How to Win Friends and Influence People

Source and audio hear:

Thanks to 9/11 Truth News for hosting this.

How To Win Friends and Influence People
November 1, 2010
Author: kdub
Source: 9/11 Truth News
Category: BLOG

In Dale Carnegie’s famous book How to Win Friends and Influence People, there is a chapter which focuses on how the only real way to win an argument is to avoid one. This sentiment is a most critical tool for us to embrace in regard to spreading quality information about 9/11. The more mainstream the 9/11 Truth movement becomes, the more clear it becomes that practicing respectful etiquette across the board is perhaps the most important component to getting anyone to consider an individual’s new idea. When people argue, everyone goes home feeling more strongly about their original positions even if one was proven right.
The two clips posted below are from Alan Colmes’ radio show. Listen to how a reasonable and friendly approach leaves no room for argument and builds a bridge with the host. Colmes in the past has had Alex Jones on his radio show. The host has dealt with members of the We Are Change group “confronting” him (chasing him down the road, shouting, calling him names and accusing him of a being controlled.) Considering both of these interactions with people who supposedly represent the the 9/11 truth movement, it is quite possible that Colmes simply hasn’t been exposed to some of the more reasonable and basic questions about the official story. Colmes has most certainly been exposed to some very radical groups who have perhaps simply failed to present him with information he can relate to and still maintain his position.
These two calls to Colmes only convinced him to agree that he would be willing to investigate 9/11 under limited circumstances. However, the most important point both calls show is that if those who want to spread the truth about 9/11 take a respectful and thoughtful approach – to “discuss” rather than “confront” – there will be no room to argue and minds will open.
Many media representatives have shows where they allow open or semi-open formats for call-ins. Formats like these are an incredible opportunity for us to encourage media coverage of the truth about 9/11. Try calling in to a show on a regular basis (it sometimes only takes 5-15 minutes on hold). This form of public discussion when carried out in a respectful, polite and mature manner is the key for spreading 9/11 truth to the masses.
Please note that in the first phone call, the activist being referenced is the 2nd caller in the clip. The first caller actually shows a perfect example of the wrong way to try and talk to a radio show host.

Listen to the phone calls HERE:

Gosh, any thing to break

Gosh, any thing to break through is valuable. Thanks.

I would like to mention that Comcast is airing on the National Geographic Channel, (now owned by Rupert Murdoch) the hit piece on us tonight. Wow, it sure is a case of one step forward and one step back. I finally got a friend to watch the documentary 911 Revisited too. Hope she doesn't catch the NG piece. People want any excuse possible to dismiss us.

Good Post

We have to win hearts and minds and the confrontational provocative method does not always work.

We Are Change- NYC has done a lot of good work in the past but perhaps some of its methods may need to be more refined.

Just some food for thought here:

Code of Conduct

We Are Change is a peaceful organization that does not discriminate in any way. We are tolerant of all regardless of racial, religious, ethnic or sexual orientation. We denounce any individual or group that would speak in our name and that would not adhere to these precepts. Anyone violating these principles will be asked by the group to leave permanently as a destructive individual working against the goals that We Are Change is striving to achieve. As a nation in crisis and a realization that time is not on our side, there will be no tolerance for anything other than an effort to preserve national sovereignty and to seek truth and justice for all through non-violent policies based on open government, public awareness, compassion, kindness and a commitment to Constitutional law.

1. We Are Change recognizes all members have inalienable rights as sovereign individuals written in the Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights and that such rights shall be honored at all times
2. No provocation of violence will be tolerated under any circumstances
3. Racial, sexual, religious, age or discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated
4. No group member shall use language in public that will inflame others to violent action
5. No group member shall destroy the property, tangible or intangible, of others, public or private.
6. All members will treat each other with respect at all times...........


The manner in which as well as the motives behind Recapturing the Republic will define America's future.
We have to make sure in our struggle we do not become the very enemy we defeat. Therein lies an important key to victory.

Great that you posted this

Great that you posted this the WAC guidelines!

"4. No group member shall use language in public that will inflame others to violent action"

Worth repeating. Though it is of course a relative thing to judge what leads to violence and what does not, more composed questioning and no "confrontations" assures no violent backlash based on the language chosen. Simple!

"6. All members will treat each other with respect at all times..........."

Perhaps this could be altered to "All members will treat each other and those we are choosing to interact with in public with respect at all times."

A friend of mine

who is a 911 Truther and is aware of the scope of the Military Industrial Complex has a brother serving in the Marines. Whose tour of duty covered Iraq & Afghanistan and who was a real gung-ho Bush advocate - go get e'm terrorists type.

