EMANUEL SFERIOS ON DISINFO IN THE WAR FOR TRUTH

January 25 2007

Emanuel Sferios is the Seattle-based webmaster for the 9/11 Visibility Project (http://www.septembereleventh.org/). In 2006 he marked the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with a hard-hitting piece that reflected his growing doubts about the prospects for full truth in our immediate future. He noted how at a talk earlier that year, he told his audience in essence, “the movement was over, that we had failed, and that the window of opportunity for obtaining justice for 9/11 was closed for good.” He later regretted he didn’t “leave any of these new activists with much hope,” but still stood by his assessment; in five years, movement had accomplished “everything and nothing.” As he wrote, a majority of Americans had just been found to reject the full official story of 9/11, skepticism that had been steadily rising since the attacks and was by then wider than most had ever expected.

But as Sferios points out - and as is obvious - nothing had changed politically. The mainstream media and ruling elites were only weakly reflecting the popular mind-shift if at all, no one had been charged at all, and certainly not the President, the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash, and the global “War on Terror” rolls on unabated. Thus the apt diagnosis of resounding failure within apparent victory. Of course things simply don’t change so easily, and I wouldn’t recommend being so hard on ourselves. But others were just as upset that we hadn’t been able to put some necks in the guillotine, and cited a "lack of political will” on the part of america's citizenry.

While this is certainly a key part of it, and an illustration of why (as some argue) we’re engineered to be so docile and distractable, Sferios went beyond this simple argument, and decided “the reason for the discrepancy between what people know about 9/11 and what they are willing to do to stop the War on Terror […] has to do with the scope and sophistication of the political and social control mechanisms used against us; namely, disruption and disinformation." He knew "COINTELPRO-style disruption" when he saw it; in his 20-year career, "never before have I witnessed it used on such a scale and with such precision as I have within the 9/11 Truth Movement.”

“The shadow government,” as he dubs the villains behind 9/11, had long ago learned “that the best way to defeat your opposition is to become your opposition.” To this end, the powers that be have largely coopted the Truth Movement, "channeling new skeptics (and old) into endless debates around physical evidence and other ineffective actions,” which I guess icludes the debunkings and this website. As with previous COINTELPRO efforts, the plan was to “suck rebellious […] energy and dissipate it ineffectively, preventing the formation of a legitimate, effective opposition.” The no-757-at-the-Pentagon Frustrating Fraud figure most prominently in this set-up:

“To prove that agents are among us, and that they have succeeded in taking over the bulk of the movement, one needs to go no further than compare the number of people who believe no plane hit the Pentagon with the number of people who know about the simultaneous wargames that were taking place on the morning of 9/11, and that prevented NORAD from intercepting the planes before they hit their targets.

The former claim, widely believed, is perhaps the most successful and sophisticated disinformation campaign injected into the 9/11 Truth Movement. Supported by doctored video footage released by the Pentagon itself, it has almost single-handedly made the movement the laughing stock of Washington DC residents [...]”

He further maintains that the no-757 claim "has also been the primary wedge used to divide the movement from itself," a stinging accusation to those pushing such theories, and also perhaps to folks like myself. To prevent unwarranted strife, Sferios didn’t name the suspected infiltrators, noting “you can never really prove who is an agent and who is simply duped by the disinfo itself, much of which is easily believable on the surface.” Of course this is a necessary distinction, but on this site I feel I must name names of people pushing the fraud and hold the offenders accountable – just becuase motives are hard to tell doesn't mean wrong theories creating false certainty don't need to be challenged. It's called hard love. Initially Sferios himself bought the no-757 line, but cited Mark Robinowitz at Oil Empire “for having the stubborn persistency to keep challenging me back when I, too, believed the hoax,” and to Jim Hoffman at 9-11 Research “for his unparalleled analysis of the Pentagon physical evidence.”

