:
The “Ordinary-Folks” technique, attempts to convince the target audience that the celebrity and their ideas, are "…those of the common people." The device is used by advertisers and politicians alike.
Obviously, America's recent presidents have all been millionaires, who have gone to great lengths to present themselves as ordinary citizens. George Bush Jr. was reading to school children on 9-11. Bill Clinton partied with the rest of his peers, but “…didn’t inhale.” George Bush Sr. hated cooked broccoli, and loved to go fishing. Ronald Reagan was often photographed as the outdoorsman, chopping wood. Jimmy Carter presented himself in the fashion of an humble Georgia peanut farmer.
The political candidates reliably deliver the phony promise to "clean out the barn" and set things straight in Washington. The political scene is filled with politicians who ignore any corruption issues, while appearing to challenge the economic and privilege disparity of the mythical "cultural elite," trying very hard to identify with the needs and desires of "ordinary American people." The baby-boomers of the fifties no longer find significance in whether the candidate inhaled or not. George Bush Jr. never bothered to answer the drug questions; America didn’t care.
Again, the pertinent questions:
The campaigning politician IS a propagandist; the world accepts that. The candidate always needs “numbers;” real or otherwise. The political candidate rents a hall, attracts radio and TV stations, fills a super-stadium, marches thousands of people in a parade. He/she employs prejudicial colors, symbols, music, movements and Hollywood special effects. He/she induces great numbers to write letters, send E-mails, and contribute money or time to his/her cause. He/she appeals to the desire - common to most of us - to identify with and to “follow the crowd.”
In modern politics, the propagandist (and disinformationist) needs to similarly affect the masses. He/she directs the “appeal” to ‘bonded’ groups with the common ties, ties of nationality, religion, race, gender, vocation or social status [unemployed, for example]. In a similar fashion, the disinformationist campaigning for or against a given program, position or perception will appeal to their target audience as Catholics, Protestants, Muslims or Jews...as farmers or as school teachers; as housewives or as miners. Truth is almost the last priority, versus “results.”
Using all other propaganda devices, all the means of positive imagery are used to inspire the respective hopes, fears and hatreds, the desired prejudices, convictions and ideals common to a target group. Thus emotions are employed to push and pull the members of a targeted group onto a prescribed Band Wagon – or to create a fear of “charging” that band wagon with an attack, given the apparent numbers or sheer power behind the particular bandwagon. Following 9-11, there was no hope of winning against ANY position, taken by the Bush administration. 9-11 manufactured the biggest bandwagon, since Pearl Harbor.
The basic message of the Band Wagon appeal is "everyone is on board; therefore, so should you be." In the primordial quest for ‘safety in numbers,’ few want to be left behind, thus the technique is quite successful in all arenas. The gimmick is in taking a close look at the particular bandwagon, versus an emotional reflex to immediately climb onto the presented Band Wagon. The disinformationist’s mission is obviously to make the targeted audience think there is such a priority; “Opportunity only knocks once!”
A recent example is in the Afghan and Iraq campaigns. While the “Victory Bandwagon” approach worked, the illustration of the lies, in advance of - and after - the invasions left America in the lurch of “War Crimes.” – NOBODY seemed to notice! The Band Wagon approach was that successful.
Fear and uncertainty are powerful forces to nudge or push people onto a pandered bandwagon as a “solution” to their anxieties. During the Vietnam War years, the frequent citation of the “Red Menace” created acceptance and approval of the war, inducing many into enlisting. The war was factually about oil and Texas profiteering; few noticed. The PSYOPS worked.
When the “Bandwagon” approach is noted, it would be prudent to ask the following questions:
How many times has America heard this speech - "The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive." More and more people are recognizing the speech from Adolf Hitler, in 1932 – the speech is that commonly used, in some format. Yet, its equivalent also served the “establishment” for ten years of the Viet Nam War. Surprisingly, the ‘establishment’ lost the war!
With rare exception, only a true disinformationist or generic propagandist handily stimulates fear, while immediately citing a recommended “solution.” When the “Fear” device is being used, the disinformationist warns the members of the target audience that disaster will result if they do not follow a particular course of action. The intended “Fear” is accompanied by the convenient ‘solution;’ fear on one end, with ‘hope’ on the other. By using/prostituting “fear,” the disinformationist plays upon the emotions; especially on the target audience's deep-seated fears and emotional reflexes. The technique is typically used to redirect attention from the merits of a viable proposal; toward steps that claim to reduce ‘fear’ or ‘threat.’
A joke portrays the common reality: “My buddy George is one smart SOB. He told me, during the 1964 campaign, that if I voted for Goldwater, the USA would be at war in Viet Nam inside of six months. Damn - he was right – I voted for Goldberg; and look what happened!”
As the 1964 election indicated, ‘truth’ is often an enemy of politics. Lyndon Johnson was elected, but the war took off - anyway. The induced-fear technique can be highly effective when wielded by a clever demagogue. However, the technique is typically used in less dramatic ways. Consider the following:
At least since the end of the World War II, psychologists and communication specialists of all types have conducted studies to learn more about the effectiveness of fear/hope inducements – as it pertains to herding the masses [directing a mass action]. Some valid criticisms have been made, but the general conclusions are worth considering as being valid. In general, the studies have concluded:
In general, there are six elements required for a successful fear appeal:
When “fear” tactics do not include all six elements, they have a certain probability of failure. During the intensity of the Cold War, the anti-nuclear movement, successfully aroused a high degree of public fear of a nuclear war. However, lacking specific, viable and “easy” action recommendations, the effort fizzled, as the populace perceived themselves as generally doomed, with no effective or workable solutions. They were frightened, but took little action.
In contrast, however, simple fall-out shelters did become popular, as people were instructed on their construction and believed that shelters would protect them. Installing a simple shelter was something that they could actually do.
During the 1964 campaign, Lyndon Johnson was probably successful in swaying voters with a television commercial, which portrayed a young girl being annihilated in a nuclear attack. The commercial linked (transferred) the threat of nuclear war to Barry Goldwater - Johnson's opponent. Johnson was presented to the voters as an effective, and viable way of avoiding the nuclear threat. Pay attention to how that operated!
History records that while the feared nuclear war might have been averted, the Viet Nam War pressed onward. Thus, “clarity of probable results” ends up being the responsibility of the masses, given that they are usually an unwitting ‘means to an end!’ Often, in politics, the decision is simply the lesser of two evils – as perceived. In the case of the Viet Nam War, the scammed “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution” hadn’t been identified as to its corruption; praise be to the mass media! Under the illusion of averting nuclear war, the American voters unwittingly enabled a ten-year war; costing 58,000 American lives, plus casualties, plus cost, plus….. The election “Timing” was everything.
To better illustrate these principles, look to a reversed case. During the summer of 2003, the Liberian crisis left thousands murdered and starving – yet, America barely noticed; WHY?
1. With little news coverage, Liberia was not effectively presented or identified (perception control) as an imminent or pertinent threat to Americans. (emotional control)
In current politics, “fear” continues as a political device – emotional control. The tactic is simple; agitate public fear of terror, illegal immigration, or crime; proposing that the candidate will successfully reduce the threat. The issue almost gets comical in the sense of “My terror-bandwagon is bigger than your terror-bandwagon.” Such emotionally persuasive “fear” messages should trigger the following questions:
Logic is utilized to draw a conclusion from one or more premises. A simple statement of fact (as opposed to a ‘conclusion’) should not be considered in the light of being either logical or illogical. The typical response to a ‘fact’ is to simply weigh the statement as true or false.
Most are familiar with the following argument: [Thread Locked] Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: SKYDRIFTER (#0)
1. The FBI’s Robert Mueller cited the fact that no documentation linked al
Qaeda to 9-11. Later phony al Qaeda “assertions” didn’t hold up under scrutiny.
Mueller actually made these comments, including the fact that the actual
identities of the hijackers are in doubt due to the use of fake IDs. This
suggests that we really don't know who did this, what nation sponsored the
attacks, and who the actual perpetrators on each airliner were. You might have
added the insertion of Hanji Hanjour onto American Airlines Flight 77, as his
name does not appear on the flight manifest while the other (all phony?) names
of his fellow hijackers do. Hanjour did not make reservations by credit card
and in his own (assumed?) name as the others did. The important facts are:
1. Hanjour could be proven to have at least attended some flight schools, even
if he flunked out of most of them, and was refused when he tried to rent a
small Cessna aircraft a few days before the attack due to his incompetence as a
pilot. While I have read a report that alleges that another of the Flight 77
hijackers was a pilot (I haven't been able to relocate that article) it is
apparent that the authorities could not establish that any of the other
hijackers had any pilot experience. It is as if Hanjour's name was inserted to
provide the needed pilot, and his name came up in FBI reports from Phoenix
years before as a possible terrorist. This gives rise to the reasonable
question, "Was Hanjour's name gleaned from those earlier reports and simply
inserted into the Flight 77 hijacking story to provide a pilot?" Another
question would be, "Did Hanjour, or someone using his name, don a pilot's
uniform with fake ID and ride in the jump seat of the airliner?" Both
questions are reasonable given the facts. Someone may come up with some
additional questions, but these two are the ones that come immediately to mind.
