---

Additional Titles

 

By Servando Gonzalez
March 25, 2014
NewsWithViews.com

If one is to believe professional disinformers from both the Left and the Right, the most important division among the American people is between “conservative” Republicans and “liberal” Democrats. Currently, with a Democrat usurper[1] in the White House, “conservative” disinformers are trying to convince us that just by changing CFR puppet Obama and substituting him with a Republican CFR puppet, everything will change for the better.

These disinformers of the Right are under the control of the same puppet masters who, some years ago, used their disinformers of the Left to convince the people that, just by changing the CFR puppet in the White House everything would be okay. But it does not seem that everything is okay in today’s America.

A common joke in communist countries in the 1970s was asking a person “How are you?” The answer was “Better than tomorrow and worse than yesterday.” This may be easily said about today’s America under the control of the Invisible Government of oil magnates, International banksters and CEOs of transnational corporations whose visible head is at the Council on Foreign Relations in Manhattan.

Contrary to what the disinfomers of the Right and the Left want us to believe, there are no big differences between Republicans and Democrats. Granted, there are minor differences regarding non-critical issues, but they fully agree in accepting the narrative provided by the U.S. government about the events of September 11, 2001.

In contrast, there is a growing mass of Americans who are convinced that the whole event was a hoax either directly perpetrated by, or with knowledge at the highest levels the U.S. government. And these doubters have provided an enormous mass of evidence to prove their point. As expected, both “conservative” Republicans and “liberal” Democrats, who apparently don’t want to know the facts, fully agree in calling them “conspiracy theorists,’ and derogatory terms like “tin hat kooks.”

Nevertheless, the 9/11 events are too important to ignore. They were the excuse used by the Invisible Government of the U.S. to restrict our freedoms and create a full totalitarian-style surveillance society. They were the excuse used to begin the militarization of the police and turning it into a Gestapo-like organization. They were the excuse that allowed for the creation of the DHS, the TSA and the end of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. They were the excuse used to send American troops to remote parts of the planet to fight unexplainable, unwinnable, never-ending wars. Therefore, a dispassionate analysis of the 9/11 events is in order if we want to convince the deniers and doubters that, by ignoring the facts, they are not helping America.

A Definition of Intelligence

Though intelligence is perhaps one of the most used terms in recent times, it is also one of the most misused. Just a perfunctory reading of the mainstreams press one can conclude that, most of the time, they use the term “intelligence” as a synonym for “information.” But that is a big mistake, because intelligence and information are not synonyms. Actually, they denote two very different things

According to the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, intelligence is the final product resulting from the collection, processing, integration, analysis, and interpretation of available information.[2] So, even though the term intelligence comprises something much more complex, we may safely accept the shorter definition that intelligence is just information after it has been properly evaluated.

In its advisory report to the U.S. Government, the 1955 task force on Intelligence Activities of the second Herbert Hoover Commission offered a more practical definition: “Intelligence deals with all the things which should be known in advance of initiating a course of action.”[3] A true expert gave a similar definition more than 2000 years ago. According to Sun Tzu, “the reason why the enlightened prince and the wise general conquer the enemy whenever they move and their achievements surpass those of ordinary men is foreknowledge [intelligence].”[4]

Though the definition of intelligence is very simple and straightforward, most authors dealing with the subject confuse it. Some of them use the terms information and intelligence as synonyms, when it is obvious that they are not. Others have even used the term “raw intelligence” as a synonym for information, but, as we will see below, contrary to information (which might contain misinformation and disinformation), intelligence is a very elaborated product; there is nothing raw in it.

The evaluation of information, also known as appraisal or assessment, has to do with the analysis of a piece of information itself in terms of credibility, reliability, pertinence and accuracy, to change it into intelligence. The evaluation of information is accomplished at the fourth stage of the intelligence cycle.[5]

The evaluation or appraisal of a particular item of information is based on a conventional letter-number system.[6]

The evaluation simultaneously takes into consideration both the reliability of the source based on its previous performance and the credibility of the information itself. The process involves a check against intelligence already in hand and an educated guess as to the accuracy of the new information based on how well it dovetails with previous intelligence.

Though independent, the two aspects cannot be totally separated from each other. The authoritativeness of the source, which may not necessarily coincide with its reliability, can never be ignored, though it is sometimes overrated in the light of the credibility of the information — something that has to do with the expectations of the people involved in the evaluation process. But people, including intelligence analysts, tend to believe what they suspect or expect to be true, or what better fits their personal needs, so there is always an element of bias in any evaluation of information.

It must be emphasized that both evaluations must be entirely independent of each other, and they are indicated in accordance with the system shown above. Thus, information judged to be “probably true” received from a source considered to be “usually reliable” is designated as “B2”.

One must also keep in mind that the question of what is authoritative and what is not is very relative. The higher the authoritativeness of the source, the higher the possibility that it may be biased or had been compromised and, therefore, the higher the danger of disinformation.

