Recent Headlines

Rosie O'Donnell is picking up where she left off.
Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied
Uzbek officer says Tashkent bombings falseflag
US Congressman Ed Markey gets a copy of 9/11 Nano Thermite Scientific report
Ex-ISI Chief Says Purpose of New Afghan Intelligence Agency RAMA Is ‘to destabilize Pakistan’
Taboo News and Corporate Media
Peter Phillips Of Project Censored Endorses NYC CAN
Polls show broad skepticism among Americans of official 9/11 narrative
New York Judge Dismisses Claim Negligent Construction Contributed To WTC 7 Collapse
Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US until 9/11
Drills successful planting bombs in 10 buildings, including DHS offices: GAO
Kevin R. Ryan: Demolition access to the WTC Towers
Naval "National Center for Energetics" Records Of Pre-9/11 Nano-Energetic Materials Development, Nonexistent Or Destroyed
Did the Earth Shake Before The South Tower Hit the Ground?
29 Engineers: Only Explosives Can Explain 9/11 World Trade Center Destruction
David Chandler responds to Frank Greening
“Chief Engineer” Hyman Brown by Patrick Marks
Two Days Before 9/11, Military Exercise Simulated Suicide Hijack Targeting New York
Psychologists Weigh In On 9/11
New York Senator Gillibrand Supports New 9/11 Investigation
Much Of 9/11 Commission's Findings Cite Intelligence Garnered By Torture
AE911Truth in Washington DC July 14th-16th
Daniel Sunjata: Intellectual Dishonesty In The Age Of Universal Deceit...
Vice President Biden receives Thermitic Material paper
Pardon Our Dust, or, Why the World Trade Center Dust Matters
Marie-Paule Pileni (Bentham Open) and nano-technology
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

NYC CAN: The Turning Point

Entries in this section are created by individual users who register with this site and are largely unmoderated. Content in this section should not be interpreted as being supported by 911blogger.com, or by any other members of this site, and should only be viewed as a posting of the individual who created it. Please contact a team member if you notice a post which violates our general rules.

I did not write this. - Jon

October 16, 2009

In the fall of 2008, the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative realized that both strategy and tone were moving its effort no closer to broadening its support. Facing a wary, apathetic public and a stalled momentum, leadership was replaced, strategy was revamped and its mission rebranded.

Launched in early 2009 as NYC CAN, the new organization proceeded to effectively engage voters in a rational dialogue concerning the unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 and the best interests of our country. Our vehicle for engagement was a public referendum to create a real, independent, evidence-driven investigation into those questions that remain, eight years later, unaddressed.

That revamped strategy – focused and methodical, free of divisive rhetoric, ill-advised conjecture and alienating political judgments – succeeded in garnering the support of 80,000 NYC voters, over one-hundred 9/11 family members, dozens of first responders and survivors and leading 9/11 family advocates including ‘Jersey Girls’ Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza as well as Bill Doyle, Monica Gabrielle and others.

NYC CAN also received backing from the most trusted leaders in the 9/11 truth movement, including David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones and Niels Harrit; and the endorsement of respected whistleblowers Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer and FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley, TIME’s 2002 Person of the Year.

Universally positive coverage on a cross-section of media platforms including the Baltimore Chronicle, the Newark Star-Ledger, the Villager, and even the New York Post; online outlets like the Examiner and Raw Story; and on-air interviews with France 24, Russia Today, Talk Radio Europe, NPR and Air America all brought our case directly to the voting public.

In unprecedented fashion, the community dedicated to the pursuit of answers demonstrated its dedication to what works by funding what works. Their financial assistance came not through a handful of large donations but in the form of thousands of smaller, affordable donations from across this country and around the world. This outpouring of generosity paved the way to where we stand today and we thank you all.

NYC CAN’s campaign was carefully orchestrated to engage voter support by presenting incontrovertible discrepancies to combat skepticism and create reasonable doubt. We countered objection with fact instead of theory, allowing individual deductive reasoning to poke its own holes in the 9/11 Commission’s story. By doing so we persuaded 80,000 New York City voters to listen, think and act.

Therein lies the template for success in reaching our universal goal.

Lessons Learned
That success, however, will not manifest itself as the referendum we envisioned on the ballot in NYC on November 3rd. In the process of our petition drive and court challenges, we learned the hard way that public referendums are not the vehicle by which to navigate the byzantine rules that govern the corrupt landscape of New York politics.

Midway through our petition drive we, along with our fellow New Yorkers, who twice voted to limit city officials to two terms, watched in disbelief as our own elected representatives, those to whom these term limits would apply, overturned the will of the people in a naked grasp for power.

Emboldened by this successful slap down of democracy, the City of New York and the State Supreme Court denied the will of 80,000 voters to place NYC CAN’s referendum on November’s ballot. In doing so, the City’s Corporation Counsel – while forced to acknowledge in open court that no investigation into 9/11 of any kind, criminal or otherwise, had ever been conducted by the City of New York – labeled the will of the people “irrelevant”.

A lone Supreme Court Justice, while demonstrating no comprehension or interest in the fundamental aspects of the events of 9/11 or the basis of our case – not to mention justice or truth – sided with the will of the City over the will of the people whose interests he is sworn to protect.