None of the alleged Flight 77 hijackers' names appear on the official autopsy
list of Flight 77 victims. There are no "Doe" entries for five unidentified
bodies who could be the hijackers, but that is how the same Smithsonian
Institution team of pathologists designated unidentifed Branch Davidian bodies
at Waco: "Doe 1," "Doe 2", etc. The number of bodies on the autopsy list does
not reconcile to the number of passengers on the flight manifest or the public
passenger lists. There should be as many as five, or as few as one
(Hanjour) "Doe" designations on that autopsy list, if the hijackers were not
identified, yet there are none.
2. No idiot can believe that the supposed lead hijacker’s passport could
survive the WTC strikes, let alone be ‘discovered’ in the 9-11 rubble.
The alleged passport was badly singed, but the holder was still identifiable.
This doesn't seem to bother very many people.
3. Despite the origins of the alleged hijackers, there was no in-country (Saudi
Arabia & Pakistan) follow-up on the alleged hijackers’ links to terrorists. In
some fashion, the alleged hijackers either disappeared, or were alleged to have
used the names of seven living persons (with no identity ‘discovery’ follow-
up.)
This is very unusual. Despite Mueller's admission that the identities are not
certain, due to the use of false identifications, there is no attempt to trace
who
these people might really have been. While the identities have been challenged
on as many as eight of the alleged hijackers, the same names and photos are
dissseminated as being the real hijackers. Someone should be at least curious
as to why the media did not react to this statement of fact by the FBI
Director, and press for a real investigation into the identities of the
hijackers, or pursue the story themselves in hopes of getting a "BIG SCOOP."
The "Big Scoop" is another of those "makes sense" slogans or cliches often
hauled out when someone questions the official version of an event:
"Well, why didn't the media look into it? They are always after the BIG
SCOOP. Since the media didn't look into this, the official version must be
true."
No one wanted a BIG SCOOP about the FBI Director not knowing for sure who the
hijackers were. So much for the "BIG SCOOP" slogan or cliche. It can't be
used as a universal premise anymore as it has been proven false in this
instance, and it only takes one instance to refute a universal premise as it
must be true every time.
4. Bush’s frantic escape via Barksdale Air Force Base went un-explained, as it
emerged that the ””…real, specific and credible” threats turned up as
imaginary – and methodical.
I don't take any exception to Bush flying in an evasive course in this case
absent additional factual evidence.
5. The convenient ‘bureaucratic fog” – alleged to have allowed 9-11 to happen -
went unexplained and un-investigated, as the American segment of the bin Laden
family was immediately whisked away on private aircraft – amidst “instant”
bureaucratic efficiency. Certainly, the 'convenient' failures went unpunished -
if not rewarded.
The contrast of the bureaucratic fog in responding to attacks on Americans,
while the Bin Laden family was efficiently and COMPETENTLY removed from the
country, is a valid contrast. It raises a lot of questions about priorities in
the bureaucracy.
6. Despite the alleged failures of Airport Security, the situation methodically
deteriorated to a Gestapo joke, as huge amounts of tax dollars were insanely
spent on the TSA.
It should be kept in mind that the hijackers did NOT just use "boxcutters" in
these attacks. There were other weapons involved and somehow the hijackers got
them aboard the aircraft. The weapons include a handgun (although the FAA
disputes its earlier classified memo about a shooting), knives, a paralyzing
spray, and at least one bomb (Flight 93). The present security regime at the
airports is built around the boxcutter urban legend when someone should be
investigating how all the other sophisticated weaponry was taken aboard
airliners in broad daylight with X-ray machines and metal detectors deployed at
the airports.
7. For all the “terror” threat levels posted, the Mexican border has been
forced wide open from the White House; a “terrorist’s” dream-come-true.
No one can honestly argue with this assessment, particularly with the infux of
non-Mexican Muslim aliens sneaking across along with the Mexicans.
8. For the first time in history, not one, but THREE steel-framed buildings
were taken down by fire; magically falling onto their own footprint. The events
involved two different architectural design styles, two different causes, but
owned/controlled by a single entity. NO QUESTIONS ASKED & NO ASSOCIATED
INVESTIGATION!
