Reinvestigate 9/11 (Printable Booklet)

We've just finished putting some final edits on a booklet that can be printed and bound at a reasonable price and distributed to people as a first entry into 9/11 truth. It's meant to be more comprehensive than a 1 or 2-page flyer, but a quick read unlike the longer books available.

I've already printed 100 copies at my college printing office for around $30, a pretty reasonable price. Strategies on distribution and presentation to come.

Download an online or print version here:

very well made but a bit too LIHOPpy

I do recognize though, that the booklet includes controlled demolition in regard to the towers and building 7. Unfortunately, that could just make people think that since "they" knew the evil muzzle-'im terrists were going to strike, they took advantage of the fact by placing bombs in the buildings. Or the evil muzzle-'ims could even have done it--they're damned sneaky after all. Sorry, but my impression after reading this would be that al Qaeda exists as advertised and was manipulated to attack America on 9/11. That is just wrong, and serves very well the purposes of the perps--to keep people thinking of arab muslims as evil beyond what anyone else is capable of. Why no mention of the dancing Israelis? THEY sure had foreknowledge--instead we get, in bold type, the fact that the nice Israelis, among others, warned the evil Bush admin of an imminent attack by evil muzzle-'ims. Phooey. The idea here is nice, but the execution is tres flawed.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


target audience

This booklet is aimed specifically toward the well-educated, left-leaning progressive crowd (initially liberal arts students and professors). Many of our possible allies on the left are initially and completely turned off by what they perceive to be our conclusion: that 9/11 was a huge government conspiracy. These people are incredulous at such an idea and will likely dismiss anything we say if they think that's what we think. We have to be strategic in approaching this audience; we can't just go in screaming "INSIDE JOB CONTROLLED DEMOLITION."

What may sound like LIHOP or more moderate arguments are in no way "selling-out" or hiding the truth, they are simply ways of reaching (making curious) certain demographics. We have to be flexible while trying to open people's minds.

International Truth Movement

Think 'target audience'

Your point is certainly not lost on us, as such a response was anticipated.

In promoting 9/11 truth we can not ignore the very real challenge of composing our message in ways that reach many different demographic groups. That's not so much about which facts you present, as how you present them, and which conclusions if any you choose to make. In our street action we have learned that people respond very differently to various approaches to the information. And we are developing a variety of promotional materials as a result.

If I were to tell you that you would be more likely to reach a certain demographic with this booklet, wouldn't that interest you? Are you frustrated that a great many people, such as myself, go from incompetence, to LIHOP, to MIHOP, as they learn more of the facts and relevant history? I don't get it.

While we do have reason to be skeptical of those who try to sell a watered-down or fantastic version of 9/11 truth, in this case I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

First of all, you have only to look at our website to recognize that our position on 9/11 is quite clear. Second, this booklet starts off saying, "There is considerable evidence that elements in the US government were complicit in the attacks of September 11, 2001." That's not LIHOP, or MIHOP, but 9/11 Truth! Debating exactly what constitutes that complicity has come to divide many in the movement, and distract us from the essential recognition that any complicity is criminal.

The movement benefits from a diversity of rational approaches. There simply is no one cookie cutter approach to educating people about one of the most psychologically challenging topics imaginable. Some methods are certainly more effective than others, but as I'm suggesting, what doesn't work for one may work for another.

Good luck with that whole LIHOP/MIHOP thing.

International Truth Movement

getting it right

sorry, but I cringe when I hear someone take the whole "target audience" thing too far. In particular when only one target audience seems to ever be mentioned--the one that needs a nice safe version of the truth to ease them in. OK, how about a pamphlet for those who can actually handle the whole unvarnished truth? Which is that far from being an "inside job" with "complicit government insiders", 9/11 was actually an act of war in which corrupt elements put in power by the fraudulently selected Bush admin received assistance from a foreign power to enact a program of war, based on deceit, that totally fits in with that foreign power's own agenda, and not that of the American people? I too am intensely focused on the "left-leaning liberal" crowd, but I give them more credit than you it seems.

I should also say it seems quite odd that while every no-planer and their brother has their 9/11 site listed in the sites list here, mine is for some reason not considered worthy of mention. I'd hate to speculate here and now why that may be, so I'll just throw that out and people can draw their own conclusions. I'll just say that the fact that links on heavily "linked to" pages are quite helpful to a site's page rank, so it's more than just a simple matter of recognition...

To sum up, I find the argument of "target audiences" to have some validity but with certain caveats--that it not be an excuse to promote a single incomplete version of the truth. The argument, to be taken seriously, must be backed up by a series of materials that target some other audiences, or it sounds like an excuse to indeed, in advance of a major breakthrough in awareness, perpetuate division by setting up those like me who can apparently handle the whole truth against people who will think that the watered down version they were "lured" with, is of course the end all be all. Mark my words that this limited hangout policy will come back to bite the movement if not pursued with great care and with limited intent.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


I vote that your website is added to the list of sites...