While the petition had its flaws, it was secure enough to be implemented if the City and the Supreme Court were so inclined. It took the petition and legal processes to realize that the current City administration will stop at nothing to keep 9/11 in the rear view mirror. Our best and current expert legal advice indicates that no petition of this kind, however framed, can ever be assured success in New York City. Hence, no more time, energy, or money will be spent on this court action or a new petition effort.

Those who wield political power will be swayed neither by rational dialogue nor the best interests of those they are meant to serve, as their motivation to act is based upon that which it always has – an insulating propagation of self-interest. Only by winning the hearts and minds of the people will our voice be heard in the halls of power that govern this country. Only when that voice echoes our message will it reverberate through those halls too loudly to be ignored. Only when the people wield the threat of their vote will those in power be forced to act.

It is to the people we must make our appeal. Only then will we succeed.

Lessons learned? With the experience gained in persuading 80,000 NYC voters to act, the strategy that will work has become ever more clear: a national public relations campaign to persuade the American public to rethink the bill of goods they were sold and now accept as bible truth. Public relations is a time-tested strategy that has been embraced across the board and through the ages; this proven methodology has been utilized to the advantage of the most progressive elements of society and embedded in the core strategy of every corporation in America. Why?

Because it works.

There is one question we must ask ourselves at this turning point for a movement unquestionably marginalized and discredited, surely by outside forces opposed to any further investigation, but also by its own hesitance to honestly assess what is not working and alter its course. This issue, like the questions to which we all seek answers, remains unaddressed but can no longer be ignored.

What holds our movement back from embracing what works?

Certainly those who give of their time, their talents and their energy to further this pursuit of answers do so with the very best intentions. Best intentions, in light of the progress we clearly have not made, are no longer good enough. Individual agendas, splintered strategies, unfocused action and information overload all play into our detractors’ hands and contribute to the lack of direction that leaves our movement marginalized, our voice muted and our goals unmet.

Our hearts are in the right place; when our message and delivery is, we will capture the hearts and minds of America. We will never silence those who would silence us; we can, however, drown those voices in public outcry if we commit to a voice that America will not only listen to but also hear.

A Multi-Tiered Strategy
The secret to success for nonprofits and social activists lay in the ability to employ the business marketing tools that have proven effective in promoting social agenda and persuading the general public, without whose support such efforts rarely succeed.

Perhaps it is time to acknowledge (and abandon) methodologies that keep our movement marginalized – radical rhetoric, vitriolic accusation and wild conjecture wrapped in off-putting self-righteousness – and embrace a strategy that changes not what we say but how we say it in order to be heard.

The science of public relations – the subtle art of persuasion – is a discipline that must be adopted by our movement. Those who effectively employ public relations to their benefit understand that a bat to the head is never an effective course of action in attaining desired results.

As with any marketing or sales effort or any successful social movement, one must engender trust before one seeks to close the sale. The problem inherent in our movement and its passionate base is the desire to close the sale without making the sale. We need to take a step back, recalibrate, redefine and reeducate. We need to employ persuasion, not pressure, with the right strategy and the right voice.

And who decides whose voice that is?

Reason must decide. The litmus test is simple. Who do the American people trust? Their elected officials? Not since Watergate. Celebrities? Celebrities certainly matter insomuch as they can draw attention to a cause and to its informed and authoritative spokespeople, but they are rarely seen or respected as such by the general public.

So who engenders both the respect and the trust required to begin to awaken an apathetic American public? Oddly enough, that voice comes from high within the very government seen by some to be the major roadblock to attaining our goals, or worse, as the main perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks. Such theorizing is destructive to any effective press for truth and should find no home here. Evidence matters. Facts matter. Image matters. Theories don’t.

This movement doesn’t need a strategy to win your support; you don’t need persuading – you are the movement. We need a voice to engage those without whose support we cannot succeed.

It’s all about perception.

Men and women of unassailable integrity – military commanders, CIA, FBI and military intelligence agents, aviation experts and senior-level administration officials – have already spoken out, putting name and reputations on the line. Men and women with a deep and pervasive understanding of how the United States government works and whose service to our country place them in a position above reproach. Men and women who can create reasonable doubt in the mind of the American public and steer attention to the authoritative voices that can cement that doubt.

These men and women, viewed by the American public as real American heroes, offer the promise of revitalizing our movement and engaging the general public on a level that today lies beyond our reach. Our movement may not perceive generals and CIA agents as the obvious choice, but must understand we could not ask for more effective spokespersons to engage the American public.

Again, we are not talking about the generals currently waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are talking about those who have already spoken out and lent their good name and stellar reputations to this cause.

Despite the presence of such credible voices, our movement has been unable to create a vehicle with which to launch a strategic nationwide campaign that can wrestle momentum from the hands of those who seek to bury the truth and place it in the hands of those who would expose it to the light of day.

Until now.

Public Relations
There are two available options to engage the general public – advertising and public relations. Advertising space and time in the mass media is extremely expensive and often negatively viewed by the public as an attempt to manipulate. Conversely, public relations carries no cost for coverage and its efforts to humanize an issue and create goodwill in order to gain public support are generally viewed as balanced and believable. In a perfectly funded world both methodologies would be utilized. As nonprofits and social activists rarely enjoy that option, fiscal realities dictate viable action – a public relations campaign.

