How to convince others?

Has anyone had any success trying to enlighten friends, family, co-workers, etc..?

If so, what have you used?

(I need ironclad, rock-solid evidence. No speculative evidence).

I actually did with a friend and my mother. I got so tired of the friend being brainwashed by the official story of the corporate MSM, I finally told him he didn't have a right to debate me unless he had done some independent research on his own. He finally read some 9/11 truth websites, which probably won't be seen as absolute, ironclad proof. Soon after that though, he came around.

I never thought I'd make a believer out of my mother. Her basic attitude has always been "I don't want to hear it." Only after my aunt expressed an interest in reading "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin did she finally read the book cover to cover in about a day. She was blown away by all the information she never knew.

Overall, I've discovered that people need to come to their own realizations in their own time. For some, no amount of "proof" will ever be enough.

.


[edit on 15-7-2008 by GoldenFleece]

Common sense. If you're dealing with someone who keeps up to date with current affairs it is easier than someone who frankly doesn't really care, and is only interested in their little world.

Intellect has a lot to do with it too - if you find a free thinker, they're open enough to look into and realize it isn't as is claimed, but you get someone whos mind is closed to the possibility and it's a dead-end.

There is a lot of rubbish out there to do with 9/11, but there are a few nuggets of information that ring alarm bells. Stick to those - not only are they convincing, but there is solid evidence to back it up.

* Seismic waves *PRECEDING* collapse of all 3 towers (scientific evidence)

* Pentagon witnesses claiming what they saw - as the number of witnesses increases, the less likely it is they're all lying or otherwise fabricating their stories

* Improbability of the official Pentagon flight path being correct due to environmental factors

* Shanksville witnesses - people who otherwise wouldn't be interested are speaking out because what they saw doesn't match what they're told, and they know the official story isn't accurate

* Lack of any Flight 93 debris

* Dubious comments by certain WH staff, including Rumsfeld etc.. (there are some things they say that are just "out there" and couldn't simply be a mistake)

* Fabrication of the WMD dossiers as a pretext to war in Iraq - it just shows how desperate they are and what lengths they'll go to to get what they want.

That should get things started...

[edit on 15-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

not a matter of proving it, maybe that wont happen, but you can present the other side of the story. the "conspiracy" side...some people dont realize that there is more info than what has been passed along through the media. if you could just show them the other side of the story, perhaps that would be enough for them to come around on their own?

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
That should get things started...

Add in Cheney snapping at the guy (forget his name but they had been tracking a plane from 50 miles out) who, at 10 miles, asked "Do the orders still stand?" (He obviously though something should be done). Cheney said, "Of course orders still stand. Have you heard anything differently?"

Maybe the bomb-sniffing dogs who were caged and not out doing their job?

What of the fact that within hours of the "attack," they were saying, "BIN LADEN DID IT!!!" Not, "Well, we think Bin Laden did it, but we have to review evidence, gather forensics, and otherwise investigate to be sure." Fishy, that.

How about the admin insisting an investigation was not needed? Took 14 months to get the lick and a promise of an investigation we did get.

And why would Bush and Cheney not go under oath when questioned??? When that happened, I was SURE people would see their act for what it was, but no... People...er...sheeple just accepted that.

And why did they have to be questioned together? Another fishy note.

Well... There is an abundance of evidence further, but that is a good start.

(off topic question: why is this topic under "close staff scrutiny"? i found nothing that deserves that)

I have been having this problem, if i know properly what enlightened is. I have two cousins, one is like a leaf in the wind, follows whatever, he's investigating some theory that the body gives off vibrations as well asthe earth or something like that at the moment, used to be into Kabbalah based books and what not. He falls into new things too wquickly without giving proper investgations on it. My other cousin will not hear anything about any conspiracy. He sees Bush as a standup guy for the sole reason that "why would he do it?!" I try to tell im, he gets pissy and starts throwing out colorful words about how its all the lies i am wasily tricked into believing.

I don't think others should be convinced though, they will learn on their own time. Introducethe subject and let them graspe it when they feel is necessary.

Amaterasu: "Add in Cheney snapping at the guy (forget his name but they had been tracking a plane from 50 miles out) who, at 10 miles, asked "Do the orders still stand?" (He obviously though something should be done). Cheney said, "Of course orders still stand. Have you heard anything differently?" "

I've never heard this one, is there a video of this you could show me or something?

Originally posted by Double Eights


(I need ironclad, rock-solid evidence.

There is none from the 911 truth movement

No speculative evidence).

This is all 911 Truthers use.

Sorry Double.
For burstin ya bubble.

I cant wait for all the evidence that the truth movement claims to have finally to be brought before a court!!!!!

@TY and TB:

And why would Bush and Cheney not go under oath when questioned??? When that happened, I was SURE people would see their act for what it was, but no... People...er...sheeple just accepted that.

And why did they have to be questioned together? Another fishy note.

Any explanations??

By not providing evidence for your side of the story does NOT invalidate what is claimed on the "CT" side by any stretch of the imagination.

Why would the two most powerful people in the World insist on being questioned in such a way as to make them fireproof no matter what? In addition to this, the notes taken during the off-the-record interviews were scrutinized by Secret Service and censored before they even left the room.

Does this sound like the actions of two people who have done nothing wrong?

[edit on 16-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by screamo
Amaterasu: "Add in Cheney snapping at the guy (forget his name but they had been tracking a plane from 50 miles out) who, at 10 miles, asked "Do the orders still stand?" (He obviously though something should be done). Cheney said, "Of course orders still stand. Have you heard anything differently?" "

I've never heard this one, is there a video of this you could show me or something?

www.metacafe.com...

There ya go.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by Double Eights


(I need ironclad, rock-solid evidence.

There is none from the 911 truth movement

No speculative evidence).

This is all 911 Truthers use.

Sorry Double.
For burstin ya bubble.

There is none from your camp either, and I have proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I don't know if 'convincing' is ever really appropriate. Enlighten with as much provable fact and allow your cohorts to arrive at their own conclusions.
But there always is waterboarding....

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
(I need ironclad, rock-solid evidence)
There is none from the 911 truth movement

You mean none from the people that believe the official story.

No speculative evidence).

This is all 911 Truthers use.

You mean thats all the people that believe the official story have.

Originally posted by TheBobert
I cant wait for all the evidence that the truth movement claims to have finally to be brought before a court!!!!!

Well it sure is a lot more evidnece then what the people that still believe the official story have.

I have been wating for years for the believrs to post any actual reports or physcial evidence that supports the official story.

I just wanted to post this. It is from the Onion A.V. club. It is from an interview with Matt Taibbi, who is a political reporter for Rolling Stone Magazine.

I feel it might help illustrate what is unconvincing about the way the Truth movement presents its info. Take it for what you will and please don't kill me.


Here is the full interview from the A.V. Club

"AVC: You'd think a movement devoted to seeking truth would encourage debate as a way to arrive at the truth, rather than trying to suppress whatever doesn't already align with their own views.

MT: Absolutely. I make this point with Truthers all the time, that the whole direction of everything they do is the opposite of what finding out the truth is. They approach the subject matter in much the same way a defense attorney does. A defense attorney takes a case and he sees six pieces of evidence that are going to convict his client, and he sets out to destroy those six pieces of evidence, irrelevant to the actual truth of the situation. That's not to denigrate defense attorneys, but that's what they do. It's exactly the same thing that Truthers do. They just take the 9/11 Commission Report piece by piece, and they try to break down links in that evidentiary chain that compose the official story, but they never really try to find out what happened. They're just trying to convince you that the official story couldn't possibly be true. For instance, the stuff about Hani Hanjour—the hijacker who reportedly made that maneuver into the Pentagon. They're really hopped up about the fact that he was a bad pilot and couldn't have made that sophisticated maneuver. But they make absolutely no effort to tell you what actually did happen. They're like, "Oh, it could have been a remote-controlled plane." Offhandedly, they'll say that. [Laughs.] Like that's a very simple thing. It's really weird.

AVC: The whole "smoking gun" of the Truth Movement seems to revolve around the collapse of Building 7, near the Twin Towers. There's this matter-of-fact assertion that the government obviously blew it up.

MT: I love when you ask them, "Okay, so let's just say for instance that it wasn't collapsed by the fire. Why would you demolish Building 7? What would be the propaganda purpose of doing that?" They're like, "Oh, you know, they're hiding the evidence." I'm like, "They need to blow up a whole building to hide the evidence?" It's just crazy. But whatever. I mean, once you jump on board that train, you're on it for life. [Laughs.]"

Well it comes down to getting people to do actual research. Problem is most people that beleive the official story are afraid to do research becasue they do not want to know the truth, they want to live in their safe fantasy world.

Spot on ULTIMA. Sometimes ignorance is bliss. No one wants to believe a huge conspiracy of this magnitude.
Especially not I. With the tears streaming down my face on 911 and the empathy I felt for all the horrified, the dead, and the destruction, and confused.
Remember the old star trek when Spock was overcome with grief and nearly knocked down when he 'felt' the death of thousands of Vulcans in a far off planet. Closest simile I can think of.
sp

[edit on 7/17/2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 7/17/2008 by jpm1602]

Its almost impossible to not fall into the character assasination logical fallacy concerning the 'right honorable gentleman' who wrote that article, so I will simply say wiki him and get a good perspective.

Secondly, while I agree with him on truther methodology, I have to point out that debunker methodology is essentially the same, and that the OS is self admittedly incomplete after 7 years.

That in itself should spawn 'truthers' in the true sense of the word, i.e. people looking for the truth.

Originally posted by jpm1602
Spot on ULTIMA. Sometimes ignorance is bliss. Know one wants to believe a huge conspiracy of this magnitude.

Know one wants to believe our goverment did nothing or let this happen. Even though it has been proven through out history that the government has let things like this happen before.

reply to post by Double Eights


" How to convince others?

Has anyone had any success trying to enlighten friends, family, co-workers, etc..?

If so, what have you used? "



everyone is different

everyone has a different slice of understanding

instead of having them listen to you, it is you who should be asking them what they believe and why.

now you have other issues to overcome as well.

there are those who don't wanna know, but will avoid telling you that, but some will

you can't forced a scared person to not be scared and listen. it don't work that way.

all you can tell them is;

[ all that is needed for evil to rule is for good people to say nothing] ...and then say no more, just drop it and walk away.

those who have an opinion, but really have no interest in exploring anything else....don't waste your time on them.

everyone else, is fair game, but no pleading, no yelling or screaming. just keep a slow pace,

one point at a time, and allow the stuff to sink in.






[edit on 17-7-2008 by toasted]