Highly authoritative sources from totalitarian governments may not always tell the truth, to say the least, but highly authoritative sources from democratic countries may not be very reliable either. There is evidence that the CIA has been involved in recruiting scholars at the most prestigious American universities, and journalists in the most influential American media. Also, there is suspicion that the KGB, the Mossad, and even the Cuban DGI, among others, have done a good job penetrating American universities and media.

One must always bear in mind that no source can ever be regarded as infallible and no single bit of information can ever be regarded as totally accurate. Whatever the case, the chances for error, misinterpretation, misunderstanding and deceit are too high to blindly trust any information.

Super patriots, doctrinaire partisans, court historians, bureaucratic climbers, people of provincial outlook, enemy moles —all of them are potential dangers to sound information evaluation. Perspective, perspicacity, worldliness, a soundly philosophical outlook, the knowledge and sense of history, and perhaps a bit of skepticism and a sense of humor — these are the qualities of an intelligence analyst that minimize error in the interpretation and evaluation of information.

Finally, we need to keep in mind that, usually, intelligence analysts working for an intelligence service appraise a particular item of information in order to produce an estimate of future behavior, usually by a country, an organization or a chief of state. But intelligence analysts never guarantee that something is going to happen or will not happen. Like meteorologists, they only express in their intelligence estimates the possibilities that something may or may not happen. For example, I am sure that, currently, the CIA has produced an intelligence estimate stating the possibilities that Russia may militarily invade the Ukraine, and another about the possibilities that, if confronted militarily by the U.S., it would go nuclear.

Though the 9/11 events are complex and have many different aspects — the terrorist’s training, the hijacking of the planes, the attack on the twin towers, the attack on the Pentagon. Most of these aspects have been studied in detail by numerous researchers. In this analysis, however, I am going to focus on a single aspect: the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center in Manhattan.

The 9/11, 2001, Events

All the initial information the American people received about the 9/11 events came from a single source: the American government. According to the U.S. Government, a small group of Muslim terrorists hijacked four planes, crashed two of them against World Trade Center towers 1 and 2, and another one against the Pentagon. As a result of the fires from the planes’ fuel, WTC towers 1 and 2, as well as building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, collapsed in their own footprints. That was the narrative sold to the American people by CFR agent George W. Bush

With the single exception of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who since the very beginning questioned the U.S. Government’s version of the events, nobody in the two branches of the Repucratic Party questioned it. The American mainstream media, which lately has changed its role from watchdog to lapdog, as a whole accepted the Government’s version of the events and became an obedient mouthpiece, parroting it over and over ad nauseam. Actually, the only dissenting source of information about 9/11 has been the Internet and books published by minor independent presses.

So, the first thing an intelligence analyst must look at is very simple: Is the U.S. Government a reliable source of information. Well, U.S. Government, like all governments around the world, is made out of politicians, and politicians have never been a source of reliable information.[7] Moreover, currently the U.S. Government is fully under the control of the Invisible Government in the hands of CFR conspirators, whose goal is to destroy the U.S. and implement a New World Order. Therefore, you are free to do your own evaluation of this source, but I will qualify the only source of the 9/11 information, that is, secret CFR agents inside the U.S. Government, with a D: Not usually reliable.

Now I will take a look at the accuracy of the information itself.

Probably the main characteristic of truthful information is that it dovetails with similar information in the past that has proved to be true. Of course, there is a first time for everything, and the fact that a similar event has never happened prior to the present event is no sure indication that it cannot happen. Nevertheless, if something has happened before, the possibilities that it may happen again are much higher.

In the case of the 9/11 events, the available information shows that, previous to September 11, 2001, no skyscraper[8] with a steel structure has collapsed as a result of fires. Moreover, before September 11, 2001, no skyscraper has collapsed on its own footprint as the result of fires. Some have collapsed as the result of earthquakes due to their poor design, but never on their own footprint.

But, contrary to normal intelligence analyses performed by intelligence services, who try to predict a future course of action based on past intelligence, in the analysis of historical events, we have the added advantage that we can add to the evaluation of the information the occurrence of similar events in which the information has proved to be true or not only before, but also after the one in question.

Consequently, the evaluation of the information itself in the case of historical events is a process involving a check against intelligence already in hand about similar events before and after the event in question. It also involves an educated guess as to the accuracy of the information related to the event based on how well it fits with this intelligence.

In the case of the 9/11 events, the evidence shows that, first, never before or 13 years after 9/11/2001, a skyscraper with a steel-framed structure has collapsed due to a fire, however severe.

Examples abound:

August 5, 1970: 1 New York Plaza, a 50-story office tower, suffered a severe fire and explosion. But it didn’t collapse.

May 4, 1988: The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. But the building didn’t collapse.

February 23, 1991: One Meridian Plaza, a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia, suffered a severe fire. Philadelphia officials later described it as “the most significant fire in this century.” But the building did not collapse.

