I'll take some things out of that interview from FD. the things Im posting is in relation to what you seem to have "beef" with. here we go.
JIM: They're geniuses at public relations and the politics of distraction -- Fintan, that's absolutely right. This is Karl Rove's area of specialization, so I couldn't agree more. We were just beginning to talk about your take on the role of disinformation in the research community, and I really want to give you ample opportunity to lay out your take, because it seems to me you have a very distinctive point of view.
FINTAN: We've covered one of the 'legs' of the stool I've got here, it's a five-legged stool... and I'd like to lay out the basis of this information analysis so we can understand where it's coming from, and then apply that to the 9/11 issue. Across the political manipulation of free elections, across this spin-meistering that Karl Rove is using, 'total news management', across the use of psychological warfare, across 'fake politics' and globalization, and the 'globalization agenda'. And if we examine each of those areas, we see them coming together, and giving us an understanding of where we've got to in these totally media mis-led days -- where information warfare is everything, and disinformation is all over the 9/11 issue.
JIM: Okay, we have talked about globalization during our first interview, perhaps enough has been said for the moment, that we know in your view, that is the ultimate goal here... where the G8 and the World Trade Organization really create a scenario under which corporations are ruling the world, but in order to get there lots of things have to happen, and it looks -- I take it -- in your view 9/11 was a 'key' event in order to manipulate the situation; in order to lead the world, but especially the United States in that direction.
FINTAN: Yes, and one of the key pieces of disinformation within the 9/11 issue is that it's designed to smear the blame across the neocons, Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld, and portray this as some kind of grand military neocon adventure which was engineered into place by the 9/11 event.
Whereas in fact, it's much deeper than that. In fact, this is designed to be suspected by people internationally, that those were the people behind it. when there's a much broader agenda which has to do with demonizing the US government, breaking the confidence of the people of the United States in their own government and system of government. And then 'sheparding them' in the direction of good-cop bad-cop -- where the good cop is going to be Hillary Clinton, perhaps with Barack Obama as vice presidential candidate -- ushering us into this new era of globalization.
So there are patsies all over the place on this one Jim, and the neocons are some of the biggest patsies going. So 'key' disinformation of the 9/11 has just been to smear them---
JIM: ---in the direction of believing that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Donald [?] and Paul Wolfowitz and General Richard Meyer and Condeleeza Rice and Rudy Giuliani and Larry Silverstein were the principals here -- with the possibility of out-sourcing perhaps the destruction of the World Trade Center to some Israeli operatives... that's the way it's shaped up in terms of my own research, so I'm very interested in learning why you think that might be a superficial account -- or only barely skimming the surface.
....
JIM: We're discussing disinformation in relation to 9/11 research, and related aspects. What's really going on, the underlying significance of the events of 9/11, with Fintan Dunne from Ireland. Fintan, I'd like you to pick up where we left off for the break.
FINTAN: We see there that the first leg of that stool is political manipulation of free elections and we're already talking about the subversion of democracy -- because you're not supposed to be doing that. And an example of how that is disinformation is the 'stolen election issue' -- in which we think we're on to something that tells us something about what's going on -- is in fact simply being used to drive potential Democratic voters into the hands of the Democratic party, by reminding them that hey, your election got stolen before, don't let it happen again! Get out and vote for Hillary next time in '08.
So the second leg of the stool then is the emergence of this whole era of spin-meistering, a [?] type era, it's typified by being able to spin the news cycle to a particular political advantage. And I think they've developed that forward to the point now that you don't just try to spin on a day-to-day basis, you're spinning to a 'news agenda', something I call total news management.
So what comes out of the major media -- and if you get the major media on board maybe you're talking about the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times -- and you've really got it all in the bag. What happens is, they're generating so-called 'news' which as actually custom designed by operators behind the scenes. Who are making sure that instead of the danger of us talking about real issues that we care about, they will feed us a relentless tide of prepared news items. So that's a very important skill that they have, which they add to this other skill of the manipulation of political activists, including 9/11 activists.
