Exposing the evidence which proves that 9/11 was an inside job is not enough. Believe it or not, that is the easy part (and see this).
Why? Because you can cite all the facts in the world, but unless the person you're talking with has some motivation to really listen, the facts will bounce off your listeners like bullets off a Kevlar vest.
Psychologists tell us that unless we give people a reason to want to know the truth about 9/11, they won't be open to changing their mind.
Indeed, some very smart people have said that propaganda is not aimed at actually convincing people, but of giving an excuse for people to believe what they want to believe.
Why Will People Want to Know the Truth?
The two basic ways to motivate people are threats of pain or promises of pleasure, or what's often called "the carrot and the stick". Everyone knows about this concept, but not many people have used it to understand how to more successfully spread 9/11 truth.
The Stick
Some people will want to know the truth about 9/11 in order to avoid the consequences of that false flag attack. Indeed, many 9/11 activists are motivated by the knowledge that false flag attacks are carried out in order to justify suspension of freedoms and liberties at home, imperial wars of conquest abroad, and consolidation of power in a small group of people. Many of us are motivated by the understanding that -- unless we expose the truth of 9/11 -- the perpetrators will be emboldened to carry out even bigger false flag operations to justify war against Iran (and other countries), to implement the Continuity of Government plans which will entirely bypass the traditional government, and will lead to even more overt suspension of liberty than we already have.
That's using the horrible consequences of not exposing 9/11 as a stick to motivate people to want to learn the truth. Its a good approach, and millions of people have become 9/11 truthers based upon this approach.
The Status Quo
Let's face it, America is not only the richest nation in the world, but the richest nation in history. While the richest handful of families own the lion's share of the wealth, many others are comfortable. And even those who aren't comfortable buy into the "American dream", and hope that they will one day strike it rich.
Turner: "Do we have plans to invade the Middle East?"
***
Higgins: "It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In 10 or 15 years - food, Plutonium. And maybe even sooner. Now what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
Turner : " Ask them."
Higgins: "Not now - then. Ask them when they're running out. Ask them when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask them when their engines stop. Ask them when people who've never known hunger start going hungry. Do you want to know something? They won't want us to ask them. They'll just want us to get it for them."
Many people are starting to realize that the status quo is to commit murder, launch wars based upon false pretenses, and carry out false flag operations in order to secure resources. Unfortunately, 9/11 was a part of that status quo (remember that false flag terror didn't start with the Bush administration; its been done for a long time).
9/11 truth threatens to overturn the status quo. So unless we offer people something better than the status quo, they won't want to hear about it.
George WashingtonGeorge Washington is a pen name. I am using the pen name, with the approval of the publisher, because I have received death threats due to my 9/11 research and writing. I am using a pen name to protect myself and my family.
Is a false town meeting similar to a false flag operation?
What you propose in the article far exceeds any mandate of having yet another investigation into the events of 9/11. In fact, it borders on proposing a coup – of sorts – that's draped in the ideals of democracy. The sense is that the change is needed REGARDLESS of the outcome of any new investigation because you've already concluded that 9/11 was a false flag operation and repeat that assertion – frequently (in the article and elsewhere).
So, what do you truly stand for GW? Is it (1) an "honest, open, and wholly transparent" investigation into the events of 9/11 to be determined by those reviewers acceptable to all interested parties – less the terrorists, or (2) an "open and honest dialogue" to motivate the unmotivated to act – preferably in agreement with your version of "justice" but act nonetheless - regarding 9/11 with the starting point being the presumption that it WAS a false flag operation that could only result in a re-writing of the Constitution to accommodate the implementation of a "true" democracy?
I think it the latter because you've already convinced yourself that 9/11 was a sham:
"...[L]et's openly discuss what we are willing to do to reach that vision. Are we willing to commit false flag terrorism? To cook the intelligence? To torture innocent farmers who were at the wrong place at the wrong time (some of those tortured at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were innocent farmers caught up in sweeps or "sold" by others for a fee)? Are we willing to launch nuclear weapons which -- despite the propaganda -- will kill and injure a lot [sic] of people?"
Your mission now spread that vision that you speak of and ensure that "justice" is served here. Personally, I prefer to regard those accused by you and other 911Truthers as innocent until proven guilty – even if it's you, GW, that's holding the kangaroo court innocently labeled a "town meeting".
by
Tom Murphy (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1339 comments)
on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 at 1:57:33 PM
If you are not convinced that 911 was an inside job, then you have not really done your homework, cognitive dissonance is not allowing you to see the horrifying truth, or you are actively or passively resisting any curiosity to inspect the massive amount of evidence available for inspection in the public domain. Please refer to www.911truth.org and related links. I am saddended by willful ignorance and subversive misdirection. It is intellectually dishonest to claim innocence for this Administration when they are constantly being caught in monstrous lies nearly every day. I wish I could believe it were some kind of incompetence, but many purposeful deceits show that the administration has a lot at stake and much to hide. You may not consider the controlled demolitions of the three WTC towers as proof positive that the Administration had something to do with setting up the false flag terror attacks of 911, but they sure have lots to hide about the events, and that is tantamount to guilt by association at the very least.
