A few of these look all right, but I think they're too wordy. As we all know "Americans Don't Read". We need to hit people with some easy to understand information that can blow their socks off in 5-10 seconds.
I wanna put these on windshields in parking lots, if its a two thousand word essay, they'll put the thing down by the time they hit the first red light.
I wanna PISS PEOPLE OFF as quickly as possible with these.
Aha! This is something I used to do and actually earned money for it. Lots of great suggestions here. If I were doing it, I would indeed go with David Ray Griffin. And, surprisingly, when I discuss 9/11 with people, they find the Put Options very convincing. (I know, it surprised me too.) Griffin's point about this is probably sufficient, as is his reference to the official who said to "pull" WTC7, which is the lingo for controlled demolition. And because that demolation looks eerily like the Towers, well.... (The minute I saw those Towers fall, my engineering background kicked in and I knew it was controlled.)
I agree with links. Here's what I'd do. List the primary links, and then take one or two sentences from the site that describes its mission, and then put that under their weblink in quotes.
IMHO, if people were to see how many other people are continuing to pursue this, Omission Commission be damned, it would cause them to pause. No one pamphlet is going to change anyone's mind, so the goal is to plant seeds and build awareness.
Over time as we all continue to push these points, some of them will finally start sinking in and we'll gradually see converts. (I've already seen a few converts myself.)
Oh, and one more thing, I avoid Flight 93 like the plague. We all know there was major hinkiness going on in western PA that day, but the public wants to believe that out of all that horror, someone was trying to do something, and wants to believe those guys were heroes. As for Sibel Edmonds, that's a tricky area too. I'd only refer to her via Griffin.
You can get a lot of material on a trifold. Use a bold serif font for the links and any heads you use, then follow them with something simple and standard like Times New Roman (also a serif font) for your text. (Serif fonts are easier to read, tend to draw a reader into the text.) On the cover, I would think you'd want one pix of the Towers and one pix of the Pentagon.
And do not use reverse, that is white on black. Very, very hard to read, and pretty hard on printers too.
Just my thoughts, based on experience. Hope they help.
Tired...
Thank you VERY much for your suggestions... In regards to Sibel... why would you avoid speaking about her?Originally Posted by erose001
You're welcome, glad there's something helpful there for you. Let me know if I can help with this.
RE: Sibel. Some people shy away from whistleblowers. I think whistleblowers are the most heroic people in the country. Even when their behavior is questionable in other respects (e.g., Mark Felt aka Deep Throat), that they go out on a limb (and often to court) and risk so much is pretty amazing. (e.g., Sibel, Daniel Ellsberg, etc.)
But the average stupified* American thinks whistleblowers are:
a) Seeking revenge, or
b) Being disloyal, or
c) Are just plain troublemakers.
Americans tend to view all of these characteristics as "unAmerican." At least until the whistleblower has been proven unequivocally correct, and THEN they become heroes to the public. That unfortunately hasn't happened for Sibel yet, because so many people are still in denial about 9/11.
And, unfortunately, all of the characterizations listed above could be mistakenly applied by the individual who doesn't understand Sibel's story toward her actions. And her story is a little complex to explain in a pamphlet. I'd let the links where she is mentioned tell her story for her. I personally thank God for people like David Ray Griffin and Sibel Edmonds and Colleen Rowley (one of the few who has been vindicated, which is why she wasn't invited to participate in the Omission hearings), and even Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill, but the goal here is to build awareness, not alienate.
As for the conspiracy, here's my understanding of it based on my own personal knowledge and the research I've done to fill in my own personal blanks: There is a relatively small cabal of elites who have been manuevering themselves into a position where they could perpetrate a bloodless coup in this country for some 75 years. (All because the People stopped their frickin' robber baron forebears. They had to find another way to do their dirty deals.) The cabal involves people at the highest levels of all the key cabinet departments and the several of the majority members of Congress. Both major parties are complicit, but the rank-and-file are largely not involved, at least to the best of my knowledge. (Although some are doing some secretive work of their own now that they see what the bosses have been up to.)
I agree that much of what we see on the larger scale is ideology run amok. But there is indeed a conspiracy among a few of the muckity mucks in key positions, positions that allowed them to set up and finance 9/11. And while it is true that unintended consequences tend to make larger conspiracies go BOOM (this has been a common theme, in fact, for 75-odd years), this conspiracy did in fact fail in some of its key facets. Even the Omission Commission documented part of that failure, although they incorrectly attributed that failure to Al Qaida.
And with that, I'm going to sit down and write out my own personal knowledge and post it here over the weekend.
* I use "stupify" specifically. The People aren't necessarily stupid. They've been programmed by a media that has been using MOCKINGBIRD techniques for 50+ years to turn them into sleepwalkers, unquestioning "cultish" followers (there is only one truth, and if you aren't with us, you're a traitor), who avoid thinking, who remain in codependent denial, and most of all, who attack anyone who suggests that their government is betraying them. (George Orwell was only off by the date.) Sadly, it took another misbegotton war to start waking them up, but the opinion polls (flawed as they are) do suggest that there is a gradual awakening. But, IMHO, we still have to tread lightly. Let each American awaken in his/her own time. That, in my experience, ultimately makes them more receptive to our message.
I find when I speak about this issue to individuals, the light bulbs do go off. I try not to hit them with too much at once, just enough to plant seeds, which will bear the fruit of future conversations and questions.
Last edited by erose001; 06-10-2005 at 08:23 PM. Reason: To subscribe to the thread
Tired...
Wow... that was beautifully written, and although I don't agree with what you stated about Whistleblowers, I do partially agree with your statements, and only because of experience. I know that people think Whistleblowers are retaliatory in nature, and I know that they are considered, "Liars" until, as you said, they are "proven unequivocally correct".
However, in regards to people like Sibel... I will say the following.
If you look at how people in Government react to Sibel, it's VERY apparent that they don't want the information she has to get out.
1) She was offered a promotion, after the fact.
2) She was eventually fired for Whistleblowing as the Inspector General stated.
3) Senators Patrick Leahy, and Chuck Grassley found what she had to say "VERY CREDIBLE" as a result of their interviews with other members of the FBI.
4) Both Senators have written several letters regarding Sibel.
5) The Justice Department illegally placed a "Gag Order" on her. Stating "national security" and "state secrets".
6) The Justice Department classified her testimony after the information had already gotten out.
6) A Judge, with "great consternation" allowed the "Gag Order" to continue.
7) Her case was recently thrown out of court again, under the veil of "Secrecy".
8) The 9/11 Report mentioned her briefly. As a footnote in the back. After 3 1/2 hours of testimony.
Now, those are facts that can't be disputed. Without stating what Sibel had to say, which in itself, is absolutely terrifying, I think mentioning those things would at least peak someone's curiousity...
just make a pamplet that is titled... "lies of 9-11" i think that would get attention... and cause people to listen... and it's very simple and to the point...
I have different views on this. I agree that the goal here is to educate and to help people discover the facts in their own way and in their own time.
But I think it would be easier to focus on the impact of 9/11. All the historical changes to our constitutional rights. The Downing Street Memo. The firings and judicial mistreatment of "whistleblowers", i.e. Sibel Edmonds, Kevin Ryan and Teresa Chambers. The economic impacts, how some companies like Halliburton are profitting. These are all things that are mainstream and easily verified.
Then perhaps some history. A link and short blurb about the film "Power of Nightmares". Some quotes from the current administration, before and after 9/11, showing how they lied and/or flip-flopped.
I really favor a backdoor approach. You have to start with something easy to swallow and understand. Once you get someone hooked with that, then the process of education begins naturally and through research they can discover the more difficult "truths".
most everyday working class people don't even know what the downing street memo is. if you are trying to get new blood, and the people behind a cause you have to speak their language... the language has to be digestable for them. everyone knows that people died... everyone knows we got in a false war on precidence of the attacks... but the everyday people don't know that they are being lied to. start with that and then get them hooked bring in the intelligent stuff.
Tired...
Excellent suggestions...
Tired...
I love the fact that this is a mutual thing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote