More thoughts on what to do and how to be most effective

I posted this answer to "moodforaday" in one of my other posts. I believe the subject of goals for 9/11 Truth is of paramount importance and I hope that this discussion will both inspire us and help us move forward.

To moodforaday:

I also am "heartened to see the movement grow" and agree that "we probably will get the media before we get Congress."

But ultimately, this issue will have to be investigated and only Congress has the power and jurisdiction. I mentioned Kucinich only because he has already decided to open a "limited investigation" in September.

I have been making the point about a new Congressional investigation for three main reasons:

1) It is the logical next step and in perfect accord with the scientific method. (If the theory contains serious anomalies, it must be reconsidered.)

2) Only Congress has the legal authority to require testimony under oath.

3) It is the clearest way to state our argument. For this reason, it is fairly easy to defend. It is hard for the average person to disagree with it.

I do not know how representative of the US population the answers I have gotten here have been, but they have made me think about what I am saying. I have reached a couple of conclusions since I first posted this:

1) A lot of people have zero faith in the US Congress or the US political system. That's probably a good thing because they do suck. They are a bunch of lying puppets backed up by a fake news media. Having a specific goal may depress some of the people who do not trust Congress and cause them to become even more dissatisfied and even less effective. I hope this result is not widespread.

2) The only other positive "goal" anyone has proposed is grow the movement, or as you put it "the only way to make it unstoppable is to have many millions of people on our side." I completely agree with this. I do not see any contradiction between this goal and the one of getting a new investigation (except for the point just above).

3) Maybe it is a good thing for even more people to become thoroughly dissatisfied with the US system. If that trend continues, we will truly find ourselves in a "cold civil war" as some have called it. This state would recognize that 9/11 is essentially a symptom of something much worse. As property values and the dollar fall, this outcome will become more likely. But it, too, will have to be resolved through some sort of political process.

4) By "grassroots" do we mean a lot of people, or the strong emotions of some people who feel thoroughly powerless and angry? Powerless, angry people will affect the political process, but in this country they usually become diffuse, go off in different directions, and weaken their effectiveness. Short of a revolution, which is extremely unlikely and would be far more destructive than constructive, we surely need deep reforms in the system we have--in campaign financing, lobbying rules, and the way in which issues are presented to the public by the media. Is there a better wedge issue for this than 9-11? I believe this is the best single issue we could ever hope for.

5) The internet has brought about a massive change in the media. All of us know many things about 9-11 that we would not know without the internet. Can we use this new medium to effect major change in the US? I believe the answer is yes. How will we do that? For me, the answer comes back again to having clear goals and doing whatever we can to realize them.

6) It may be too early to press for this one goal right now, but waiting can be even more perilous.

7) For me, it comes down to this: either accept your servitude and powerlessness or do something. If you are going to do something, do something that can work. Congress is made up of only a few hundred people. There are millions of us. I say, let's spend the money, make the noise, and put pressure where it counts.

More thoughts on a Congressional Investigation

Hi Alvin,

The effort to start a Congressional Investigation (CI) should not be seen as an end of itself. It is very possible that no representatives will be willing to investigate for whatever reasons. It is important to use the opportunity however to put on record that none of the representatives are willing to do so. This will also make it clearer that a more drastic effort for change would be necessary. I have the following reasons for supporting the CI route:

1. Media mileage which would help grassroots education (more truthers)

2. Offer hope for change - 9-11 truth is unpalatable to some because it would put them in a hopeless situation where the authority is the enemy, their response is to deny the truth instead - people don't want to root for a looser. A Congressional Investigation offers some hope that the institutions of democracy will save the day, thus they can keep their paradigm while absorbing 9-11 truth.

3. If the CI could be orchestrated well enough - backed by political pressure from truthers in the form of rallies, media campaigns, etc, perhaps, just perhaps, some of the conspirators will get scared or get a conscience and testify with insider information which would lead to even more media mileage and new facts to convince more truthers. The first goal of the CI is to expose the official conspiracy theory as a fraud, this is a very reachable objective.

4. The effort to mount a CI will expose the people in Congress who oppose 9-11 truth. Anyone who opposes the CI can be fair game for negative campaigns in future elections. 9-11 truth is a growing network, use it so no truthers will ever vote for anyone who opposes a 9-11 investigation.

5. If the CI effort is effectively sabotaged by the conspirators, then at least it is made clearer to those in the movement that a revolution is necessary.

I already see that 9-11 is a symptom of a failed democracy. The complete cover up and the failure of any representative to come out in the open and effectively oppose the relentless march to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now people are dead and dying and still there is little sign that your representatives will step up effectively to change things. Let the movement use Congress and other gov't institutions for what good they can be used for but let us not have any illusions about which side they have been advancing and protecting for a long time.

Support a Congressional Investigation of 9-11


Hey, Juan, it is getting

Hey, Juan, it is getting lonely over here!
I agree with what you say above.
Just in the last few days we have had some great news--something on the View and Clinton's fake 9/11 "probe" in June.
These are good opportunities to advance our position.

Here's am example of how having the specific, rational goal of a new Congressional investigation can help us.
When people go on the View, there is the chance that they will all say different things, that some of them will not make their points well, or that they will be cut-off due to time concerns, etc. If they all go in and make points different from one another, the overall message will not likely be "TV-friendly." Viewers will be confused and make judgments based merely on the appearances or emotions of the speakers.
In contrast, the "official conspiracy team" will also have their day(s) on the View. You can be sure they will mostly all be on the same page singing the same tune over and over--"sleep little children, the OCT is true because we keep saying it is."
If the 9/11 Truth people hammer home the message that the OCT must be false and that THEREFORE we need a new Congressional investigation, and if they do this again and again, they will be very "TV-friendly" and be a most effective counterpoint to the OCT creeps.

Put another way: It is very hard to convince a TV audience in the short time given that the buildings were blown up. This leads to all the usual questions that can only be answered in a longer time-period ( a very long one for some people).
If, however, our people stick more or less to the argument that the OCT must be false, the questions they will be asked will be much easier for them to field. Example: Why do you say it is false? (Collapse times, etc.) Well, if it is such a bad theory what do you propose? (Follow the scientific method, look for a new theory, a new Congressional investigation, etc.)

This basic argument is rational, clear, pragmatic, easy to understand, and it appeals to the reason of the listener. That seems much better to me than a bunch of people all punching away at different parts of the problem.