DEMOLISHED vs. COLLAPSED - The Language of Deception

The language of deception is used against us every day and most of us don’t even realize it has been done to us or realize the devastating effect it has on us. My task here is to expose some of the subtle deceptions hidden within the terminology we in the 9/11 truth movement use every day. My goal is to shine a light on the subtle deceptions that pass under our radar every day and to counter those deceptions with the language of truth.

First we have to consider how we in the 9/11 truth movement describe what happened to the World Trade Center (WTC)? The question is, should we say that WTC 1, 2, and 7 “collapsed” or should we say they were “demolished” and does it really matter all that much? At first glance it may not seem to be a particularly important question as to which word we use. I will expose however that it is, in fact, very important which word we use. Furthermore I want to reveal how and why the debate has been framed from the beginning by our opponents with the endlessly repeated use of just one simple word, “collapsed”.

To illustrate the problem let’s take a brief look at the definition for each of the two words that are commonly used to describe what happened to the WTC on 9/11. Using the dictionary found at we can compare the definition for collapse to the definition of demolish. Take a close look at the two definitions and note the subtle but important differences between them.

1. To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in.

1. To tear down completely; raze.

Consider for a moment the difference between something that has “fallen down” (collapsed) and something that has been “torn down” (demolished). It is obvious, once we look closely, that the two words really mean two completely different things. We should take note that the word “collapsed” was not chosen by the US Propaganda Ministry by accident. When applied to what happened to the WTC buildings, collapsed means the WTC buildings fell down, while demolished means they were torn down. One term implies the buildings “fell” or “caved in” as a result of weakening from fire and damage while the other term implies the towers were “torn down” or “razed” with pre-positioned explosives. Obviously the word you use to describe the demise of the WTC buildings will depend on your perspective of what happened right? Not necessarily if the debate has been framed in advance and we have been carefully conditioned through endless repetition in the corporate media. If we have been “framed” we will see both ourselves and our adversaries using the term “collapsed” on a regular basis.

Take a moment to think about how marketing firms sell products to you. Do they ask you to buy their product? No they don’t. Do you even notice what they actually say in commercials and advertisements? Do they affect you subliminally? Advertisers tell you why you need their product, they tell you to buy it like a parent tells a child to brush his teeth. They don’t ask you anything. Watch a few commercials and see for yourself the technique in action, write down what they actually say so you can see it in print. Test it yourself see if you can find one professional print ad or commercial where the customer is asked to buy the product rather then told to buy it or one where the customer is asked his opinion of the product rather then told what his opinion should be. Politicians and their allies at the Disinformation Ministry use these techniques all day, every day to distort the truth and “frame” the debate on all kinds of issues. You can bet your bottom dollar they use these techniques to their fullest when talking about 9/11.

Marketing firms regularly work on political campaigns and even take the lead in designing huge propaganda efforts such as the now infamous baby incubator story. In that instance Hill and Knowlton, a large US marketing firm, trained the Kuwaiti Ambassadors daughter to come before Congress and lie about how Iraqi soldiers had taken babies out of their incubators and left them on the cold floor to die. How many people still don’t know that this story was a lie to this very day? How many don’t even realize they were tricked into supporting Desert Storm by a marketing firm and an aspiring young Kuwaiti actress? Wag the Dog anyone?

Propaganda tactics like these have a very powerful effect on people and we have to understand how they work if we are going to have any hope of winning the information war. As 9/11 truth advocates we need to think carefully about how “framing the debate” is accomplished, how effective it is, and how to combat it effectively.

Consider this excerpt from Commondreams called “Framing the Debate” By George Lakoff

Take the term “tax relief,” for example. The phrase started appearing in White House press releases on the day President Bush took office, and it has been repeated over and over ever since. But it’s what is behind the words — the mental structure known as a “frame” — that matters as much as the words themselves.

For there to be “relief” there must be an affliction, an afflicted party harmed by the affliction, and a reliever who takes the affliction away and is therefore a hero. And if anybody tries to stop the reliever, he’s a villain wanting the suffering to go on. Add “tax” to the mix and you have a metaphorical frame: Taxation as an affliction, the taxpayer as the afflicted party, the president as the hero, and the Democrats as the villains.
Every time you hear the term, those subliminal meanings resonate. Once the campaign repeats the words day after day, they end up in every newspaper and on every TV and radio station, and the term becomes the way TV commentators and journalists talk about taxes. And pretty soon the Democrats are forced to talk about their own brand of “tax relief,” for the middle class. But by adopting the Republicans’ language, they have adopted one of the GOP’s central ideas. Every time they use the words, they reinforce the idea.

