[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Feds Raid Alfie Oakes’ Naples Home and Farm with Battering Ram

Democrats Have a New Leader: Kamala Is Out, Says GOP Strategist

The Colorado Voting Machine Fiasco

Trump Lawyer WARNS Letitia James, Vows RETRIBUTION After Trump Win: 'We'll Put Your Fat A** In JAIL'

Tucker Carlson:11/7/2024 "now that Trump is president, i can tell you everything"

Fear-Stricken Pharma Big-Wigs Convene Emergency Teleconference to Thwart RFK Jr.

Judge strikes down Joe Biden administration program aimed at easing citizenship pathway for some undocumented immigrants

CNN faces another defamation lawsuit after appeals court sides with Project Veritas

These Hollywood Celebrities Swore They'd Leave America If Trump Won All Talk, No Walk

Blaze News original: Border Patrol whistleblower's career on the line after spotlighting trafficking horrors

Dems open can of worms by asking about millions of 2020 Biden voters who somehow disappeared in 2024

Deadline: US says Israel failing in aid efforts. What happens now?

Kash Patel, Rumored Pick for CIA Chief, Announces Massive Declassification Will Occur

Hezbollah unveils ‘Fateh 110’ ballistic missile in targeting Israeli sites

Pentagon running low on air-defense missiles as Israel, Ukraine gobble up remaining supplies

An Open Letter To Elon Musk

Is this why Trump was allowed to win?

This Is The Median Home Price In Each US State

Alex Soros Shocked That the Incumbent Political Order Is Being Crushed Around The Globe

Beverly Hills Lawyer Disbarred Two Years After Admitting He Paid a Ringer to Take the Bar

Lumumba: 'I am not guilty, and so I will not proceed as a guilty man.'

Lauren Boebert Wins House Election After Switching to More Conservative Colorado District

AIPAC Boasts of Influence Over Congress, Ousting 'Eleven Anti-Israel Candidates'

Police Searching for 40 Escaped Monkeys After Mass Breakout from South Carolina Research Facility

"You Don't Deserve Any Respect!": Steve Bannon Goes Scorched Earth On Democrats On Election Night Livestream

Putin's ready to talk now that the mentally ill homosexuals have been brushed aside

Trump, the Economy & World War III: Col. Douglas Macgregor

Ex-Top Official Catherine Austin Fitts: Inside Trump’s Victory, RFK Jr., and the Deep State

10 Big Losers That Weren't On The Ballot

Elon’s first day working for the Federal Government


9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: 9/11 for Dummies
Source: N/A
URL Source: http://N/A
Published: Aug 1, 2010
Author: N/A
Post Date: 2010-08-01 09:57:39 by Eric Stratton
Ping List: *9-11*     Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 5002
Comments: 251

What I would suggest is to start a thread on the subject of 911 coincidences and explain in the header essay what you are looking for i.e., "coincidences" that are not arcane and that can be communicated simply to raw public.


Poster Comment:

Per OI's suggestion, that is what I've undertaken.

I have come to the conclusion that the final nails into the coffin of our Republic are being conducted with neocons holding the hammer, willfully and gleefully as our Republik more than slowly becomes a totalitarian state on steroids. I have also come to the unfortunate conclusion that it is primarily for lack of serious personal investigation, willful negligence and ignorance in essence, as the reasons why they believe the official Fairy Tale. They've never seriously looked into the matter, only superficially, and they've been driven by how their political "heroes" in the GOP have responded to the "twoofers;" Lameblow, Hammity, Palin, Junior, Cheney, etc., etc.

Granted, now Hussein is in office and they are blaming his cadre of people for merely continuing on in the BuchCo. legacy, but nevertheless, it is driven primarily by support for "national security," which we all here realize is really "federal government and NWO elite security," and which is all spun off of this notion that there are terrorists lurking around every street corner waiting to blow us all up when if that were even remotely true it'd have been done a thousand times already since 9/11. Instead, it's only happened a statistically insignificant number of times.

It's clear that they're never going to spend as much time researching this as we all do here. After all, they have socials and far more important things to attend to and investments to take care of so that they can all retire when they're 50-years old and play golf five days a week until they die and therefore cannot be inconvenienced to actually consider why they may be lucky to have a set of clubs in five years and access to a course.

So what I thought I would do is attempt to piece together a list of between 20 and 50 items that can be read within say a half-hour and that when considered individually really give cause for people to wonder about it all. 9/11 that is. But that when taken collectively, make them only ask "how can that all be if the Fairy Tale is actually true?" Obviously no one can force another to look, but what can be done is to make the top 20-50 points very easy to access and point out and ingest within a short period of time.

This should be a "Reader's Digest" Short-list version if you will.

Do I think that this is going to be the difference? No. I think that our Republic is toast in a major way regardless with much pain and suffering on the immediate horizon. But I also think that there's a very small window, and ever diminishing one, wherein which if all goes perfectly, perhaps there is at least a degree of hope, and God willing.

If anyone has seen exactly this, please post the link. I have not. I have seen numerous lists that have many items, often "arcane" ones as OI states above. I know that there are also thousands of data points as well, hence the effort.

If these points have blatant video evidence or irrefutable eye witness testimony from indisputable sources it would be good. Otherwise, simple logical "impossibilities" are also good. They should include the points that are the "biggest bang for the buck." I also know that many "financial coincidences" also fit the bill.

I thought we could brainstorm this together. I will keep a "top-50" list, and anyone else can feel free to do the same obviously.

But I thought a concentrated thread wherein only such data points are included and discussion related to them. It would be good to limit the thread to only that to avoid unnecessary clutter in a thread that will probably end up being quite large.

Thoughts?

Already been done? (Where?) Subscribe to *9-11*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 31.

#10. To: Eric Stratton, GreyLmist, FormerLurker, wudidiz, abraxas, christine, HOUNDDAWG, Kamala, RickyJ, IRTorqued, Critter, CadetD, bluegrass, Jethro Tull, Deacon Benjamin, all (#0)

In chewing it over one way to do it is to first "hat" the person you're talking to and get them thinking and not being robotic in regurgitating and stating what they have been "told" to think in the mainstream media. There are a couple of different approaches that you can take but the key point is to gently get them thinking for themselves.

If you know that they already distrust the media then start with that as entry point. Maybe with saying something like: "well we both know that the media is not always trustworthy - agreed?" This has to be done in a non-confrontational manner because you don't want to turn their defense of self on. Do not browbeat them - be willing before you start to take it slowly and gently.

If they are trusting of the media then the prep might be to simply ask if they think the media is correct 100% of the time? Following that you might ask: "If the media is given false information that they think is true and then report that at face value is it still false? (At this point you are not trying to prove the entire media false just to get your subject to realize they are not always right.) If you have an example to throw in at that point all the better. Something preferably non-threatening - something that you are reasonably sure they already know, but just haven't looked at it from the point of view of the media being wrong. It could be celebrity news or something about a natural disaster etc., ... Here you are just trying to get into communication and get them thinking. Communication consists of Affinity, Reality, and Communication. There has to be some affinity between you and them for them to be receptive, and what you give them has to be "real" to them (if you violate their reality you'll lose them) and then Communication takes place. The three are interdependent. When you raise one it raises the others and vice versa. Then you need to hat them on the following basic principle of logic:

If two datums are mutually exclusive the first thing you can know is that one, or both are false.

The patter might go something like this:

You: Ever study formal logic?

Them: They'll give you either essentially a "yes" or a "no". (In either event you'll still take the next step. How you word it depends on their answer.)

If yes then it might go something like this: "Then you may already be familiar with this, but in investigating something and sifting through all the information it is a basic principle that two things that are exclusive of each other can't both be true. Formally it goes that "If two datums are mutually exclusive the first thing you can know is that one, or both, are false".