While effective public relations can be costly, the net benefit in shaping one’s image, promoting one’s cause and garnering the requisite support make it a worthy investment. The right PR firm not only partners in shaping strategy and message to convey the desired image, but also maintains the media contacts to bring that message directly to the public.

The most daunting challenge PR firms face in effectively conveying an image with which the public will identify lies in identifying trusted spokespersons that can articulate message in a manner that engenders their support. Those individuals have already been identified. All that remains is the crafting of the message and the vehicle for the right spokespeople to drive that message home.

Message massage is of paramount importance with any polarizing issue; what you say and how you say it take on an equal importance. While there are those who can follow the existing trail of evidence down the rabbit hole, our target demographic – a preoccupied American public – cannot. Our message must be re-calibrated to begin at the start with the most fundamental discrepancies and omissions in the 9/11 Commission Report in order to begin to chip away at the stone.

The general public’s attention span is short and their grasp of these issues is tenuous at best. Our message must harness and repeat the core concepts undeniable by the most hardened skeptics and that message must be repeated again and again before the onion can be peeled.

We must also bear in mind that while 9/11 changed our world overnight, it will take us considerably longer to change the public’s perception and understanding of the issues at hand. One effective piece in the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune or one interview with Katie Couric or Anderson Cooper, or any one placement in any new media, will not accomplish our goal. Our goal is now multimedia saturation – a consistent stream of stories through a cross-section of print media, regional, network and cable news outlets and their Internet counterparts.

In addition to saturating all media outlets at our disposal, we must provide tangible platforms our spokespersons can use to drive a renewed public interest into action.

Strategic Political Engagement
NYC CAN was the movement’s first step into the arena of electoral politics. The 9/11 referendum afforded NYC CAN a platform to engage hundreds of thousands of voters in a carefully orchestrated dialogue to reshape the public’s attitude toward its government’s actions as they relate to 9/11. Regardless of the referendum’s outcome, the campaign was a success in heightening public awareness of the need to demand answers to the questions our government continues to ignore. As awareness grows, so grows the peril to the elected representatives that refuse to act.

And that is exactly the point.

New York City is only one among countless opportunities to skin the cat. There are 9/11 advocates all across the country, many of which are presently engaged in civic action. While we encourage all groups to continue or begin to act, we would hope that all see the power and importance of those actions when taken under the umbrella of one common strategy, harnessing the strength of a unified, professionally crafted message.

Ballot initiatives, whether meant to enact legislation or to express the will of the people in a non-binding resolution, carry weight both as voter actions unto themselves and as platforms for civic engagement as part of the overall campaign. Their eventual outcome may in fact be of less importance than the civic engagement they engender.

We must also engage in efforts to pass local resolutions calling for further investigation into 9/11 as such efforts also raise the public profile of our mission. We must use that strategy to continue to lobby top officials and district attorneys. In states and cities where ballot initiatives are not accepted, as well as in states and cities where they are, our strategy can lay the groundwork that opens the door to running and supporting candidates on a platform of 9/11 accountability.

Keep in mind that which bears repeating; the outcome of these efforts may prove less important than the civic engagement these campaigns will engender. Much like public relations, saturation is the name of the game. Without tangible vehicles that enable civic engagement, our efforts to reshape the public’s perception will be for naught.

An Untangled Web
The concept and execution of our strategy presents both challenge and opportunity to the movement. As if through the looking glass in a world where bad is good and up becomes down, being too well versed in the intricacies of 9/11 can become a handicap once we acknowledge that our target demographic simply is not.

The average American’s general perception of September 11th can be summed up in five short words: two planes and two towers. It is up to us to reshape that perception using evidence in a manner that will lead to the requisite reasonable doubt of the story the public has come to accept.

There is certainly no lack of credible, well-documented research covering a myriad of 9/11 topics splashed across the Internet on countless websites.

Therein lies the problem.

Too much information, too many details and too many story lines muddy the waters for those too confused to digest the overload of information. In addition, rampant rhetoric and conjecture (for which there is no place) leave our target demographic wary and unconvinced, making it that much easier for our detractors to continue to marginalize our movement.

It’s all about how we bait the hook.

A haphazard dissemination of everything under the 9/11 sun, from credible evidence to amateur analysis, and from half-baked theory to full-blown truth, is not the way to convert the pervasive skepticism we face today. When we learn to control the content, flow and presentation of information in a more simplified and direct fashion we will control its effect.

What is missing is one carefully vetted, content-controlled web presence – a virtual ‘Citizens’ Commission’ containing a professionally designed interactive catalogue of the most legally sound evidence and a video portal for expert testimony to be used in an eventual investigation or court action. Laid out in easy-to-navigate chapter and verse, casual inquiry moves efficiently from the center of the story outward. If executed properly, casual inquiry will work its way to responsible, civic-minded action. But we must begin with the basics.

Every successful salesman understands the value of well-crafted collateral sales material. There is no end to what a true 9/11 homepage, a disciplined 9/11 primer, can become and no limit to its value in reaching our goal.

But we must begin at the start, always mindful that in order to close the sale we have to make the sale.

Our 9/11 Wake Up Call
We are at war against a government that has used the events of 9/11 to hijack a country from her people and placed the interests of the rich and the powerful above justice and truth. Wars can only be won through strategy, commitment and discipline.