All three of the buildings coming down in this manner defies any reasonable
estimate of probability.
9. The preponderance of evidence indicates that there was no aircraft crash at
the Pentagon or in Pennsylvania. NO QUESTIONS ASKED & NO ASSOCIATED
INVESTIGATION!
There was definitely an airliner destroyed over Pennsylvania. The debris
gathered in and around Indian Lake (eight miles from the crash site) attest to
this, but suggests that the fuselage was breached in some manner prior to the
crash. The winds were not strong enough that day to have blown such debris
over such a wide area. There was a light wind that afternoon, and I know
because I was only 20 miles away in Johnstown, Pennsylvania when this happened,
and spent the next three nights there at the Sleep Inn with most of the FEMA
guys who responded to the crash.
As to Flight 77, insufficient evidence has been released to the public to prove
conclusively that ANY jumbo jet struck the Pentagon, let along American
Airlines Flight 77. Such evidence may exist, but I have not seen it. If it
exists, it should be released to the public and put the controvesy to rest.
10. The “official” 9-11 investigation was grossly under-funded, producing
approximately 800 pages of documents after the White House censorship and
interference.
There should be an independent investigation. Perhaps it is time for some of
the State governments to step up to the plate and open their own inquiry. This
way the federal government would not be investigating itself. The attacks that
affected Pennsylvania, New York, and Virginia, along with hijackings in
Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey were also State violations. Those
jurisdictions can open their own grand jury probes and inquests and they should.
good job.
" Name-Calling, Sparkling Generality, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain Folks, Card
Stacking, and Band Wagon. "
and a very popular one, context switching...also, look into the tactics which
are included in the study of logic...those which are refutable on the
evidence, or are irrelevant, ....actually what most of this is amounts to the
tactics used to try to defeat logical argumentation....ad hominem, context
switching, red herring, etc....all well known withing the field of the study
of logic...
In general, there are six elements required for a successful fear
appeal:
1. An identified (perception control) and pertinent threat. (emotional control)
2. A specific safety recommendation. (“hope” solution)
3. The targeted audience must be made to feel a sense of OBLIGATION.
4. The targeted audience perception (trust) that the safety recommendation
will be effective.
5. The targeted audience’s perception/faith that they are reliably
(personally) capable of performing the recommended solution – with assured
(faith) results. [As they are believed in.]
6. There must be a tangible reward for the targeted audience having lived up
to the actual or imposed OBLIGATION. Personal satisfaction may be
enough."
recognize anything here that smacks of the contemporary belief systems of most
worldwide religions, including the premise behind the bible, and the essence
of what it has chosen to call morality and love of some supreme being, who
generates "love" through the fear caused by the force of a threat?
as if, "love me or suffer"....
love is not possible through the use of fear, or can be extorted via a
threat....
whatever that is, it's not love...
SKYDRIFTER SKYDRIFTER SKYDRIFTER ...
Will you ever learn?
Will you ever NOT run from a thread where you've been thoroughly discredited
for posting something untrue and not start another thread where you repeat the
same
thing?
I guess not.
For the first time in history, not one, but THREE steel-framed buildings were
taken down by fire; magically falling onto their own footprint. The events
involved two different architectural design styles, two different causes, but
owned/controlled by a single entity. NO QUESTIONS ASKED & NO ASSOCIATED
INVESTIGATION!
GARBAGE.
First there were plenty of questions asked. You just don't like the answers
because they don't fit in with your "I hate the government" mantra.
Second the investigation was extensive and, in fact, is still going on.
To suggest otherwise is simply dishonest.
Third, this was also the first time in history when 3 large steel framed
building burned without fire suppression of any kind for more than an hour. It
was the first time in history when large planes filled with jet fuel caused the
fire ... after also extensively damaging the structure and fire protection.
SKYDRIFTER, why can't you accept the PROFESSIONAL conclusion of dozens if not
hundreds of the top structural engineers in this country and around the world
who say the collapse is completely explainable without resorting to thermite
bombs or any other conspiratorial device.
You don't seem able to name ONE expert who touts your point of view. Why is
that?
You don't seem willing to accept the conclusions of experts who have analyzed
the fire in the towers with sophisticated computer codes and concluded that the
fires would have indeed achieved the temperatures and duration needed to
severely weaken the steel in the buildings ... enough to lead to buckling and
subsequent collapse.