Then the third leg of the stool is psychological warfare, and the revolution in military affairs, which really is a total re-think of military affairs -- by the military themselves -- and indeed, by the people who manipulate the political process in the US and 9/11. So that they're oriented towards 'information warfare' all the time. They're focusing on that, and that's their key paradigm all the time, is the psychological effect they're having on the 'target' audience.
And once again, these were skills developed for deployment abroad which have been turned on the people of the United States themselves.
When you take those three legs together, you end up with a fourth one. You end up with the potential of adding this political manipulation, total news management, and psychological warfare control -- to create fake politics.
Completely, totally fake politics, where you have at Republican and Democratic senior levels, who are working hand in hand, and they're simply batting back and forward the electors between the two parties, alternating over long cycles of perhaps 8-10, 12 years, between the two parties, and that's totally engineered. And all of the politics is totally fake!
And I would include in that as a classic example of that, "the Plame Affair', which I see as a totally fake, contrived scandal. One designed to fill the news pages with -- well, something 'fake' -- because they're in control of that. And my illustration of how 'in control' of that they are, is just take a look at some of the players -- take a look at, say Patrick Fitzgerald. He played a role in the prosecutions in relation to the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. He prosecuted Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. Patrick Fitzgerald. He shows up again relation to the 'Plamegate' affair.
Another guy who shows up is a judge looking after the case, Reggie Walton. He was appointed by Reagan and by George Bush Sr. Curiously, that same judge also shows up in a 9/11 related case, which is the Sibel Edmonds case, he was the one overseeing the right of the government to 'gag' Sibel Edmonds in that case. And there are other people who seem to show up in relation to this, and who seem to keep coming back into the same story. We've got for example, that same Judge Reggie Walton showing up as the presiding judge in the Hatfield case -- on the anthrax issue.
So I'm suggesting that we've got a number of key players... here's somebody else who shows up in this -- Mark Zaid, who is a lawyer representing Sibel Edmonds. He also shows up in the Tony Schaffer case, in relation to the alleged travails of Mohammad Atta.
So I'm pointing to a short list of 'key' characters who are showing up in a number of 'key' cases. And I'm saying that's happening because they are safe hands in which the establishment places these issues, knowing that they're safe. Knowing that the individuals who are prosecuting or judging those cases will not take the case anywhere they don't want it taken. And so they can have a totally fake story. So those are the key tactics which can be applied in order to create fake stories around the 9/11 issue. Based on the skills they have built up in creating a completely 'fake' political structure. And that's the background, Jim.
...
JIM: Fintan, for clarification: when you're talking about 'they' we may need a little more commentary there. I know ultimately you think G8 and the bankers and so forth, and the big corporations are responsible... but is there an intermediate entity? Something like the Council on Foreign Relations, or some comparable entity that you would attribute with the role of planning these things out... and casting roles for these different characters to play?
FINTAN: A central role has got to be played by some elements who are either in, or have left, U.S. intelligence. There's no doubt about that. But I wouldn't see the operational control of that level of the 'script' as coming out of what you'd practically define as the CIA.
Even though I call this the 'CIA Fakes', and you can Google that term and find the article... that's just a shorthand. I believe that many of the key players at the operational level are extra-governmental, but would have a track record within organizations such as the US and British intelligence services. However, if you like, certain objectives are desired by the international corporate elite. And certain other people make certain those objectives are met. And nobody likes to go home and kiss their daughter good night and tuck them in, really wants to know the details. And they don't have to -- because the details are handled by the guys who really don't mind getting their hands dirty with that kind of work.
...
FINTAN: A key tactic then is getting us reacting emotionally and pointing us in the wrong direction, towards the cardboard cut-out characters. The bad guys.
Then, divide and conquer. Split the movement up at all, at every opportunity, and at each opportunity, into 'MIHOP' and into 'LIHOP', into every way -- into 'the Jews did it' and 'the Jews didn't do it', and any other way you can cut the movement up, it all helps.
