Zaphod for President

Dear Truther:

I have been following the 9/11 Truth movement for several years now. I am a fan of the Alex Jones podcast. On this very blog I have showcased the Tin-Foil Hat Lady, Zeitgeist: The Movie, and countless other pieces of “9/11 Truth” media.

I have also taken a closer look at some of the theories and speculations of the movement, including The squibs seen in the collapse of WTC-1, the thermite theory, and the involvement of Larry Silverstein. I have found many flaws in these theories, but also, some very disturbing unanswered questions.

Today I consider myself an “agnostic” regarding 9/11. However, I consider myself an ally to the “9/11 Truth” movement. Why? We both seek truth. And, in seeking truth, I pay special attention to anyone labeled “insane” by our society, namely, because I am one of those “insane” people myself. As allies, I want to work together to succeed in our mutual cause.

What is the goal of the “9/11 Truth” movement? As I understand it, the goal is to conduct a new, independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001. I share this goal.

Most skeptics will argue that we do not need a new investigation because “everyone knows what happened”. This is untrue, and I understand why such nonsense might spark frustration, or even anger. I can understand the reaction to combat such attitudes aggressively, by offering the best evidence at our disposal.

And herein lies the issue. What is the “best evidence” at our disposal? Some point to well-crafted videos. Others display photographs. Yet others will make mention of certain key officials, or famous celebrities, who have “come out” in favor of “9/11 Truth”.

These strategies reveal a flawed goal. These strategies seek to reveal “the truth”, so that, once enlightened, I can further the cause by “waking up” others.

Please pause a moment, and step away from yourself. Look at this from the eyes of a skeptic.

At the start of this encounter, the skeptic understood their world perfectly well. At the start of this encounter, the skeptic lived in a world in which America, the wholesome and virtuous, was ruthlessly and senselessly attacked by an uncivilized enemy whom we are now at war with.

At the end of this encounter, the skeptic will understand that their world is a corrupt place ruled by evil people. A world in which tragedy is exploited, even by our own, against our own. Where once there was a passive acceptance of virtue, now there is a passionate optimism that, once revealed, the true enemies of America will be defeated.

For some, the process is almost instantaneous. These people enjoy a sudden moment of clarity during which the various pieces of illogical Government propaganda suddenly click into place, and reveal their true nature and purpose.

For others, the process is slow and tedious. For those who have come to identify America with symbols and ritual, rather than spirit and ideology, the personification of our once-great nation is a tangible, living, breathing character. To reach enlightenment, these people must first accept a terrible truth: America, the America of which each of us dreams, has died. Worse yet: it has been killed. Worse yet: we allowed it to happen. It is tantamount to watching your own beloved grandmother mugged and beaten while standing in your own living room.

As we understand, America is a phoenix. As stated, once the true culprits are revealed, the torch of liberty will ignite yet again, and like some later-day saint, America will rise from the grave. This is the source of the aforementioned passionate optimism. However, to achieve this “higher state” of optimism, one must first accept that we have been stripped of those ideals we had been taking for granted all these years.

This is a radical transformation, and the metaphor of death is very accurate. For example, some people can accept death as pragmatists, and easily bear the passing of a friend. For others, a long and painful period of grieving will follow the death of a loved one. The skeptic belongs in this second category. For the skeptic to agree with anything you would tell him, he must first accept that his beloved America is dead.

And so begins the process:

• denial
• anger
• bargaining
• depression
• acceptance

The first reaction of this skeptic is to immediately deny all that you have said. I am sure we have all witnessed this, both in our personal, and political spheres of influence. This is the state most Americans remained in until sometime in late 2005.

Then, we witnessed the great transition into anger, and the Democratic landslide of 2006. America was dead, and the people were very pissed off about this. We demanded change! Sadly, that energy was misplaced.

Now, in 2007, we witness the next transition, to bargaining. As you read this, mainstream Democrats are saying to themselves: “I know Hillary won’t end the war, but at least she’ll be better than Bush”. As you read this, mainstream Republicans are saying to themselves: “Huckabee is an idiot when it comes to evolution, but at least he wants to abolish the IRS”.

Although disheartening to witness, we should take comfort in the fact that significant progress is being made, albeit slowly.

So what does this have to do with “9/11 Truth”? I challenge that the goal of “waking up the sheeple” is inherently flawed. It demands a 5-stage grieving progress, and the acceptance of nothing less than the total death of America. Furthermore, I believe this zeitgeist has already gone national, if only subconsciously. In other words, the transformation has already begun, and advanced to stage three.

What do I propose? We must divide our target into two categories: those who have passed on to “bargaining”, and those still stuck in “denial”. These groups can be targeted more effectively once recognized.

