"9/11 TRUTH" was always a poor choice of words

The phrase "9/11 TRUTH" has been demonized in the popular media for years. It is a dead term. It has all sorts of negative associations from space beams to tin foil hats to people who shout and interrupt with incoherent messages.

It is dead.

It was never a good marketing term, and it was always open to attack that we are pushing untruth under the banner of "truth."

The term that packs a much better punch is 9/11 Cover-Up. The Cover-Up is more tangible. It can't be immediately dismissed because everyone, and I do mean everyone, accepts that there are covered up aspects that the government has hidden from us.

Cover-Up puts the focus back onto those who are covering up, rather than onto unreliable sources spouting inanities on message boards.

Cover-Up prompts the listener to consider whether to take a side regarding the Cover-Up issue.

Cover-Up suggests a mystery, and piques curiosity.

Cover-Up has an exciting movie quality, that there is more to the plot that we should want to discover.

Cover-Up leaves open the possibility of criminality, and of uncovering more suspects.

Cover-Up can be considered treason in this matter.

Whenever the term 9/11 Cover-Up is brought into the discussion, a couple of handy facts about WHAT IS COVERED UP can easily accompany the complaint (and these are complaints). In this manner we can demonstrate UP FRONT some level of expertise and factual accuracy above and beyond what the listener is likely familiar with. It is always preferable to speak with authority and accuracy than to grovel under the false guise of "asking questions" and/or arguing over differing interpretations of the meaning of events.

Cover-Up is Treason

Some Cover-Ups are worse than others. In this case, we have the force of morality on our side. If some US officials know about foreign government sponsorship and/or participation in the attacks (Saudi, Pakistani et al.), and they refuse to execute their sworn oaths of office to defend the United States from these attackers, then they are technically committing high-treason.

It appears likely now that numerous congress critters are open to the accusation of treason, and they have clearly failed in their duties to expose what they know about the sponsorship of the 9/11 attacks.

This bi-partisan Cover-Up is simply unacceptable and morally reprehensible. It shouldn't be all that difficult to get the masses to see these basic facts, even without the corporate media, as long as they are presented simply as basic facts.

The 9/11 discussion has been derailed, obfuscated, demonized, lampooned, and ignored in part because of poor presentation. Keep it simple, stupid. One does not need a PHD in Civil Engineering to say: "Foreign governments" participated in the 9/11 attacks and funded the hijackers! Why is this covered up? Isn't that treason? Isn't the 9/11 Commission a fraud? Call the Attorney General!

Cover-Up is provable, and beyond a reasonable doubt.

"9/11 Truth" is intangible, subject to the whims and biases of the speaker and the listener, and gets us nowhere. It actually sets you up to derail your own message by making it about everything BUT the message.

Lastly -- "9/11 Cover-Up" makes it a current issue, and about who is covering this up right now. It's not about what happened 8 years ago, and it's not historical. It is about ongoing crimes by current office holders who continue the treason, and we demand a remedy now.

Don't give the words away

They'll always try to distort every word in its meaning that could harm them.

With every word. It was the same with anarchy or matriarchy. So it is possible better to fight for the words meanings, to give them the right connotation, instead of surrender in this mockery game.

I like it.

I never could stand the word "truther" and always felt embarrassed when I found myself saying it.

"Cover-Up is provable, and beyond a reasonable doubt."

as is "INSIDE JOB"

and "Controlled Demolition"

How about 9/11 EXPOSE'?

Too French sounding!

We aren't the cover-up

We are going up against the cover-up. They are the falsers, we are the truthers, that is simply and fact based. Another good term for us is "debunkers", as we are the ones debunking, and it's disappointing that many truther make the mistake of honoring falsers with that term. However, we have the truth on our side, and we should not let ourselves been intimidated in suppressing that.


The real debunkers

'we are the ones debunking, and it's disappointing that many truther make the mistake of honoring falsers with that term'

Yes, and that's why, when referring to the other side, I try to use a qualifier, like 'would-be debunkers' or 'so-called debunkers.'

Even that, you might say, has problems, in that any use of the term helps them portray us as the ones who need to prove what happened, when the burden of proof is on defenders of the official story. It's more like they try to 're-bunk' the official story after we've 'debunked' it.

Exactly the problem.

"They are the falsers, we are the truthers, that is simply and fact based."

No. I've seen numerous, multitudes of "truthers" who are completely full of shit. Making it about an identity is a major flaw and a problem, and why I wrote the post. It's not about identity politics. It's about the covered up attacks.

I don't give a shit who you are, or what you believe. You are irrelevant. It's about the provable facts.

Any mook or government agent can call himself a "truther" and many have. They discredit the concept in the eyes of the general public. If you haven't noticed that, you're asleep.

" Another good term for us is "debunkers", as we are the ones debunking, and it's disappointing that many truther make the mistake of honoring falsers with that term."

Another problem with this labeling and identity-centered approach is that it sounds like grammar school yard name calling. It's juvenile, not authoritative.

"However, we have the truth on our side, and we should not let ourselves been intimidated in suppressing that."

There is no "we."

I don't know who the fuck you are. Or why you are typing these things. I have no loyalty to you, your biases, your pet peeves or your politics. You are completely irrelvant to my life.

What matters to me are the provable facts, and the people covering them up.

You claim "we have the truth on our side," when time after time I come across misinformation and disinformation (untruth) related to the 9/11 attacks. Claiming you have the truth on your side is a claim you can't back up. One mistake in your presentation and you are discredited. You make yourself easy to discredit.

Presentation is crucial in this day and age. It simply does not work if you leave yourself open to ridicule and guilt by association. Alternative techniques must be implemented.



I always thought '911 Truth' meant 'Demand 911 Truth' not 'We Have 911 Truth'. I get the impression PD thinks a 'truther' is 'one who tells the truth'.

This seems dangerous.

At first I thought your comment was a little harsh, but the more I read it the more I agree. Still, it is a little harsh.
Personally I can't say I'm over fond of either term, especially 'truther'. I guess '911 Truth' is a rallying slogan. But I know, you don't care what I think..

I know...

That the phrase 9/11 Truth, and/or 9/11 Truther have been damaged. Probably beyond repair. It saddens me because the meanings of those phrases, to me, are entirely different than what they are portrayed as.

I'm an American citizen, a human being that wants truth, accountability, and justice for the 9/11 attacks.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.