That’s because once phrases become part of everyday language, their frames become physically fixed in people’s brains. When this happens, mere facts don’t matter. If the facts don’t fit the frames, the frames stay and the facts are ignored. Once the Republicans see their frames accepted, they have an overwhelming advantage in every debate. Their frames become the new common sense, because frames define what common sense is.

With this in mind it becomes obvious that 9/11 Truth advocates should not use the term “collapse” at all but should instead replace it with “demolished”, but do we as a group allow ourselves to be framed by using the term “collapsed” in our conversations? Yes unfortunately we do and it needs to stop so we can reclaim the initiative from the propaganda masters in Washington DC and the corporate media. It needs to stop now.

This brings us to the question of how we as 9/11 investigators should speak about 9/11 and the words we use to make our points. I propose that we as a group immediately take the initiative and re-frame the debate. We need to start putting our detractors on the defensive from the moment we begin speaking. We need to force them to explain why the demolitions were not really demolitions, why the squibs aren’t really squibs, and why explosions are not really explosions. We must start training ourselves to re-frame the debate instead of putting ourselves on the defensive by using the deceptive language of our detractors, essentially framing ourselves into a situation where we are on the defensive, having to explain why what happened to the towers was not a “collapse”.

To accomplish this re-framing we need to consistently use the terms “demolitions” or “demolished” or “brought down with explosives” or “exploded” in all our conversations and eliminate the term “collapsed” from our vocabulary whenever we are discussing 9/11. It is vital that we as a group re-frame the debate and take the initiative away from the proponents of the official propaganda and take it back for 9/11 truth. In the final analysis the truth is that the WTC towers were demolished, exploded, blown up, proving conclusively that 9/11 was an inside job! It is about time we re-claim the initiative and put the deniers on the defensive with the truth! The towers were DEMOLISHED!


1. Demolished
2. Exploded
3. Blown up
4. Brought down with explosives.

Conspiracy theorist
1. 9/11 Researcher
2. 9/11 Investigator
3. 9/11 Truther

1. Denier
2. Deceiver

Mainstream media
1. Corporate media
2. Propaganda Ministry
3. Disinformation Ministry

1. Distort
2. Falsify
3. Lie


I am very conscious of the words I choose to describe what happened to the 3 buildings. Demolished is the more accurate word, I agree. Perhaps "blown to smithereens" is too verbose. The misleading phrases "pancake collapse" and the action verb "pancaked" were repeated by the public once heard in the propaganda stream.


We are indeed in a war of words.

The truth is on our sides, and words with the fortifier of truth are invincible.


The government's conspiracy theory

does not adequately explain the complete destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7.

Whenever I use the word "collapse" I always make sure to put it in quotes. Destruction and its variants are good words to use and don't seem quite as forced or biased as demolish and its variants do in certain contexts. No one can reasonably argue that the buildings were not completely destroyed, it is the method of their destruction that is the debate (and the facts and physics all point to demolition).

Language is very important and I frequently stress this to other activists when we talk about working with the public. But it is also very important not to go too far as I think terms like "Propaganda Ministry" and "Disinformation Ministry" do. We don't want to come across as propagandists ourselves, as this will not serve our own credibility well.

It's also very important how you frame your audience as well. We will not have much success if we identify all those who don't already accept 9/11 as some form of false flag event as "deniers" and/or "deceivers", many are simply misinformed or uninformed and while they may, at present, accept the government conspiracy theory, this is often due to a lack of correct information that an amicable education by way of a friendly dialogue will frequently change.

So we do see that language is vitally important, both to correctly present the information in an unbiased and accurate manner and to engage our audience in a positive way, so they will ultimately be receptive to our message.

I suggest having the confidence to use more neutral language when introducing the issue and then as one provides information one can frame it with the appropriate terminology, this is an inductive approach which I have found success with.

Thank you for raising this very important and often ignored topic.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Thanks for your constructive criticism.

I would like to expand on some of the points I made that you took some exception with. For example you said: "But it is also very important not to go too far as I think terms like "Propaganda Ministry" and "Disinformation Ministry" do."