Well the only way he could get through to his brother was through a shouting match of the facts and it worked. So different strokes for different people. We are all individuals and no one single approach or formula will work all the time. It depends on the situation.

Having said that - the best general approach in my opinion is a the Richard Gage / David Griffin method. That will have the most impact in general.


I think you will agree though, that public shouting matches usually backfire. It may work in more private situations, depending on people's relationships. That's brother to brother after all.


In the end though we are all brothers.

And sisters. The world over.

Playing for Change

Thank you!

As more of a mild-mannered salesman, I needed that.

nice point but

people like colmes should have been all over it like 9 years ago. it's understandable that people are a bit emotional when confronting these supposed celebrities and public figures. stop giving them excuses and breaks. they're not morons they know perfectly well what's going on and who cares if someone shouts something (as long it's not derrogatory or racist etc)? poor elites? poor media figures? c'mon, it's ok to be polite but complaining about someone shouting is
just plain silly. especially when you have in mind we're dealing here with "professionals" (media anchors, reporters, journalists, politicians etc).

Be polite, but EXPOSE!

It is important to be polite and courteous, but it is also important not to shy away from evidence and information that may cause others to be upset or angry.
Avoiding conflict to the point of not exposing the truth will get the 9/11 truth movement nowhere.

Confrontation, done sensibly and courteously, is mandatory. When we have reasonable evidence that people were involved in planning or executing the attacks of 9/11, or are part of the coverup, including censorship of the press, we should not shy away exposing all we know, regardless of who gets upset.

Confrontation is a tricky subject

I have read alot of your previous posts and noted that you get a lot of negative votes. I have wanted to support much of what you have to say, but have not been able to, as I have been "in moderation" for a week or so.

Also, I see "votes" but no way to vote. The up and down arrows are gone. I am wondering if that has something to do with my having "been in moderation" or if everybody's up and down arrows are gone.

As far as the usefulness of confrontation - it is hard to know - as people who have been confronted and responded with anger or denial - may yet have had a seed planted that germinates at a later time. It is probably an individual thing. I have hopes that people who I have confronted - to no avail - have had a seed of doubt planted that is nagging and nagging them and that sooner or later they will see the truth. I think that after confrontation, people need time to digest what they have heard. The frustrating and unfortunate part, is that the wars continue while Americans are slowly "digesting" the unpleasant evidence that is arising from more and more disparate sources.

Not that tricky

Seeds that are planted in a way that doesn't nurture never grow strong. What we have seen time and time again is that "confrontation" alnd bullhorning only plants a seed which immediately grows full size into, 'there are people who have questions about 9/11 and they are all angry theorists who are presumptuous and to laden with jargon and slogans which I cannot and don't have time to understand.". This commonly pushed view of us is so contrary to the results of us approaching skeptics with a Ghandi touch. If I hadn't seen so many poorly planted seeds by angry, ego fueled "confrontations" I would certainly feel differently. However EVERY time I have seen a WAC "confrontation" vs a WAC "peaceful questioning", no ones ideas change about 9/11 (then or in the future). What does change after confrontations are individuals ideas about the 9/11 truth movement. "Confrontations" have only fueled a false image of people questioning 9/11 as unreasonable, angry, and easily influenced individuals.

I appreciate your thoughts

but if it wasn't "tricky" it would have all been exposed to the whole world years ago. It is - unfortunately - very tricky.
The reasonable, measured, calm voices of David Ray Griffin, Graeme MacQueen, David Chandler and Steven Jones still have not won the day. The Truth will eventually prevail - but to think that it is not "tricky" is to underestimate the task.

"Tricky" was to refer to your quote about confrontation

Specifically. You have falsly turned my response into claiming I say spreading the truth about 9/11 is not tricky. You said confrontation is tricky. "Confrontation" is what I was proving to be "not that tricky." Do you see what I mean now?

Yes I see what you mean

Sorry if I misrepresented you.

All good

Good sir. Much love.

" Confrontation, done

" Confrontation, done sensibly and courteously, is mandatory. "

The whole point of this post is that when one practices sensibility and courtesy, there is no room for "confrontation."

Good approach but

once the courtesies are out of the way you need to bring the case - "do you believe a steel frame building can collapse at free-fall acceleration - as admitted by NIST - without the use of explosives?" period. Then let them talk !!!

And if he says "yes I do"

then i would say simply that 1300 archetecs and engineers for 911 truth know that is imposible !!!
and LEAVE IT THERE. I think sometimes when we get these opportunities we feel we have to keep talking for the full 30 seconds or whatever. Put the case and then keep silent, is my advice.