If they say "no" then it might go: Here's an interesting rule of logic you might find handy as a "tool": "If two datums are mutually exclusive the first thing you can know is that one, or both, are false". {In both cases you need to make sure they understand what the word "exclusive" means (excluding or not allowing other things) - given the level of literacy at present time. Ask them to explain it to you, and if it is apparent they don't have a definition handy. Written down on a card would be nice.} Then you want to get them thinking with this. A simple non-threatening example would be good here. Something along the lines of: "Think of it this way - if one person says it is day and another says it is night it has to be one or the other but it can't be both. Of course if someone says "Johnny's car is blue and someone else says it is green normally it couldn't be both but it could be neither - it might be blue-green and so two people see it differently so neither blue nor green is completely correct.

See if you can get them to give their own example: Can you think of something like that from your own experience?

The next step is to get them to admit the government lies. "Do you think the government always tells the truth?" Most people will say no, if they say yes then you are going to have to take this in baby steps and give them some examples that are clear cut of instances where the government has lied. For someone already a bit aware the "Gulf of Tonkin" might be handy but I am sure most of use here can think of some. It has to be real to you to communicate that reality to them and it needs to be pretty clear cut. I wouldn't start talking about fractional reserve banking just yet.

From this point there is no set patter, but this is where the 911 for dummies list comes in handy. It has to be some of the stuff that is pretty straight forward and easily verifiable.

One start might be: "Did you know that both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the 911 Commission have both publicly stated that their report is inaccurate and that government witnesses lied?"

The path you take is going to vary from person to person. The key is to not get too technical right off the bat otherwise you'll lose them. You have to first present to them a series of simple contradictions that are easy to see and are real to them. Then you have to have the information handy to support what you are saying (including credible sources) - e.g., the time, place, form, and event. Again using the Chairman of the 911 Commission the time, place, form (written or spoken), and what exactly was said.

Another might be to point out, and have the reference handy, that John Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial airlines over a month before 911 citing unspecified security risks. Another secondary point might be to point out that the Patriot Act is ten thousand pages long and yet it was rolled out the week after 911. Do you think it is possible that an intricate ten thousand page bill was written in a week? That it was rushed through so fast that Congress did not even have printed copies to read before they were forced to vote on it?

By and large there is no set path here but you must tread lightly and not make the person wrong otherwise they'll clam up and close the shutters. Invite them to think with the information DO NOT get angry or frustrated with them as very often there is some key datum that they believe to be true which is actually false. Part of the opening of their mind is to find out what that consideration is false, gently showing it to be false - preferably with a reference they'll trust, and replacing it with true information. This might involve a little detective work on your part to figure out what it is. You can confirm this by asking a question: "Do you believe "x" to be true (which you know and can prove false)? This can be easy or laborious depending upon who you are working with, how bright they are to begin with, and the amount of false information they believe to be true. The point is to keep them in communication and slowly educate them by showing them the contradictions between the "Official Cover Story™" and the easily observable and verifiable facts. To be successful you have to do a little bit of homework - and don't get defensive yourself when they start spouting propaganda nonsense.

Original_Intent  posted on  2010-08-01   14:29:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Original_Intent (#10) (Edited)

this is where the 911 for dummies list comes in handy.

I'd like to suggest a different title for this list. The phrase "for Dummies" might be humorous if the topic is like home repairs or basic computer instruction but it is a put-off on such a critical issue that might make someone overly defensive in order to try and prove that identifier of them false and so could have the unintended consequence of making them even more unreceptive to reviewing the information.

It has to be some of the stuff that is pretty straight forward and easily verifiable.

One start might be: "Did you know that both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the 911 Commission have both publicly stated that their report is inaccurate and that government witnesses lied?"

The path you take is going to vary from person to person. The key is to not get too technical right off the bat otherwise you'll lose them. You have to first present to them a series of simple contradictions that are easy to see and are real to them. Then you have to have the information handy to support what you are saying (including credible sources) - e.g., the time, place, form, and event. Again using the Chairman of the 911 Commission the time, place, form (written or spoken), and what exactly was said.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey finally confesses 9-11 Commission could not do it's job - Part 3 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtJWBcWAeAw#t=6m45

[Calls 9/11 a 30 Year Old Conspiracy, starting @ 5:44]

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-08-01   15:33:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: GreyLmist (#12)

deleted

Eric Stratton  posted on  2010-08-01   18:43:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 31.

        There are no replies to Comment # 31.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 31.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]