Another key objective of the disinformation is, contaminate the evidence. Get us to take on board evidence that is flimsy, or evidence that is totally fake. And in that I would include the insertion of false evidence. This is something that many 9/11 activists have missed out on. That it's not a question of, that you might 'spot' things that happened on 9/11, in which you're getting on to something they didn't want you to find out. It's more a question ambiguous material is deliberately inserted into it. In order to throw you off the track. In order to feed you a red herring which takes you down a route that leads you nowhere. That's also tied to a military objective which is, to waste your time. Simply waste your time, to get you to spend time, energy and interest on so-called 'evidence' which actually leads nowhere.
...
FINTAN: It's certainly possible to engineer in the flight control systems into standard aircraft, which would essentially enable you to turn it into a cruise missile, you have an override system which would use a combination of normal cruise missile terrain based tracking, followed by switchover to a homing beacon as soon as you got in range of the Towers...
This information content arises people in the 9/11 movement don't seem to have considered the possibility that the government might deliberately insert flashes, insert ambiguous content into some of the video footage which was released about that day, in order to deliberately feed what are essentially diversionary issues.
^^this part, i don't know but it is an interesting pov.
...
ozmo this is where you seem to be nitpicking ...
JIM: I agree with that Fintan, that's the whole purpose of research. The whole point in founding Scholars for 9/11 Truth a year ago December was to bring together experts in different areas to sort these things out. I created a research group back in 1992 to study the death of John F. Kennedy and we discovered that most, not just a lot but most of the evidence in this case was phony, fake or fabricated. So believe me -- I understand exactly the point you're making. But it can only be sorted out on the basis of objective scientific research.
FINTAN: I agree, let me just cover other areas and maybe come back to this issue of 'evidence', one of the other clues we have, and I'm sure you'll be aware of it as well, is that the media then cherry-pick what they want to cover out of all the evidence that is available. So traditionally they will pick some of the weakest points that are available... and the danger for us is, is that elements in the 9/11 movement have made a big play of issues which are essentially weak.
One of the problems for us is, there is no central 9/11 movement administration -- so anybody can go out there with information. The danger is, some of that information's very flaky, and we'd also be much better restricting ourselves to what we can or cannot prove, or establish beyond reasonable doubt. Instead of broadening our case out, so much so that when the mainstream media finally ambushes, big time, on prime time TV, they'll pick some of the flakiest stuff that's out there and they'll ignore the good quality evidence. Whereas if we restrict ourselves to good quality, demonstrable evidence -- we'd be in a much better position.
JIM: If one is convinced, as I am convinced, that conventional explosives such as thermite, thermate, even if it were supplemented by something like RDX, cannot possibly account for the destruction of the Twin Towers... much less the other buildings at the World Trade Center, then you are of necessity obligated to look at alternatives that may involve non-conventional explosives -- things like nuclear weapons, whether atomic or hydrogen, maybe mini-nukes or maybe lasers or masers or plasmoids -- now, this is an indispensable aspect of scientific research, Fintan.
It's not a matter of being 'flaky', it's a matter of considering all the possible explanations that might be involved here. And having done quite a bit in this area, and having been attacked quite a few times on this ground, I just must tell you that if you understand the nature of science you appreciate that sometimes you've got to look at hypotheses that may seem implausible or speculative in the beginning, and yet it may be necessitated by the evidence.
I think if anyone wants to go to my discussion of these matters from 17 February I was in Columbus and then the 24th in Phoenix, they can find on the website 911scholars.org four 'youtubes', they're all quite brief, where I am laying out the reasons why the kind of explanations that have been offered by Steven Jones for example -- can't possibly be adequate, and why we have to look elsewhere.
And now, that makes us vulnerable to the kind of cherry-picking or distortion you're talking about, but its an essential part of science. I don't see how science can proceed if you don't consider all of the available alternative hypotheses.
FINTAN: Well I'm in agreement with you there, and we've actually looked at the issue of whether there were esoteric or unknown (in the public domain) weaponry used, in our own investigation at breakfornews.com... we just haven't reached any conclusion on that definitively. But I certainly defend anybody's right to examine those issues. In terms of making definitive conclusions, you've got to be careful until you have sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm still going
