Where's the PDF?

I asked former Attorney General John Ashcroft about WTC7, he said “knew very little about it”

Where I'm at is that those who run under the '9/11' -ticket at this point are sort of playing with fire, so the question is how to encircle the target voters. Since there are only about 5 to 10 Nationwide, we'll either have to help them make each election really count, as in literally go to Florida to poll for your favorite, etc. Or, we'll need to support their effort with a parallel, but not necessarily equal effort.

The perps would not have us be so crafty!

What I came up with is admittedly, a hari-kari approach, but then so is our Nations certain destiny. I'm tyaking a wide-tip and adding "9/11 TRUTH!" to the top of EVERY Canidate's signs. - Now, watch them deny the charge, ass*oles!!

You know, I usually don't like it when people are unneccesarilly critical on here but I feel I have to make a comment about this. Although I am happy that someone is running on an independent ticket and on 9/11, and I am happy he has done A LOT to get out info on 9/11 to the general public--like show people on the streets WTC7 falling on his portable DVD player---that is GREAT---I am a little surprised and disapointed in this ad. I mean, okay, I guess I shouldn't criticize---I don't mean to criticize, but I just think it could have been done better. I mean, am I running for a seat? NO. Have I been on the streets with a portable DVD player showing evidence? Again, NO. However, to me, when you take on this issue and decide to become a dedicated patriot and get out info about it, you have to do everything you can to be responsible for your actions. Everything you do and say about 9/11 individually can shape opinions about it. And, it is my opinion (I may be wrong) that this advertisement was not well done and every effort should have been made to make sure that every word was carefully written, every sentence carefully crafted. A consultant or someone should have seen that this ad is all over the place. It mentions WTC7 but doesn't really say much about it--like how fast it fell. Then the ad mentions PNAC but only mentions two of the members when I could think of a few more names that would have been nice to list to draw a better connection in peoples minds. It then--and this is the most troubling part: it refers to PNAC as trying to get "the key to world power"!
Then, ---just something kind of annoying but, a quote from Bush is used by Matt about our addiction to oil.

WTC7, PNAC---both great things to get people to investigate but neither were properly introduced. Some people might think WTC7 was just one of those smaller building s in the plaza that got damaged. As far as PNAC goes, there wasn't anything really damning said about it. Remember, you have to see this from fresh eyes, from the perspective of someone who does not know about any of this yet. SO, that also means that when mention "key to world power" you have just lost several readers right there. They will think you are a nut job. Too many things mentioned there to comprehend what the hell the author is trying to get at. Also,in the intro, there could have been more done with the mentioning of the two different "conspiracy theories". I wish it wasn't refered as that but since it was, it could have been put in the context of making much more sense and being much more likely than 19 foriegn hijakers with box-cutters and a lead man in a cave.
And my last complaint: the title including the words "9/11 Inside Job". Well, first of all there are some within the truth movement that think there may have been some involvement with the initial idea of an attack including radical Muslims but that our gov. leaders took it on and did there own thing with it or altered it or hired ---blah blah blah, you get my point. My point is: Americans that don't know what the hell we are talking about yet still think it was foreigners and when you throw out there it was an "INSIDE JOB" all of a sudden they will dismiss you because all they know are the faces that were put on their TV screens--and those weren't American faces. You see, I am trying to say, you can't educate people backwards. You have to give them something they can handle, something they can understand, grasp and then move them on to the tougher, more difficult to understand info. Otherwise you have lost them, they will ignore you, think you are nuts. If you truly want people to get on board and be pissed off and ready to stand up for their country, you can't just try and shock them into it. This is not a contest to see who can shock people, who can rant the most, it is about really working smart. We have to be smart about this. We have to do what it takes to wake up the mainstream. And, we won't do that by half-assing it. Our messages have to be wisely chosen.

I know I must come off as a real ass right now. I like Matt, I met him in Chicago. I am extremely proud of what he is doing. He has done more than his fair share in exposing people to the truth. This is not a criticism against him. These are just my opinions about the ad. I know first hand how difficult it is to get a lot of important info you want wrapped up into an ad that can only contain so many words. I understand. And, it is easier sitting here on my laptap and saying these things when I am not in the middle of a campaign and doing a million things at once like he must be right now. So kudos to Matt for even doing this for even getting people to question 911. That is what matters.

My only intention is to get people that are going to put out flyers for a showing of 9/11 related movies or a 9/11 meeting or anything having to do with this issue---to get them to be very thoughtfull in the message they are sending out to new eyes when they are writing or typing those words. When fresh eyes see 9/11, I want them to be interested in looking into it further, to question the official theory, not to immediatley lable us as nut jobs. We have to make our messge consumable and lead to more questions and places that they can find the answers.

Understanding how people learn, understanding how to make talking points, how to "frame an issue", "message mapping", all that needs to be considered when trying to relay an important message---especially when it is complicated such as this.

some ideas:
Maybe state some facts used in bullet points including the sources in small print at the bottom. That way, it isn't something they can easily dismiss.: