For instance, let’s take Larry Silverstien and his controversial “pull it” statement. Of course I and many like myself believe he is indeed saying “Pull it” defined by controlled demolition, but because we cannot - beyond a reasonable doubt, prove that to be true, it can sometimes make our message less credible when we use it. The absolute best and irrefutable evidence we have for an inside job is the fact that no plane – or anything else hit World Trade Center 7. There was no jet fuel, there was minimal fire, and there is still no report as promised by the 911 Commission. Since the official hypothesis for the collapses - of WTC’s 1 & 2, are do to jet fuel fires, let’s run with that regarding WTC7. Why do we need to grasp onto and project the more circumstantial evidence of a statement when we have physical evidence of the crime?
The above is strong enough evidence for a new investigation and that needs to be acknowledged by the American people. The rest of the world understands it, what’s stopping mainstream America from understanding it? I really think it goes back to that marketing maneuver I was talking about.
We need to drop the more controversial and circumstantial aspects of our repertoire in the language we use. In doing so we give them only solid facts to debate us with. Who cares if Silverstien said, “Pull it” when we can’t definitively prove it? They care, and they use it against us as if we are grasping at straws of evidence. We don’t need to grasp at straws. We have Truth and WTC7 on our side. We need to use the same marketing ploys they do. We need to unify the message, trim the fat from the edges and repeat the message over and over. By subtracting the easily debatable stuff, we add to our credibility as a movement.