Present strategy has moved us no closer to our goal; in fact, some of the actions this movement has embraced hold us back from gaining any real momentum, working to the benefit of the very people who stand in opposition to the truth. Our detractors love those who will carry their water, whether consciously or not, doing real damage to any chance of success.

We know many of you, like us, see our marginalized movement’s stalled momentum as a call to effective action – a call to take the fight to our detractors by using the very tools they employ to promote their own agenda. We must use these same time-tested tools to elevate our own search for answers with a campaign directed at the hearts and minds of the American people:


  • a professional rollout of a national public relations campaign and trusted spokespeople to reshape image and regain momentum in order to broaden our reach
  • a uniform and coordinated methodology for regional action feeding off and feeding into that campaign nationwide
  • a disciplined Internet presence structured in content and tone to reshape public perception and create reasonable doubt

Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. As we see ourselves in no position to argue, we would urge all who share our simple goal – truthful answers to reasonable questions – to abandon those methodologies which have proven, over and over again, not to work and come together in support of the time-tested strategies that will.

Let us move closer to our goals by accepting that the only effective path to success is through a course of action that engenders the support of the American public. We are committed only to the strategies that have stood the test of time. We urge the leaders of every like-minded organization to unite in a call for answers that is sure to be heard when we raise our voice as one.

Thinkers think and talkers talk. Patriots ACT.

www.NYCCAN.org

You have got it absolutely right, Jon.

This is the exact same argument I have made when witnessing confrontational encounters posted here and elsewhere, where the message gets lost in how the message is delivered. If there is a silver-lining to the defeat in the NYC referendum effort it is in the lessons learned on how to approach the public most effectively and sway the most hearts. Thank you for this well written essay on what needs to be done. I sincerely hope the Blogger community of activists, enthusiastic, daring, courageous... but at times woefully mistaken in how to change minds and sway hearts, will take heed and adopt the NYCAN strategy.

Thank you, Jon. You have performed an invaluable service to the movement with this posting....

Thanks...

I did not write it. There is a lot of valuable information in this. I hope that people read it, and digest it to the best of their ability.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Thank you for posting this, Jon

Those of us who got it as an email know you didn’t write it, but a casual reader may assume you did. Why not add a one-sentence intro at the top along the lines of your Edit, to avoid any confusion?

Just so you know...

I was asked to remove the author's names. The primary author was 9/11 Family Member Chris Burke.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Thanks again

I didn't mean for it to become such a hassle.

NYC CAN

The name says it all. Don't give up.

William Pepper Explains Why 9/11 Ballot Initiative Fight Ended

Tuesday, October 20, 2009
William Pepper Explains Why 9/11 Ballot Initiative Fight Ended, Suggests Loose Timetable for Bush-Cheney War Crimes Prosecution
http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2009/10/william-pepper-explains-why-911-b...

Wow

If true, I find this very troubling:

"Pepper also confirmed the rumor that a professor who is an expert on election law refused to help NYCcan.org after Pepper was unable to promise the professor that the results of a genuine 9/11 investigation would not hurt Israel."

FYI, here’s the audio.

This is just my recording of the 7-minute segment of William Pepper discussing NYC CAN on Kevin Barrett’s “Fair and Balanced” radio program yesterday, 10/20/09.

williampepper

The original show is archived here:
"War Crime Trials-Arrests: William Pepper & Joshua Blakeney on Fair & Balanced"
By noliesradio
This show was broadcast October 20, 2009.
It is now archived here — Use Player

http://noliesradio.org/archives/7193
(Turn off the live feed on the far right before launching).

Please don't use this to start another flame war on ant-Semitism. The election law professor's concern about harming Israel is legitimate. But I also have an ethical problem with a lawyer who, if he's a member of the NY Bar sworn to uphold the law, would refuse to join a public effort for a true criminal investigation, simply because he feared that "Israeli activists or operatives were going to be in any way brought into the limelight because of 9/11." As William Pepper put it, laughing, "Why are you asking me that? Do you know something that I don't know."

Is this just one man's personal anxiety, or is it a kind of group-think censorship hanging like a toxic cloud in the legal circles of New York? If the latter, I can see why an appeal would be a lost cause.

Correction:

Barrett updated his blog entry:
"Pepper also confirmed the rumor that a professor who is an expert on election law, when asked to help NYCcan.org, asked Pepper to promise him that the results of a genuine 9/11 investigation would not hurt Israel. Pepper naturally said he could not promise what might come of an investigation. Contrary to my earlier erroneous report, the professor did NOT refuse to help NYCcan.org. A thank-you to Ted Walter for correcting this."

It's troubling that Barrett is still claiming the above on his blog; from listening to the audio, it's clear that Pepper did not say he was asked to promise anything, or that he said he could not- this is my transcript of that part, which starts at 9":

Kevin Barrett- "By the way, can you- feel free to not answer this, if you don't want to, but can you confirm or deny a rumor that a leading Constitutional scholar refused to help NYCCAN.org when he asked- said 'Promise me that this will not hurt Israel', and you couldn't promise him that?

William Pepper- "He's not a Constitutional scholar- at all- he is an election law specialist. The election laws in any jurisdiction tend to require a good deal of very particular experience... and knowledge. As this was a particular election- I won't name him, but there was a particular election lawyer who is a specialist in this area, and, yes, he did raise the issue of- he did specifically raise the issue of Israel, and whether or not the Israeli activists or operatives were in any way going to be brought into the limelight because of 9/11. (chuckles) So I guess I was amused with the query, and I said, 'Why are you asking me that; do you know something that I don't know?'"

