How to Spot Disinfo

Thanks for the letter, Allan. It’s good to know you find this website and this information important, and I’m glad you support the work as a subscriber.

Thank you also for your generous compliments of my work. It is always nice to hear that someone enjoys my “slickly done” documentary, as well as my daily videos/podcasts/interviews/articles so much, and finds them so well done and so well researched that they can scarcely believe that I do it all by myself. That is truly one of the most glowing endorsements of my work that I can receive, so I thank you for that.

I’m glad that you begin your piece by letting your audience know that you are familiar with Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP). I’m sure it can’t escape the readers’ attention that you employ it so well yourself. One might wonder, for example, why you would include such an easily documentable and factually incorrect lie about my work in such an offhand manner toward the end of your piece, especially when it seems to add nothing at all to the letter or its content. I’m referring, of course, to your statement, that “Your very slickly done film on The Fed had no one else in the credits.” Now you and I and everyone else who has watched the documentary know for a matter of fact that James Evan Pilato, Kevin MacLeod, Broc West, Perry Watson and Jeffrey Jaxen all appear by name in the credits at both the beginning and the end of the documentary (for their contribution to the music and transcripts of the documentary respectively). As I say, we both know this (as you are no doubt a tireless researcher and uncompromising truth-teller), and anyone who watches the documentary (or bothers to check for themselves) will see that this is the case. So why put it in there? As someone well-versed in NLP, are you using a little sleight-of-hand here, testing to see if the audience will accept an easily demonstrable lie on your say-so just to make sure they’re not actually checking what you’re saying for themselves? Or is it just because you’re making sure to self-select an audience that will read your assertions and not engage in any independent verification process? I wouldn’t presume to know myself, but I (perhaps unlike yourself) do have faith in the audience to be able to check into these things, as I don’t imagine people who simply believe assertions without factual evidence are (or want to be) in my audience.

Anyway, the substance of your letter seems to revolve around your contention that I believe that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. I have always and do still maintain that I have no idea what hit the Pentagon on 9/11. I know this seems to blow your mind, because as you point out in a logically fallacious argument: “I know: You don’t outright say that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon… but you come pretty damn close.” And then you point out that I read the text from the article that follows the (admittedly fake and disinfo-spreading) video. As you know and as you openly acknowledge, none of this logically implies that I believe that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but you want the reader to go along with your interpretation that somehow my not saying anything of the sort is “pretty damn close” to saying it. Another moment where it seems you are testing the willingness of your audience to accept your interpretation of something that is not actually there.

The substance of your argument seems to be my presentation to the “9/11 Revisited: Seeking The Truth” conference in Kuala Lumpur in 2012 where I laid out the case for convicting the government for its active participation in the attacks by pointing to its own admissions. In that presentation I present without critical comment the idea that:

-Rumsfeld went into his regularly scheduled 9:30 AM CIA briefing blissfully unaware of what was happening
-Richard Clarke was coordinating a valiant air response to the attacks by establishing a CAP over New York via NEADS amongst other actions
-That WTC7 “collapsed into its own footprint” (with no mention of demolition!)

And any number of official story deceptions. Is this because I (or my audience) believe these things? Perhaps a good way to get a handle on this is to put it in the standard high school reading comprehension multiple choice format. Dear Reader, what was the point of this presentation:

a) To prove that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
or
b) To show that even the official story that the government promotes indicts officials like Cheney and Rumsfeld as being active participants in the crime of 9/11?

As you yourself concede in your own letter, no reasonable person would come away with the former as their overall impression of the purpose of this talk. That’s because the talk is quite evidently centered on the latter proposition, as evidenced by my highlighting of the absurdity of the “official narrative” (identified as such) with specific reference to the absurdity of the idea that Hani Hanjour “decided to approach the Pentagon from the wrong direction before performing an 8000 foot descending 270 degree corkscrew turn at over 400 miles per hour to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the building in a mostly-deserted newly-renovated wing of the Pentagon on the far side from where the Defense Secretary and the top brass were sitting.” Now surely this seems like a good place to ask the audience to read between the lines of the talk, doesn’t it? Given the context of my talk (not to mention the context of the sum total of my work on 9/11 over the years), do you think people would say that I am unproblematically promoting the idea that the Pentagon was struck by a Hanjour-piloted 77 because I say he “decided to approach the Pentagon” or am I mocking the stupidity of such a theory? I’m happy to let the readers (and viewers) come to their own conclusion there.

Then it’s on to the evidence-free assertion that I am receiving secret (unidentified, unnamed, unknowable) help from secret (unidentified, unnamed, unknowable) sources, based on your argument that my work is too good to be the work of one man (again, I thank you sincerely for the praise) and that you assert that my answer was “the first time I’ve ever heard you stutter.” The fact that you mention such a question without linking to the relevant interview again demonstrates (and perhaps is the payoff for earlier testing) your audience’s willingness to accept what you say without checking for themselves. But it’s very good of you to phrase it in an unfalsifiable way: the first time you have ever heard such a thing. The implication, of course, is that I have never stuttered, stumbled, hesitated or had words mixed up in all of my thousands of hours of podcasting. Not that you’re actually saying that, of course. If that’s the extent of your argument, I’m sure I (or any listener) could pull up half a dozen examples of such activity in the past week. Perhaps every time I have ever false started or misspoken should be similarly used as “proof enough” of some lie or conspiracy (feel free to use your imagination or even just ask the audience to use theirs as to WHY it happened then). What was that about NLP?

Anyway, I don’t really expect that this will be sufficient to actually answer your question. But for the record (i.e. for the benefit of those who actually care about my response):

-I have absolutely no idea what hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
-I did indeed write, record and edit the Federal Reserve documentary all by myself exactly as the credits would indicate. It was the result of 7 months of extremely difficult labour and remains one of the single accomplishments of mine that I am most proud of.

Feel free to continue to release partial records of email conversations between us that show that I did indeed offer to have you on the program five years ago and that you replied that you were too busy and distracted to come on right away, and that you then magnanimously presented me with the opportunity to comment on your essay accusing me of helping Alex Jones to censor you, at which point I blocked your email address from my inbox. Or, you know, you could release the whole email exchange and let people decide for themselves.

Anyway, thank you again for your kind words about my prolific work, and thank you again for helping to make this website possible with your monthly contribution. It’s the support of people like yourself that make this website a reality.

Best,
James