And, SKYDRIFTER, how many times do you have to be told that there is NOTHING
magical about the buildings falling vertically into their footprints. That's
just the physics of gravity and what happens to structures built the way these
were and damaged the way they were. This is something one would think a pilot
would be able to understand. But then maybe that's why you're no longer flying
planes.
9. The preponderance of evidence indicates that there was no aircraft crash at
the Pentagon or in Pennsylvania. NO QUESTIONS ASKED & NO ASSOCIATED
INVESTIGATION!
More lies and nonsense. Why don't you link folks to the threads where we've
discussed the Pentagon crash "sky". Afraid they might see what a pathetic liar
you really are?
And so now all you have to fall back on are posts about "PSYOPS". ROTFLOL!
And with regards to PSYOPS, I'll only comment on one part of your long screed.
A “Testimonial” can be centered on a seemingly authoritative document. For
example, in the 9-11 affair, a Tom Kenney was quoted from a conversation with
Dan Rather as implying – at least – that a FEMA rescue team arrived in New York
the night before 9-11 – in preparation.
Wrong. Tom Kenney never IMPLIED anything of the sort. He simply mixed up the
days of the week after working several very long days under conditions that few
of us can even imagine. What is PSYOPS is to tell folks the above yet not
mention that Kenney's wife said he does mixes up the days of the week all the
time.
What is PSYOPS is to not mention that the conspiracy websites from which you
got this "gem" ALL say the interview took place on the the 12th when, infact,
the interview verifiably took place on evening of the 13th and since Kenney
only spoke of being at the site 3 days, that fits in with an 11th arrival ...
not a 10th arrival.
What is PSYOPS is to hide the fact that there are photos (that were linked to
you several times) showing the travel, arrival and deployment of the team on
what is clearly the 11th.
What is PSYOPS is to fail to mention the fact that NOT ONE reporter followed up
on this ... even though doing so might lead to all sorts of journalistic awards
and acclaim.
What is PSYOPS is to ignore the fact that there isn't one other shred of
evidence ... not one receipt, ticket, phone call log, eyewitness ... indicating
that a team of 60+ people arrived in NYC on the 10th. NOTHING.
What is PSYOPS is to smear the reputation of all the rescue workers who risked
their lives at that WTC site. They deserve a lot more than that from you.
What is PSYOPS is to smear the reputation of all the families of those rescue
workers, since NOT ONE of them has come forward to tell us their loved one left
BEFORE 9/11 for NYC. You are calling ALL of them liars and conspirators,
SKYDRIFTER.
In the ensuing debate, an individual polled FEMA – via the “Freedom of
Information Act” (FOIA) - using an incorrect name, “Tom Kennedy.” The FOIA
response (authoritative Testimonial) came back in the essence of “No
information was responsive to your request.”
And what is PSYOPS is to hide the rest of this story ... the fact that the
person who made that FIOA request, Devvy, in the same article where you got
this quote also wrote that "One thing is for certain: There is zip proof that a
Mr. Tom Kennedy was deployed by FEMA or an outside company to NYC on September
10, 2001" And its PSYOPS not to mention that Devvy wrote a second article
(http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?
ArtNum=20057&SC=86&EC=112#C112) where he said this: "At this time I am fully
satisfied that Mr. Kenney, an outside contractor was not deployed until the
afternoon of September 11, 2001. If I had any doubts left, I would file another
FOIA to the contracting officer at FEMA who handles MATF-1 because it's the
truth I seek when I file FOIAs, and in this case, I believe it's been
uncovered. I have chastised people over and over and over about checking their
facts before they put out information that turns into "fact" without anything
to substantiate their allegations. It my opinion that this is one of the
reasons the "patriot movement" has little credibility, are looked upon as fools
or wackos and fall into the category of the little boy who cried wolf."
Truth is, SKYDRIFTER, you are the one engaging in PSYOPS. Truth is,
SKYDRIFTER, people are fools if they buy into your hate filled rhetoric. I
suggest they need to look carefully at your motivations. Very carefully.
thanks for bringing forth all that calm, cool, clear sanity.
All three of the buildings coming down in this manner defies any reasonable
estimate of probability.
I'm still waiting for your reply to my response on this claim in the other
thread.
You are going to respond, aren't you?
*
Perhaps you should develop some hobbies?
It looks like to me that he's (BAC) doing his job now. hobbies are for after
work. The name is 'beachooser', but the meaning of his posts is 'be a mind
numbed robot, accept what we tell you and shut up'. But he has no effect on
SkyDrifter, that's good. SkyDrifter uses his objections to flush out his
errors.
