TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Programmed responses to 9/11 truth (35 posts)

1. Menocchio
   Blocked

   Is there a predictable pattern of behavior exhibited by people who still believe the OCT when they are confronted with the truth?

   For example, I know a woman who simply flies into tantrums when she hears the topic discussed. She's known that I believe the OCT is a lie for well over a year now. It's as if she is waiting for the TV to tell her that 9/11 was an inside job before she will believe it.

   I'm wondering if there are specific behaviors which are symptomatic of brainwashed personalities. If there are, what do they tell us about the condition?

   Posted 17 years ago #
2. truthmod
   Administrator

   Good questions. We've thought of cataloging a list of the various responses/strategies of resistance exhibited by people who will not rationally consider questioning 9/11.

   Here's a few I can remember off hand:

   • "What was their motive?" (i.e. there is no believable motive)

   • They couldn't get away with it

   • They're too incompetent

   • Stockholm syndrome (i.e. taking on the perspective of our rulers, those who oppress us) This is a symptom of brainwashed people and it's the glue that holds a totally insane/unsustainable system together.

   • A more fundamental/unconscious motivation: people do seem to think that this is in fact "impossible," because things like that just don't happen and it would be all over the media if there was legitimate evidence for it (i.e. "I only believe things when the majority believes them.")

   • "Fuck you"

   • "Get a job"

   • http://www.truthmove.org/resources/videos/patrioti...

   Basically people have a lot of crude strategies that allow them to avoid questioning their own beliefs and examining reality in an honest way. It's also a painful thing to face and our culture is based on the displacement/avoidance of suffering.

   Posted 17 years ago #
3. chrisc
   Member

   I wouldn't call them "programmed responses" but the two main ones I get from left wing activist types are, "it's impossible" and "so what" (of course that fact that the second response answers the first never occurs to these people...).

   These arguments are put forward in the 2006 video of Chomsky that was discussed on 9/11 blogger recently: http://911blogger.com/node/12293

   Posted 17 years ago #
4. Menocchio
   Blocked

   One I always find beguiling is "You are so intelligent. Why do you waste your life on these stupid conspiracy theories?" It might be interesting to try and identify the TV personality a person is parroting. My guess is a lot of what we get back is almost verbatim what someone said on TV.

   I wasn't really thinking in terms of what people say so much as how their demeanor changes.

   Posted 17 years ago #
5. truthmover
   Administrator

   And example of demeanor changing

   We had an amazing experience today on the street. We went to Williamsburg and ran into the tail end of the NYC marathon on Bedford Ave.

   Soon after we arrived a older guy walked by, made some kind of nasty comment and then spit on our sign. We got him to talk to us and he hit us with the usual, you must be crazy line, and Christs4sale jumped in with a clear presentation of facts. Its was soon evident to this guy that we weren't crazy, and before long we were talking about things we could agree upon.

   He had been a part of the 60's generation, and gone to an Ivy League school and seen the divisions on campus. He seemed to have a moment where he remembered that at one time in his life he might have had a more positive response to our skepticism, and then his demeanor changed entirely.

   He apologized for spitting on the sign, told us he appreciated our concern for discovering the truth. And we told him that we understood why he might be frustrated. That it was a common misunderstanding.

   It occurred to us later that this interaction concluded positively because he was first presented with a contradiction in his own behavior and then presented with compelling facts. Despite the fact that he had just spit on our sign, none of us were angry in our response, and instead welcomed him immediately back into a reasonable conversation. We were friendly. And it worked.

   Some of our biggest detractors are merely avoiding the whole thing or only understand what they have heard about us from the MSM. I don't hate this guy for spitting on our sign, even if he just walked away. People handle their avoidance of these issues in many different ways. We just keep trying to get them to talk to us for a minute. Because when they talk to us, they most often leave with at least one thing they didn't know and can't contradict.

   So thanks guy, for actually stopping to talk. And thank you for being honest with us. We were only trying to be honest with you.

   Posted 17 years ago #
6. NicholasLevis
   Member

   An article from a million years ago (2005) on reactions in the populace: http://911conspiracy.blogspot.com/2005/08/mass-ror...

   Without comment, here are some of the popular ones I've encountered:

   • It would take thousands of people!

   • A demolition would require gutting the whole building and carting in thousands of tons of explosives and miles of det wire and making noise for months, every receptionist in the building would realize what is going on!!!

   • A whistleblower who knew everything would step forward and sing for the immediate positive attention from all the corporate media and the 20-million-dollar book contract, immediately bringing down the government! They would hang! (That's how it works in the movies, right?)

   • They're too incompetent! They can't handle Katrina or Iraq, how could they handle this?

   • It's racist to say Arabs didn't do it. (Arabs are just as bloodthirsty and ruthless as white people! Usually followed by a barely-disguised paean to OBL's struggle against imperialism.)

   • "What about your guy Clinton, huh? He let Osama get away! Liberals! Liberals!"

   • Yeah, like Cheney remote controlled the planes into the towers and then pulled the plunger, yeah right.

   • "Who cares? It doesn't matter! We have more important concerns!" (the Chomsky maneuver)

   • "I wouldn't put it past them" (i.e., I'm not going to give it any consideration).

   • Yeah, like the Jews and UFOs and tinfoil hats and conspiracy looooons and woo woo moonbat idiotarians ha ha and fuuuuuck yoooou! Fuuuuuuuuuuck yooooooou!!! (Often coming from people who describe themselves as strict rationalists.)

   • But oil is more expensive now, so it didn't work.

   • "Are you saying WE did THIS to US?!" (Direct quote.)

   Here are two favorites from people who are amenable to the idea of inside job:

   • They had to let it happen or we would have never understood the threat in time. (Too true!)

   • "I know. There's no point in fighting it. If you do you're a loser."

   Posted 17 years ago #
7. christs4sale
   Administrator

   Here is the CIA saying this on their own

   It's for the Warren Report, but it is almost no different.

   http://www.namebase.org/foia/jfk01.html

   To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories.

   Posted 17 years ago #
8. Menocchio
   Blocked

   It's definitely hard to convince people that the MSM could lie so ubiquitously. I'm pretty amazed about that myself. It's certainly not the first time. Another example is the whole Mena drug running operation. I've looked at that situation from several different angles, and there is no doubt that huge stories were spiked.

   http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/...

   This is the article which had been scheduled to appear in the Washington Post. After having cleared the legal department for all possible questions of inaccurate statements, the article was scheduled for publication when just as the presses were set to roll, Washington Post Managing Editor Bob Kaiser (Like George Bush, a member of the infamous "Skull & Bones Fraternity), killed the article without explanation. According to the sidebar which appeared with the Penthouse Magazine version of this story, Bob Kaiser refused to even meet with Sally Denton and Roger Morris, hiding in his office while his secretary made excuses.

   I have a hard time gauging the level of awareness there is on this topic.

   Posted 17 years ago #
9. truthmod
   Administrator

   Oh, another important one:

   • "Well if they're that powerful/smart/devious wouldn't they have just been able to produce some WMDs in Iraq or come through with Bin Laden's head on a platter."

   My answer: if they can fuck up as hard as they've done, gut the constitution, torture people and justify it, etc. and stay in office, they must be "doing something right." Also, it certainly benefits them to have the public think they (Bush particularly) are bumbling and incompetent.

   ---

   But the overwhelming attitude on the street, of course, is neither scorn nor shock, but simple indifference: whatever. Or not even that, but simply non-registration, nothing. America is the land of whatever. Western civilization has been a history of whatever. Nothing is grounded, we live a floating illusion.

   Even among the people who come up to us and seem interested, I fear that most of them do not sustain any real engagement with meaningful issues such as this. Maybe it's just NYC, but it usually feels that this is no more than a fleeting amusement; the real meat of people's priorities are in their careers/consumerism, social/sex lives, art, and entertainment distractions. Clearly reality is not a core priority to these people, if it were, they would be acting much differently.

   ---

   christs4sale: that is a seriously damning statement/document. I'd love to see a collection of the most incriminating "in their own" words quotes by agencies and people like this.

   Posted 17 years ago #
10. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Oh, yeah, I forgot a very frequent one related to the new one you mention:

    • If evidence was being planted and they wanted to go to Iraq why didn't they arrange for the patsies to be Iraqis instead of Saudis?