Careful with the jargon and remember your audience

First off I don't think courtesy should be dispenced with and then forgotten about. It must remain as the primary driving motive throughtout a discussion, in order to keep things a dialog and not an argument. The question specifically you suggested we ask is loaded with jargon and is not the appropriate way to bring up controlled demolitions or explosions to most people. Many people do not know what NlST is. Some people don't know or haven't concluded or seen enough vids yet to prove "free fall speed.". Perhaps bringing up that the 9/11 report didn't even mention building 7 would reach a wider audience. In the past 9/11 truth has failed at keeping our points focused and as simple as they can be. We have also failed to consider our audience enough to convey a general respect to their current views about 9/11. If we are willing to stay humble and maintain reservation, we will present a welcoming educated outreach which will plants seeds whiich will grow to the size of redwoods (with deep roots which cannot be shaken with faulty information and angry cynicism).

When you bring up

the 1300+ A&E's that do not support the official story and on the other hand support a controlled demolition hypothesis, many intelligent people will hit back with "Yeah but that's just 0.1% of all A&E's out there, meaning that 99.9% has no problem with the official story". Responding to that requires going to more unpleasant territory. The whole battle for and that goes on in the human mind is exactly what this is all about, nothing more, nothing less.
At work most people know my position on this matter (I work at a hospital and a highschool), and some of them agree with me that 911 stinks like hell, that things ain;t right, But I didn't really needed to convince them. There are people however, that u can throw at every approach there is, there's just no convincing them at all, not one bit. So be it. Best to leave them alone. My own rule would be that: if they watch WTC7 going down and do not have severe doubts after that about the official explanation for it, then you don't have to bother trying to convince them about anything else about 911, 'cause it ain't gonna work, you can count on that. In the end they'll just ignore everything you say and just continue pushing the same old long debunked hogwash in your face, with a strange confident attitude about it, as if the things they claim are rational & logical, not to mention factual. It's mindboggling sometimes, how one cannot see what you can see yourself to be so clearcut and obvious.

Good thread this, very very important issue, besides that other one, the litagation thing. Thanks!

What a huge amount of verbage all over a pretty simple........

comment I made.

You guys get a lot deeper into this stuff than you need to.

WHAT??????????????? is my answer to all of the posts under my comment.

Can you just put in a sentence or two what the he........what the HECK you are saying?


There were only two comments that were specific to your comment Paul, one agreed with your point and actually complemented your thread, the other of mine was literally one sentence. If you follow the line down below the left side of your first post straight down, you can see who responded directly to your comment vs. the sub-comments (does this make sense). Also I find the comments and in depth analysis on this thread and sight in general are fantastic. Some are long and some are short and sweet. I enjoy the thoughtful approach people want to put into their posts. This deeper analysis a most critical aspect of understanding the truth about 9/11. I also think that the points in these longer posts on this thread specifically are quite clear. Who's comment is confusing you?


Thanks for posting the WAC guidelines. It is, of course, important to insist on nonviolent tactics. The recent confrontation where the Daily Show producer was arrested is notable. While yelling at him is no excuse for the producer's assault, most practitioners of nonviolence consider yelling to NOT be nonviolent.

I admit here that I still raise my voice at people. None of us are saints. I don't , however yell at those hostile to 911truth. I mainly yell at other 911truth associates. I wish I was able to stop that.

My experience of the 911 truth movement is that I can count on one hand the truth activists who are willing to discuss the finer points of nonviolence. This is one of the reasons I did civil disobedience 3 times at the treason conference at Valley Forge, Pa in the spring.

The 911Truth movement is equally committed to being ignorant about nonviolence as the left gatekeepers are committed to being ignorant about our evidence.

This doesn't mean I'm accusing truth activists or WAC of being violent. This would usually mean they actually strike people. They don't.
Call me 410-499-5403
or email me

Good job

Good job kdub.... I'm kinda busy right now so I can't write a long response, but just wanted to let you know.

Thanks guys

I won't stop calling in. More to come soon and hopefully from more radio hosts we peacefully convince to open up.

Since I don't visit there very often I have a question...

Do you guys who direct people to 911 Truth News from here for an article or video ever refer people from 911 Truth News to 911 blogger for an article or video?

I agree with the points of the article, by the way.


I was just wondering whether it was two-way or not.

Now I know.

Totally Rob

The people at both sites have worked together in some form for many years now. 9/11 Truth News is a new site which I'm very happy to have available to reference to folks who are very new to this subject. If new skeptics are sent to blogger, it can often lead to a lot of confusion and lots of required explanation. If you are present to guide them through blogger (especially some of the common slang on the site) this would be better. That being said both sites represent two of the most essential tools for 9/11 Truth around. I'm very happy at the cooperation between the two and have learned a lot from both.

Thanks for the clarification.

Now I understand the purpose.

Thanks kdub and snowcrash.