How to Recognize an OP (Operative)

The purpose of this page is to empower the reader. Our culture has been conditioning us to not think and to accept what we are told without question. ("The dumbing down of America.") To overcome this, we need to think for ourselves. Who is and isn't an OP is for each of us to figure out for ourselves. We must figure it out for ourselves. Giving any entity (government official, media...) complete trust in "doing the right thing" is how we got here. The psyops of 9/11 worked because large numbers of people refused to question what they were told. In essence, having blind faith in our media is what enabled 9/11. The way to reverse it is for us to learn to question everything and everyone.

Top

Part I. Protecting the Cover-up

If the events of 9/11 were so carefully planned, wouldn't the cover-up be even more carefully planned? After all, if the truth is revealed too soon, the cost to the planners would be far greater than if the event (9/11) had never taken place. So, nothing should be left to chance!

False Opposition and Lack of Progress:

Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."

We are often reminded that "Everything changed on 9/11." That is, 9/11 was a big deal. Therefore, it is easily anticipated that a lot of questions will be asked. As the numbing effect of the event wears off, members of the public will emerge asking questions. A "truth movement" will emerge, and this is a given. So, the question is, how do you control this "truth movement"? Do you control it from behind as an after thought? Or do you control it from the front, leading folks just where you want them to go?

People know there is safety in numbers. They also know that large numbers of people speaking out have a better chance at being heard and making changes than small numbers speaking individually. So, the answer is clear. Provide folks with organizations to join where they can be herded and their effectiveness controlled.

I, myself, joined st911.org for the power-in-numbers argument stated above. However, it took me a few weeks before I began to recognize the herd control that was already in place. Then, when I realized it, I didn't want to believe it. After all, OPs only exist in SciFi novels and/or are what crazy people talk about, right? But, then, why would an educated nuclear physicist choose to disregard elementary physical concepts understood by a high school student? In private, I gently tried to remind the "educated physicist" of these physical principles -- just in case he had made a mistake. Then I demonstrated this phenomenon in photographs which my student and I sent to him (Aluminum Glows). Yet, he still has clung to the erroneous story that aluminum remains silvery at all temperatures. In the actual quote from a paper he published after privately being informed of his error, he states, "A notable exception is aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, at all temperatures whether in solid or liquid forms." Why would an educated person say this?

Note, this has little to do with what was seen at the WTC, but has everything to do with applying scientific logic. In the photo below, the team casts an aluminum crankcase which is to be a replica of the Wright Brothers engine.

Figure 2. The team casts a crankcase from aluminum.
PHOTO BY JUDY HAY, source: Popular Mechanics

Why are these "team members" wearing "space suits"? And why are they wearing light-attenuating shields over their faces? If it weren't bright, why would they be wearing "sunglasses"? So, here we have molten aluminum being poured "in daylight conditions" and it sure appears to glow.

In memory of Michael Zebuhr: Glowing

Top

Part II. How to Recognize an OP (Operative)

If the "truth movement" is infiltrated, what would it look like? Would an OP show up wearing a name tag that says, "Hi, my name is Fred^[1], and I'm an OP"?

My rule of thumb in sorting out one's "OP" status comes from asking the following questions:

1) Does this person encourage me to think my own thoughts or do they pressure me to accept their thoughts as "my opinion"?

2) Does this person support and encourage me to continue working independently or do they try to impede my research (or outreach) efforts?

3) Does this person spend more time on their own research interests or more time focused on attacking other researchers?

Attacking by undermining

Preaching to others that "Person X" is speaking "nonsense" and should be disregarded, e.g. don't check facts, and just "trust me" that this person is "disinfo." (Hmmm.... what are they afraid of?)

4) Does this person respect me if our opinions differ on some issue or if our areas of interest differ? That is, can they tolerate independent thought? This doesn't mean that we can't interact in these areas. To the contrary, it is important to be able to share ideas and discuss them with others who are not clones of us.

5) Is this person producing new research or does their research appear to be morphing at the direction of someone like Karl Rove? That is, does this researcher boldly go where no one has gone before, independently of the items identified on their "talking points memo"?

As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:

5. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

ae911truth.org

Figure 3. This is from the ae911truth's list of "characteristics of destruction by explosions."