    One answer is that an anonymous network that is everywhere is good for more than just one war. You don't want it wrapped up with a three-week offensive to topple Saddam, you want an enemy that's good for all purposes for many years.

    But like many of these it's based in the false idea that anyone executing 9/11 as an inside job would necessarily have to be all-powerful to pull it off, and therefore could have dictated all aspects at will, which simply does not gibe with the history of Big Lie or the device of false-flag terrorism. Here is where Mr. Tarpley can be useful after all, in his definition of false-flag terror as a means for waging covert class war by an oligarchy that lacks the political legitimacy to wage it overtly.

    9/11 was, I believe, at least both of the following: an experiment to see what can be gotten away with; and an act of desperation in stealth by a "machiavellian" cabal within the larger oligarchy to enable a form of crisis management that was thought infeasible without a unifying external threat. So far the results on both have been mixed.

    Posted 17 years ago #
11. Danse
    Member

    http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2551

    Posted 17 years ago #
12. chrisc
    Member

    I hacked together a IRC conversation with an activist who believes the official theory into something more readable, last year, this raises points to address (many already mentioned above):

    One Indymedia activist, said, in response to a enquiry about the questions raised by the families of the victims of 9/11, http://911independentcommission.org/questions.html : "Of course some of them are going to be pissed and think that their mighty government should have "done more to protect them" etc. If some of them think that, it's fine with me I guess, it's not really my problem. Generally, I think that focusing on 9/11 as the great atrocity of the modern age is kind of offensive".

    He went on to explain that "the overblown focus on 9/11 is in some way quite racist — ~3000 american deaths get talked about over and over again, but nobody puts anything like the same amount of energy researching, say, how many people have been killed in Iraq. The whole focus on the subject can't help but be racist in and of itself, because nobody would give a fuck about 3,000 dead Africans, Arabs, Persians, etc after five years have passed. People should basically accept that an atrocity occurred (exceptional for the US but nowhere near the scale of, for example, the 3 million Indochinese killed between 1965-1975 by the US war in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos). I just don't see the point of dredging up those particular corpses time and time again, 9/11 this, 9/11 that... there are lots of dead people around, I don't see any real reason to privilege those ones... especially since they were a bunch of fucking stock-brokers anyway I mean, on the world scale, 9/11 is actually a pretty minor atrocity. It is high time that people accepted that a minor atrocity occurred in the United States five years ago, fought back against the civil liberties infringements that it is used to justify, and started focusing more on the hundreds of thousands of people being killed by western governments across Asia."

    This was perhaps going to be in an article that was never completed: http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/UkFeature911#...

    Posted 17 years ago #
13. chrisc
    Member

    Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories.

    This sounds just like the responses I have see across many threads on Indymedia and it reminds me of the Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050116...

    Posted 17 years ago #
14. NicholasLevis
    Member

    chrisc:

    Yeah, I've encountered that one before - come to think of it, it was the first thing Chomsky's co-writer on various projects, Edward Herman, chose to talk about on Sept. 12, 2001, how minor the atrocity in NY was compared to what was being done to Iraq.

    That the even greater atrocity then visited on Iraq followed directly from 9/11 seems to escape him, and your own example. If 9/11 was not an enabling event, these folks might have a point. But it was. Furthermore, if 9/11 was an inside job, then exposing it is the fastest way to end the U.S. government's commission of atrocities in Asia. And as an inside job, it is something far worse than as a mere terror attack: a psychological operation, a traumatization of hundreds of millions of people, an implication of a whole system as opposed to a band of pirate terrorists.

    One thing that bears repeating: 3,000 Americans did not die on Sept. 11. 3,000 more or less randomly people of 80 different nations were killed. And the trauma effect of a live mass murder, the biblical imagery of destruction - which were planned - did psychological damage to people all around the world.

    Posted 17 years ago #
15. giveback
    

    Predictable pattern of behavior...

    Immediately establish a social ranking system. Establishing us into an irrelevant class, which by doing so admits their feelings of relevance toward us. Usually they are betraying their fear of behaving as we do, and their curiosity in doing so.

    Almost every time it's a "form over content" argument, in order to make 9/11 Truth a form over content issue, in order to hit it in its weak spot. As truthmod pointed out, we live in a "whatever" society, one that is fixated on the mutability of form. 9/11 Truth may take away the escapism which drives their obsession on form.

