June 10, 2015
By Craig McKee
You feel your eyes getting heavy … your breathing is becoming slow and regular … you are becoming sleepy, so sleepy … you will accept what I am about to tell you without question … you will repeat this to others over and over and over until everyone assumes it must be true.
Now that you’re feeling relaxed, we are ready to begin looking at the best ways to steer the 9/11 Truth Movement away from the strongest evidence that the event was an inside job – what happened at the Pentagon. The first thing is to adopt this basic list of talking points. The fact that the points are untrue should not deter you.
Slip these into 9/11 conversations whenever possible:
- “The Pentagon is so divisive.”
- “Discussing it always causes infighting.”
- “It is tearing the 9/11 Truth Movement apart!”
- “Science tells us that a plane hit the Pentagon.”
- “Yes, this part of the official story is true.”
- “We’ll never know because the government has all the evidence.”
The key is to get the overwhelming evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon off the table while seeming like you really believe what you’re saying. If you do believe it, even better. This evidence can be marginalized by discouraging anyone from bringing up the Pentagon by repeating endlessly how “controversial” it is and how every time the subject is raised, it leads to a fight that can never be resolved. You will appeal to truthers’ desire to unite even if it means they must ditch their strongest evidence to do so. Surprisingly, many will fall for this.
You can tweak the wording of these talking points, but not too much. You don’t want to lose the benefit of endless repetition. The more people hear these phrases, the more they will believe them. If you say them often enough they become true. If you say them over and … well, you get the idea.
Of course, you will be part of a small minority of 9/11 truthers who believe (or claim they believe) that a plane hit the Pentagon. But it doesn’t matter, because by being much more vocal you will create the illusion that you have much greater numbers. It’s all about spin, all about perception.
Part of convincing people that we are all hopelessly split on the issue is convincing them that the government has all the evidence and the public has none. This is false, of course, but it sounds plausible enough to those who’ve never bothered to read about the evidence we do have. Those who have never seen CIT’s National Security Alert are particularly susceptible to this.
Here are some more specific comments that can be powerful if used selectively. Divide these up among your friends so it won’t seem like you’re reading from a script. These are statements you can use as part of actual arguments on blogs, Facebook forums, and in Q & A sessions. These can be very effective despite having no intellectual value.
- “Where else could all the debris on the lawn have come from?” The more slow-witted people may be impressed with this one. Just hope no one asks whether there is 100 tons of debris on the lawn. Or 80 tons. Or 60 tons …
- “But they found the DNA of the passengers inside the building!” This works with people who simultaneously believe that the government can be truthful about evidence they won’t let us see but lying about everything else.
- “There are more witnesses who saw a plane hit than didn’t.” Don’t let people look too closely at these witnesses. Don’t mention that many of them worked for the Pentagon, mainstream media, or high-tech firms linked to the government. Don’t admit that some were not in a position to see what they claimed, or that their quotes cannot be verified or that they contradict each other. If you can, ridicule the idea that the government may have actually planted witnesses to support the official story. Stick to the numbers, not the substance.
- “Oh, and I suppose the government faked everything!” This will work with some people who have forgotten that the entire 9/11 false flag was “faked” in one way or another. What’s cool about this one is that you get to use debunker (JREF) terminology without some people catching on!
- “If we say a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon, the government will release evidence in the future to embarrass us.” Yes, the powers that be are just waiting for the right moment, years from now, to release those Pentagon videos. Some estimates suggest they will do this between 2022 and 2027 to get the maximum impact. We must not give them that chance.
- “If we say a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon, people will think we are conspiracy theorists,” To avoid alienating the public, we should avoid telling them anything they might not already believe. We should figure out what they think now and then tell them that again. This way they will like us.
There are several basic types of plane-impact advocates. Each is valuable to the effort in his or her own way. You may recognize yourself below:
- Friendly and ‘well-meaning’ (good cop): You may be one of the friendly and easy going advocates of the plane-impact position. This approach can be really effective because you can more easily make those who don’t agree with you seem unreasonable and difficult. You can say things like, “At least we agree that al-Qaeda wasn’t flying the plane that hit the Pentagon.”
- Respectable science type (smarty pants): If you know a bit about things like mass, energy, velocity and um, walls and planes and stuff, then you can really impress people even if there isn’t anything scientific about what you are claiming. Graphs and charts are helpful. You know how to correctly use footnotes and may be heard saying things like, “The no-plane theory is irreconcilable with the scientific method.”