Under Patriot Act 2 people who publish information like SkyDrifter can be told
to cease their efforts. If they refuse they can have citizenship taken away,
then put on trial in special secret courts that have different rules from
regular courts.
belief systems consist of just that....
AND, if doesn't bother you, then why does it....
why should it bother YOU what someone else does....?
belief system challenge...it is easier to say nothing than to spend time
focusing on what you will denigrate and riducle as nonsense....
In other words, If I say I believe the Great Pumpkin, charlie brown, will soon
descend over your pumpkin patch and turn you into a goblin, you will say.....
....that is sheer nonsense....and invest little into the argument....
you will give it no thought, or consideration beyond the passing comment...
but, if something strikes a chord, you WILL, indeed, defend what belief has
been challenged...
and I saw a rainbow...
Perhaps you should develop some hobbies?
Perhaps you should have directed that comment at SKYDRIFTER? He seems to be
the one obsessed with PSYOPS and NAZIS ... to the exclusion of life. Or
perhaps you'd like to comment on SKYDRIFTER's dishonesty ... for example,
his use of the quote from Devvy's first article? Or are you just here to cheer
SKYDRIFTER on ... like a
cheerleader? Seems to be a lot of that going around these days, DianA.
Speaking of Patriot Act II, do you know the probability of it's going into
effect, and if it does, when that could happen? If it does pass they will most
likely shut down internet sites such as this, and many others as well. I
wonder if they will put together another attack in order to implement it.
You are funny!
You know the old Pink Panther movies? SKYDRIFTER reminds me of Inspector
Clouseau, and you remind me of his boss that hates him and develops that twitch
in his eye.
It looks like to me that he's (BAC) doing his job now. hobbies are for
after work. The name is 'beachooser', but the meaning of his posts is 'be a
mind numbed robot, accept what we tell you and shut up'.
Still afraid to make your comments to me, I see.
And I still don't see you offering up any material to substantiate SKYDRIFTER's
claims.
You joining his cheerleader squad, too?
But do you know what happened to ZEEGIRL?
belief systems consist of just that....
AND, if doesn't bother you, then why does it....
But his "beliefs" aren't why I post ...
It's his lies, dishonesty ...
And PSYOPS ...
it is easier to say nothing than to spend time focusing on what you will
denigrate and riducle as nonsense....
But "easier" is not always best ...
Sometimes lies unchallenged can grow and fester ...
Until they do serious damage ...
Even to rainbows ...
SKYDRIFTER reminds me of Inspector
Clouseau, and you remind me of his boss that hates him and develops that twitch
in his eye.
And what's your role?
BTW, Diana, I don't hate SKYDRIFTER ...
just the lies and PSYOPS he includes in nearly every post nowadays.
and so,
the evidence you present of not having your belief systems challenged
is your protestations to the contrary....
If they pass Patriot Act II and then do as you said, well I'll be like those
liberals who said they'd leave america if George Bush got elected. in that
I'll want to leave.
the evidence you present of not having your belief systems
Wrong ...
The evidence I present is proof that SKYDRIFTER is a liar ...
For example, why don't you comment on the specific contents of this post ...
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?
ArtNum=20057&SC=86&EC=112#C112 ...
Or does that challenge YOUR belief system ...
#21. To: SKYDRIFTER (#0) What Would You Do? (Listen to this great song
about 9-11!)
Security, Secrecy and a Bush Brother ( Why Bush is so secret about 911? )
Why does 9/11 inquiry scare Bush?
If Bush Was Going To Lie, why lie about WMD?
Attorney Asks Why Halliburton Not Being Pursued For Selling Warheads To N.M.
Company
................WHY?.............
Why was an Executive Jet owned by Omaha Warren Buffet "tracking"
Flight 93 instead of a military jet intercepting it??
Why was Warren Buffet at Offutt Air Force base that morning?
Why was the agent who blocked the Moussaoui investigation recently
honored and given a large cash bonus?
Why has the US media never examined the "insider stock trading" the week
before 9-11 that shorted AA and United Airlines stocks?
Why weren't fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base called in to intercept
any hijacked airliners?
Why did the White Housetry to stifle an independent investigation into the
events of September 11?
Why has the US media never scrutinized the now well known Bush & Bin
Laden family, and the fact that Bin Laden family members were allowed to
quietly leave the US after 9-11, without being questioned?
Why does the media suppress the story of 400 9-11 victim's family
members suing Bush for $7 billion for knowingly allowing 9-11 to occur for
political gain?
