But Jenny Sparks points out this surprising fact: 91% of the users of the Total911TruthNOW website do not have a blog. Does this hold true for other 9/11 forums? Think about this for a second: if you are serious about exposing the 9/11 cover-up, this means you are going to have to get your voice heard by effectively promoting 9/11 information. Joining a forum is a start, but if you are tired about the MSM not reporting 9/11 information, why not do something about it by starting your own blog?
... I would recommend it for anyone who is serious about 9/11 awareness...If you don't speak up, no one will hear you and the 9/11 cover-up will continue. It's that simple. I've had people tell me that reading my stuff has made a difference for them, and that's good enough for me... Even just creating a blog and linking to credible 9/11 sites... improves search rankings and brings new visitors to these sites.
Don't wait for someone else to expose the 9/11 cover-up. Get involved by reporting and promoting 9/11 information. Every person who speaks out by spreading credible information, 9/11 truth websites, and films will make a difference. If the MSM is not going to report 9/11 information, are you just going to keep waiting for them to do this, or are you going to take action and do something about it? Instead of passively reading information and listening to radio shows, why not get involved by spreading this information by promoting it on a blog? As Col Jenny Sparks explains, starting a blog is free:
And of course, 911blogger.com. Along with participating in the 11th Day of the Month Campaign and other types of activism, all of these things will all add up together and the MSM censorship blockade and gatekeepers will be completely irrelevant.
If you start a new blog in part because of this article, link to it here so that others will add your blog to their links. Websites that are connected by many links get more traffic and are found higherin search rankings. For example, I get around 100 visitors a day to my blog and a lot of this traffic comes from search engines. This is why it is worthwhile to create your own separate blog: it can improve the rankings of sites like 911blogger.com and 911truth.org.
Don't forget to link to other 9/11 websites and blogs. Here are some that I especially recommend (although everyone will make their own list and have their own preferences):
Create a new blog, publish at least one post and I will add your site to this list. Post your blog link at 911blogger.com or truthaction. Any sites that wish to endorse the campaign I will add to the endorsement list.
I encourage all participating sites to link to each other and I will add all new sites to my link list.
Quoting excerpts of 9/11 articles increases their visibility when they are hyperlinked. As well, videos are easily re-posted on blogs and promoting a selection of media is going to attract a variety of visitors.
When quoting articles, they should be preceded by an introduction that describes the content you are quoting. It is essential at the very least to establish “who” is being quoted. Longer excerpts can be shortened with (…). It is helpful to quote excerpts and provide links to original articles for full reading.
Example #1:
In 2002, a Bush official widely believed to be Karl Rove explained how the media is manipulated to “create our own reality”:
“The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That's not the way the world really works anymore… We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’”
In a letter given in response to Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and family members, NIST, the organization tasked with explaining the collapse of the World Trade Center admitted, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
Shorter quotations (3 or less lines) do not have to be placed in a separate line, as seen above.
In some cases it may be necessary to add clarification to quotations. For example, the identity of someone referenced in a quote may be unclear. “He said it was false” could be replaced with “[Bob] said it was false”.
By making transcripts of videos, radio interviews, and other media, they can be more accessible. Even partial excerpts can be very useful when long interviews or videos can have noteworthy information worthy of being highlighted.
Example:
Jersey Girl" Patty Casazza and 9/11 Family Member Bob McIlvaine: 9/11 Symposium, West Hartford Ct, 11/03/07
“The Government knew… other than the exact moment… they knew the date, and the method of which the attacks were supposed to come... And none of this made it to mainstream media. None of it made it into the Commission.
And yet, again, all of your Representatives, on the day that the Commission book came out, were on their pulpits saying, “What a fabulous job this Commission has done. A real service to this nation.” And it was anything but a service. It was a complete fabrication.”
In this example, 9/11 blogger and activist Jon Gold made a transcript of this video on 911blogger.com. Because of this, the text shows up in search engines and those who do not have time to watch videos can read a transcript or even partial transcripts. Particularly significant excerpts can also be highlighted with bold and italic.
If every activist posted all of their photos and information on one website it will only have limited exposure. By cross posting activism on your own blog and a main site like truthaction.org, you are significantly increasing the visibility of your activism. As I explained in another post, internet search engines rank websites based on how many different websites link to them. This is apart from the obvious fact that having activism posted in more than one location makes it more visible. If you are viewing this photo to the right, it only proves my point. Would you come across this information if it was not actively promoted? The cumulative effect of a virtual army of 9/11 bloggers would be dramatic, leaving gatekeepers and the corporate sponsored media in the dust.
By researching, you are increasing awareness about 9/11. Posting articles involving your own research is a great way to get involved, and it can be a challenging, but rewarding pursuit.
“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.”