KB- "Well, some people say that everybody knows there was an Israeli angle to 9/11, and it's the worst kept secret out there, but- a lot of people are worried about that."

WP- "Anyway, that was the nature of that conversation, yes."

EDIT- punctuation for clarity- 'Why are you asking me that; do you know something that I don't know?'"

All that said, it's a 'strange' question to ask- a natural inference is the one that Barrett made; that the election expert was concerned how an investigation might affect Israel. Still, as much as the 9/11 truth movement has been disparaged for being associated with certain claims that have been discredited, I think it's very important to be accurate, not make inferences, not go beyond the evidence. And Barrett has discredited himself numerous times:
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1887&postdays=0&postorder=a...

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

That is unfortunate

Thank you for correcting that and thank you for posting a transcript, loose nuke.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

you're welcome, I try to help

William Pepper is involved

and he is giving very sound advise.

If a professor cannot be fair minded, then they are not the right person.

Sounds like Dr. Pepper {:-} has his water foul properly aligned.

NYC CAN, with his help, will find the right person.

start of a discussion

I welcome this discussion piece, which I think should be talked about widely--respectfully, but critically where appropriate. Maybe something very good will come from the discussion.

A few points to start us off:

1. I welcome the suggestion that we are a rather chaotic movement and that there ought to be some consensus points reached that we can emphasize in our work. I hope these consensus points can be agreed to without diluting the diversity and creativity of the movement.
2. I am not so happy with the language of marketing and public relations. I think these are, in the minds of many, almost as bad as "advertizing" in terms of their low credibility, and for good reason. I'm not yet convinced that morality-based social movements need to use business models.
3. This doesn't mean we don't need effective communication strategies. But I would prefer to talk about effective communication and persuasion rather than public relations, which is typically, like marketing, connected to selling things to people. We are not selling and we are not making a profit, and we are not interested in deceiving or putting "spin" on what we do. The strength of the movement is in its insistence on truth. I think truth and PR seldom travel well together. I'm sure some will think I have an unnecessarily dim view of PR.
4. A new web presence in the form of a Citizens' Commission sounds good to me, but, of course, it will be in addition to existing websites; it will not replace them. If it is really well designed and run it will become a center of activity; if it isn't, it will die.
5. As for the people who will make a credible presence and leadership, I think you first need to ask who your audience is. I'm assuming that the audience this document is concerned with is the US population. I'm not in a good position to say who is held in respect by this population. CIA officers and generals? I find that a bit surprising, but if it's true, then it would make sense to choose some of the honest and ethically suitable reps from these who are willing to talk about the 9/11 fraud. People, perhaps, like Bob Bowman. But I'd advise not to put all your eggs in one basket: have some leaders from different sectors of society. Most surverys put health professionals (including doctors and pharmicists) at the top of the "most trusted" list, and politicians as a group are usually very low on the list--there's a survery every year that goes through all this. So, have some health people, some religious leaders, some business leaders (careful on this one, especially at the moment), and so on.

As a non-US citizen, I'd have to object if our most visible leadership were drawn from US politics, the military and the CIA. This is not a social movement I could identify with or that I would want to work with. So let's think about valuing diversity

6. The whole emphasis on patriotism seems very American to me. I guess if it works for the American movement, then use it, but it doesn't speak to me at all. Tolstoy has an essay called something like, "patriotism or peace." He doesn't think they are both possible; we have to choose. I might not go that far, but I think we have to remember that patriotism is responsible for many of the millions of deaths through war in the last 200 years. We also should remember that American patriotism does not put people's mind at ease outside the US. Too many flags connected to too many invasions. I'd be careful with this one if you want a global movement.

Thanks, Dr. MacQueen

I wrote my response before yours appeared. I agree with much of what you say, especially re: "patriotism" and using CIA and such as poster boys.

I don't agree...

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

"I also think votes should

"I also think votes should be disregarded in this thread because the system is rigged. I think they should be done away with at this point personally."

Spoken like a true King of the Forest wannabe.


--
"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Dir. Bldg. & Fire Research Lab. (NIST)
"We are [still] unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." (NIST)

More like...

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

Change?

"Funny how the people advocating the least amount of change are getting the most votes."

And this is coming from someone who has 'doubts' about the Controlled Demolition at Ground Zero, and who purports that FIight 77 actually did hit the Pentagon, and who is adamant that if someone talks about Israel's involvement in 9-11 or any other False Flag attack without footnoting that 90% of the blame goes on the U.S. Government is bad for the 9-11 Truth movement?

What least amount of change are you talking about? Least amount of change back toward the official story?

The three towers at WTC came down in Controlled Demolition, Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, and people can feel free to talk about Israel's involvement in crimes against the world without mentioning the U.S. and vice versa.

Peace,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

I've heard from...