I would argue that those terms are quite accurate for describing the media. Consider the following:

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - William Colby former director of the CIA

Here is an excerpt about operation Mockingbird:

"Later that year Wisner established Mockingbird, a program to influence the domestic American media. Wisner recruited Philip Graham (Washington Post) to run the project within the industry. Graham himself recruited others who had worked for military intelligence during the war. This included James Truitt, Russell Wiggins, Phil Geyelin, John Hayes and Alan Barth. Others like Stewart Alsop, Joseph Alsop and James Reston, were recruited from within the Georgetown Set. According to Deborah Davis (Katharine the Great): "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles."

In 1951 Allen W. Dulles persuaded Cord Meyer to join the CIA. However, there is evidence that he was recruited several years earlier and had been spying on the liberal organizations he had been a member of in the later 1940s. According to Deborah Davis, Meyer became Mockingbird's "principal operative".

One of the most important journalists under the control of Operation Mockingbird was Joseph Alsop, whose articles appeared in over 300 different newspapers."

Also Noam Chomsky argues convincingly in manufacturing consent that the media is "A propaganda model". Although Chomsky is not a 9/11 truther, why I have no idea, he does prove his point about the media.

Lastly Robert Greenwalds documentary Out Foxed lays out a convincing case that at least in the case of NEWS Corp the media is propagating pure propaganda.

I therefore maintain that labeling the MSM with the terms "Propaganda Ministry" and "Disinformation Ministry" is an accurate and correct way of describing them.

As to the term "Debunker" what I am trying to say, perhaps not very clearly, is that the word itself is a "frame" in the context of 9/11. JREFers fancy themselves to be "debunkers" but if we use that term to describe them we are again framing ourselves and giving them a big advantage in debates. Your point about describing those people who do not already accept 9/11 truth as deniers" and/or "deceivers is well taken and please know that I do not consider the uninformed to be such. I agree 100% with you that care must be taken when dealing with those who are simply uninformed about 9/11 truth. Deniers "debunkers" are in my view the professional disinformation operatives such as JREFers etc who actively attack 9/11 truth using disinformation tactics and propaganda. Those who are simply uninformed don't do that. So again thanks for the constructive criticism and for pointing out some of the unclear references in my article, it is appreciated.

This is why I suggest taking an inductive approach

with a neutral or uninformed audience.

I'm not talking about how we interact with committed (professional or amateur) "debunkers" as I consider any time spent engaging them in public to be time wasted. They should be ignored in as civil a manner as possible whenever possible.

When we are out educating the public, most people don't know about Operation Mockingbird, the Colby quote and the other significant facts regarding the near total control of the media by the elites. Thus, we need to carefully educate them before we start throwing around labels like "Propaganda Ministry" and "Disinformation Ministry" or we risk coming across like extremists and turning them away before we even have a chance to make our case about 9/11.

More and more people are becoming disenchanted with the mainstream media every day, so many are already leaning our way on that. We need to be very smart about how we bring them the rest of the way. We already have more than enough facts to make our case. It all comes down to public relations in the end. My general guidelines for working in public are:

Be friendly and positive, engage each person as an individual.

Wear a bright colored shirt and hat (if you're in the sun).

Work in ones and two's. A large group of activists all together is intimidating to many, so spread out and be accessible.

Start with a greeting and then ask a question. (e.g. "Hello. Have you seen building seven?" Or "what do you think about 9/11?")

Let them talk, listen carefully and respond to what they say. Find out what their questions are about 9/11 and use that as a starting point. Create a dialogue.

Avoid speculation and admit when you don't know the answer. I always use the gaps in the public record to reinforce the need for a new investigation. All the unanswered questions make our case for us.

Keep it non-partisan and make sure everyone understands that this is a non-partisan issue.

Make sure that whatever you hand out has contact information on it, or at least a web address so they can pursue it further on their own.

Finally, bullhorns are useful only in very limited situations, so please be very judicious in how you use them. When in doubt, don't use them.

I realize that most of this is very basic and common sense, but too often I find myself working near someone who is either angry or frustrated and they project that out to the public, which is always counter-productive.

Speak softly and carry a big bag of facts.

We're getting close to the tipping point, brothers and sisters, let's keep our eyes on the prize!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Well said LeftWright.

