FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
The importance of history to undermining the 9/11 myth

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:20 pm    Post subject: The importance of history to undermining the 9/11 myth Reply with quote

After reading DL's and Gary's generous contributions in the 9/11 3i Analysis thread, Top Reasons Indicating an Inside Job, I'm beginning to think about this whole matter differently.

I no longer feel that searching for a physical "smoking gun" is going to be very fruitful. The building collapses/explosions/demolitions, frankly, are complicated, and most of the physics and engineering is far outside our expertise, not to mention Joe Layman's expertise. Even if it is "obvious" that the building collapses weren't spontaneous, but had to have been "controlled" with explosives or whatnot, there doesn't seem to be a precise smoking gun -- one that can't be plausibly explained away. And when Joe Layman hears that NIST engineers say this happened and tinfoil-hat self-appointed experts say this, it's going to be pretty easy to go back to believing the official story. "What do I know about the physics of building collapses? I'll leave it to the experts." Plus, obviousness is subjective; to many/most Americans, it's perfectly "obvious" that the fuel-filled planes hit the buildings, and the buildings collapsed. Nothing mysterious about that. And the same could be said for most other physical aspects of 9/11, including the cell phone calls, the "alive" hijackers, and many more. Read 911Myths.com from Joe Layman's perspective and you'll see what I mean.

But I'm greatly encouraged by reading, for example, this post. Gulf of Tonkin is good, and rarely discussed in connection with 9/11. And this reminds me of how I felt when I was initially waking up about 9/11, and also connects with something in Fintan's last audio which I wanted to respond to.

When I first started reading a lot of 9/11 conspiracy sites, I became more and more astounded at the realization that 9/11 was probably an inside job, and more importantly, the overwhelming question, "What are the implications of this?". No matter that much of the physical evidence which convinced me that 9/11 was an inside job was crap like the "Penta-lawn" and "Hunt the Boeing" and such. I was convinced, and yet I knew that 9/11 as a false-flag terrorist operation did not fit with my then-present understanding of history and politics, and so I felt a strong urge to resolve this cognitive dissonance. (I'm not sure I'm using the term in the same way Fintan did in his latest audio; I understand it primarily as knowingly having incompatible beliefs. Like dissonance in music, there is a strong tendency/desire for the dissonance to resolve.)

Note that even if I had discovered not fraudulent 9/11 conspiracy theories, like the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon sophistry, but rock-solid smoking-gun evidence capable of proving beyond any shadow of a doubt (even to the toughest skeptic) that 9/11 was an inside job, I would still have had essentially the same cognitive dissonance -- perhaps even stronger. This is because my understanding of American history, including political history, and of the political status quo, was incompatible with the thesis (however irrefutable) that 9/11 was an inside job.

In the simplest musical dissonance -- between two notes -- the dissonance can be resovled in any of three ways: by resolving one note into consonance with the other; vice versa; or by moving both notes into mutual consnance. Analogously, the dissonance between my old understanding of history etc. and my new understanding of 9/11 could be resolved in three ways: by retaining my old understanding of history etc. while rejecting my new understanding of 9/11 (e.g. by associating it with tinfoil-hat conspiracy wackos); by retaining my new understanding of 9/11 while trying to understand history etc. in a way that accomodates 9/11 as an inside job; or by studying history etc. and 9/11 until I reach a new and integrated understanding of both.

Here's my point in explaining this: If we're hoping to bring 9/11 evidence to a courtroom, and even assuming the evidence is good enough to bring an indictment, who do we indict? At best, and very optimistically, Bush & cabinet and a few others. Not enough to really change the status quo.

So if the target audience of the 9/11 3i (or similar efforts) is not people a courtroom but the general public, we had better focus on more than the evidence (however strong) that 9/11 was an inside job. Because, even presented such an irrefutable case, most people won't know what to do with it. They will experience a strong cognitive dissonance, and most of them will be unable, unwilling, or unsuccesful at re-examining their understanding of history, politics, etc., to accommodate 9/11. Therefore, they will tend to resolve that cognitive dissonance by rejecting (albeit irrationally) the 9/11 inside job thesis, and though this process is all but inevitable, exposure to the mass media will make it even easier and more painless.

Thus, IMO, the only effective way to go about waking people up to 9/11 (more than Loose Change-style) is to include the necessary background and history with which the 9/11 false-flag terrorist operation can be understood as a logical and predictable part of history, not an isolated or anomalous event. The more things it can be connected to, the more difficult it will be to ignore or dismiss it. It's like in the movie, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, when Joel cleverly tries to resist the memory-erasing procedure by inserting Clementine into (i.e. associating her with) some his deep, childhood memories. The mass media, and mass culture in general, will tend to make the 9/11 inside-job thesis dissonant or anomalous compared to everything else; the more connections we can make, such as Nero/Rome, Reichstag, Gulf of Tonkin, Northwoods, etc., the more our understanding of 9/11 can be protected from the MSM's relentless (though, like Dr. Howard Mierzwiak's machine, largely automatic) efforts to erase it by cutting off all its associations, or when necessary by consciously dissociating it from consensus reality (by relgating it as "conspiracy theory" to the realm of the untouchable psycho tinfoil-hat paranoids and nutcases).

I think the physical evidence of 9/11 still has its place, but to paraphrase Gary, it's better to include these aspects in a "list of anomalies" or such than to rest our case on any or even a combination of these points. When the historical groundwork has been laid, then the physical aspects of what happened on 9/11 are almost an afterthought (though still valuable as supporting evidence), because the notion that 9/11 was an inside job has by then been established as inherently plausible and unsurprising.

One of the that makes Alex Jones' films as effective as they are (for all their faults) is that he often does lay a lot of the historical groundwork. I'm thinking of the first one I saw, which was released not too long after 9/11 (though I only saw it three years later) -- 9/11 The Road to Tyranny. Despite the fact that he uses a minimum of physical evidence to support his case that 9/11 was an inside job, I found it very compelling at the time (though because of Jones' style I would hesitate to recommend it to others). It's because he focuses on the historical precedent, and especially the anomalies of the Oklahoma City Bombing (news reports of multiple bombs, subsequent cover-up, etc.), so that when he gets to 9/11, it almost doesn't matter whether explosives were used or whether WTC 7 collapsed or anything else -- there's already a precedent, multiple precedents, actually. Which, by the way, is polar opposite from the official myth: that 9/11 was an unprecedented event that changed everything.

To counter this myth, we need to emphasize that 9/11 was not unprecedented, does have a history (and fill people in on that history), and didn't change everything except insofar as people continue to believe that it did and accept the policies that follow from this myth.

Gary, the one criticism I have of your efforts, and I think you know this, is that your posts here (and to some extent on your website, though I haven't explored that as much) tend to present an Alex Jones-style orgy of evidence. People can only digest so much at a time. It's like the frog-boiling-in-water allegory: you're dumping boiling water on your poor readers (frogs), so even though it may all be true, we can't handle it all it once. I'm exaggerating somewhat, and I don't pretend to be exempt from this or other criticisms, but I just wanted to point it out. You said that you're trying to get this stuff into a nutshell or something, and I believe it; I'm just emphasizing that such condensation or refinement is important and necessary. Alex Jones has plenty of sources to back up his million and one assertions, but he still scares a lot of people away, and not only because of his extreme-libertarian political stance or his sensationalism or journalistic sloppiness; also, personality aside (and I'm not comparing your personality to his), because of his orgy of evidence and tendency to, shall I say, dump ice-water on his viewers (frogs) to cool them off from the gradually-heating NWO water in which they're waiting to be boiled, rather than giving them one refreshing glass at a time. Hopefully you understand what I mean.

P.S. One more metaphor if you can handle it. I was thinking of using the phrase, "exposing the 9/11 myth", in my title for this post, but settled instead on the phrase, "undermining the 9/11 myth". Expose makes me think of pulling back a curtain to reveal a bright light, or something like that. A sudden exposure. Well, I'm not sure most people can handle a sudden exposure of 9/11; the truth, all at once, is more likely to blind them than to make them see. Shine a bright light in someone's eyes, they'll shut their eyes and/or look away.

When a person who has been blind since birth is given an operation which allows them to see again, and they open their eyes after the operation, they do not immediately see. Rather, they experience excruciating pain, and without great encouragement, they would just as soon keep their eyes shut and never see. The process of learning to see is a long and hard one; at first, they feel pain and see only light and chaos; after several weeks, they may recognize some familiar objects but be unable to distinguish a triangle from a circle. Eventually, they can learn to see like everyone else, but it is a difficult process, and success is not inevitable.

I think this is a great metaphor for truth of all kinds -- about 9/11 and history, certainly, but also about spiritual truths, and generally about any truth or aspect of reality that is presently beyond our ability to grasp or comprehend. At first, try though we may, we see only chaos, and the experience of looking at it or contemplating it may be extremely painful or disorienting. If we persist, we can gradually learn to find our way in this new realm, though not without errors and pitfalls along the way. Eventually, if we are lucky, we become acquainted with this aspect of reality or way of seeing, and wonder how we could ever have been blind to it; it's as clear as day and requires no apparent effort to see, except merely opening our eyes. (In fact, it requires quite a bit of brainpower, but we are not usually aware of this, and the seeing mechanism has long since become unconscious.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 4:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Points well taken, Mac. I am tryin to somewhat clean up my website, or make main page more summaries, and then add more details on back pages.

I realized I took the "Top Ten" and changed it, so I APOLOGIZE TO ALL if that was too arrogant of me. (I hope my later 'reduction' below the response you pointed to, is more in line with brevity.) What I meant is, I changed the topic from "Top Ten" to "How to make a case verbally", which I happen to like, but I did not ACK changing the topic somewhat.