Although we can’t know the entire truth about what happened on 9/11 without an impartial investigation, Ray McGovern just let you in on a little secret. 80% of the information that we need to know already exists in the public domain.
This is why a resource like Paul Thompson's Complete 9/11 Timeline is particularly valuable. When it comes to 9/11 research, I also recommend Jim Hoffman’s 911 Research. These are two outstanding resources for 9/11 research. With the example of Jim Hoffman’s website, his attention to detail and careful review of information should be a model for any serious 9/11 investigator. He carefully cites his information so that researchers can go back to the original sources. Another excellent resource is the Google search engine. Of course, if you use this, you have to evaluate the credibility of any information you come across. A good way to learn how to research is to look at the work of 9/11 researchers like David Ray Griffin, Michael Ruppert, and others.
It is particularly useful for 9/11 researchers to focus on information that is not covered in detail anywhere else. Writing about topics that no one else has written about or covered in depth “fills in the gaps” of 9/11 knowledge. For example, although many had remarked about the promotions following 9/11, I could not find a complete article anywhere that addressed all of the evidence surrounding this issue. To remedy this situation, I wrote an article entitled, Cui Bono? The 9/11 Promotions. As hard as it is to believe that no one wrote an article completely addressing all of the promotions following 9/11, doing a search for “promoted + Richard Myers +Ralph Eberhart +Montague Winfield + Bowman + Michael Maltbie + David Frasca” confirms that this is true.
By reviewing articles, research, websites, and videos, you are helping others sort through 9/11 information. Critical reviews not only increase awareness of 9/11 issues, they help others to critically evaluate 9/11 information.
Without a method to distinguish true from false theories, investigations of the crime will remain mired in ambiguities.
The scientific method is the proven method of distinguishing between true and false theories.
The scientific method depends on critique (peer review).
A culture hostile to critique is antagonistic to science and to the development of a persuasive, actionable case for investigation of the crimes of 9/11/01.
Such a culture supports stereotypes of challenges to the official story as irrational and faith-based.”
Fact checking and corroborating sources is essential. Although this may be a tedious process, by being careful you are less likely to promote misinformation. What is misinformation? Misinformation is the unintentional promotion of false, inaccurate, or misleading information. Here is what I consider to be a classic example of 9/11 misinformation. It is often reported that “no hijacker names” appear on the flight manifests. From the 911 research website, Jim Hoffman writes:
This is a perfect example of misinformation. As you can see, referring to “victim lists” as if they were “passenger lists” is significantly misleading.
When false information is spread deliberately in an attempt to mislead, confuse, or misinform, it is an example of disinformation. As I argued in my article, 9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples, the official story of 9/11 itself is Disinformation—information that is intentionally promoted to mislead through omission and distortion. Official reports consistently fail to investigate, comment upon, or even mention blatant contradictions, contradictory timelines, contradictory evidence, and contradictory statements.
Conclusion
When it comes to 9/11 activism, you are only limited by your imagination. Anyone can get involved by blogging about 9/11 information, making transcripts of 9/11 media, reporting your own activism, making your own 9/11 research, and making your own critical reviews of 9/11 news, research, and other media.
By creating a blog and posting links to 9/11 information, you are taking part in the effort to expose the truth about 9/11. If only a small number participated in the effort to inform the public about 9/11, the results would be small. By simply creating a 9/11 blog or website, you are increasing the visibility, search ranking, and amount of visitors who encounter 9/11 information, 9/11 websites, 9/11 activism, and other 9/11 news, video, and media. Creating a blog or website and linking to 9/11 information is in itself taking action to expose the 9/11 cover-up.
This is an important concept. How does a Google search actually work? How do they determine what websites get higher rankings in search results? Well it turns out that they invented a mathematical formula to determine website rankings. Wikipedia explains:
"PageRank is a link analysis algorithm that assigns a numerical weighting to each element of a hyperlinked set of documents, such as the World Wide Web, with the purpose of "measuring" its relative importance within the set. The algorithm may be applied to any collection of entities with reciprocal quotations and references. The numerical weight that it assigns to any given element E is also called the PageRank of E and denoted by PR(E)."
Rankings go from 0-10. 911blogger currently has a rating of 6. My blog has a rating of 4 (so does truthaction.org). Now, as you can imagine, if I have a high traffic website and I link to another website, I am increasing the visibility of that website more than linking from a website that has no visitors. You can download the google toolbar, which will disclose the page rank of any website you visit. Wikipedia explains that, "The Google Toolbar's PageRank feature displays a visited page's PageRank as a whole number between 0 and 10. The most popular websites have a PageRank of 10. The least have a PageRank of 0." You can also visit www.top25web.com to discover the page rank of a website. There are other important factors for page ranking. If you link to yourself (i.e. with your own website) a million times, it will not affect page rank. Why? Because sites with their own IP address do not contribute to the value of a website link. This is pretty clever because Google realized that if you linked to your website a million times on your own site, you could artificially make it appear higher in search rankings. Which is why Google designed this formula to avoid this potential issue. A video on the subject explains,
"Page rank is influenced significantly by the amount of people that link to your site... you do want external links that link to your site... these can come from a number of sources. The top four sources would be blogs, authoritative sites (government sites), articles... and press releases. My preference among all of those... is blogs. Links from blogs is an easy way to get links back to your site."
For example, if I had 1000 links from just truthaction.org or just 911blogger to my website, these links would all have the same IP address. This means that having many links from the same website is not as valuable as having links from many different websites. The variety and number of websites is what will increase page rank, visitors, and exposure for 9/11 truth. In other words, if we all just hanged out at 911blogger and didn't make our own blogs, we would have limited exposure. By creating separate sites we are significantly increasing exposure for not only sites like 911blogger, but for 9/11 awareness, which is what really matters.
Which it turns out, this is another incentive to create your own 9/11 blogor website. By doing this, you are increasing the visibility of sites like 911truth.org and 911blogger when you link to them, assuming that you add links to these sites.
Let's take for example, the 11th day of every month campaign. If all of the photos and videos from this activism campaign were only posted at truthaction.org, not many people will come across this activism. By having thousands of 9/11 activists creating their own blogs, posting their own activism and linking to sites like truthaction.org and 911blogger.com, the exposure of 9/11 information would be increased by a significant degree.
The people at this site twist facts worse than the Bush administration, and when they don't have the facts to twist, they make them up. They even attack people who agree with them.
It has been reported by Arabesque that the Truthers of Truthaction.org might be "batshit insane". I'm not sure if I agree with that, but if Arabesque posts a statement like that, it might be true. Arabesque is a high-quality Truther in my book, and his association with a questionable group known as Truthaction.org has hurt his reputation. Its a shame that such a brilliant writer and analyst can fall into the wrong crowd and make bad decisions.
[...]
Sincerely,
Rolf Lindgren Defender of Dr. Kevin Barrett Defender of Dr. Bruce Ivins Defender of Galileo Defender of James Madison Defender of Giordano Bruno
For the record, I do not endorse Lindgren or his statements.
In another email, Rolf said the following false statements about me [false claims and attacks highlighted]:
From: Rolf Lindgren Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 2:49 PM Subject: Arabesque Being Duped by Fetzer and Reynolds
Arabesque Being Duped by Fetzer and Reynolds
Arabesque, who used to be a strong supporter of promoting the best 9/11 Truth evidence, such as WTC 7 and foreknowledge, is now being duped by Dr. Jim Fetzer and Dr. Morgan Reynolds. Arabesque is trying to get Morgan Reynolds a radio slot on the Dynamic Duo show.
Arabesque is trying to force Dr. Kevin Barrett off the show so he can be replaced with Reynolds! Arabesque wrote: "In fact, Barrett is part of the "dynamic duo" with Jim Fetzer." http://www.911blogger.com/node/17206#comment-195634
In other words, fewer people are learning the truth about 9/11 because of Arabesque. Arabesque has become an unwitting tool of Fetzer and Reynolds. When you are outwitted by no-planers, that's pretty low. Its hard to imagine a clearer stigma of idiocy, than to be outwitted by a no-planer.
I am not trying to remove Barrett from his radio show. As you can see in the quote that Lindgren highlighted, I merely pointed out that he was part of the dynamic duo. Nor am I trying to get Morgan Reynolds on his radio show. And nor was I "promoting" disinformation on 9/11 blogger. In my posts I link to rebuttals of the claims of people who advocate TV fakery and Directed energy weapons. In other words, Rolf is the one promoting disinformation by spreading false and misleading claims about me.
On August 29th, 2007, Webster Tarpley issued the Kennebunkport Warning. It claimed “massive evidence” suggested that a US-Sponsored false flag terror attack would be orchestrated in “the coming months”. The original document listed signatures by Cindy Sheehan, Ann Wright and others.
A summary of the divisive language, accusations, and ad-hominems in the controversy by Webster Tarpley and his supporters against Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activists, and those investigating the controversy
A response to the misconception that our investigation claims to prove who is "telling the truth" about who signed the Kennebunkport Warning. This affair is controversial for two main reasons: the denial of signatures and the resulting incivility.
A supporter of "next 9/11" research and articles, anti-Semitism, numerology, and accusations of COINTELPRO against 9/11 researchers/activists who investigated the Kennebunkport Warning.
What "catfight" was Lindgren referring to? He was speaking about the Kennebunkport Warning controversy in which Cindy Sheehan was called a "wretched individual" and 9/11 activists were slandered and attacked for reporting on the controversy.
Lindgren's statement is misleading for several reasons. First of all, the Kennebunkport Warning controversy was not a "catfight", since the attacks were almost entirely one-sided as I prolifically documented. This statement is also inaccurate since Mr. Barrett participated in the slander. In other words, Barrett was a part of the controversy. After adding his signature to the Kennebunkport Warning, Barrett said the following about Cindy Sheehan and other anti-war activists:
"But Tarpley’s ill-considered accusation is nothing next to the mendacious fraud accusations put forth by the four regretful signatories... Frankly, if I were one of the Warning’s organizers, I would be strongly considering legal action. The possibility of cointelpro involvement in this affair is not to be dismissed. It is hard to imagine how anyone could be so stupidly unethical as to make transparently false accusations of forgery without some form of pressure having been applied. That pressure could come from threats; or, more likely, from “nice antiwar friends” from the foundation-funded pseudo-left... the kind of people professional 9/11 coverup agent Chip Berlet hangs out with. Cindi Sheehan and her foundation-funded fake-peace-movement “friends” are easy targets for this kind of manipulation by professional psy-oppers. Wake up, Cindi! Anyone who takes foundation money is on the CIA payroll. The foundation-funded “left” magazines, radio shows, and organizations are CIA propaganda outlets. It really IS that simple."
Now, as I have repeatedly pointed out, reporting attacks is not an attack. If I am a reporter, and I report that person X is attacking person Y, I am not making an "attack" against person X, am I? Conflating critique or criticism with ad-hominem is a straw-man. Recently, Barrett has further slandered 9/11 activists in relation to this controversy on his radio show:
Barrett: Maybe that's it. I don't know, those people I have no use for, whatever Webster wants to say about them I happily endorse. The people with real names that he called out were actually good people. Maybe misguided on this particular issue... throwing them in with these two false names--COINTELPRO people who are intelligence fronts or idiots, whoever they are was completely mad. It was really unfair to those two real human beings. I told him so, I gave him a really hard time after that."
Remember, Barrett's PR manager claimed that he did not take a side in the controversy and that he did not involve himself in "catfights". This is demonstrably false, since as you can see he is accusing me of being a COINTELPRO operative on his radio show without any evidence.
Now as if this was not enough, Mr. Barrett made a "call for unity" shortly before his recent attacks on 9/11 activists. As I have argued all along, attacks on activists are divisive and destructive. However, it is very difficult to have "unity" with individuals who insist on attacking other activists. This should be obvious. Keeping the above "call for unity" in mind, Barrett is now slandering 911blogger as an "Islamophobic" site.
"...I am dismayed that... 911blogger.com, has continued its recent policy of silencing and expelling Muslims and those with views approximating those of the global Muslim mainstream...
Sadly, I have to wonder whether [911blogger may be Islamophobic]. A few months ago, the only two Muslim regular posters at 911blogger, myself and John Leonard of Progressive Press, were banned from 911blogger, and the excuses for the banning in both cases were transparently ridiculous. ([Reprehensor], who is now the sole Decider at 911blogger, claimed he was banning me because I had invited John Lear, a highly qualified pilot with some odd views, on my radio show. But Lear had already been on other 9/11-oriented shows run by non-Muslims, such as Rob Balsamo's, without any complaints from Allan.)
[note by Arabesque: According to Reprehensor "John Leonard has not been banned from [911blogger]". However, 911blogger no longer accepts paid ads from Leonard, says Reprehensor.]
American society is so permeated with double-standards, so drenched in an ideology of Jewish superiority and Muslim inferiority, that people like [Reprehenser] of 911blogger can effectively ban all Muslims and Muslim-friendly perspectives and not only get away with it, but perhaps not even fully understand what they're doing. Islamophobia has become like the air we breathe -- toxic, omnipresent, and unremarked-on."
Why is Barrett making "calls for unity" with divisive activists like Jim Fetzer, but spreading lies that 911blogger is an "Islamophobic" site, that he was banned for "being a Muslim", that 9/11 blogger is "silencing Mulsim-friendly perspectives", and that 9/11 activists Arabesque and Col. Jenny Sparks are "COINTELPRO operatives"? These and other charges are false. On what basis is Kevin Barrett attacking myself as a "COINTELPRO" agent? Probably, in response to the fact I wrote an article about him. The entire article is essentially a collection of direct quotations by Kevin Barrett. Is this the first time that Barrett has made accusations against someone for quoting his own words? In fact, it is not. According to the respected 9/11 research website wtc7.net:
That's right: Apparently, quoting the words of Kevin Barrett is now evidence of "libel" or that you are a "COINTELPRO agent". And it appears that Lindgren, his PR manager (who obviously has a very difficult job) isn't above slander or "cat fights" either: he attacked activists at truthaction.org as "bat shit insane" in response to criticism of Kevin Barrett.