Your comments are well received and I particularly like your "speak softly and carry a big bag of facts" remark. I have been active in 9/11 truth since 2002 and I have found that the positive and friendly approach to the uninformed is by far the best way to go. I do think though that refering to the MSM as the ministry of propaganda often results in the following question. "What do you mean by that?" or "Why do you say that?" Which opens up the opportunity to explain to people things like operation mockingbird. Each approach is different and I grant that you may reach some people with your methods that I won't, however some will be reached by my approach that you can't reach. In the end by working together we can reach most of the people. The tipping point is close so let's all give it another push!

Great little article on an important topic

Great little article on an important topic.

I think that this psyops aspect is very important to keep in mind at all times. As such I think it is important for everyone (especially those that argue on the internet) see these 2 pages (I'm sure there are others, but these are the 2 I know about) "38 Ways to win an argument" "how to debunk just about anything" (for this link ignore the fact that it's from a UFO site, the info is valid for any type of debunking)

I think it is important to know what tactics debunkers will use against you so you wont fall into their traps, even if most of the people who use these tactics are just braindead zombies and not professional debunkers.

It's all very simple,

the WTC towers were blown to pieces, while WTC 7 was demolished.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Never use the word "collapse".

I never try to use the word "collapse" when describing what happened to WTC1 and 2. I usually use the word "destroyed" since that can posit multiple explanations for the destruction of the towers. Chuck Thurston made a similar argument here.

Of course, the official explanation now is that the buildings were destroyed via a heretofore unheard of process known as a crush-down crush-up. Most people who support the official explanation don't even know what that is. If they knew the official explanation, they would probably stop believing it because most people don't want to admit they believe something so ridiculous and stupid.

Nevertheless, we might disagree on the tax issue.

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy." John Marshall

"Everybody knows the boat is leaking

Everybody knows the captain lied."

Everybody knows 911 was an inside job. Pretending that it wasn't is just a game - a stupid, pathetic game.

Here is a link to Leonard Cohen's song: "Everybody Knows."

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died

Everybody talking to their pockets
Everybody wants a box of chocolates
And a long stem rose
Everybody knows

Everybody knows that you love me baby
Everybody knows that you really do
Everybody knows that you've been faithful
Ah give or take a night or two
Everybody knows you've been discreet
But there were so many people you just had to meet
Without your clothes
And everybody knows

Everybody knows, everybody knows
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows, everybody knows
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

And everybody knows that Jesus was born in Bethlehem without a single dime
Everybody knows that the homeless people could be themselves some other time
Everybody knows the deal is rotten
Old Black Joe's still pickin' cotton
For your ribbons and bows
And everybody knows

And everybody knows that the plague is coming
Everybody knows that its moving fast
Everybody knows that the naked man and woman
Are just a shining artifact of the past
Everybody knows the scene is dead
But theres gonna be a meter on your bed
That will disclose
What everybody knows

And everybody knows that you're in trouble
Everybody knows what you've been through
From the bloody cross on top of calvary
To the beach of Malibu
Everybody knows its coming apart
Take one last look at this sacred heart
Before it blows
And everybody knows

Everybody knows, everybody knows
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

Oh everybody knows, everybody knows
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows

Gen. Stubblevine interview...

Found this link to an interview (with German subtitles, don't know the source of the interview) with Gen. Stubblevine over at Global Research today:

Remember, this is a retired general saying these things! I don't know when this interview was done, maybe it's old news, but what he says about the American press, along with the obvious controlled demolitions of buildings 1,2, and 7, and that jet fuel fires couldn't possibly melt the whole structure...

If it is current, maybe it could make it to the 911blogger opening page?


That dude will say anything. You really need to see him in Jon Ronson's "The men who stare at goats" to get a feel for where he's coming from.

Not recommended as a primary, secondary, or tertiary source, IMO. Keep him on the bench.

The Soviet Union and Remote Viewing


the paranormal program Gen. Stubblebine ran when he was director of INSCOM (Army Intelligence) during his tenure between 1981-84 was a disinformation campaign to get the Soviets to divert their resources into useless projects. Jon Ronson takes Army Intelligence's foray into the paranormal at face value, overlooking the landscape of what was going on in the international scene at the time. In other words, Ronson takes at face value the work of an intelligence agency that is inexplicably talking about its work!

The question is: Why do former members of Army Intelligence still talk favorably of the paranormal programs they worked on? You can find the answer to that question in the article, 'The World Trade Center Attacks in Perspective', at The article can be found under the heading 'Previous Articles' at

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC