The following article was posted at 911blogger.com on Thursday, January 12, 2006. Permanent link:
The challenge of 9/11 is to penetrate public consciousness. It's all very well for aficionados to speak about Cleveland Airport, Flight 11 passenger gates and radar blind spots but the challenge is to express the legitimate concerns that arise over 9/11 to a public that has 'swallowed the blue pill' and finds it easier to remain disengaged. We need to give people reasons why they should open their minds to consider the matters of 9/11.
When a disheveled maniac pounces on you in the street and breathlessly asks you 'Has Jesus saved you?' you're instinct is to walk. Particularly if you can be ostracized or lose your job just for being seen with them. It's the same with 9/11. It has to be made approachable for people - because they are frightened and don't understand the evidence. And that means 9/11 skeptics have to meet members of the public at their level and lead them to modify those beliefs in a reasonable way rather than beat them about the head with their own judgments.
Many members of the public are aware that 9/11 conspiracy claims exist. They are less aware of the evidence contradictions of 9/11 and so have trouble seeing how they can assess the conspiracy claims.
(1) We need to remind them that 9/11 was a crime - with no investigation! Before we tell people our pet theories we need them to understand that the whole deal has been swept under the rug. We need to convey to people that they have been betrayed in their reasonable expectation that their government would conduct a proper investigation.
Here we could mention some features of the 9/11 Commission:
- It was forbidden to investigate 9/11 - only to investigate how to forestall a repeat of it.
- It was forbidden to examine anything about the war games that paralyzed military responses.
- It was forbidden to examine the plane 'black boxes' - their existence was concealed from them.
- It was forbidden to examine any intelligence agency reports to the Bush Administration made prior to 9/11.
- It was forbidden to examine any aspect of the financing of the 9/11 terrorists.
- It was forbidden to examine 9/11 terrorists support networks within the US (a la Huffman Aviation)
- The 9/11 Commissioners were specifically chosen because of conflicts of interest that would limit their investigative zeal.
We need to get this through to people first: You have never had a proper 9/11 Inquiry. Your belief that you have had a real 9/11 Inquiry is a deception foisted on you by your own government. You deserve better. If this principle is accepted then members of the public may feel more comfortable in dealing with the evidence itself.
(2) We need to remind people that what they know of 9/11 has come to them from their government in a debased setting of which the 9/11 Commission mandate was only one small part:
- Evidence concealed: flight recorders
- Evidence embargoed: various videos of the Pentagon attack kept from the 9/11 Commission and the public
- Evidence discarded: the hurried removal of the steel at the WTC.
- Evidence unreported: the testimony of Sibel Edmonds on terrorist financing.
- Evidence downplayed: fire chiefs who did not believe the fires were sufficient to bring down the towers.
- Witnesses intimidated: ordered by FBI and Intelligence officials not to discuss their experiences publicly.
- Standard FAA and military investigations that should have taken place following 9/11 but did not.
- Public discussion stifled by the Bush administration on alleged security grounds.
- Uncritical and compliant media reporting: on the identity of the hijackers and the official 9/11 explanation.
(3) It may help people feel more comfortable about examining 9/11 if strong evidence contradictions can be placed before them at this stage:
- The Osama bin Laden fake confession video (have the comparative photos and a link to the original CNN website)
- Mahommed Atta, Islamic suicide warrior, had a stripper girlfriend, used cocaine and liked pork chops (Hopsicker)
- He stayed at a drug-trafficking flight centre whose activities were never examined by the 9/11 Commission.
- The evidence is more in favor of controlled demolitions at the WTC than collapses (Prof. Steven Jones)
- The penetration of six walls [3 rings] at the Pentagon was consistent with a missile, not the nosecone of a Boeing.
- Fighters that normally intercepted wayward aircraft after June 2001 needed Secretary Rumsfeld's approval.
- The debris of Flight 93 was spread over six miles supporting claims its was shot down.
- Senator Bob Graham, on The Lehrer Hour, admitted another nation was involved (Pakistan)
- Why did Gen. Ahmad, Head of Pakistani Military Intelligence, pay $100,000 into Mohammed Atta's account?
The above list is not meant to be exhaustive, merely a means of arousing doubt about the official explanation. I believe people should steer clear of more contentious evidence contradictions (eg. pods attacked to the planes) not because these things may not be true, but because they distract from more obvious contradictions that are (a) generally easier to assess, and (b) don't rely on complex conspiracies involving high technology or extensive, active military participation in 9/11. Again, these aspects may well be completely true. They are just harder to prove and hence more easily dismissed. In the same spirit I believe the Pentagon attack is not an ideal issue for promoting 9/11 awareness because of the conflict between the physical evidence and the witness statements. The fact that the alleged 9/11 terrorists got visas they shouldn't have, or stayed at a drug trafficking flight school, is more appealing to me. Others would disagree.
(4) Having aroused the person's interest it is important they have access to the key issues of 911: evidence issues, people, terminology. They should not have to wade through sites about lizards, extra-terrestials and illuminati. If you have sold them on the idea that they deserve a decent investigation of 9/11 then it's an insult to them to present reports from psychics, or highly politicized web sites (The Israelis appear to have been aware of 9/11 going down; they may have even had a hand in it. That's no reason why unsuspecting Joe Public should have to be forced to adopt that theory in order to make their own assessment of 9/11 discrepancies).
Really, what's going on here is that Joe Public wants to get their head around the 9/11 issues. We should make it easy for them to do so by presenting materials in the following hierarchy:
- 9/11 For Dummies: a simple explanation of the 9/11 events from an evidentiary point of view, with no theories attached, just present the known evidence.
- a data base of key video downloads about 9/11 (This really is the way to open up public awareness).
- key terminology listing (War Games, Mascal, Put Trades, Hufmann Aviation, Sibel Edmonds, Kean Commission, etc). I estimate about 60- 120 items in this list. Some of these would have a simple explanation (MASCAL), others (Sibel Edmonds) having associated with them 10 or so good web article summaries about that topic together with associated web links to the original articles. This is important because people need to get a background on key 9/11 issues in an easy way.
- a brief listing of various explanations of 9/11 - conspiracy theories - with links to their proponent web sites.
- further 911 web links
- further 911 video/audio resources.
(The hierarchy of information I have just outlined is in respect of website development. But I believe there is considerable merit in developing a video along the lines of points (1) - (4)).
(5) Encourage Joe Public to promote 9/11 awareness by various means as a natural entitlement, pursuing accountability from government where crimes have been committed.
In summarizing these steps we should be using the following marketing strategy:
- 9/11 was a crime - with no proper investigation.
- What investigation of 9/11 did take place was conducted in a debased political setting, ignoring established criminal investigation procedures.
- In the light of this people should feel comfortable examining strong evidence contradictions regarding the events of 9/11 (give examples of these)
- With an increased interest in 9/11, members of the public should be able to access background briefings on 9/11 issues in an approachable format according to the hierarchy of materials outlined above. Particular emphasis should be placed on video resources. In this context there needs to be a clear distinction drawn between known facts and attempted explanations of those facts (so people get to choose the theory that best fits their personal judgment on the facts available).
- Lastly, the presentation of the materials should be so intellectually coherent and non-judgmental that the person will feel comfortable recommending the website and its resources to their friends.
It's one thing to hold strong views on 9/11. It's another matter altogether to convince people to hear your views. For that to take place there has to be a demonstrated commitment to the good sense of the other person and a confidence that we can place the facts before them in such a way that they will form fair-minded conclusions of their own - and spread those ideas to others.
Thursday, January 12, 2006.