Support 911Blogger


Strategy for a Personal Effort

Campaigning for a new, independent investigation of 9/11 by writing personal letters/emails to people of influence, such as columnists and commentators has not received much comment in this space or others. However, it may offer a real—even if quiet to the point of invisibility—strategy for changing public opinion.

Columnists in particular, on both the left and the right, often write columns about the issue-of-the-moment. In recent months that would include the use of drones, invasive spying by the NSA, and whistle blowing. No matter what the political persuasion of the writer, nearly all journalists/columnists will write from an assumption that the events of 9/11 offer some justification for actions that, before 9/11, we would have judged to be illegal or—in the case of whistle blowing—a citizen's appropriate constitutional duty (regardless of legal prohibitions to the contrary).

Writing comments on Web pages is certainly one form of expressing a concern about weak assumptions adopted by writers and public speakers. However, an email or letter allows a great deal more freedom of expression because it is—unlike online comments—only intended for the writer's eyes. The obvious weakness of this personalized approach directly to columnists is that it can be a lot of effort for a target of one. However, that is also its greatest strength, since the email writer can bring in details that are personal to the columnist/journalist/public speaker that might not have been appropriate when writing for a larger audience (like column comment readers, for example).

Bill Moyers made a speech to the History Makers organization a while back. In it he made use of the "conspiracy theorists" term as a pejorative to describe people still seeking the truth about 9/11. Following are excerpts from a letter written to him about his speech. (The physical facts that make the official conspiracy theory impossible have been deleted as unnecessary for this audience.)

Mr. Moyers,

I've read at Truthout.org your speech to the History Makers organization. The title for the speech on the site was "Facts Still Matter..." I take exception to your remarks about "9/11 Truthers" made in that speech. There are indeed a large number of theories about what happened on that day, some more credible than others. However, the observable facts of the day, that no one disputes, make the official version of what happened impossible.

Here are the observable facts I am referring to:

... [deleted recitation of obvious physical flaws in the official conspiracy theory]

Conan Doyle's character Sherlock Holmes said it best, "How often have I said that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" The observable facts above have eliminated the official story of 9/11 as even being possible. We don't know what the truth of other explanations of these observations might be, but those of us for whom facts do matter can be certain that the truth of who murder 3,000 Americans is not known.

No matter how successful a journalist's career, success doesn't give that person the right to selectively ignore significant evidence in the pursuit of the truth and still call themselves a journalist. Your speech to the History Makers was a good one. You should read back through it, particularly the examples of denizens of the 4th estate who use the facts to help guide them to a better understanding of events, when everyone else was overwhelmed by the emotion and rhetoric of the moment.

Sincerely,

It should be clear that to be effective the "personalization" of these communications should be used to help convince the person to whom the letter/email is addressed to look at the physical evidence of 9/11 in a new light. Insults and anger have no place in this approach since they will reduce an effort at communication to a personal rant.

More recently columnist Eugene Robinson wrote of the effects of Edward Snowden's detailed exposure of NSA's surveillance of the world. Mr. Robinson made clear that he felt that Snowden's revelations were a positive contribution to public discussion on the actions we as a country have taken as a result of 9/11. While he questioned whether the loss of liberties had been taken too far, he didn't question whether there was any need at all for anything more than a thorough police investigation. Following is part of an email sent to him raising that question.

Mr. Robinson,

Permit me to thank Mr. Snowden for opening, and you for continuing, the public debate on the "security" measures that we have been subjected to without any real discussion since 9/11. As you point out, we wouldn't be having this discussion if it weren't for Edward Snowden's willingness to expose the dark underbelly of the surveillance beast. It's also clear from the statistics that you quote ("...three-fifths...said it was 'more important right now' to investigate possible terrorist threats than to respect privacy.") that the public is still deeply concerned about the nature of vulnerability to the threat of terrorism.

The justification for so many Americans being afraid of new attacks from terrorists rests on their understanding of the events of 9/11. For those most afraid of a repeat of 9/11, it lives as a moment in our history where a handful of suicidal Arab men were seemingly able to completely defeat the defenses of our nation, killing thousands and instantly making the world a more dangerous place for all of us. We continue to be afraid of terrorist attacks even though we've destroyed Iraq, taken Afghanistan from the 5th century back to the 3rd, spent trillions from our treasury, and sacrificed thousands of our soldiers. In spite of all this, nothing we have done in the last 12 years has really reduced our concerns.

However, that needn't continue to be so. Edward Snowden's acts exposing the reality of our "security" services have probably laid the ground work for a safer world, In a much larger way, a new conversation about what actually happened on 9/11, why our defenses were so incomplete, why our buildings were so weak, and why our journalists so incurious would begin the process of demystifying 9/11. Demystification means that we will stop being driven by fear and we can take effect steps to reduce the possibility of a replication of 9/11.

All of this begins with nothing more than a careful review of what nearly everyone in the world knows about the collapses of the buildings in New York.

...[deleted recitation of obvious physical flaws in the official conspiracy theory]

In short, what we can readily see about the collapses makes it clear that the official story--which is the foundation for the Great Fear Society--cannot be true. As we are learning the hard way, it doesn't take armies or treasury or loss of civil liberties to free us from the Great Fear Society. It only requires the beginning of a new public conversation about what happened on 9/11. Exposing the official conspiracy theory to a meaningful discussion will bring its collapse and with it most of the justifications for turning ourselves into an Orwellian society.

Just like Snowden, each of us has within us the ability to reasonably call--though not without risk--for a new conversation about key structures in our society. Just as Snowden realized with the security apparatus, it is long past time for the journalists of our society to acknowledge the weaknesses in the foundation stone of the Great Fear Society, 9/11. Call for a new conversation on what happened on that day. Support the efforts of nearly 2,000 architects and engineers and call for a new subpoena-empowered investigation of 9/11 at Rethink911.org.

Sincerely,

Writing to columnists in a civil and informed way has—at least the potential for—changing that one person's mind. One is a small number, but if the person one writes to has a big public presence (and a lot of courage) they could make a big difference in how the events of 9/11 are perceived.

It seems that we—as a community—are good at identifying uninformed public commentary about what happened on 9/11 and then exposing the errors in their comments in an appropriate public forum. However, perhaps there is a larger set of public commentators whose views on 9/11 should be equally open to challenge, the set of public leaders who aren't talking directly about 9/11, but are expressing opinions that are clearly based on the assumption that the events of 9/11 are accurately described by the official conspiracy theory. Finally, perhaps—in addition to commentary in public forums (Letters to the Editor, comments on the Web, and etcetera)—we should appeal to this broader segment of public figures on a personal level through personal letters and emails where the weight of the physical evidence cannot so easily be drowned out.

Public Email Addresses...

It would be cool to get the email addresses you used for these two journalists. As well as make a list in this thread of other potential targets of journalism that we could contact with notes of encouragement to cover the topic of 9/11 Truth.

mike@michaelmoore.com
http://whowhatwhy.com/contact/
http://elizabethwarren.com/contact

A letter, an Email, and the Secret Service

I searched the Net for Bill Moyer's home address and mailed him the letter. Eugene Robinson's email is printed with his column in my local paper, eugenerobinson@washpost.com. Recently, I noticed Bill Clinton checking into a hotel close to my house. I took a letter requesting his help in getting a new 9/11 investigation to the hotel desk and asked the clerk to pass it on to him. My hypothesis at the time was that there would probably be fewer barriers for the letter to pass while he was on the road than when he was at home. She must have passed it on, because an hour later I got a visit from the Secret Service.

Curious PR

Did you try a letter or email to MIchio Kaku after his recent interview on RT and hosting Michael Shermer on his radio show? Think a little education wouldn't hurt him any.

peace

dtg

Will Give It a Try

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll give it a shot!

Nice that you brought that up

Nice that you brought that up to light. Just last week, I found that Lance DeHaven-Smith is a collunist (?) for the guardian journal. He wrote a nice article relating the NSA revelations and the closure of US embassies:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/05/embassy-closures-travel-warnings-government-manipulation

The great thing is that Lance DeHaven-Smith is also trying to push foward the 911 truth story out. He was at the Toronto Hearing Meeting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UELxUMCtF0E

Hopefully, he will have the "freedom" to write a piece of 911 just this september and the rethink911 campaign.

Also, you could also try to write to Glenn Greenwald, the journalist with the Snowden leaks?

Just another thing, but know for the European people here: in Europe we have the tradition to not consistently backup our governments. Possibly because we are "older" countries, we tend to not accept and completely dislike the government view of things.
It would be easier to pass the message out to Europeans, since the majority of people are completely unaware that another building fell on 911, but I would strongly believe that Europeans seeing the facts by themselves would easily dismiss for sure the official 911 story.

Lets us try to reach the message in Europe bigger and broader, by mailing newspapers and journalists.

Jimmy Carter

The best bet for getting an ex-president to make a statement in support of a new 9/11 investigation is with Carter, not Clinton. In fact, Jimmy said as much a few years back. Has there been any attempt to follow up with him? Regardless it can still be stated that former President Jimmy Carter is on board in support.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO2UGVp--ak

Likewise, Ralph Nader, Michael Moore and Amy Goodman have made similar statements despite their unwillingness to lead the charge. I'm wondering aloud if their statements could be woven into the Rethink 9/11 campaign as part of a section on the website. We couldn't say that they support the Rethink 9/11 campaign specifically because they haven't as yet made that particular endorsement ..... (Ed Asner and Daniel Sunjata have, along with major players in the TM) ... but the Rethink campaign could incorporate the other VIP statements.

There's just no way that the most successful 9/11 truth campaign in history (hopefully) trying to get a new investigation should fail to mention the big names who agree with us.

Every little action makes a difference in my opinion...

I've contacted the Carter Center a few times:
http://www.cartercenter.org/about/contact.html

E-mail: carterweb@emory.edu

Mailing Address:
The Carter Center
One Copenhill
453 Freedom Parkway
Atlanta, GA 30307

Phone: (404) 420-5100 or (800) 550-3560
Note: Should you have any difficulty sending an email to The Carter Center, please call (800) 550-3560 to report.

President Carter

I agree that former Pres. Carter is a person who could have the gumption to give this issue public support. I sent my letter to Plains, GA, even though I have no idea whether he lives there still or not.

But what about utlizing his comments?

Of course it would be wonderful were President Carter to suddenly start speaking up about the issue, and we should try to encourage him to do that, but I was thinking about how to best utilize his existing comments for our benefit. (versus not using them at all).

Having him attached to a successful advertising / media campaign could trigger even more media coverage and possibly force his hand to make a public response. Otherwise, a former president's comments would just continue to be on a youtube video that people might or might not find on their own.

9/11: Why do Bill Moyers and Robert Parry Accept Miracles?

Great Advice

I loved the advice Dr. Griffin gives at the end of this video to his audience to focus our educational effort on those journalists (and I would add, public persona) who have a reputation for the courage to make decisions for themselves based on the evidence rather than on what they have been told by someone in authority. Thank you, Mr. Talboo, for posting this.