    Posted 17 years ago #
16. NicholasLevis
    Member

    One counter-reaction from our side (if that can even be defined), let's face it, is to try making it entertaining. To pitch it as a thriller or adeventure or science fiction novel, we can all think of examples. Or let's put it more positively: it's always good if you can tell it as a story, assuming you have confirmed your assertions and are satisified the whole is true.

    Posted 17 years ago #
17. chrisc
    Member

    One thing that bears repeating: 3,000 Americans did not die on Sept. 11. 3,000 more or less randomly people of 80 different nations were killed.

    Good point, I'd forgotten that.

    A point I make on this issue is that this is the death toll from the day -- the actual death toll is still rising. Much like the death toll of the imperial troops in Iraq -- only those killed on the battlefield are counted, all those that die later, as a result of injuries, are omitted from the official figures.

    Posted 17 years ago #
18. giveback
    

    There's a difference between entertainment and being engaging. Entertainment fuels escapism. Being engaging more often keeps things clear.

    I recommend challenging their need for a necessary story line. And being engaging is vital, as it involves thorough listening. Really listening to somebody tends to be excellent at opening minds. Otherwise, it's "who's got the biggest and fastest platform".

    Posted 17 years ago #
19. Menocchio
    Blocked

    There's a difference between entertainment and being engaging. Entertainment fuels escapism. Being engaging more often keeps things clear.

    I'm not sure what, exactly you are replying to.

    My view is that "entertainment" does far more than fuel escapism. It also gives people an alternative reality which shapes our personality. Even when we consciously know that something is fiction, when we engage in the pretense of its reality for the sake of entertainment or enlightenment, the exercise has some of the same effect on our subconscious response to real life situations.

    I also believe that entertainment is an important vehicle for reaching people. Sometimes the message can be very subtle, and/or partial. Other times it can be overt and blatant.

    Posted 17 years ago #
20. chrisc
    Member

    try making it entertaining

    The most entertaining thing I can think of wrt 9/11 is the Progressive Collapse Challenge http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/challenge...

    Makes me laugh everytime I look at it and think about it :-)

    Posted 17 years ago #
21. Menocchio
    Blocked

    Entertaining can mean a lot of things. Humor is only one aspect of entertainment. Engaging might be a more appropriate term. It's a bad idea to discuss topics such as the coldblooded murder of thousands of innocent people in a glib and whimsical manner. Something the Judy Wood is wont to do.

    Posted 17 years ago #
22. NicholasLevis
    Member

    There are many examples of entertainment approaches to 9/11 - or let's call them story telling when they are at their best - both bad and good. The usual approach is drama with ominous music and a complete narrative that explains everything, including things the narrator cannot know.

    Posted 17 years ago #
23. giveback
    

    Menocchio:

    I was replying to NicholasLevis' post, the one that originally suggests the use of entertainment.

    The nature of entertainment is distraction. The finest distraction is the finest entertainment, the one which takes us away from the difficulty of the current moment. 9/11 was an extreme example of difficulty of the current moment, at a worldwide level. How people fled from the subject matter of 9/11, after being initially glued to the shock, is the central point of the bind we address in 9/11 Truth.

    Then the real twist is how 9/11 was spun by the Bush Administration, spun whereupon 9/11 is escapism from 9/11. How the ghost and myth and awe and fear of 9/11 is a distraction from the difficult and limited facts of 9/11. It was, and still is, sadistic entertainment.

    Specifically for our causes, the entertainment option encourages 9/11 Truth to present the issues which resemble popular fiction. As a result, we need to defend the absurd and a loss of likelihood instead of pressing the pundits, the politicians, and the people to have to defend their fictitious distraction disguised as awesome fact. We end up taking the fall.

    i.e. controlled demolition.

    Entertainment almost always encourages us to sit still and take it, then move on to a greater entertainment to sit still and take it again. And it's a type of sitting still in which nobody is home. Engagement implies in-the-moment interaction, participation.

    Posted 17 years ago #
24. NicholasLevis
    Member

    People sitting in caves watching movies that will give them the answers.

    Posted 17 years ago #
25. Menocchio
    Blocked

    giveback:

    There is more to delivering the facts than just the facts:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-895814202...

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.