Since when is mid-air pulverization of steel a "characteristics of destruction by explosions"?
Watch for "cylindrical holes in nearby streets and buildings" or "toasted cars" to be added to their list.

6) What are their objectives? Are they the same as mine or are they mutually exclusive to my own objectives? For example, if I file a legal challenge to the NIST report, a Request for Corrections (RFC), why would a fellow truth seeker object to it?

(a) Do they have an objection to alternative thinking?
(b) The line of thinking is not approved by someone like Karl Rove?
(c) Ego? Someone else beat them to the punch line and they are jealous?
(d) Purpose? Perhaps the objector didn't want the truth to come out?

I fail to see how any submitted RFC (valid or not) could have any affect on any other submitted RFC.

Let us remember that it was Attorney Jerry Leaphart who researched and uncovered "The Data Quality Act," the avenue this provides, which includes the RFC.

7) Who funds their research (or who is their employer)? What is their area of expertise?

(a) Do they have a documented history of being involved in suppression of the truth?
(b) Is this "9/11 researcher" still employed by the US government?
(c) Have they received funding from the NSA?
(d) Have they received funding from the Department of Energy (DoE)?
(e) Is their area of expertise in psychological manipulation of the public (or PsyOps)?
(f) Do they have connections with government laboratories (such as Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, Oak Ridge, and Idaho National Labs)?

8) Can the subject being questioned be that ignorant?^[2]

9) Did they publish a detailed technical paper within a few days of 9/11/01 to help folks accept the OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory) and/or to plant "Easter eggs" for us to find?

Are these "first on the scene" folks laying out"easter eggs" for us to find?
Van Romero Thomas Eagar Crockett Grabbe (9/22/01)	Frank Greening Bazant and ___ Larry Silverstein

10) Do they resort to authority.

11) Who should we consider as possibly being an OP? =====>> EVERYONE
There is no automatic guarantee that someone is not an OP. Give no one a free pass. If you assume a particular person is above question, consider that to be the ideal position for an OP to be in to avoid suspicion. For example, some may be tempted to not question someone because "they seem like a nice guy and have a cute giggle" or trust him because "He's a theologian (or preacher), and they don't lie." It's fairly clear that an OP who's "a nice guy with a cute giggle" and/or "a theologian" would be extremely effective.

Figure 4. Is this an OP? That is a question for you to answer. Ask yourself questions like those given in Part II, above, and answer this for yourself.

(Here is some information from The Next Level.)

Why recycle the same OP? (Cold Fusion and Heavy Watergate.)Steven Jones sabotaged the development of free energy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQz7JUJ4hOU

Heavy Watergate (google video deleted their copy)
http://www.livevideo.com/video/Drachnid/DEA20975D7034F6C99DF4102BBE85723/heavy-watergate-cold-fusion-.aspx

[XXX_Needs links (in progress)]

Figure 5. Is this an OP? That is a question for you to answer. Ask yourself questions like those given in Part II, above, and answer this for yourself.

Would an OP appear as "the Wicked Witch of the West"?

(Refer to Reading Between the Lines and
A Beam Weapon from the Star Wars Program)

Top

Part III. On Being Important
[XXX_ (in progress)]

The Greg Jenkins video (a highly-funded psyops) couldn't have done a better job to convince us just how important my message is. I feel honored to have been given such confirmation. Thank you Greg Jenkins! After all, what motivated Greg Jenkins to produce such a hit piece? This video was expensive to produce. It was filmed by a professional camera crew, with professional equipment, and then carefully edited and manipulated, with carefully inserted images and sound into the final production.

This event does nothing to undermine the scientific merit of my work. To the contrary. Who would want to invest so much time, energy, expense, and manpower into producing such a video? How does Greg Jenkins manage to explain the fact that some of his research is funded by the NSA? (See here and here (archived here and here).) Yes, I mean THAT NSA; the one that has a vested interest in making sure the truth of 9/11 stays buried. I can not think of a higher, more direct indicator that I am on the right track in assessing what caused WTC1,2 to be pulverized in less than 10 seconds than to be setup in an ambush video-manipulation by an NSA informant. Imagine that. Why would I be the most important person to attack …and to attempt to persuade every 911 "truther" to attack?



