Exactly What Is 9-11 Disinformation Eight Years After 9-11-01?

One mans understanding, ........... and apology at pilotsfor911truth.com

Actions Or Words?
Misinfo as Disinfo
How Many Floor Plans?
Loose Change

Fake Plans

DISINFO conclusion
Internet Forums and Disinfo
DISINFO Site map.
Quasi Psych
Back to The Demo
Richard Gage
Judy Wood
Steven Jones

Fake Plans

Loose Change, Avery
Alex Jones
Jim Fetzer
Misc. Forums

Painter, a moderator at pilotsfor911truth.com forum, had a definition of disinformation that was quite complete. After reading it, I realized it was one of the best I'd ever seen and that anybody writing such a thing was sincere about the quest for truth. Even though painter had banned me at Loose Change.

Through this exchange I confirmed a sociological theory that is very important which shows we can cognitively prevail over unconscious fears. It is not easy as painter reveals below. I must say that I feel real gratitude for his intellect and communications skills as well as his integrity to the social position he holds that is supposed to have an element of reason that is absolute. He is not a construction person or one dynamically informed of engineering aspects controlling collapse as we are told happened or how materials involved with such appear in photos, as it is happening.

The value of the theory, important to our action of security, survival, evolution and sentience, is that understanding controls human beings nearly absolutely. All that must happen is that each unreasonable fear a person holds must be understood, whereupon the unconscious reaction to it diminishes and cognitive controls over action resume. This works particularly well with social dynamics of groups because the dynamics exist in our phylogenetic memory for the manifestation of the instinctual goal of security, survival, evolution and sentience.

Such an understanding gives a little more meaning to the axiom: "The most important information for an infiltration to oppose, is information useful to gaining more truth about the actions of the infiltration." An aspect of that must have become evident in painters understanding of the social fear he had to overcome and make the apology made.

I realized that his sincerity could be invoked with reason, if it was real, relating to the concrete core by using near exact phrasing from his definition of disinfo, to show that painter was treating what he defined as real evidence, actually matched his definition of disinformation, and using his definition of disinformation to show that he was giving the credibility of true evidence/information to what in reality is disinformation.

Critical disinformation in a long term psychological environment is the steel core column deception that FEMA presents to NIST and the world as the core of the Twin Towers, (among many others).

How it works;

In the environment created by the infiltration of government, certain levels of public outrage can be deflected over time given the help of media and ties to the economic foundations. It is a "big lie", so big it could not be told. However if the outrage increases beyond a point, media cannot evade the issue or their role supporting the public deprivation of due process becomes obvious.

The steel core columns from any engineering perspective, either structural, or demolition, are impossible. The building wouldn't stand, ..... and if it did, you couldn't make it go away like it did with explosives and have it look and sound as it did. The public becomes frustrated in using misinformation as it is useless in the legal/political/social/media environment, controlling public opinion, and rejects all similar type information with the infiltration's preferred perception by the public of the event as, "garbage" with a major cognitive distortion of "generalization", completing the action of disinformation.

Over a series of posts, I used painters phrases in definition of disinformation relating to the steel core columns while arguing with him and others about the level of verification for the concrete core. At a point it was very obvious, whereupon painter, much to his credit as a truthseeker, posted an apology in the lobby of the forum. Unfortunately, to view that forum one needs to be a member, so all I can present to substantiate this apology is the text of painters post.

Dear Christopher A Brown, AKA Christophera,

I want to publicly apologize for a variety of slights, insults and injuries against you and your research that have accumulated over a long period of years. 1. A complete inability on my part to grasp the significance of your WTC concrete core hypotheses and the evidence you provided for it dating back to the 9/11 forum at Democratic Underground and elsewhere. 2. The development within myself of a prejudice toward you and the information you presented as being disinformation that, at best, had little significant grounds for genuine consideration. 3. The carrying of this prejudice into my role as an Administrator of the Loose Change Forum where I banned you in October 2006. 4. The further threat of banning you from the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum based on this long established prejudice as expressed in this thread and this one. I hope that you will accept my sincere apology. I've spent much of the day reading through information on your web site: http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html where I have watched your two videos and listened to a good portion of your 2007 interview with Fintan Dunne, which I make available to the members of this forum below:

Later post in the same thread which has parts of painters personal message, "PM" to me following our private exchange regarding his apology.

Chris, I have eliminated your warn-level tics. I've also sent you a lengthy PM. I want to share a little of that PM publicly here because I think it is relevant to continued discussion. I've bolded and emphasized the parts that most interest and concern me:

(painter) Yes, I saw the email from Gage to M*** on your page and the email from Gage to you linked from your forum. First of all, I have to say that my acceptance of your evidence regarding a concrete core has been somewhat emotionally difficult for me. Not only accepting that I could be wrong about something as important and fundamental as this (what, me, mistaken?!) but also trying to deal in my own head with the consequences of the error in the bigger picture of the movement itself.