Typically, face-to-face, I go with that ONE first question, with a SMILE. Do you know who created Al-Qaeda? grin ... wait ... watch reaction

A man named Zbignew Brzezinski? Ever heard of him? grin ... wait ... watch reaction

Oh, well he's not an Arab. grin. He's actually a British American (with a Polish last name), and he was National SECURITY Advisor under Jimmy Carter in 1979. Creating Al-Qaeda was his BIG PLAN, and he's PROUD of it. grin ... wait ... watch reaction ... note astonishment, slack jaw, open mouth, head shaking

Yep, he created Al-Qaeda in '79 to SUCK the Russians into invading Afghanistan. He BRAGGED about it in an interview. Yep, America funded Al-Qaeda for decades. grin ... wait ... watch reaction

I could just drop the matter, or tell them about how to google the Interview or find my website.

But USUALLY, I've caught their ATTENTION. They seem to WANT to know a little more. And like I said, I can tell it in about a minute, so it only whets the interest. So I throw in just a few more quickies and I try to do it in a conspiratorial manner, like I'm letting them in on the juicy gossip. Everyone loves juicy gossip, even though this is Life and Death gossip.

(One thing a friend pointed out to me about The Smiths, was Morrissey's knack for writing melodic *pop" songs about suicide with humor. Anyone hear that "Cold Clammy Bombing" song I have on my home page?)

I might then ask:
Know how much WE PAID to create Al-Qaeda? grin ... wait ... watch reaction(Most Americans have been trained to hate taxes.)
Oh .... about $6 billion or so, officially, but critics say more like 20 or 30 billion. But [i]who knows, since the biggest part of it is black budget plus heroin and coke revenue.[/i] Congress doesn't even know how much. It's a secret. grin

I grin because I think it's HILARIOUS in a sick way. OK, in my heart, I don't think it's hilarious, but from a detached standpoint it is, and I think that grin HELPS people absorb it ... aw HELL, I guess I got that from Fintan's broadcasts.

Anyhow, grinning helps ME, because I'm not defensive about the info, I'm closer to cocksure, without being too cocksure unless the other person wants to play smartass anti-conspiracy theorist.

I can stop there or go on. I don't have to slam too hard. I COULD let them just digest that one issue. But often it's a hit-and-run, stranger.

But we've been funding them since Jimmy Carter, it wasn't a one time shot. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, they ALL kept funding Al-Qaeda.

I repeat from elsewhere, I think Ali Mohamed is a COOL story because of ALL that it illustrates. Terrorist. Al-Qaeda. Army. Specialist. Honors. FBI. CIA. On purpose.

I've had some people ask, "how do you not kill yourself?" so I said "well at one point I was pretty depressed and shocked, but I got a sense of humor about it and I have to trust God and I know it's one day at a time yada yada and besides stuff like that's been going on since the dawn of civilization"

*I just made a COMMITMENT to myself to TELL PEOPLE ABOUT IT. What else can I do?" (dropping hint)

"Shooting Bush wouldn't help." (GRIN, very important!!) Oops, I better not say that, Homeland Security might get me.

"If you want to read about it, I'll write down a couple websites ... like MINE"

Using HUMOR is VERY important to MY STYLE. It seems to work.

I'd instantly switch to really serious if someone I was talking with said they lost someone ... or if I was in Jersey or New York, I'd be extremely cautious. (I've had at least one person tell me they had a friend who died in it.)

I'd just apologize and explain that I utilize humor to get my point across to most people, but I do that because I want to be effective because I FULLY understand what a friggin tragedy this is, not only for you, but for ALL Americans. I'm not really thinking it's a big joke. The only part that's slighly funny is how GOOFY the friggin govt story is and how they hype the terror on the news. I got tired of being pissed off about it.
Back to top
FaxMam



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:59 am    Post subject: The date: 9 - 1 - 1 Reply with quote

Arrow

Last edited by FaxMam on Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As soon as the media got everyone to call it '911', I assumed they chose that date for it's "Emergency" meme. You know, if you're house is on fire or killers break in after midnight, 'call 911'. That's the emergency number in America for calling the cops.

That it was 'occult' didn't occur to me. Perhaps the years of buzz trying to get people to study Kaballa and try to 'predict the next 911' were a psyop to through us off track that the date was intentionally chosen -- but for the kind of charged term association that commercial marketing experts come up with--not occult ones.

_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3861

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Ormond (DO)

Fintan mentioned cognitive dissonance.

In marketing/advertising it is called:

post-purchase cognitive dissonance.

I buy, I get home, I don't like it.

Post Purchase Cognitive Dissonance.

Step in The Advertisers.

Counter-PPCD.

That is the raison d'etre of advertising i.e. counter-PPCD.

Another cute advertisers' weapon is:

word & symbol association.

Go think on that.

Okay, leg up:

9/11 was a marketing/advertising exercise.

Now watch the post-conditioning unfold.

Seen the latest edition of 'The Economist' yet?

Five years on.

http://www.economist.com/index.html

NOTE: the 'United 93' pilot had his fifth wedding anniversary five years to-the-day per 'United 93'.

Go figure.

PPCD.

Spelt/spelled out: post-conditioning is live.

atm Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

never mind
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.