Figure 6. Let us note the not-so-subtle video arrangement and consider the effect of these video-graphic decisions. Why is the camera angle from the side, showing a profile view? Why is the image so close up? Why does my face look purple? Why is the lighting poor?	Figure 7. Compare the above video arrangement on these same issues. Camera angle? How close up is the image? Are the colors more balanced? Is the lighting better?

Let us ask what kind of person would even want to make a researcher of the TRUTH look bad?
I cannot imagine how anyone in search of the truth would think that what Greg Jenkins orchestrated was in search of the truth. Those who are truly in search of truth would not use deception. Greg Jenkins used deception to plan his "surprise" event, used deception to carry out his "surprise" event, used deception in "preparing" his product, and used deception in promoting his product. One must ask, "Why?" Why did what he was planning and doing require deception? Why did he choose to be dishonest in what he did?

And, why would another "researcher" recruit such an unethical and dishonest hit job on a "fellow researcher"?



Figure 8. And, most of all, why is this image so out of focus?	Figure 9. Is the focus in this image better?

Greg Jenkins clearly studied just what he was to say and do. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to trap Dr. Wood as he'd hoped he would.

But, the real gift Greg Jenkins provided in this video manipulation is realized by looking beneath the superficial psyops being promoted. Reading between the lines reveals more evidence behind the use of DEW on 9/11 and advances scientific understanding of what happened. We wish to thank Greg Jenkins for the valuable clues he gave us in advancing our understanding of the effects of DEW (Directed Energy Weapons). This conversation and video product is what inspired the new "dirt" series, Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt.

Top

Part IV. Stalking Horse

Stalking horse: a mask to conceal some design; a person put forward to mislead; a sham. Sportsmen often used to conceal themselves behind horses, and go on stalking step by step till they got within shot of the game.

"He uses his folly like a stalking-horse, and under The presentation of that he shoots his wit." (Shakespeare, "As you Like It.")

From wikipedia:
A stalking horse is someone or something whose role is to become the focal point for, or the initiator of, a debate or challenge. In reality, however, their leadership role may be an illusion, and the stalking horse is really working to promote a challenge or debate that will benefit a third party whose identity remains a secret.

The phenomenon occurs particularly in politics, where a junior politician acts as the stalking horse to promote the interests of a senior politician who remains unseen in case the actions would damage him or her but nevertheless wants to provoke a debate or challenge to a party colleague. In some cases stalking horses are not working for a particular individual but may wish to provoke a response that leads others to join in. In politics, the truth about the relationship between an individual stalking horse and a candidate may never be known, as both sides may claim that the (alleged) stalking horse acted without the agreement of anyone else.

Stalking horse:

stalk·ing-horse (stô

ng-hôrs

)

1. Something used to cover one's true purpose; a decoy.2. A sham candidate put forward to conceal the candidacy of another or to divide the opposition.3.

a. A horse trained to conceal the hunter while stalking.b. A canvas screen made in the figure of a horse, used for similar concealment.

Thesaurus-Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms

Noun	1.	stalking-horse - a candidate put forward to divide the opposition or to mask the true candidate campaigner, candidate, nominee - a politician who is running for public office
	2.	stalking-horse - something serving to conceal plans; a fictitious reason that is concocted in order to conceal the real reason pretext dissembling, feigning, pretense, pretence - pretending with intention to deceiveputoff - a pretext for delay or inaction
	3.	stalking-horse - screen consisting of a figure of a horse behind which a hunter hides while stalking game cover, covert, concealment, screen - a covering that serves to conceal or shelter something; "they crouched behind the screen"; "under cover of darkness"
	4.	stalking-horse - a horse behind which a hunter hides while stalking game Equus caballus, horse - solid-hoofed herbivorous quadruped domesticated since prehistoric times

Part V. Notes
Top

^[1]The character, "Fred," I refer to is a generic character like "John Doe" and is not at all meant to refer to any particular person. I have used the name, "Fred," in class discussions to refer to a generic character. "Fred" sounds like a common name, yet few folks have this name. (Compare "Fred" to the number of names such as "Joe" or "David.")

^[2]In his partial refutation of our article, Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?, Steven Jones states,

"Now when a jet hits a building, the building is going to move – due to conservation of momentum (basic physics), and then the building will sway back and forth after the collision. But only if a REAL plane hit the Tower. And so we find data for this oscillation:

Figure 10. This figure was presented by Dr. Jones as conclusive proof that a Boeing 767-223ER-N334AA (or a Boeing 767-200-N612UA), struck the WTC and implies there could be no other explanation whatsoever for this graph. And, if you consider any other explanation, you are guilty of "an ad hominem attack," according to Dr. Jones.