Such careful analysis is crucial, especially in this case; as Sferios noted of those Washington DC residents "hundreds of [them] saw the plane hit the building, and thousands of [them] have relatives or friends who did." The Fraud's turning the Truth movement into a sick joke for them (if it didn't start that way), "was likely its intention, for it has successfully alienated from the movement precisely those DC professionals (senators, congressmen, federal judges, prosecutors, etc.) who hold enough power to effectively investigate and prosecute the crime.” Of course it's not as if the more honest elites were about to step up until they saw Pentagon Strike, but it's something to think about when casually batting around theories and then making movies about them. Loosing the change is one thing, properly aiming it is another.

source:
Sferios, Emanuel. "9/11 Five Years Later: What Have We Accomplished?An Assessment of the 9/11 Truth Movement." 9/11 Visibility Project. September 11 2006. http://www.septembereleventh.org/five_years_later.php

ON THE PAGE DESCRIPTION CHANGE

Updated 2/9/07

In mid-January I noticed that the previous description for this page "the Hijacking of the 9/11 Truth Movement by the No-Plane-at-the-Pentagon Theory" is not the correct one for what I'm doing here. As one miffed message board poster I ran across characteristically put it: "don't lump me in with the "no planers." I believe a plane hit the pentagon, just not flight 77 or any kind of 757." People with such beliefs are certainly not no-planers, many of them in fact pushing the plane of the year (2004-Global Hawk.. 2005-A3 Sky Warrior. Etc.). True no-planers are rare any more; regarding hte Pentagon, the fraud has become more adaptive, and can now account for a small, selectively-screened portion of the plane wreckage found. They narrow their denial down - "okay, we can allow a plane, just not a 757."

So they aren't old-school 2002 no-planers, but they are also wrong and are pushing the Frustrating Fraud, so this page is for them too. Therefore a new sub-title description: ""the Hijacking of the 9/11 Truth Movement by the No-757-at-the-Pentagon Theory" Okay, it's really more of an anti-theory, but I'm not changing it again.

On Oil Empire’s Link to This Site
Apologies to Mark Robinowitz: I had wanted to e-mail him about it but couldn’t find an address on the site, so what the heck, I’ll just do a quick post on it. He initially posted a description with the link to my site under his 9/11 front page, under the "Best 9/11 Websites" section, which I was greatly honored by.

He later modifiedthe description, in part noting the description change: “This site has been pressured by "no-planers" and has been renamed part of the title from "No Plane" to "No 757" in deference to those who pretend there is any evidence (there isn't) for an alleged crash of a smaller-than-757 plane.” Well it's not really fair to say there's no evidence. They've been pointing at evidence for years and some of it's even fairly good. But taken as a whole, of course, as some Texan might say, "that dog don't bark" or whatever.

And second, my bad for ambiguous wording, there was no pressure from no-planers, other than when Phil Jayhan in a big gray car ran me off the road into a culvert. Just kidding. The “angry message board poster called a no-planer” was just the one I ran across somewhere else that made me stop and go “oh yeah, I’m investigating the bunk A3 Sky Warriror plane theory.” There’s been no personal pressure on me yet (except a little by Bill Giltner but he stopped early). I like to think they know not to waste our time.

For Those Who’ve Hunted The Boeing and Still Can’t See It:
It's not that I'm 100% certain a 757 did hit, but it's intellectually dishonest to claim - as so many have - that the evidence "clearly" precludes such a scenario. I have looked at a large cross-section of the available arguments and evidence and find the no-757 claims based on circular repetition of initially flawed claims, while the now-demonized and off-limits official story matches the physical evidence and most eyewitness accounts, while all other lines of inquiry have been eclipsed and maybe atrophied in the process. Despite their psyop of information withholding, the powers that be seem to believe their official story there will hold up once all the (physical) evidence is released. Regarding the Pentagon at least, I suspect the story will continue to parallel facts on the ground, so long as the question remains whether a 757 was or was not responsible. Yet despite this striking vulnerability, those suckered by the fraud remain confident enough of their case that few if any are keeping an eye out for such evidence - they insist on ignoring the barreling freight train of evidence that's picked up a lot of steam since 2002.