Mr. Murphy attempts to distract from what is proposed as a town hall meeting for those who already know that we need a return to lofty goals, higher ground, and virtuous pursuits of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We must aspire to a free and open society where people may speak their mind without fear of retribution. Our tax money is not justs paying for roads, bridges, national defense and proper enforcement of regulatory standards, but it instead goes to line the pockets of contractors hell-bent on enslaving the American public as beasts of burden, taxed to pay for bridges to nowhere, munitions and bomblets that kill innocents, junkets to play golf in the tropics, and billions of dollars of mainstream media buyoffs that shut off the truth from hitting the airwaves. We must have choices, freedom in all its various forms, and the ability to band together for the common good.
What is the carrot that motivates us? Many of us are wide awake waiting for that final straw, that critical mass, that triggering threshold that finally makes everyone so mad as hell we really can't take it anymore. The town hall can channel our energy constructively so that the plans are in place for that chaotic moment when the cascade of honesty overwhelms and washes away the layers of bullshit that have been slathered so thick that it makes most of us wretch or sneer every time we hear Bush chuckle at his own crafty double-speak.
Like 'George Washington' I believe we must return to the Constitutional rule of law. We must respect and tolerate differences and let the truly informed majority back into the halls of power. We must aspire to uphold the highest goals of humanity and stay true to the Rights fought for and won by our founding fathers. Somehow we must end the rule of money over good ideas. The best ideas must be nurtured, not squashed by corporate tyrrany. People and living things must take precedence over immortal conglomerations of amoral corporate profit monsters. The influence of money in our government must be subordinated to honest discussion and debate over the best ideas and highest ideals.
Sooo much must be done, but it is quite correct that left and right and center and outlying eccentrics must all band together to have an honest discussion about what are the loftiest, highest goals to which we humans may aspire.
Mr. Murphy, I wish for you a change of heart, so that you can honestly see the monstrosity of fascist lies and oppression that will engulf us all if you and a critical number of people like you fail to realize how dark our future may be if the treasonous lies are not directly confronted. 911 was an inside job. You may not like the horrifying implications that our country was hijacked by a bloody neo-con coup, but the evidence all points to that with the highest probability. Please spend the time to research the matter again. I wish for you to understand how deeply Americans have been betrayed and deceived by our so-called leaders. That is the stick. I pray that we are not hit with it again.
by
Tim Riley (7 articles, 4 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 123 comments)
on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 3:23:15 AM
I appreciate your honesty, candor, and concern, Mr. Riley. However, I have researched the events (at length) surrounding 9/11 and have found that a reasonable, more likely theory exists within the 9/11 Commission Report. I have done my homework - and even the extra credit.
That's not to say that additional work is not needed to further refine the report's assertions - for it is. But it must be conducted in a non-partisan manner. I think, though, that such a manner would be extremely difficult given the religious-like convictions that grip most 911Truthers.
While I don't think the future anywhere near as dark as you portray it to be, Mr. Riley, I DO appreciate the concern. Continue to "Embrace the suck!"
by
Tom Murphy (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1339 comments)
on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 10:49:29 PM
he is talking about undoing the one that has occurred. I would like to participate in such a town hall. Though I barely have the time to work on the project, I do have a domain name "UndotheCoup" that could be used to establish a discussion forum. Please let me know if you'd like to use it for this project.
This is an excellent post, George....per usual. Thank you,
Ginny Ross, Oregon Truth Alliance
by
Ginny Ross (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 at 3:31:32 PM
a new investigation is needed to prove exactly who knew and did what when, not that the official story is a fraud.
Carrots; honest elections; representatives elected for their integrity and ideas, not due to their political and fund-raising connections (campaign finance reform); alternative/clean energy investing, not corporate welfare for the oil industry;
People who work in or visit slaugherhouses often can't stomach eating that kind of meat; likewise, if Americans were daily faced with the consequences of a cheap, materialistic lifestyle- say, videos on the news of the work of death squads run by Republocrat supported dictators, then more will reject the Republocrats at the next election, and will boycott corporations/products/services that contribute to death/injury/suffering in the 3rd world.
American Revolution only had about 45% popular support, but the loyalists were down to 15-20%, leaving about 35-40% who did not have an opinion or want to get involved, or supported something else
I've heard of only a few "truthers" suggest that armed insurrection or a military coup would be preferable to a full criminal investigation or Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and these are widely considered kooks or COINTELPRO; the concern of most is restoring Constitutional government, which has been undermined by the Patriot Act, Military Commission Act, NSPD 51, the 2007 Warner Defense appropriations bill that undid Posse Comitatus, etc.