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

Jon, I'd like to speak as

Jon, I'd like to speak as someone relatively new to all this. I've read a lot on 911blogger over the past couple years, but have but never spoke out much, as I don't feel as qualified to give my opinion, and many others say what I wish I could but more eloquently. I agree with a lot of what you say, and appreciate the time you've given. Many of your posts are relevant and interesting to read (especially your main response on this thread), however, you come across as bitter and aggresive a lot of the time. You often speak like you believe you are above the majority of other posters. You've been here longer, so you are a better, or more valuable, more important. You seem angry toward people who provide constructive criticism. Your whole air is negative at times, and you often come across, to me at least, as self-absorbed and self-important. I have noticed this attitude since the earliest posts I have read of yours, and it seems only to have got more extreme. There's no doubt you have been and are an asset to this movement, but you don't do yourself any favours. This whole movement relies on fresh insight and input. Please, take it from me, you put people off with your negative attitude and tone.

9/11 Sites...

Have been infiltrated for years. 911Visibility.org, or septembereleventh.org was infiltrated by people who would name themselves "GoldIsAFag" or "GoldsDeadGrandfather," etc... this site was infiltrated by "TV Fakery", "Holocaust Revisionists", and several other "groups" who like to bring down 9/11 sites. It's not my imagination. As far as being bitter... when you have gotten the amount of attacks I've gotten over the years, because you participate in a cause you care so much about, maybe you'll understand why I come across as "bitter." These bitter battles don't take place off of the internet for the most part.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

My two cents...

Those who wield political power will be swayed neither by rational dialogue nor the best interests of those they are meant to serve, as their motivation to act is based upon that which it always has – an insulating propagation of self-interest. Only by winning the hearts and minds of the people will our voice be heard in the halls of power that govern this country. Only when that voice echoes our message will it reverberate through those halls too loudly to be ignored. Only when the people wield the threat of their vote will those in power be forced to act.

It is to the people we must make our appeal. Only then will we succeed.

I agree with this sentiment.

With the experience gained in persuading 80,000 NYC voters to act, the strategy that will work has become ever more clear: a national public relations campaign to persuade the American public to rethink the bill of goods they were sold and now accept as bible truth. Public relations is a time-tested strategy that has been embraced across the board and through the ages; this proven methodology has been utilized to the advantage of the most progressive elements of society and embedded in the core strategy of every corporation in America. Why?

Because it works.

It does work. That's why when people in our Government decide they want to sell something like a war, they use it to their advantage. Eventually you see a ridiculous amount of people thinking things like Iraq had something to do with 9/11, or Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda, or that Iraq even had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Certainly those who give of their time, their talents and their energy to further this pursuit of answers do so with the very best intentions. Best intentions, in light of the progress we clearly have not made, are no longer good enough. Individual agendas, splintered strategies, unfocused action and information overload all play into our detractors’ hands and contribute to the lack of direction that leaves our movement marginalized, our voice muted and our goals unmet.

Our hearts are in the right place; when our message and delivery is, we will capture the hearts and minds of America. We will never silence those who would silence us; we can, however, drown those voices in public outcry if we commit to a voice that America will not only listen to but also hear.

Perhaps it is time to acknowledge (and abandon) methodologies that keep our movement marginalized – radical rhetoric, vitriolic accusation and wild conjecture wrapped in off-putting self-righteousness – and embrace a strategy that changes not what we say but how we say it in order to be heard.

The problem inherent in our movement and its passionate base is the desire to close the sale without making the sale. We need to take a step back, recalibrate, redefine and reeducate. We need to employ persuasion, not pressure, with the right strategy and the right voice.

It’s all about perception.

What I think doesn't work are slogans like "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!", "FALSE FLAG ATTACK", "NEW WORLD ORDER", "9/11=CONTROLLED DEMOLITION." What I think doesn't work is screaming at people, or calling them a traitor or murderer. What I think doesn't work are constant debates, or treating people with disrespect as a result of those debates (especially on websites where people might be reading the comments, and shy away because of the debates). What I think doesn't work are using divisive terms like LIHOP/MIHOP. We are people that question the official account of 9/11, and want truth and justice. Not LIHOPPERS and MIHOPPERS. What I think doesn't work is saying that everything that happens is a "FALSE FLAG ATTACK." Slogans that I have found do work are "9/11 TRUTH NOW", "ASK QUESTIONS/DEMAND ANSWERS", "EXPOSE THE 9/11 COVER-UP", "SUPPORT THE 9/11 FAMILIES", "INVESTIGATE 9/11", "SUPPORT THE 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS", "9/11 TRUTH ENDS WAR."

Conversely, public relations carries no cost for coverage and its efforts to humanize an issue and create goodwill in order to gain public support are generally viewed as balanced and believable.

Message massage is of paramount importance with any polarizing issue; what you say and how you say it take on an equal importance. While there are those who can follow the existing trail of evidence down the rabbit hole, our target demographic – a preoccupied American public – cannot. Our message must be re-calibrated to begin at the start with the most fundamental discrepancies and omissions in the 9/11 Commission Report in order to begin to chip away at the stone.

The general public’s attention span is short and their grasp of these issues is tenuous at best. Our message must harness and repeat the core concepts undeniable by the most hardened skeptics and that message must be repeated again and again before the onion can be peeled.

The concept and execution of our strategy presents both challenge and opportunity to the movement. As if through the looking glass in a world where bad is good and up becomes down, being too well versed in the intricacies of 9/11 can become a handicap once we acknowledge that our target demographic simply is not.