These are physical data, showing a characteristic nearly exponential decay (damping) of the oscillation. Observed oscillation of the WTC 2 Tower provides compelling empirical evidence that it was hit by a fast-moving jetliner. Any claim to the contrary must confront these published data or the analysis thereof.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf p. 26 It will not do in scientific inquiry to ignore data like this – even if one does not trust the source for some reason. In other words, the argument must be to the DATA, not to the source (ad hominem).] [a lot of energy, asymmetric, pushed against the core. "

We responded with, this statement:
[XXX_Needs more explanation (in progress)]
Instead of dealing with the issues we raised in our paper, Dr. Jones brought up a new topic, which was carefully set as a trap.
"Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?" Note, Jones set up the deception so that he could call any truthful response we gave "an ad hominem attack." If one carefully reads the above quoted text of Jones, they will see many underhanded insults. For example, why does Jones add the comment, " (basic physics)" when he states, "...due to conservation of momentum (basic physics)... "?

"We gasp at Jones’ “analysis” of tower oscillation. Can a Ph.D. physicist be this retarded? We are happy to address oscillation but Jones did not discuss it in his July pdf, which was the source for our analysis. We never brought it up, so we puzzle over why he introduces it now instead of discussing demolition or thermite.

But let us go there. Each tower suddenly had a large hole in it, spread over five or more floors, at least 100 feet wide and some 15 feet tall or higher at its apex. No one disputes these holes, only the cause. Something caused the holes, Steven, one side asserting plane crashes, another internal explosives (let us put aside earthquakes and other possibilities for the sake of this present argument). No one we know challenges the measurements and the building quickly damped the oscillations. Most occupants of the towers seemed to think that the building oscillated because of a bomb or bombs, especially those who had experienced the FBI-led 1993 bombing. They had no better theory at the time. In an establishment book by two New York Times reporters (102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers, 2005) only one witness (highly suspect) claimed he saw an aircraft part inside a tower.

Plane and no-plane crash theories predict oscillations upon application of a sudden force, be its source asymmetric gas expansion or a plane crash followed by jet fuel fires. There is no reason to favor one theory or the other based on oscillations since they are a common implication of both theories.

Jones huffs and puffs, “The argument must be to the DATA, not to the source (ad hominem).” Jones’ discussion of oscillation demonstrates he does not know how to analyze data. He is lost in applying data to discriminate between two hypotheses. Oscillation can be caused by a plane crash or explosives, but he cannot reason well enough to see this. He does not know how to use the scientific method to answer questions. "

We regret using the word "retarded" in the question, "Can a Ph.D. physicist be this retarded?" as it may be considered an insult to the mentally challenged in associating them with Steven Jones. We apologize for this to those who are truly mentally challenged. We should have used the word, "stupid," instead and asked, "Can a Ph.D. physicist be this stupid?" If the answer is no, he can't be this stupid, one must question his motivation for making such a stupid statement.

The reader can easily use his or her intellect and realize there is a difference between "retarded" and "mentally retarded."

So, the question we need to ask is, can a Ph.D. nuclear physicist be this stupid? And, why would he work so hard to divert attention away from the real question?

Steven Jones has asked us to retract our question instead of answering our question. The choice of answers are between "yes" and "no." Is it reasonable for an educated nuclear physicist to believe that tower oscilacions must be the result of a Boeing 767-223ER-N334AA (or a Boeing 767-200-N612UA) plane hitting them, beyond reasonable doubt.

retarded: adj.
Relatively slow or backward in mental or emotional development or in academic achievement.
--The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981

Ace Baker weighs in on the "retarded" question:

Date: September 20, 2007 9:20:15 AM CDT

Dear Dr. Jones,

...since you brought it up, I'll give you my take on the Reynolds/Wood "retarded" quote. Thanks for the links making it easy for me to review. Dr. Reynolds did not refer to you as "retarded", rather he expressed doubt that you (or any Ph.D. physicist) could be as retarded as you appear to be in the referenced passage. That's different, so my recollection was not incorrect.