I was thinking about the sitelist in the sidebar only a few days ago.

Maybe a blog entry/poll for each existing site should be made and folks should decide whether it should be included or excluded.

The same principle could be employed for newly "suggested" sites.

The poll should run for several days for maximum participation. Vote fraud maybe eliminated by only allowing existing members with at least "x" posts or similar criteria.

It's a move towards "people power" and removes any blame from the site owner/admins when sites are included or excluded.

A bit of democracy if you please :)


Please add RT's website...

Good luck all

The featured sites list

definitely needs some help.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Defending yourself by agreeing with me?..but not really.

You basically just agreed with me, but with a competitive rather than cooperative tone.

First paragraph: My message does not imply that we have taken anything 'too far'. I do not imply, at least in this message, that we should target one audience over another. Please don't oversimplify what we are doing based on this one document. Check the website. I also didn't say that we were focused on the 'left leaning-liberal crowd, although that may be our most receptive audience. You give them more credit? You lost me there.

Second paragraph: We've wondered ourselves what criteria are used to select which websites 911Blogger links to, but that is the decision of the administrators. People we trust. They have demonstrated themselves to be open to the opinion of the community so I know they are listening. Bringing up the absence of your website while critiquing one of our promotional materials left me puzzled.

Third paragraph: "To sum up, I find the argument of "target audiences" to have some validity but with certain caveats--that it not be an excuse to promote a single incomplete version of the truth."

To sum up, you are saying the same thing I did. Why the competitive attitude? There was nothing about our statements that indicated over-reliance upon one strategy. And once again, please check the website before pigeon-holing us.

"The argument, to be taken seriously, must be backed up by a series of materials that target some other audiences, or it sounds like an excuse to indeed, in advance of a major breakthrough in awareness, perpetuate division by setting up those like me who can apparently handle the whole truth against people who will think that the watered down version they were "lured" with, is of course the end all be all."

I assure you that we are all well aware of every concern you are expressing. But are you implying that we shouldn't announce a specific project like this without heavily reminding everyone every time that it's not our only material. Most of the concerns you express are addressed at our website. I've already read yours.

"Mark my words that this limited hangout policy will come back to bite the movement if not pursued with great care and with limited intent."

Here, unfortunately you demonstrate that you never really agreed with us at all. You are calling our strategy a 'limited hangout policy' without, I can only assume, having spent any time trying to figure out where we are coming from.

Here's a couple of heart felt recommendations.

1) Write a paper and add a page to your website that addresses your concerns for this 'limited hangout policy' and its implications.

2) Create your own pamphlet that conveys the evidence and your conclusions in the manner you find most compelling.

3) Conduct a poll, as suggested, to see what others in the community are thinking about your website, and to better determine who your audience actually is.

Despite all this posturing and word play, I wish you the best of luck. We really are more on the same team than not. Your specific recommendations are welcome, and posting to our forum is the best way for us to get the message and respond.


International Truth Movement


Real Truther - please remember that this whole imaginary LIHOP/MIHOP divide is a meme generated by Nico "no planes tv fakery" Haupt.

I respectfully ask that you consider ceasing and desisting from its propagation.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

I agree that it's past time to drop those terms.

I think what RT may be trying to emphasize is that certain theoretical approaches to the events of 9/11 don't go far enough in attempting to dismantle the myth of 19 Swarthy Freedom Haters.® Often overlooked is the fact that 19 SFH, could not have been "allowed" to do any of the many physically impossible things that happened that day. That pretty much sucks the meaning out of LIHOP with a straw. Unfortunately, the emphasis placed on the 19 muzzle'ims® by both the administration and many people in the Truth Movement who imply that the 19 guys are somehow at the center of this story and not the periphery may further reinforce the myth of Islamofascism. The myth of Islamofascism has killed hundreds of thousands since 9/11. The myth of Islamofascism may serve as a "justification" for nuclear war wih Iran. If we aren't subverting this myth in everything we do to promote 9/11 Truth, we're not doing enough.

thanks Cass

I have to learn the unicode for those neat registered trademark signs! Anyway, as usual you captured my meaning through the attitude and translated for the otehrs... Look, International Truth Movement people--I have nothing against you or your site per se. I have a problem with what I see as a flawed strategy--that ifnot handled carefully can actually help perpetuate the worst aspect of the 9/11 crime--the frame up of an innocent people. I have looked through your website and if you want can give you a full critique, but that would only serve to show people the difference in our approaches and what we each consider compelling evidence--which anyone can see just by visting our respective sites. But look--that said, I have no interest in whining like Hufschmid that MY stuff isn't being sold yatta yatta. I take no money and sell no ads, etc. etc.--it's about the availability of a broad range of perspectives, and I think that if NPT sites are listed on the left and mine is not, given that I'm a regular contributor to this site, I find it odd. I'm not hurt or crying or jealous, just curious. I know from my stats that my site is working for what I want it to work for. Anyway, glad to have your contributions, and your responses to my critiques. that's called dialogue!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


So true!