Whenever I talk or write, I do so as if I'm talking to someone that's never looked at this stuff before. I have said many times that we should stick to basics. Start off by asking someone whether or not they think the Government lied about 9/11. Then move into how ridiculous the investigations were. Then talk about the family members that question the official account, and are still seeking truth and justice. Then talk about the responders. Then talk about the unanswered questions. Then talk about how the "Post-9/11 World" is a detriment to humanity. In my opinion, there should be a method by which we try to do things.

The average American’s general perception of September 11th can be summed up in five short words: two planes and two towers. It is up to us to reshape that perception using evidence in a manner that will lead to the requisite reasonable doubt of the story the public has come to accept.

There is certainly no lack of credible, well-documented research covering a myriad of 9/11 topics splashed across the Internet on countless websites.

Therein lies the problem.

Too much information, too many details and too many story lines muddy the waters for those too confused to digest the overload of information. In addition, rampant rhetoric and conjecture (for which there is no place) leave our target demographic wary and unconvinced, making it that much easier for our detractors to continue to marginalize our movement.

It’s all about how we bait the hook.

A haphazard dissemination of everything under the 9/11 sun, from credible evidence to amateur analysis, and from half-baked theory to full-blown truth, is not the way to convert the pervasive skepticism we face today. When we learn to control the content, flow and presentation of information in a more simplified and direct fashion we will control its effect.

A lot of what I said is exactly how I've tried to approach things, and it has worked for me. A LOT. I am not a PHD, and yet some people listen to what I have to say. Because I have been careful to the best of my ability.

Let us move closer to our goals by accepting that the only effective path to success is through a course of action that engenders the support of the American public. We are committed only to the strategies that have stood the test of time. We urge the leaders of every like-minded organization to unite in a call for answers that is sure to be heard when we raise our voice as one.

Our job is to try and reach people, and make them aware of how important it is to seek accountability and justice for the 9/11 attacks. Again, our job is to reach people. We have managed to reach a lot of people, but the amount of people willing to take action for this cause is not where it should be. That is what public relations is all about. We have to destroy the "Conspiracy Theorist, Lunatic, Tinfoil Hat Wearers, Anti-Semitic, Holocaust Denying" labels they have used against us, and change the way people perceive us. Should we use Generals, and CIA, etc...? I don't know. We've had bad experiences in the past with individuals who were "noteworthy." If a method can be developed that works, and they stick to it... great...

As far as having a central website... I just don't think it's going to happen regardless of whether or not I agree with the idea.

Mark Twain said a true patriot loves their country all of the time, and their Government when it deserves it. Maybe a true patriot can love their world as well.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Patriot

.. is apparently a 'glittering generality', according to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glittering_generality

Which would presumably make for good PR.

However, this word has different meanings in other countries. It sounds a bit like nationalist, or Patriot missile. How important is it to convince American patriots as opposed to everyone else? Maybe very.

Mark Twain has plenty of credibility though.

Call it Patriotism...

Call it speaking truth to power, call it being a responsible citizen, call it doing the right thing, call it what you like.

I discovered that quote right around the time I realized I was taking part in a false sense of patriotism. The "Patriotic Binge" as Michael Parenti refers to it. I liked it. I don't like seeing our politicians wear an American Flag pin as if they love this country. I don't like how Fox News constantly uses Red/White/Blue with every background they use. Wrapping one's self in the flag irks me. I like that quote, but don't know much about the man who said it.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

on patriotism, and the pursuit of truth

all good points, 911satya. thanks.
patriotism doesn't speak to me either, and i am an american. here’s a link purporting to indicate what tolstoy said in “patriotism or peace:” http://salsa.net/peace/conv/8weekconv7-3.html. an editorial note there indicates that tolstoy’s books were important in winning over gandhi to the idea of non-resistance to evil, which begs the question: can/how might we apply gandhi’s successful world changing principles in our 9/11 context, and help bring about peace and justice? in part, i would say, by doing what everyone is already doing here: searching for/broadcasting truth, while not becoming violent. truth and nonviolence are key elements of gandhi’s “satyagraha” (of which i am sure you are aware, given your handle) pasted below, and which is worthy of consideration by all 911 truth seekers, i respectfully submit. note especially items 1, 2, and 8.

Satyagraha...conquers by conversion, producing neither defeat nor victory, but new harmony. It entails 11 great vows:

1. Non-violence. Not harming your enemies but reaching out to them in forgiveness and hospitality. Non-cooperation with those who use violence and collaboration with those who do not.

2. Strict adherence to Truth - this includes honesty, but goes beyond it to mean living actively in accord with what you know to be true. Rather than in wishful compromise.

3. Non-stealing - not exploiting others and actively avoiding any practice or product that involves use of fear, violence, addiction or fraud.

4. Ecological chastity - not raising children to live in poverty or animals to live in squalor. Working on the quality of all lives you create, consume or displace. Studying, adapting and propagating Permaculture.

5. Non-possession. Not the same as poverty, this means taking only what you need and providing the rest to benefit others in need. The opposite of waste, hoarding, and indulgence.

6. Choosing to work only in efforts to improve the human dignity and mutual understanding of your fellow people. All other forms of work serve purposes of tyranny.

7. Non-addiction. Freeing yourself from all personal dependencies including cigarettes, sugar, alcohol, caffeine, mass media and artificial foods. Addiction inevitably leads to compromise.