- Psycho know-it-all (obnoxious, stupid and/or an agent): You specialize in vicious attacks on forums against anyone who has a clue what they are talking about. The first word you have to look up is “hyperbole.” You may say a variety of incoherent things, and one of those might be, “You’re one of those conspiracy sheep who get all their information from Internet blogs.” You have a very loose grasp of “irony.”
- The self-important “leader” type (very thin skinned): You may have a web site or Facebook forum that you preside over and which you think gives you “truther cred.” You’ve stored many facts in your head, and you hope no one notices how little use you make of them. You get away with paper-thin arguments by adding “lol.” This convinces the more feeble-minded that you are so full of confidence that you are able to pre-emptively mock those who may be thinking of disagreeing with you. A slight variation on the Bush Doctrine.
- Smarty pants support staff (people from other categories may double-up here): Using correct grammar, ideally, you are the type who is always on hand to back up your favorite “Pentagon-plane-impact” researcher. Throw around terms like “respected,” and “credible” and “peer reviewed.”
- Psycho know-it-all support staff (skilled in misdirection): If you notice your psycho boss being challenged by one of those “no-plane-crash” types, you are the one who jumps in with one of the secondary talking points. If the opponent (probably a CIT lover) appears unwilling to give up, then you hit them with, “This is why we should never talk about the Pentagon!” If that doesn’t work, boot the stubborn one out. Along with his/her friends.
- Sheep (follower, uncritical thinker): You repeat what those from other categories say without really understanding it. You are highly susceptible to suggestion and repetition. You may appear arrogant, evenly massively so, despite not having original thoughts of your own. You often say things like, “Well, we can’t prove a plane didn’t hit,” or “We should get the government to release those videos!”
Now it is essential that all those who want to convince us that a plane hit the Pentagon (despite the absence of an actual plane at the crash site) know what they can’t say.
- “I’m suspicious of that video they released.” Never say this. Essential to your contention that a plane crash actually took place at the Pentagon is that the government’s video can be totally relied upon. Don’t forget to add that all radar data is authentic.
- “I wonder if they could have laid those light poles on the grass ahead of time.” Oh my God, you must never say this, even as a joke. The key to defending your position is to convince people that it would have been beyond the government’s capabilities to lay five light poles on the grass without the New York Times finding out.
- “There was something kinda fishy about that cab driver.” No, no, no! To distract from the absurdity of Lloyde England’s story about a light pole impaling his taxi, you must be indignant about how poorly that “old man” was treated by the big, bad CIT guys and their cronies. (“After he invited them into his home!”)
- “The hole in the facade was big enough to accommodate most of the plane.” Some sharpies on the other side might note that it’s essential that virtually all of the plane had to penetrate – except for the “confetti” and a piece or two of the “fuselage” that were small enough that you could throw them in the back of your minivan.
- “Maybe the plane hit the building from a north of Citgo path.” You’re asking for trouble with this one. Both CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth have shown how a north path impact is impossible. Stick to the official path even though it does not allow for the right bank seen by many witnesses.
- “Funny about that book sitting on the stool that wasn’t disturbed despite being right in the path of the plane.” No, it’s not funny. If you blurt this out without thinking, bring up the example of a tablecloth being pulled out really fast without any of the dishes being knocked over. While the other person is trying to figure out what that has to do with anything, quickly bring up the weather.
- “What a coincidence that all the north of Citgo witnesses drew an almost identical flight path, complete with right bank.” Seriously, don’t say this. I mean, of course it was a coincidence, but others may begin doubting this if you bring it up. People can be funny that way. If someone mentions it, just keep repeating, “The witnesses were mistaken, the witnesses were mistaken.”
The key to all of this is to undermine any Pentagon evidence that contradicts the official story in a meaningful way. You must distract the rest of the movement from the fact that a faked plane crash at the Pentagon could only have one culprit, and that’s what makes it so crucial. Do what you can to keep them from realizing how this is the most important proof that exists that 9/11 was an inside job.
So now you’re ready to go out there and obfuscate, distract, and inflame. With a reasonably small number of like-minded cohorts, you can convince people that a 100-ton airplane can disappear, that engines can pass through walls without even breaking the windows, that wings can hit a reinforced wall without penetrating it or breaking off, and that the fuselage can turn to confetti and penetrate three rings of the Pentagon.
Of course, some of you may actually conclude after reading this that the plane-crash scenario can’t be supported no matter how clever you might be in spinning it. If your heart is not really in it, it might be best for you to step out of the debate altogether and leave the sales job to the real keeners.