So for the record, I am saying - my best guess - it was NOT a truck bomb, NOT an energy weapon, NOT a Cruise missile, NOT a fighter jet, NOT a Global Hawk, NOT an A3 Skywarrior. It was a Boeing 757, possibly piloted by remote control, possibly even piloted by the Muslim terrorist Hani Hanjour. I would not use the word "drone" to describe the former possibility, as the word implies unmanned and empty. I believe the reported passengers were most likely aboard the plane. Whether or not they were in control, the pilots were probably in the cockpit and the rest of the crew was in place. The hijackers may or may not have been present, the phone calls, as upsetting to some as it is to point out, may have been real or fake. No matter how precisely they were carried out, I believe air defenses/intel/immigration/law enforcement/whoever else was really relevant were purposefully scuttled to allow the attacks in New York and at the Pentagon. I see no reason why the two succesful legs of the attack would have been done significantly differently, and that the physical evidence at the Pentagon, after all the tooth-gnashing is done, will ultimately corroborate the physical end of the official story. Sound crazy? Read on...

LOOSE CHANGE, “A FINE PIECE OF DISINFO”

A SLICKER PRODUCT HITS THE MARKET
updated 2/5/07

Loose Change started as a hazy idea in 2002 in Oneonta New York with Dylan Avery, a hopeful filmmaker and recent 9/11 skeptic, who had just graduated from High School. His suspicions of conspiracy, while not serious, were clear enough by then to suggest the first version of Loose Change. He visualized “a fictional story about myself and my friends, basically, doing what we've done now; doing our research and discovering that 9/11 was done by our own government, and then, you know, taking the steps to release this information, you know, get chased by the FBI, you know. Just a fun film.” Then in a bizarre and unexpected twist the script came to life and the movie about breaking the truth became them actually breaking the truth as Avery and his friends saw more and more evidence coming to light.

Avery’s childhood friend Korey Rowe was by this time an “Army specialist” [not in disinformation, we presume] who had served in uniform in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Avery described his friend’s disillusionment and evolving thought process on the “war on Terror” and the attacks that underpinned it:

“He goes to Iraq, and that's when things really started to click in his head, where he was like, ‘Wait a minute, I just invaded one country, and now they're telling me I have to go and invade another country, and neither of these countries have the person that we were originally supposed to be going after.’ And I think that's when things really started to click with Korey's head, when he realized he was not an army of one getting the terrorists, but a pawn on one of the biggest chessboards that we've ever seen.” [1]

The Loose Change crew: L-R, Rowe, Bermas, Avery

Rowe then went “rogue” as the producer of Loose Change, and the team was completed with their friend from college Nick Bermas, joining them as the movie’s "fact" researcher. On the title they chose, one may think it a reference to the reported budget of $6,000, but Avery clarified “it actually means the change is loose, you can't stop it - you know, again, it's just one of those titles that, to me, it just seemed perfect. I didn't think that there could have been a better title.” [2]

As for the effectiveness of their project, that depends on just what their real motive and message is. If they meant to convince people of an inside job as is generally presumed, they seems to have done so, and quite well, but largely for the wrong reasons. If they meant to research and present all the disinfo and expose it, they did a fairly good job, but the sarcasm was not clear enough and no one's caught on. If they employed disinformation in a coordinated plan to create false belief in the 9/11 "conspiracy theory" that can be easily discredited, as many suspect to be the case, then they're right on the mark. It's spread wide, it's convinced many, and it's currently being discredited point by point in the minds of anyone willing to face the obvious.

Dave Von Kleist, the mastermind of In Plane Site, called Loose Change “the best damn 9-11 documentary out there,” and the others on his tangent, like the pod people at LetsRoll 911, saw it as an improved and repackaged version of Von Kleist's masterpiece of misinformation. Indeed it is much better, notably in the graphic and musical presentation. They also ignored some of the worst evidence like the pods on the WTC attack planes and their yellow flashes (at least by the newest edition; I recall the first edition paused the video to point them out). They also included at least some of the compelling circumstantial evidence ignored by IPS that can trigger real and rewarding insight to those who follow the leads; the 1962 Operation Northwoods, a long and informative timeline of the development of remote control flight, the PNAC’s September 2000 call for “a new Pearl Harbor,” and a dead-on de-bunking of “Osama’s” 2001 confession video, among others.