8. Fearlessness - courage on all occasions. The solution to terrorism is refusing to act from fear. Acting constructively, mindfully, to own your own life.

9. Equal respect for any religion or philosophy that observes the Golden Rule: "Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself".

10. Initiating and participating in grass roots economic strategies such as small farm shares, boycotting franchise stores, open sourcing, mutual credit systems, and a determination to consume only local, ethically grown produce.

11. Non-racism - not just tolerance, but working to combine foreign cultures fruitfully with your own. Adapting Satyagraha so that it can propagate with these.

THANKS for Posting Satyagraha

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?
http://www.northtexas911truth.com/

Gatekeeping

I'm not sure PR can overcome gatekeeping. How many potential lawsuits have been nixed by Judge Hellerstein? How many politicians have looked directly at the evidence and feigned ignorance? How many media outlets pretend the Internet does not exist?

There is a second threat to a PR campaign: counter-intelligence. Or disinformation. Or call it what you will. Even the best framing of where we must begin always encounters the usual stable of distractions (the psychology of the conspiracist, bigotry, misinformation, etc.).

Perhaps we should consider 9/11 Truth something that will never acquire majority support? Yes, I know some people interpret the polls to suggest majority support already exists; however, I think it's fair to say nationwide, and even worldwide, support for 9/11 Truth remains in the 30%-40% range. New Yorkers, of course, were already two-thirds in support of a new investigation back in 2004.

What if we consider 9/11 Truth as something that cannot be won by popular opinion, because the gatekeepers, whether they are doing so on orders or simply because of generalized fear, will always block substantial progress on this issue. Why, for example, have there been no trials for the lies surrounding the invasion of Iraq? That's a case at least as definitive as 9/11 Truth, maybe more. On a related note, I am reminded of Paul Craig Roberts piece about the sociological study that showed why some people continue to maintain false beliefs even in the presence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

I put this question to the rest of you: What if our strategy going forward were based on the assumption that popular opinion will not resolve anything surrounding 9/11? Is that dangerous? Can it be the premise for a better approach? What do you think?

Fund New Zogby Poll

I received this letter as well and like what it says. At least the effort will continue and not just vanish.

I sent Ted an email asking NYC CAN to fund a new 9/11 Zogby Poll for New York with remaining money that would have been used for advertising the referendum. This would be money well spent. We would have fresh ammunition for dealing with Reps. and get a shot in the arm...... Over half of New Yorkers should support a new investigation--- if not MUCH more! (We want the NY poll since it will be higher than the national average). If you agree: tedwalter@nyccan.org

Lot of talk here about the movement moving backward.

Lot of talk here about the movement moving backward, and losing momentum. I see the opposite. We are moving forward at an accelerated rate. Thanks for the effort of those who organized and supported NYC CAN, but NYC CAN is not the gage for measuring the success of the 9-11 Truth Movement. People were warning about the potential dead end NYC CAN was up against from when the idea was first presented. As Janice Matthews told me long ago, this is a movement of the people. We can not depend on politicians or celebrities. We must reach out to our neighbors, coworkers, and everyone else we see in the streets. As we get closer to the tipping point, then the politicians and celebrities will climb aboard.

Maybe NYC CAN had to happen if only to reinforce the awareness that we can not look to use the compromised justice system and voting system to wake the people up. A lot of money and time went into NYC CAN. I would love to see the attorneys who put their time into that endeavor instead put their time into defending 9-11 Truth activists who have been fired from their job because of their activism and had their apartment raided and all their belongings taken from them by the Department of Homeland Security probably just because they are Muslim - Muslim Marine vet 9/11 activist Muhammed Abdullah http://m911t.blogspot.com/2009/10/muslim-marine-vet-truther-targeted-in.....

"Present strategy has moved us no closer to our goal; in fact, some of the actions this movement has embraced hold us back from gaining any real momentum"

I disagree whole-heartedly. The 9-11 Truth movement has moved so much closer to our goal. I see a massive increase in awareness since 3.5 years ago. Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth membership has grown by over 400% in the past 2 years. More people are showing up to WeAreChangeLA street actions than ever before. We are lot less marginalized than we were 6 months ago, not to mention 3 years ago.

"What is missing is one carefully vetted, content-controlled web presence"

There is a danger in centralizing the 9-11 Truth movement. Let's keep it organic. That's what has been so very successful up to this point, that I don't see a need to alter course. Members of the 9-11 Truth movement have disagreements in other issues regarding what happened that day and who is responsible. Controlled Demolition at Ground Zero has been carefully vetted and proven, yet there are actually people in the 9-11 Truth movement who proclaim their unexplainable doubts about CD, including you Jon. By having a varied array of separate investigations going on at the same time, we can be much more effective and difficult to control (especially control of content). Some people in the 9-11 Truth movement label any investigation into Israel's involvement into 9-11 as anti-Semitic and racist, so what would happen to that wing of our investigation on a 'content-controlled web presence'?

Each member of the 9-11 Truth Movement will put their energy toward what they see is working and where their hearts tell them. I think any effort to pressure people to put all their support behind one publicity strategy or another will turn people away from this movement much more than attract people into it.

I feel so blessed to be a part of this movement, and I have met so many people who are incredibly beautiful on the inside. Thanks go out to all of you for all that you do. Keep it up. We are prevailing.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org