Again and again we return to what I think is the core issue: Attacking activists is wrong and divisive. Criticizing Mr. Barrett and others for their divisive statements and actions is not an attack. I'll repeat myself: reporting attacks are not the same as making an attack.
Mr. Barrett is running for Congress while representing the 9/11 truth movement. I believe that the 9/11 truth movement should demand responsible behavior from anyone who claims to represent it, and that if we don't demand it we are going to be burned and we are going to be discredited. Remaining silent about slander and damaging behavior that affects the movement as a whole is among the most damaging and serious problems that the 9/11 movement faces. Pretending that there is not an issue allows any serious problems to continue unaddressed and for the movement to be continuously misrepresented and discredited.
We've been talking with Julian and Max from truthmove.org... one thing that I've seen you guys have jumped head first into is the topic of disinformation of the truth movement. You guy guys have a pretty cool page on truthmove.org summarizing your thoughts on this. This is something that--I won't say it drives me crazy--it certainly can be infuriating. I know that they would like to drive all of us crazy with these disinfo shenanigans. Would you like to say any words on the topic of disinformation?
I think that people should definitely recognize the clear distinction between the rational critique that we offer one another, [which is] an engine for our own growth, and the kind of seething and derogatory rhetoric that we find from people who make it clear that they don't really have the same educational, positive priorities. The reason I say that is because I feel like people do make that mistake unfortunately; which is to say that the honest and logically based critique that we're going to offer ourselves in a movement in which facts, truth, and debate are very important factors--we shouldn't feel that's the same thing as identifying people who have very different priorities than the rest of us.
We have a summary page like all our pages on our site [where] we try to boil things down into the essential elements. We thought it was time to release a page on disinformation, trying to sum up the whole issue [as] concisely as possible. Some things we see as misinformation where [false information] is spread unintentionally and people genuinely believe it, and they're not trying to damage the movement--and other things may be disinformation, and that's where it's intentional. It's a divisive topic, but you really see within the reasonable core of the movement, there's not that much controversy over the 'whacko' stuff. And the speculation--is this going to be a movement about speculation, or facts?
There's almost complete 100% consensus on certain areas and then there's this phenomenon that I'm just dying to talk about. You guys start you page on disinformation saying, 'This is a very sensitive topic' and indeed it is, because that is pretty much the whole point of intentional disinformation: to cause division, to exploit differences... It can be a very tricky thing to deal with.
You have to get back to your basic, fundamental priorities. There are certain things in this movement as you said that we can all agree on. When we focus on the things that we can agree on--certain basic priorities [and] facts, we find that we are able to work together. That should be a very important priority for us. But, when we find that people are promoting things that are outright fallacies--first of all we have to be willing to question it, but secondly, we have to be willing to ask these people, 'Do you have the same priorities as me? Why are you representing this information?' Because to me, that says that you are going after a different goal here. As Max said a second ago, speculation is an important part of our research community. Absolutely essential. When it comes to street activism and promoting the best that we have to offer, some of the things that end up on the cutting room floor don't weigh in with as much strength and we need to be willing to look at that candidly and we need to be able to ask one another, 'Why are you promoting this information?' I really feel like people need to recognize that if their position doesn't stand up to some degree of scrutiny that it may not be that strong. This is a debaters movement in some ways. We have to be willing to ask each other strong questions and be willing to make strong answers.
This is an issue that kind of strains your fortitude. Once you get into 9/11 you find out that there's sources you can't trust and you start doubting everything, and you think everyone's an agent... it's something that you really have to dedicate yourself to facing and to trust your instincts in some ways. People have called us disinformation, or people have called us agents [like] 'Killtown'. People say that we're promoting lies on our site because we're not into 'no planes' [theories] or because we promote environmental issues. It's really up to people and we think it's clear that you can tell who is genuine about this and who is trying to manipulate you, [and] who is genuinely interested in a unified social quest for the truth.
Indeed. The idea that's really interesting me right now... I'll try to do this without naming names--but the idea of the 'sane moderate'; the person inserted perhaps to keep those who have been kind of further and further to the fringe of the movement because people recognize that what they are promoting is flat out bollocks, trash, [and] discredited information--but they are kind of kept in the picture by certain people who don't promote these ideas that much on the surface, but keep these other characters involved. And then there comes a time when this supposedly 'sane moderate' flips and reveals that they too are really promoting these [discredited] ideas. I'm just bringing it up because it pisses me the hell off--I'm just sick of seeing it.
We're dealing with a really sophisticated campaign here. We [should] expect nothing less from these people. I'm sure they know how to insert an agent that we cannot pick out easily that doesn't promote the crazy stuff [and] seems just as authentic as a real 'truther'. But, you gotta wonder in the way people forward the movement or the way they sabotage it. Sometimes those [editor: possibly posing as] crazy people promoting the towers were hit by holograms could just be a distraction from the more subtle agent[s].
Indeed. People will say at certain times, 'The topic of disinformation is a distraction'--I'm afraid it's not because the whole issue that we're dealing with; 9/11 and the promotion of the lie, the mythology of 9/11 is at heart disinformation. The whole thing really is like a huge COINTELPRO operation writ large. So it really is the tactics, the methods at the heart of this myth [about 9/11] really are disinformation. So it kind of goes hand in hand.
Shouldn't we expect that these people who you are suggesting have perpetrated this incredible disinformation campaign [about 9/11] would not have anticipated the aftermath of 9/11 in our culture and community?
The dark underside of the 9/11 truth movement consists of a strange supporting cast of eccentrics, dis-informers, trolls, internet personas, general-all-around yahoos, and… who knows? This is a story about a Mad Hatter who sang a song of Death and Vengeance to the hooded and mysterious Arabesque.
Seemed reasonable enough, right? Or was it? In the 9/11 truth movement, Orwell is rolling in his grave. Reporting personal attacks are the sameas making an attack! Speaking out against divisiveness is divisive! Unity is silence in the face of outrageous disruption! Or so some would have us believe… One such person was… we’ll call him the Mad Hatter. Hatter contributed some good analysis and his work was at least appreciated by a few. He was a long-time member of this group and contributed many insights with the appearance of a normal, every day researcher and activist. But after Arabesque initiated a discussion about the Kennebunkport Warning controversy, Hatter began to act very strangely. Hatter’s first comment sounded perfectly reasonable saying, “Misappropriating someone's signature is a crime. In this case I don't know if the typical punishment for such a crime is commensurate with the seriousness of the alleged misdeed."
“Fair enough”, thought Arabesque. “Nothing wrong here, although it has not been proven who has committed the crime.” One of Hatter’s next comments seemed to apologize for Tarpley’s divisive behaviour saying, “I've criticized Tarpley in the past for his acerbic tone. It's possible that Tarpley is simply an a** at times.” But then suddenly, Mad Hatter began to shift into strange territory: "Quite frankly I don't trust anybody completely, and I have considerable mistrust of most. I'm confident that you realize that by calling attention to this dispute while clearly taking a side, you set yourself up to be the object of suspicion."
Suspicion? What was the basis for this suspicion? To some in the 9/11 truth movement, everyone is a suspect. Arabesque responded decisively and concisely with the clear point of view that, “Yes I am taking sides. I am taking sides against personal attacks.”
But the 'Hooded One' had a feeling about Hatter that would not shake; “What is up with this guy?” Arabesque was about to find out. Hatter began to insist that Arabesque was intentionally trying to discredit Mr. Tarpley, and then Hatter appeared to have lost his objectivity, “It seems to me that discrediting Tarpley might be a top priority for those who want to derail the truth movement… You have yet to suggest any ulterior motive Tarpley might have for his actions.”
Motive? Now, Arabesque suspected that the Hatter was up to something. It was not Arabesque’s responsibility to provide a motive for anything—only the facts as they stood. This appeared to be an attempt to derail the conversation and manipulate a response which could not be proven and then be attacked as a straw-man. Arabesque replied clearly and concisely, “I don't have to supply a motive for his actions. His actions speak for themselves.” Something was up. And then it got weirder.
Hatter turned to Madness—he posted images side by side implying that 9/11 activists at TruthAction.org were communists. “Communism In America.”
“Well isn’t that pretty weird”, Arabesque thought. “What’s this guy’s problem? Who goes around insinuatingthat activist groups are communists?” It appeared that the Mad Hatter was trying to manipulate another response. Hatter’s comment seemed more than a little… Mad and not worth answering. At this point, Arabesque figured “he’s just a troll—that ever-so-present entity on 9/11 forums who go around trying to stir things up with nonsensical accusations and diversionary commentary.” But this was completely unexpected since the Hatter appeared to be a normal member of the group, and had never acted this way before! Was there something more to this behavior? Arabesque had a feeling there was.
