Once I made the transition form investigating the truth, to dispersing it, I thought at first that others would easily recognize what's going on. But instead was called many nasty names, considered crazy or gullible, or grossly misguided. I realized that although its easiest to get thru to those who trust me implicitly, or those who have always thought the government was behind a lot of evil crap, it was still difficult to get thru even to a Bush or Republican hater, and impossible to get thru to the white house supporters and true skeptics. For the last 3 weeks, I've used everyone that I've spoken to as test subjects. I've studied reactions to words like "conspiracy", "theory", and "activist", and discovered that these words are damaging. Conspiracy implies paranoia, theory implies unsupported by validated facts, and activist implies politically anti-bush, republican, or government.

I've gauged the results of talking to people based on "over the phone", "in person", and "in person with evidence in hand". The results are obvious, you are less likely to ever succeed over the phone unless the receiver follows up with viewing DVDs or goes on line after to review the evidence, and its too easy for them to cut you off and hang up. You have a better chance in person, but you still need to trust that they will review further on their own, and your best chance is to have the evidence in hand when referring to it, at least the first 3 or 4 things. If you validate the first few pieces of evidence, it provides more validity to what you will divulge after. Talking about what you’ve read or heard, bears much less weight unless you have the proof in hand. We have been conditioned to be skeptical of what reporters write as they are capable of telling half-truths, twisting the truth, omitting the truth, or blatantly lying. So how can you battle the paradox of supporting “I read this article…”…or “this reporter said this…” when many prefer not to believe everything they read in the papers. I’ve heard it a couple of times “you believe everything you read?”, followed by a skeptical laugh.

I've also tested the delivery of the information depending on who you are talking to. For vets, I start with Pentagon anomalies. For fire, rescue (I'm afraid to try a cop) talking about the toxic dust at ground zero works pretty good. For lawyers, using any obvious incriminating evidence or falsified evidence has been successful. The results in talking to individuals has gone from 2 of 10 accepting it, to 9 of 10.

If presenting to someone in person, I usually have a copy of the FBI Wanted poster of Bin Laden, attached to the Muckraker report that questions why the FBI has not charged Bin Laden with any connection to 9/11. I then discuss the bogus confession tape which clearly shows a "right-handed" individual, yet the FBI Wanted poster states Bin Laden is "left-handed". I keep a copy of "9/11 Facts: Ten-Page Summary of 9/11", which is an excellent timeline of tidbits, each one backed up by several mainstream media reports (www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg ). I also keep a printed copy of “911 Timeline”, which is the most comprehensive minute by minute record of 9/11/01. Bits that are relevant to the 4 different planes are color coded for easy scrutiny (www.911timeline.net ).

Just these 3 pieces of hard evidence have worked wonderfully to peak interest in viewing the videos I have available which can all be “googled” as well, but providing the hard DVD makes it easier for them to then share with others. The first anyone should watch is 911: Press for Truth, which does an excellent job of revealing the cover-up. Follow-up videos then reveal what they are truly covering up, 911 Mysteries, Reopen 911, Loose Change 2nd Edition are my favorites.

We are all in this together, but we are wasting time energy and resources if a lecture or movie showing hooks 75% in the room, but we leave them with not enough to hook more than 10% of who they may talk to. Explaining to them to “share the info with friends and family” is not enough. We need to solidify a basic strategy to ensure successfully sharing the info. When I hear “forget the skeptic or Bush lovers and just move onto the next person”, I can’t accept that when there are so many of them. Not when there’s a possible way to awaken even the most complacent, ignorant Americans. The movement can grow 2 different ways, a revolution that takes back the government and restores the constitution, or a civil war that allows the government sit back and smirk while we tear ourselves apart.