Academic research in the behavioral sciences provides clues to effective campaigning for 9/11 truth.

A paper published in the February issue of American Behavioral Scientist, entitled "In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11", contains information relevant to anyone involved in raising awareness about the crime of 9/11.

The paper identifies some of the barriers encountered by 9/11 truth activists and explains some of the psychological mechanisms that prevent people from looking at the evidence objectively. By gaining insight into the reasons why some people find it difficult to confront the issue of 9/11, truth activists can learn to raise the issue in ways that reach people in a more effective manner.

There are three underlying premises to this paper: firstly, state crimes against democracy are real and do cause real harm to society; secondly, there are social psychological barriers that mitigate challenges to state criminality; and thirdly, it is imperative that civil society recognize and address the threat posed by state criminality.

The first premise is clearly evidenced by the post-9/11 litany of Presidential findings that strip away civil liberties and defy longstanding principles of justice and the rule of law. The scope of state criminality extends to include unlawful surveillance, detention without trial, torture, assassination, terrorism, wars of aggression and gross human rights abuses.

The second premise is one we're all familiar with, the difficulty many people have even thinking about 9/11, let alone discussing it rationally. For most people, the issue is charged with strong emotion, and raising the issue can sometimes provoke hostile, even violent responses.

The third premise is quite clear, the situation is dire, and if not addressed urgently and vigorously, the consequences for democracy are sure to be grave. For this reason it is important that truth activist hone their methods and strategies for optimal effect.

The paper provides some useful advice in this regard.

In order to breach the social psychological barriers that prevent the assimilation of information, we need to understand the nature of those barriers. We all have our own set of beliefs or world view with which we feel confident and comfortable. When that world view is threatened by evidence that does not affirm our beliefs, we tend to get defensive and resist the new information. This is quite normal response, but it can be overcome if approached in a subtle or sensitive manner.

The key to breaking down social psychological barriers is to be open and friendly, not rigid or dogmatic, find common ground on which to introduce new ideas gradually. Avoid laboured, hyperbolic and excessively emotive language. Research shows that "controlling language can arouse psychological resistance to the message, whereas civic participation is increased when people are drawn into discussions of social responsibility, and message repetition increases familiarity which can translate into message tolerance or acceptance."

"The events of 9/11 have produced enduring fear and aversion associated with those events, the phrase 9/11 has become implicitly associated with traumatic death, destruction and terrorism. The effect for many people is a corresponding increase in defensive and aggressive behavior when exposed to reminders of 9/11."

"Clearly, then, prompting people with reminders of 9/11 may arouse strong emotions that can be used by both government officials and mainstream media to manipulate citizens? behaviors. For example, arousing people?s anger evokes reactions such as focusing on blame and justice, whereas arousing sadness leads to more sympathetic responses, such as focusing on how to improve matters."

This would suggest that an empathetic approach that appeals to an audiences sense of compassion and concern for their own heroes, like the first responders who are suffering terrible health consequences as a result of working at ground zero, is more likely to penetrate the conscious mind of the audience and expose them to evidence they might otherwise reject out of hand.

There are many ?social psychological mechanisms by which people defend and justify the existing social, economic, and political arrangements, often to their own detriment?. Justification of the system also maintains ?consistency, coherence, certainty, and existential needs to manage various forms of threat and distress and to find meaning in life?.

"Research has shown that people can be strongly motivated to resist or avoid information in order to maintain a definitive answer to a question as opposed to experiencing uncertainty, confusion, or ambiguity. The persistence of faulty beliefs at both individual and societal levels, may perform an important psychological function, for example, by promoting feelings of safety rather than admitting potential vulnerability and exploitation."

"Even when faced with incontrovertible evidence of the system?s failings, people tend to support it as the best available option. The citizens? need to defend and justify the system against threat have contributed greatly to the important psychological and social aftereffects of the 9/11 attacks"

This would suggest that an effective approach to introducing the idea of state criminality to a resistant audience might require an explicit differentiation between corrupt officials and the government system as a whole. In other words, make clear that criminal activity by government officials does not mean the government is all bad ... rather, government is being misused by a few to the detriment of many.

The concept of a few corrupt officials is easier to digest than the notion that the entire government is criminal or corrupt. If people can see that their government has been undermined by the criminal actions of a few, they are more likely to support efforts to protect the integrity of their government by facing up to and dealing with the criminal elements that infect it.

"When changes to the collective worldview become inexorable, people?s defense of the status quo begins to weaken in response to a growing support for the emergent worldview. The implication for social change is that it will either come not at all or all at once, the way that catastrophic change occurs in dynamic systems and in tipping point phenomena. A growing number of Americans do not believe that their federal government has been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks."

"Indeed, citizen trust in the current political system is moving toward a tipping point phenomenon that threatens to change the status quo: Questions about the motives of the administration post-9/11 are translating into questions about the complicity of U.S. officials in the events of 9/11, which could have future repercussions on democracy in America."

"Immediate strategies to increase public awareness of state crimes against democracy should focus on framing information in neutral, nonthreatening language that gradually introduces people to the most serious of charges. Alternative accounts should be repeatedly presented within the public sphere with specific requests for citizens to themselves research the information presented to them and pass their findings along to others."