And then it got weirder and even more transparent. Arabesque ignored the absurd insinuation that TruthAction.org were communists and posted another thread about 9/11 activist Michael Wolsey. It became clear Hatter was not only a troll—he was trying to discredit the Kennebunkport Warning investigators with absurd insinuations—blatant and ridiculous disinformation! Mad Hatter asked in this thread if Michael Wolsey had “any relation to James?” James Woosley, no relation to Michael Wolsey(note spelling difference), was a former director of the CIA. The Mad Hatter did not give James' last name because he knew it was spelled differently. The Mad Hatter had dishonest intentions. To Arabesque’s surprise, Hatter was quickly given the boot from the forum by an administrator for these and other comments insinuating holocaust denial—of which, Arabesque was completely unaware about. Hatter had run out of warnings for his silly disruption, but Arabesque was nonetheless surprised that the HatMan was shown the door. Although it appeared to be the demise of the Mad Hatter, it was just the beginning.
The Mad Hatter is a man of many, often fanciful names and sock puppets—but easily identifiable. Often, Hatter attempts to let others know it is indeed the Madman wearing the Hat. Elsewhere, Hatter wrote “I stayed on the fence until someone pushed me off… I have to say, the evidence I have collected thus far tends to support Tarpley… When it comes to visibility911.com and TruthAction.org, they appear to be connected by more than common purpose.” What was this common purpose? What was this evidence? Mr. Hatter of course, hadnone and never gave any—he merely had insinuations. Statements without support or validation. Disinformation. Again, Hatter frequently made the absurd insinuation that TruthAction.org was a communist front group or Communism In America, repeatedly hinting without evidence that it “looks as though Tarpley may be right,” referring to the unsupported accusation that Arabesque and others were disinformation operatives and even “COINTELPRO”. Where was this evidence? Neither Hatter or others have ever provided any. Hatter ironically commented again using innuendo to imply “Strange the focus is on Cindy Sheehan and not Arabesque… I think it's rather clear that you are trying to discredit Tarpley through innuendo and hyperbolæ. Why don't you let Cindy Sheehan speak for herself? As I've already pointed out, you appear to be attempting to discredit Tarpley by any duplicitous means at your disposal. Tarpley names names.” Hatman was exactly describing himself and even Webster Tarpley, not Arabesque! Everywhere, Hatter insinuated, suggested, and hinted without evidence, facts, or proof, “there is an even more insidious form of disruptor. There are several people who are presenting themselves as experts on disinformation, and are, themselves, acting as disinformation operatives. Naming them is tantamount to virtual suicide.” Arabesque responded sarcastically, “probably because I'm really good at debunking nonsensical and absurd… insinuations like this one.” Did Hatter have any proof at all? The Mad Hatter was only a Man of insinuations without facts.
If someone is accused of being related to a CIA director, but no proof is given, this is an accusation without confirmation. It may or may not be true. To the uniformed, accusations can be interpreted differently based on your awareness of the facts to confirm or disprove them:
If the necessary information is known to the intended audience, they can make a judgment as to whether the accusation is correct.
If the necessary information is not known, the suggested possibility or accusation is enough to create confusion and uncertainty—is this information true? Could it be true? Is it likely to be true?
A sceptic treats all information as unconfirmed until it is backed up with credible sources.
Those who do not examine information critically are more apt to accept misleading claims without questioning them. For example, the official story of 9/11. This is a psychological trick exploited by many manipulative promoters of disinformation who prey on this human weakness.
Disinformation entails the distribution of deliberately misleading information; accusations without confirmed sources or verifiable evidence qualify as such.
The Mad Hatter insinuated everywhere with poorly constructed, transparent, and even silly disinformation; misleading and unsupported insinuations that TruthAction.org was a “communist group”, Michael Wolsey was “related to former CIA director James Woolsey”, Arabesque was a “disinformation operative”, and that TruthAction.org, visibility911.com, 911truth.org, 911blogger.com, and other websites were “owned” by the same people—a psy-op truth movement. Where was the proof? There wasn't any. These were all obviously and clearly absurd insinuations.
Why would Hatter do this? What was the motive? Was there money or financial benefit involved? If so, who did the Mad Hatter work for? Was Hatter just… Mad? He appeared to be only selectively absurd about certain topics, and the Kennebunkport Warning controversy was one of them. Everywhere, the Hatman “defended” Tarpley without relying on facts; instead attacking those who criticized him with baseless insinuations and absurd disinformation! In this regard, he was no different than Webster Tarpley. Hatter’s sudden turn from seemingly normal and rational changed to Mad disruption and relentless insinuation almost instantly. At one time, he was not a MadMan. Why did he go Mad? Turning to Madness is a common trait seen by agent provocateurs who at first pretend to be legitimate members of a group. Could the Mad Hatter be a Hat-wearing agent provocateur? This is someone who works in the interests of another group while provoking debate, spreading disinformation, and causing disruption. The Mad Hatter was doing all three. It was clear that he had relentless and deliberate intent. It was not clear why he was doing it. Only the Hatter himself could “suggest any ulterior motive”. Why are you doing it HatMan?
