September 2, 2008

Exposing the 9/11 Cover-Up by Citing Credible 9/11 Information

Exposing the 9/11 Cover-Up by Citing Credible 9/11 Information

By Arabesque

How does one tell the difference between good and bad information? The Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice website describes misinformation as, “information that is incorrect but not necessarily an attempt to mislead. Misinformation often arises from poor research, biases, and misinterpretations.” On the other hand, disinformation is the deliberate promotion of misleading, false, or inaccurate information. I believe that understanding disinformation and misinformation is of critical importance to the 9/11 truth movement. Why? Because, the official story of 9/11 itself is an example of disinformation.

The most common technique of disinformation by far is omission. The MSM has turned omission into an art form. They would have you believe that because they don't report something, it doesn't exist or it never happened. For example, the MSM is more than happy to pretend that there are not hundreds of architects questioning the official story of the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7. They are curiously silent when whistleblowers such as Kevin Ryan, Sibel Edmonds, and many others speak out. What are they hiding from? Incriminating information that the MSM does publish is mostly sent to the memory-hole straight out of Orwell's 1984. There comes a time when silence is betrayal and the MSM has betrayed its citizens by not reporting or citing information that contradicts or challenges the official narrative of 9/11.

What can you do about this betrayal? The answer is simple, obvious, and effective: You can report the information that the MSM refuses to talk about by starting a 9/11 blog. If you are up for the challenge, you can take part in breaking the imposed silence of the corporate sponsored media simply by starting a blog.

“Your first question about the internet and its role, there's only one thing that will move the mainstream media, and that's business, whether it starts to hurt their business, and it is, it has, they're terrified of the bloggers, and they're terrified of the internet, because they realize that it is taking business away from them, people are reading them... they're playing around with having their own reporters do blogs to try to co-opt the thing and it's not working very well, and there's a lot of crap on the internet - I would think that a large percent of what bloggers write is absolutely nonsense, and opinion without any fact, they're not trained as journalists… but there are a lot of important bloggers who are doing better work than mainstream journalists, they're doing it without pay! They're doing it because they want to show anywhere where the press is not doing its job… And the blogosphere is showing that there are people… who are really starting to lead the way. And they aren’t professionals in the same sense of the training, but they are filling in where the mainstream press is failing - we've seen government run amok because of that, as you know - eight years of the Bush administration.”

Joe Lauria, Sibel Edmonds Case: FBI Files "Formal Complaint" With Sunday Times

Anyone can start a 9/11 blog, but the question is how can you make the most effective use of your time and resources? Obviously, writing blogs that mistakenly reported bad information or promoted attacks, slander, and gossip about other 9/11 activists would be counterproductive to forwarding the visibility of the 9/11 truth movement. So how does one tell the difference between good and bad information? There are several steps that you can take to make sure the information you promote is credible and accurate.

Fact Checking

There are two kinds of sources; primary and secondary:

“Primary sources have been described as those sources closest to the origin of the information or idea under study… Primary sources have been said to provide researchers with ‘direct, unmediated information about the object of study.’... In scholarly writing, the objective of classifying sources is to determine the independence and reliability of sources.”

Anyone who has read a newspaper article will see quotations that the reporter has collected to add context and relevant information. In this case the primary source is the "quotation" and the secondary source is the reporter:

“In library and information science, historiography and other areas of scholarship, a secondary source… is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.”

For example, if you encounter an article about 9/11 where the author claims that "X happened", or "this person said X", or "I conclude X because of this source", it is important to go back to the original source (when possible) to confirm that the reporter is correctly citing the information because mistakes in reporting can happen. Instead of simply assuming that a secondary source is reporting correct information, by checking the original source you are taking steps to avoid spreading misinformation. This is particularly true when the secondary source is known to be not reliable or credible. What if there is no way to confirm the original source of any given information?

Fact Corroboration

Corroboration is defined as “to make more certain; confirm: He corroborated my account of the accident.” A claim or report is more credible when it can be supported and confirmed by additional sources. For example, take the example of the attack on the WTC. Corroborating information for this event would include:

  1. Video Evidence
  2. Photographs
  3. Witness Statements

All of the available evidence can corroborate an event. The more times an event is corroborated with sources, the more certain and credible the claim. As Ray McGovern explains in the film 9/11 Press for Truth, “The whole mystique of intelligence is that you acquire this… very valuable information covertly… if truth be told, about 80%—eight, zero—of any of the information that one needs is available in open source materials.”

There are many misleading claims presented to explain both the official story and "disprove" it. There are false statements, misleading statements and everything in between. Often, disinformation is supported by flimsy arguments that can be easily exposed by collecting and analyzing as many sources as possible. It is noteworthy that the Scientific Method demands that all information must be accounted for when reaching a conclusion. In contrast, disinformation largely depends on omission.

Fact Citing

Citing sources is also important because without doing this, readers can get the false impression that you are simply “making things up”. If you cite your information, the facts of 9/11 can be less easily dismissed. It is a good idea to develop the habit of always posting references (such as an internet link) whenever a claim is made. By doing so, you reduce the chance that you are promoting misinformation. This is helpful for readers so that they can confirm anything you say. By making this a habit, you are in effect training yourself to avoid promoting information without first fact checking and corroborating your sources. By doing this you are far less likely to promote misinformation.

The facts about 9/11 are out there. If the MSM chooses not to report them there is something that you can do about it. By starting a blog and citing your information the 9/11 cover-up will be exposed.