The Complete 9/11 Timeline (over 5000 articles, exclusively from mainstream sources)
My response is subject to topic drift, because I'd like to answer three things above: the article, and the first two responses.
Tom Murphy's response has some good points (gems?) sandwiched with malarkey. He is conflating "x and y and z" which should be separate discussions on their own merits. But he is correctly calling GW out in that, despite the 9/11 truth movement's near-metaphysical-certitude about wrongdoing, no formal proceeding has borne out the charges, leaving it plausible to posit that the USG should enjoy a "presumption of innocence" until proven guilty. That's clever because it cites an American principle that all ought to salute and agree with.
Let me state where I am coming from. I am sympathetic to the 9/11 truth movement. A new investigation is indeed demanded, indicated, and called for. Even without 9/11 as a crime, I am sympathetic to the Impeachment movement. Under the hood, I strongly suspect that 9/11 *IS* another crime that could be added into impeachment charges -- if we got to the bottom of matters -- and as Tom Murphy points out, we have not gotten to the bottom of matters. Impeachment can happen sooner rather than later; and very likely, if / when we get to the bottom of 9/11, it will be later rather than sooner. Also in the department of "where I am coming from," I am a fan of Dennis Kucinich the presidential candidate.
GW, are you a Kucinich man? To your article -- a generalized question of "What is a good carrot? What does America want?" -- the best answer is "freedom, peace, and prosperity." That is the slogan of Ron Paul, and this past weekend, he raised 46X more money than Dennis Kucinich in scheduled "money bomb" events. With his slogan of "freedom, peace, and prosperity," Ron Paul is doing 46 times better than my man, Kucinich. If Kucinich has a pithy three point slogan, I am unaware of it. Let's face it, Paul's is a great slogan, and people on the Kucinich side of the fence could be kicking themselves, to wit-- "Damn! I wish we'd adopted that slogan!"
Most directly in answer to GW, I think Paul has put his finger on it. "Freedom, peace, and prosperity" is resonating. I think it well encapsulates what America wants. Freedom includes restoring respect for civil liberties and the Constitution, hence also the rule of law. Peace means just that, and entails turning away from war. Prosperity is what would likely result, if America just fixed the first two matters. I hope that Paul would allow that "a level playing field" in the economy is within the fold, falling under the rubric of "prosperity."
I highly suspect that if GW conducted focus groups or the town meeting that he writes of, he could have no better outcome than to settle on "freedom, peace, and prosperity." Even while it's just three words, it's a mouthful, and in recent times, America has been on the decline on all three fronts. Those really are the three major things that America needs to turn around.
So. It's very hard to out-clever a clever presidential candidate. And if indeed you want to lead change, then the best way to do that is to be a presidential candidate and to *build* the mandate for the change that's of interest to you. Ron Paul may be on the road to building such a mandate, even though I wish I could say that Kucinich was doing better. He isn't.
Still and all. I would not pan the proposal in this article above. Any American is allowed to advocate, to express good intentions or a wish for change. It seems that Murphy wrinkles his nose at the 9/11 truth movement, and then reads the balance of the article with that bias against the source. There's nothing wrong with a town meeting. To "propose a coup...draped in the ideals of democracy" is a straw man argument, because that's not what GW said. (And, even if he did, well -- the Ron Paul Revolution is being trumpeted. That is a use of the key word, revolution. Shouldn't Tom Murphy be likewise criticizing Ron Paul? Isn't his revolution-touting more literally what Murphy said, "propos[ing] a coup...draped in the ideals of democracy"?)
I think it was fair for GW to speak of BOTH a stick and a carrot. It should be fair to speak of both a problem and a solution. The most adverse outcome of a 9/11 investigation would be to confirm our worst fears -- that the crime of the century went down there. But, if that verdict is read out, does that mean that America has solved its problems and cleaned up its act? I believe that, as big as 9/11 was, that America has many, many more problems and pressing demands. What should follow after a guilty verdict is the attempt at change to ensure that "this kind of thing can never happen again." Many victims turn activist, to ensure that their victimization can never occur to another American family. That laudable impulse is natural, so perhaps let's not kick GW for his advocacy within his free speech rights.
GW, you also asked about securing online polls. One level of security is to require a logon. If users must create accounts, then it slows down unscrupulous "bomb" attempts. (And permits limiting participation to one vote per account.) Another level of security is to add a "captcha" which is where people must type in some words or random letters or numbers, to submit their vote. Ideally, use both forms of security and even put a captcha on the account-creation page as well as the poll itself.
by
John Kusumi (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 50 comments)
on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 at 4:00:17 PM