In reference to a Moire analysis showing a gradually dampening oscillation at the 70th floor window, Steven Jones said:

"These are physical data, showing a characteristic nearly exponential decay (damping) of the oscillation. Observed oscillation of the WTC 2 Tower provides compelling empirical evidence that it was hit by a fast-moving jetliner. Any claim to the contrary must confront these published data or the analysis thereof.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf p. 26 It will not do in scientific inquiry to ignore data like this – even if one does not trust the source for some reason. In other words, the argument must be to the DATA, not to the source (ad hominem).]"

To which Reynolds and Wood reply:

"We gasp at Jones’ 'analysis' of tower oscillation. Can a Ph.D. physicist be this retarded? We are happy to address oscillation but Jones did not discuss it in his July pdf, which was the source for our analysis. We never brought it up, so we puzzle over why he introduces it now instead of discussing demolition or thermite.

But let us go there. Each tower suddenly had a large hole in it, spread over five or more floors, at least 100 feet wide and some 15 feet tall or higher at its apex. No one disputes these holes, only the cause. Something caused the holes, Steven, one side asserting plane crashes, another internal explosives (let us put aside earthquakes and other possibilities for the sake of this present argument). No one we know challenges the measurements and the building quickly damped the oscillations. Most occupants of the towers seemed to think that the building oscillated because of a bomb or bombs, especially those who had experienced the FBI-led 1993 bombing. They had no better theory at the time."

So the Reynolds wisecrack is a rhetorical construction which means he doesn't think you honestly believe what you're saying. In context, I interpret Reynolds' use of the word "retarded" here in it's [sic] most literal sense, as in "held back" or "not up to speed" on the particular issue of interpreting Moire analysis. Reynolds is simply saying that a jetliner impact is but one possible cause of this oscillation, and that a large internal explosion of some sort would be another. Thus the Moire plot is interesting, but doesn't shed light on the problem one way or the other, and that somebody more "up to speed" or less "retarded" would not have come to the erroneous conclusion that you did.

Having now delved into all that, let me say that, as usual, it is the scientific issues that I am interested in, and I really couldn't care less about the stylistic choices made by various researchers in their written arguments. Every long object, from guitar strings to trade towers, has a fundamental oscillation frequency, related to its length and tension. Any sufficient force is going to set the object oscillating, be it a jet impact, explosions, an earthquake, wind or whatever. On the scientific front, Dr. Jones, I don't think this is a winning issue for you at all.

I don't see any way your strategy works for you. .... Everybody knows you disagree with Morgan on planes...

Sincerely,

Ace Baker

^[3]I,

W .

Part VI. Extra
[XXX_These items may or may not remain (page in progress)]
Top

Free Energy, another Inconvenient Truth "If you've got control of the energy, then you've got control of the people."	Cold Fusion

Figure 11. "If you've got control of the energy, then you've got control of the people." (6:54) URL, Added: January 04, 2007, From: SowhatNC	Figure 12. Eugene Mallove (4:35) URL, Added: January 29, 2007, From: Webfairy


Figure 13a. Why recycle the same OP? (Cold Fusion and Heavy Watergate.) Why recycle the same OP? (Cold Fusion and Heavy Watergate.)Steven Jones sabotaged the development of free energy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQz7JUJ4hOU	Figure 13b. Why recycle the same OP? (Cold Fusion and Heavy Watergate.) Heavy Watergate (google video deleted their copy) http://www.livevideo.com/video/Drachnid/DEA20975D7034F6C99DF4102BBE85723/heavy-watergate-cold-fusion-.aspx

The Konformist

Special Note: Thanks to Jon Rappoport and Dr. Eugene Mallove for their help (and patience) on this article.
March 23, 1997

Heavy Watergate: The Cold Fusion Suppression
Robert Sterling

Figure 14. Why recycle the same OP?
(Cold Fusion and Heavy Watergate.)

Shortcut links

Jump to Part I. Protecting the Coverup

Jump to Part II. How to Recognize an OP

Jump to Part III. On Being Important

Jump to Part IV. Stalking Horse

Jump to Part V. Notes

Jump to Part VI. Extra

Top

homepage

Star Wars Beam Weapon

Press Release

DQA-NIST

Qui Tam Case

Whistleblower Information

Scientific Method

Why Indeed

FAQ

Disinfo

CriticsCorner

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this webpage are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This webpage has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.