James Baker
Why does he say the government shouldn't overreact to corporate scandals.
He led the campaigns of the last four Republican presidents.
Why did he watch the September 11 attacks at the Ritz-Carlton with the
Bin Laden family. Why is he defending the Saudi's against a
trillion-dollar lawsuit brought forth by the September
11 families. Some say he's the most powerful lawyer in the world. He may
be one of the busiest. Who is he?
He's the Senior Counsel for The Carlyle Group, a company that invests
pension funds in defense and telecommunications companies around the
world. The Carlyle Group is the nation's 10th largest defense contractor,
with extensive ties to Enron, Global Crossing, Arthur Andersen, the
Saudi Royal Family, and the Bin Ladens.
Through his law firm, Baker & Botts, he is also working to assist American
oil companies in the Caspian Region. This work right now involves a
pipeline to be built through Afghanistan, a pipeline that Texas oil
companies were negotiating with the Taliban to build before 9-11.
Is this the same James A. Baker that works for the Department of Justice
as the Counsel for Intelligence Policy? "The Office serves as adviser to the
Attorney General and various client agencies, including the Central
Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Defense
and State Departments, concerning questions of law, regulation, and
guidelines as well as the legality of domestic and overseas intelligence
operations." www.usdoj.gov/oipr/
2000 Election Flashback - Watch James Baker in his role as Bush
spokesman giving Bush's reaction to the Supreme Court ruling that
overturned the Florida Supreme Court's call for a recount in the 2000
election in this video clip from C-Span. You'll need a Real Player to view
the clip.
America Is Falling Into An Illuminati Trap{a bank Mohammad Hussein Al-Amoudi, lawyer
Vernon Jordan
#22. To: Diana, SKYDRIFTER (#12) SO, lets see if I get this right...
Liberty and freedom, and TOLERANCE, are good...
but, this exludes ANYTHING other than what can fit within the cognitive
confines of small minds and limited belief systems....
so, SKYDRIFTER is exempt from the principles afforded to all other
participants, EXCEPT those who will fit within a given belief system..
and, then, SKYDRIFTER, should not benefit from LIBERTY, or FREEDOM, in as much
as he does not adhere to the rigid constructs of belief OTHERS have welded
together for him/her....
LIBERTY and FREEDOM is for those who toe the line others etch into the dirt
FOR them....
oh............ok....
#23. To: BeAChooser (#3) LIAR!
Where's the Hate?
You don't like that "Kenney" event, do you?
Just for your precious little disinformationist mind, I even left the
matter open-ended. Just for you BAC; just for you. AND look what happened!
Your LYING disinformationist ways jumped to the forefront!
You're certifying the article BAC - fun, isn't it?
All this time, you're the real LIAR!
#24. To: jwgalt (#22)
but, this exludes ANYTHING other than what can fit within the cognitive confines of small minds and limited belief systems....
so, SKYDRIFTER is exempt from the principles afforded to all other participants, EXCEPT those who will fit within a given belief system..
Sure does seem that way.......
#25. To: BeAChooser (#20) AND, my comment is -
Error: retreiving Article '', Category, ''
What was the question???
#26. To: SKYDRIFTER (#23) you've seen it happen with me, too....
post the identifiers, and let the behavior fill the mold....
it is enough to say...I do not agree....
when belief systems are challenged, you will get every identifier of control
you have posted, invective, ridicule, red herring, fear, guilt, etc.
everything EXCEPT logical debate....
the end of logical debate is to simply say....I do not agree....
NOT..you are a liar, bastard, thief, etc.....
when they start slinging mud, it is because the monkey's tail has gotten a
cramp, and finally fallen out of the tree....
#27. To: Diana (#24) and the gods sneezed..... #28. To: WHYofcourse (#21) All divine questions.
Each issue joins the rest of the 9-11 lies and other corruptions, such as
the "PATRIOT ACT" and the "HOMELAND SECURITY ACT," to destroy traditional
America. The arrows all point back to treason from the highest levels.
And to think that BAC's crowd defends the trashing of America. No shame in his
game!
But, of late, he keeps qualifying himself as a LIAR - according to his own
rules. (Funny how that works.) But, what can you expect from the NGN
cheering section?
#29. To: Red Jones (#19) I've thought of that too. But where to go? The rest of the world hates
Americans now, and besides that, I have this horrible feeling that Hillary
Clinton will be our next president. Patriot Act II + Hillary Clinton could
spell death to a lot of Americans; it would be similar to the Russian
revolution where those perceived to have more than others will be killed.