You might not appreciate the comparison but it is just about at the same level as if I were to suddenly realize that Killtown or Haupt and the no-planers are right. ACK!! It has actually kind of shaken me up so that in a way it is difficult to know what I believe, whom to trust, how I feel about all this or what to think regarding what should happen next. So far as Gage's email to M***, I'm willing to accept it at face value, a statement of opinion based on a cursory examination of your presentation with prejudice similar to my own. Although one would logically presume that Gage would read and follow everything you posted to the forum, that might not necessarily be the case. Who knows. You and I [may] take to the 'forum' medium quite easily. I know plenty of folks who don't and it is conceivable that Gage is one of them.

I, too, have seen the photographs he is referring to which seem to verify the steel column core. The difference, of course, is that I'm not an architect or an engineer; I don't really know what I'm looking at except very superficially. There are still some images you've posted that I can't "see" the way you do, even with a description. This shouldn't be the case with Gage. But, then again, even with Gage's background, he didn't begin to question the events of 9/11 straight away. I'm willing to assume that he wasn't someone (like myself) who had already begun to think about the role counter-intelligence plays in our social perceptions of what is "real" on broad scale. I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt, that he is simply and honestly stating his opinion. The photographs seemed to corroborate the steel core blue prints.

So far as the conversation with M****** and Gage's email, it is unfortunate that you used the word "board" rather than "forum". This could be a simple, verbal misunderstanding coupled with prejudice or at least the apprehension (subliminal or conscious) that the concrete core hypothesis is a ) not sufficiently substantiated or documented in the public domain to be convincing, b ) marginally relevant given other factors (e.g., WTC7), c ) potentially divisive within the truth community (flying in the face of conventional perception) and d ) adds a whole other level of complexity in terms of the grasp of events. That is, in order to accept the concrete core hypothesis, one has to also accept that not only were the towers demolished, they were likely rigged for demolition during construction and, moreover, a body of evidence once in the public domain was removed clandestinely, not to mention that the blue prints we have been given (which, in themselves, still don't make the "collapse" hypothesis possible) are false and have been altered.

It makes my head swim just thinking about it and I knew 9/11 wasn't what we were being told from the moment I heard about it. In fact, I'd been anticipating something like it. I appreciate the vote of confidence several have given me in this thread for my apology. I want to say, however, that although I'm willing to give interest and credit to the evidence Chris is providing, I'm still not quite ready to embrace the full theory.

There are many unanswered questions and problems that need to be discussed. I do agree now that the evidence for a steel core as described in the blue prints is slight -- that part of the real question is, WHY were the blueprints withheld not only from the public but, as I understand it, initially from the engineers first tasked with the question of what had happened at the WTC? How can we be certain, given what we know from the alleged Flt 77 FDR (for example) that these blueprints are the actual diagrams of what was built -- especially in light of other evidence Chris has so diligently and persistently provided. Then there is the whole 'pre wired for demolition' hypothesis which has to be discussed and, if possible, verified.

Like others have expressed, early on I wondered out loud and in forums whether such a scuttling feature might be built into a sky-scraper of such proportions. Lord knows that if for some reason it was thought that the thing might topple sideways, there would be need for some method to bring it down least the consequence be even more devastating to a large segment of lower Manhattan. However, as is so easily done, I was persuaded by some that this was highly unlikely and that, in any case, the explosives would likely loose potency over time. Moreover, just because something might be feasibly or technically possible doesn't mean that it happened or, even if it did, that it can be substantially proven by available evidence.

That is the problem with the whole concrete core hypothesis. Not that there isn't any evidence for it but that, at least at present, is NOT widely accepted and what evidence there is seems so 'relative' to the substantial steel-core documentation that it is easily dismissed, even if true. This has been a question all along -- regardless of the truth of the matter, does the adoption of a concrete core make it easier or more difficult for people to wrap their heads around 9/11 as a false-flag operation? If it can not be clearly and easily established to such a degree that even members of the truth community, such as members of ae911t, can embrace it as, at the very least, an alternative possibility worthy of consideration, then I have no idea where to go with this.

Mind boggled: painter

Painter perhaps had been influenced away from supporting this information more fully by other administration at the pilotsfor911truth.org site. I would surmise that my position of exposing Richard Gage and the Silverstein plans, has that effect, initially, because of the immensity of the sociological problem perceived. People need to realize that it is not as it appears, a large part of the opposition to the concrete core are not real people, or citizens in our society. This is not a controversy that will meet angrily in the streets or anywhere else. It is a false controversy invented to impose upon 2 parties to divide them.

Back To The Scenario

The FEMA Deception
The Psyops, Disinfo & Misformation
The Twin Towers Design & Construction
The Demolition

Feedback to; Christopher@algoxy.com