Those in “bargaining” mode must be made aware of Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Ron Paul. Tell them in no uncertain terms: until primary season has passed, there is no reason to “settle”. I like offering three names, including both Democrat and Republican. Rather than pushing “Candidate A”, I am pushing the idea that dark-horse candidates are the only candidates worth considering. I myself prefer Ron Paul, but more importantly, all three men offer the only sanity to be found in this election cycle. Most people will recognize that once given a reason to seek it. After all, truth is self-evident.

Then, I will usually find myself in a debate of Kucinich v. Paul, which I far prefer to the debate of Hillary v. Giuliani. As Harry Browne once illustrated: positive choice versus negative choice. It requires a delicate touch, but is well worth the effort. Better still: it makes for far more interesting debates.

Those in denial can be best served by creating doubt. Do not attempt to subvert their entire world view in a 2-hour film, or 30-minute conversation. Anyone converted so easily will be easily poached by some other cause in the near future. A rational mind is a skeptical mind, and a skeptical mind can not be forced, only directed. For example, whenever the subject of 9/11 comes up, I like to use the following:

Me: Do you know what NIST is?

Skeptic: No.

Me: They’re the government agency that investigated the September 11 attacks.

Skeptic: So what?

Me: Do you know what their report said about the twin towers?

Skeptic: No.

Me: They said it was inconclusive. They aren’t 100% sure why the towers collapsed.

Skeptic: Bullshit.

Me: Google it.

Skeptic: That Internet stuff is all bullshit. Don’t read that crap.

Me: I’m not talking about the conspiracy stuff, I’m talking about the NIST report. Most of that conspiracy shit is crazy; I’m talking about the official investigation.

Skeptic: The tower collapsed because it was hit by a fully-loaded plane. What are you, retarded?

Me: Everyone knows the towers were hit by planes. But why did they collapse? Did the terrorists plant bombs in the building?

Skeptic: The jet fuel caused it to collapse.

Me: Not according to NIST. They aren’t sure why it collapsed. Isn’t that weird?

Skeptic: You must have misread something.

Me: I’ll wager you $5 that the official NIST report was inconclusive.

Skeptic: You lose. Hand it over.

Me: No way. Go look it up. And I want my 5 bucks tomorrow.

Needless to say, I have yet to collect the $5 from anyone. However, I have done several key things instead:

1. I have offered an economic incentive to research the issue.

2. I have not challenged the skeptic’s world view, I have simply contested an easily confirmed, and ultimately irrelevant, misconception.

3. I have appealed to the skeptic’s ego: “If you’re so smart, prove me wrong.”

4. When the skeptic returns to call me crazy, and gloat about some insane conspiracy theory he found, I can repeat myself: “Yeah, some of that stuff is bullshit. Did you read the official report like I told you to?”. Rather than discredit me with a bizarre unfounded theory (of which there are MANY), I have discredited the skeptic because they have failed to research the “official” site as we agreed.

This does not result in an immediate “conversion”. Rather, it lays a seed of doubt. And, in moments of boredom and restlessness, that doubt will gnaw away at the skeptic. They will ask themselves, perhaps weeks later, “What was that report called?”. They will find themselves on Google, asking the mighty machine for “official report 911″. Unable to remember the name “NIST”, they will be forced to click on, not only to the official 9/11 Commission Report, but to the countless documents which dispute it.

So what have I proposed, and, how does it differ from what you are doing already?

In summary: rather than divide the world into “truthers” and “skeptics”, play to your strengths, and embrace the agnostics among you. The majority of Americans have lingering doubts about 9/11. The majority of Americans would support a new investigation. However, the majority of Americans are not convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. I am one of them.

Rather than view me as a sell-out, enemy of the cause, tool of the establishment, view me as the strong ally I might be to you. And, herein lies the paradox, and the reason I myself remain agnostic about 9/11:

If you already know that 9/11 was an inside job, what is the point of a new investigation? Prepare for an ugly answer: you don’t know 9/11 is an inside job. Perhaps in a court of law you would prove it beyond any reasonable doubt, however, as victims of our justice system already know, that is a far cry from “truth”.

The better motto, the better cause: we want a new investigation. We don’t know anything, but we have doubts and suspicions. No, we can’t prove doubts and suspicions- this is why we need a new investigation. Transition from fringe to common sense. Stop defending speculation, and start demanding independently-verified evidence.

Only then will you get your trial.

And only then will be able to hang these bastards, if in fact they deserve hanging.

Signed,

The King of Contradiction

Your pal,

Zap

Hungry for more?

• 9/11
• Ron Paul