Hillary is a fanatical marxist. I'm probably in the best place in America to
be at this point, but if all that happens, no one anywhere in this country will
be safe unless they manage to escape.
#30. To: SKYDRIFTER (#28) never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig...
mark twain...
kick the pig, eat it, and beat the liars with its smoking bones....
some guy i know...
#31. To: myself (#29) Wow, there are some really long posts on this thread.... #32. To: Diana (#29)
I suggest Guatemala. I always suggest Guatemala. I LOVE Guatemala.
#33. To: SKYDRIFTER (#0)
#34. To: tapu (#32) Is it safe there? I remember a few years ago mobs were killing white Americans who came there, because they thought they came to steal their babies so they could harvest their organs. It sounds strange but it was going on for a while as there were rumors going around to that effect in that country. Perhaps that is over now; I bet it would be cheap to live there. As it is, I live in the most expensive town in the most expensive state in America, just don't have as much as I used to. I love it here though. #35. To: tapu (#31)
SKYDRIFTER and BeAChooser have been going at it for a long time. They both
write long posts. They don't like what the other has to say, and BeAChooser
likes to use the word liar a lot.
#36. To: SKYDRIFTER, jwgalt, all (#25) Error: retreiving Article '', Category, ''
Sorry, "sky" ... that should have read:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=20057&SC=86&EC=112#C112
See what a big difference a little blank can do in a URL?
And of course, you know
full well that the last time I linked this to you ... the little blank wasn't
there so the link worked perfectly. And you STILL ignored what I posted.
#37. To: SKYDRIFTER (#28) And to think that BAC's crowd defends the trashing of America. No shame in
his game!
More PSYOPS. Prove I have a crowd, SKYDRIFTER. Prove that I've in any way
defended the trashing of America. Sorry, all I've done is point out numerous
instances of you lying, distorting, creating sympathetic internet
personalities, calling people Nazis, refusing to answer specific questions, ...
just to list a few of the charges. There's no shame it that. It's essential
if we are to engage in honest debate on this forum. Hard to do when nearly
every post by you is filled with the same proven lies and dishonesty. In fact,
you do more damage to your claimed cause then good because folks begin to link
your lies to the more reasonable questions. When are you going to learn that
you don't have to lie to make your case that something is foul?
#38. To: Diana (#34) Well, the civil war there has been over for several years now. I think Costa Rica is
considered a better bet for ex-pats, though. I just happen to love Guatemala. I will say that
you'd need to speak Spanish to get along there. Have you ever gone to the site
EscapeArtist? It's got lots of good info and tips... and real estate ads....
Hey, you must live where I used to live! Monterey, California? Or are you in SF? Same thing,
cost wise.
I now live in Maine. I finally decided that CA wasn't worth it, as I got older. In Portland,
I
bought a 3-story house in town for what a condo costs in Noe Valley.
Hope that whole thing about the Guatemalan baby-robber-killers has gone by the wayside...
we're going down in Dec to pick up our new son Manuel.... :-)
#39. To: BeAChooser (#36) Not Found
The requested URL /cgi-bin/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache-AdvancedExtranetServer/1.3.26 Server at www.libertypost.org Port 80
I wasn't ignoring you then & I'm not ignoring you now!
#40. To: BeAChooser (#37) I don't intend to prove anything, let alone to a LYING
Disinformationist, such as yourself.
(Do you like the name-calling & labeling? I got that from you. How is it, being
on the receiving end & having your own dishonesty and "INTENT"
demonstrated - repeatedly?)
So, would you settle for rational and normal debate, or do you want to keep
proving the "PSYOPS" methodology?
You started the DISINFORMATION crap; now, you can decide.
Aw, wattsamatter? Would you have to turn in your double-secret decoder ring??
How 'bout it BAC? Straight debate and discussion - or more of your
DISINFORMATIONIST LIES?
P.S. - You shouldn't have attacked ZEEGIRL (my girlfriend) or Diana (just my
friend).
Let it stand on record that the personality mix-up isn't effective. I don't
mind being wrong. But, if you want to get personal about it - your call.
Like I told Alygirl - knock off the personal crap. That's all it takes.
What's it going to be? Debate? Discussion? Information sharing?
Or DISINFORMATION and PSYOPS?
Your choice dude!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I ran across some more Disinformation/Psyops articles
which are worthy of posting, here. . . . Comments (41 - 57) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Back to Memorial]
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
|
||