As for their take on the Frustrating Fraud of the planeless Pentagon attack, Loose Change corrects IPS on the Mike Walters quote, playing a different part of the interview and citing him specifically as witnessing an “American Airlines jet.” But now he’s a witness they don’t believe and they still chose to put the most weight behind a Cruise missile theory, opening their coverage of the Pentagon with Rumsfeld’s 2001 missile “admission." Point five in their analysis was a virtual copy from IPS: “the damage to the Pentagon [is] completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757.” A rather silly point is where Avery says “the only damage to the outer wall is a single hole no more than sixteen feet in diameter” while the shot on screen has the spray from a fire hose completely covering both this hole and the 65-foot-plus damage area around it that even IPS showed. That's because they were looking at the wrong floor, as explained in the "Entry Wounds" post.

Many errors, like their initial inclusion of the pods and yellow flashes, were “caught” and changed in the second edition, but others were not excised; producer Korey Rowe claimed in an interview “we know there are errors in the documentary, and we’ve actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves.” [3] So far they’ve given their viewers no hints which eggs are rotten, and some folks have swallowed the whole basket. Perhaps it’s meant as a cover for any further "mistakes" that are spotted; “oh yeah, we meant to include that. Good job, you found one!”

And there were mistakes, many of them. Even in the second edition. Mark Robinowitz at Oil Empire titled one review of the video “Loose (with truth in an effort to prevent social) Change.” Between “errors of fact,” “Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacies,” and other categories, he counted a total of 426 “flubs” in less than an hour and a half – that’s over five per minute on average, or one every 12 seconds. Oilempire also noted its links to IPS, calling it a “reworking” of that train wreck, and noting three major differences: “more true claims in Loose Change than in IPS, which makes the fake parts more believable,” “new hoaxes (and more of them),” and its targeting “toward a younger audience” with its “hip and slick” marketing. He summed it up in the same terms assigned to IPS: “Loose Change is a hoax - a real conclusion using fake evidence.” [4]

Whatever their motives or the quality of their arguments, the video closed, as IPS had, with a call to arms: “Are you angry yet? You should be. […] Why are they hiding from us? What are they hiding from us? And what’s it gonna take until people in this country give damn and do something about it? America’s been hijacked – not by al Qaeda, not by Osama bin Laden, but by a group of tyrants ready and willing to do whatever it takes to keep their stranglehold on this country. So what are we gonna do about it? Anything.” Indeed, an “anything” sort of desperate flailing is the primary acitivity spurred by this video – Avery told his viewers it would be up to them to “get the word out,” of course meaning their word. We would have to “ask questions,” preferably the hard ones they had just presented, and to “demand answers,” preferably the ones Avery and crew had just laid out.

Among the video’s critics, 9/11 Truth warrior Mike Ruppert was perhaps the most explicit, calling it “a very fine piece of CIA disinformation.” [5] Avery called such charges “ridiculous.” “The idea that three kids from a hick town in upstate New York are part of a CIA disinformation campaign would just show how desperate our government is.” [6] Or the video’s success could show just how desperate certain 9/11 Truthers are for final “proof” of their suspicions.


Sources:
[1] "9/11: Truth, Lies, and Conspiracy." Interview with Dylan Avery. Canadian Broadcast Corporation. August 22, 2006
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911avery.html
[2] See [1].
[3] Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29
[4] Robinowitz, Mark. Loose Change: Loose (with truth in an effort to prevent social) Change. Oil Empire. Posting Date Unlisted. http://www.oilempire.us/loose-change.html
[5] Green, Michael B. "Loose Change, an Analysis. 911 Research. August 3 2005. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html
[6] Sales, Nancy Jo. “Click Here for Conspiracy.” Vanity Fair. August 2006. http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/060717roco02