The annoying L/MIHOP terms should have been ditched a long time ago.

I totally understand where he's coming from

I just think that relying on Haupt's oxymoronic and divisive terms does a disservice to the argument.

I haven't had a chance to review the booklet yet so my comment wasn't directly related to that, just RT's post.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

excellent work

This is an excellent 9/11 Truth tool. I'm impressed by the quality of research and the design of the document.

All of this LIHOP/MIHOP stuff is a distraction: The bottom line is that we want another investigation. Don't let the clutter of beliefs about 9/11 obscure the goal of the 9/11 Truth Movement. On that note, this book is excellent.

New Hampshire '08.....

This would be an excellent resource for the citizens in that primary....perhaps it could be handed out/delivered beforehand...

An excellent way to engage

An excellent way to engage people. I could see getting some of these to leave at the library--along with all the other flyers, handouts, and what not. A perfect format for people to pick up and flip through. Hell, we could be like those people who leave Jesus literature on the bus...they're everywhere!

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

definitely looks

definitely looks professional, checking it out myself..

btw, their website design totally 0wnz.

looks good, thanks!

I have not read it all yet, but heres a little suggestion:
On page 3, "Some Basic Questions ..":

"Why did WTC7 undergo a rapid and complete collapse on 9/11 when it was not hit by a plane"

This sort of seems to suggest that a plane hitting it would justify the kind of 'collapse' that happend. Which seems wrong to me. The towers... Anyway,
Could be a language problem , as english is not my first im not sure i get this 100% right.
But anyway, i'd rephrase that to something like:
"Why did WTC7 collapse in freefall speed , with all characteristics of a controlled demolition ? It was not hit by a plane and the fires cannot account for such a complete and symetrical collapse"
Hm, ok, i see its hard to phrase it so that the 'not hit by a plane' is in there (which is important i think), but without hinting that a plane would explain a 'collapse'..

Thanks for the comments

Thanks for the comments, any serious suggestions or revisions will definitely be incorporated into the next editions. Please add your suggestions to the resources page on truthmove as well (or just contact us about them) so we can find them easily.

to altruist: I have been in contact with Paul Deslauriers who is trying to organize all the northeast 9/11 truth groups, and I'll see if we can get a mass printing for the NH area.

to em7: Your point about the "no plane hit the building" implying planes being an excuse for collapse is well taken. Though I wonder what the best way to phrase it is as well, especially because people are often most surprised about WTC7s collapse after finding out that there was no plane impact, or no plausible single cause for collapse...

to RT: If you think you are talking to people who LIHOP and skirt around the truth I'd look twice. TruthMove is out on the streets every weekend with a big puple sign that says "9/11 Was An Inside Job." If that's limited hangout, so be it.

yh, i haven't read it all


i haven't read it all yet, but i wanted to chime in on the WTC7 stuff.. IMO you should definitely comment on the size of the building (47 stories) and what it contained (FBI, CIA, SS, etc.).. your average joe will say 'so what', until they know how huge it was and what was in it..

i printed out the thing last night, but apparently i was too dumb to do the fold down the middle and staple it.. i tried that on my own (without reading the instructions) and the page numbers did not seem to line up, but perhaps i was just slow last night at 2am - which is entirely possible ;)

hey dz, yeah, the actual

hey dz,

yeah, the actual chapter on WTC7 covers those facts and much more in detail... the questions are just a teaser for folks who have never ever been exposed to the idea that the official account may be inadequate.

make sure you are printing double sided (duplex) and have your printer flipping on the short edge (so the pages flip horizontally rather than vertically). also use the print version PDF. if all goes well, you should have a stack of papers with the chapter Failed Investigations facing up (pages 20&21) and the intro at the bottom. go ahead and fold it then : )

let me know if you have more trouble...

ill have to see if my fancy

ill have to see if my fancy printer can handle double sided printing, if so ill give that a whirl - may be worth providing these printing details on the website if there not there..

best wishes!


The printing instructions are there and most printers should be able to handle it, but you could also put a few together in a more casual fashion at your local copy spot. Most do double sided copying, and have a deep stapler available.


Whenever I hand things to people I always tell them that I am part of a Nationwide group of people who are asking for a new investigation into the events of 9/11.

Ignorance is NOT Bliss