Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Permalink
View Article Stats      (17 comments)

DEMOLISHED vs. COLLAPSED - The Language of Deception

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend
Get Embed HTML Code
By By: Adam Ruff  Posted by Cheri Roberts (about the submitter)

Become a Fan Become a Fan   -- Page 2 of 3 page(s)

opednews.com

That’s because once phrases become part of everyday language, their frames become physically fixed in people’s brains. When this happens, mere facts don’t matter. If the facts don’t fit the frames, the frames stay and the facts are ignored. Once the Republicans see their frames accepted, they have an overwhelming advantage in every debate. Their frames become the new common sense, because frames define what common sense is.

With this in mind it becomes obvious that 9/11 Truth advocates should not use the term “collapse” at all but should instead replace it with “demolished”, but do we as a group allow ourselves to be framed by using the term “collapsed” in our conversations? Yes unfortunately we do and it needs to stop so we can reclaim the initiative from the propaganda masters in Washington DC and the corpstream media. It needs to stop now.

This brings us to the question of how we as 9/11 investigators should speak about 9/11 and the words we use to make our points. I propose that we as a group immediately take the initiative and re-frame the debate. We need to start putting our detractors on the defensive from the moment we begin speaking. We need to force them to explain why the demolitions were not really demolitions, why the squibs aren’t really squibs, and why explosions are not really explosions. We must start training ourselves to re-frame the debate instead of putting ourselves on the defensive by using the deceptive language of our detractors, essentially framing ourselves into a situation where we are on the defensive, having to explain why what happened to the towers was not a “collapse”.

To accomplish this re-framing we need to consistently use the terms “demolitions” or “demolished” or “brought down with explosives” or “exploded” in all our conversations and eliminate the term “collapsed” from our vocabulary whenever we are discussing 9/11. It is vital that we as a group re-frame the debate and take the initiative away from the proponents of the official propaganda and take it back for 9/11 truth. In the final analysis the truth is that the WTC towers were demolished, exploded, blown up, proving conclusively that 9/11 was an inside job! It is about time we re-claim the initiative and put the deniers on the defensive with the truth! The towers were DEMOLISHED!

NEW AMERICAN 9/11 DICTIONARY

Collapsed

1. Demolished

2. Exploded

3. Blown up

4. Brought down with explosives.

Conspiracy theorist

1. 9/11 Truther

2. 9/11 Investigator

3. 9/11 Researcher

Debunker

1. Denier

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Editor

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
17 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

A new reference tool for common language by Cheri Roberts on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 2:57:53 PM
Excellent point by Joel S. Hirschhorn on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 3:30:17 PM
You are spot on Joel by Cheri Roberts on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 3:52:55 PM
Oh, please. by Roark Howard on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 7:46:56 PM
How did the "hijackers" demolish WTC 7? by Adam Ruff on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 8:42:19 PM
Liars? by Roark Howard on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 5:02:11 AM
There are conflicting accounts about the damage to WTC 7. by adam ruff on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 8:13:28 AM
Is that all you got? by Roark Howard on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 8:50:56 AM
That (& the other evidence) is all a reasonable person needs by Harold Smith on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:09:41 AM
Yawn by Roark Howard on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:31:08 AM
You're giving up already? by Harold Smith on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:15:07 PM
DEMOLISHED IS SLIGHTLY BETTER BUT WORD CHOPPING TIME WAISTIN by rhalfhill on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 8:08:47 PM
"Word chopping" is the key to the debate. by Adam Ruff on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 9:05:40 PM
NewSpeak by Roark Howard on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 7:20:19 AM
Lets use google. by adam ruff on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 8:25:51 AM
so in other words by Roark Howard on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 8:55:39 AM
Mincing? Twisting? Skewing? Contorting? by Cheri Roberts on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 2:59:11 AM