And this Hatter was anywhere and everywhere with different Hats to his name! MadHat had a dozen Hats—like a private army of Hatters. The Mad Hatting campaign of insinuations without evidence continued anywhere Arabesque and others resided: “I am left to question Michael Wolsey's motive for producing such a lengthy condemnation of Tarpley. Could he be making a mountain out of a molehill for some ulterior motive? Where can I find some example of Wolsey's original 9/11 work so that I can assess the sincerity of his efforts?” He further revealed with blatant insinuation, “I would expect a person determined to infiltrate and endeavor to disrupt or mislead the movement would provide a forum for those people and ideas which are already prominent, or which are inevitably going to become prominent. This latter category can be extremely valuable since it gives the illusion that the infiltrator is at the forefront of the effort, helping to dig up the latest dirt.”
As the Mad Hatter should well know, accusations without evidence are worthless. This Mad Hatter had none, and he knows it. I know that he has no evidence, because I know none exists.
For his insistent insinuations without evidence and factually challenged disruption, Hatter was banned in multiple 9/11 forums again and again. But the Hatter kept coming back with different Hats! This Man with a Hat was on a mission of disruption, insinuation, and disinformation. An impartial observer commented that Hatter, “goes to extraordinary lengths in establishing that he is knowledgeable and erudite, which he must be given some of his posts… only to bring out low-grade disinformation (or is that 3rd grade?) like, ‘a lot of these sites register by a proxy service’ (a well-known one used by millions of sites - maybe because they don't want their address available for harassment?) and ‘TruthAction.orgis communist’ because it uses the raised-fist symbol and (gasp) red letters. His apparent native intelligence is not an excuse; it only makes him look even worse for putting out such obvious junk attacks.” This correctly summed up the Matter—the Mad Hatter was both intelligent and absurd; his unfounded claims were only prolific insinuations.
This Hatter was clearly Mad in more than one sense. He issued a death threat disguised in the form of a song to Arabesque—one of his calling cards:
“To Whom it May Concern
I will find you/ 'causeI will hunt you down / I will walk behind you/ Without a sound/ And I will strike/ When the time is right/ I will bring you down/ Oh, to the ground/ And I will make you bleed / Like you did me/ Oh once before/ And of this/ You can be sure/ I will hear you cry/ For mercy's hand/ But that will be/ At my command/ For you can't do/ What you have done/ And expect/ To stand, not run/ I spoke the truth/ And you spoke lies/ And for this/ You will die/ To taste your blood/ Is oh so fine/ And vengeance sweet/ She shall be mine/”
This Death Threat was obviously directed at Arabesque for reasons that are not obvious, although the Mad Hatter disingenuously implies otherwise. The Mad Hatter WAS "walking behind" Arabesque and following him to every forum he posted in as implied in this song, so this was clearly evidence which could be interpreted as a Death Threat to Arabesque. Arabesque had nothing to do with The Man with The Hat and his initial banning—the HatMan was warned multiple times by an administrator. Arabesque had no control over Mad Hatter’s fate. Arabesque was not a moderator. Arabesque does not control who decides to ban the Mad Hatter, and the Hatman is simply mistaken, paranoid, or disingenuous for claiming otherwise. Nor did Arabesque accuse the Hatter of anything or even seriously engage him in discussion since much of what the Hatter said was… well—Mad. Arabesque largely ignored the Mad Hatter and his transparently passive-aggressive attempts at disruption and derailment. But clearly, Hatter wanted to know who Arabesque was. Hatter was Mad—asking for Arabesque’s name in emails to a prominent activist in the 9/11 truth movement. Hatter wanted the names of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Steering Committee. The Hatter stalked Arabesque anywhere and everywhere for three months. The Mad Hatter gave Arabesque a Death Threat in the form of a song. The HatMan would not go away. He was either paid to do what he was doing, or he was a creepy Madman with an army of Hats in disguise.
The full story has not been revealed. The Identity of the Man under the Hat is known. The Rabbit Hole is gapingly open—how far it go? A scary place indeed. All has yet to be disclosed about this Man under a Hat.
A Blog Devoted to Discussing 9/11 News, Research, and Disinformation
"When we act, we create our own reality"
“The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That's not the way the world really works anymore… We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.'"
“Arabesque is the best writer in the movement, bar none. Arabesque writes with great clarity on all areas of the 9-11 cover-up, meticulously documenting each point through the use of extensive endnotes. Arabesque has also proven that he isn’t afraid to take on the disinformation specialists who would serve to discredit legitimate questions, research, and evidence which would directly contradict the 'official conspiracy theory' about the events of September 11th, 2001. This, I believe, is one of the most important issues facing the 9-11 movement today.” — Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9-11