October 17, 2004: The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire. The building did not collapse.

February 12, 2005: A violent fire started in the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story tower. At its peak, the fire, which burned for almost a day, completely engulfed the upper ten stories of the building. During the night the building shredded large pieces, which crashed to the ground, but the building did not collapse.

February 9, 2009: a fire destroyed the nearly completed structure of the Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel. But, despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the 520-foot-tall building collapsed.

April 2, 2112: A violent fire engulfed the still under construction Russian Federation tower, the tallest-to-be building in Moscow. After many hours, the firefighters extinguished it. The building did not collapse.

April 3, 2013: A 40-story skyscraper in Grozny, Chechnya caught fire. Flames engulfed the building for many hours, but it didn’t collapse.

Also, and even more important, never before or after 9/11/2001, a skyscraper has collapsed on its own footprint except as the result of controlled demolition. This is why companies who do controlled demolition are paid large amounts of money to do their job.

If buildings, particularly buildings with a steel structure, could usually fall on their own footprint when demolished, these companies would be superfluous — but they are not. Nevertheless, CFR agents in the US Government want us to believe that, exceptionally, on September 11 2001, not one, or two, but three skyscrapers with steel structure collapsed on its own footprint as the result of fires.

Therefore, extrapolating from this verifiable information, any serious intelligence analyst would have to conclude that the accuracy of the information itself provided by CFR agents in the U.S. Government, that is, that on 9/11/2001, three skyscrapers with steel structure collapsed on their own footprint as the result of fires, could be fairly qualified as a 5, that is, improbable.

Consequently, an intelligence appraisal of the 9/11 events will produce something close to a D5; that is, source not usually reliable, and accuracy of the information improbable. For the same reasons, based on the evaluation of the information about the 9/11 events provided by the CFR agents in the US Government, any intelligence service in the world can easily decode it as a sloppy, disingenuous attempt to pass disinformation disguised as true intelligence.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily E-Mail Alerts!

Moreover, the fact that the 9/11 served as a God-given pretext to carry out policies decided way in advance by members of the secret government of the U.S., is a true index that perhaps the 9/11 were not a God-given, but CFR-given. As some conspirators’ agents have shamelessly declared, never put a good crisis to waste — particularly an artificially created crisis.

The methodology for intelligence analysis I have described above is very simple, and can be applied to the analysis of any type of information. So, it is relatively easy to become your own intelligence analyst. Nevertheless, I suggest that you don’t share the information I have provided about the 9/11 events with your “conservative” Republican friends, much less with your “liberal” Democratic acquaintances: none of them want to be confused by the facts. If you do it, they’ll surely regard you as a “tin hat cook.”

� 2014 Servando Gonzalez - All Rights Reserved

Footnotes:

1. See Servando Gonzalez, "Why the House Can’t Impeach Obama,” NewsWithViews, December 3, 2013
2. Quoted in Michael Warner, “Wanted: A Definition of ‘Intelligence.’ Understanding Our Craft,” CIA’s Center for the Study of Intelligence, Nevertheless, the author of the article reminds us that intelligence is an elusive concept, and there are many different definitions of the term. In the same fashion, the concept of information, the raw material out of which intelligence is produced, is even more elusive, to the point that there is no agreement among scientists about its true nature. This fact explains why Claude Shannon, the creator of the information theory, decided to call it “communication theory” instead. See, Claude Shannon, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” Bell System Technical Journal No. 27 (July and October, 1948).
3. Quoted in Allen Dulles, The Craft of Intelligence (New York: Signet, 1965), p. 11.
4. Sun Tzu, The Art of War - translated by Samuel B. Griffin (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 144.
5. Intelligence Cycle: The process by which information is acquired, converted into intelligence, and made available to policymakers. There are usually five steps that constitute the intelligence cycle: 1. planning and direction; 2. collection; 3. processing; 4. analysis and evaluation; and 5. dissemination.
6. I am using for this analysis the URREF (Reliability Versus Credibility in Information Fusion) procedure, a standard supported by NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) 1511. Though this is a system of analysis created by NATO, it is so efficient in its simplicity that it is safe to surmise that it can’t be too different from the system used by intelligence analysts at the CIA, NSA and other US intelligence agencies, as well as by the Mossad, MI6, FIS, DGSE and other intelligence services around the world.
7. See, i.e., David Wise, The Politics of Lying (New York: Random House, 1973).
8. The term “skyscraper” is somewhat confusing. Initially it designated a building that towered among the rest around it. But this is very relative, because most buildings that were considered skyscrapers 50 years ago now are no more. To avoid this confusion, I have used in this analysis the term “skyscraper” as currently defined by architects and engineers: a building of exceptional height completely supported by a steel framework, as of girders, from which the walls are suspended, as opposed to a building supported by load-bearing walls.