recipients identifed more with a majority rather than minority, and identifcation was positively correlated with attitudes on the focal, but not the related issue ... Divergent processing instructions, finally, produced more positive attitudes on the related issue than on the focal issue, especially in the case of minority support.
The first paragraph of the intro:
Quote:
A robust observation is that persuasive arguments from a majority elicit attitude change on the focal issue (the issue directly under debate), while identical arguments attributed to a minority (1) have less effect in general, and (2) influence attitudes on elated issues more than attitudes on the focal issue. For example, a majority arguing in favor of abortion (the focal issue) may produce positive attitudes towards abortion, but has little influence on related issues such as birth control and euthanasia. A minority making a case for abortion, in contrast, will have little influence on the abortion issue, but may have some impact on related attitudes regarding birth control and euthanasia"
My point is that screaming out "9/11 was an inside job" just isn't going to get us anywhere because we are a "perceived" minority.
I am beginning to think that concentrating on the fraudulent nature of 9/11 is the wrong approach. We need to send out a message that will lead people to think about 9/11 other than what it was.
Does this make sense?
thoughts? _________________ Currently working on a new website
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:17 pm Post subject:
Screaming 9/11 was an inside job is probably not the best slogan as there are several steps needed to reach that conclusion. Lets play the PTB at there own game. They wanted the shock doctrine of the world and worlds media seeing planes and huge fires and buildings collapsing. For me some of the most persuasive arguements come by showing the towers collapsing but with the alternative commentary and explanation of them being exploded. Not too much of a step for joe public to see the towers exploding rather than collapsing (WTC 7 excepted). Plant the "truth" seed of "exploding" then progress to what caused the exploding and then onto scientific dust analysis finding explosives residue. To overcome the mindset that "government" dont do that sort of thing throw in the Northwoods document.
I am also sure that the statistics of 3 skyscrapers coming down as a result of planes, fire and goodness knows what will appeal to certain minds
So my slogan would shout "9/11 Explosives Job". _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
"911 was an inside job" has a certain resonance but the reply is "so what?"
The resonance is no longer clear
People might get it but unless they really get it it has no further import
It's a done expected deed and then how does it change anything? _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:28 pm Post subject:
The power of that slogan comes not by shouting it loud, spraying or chalking it about.
Its true power is felt when the individual finally comes to realize that they and the world have been lied to on a massive scale and proceed to shout or spray or chalk it about themselves.
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:29 pm Post subject:
QuitTheirClogs wrote:
shhh... they’re lying to us
How about a whispering campaign?
Any one near St Pauls cathedral and the whispering gallery. I understand the walls pick up and transmit the voices of people speaking elsewhere in the cathedral. _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
In the street, a billboard with "9/11 CD" may make people think there is a Compact Disk and take a look. If they are then confronted with a nice person handing out a free CD, the person may still be in neutral and not have any prejudices aroused. Once in their hands the person may play the CD (actually a DVD) (more likely to play if they have it rather than not have it!) and see "9/11 Mysteries" or similar.
The realization only sometime later that CD stood for Controlled Demolition may take as long as 6.5 seconds... and they should soon be in freefall
why are we becoming so lazy? It really is not that hard to go speak to citizens about 9/11 truth and various topics, nor is it hard to spare 5.00 and get many copies of fliers at your local libraries. I don't know if I should stay on youtube, as I do feel I am contributing to the laziness of a once active movement, share this video to get people in the streets, out in public, and motivated. _________________ Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1850 Location: Currently Andover
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:31 am Post subject:
The latest blog on "9/11 blogger" includes this snippet so it, in different words, it sort of says what I tried to say in my first message.
Quote:
3) "911 was an inside job" slogan. This is related to 2). However, it's particularly off-putting, and so gets special mention. While this slogan may make for great theater for Alex Jones, and have great shock value, if you want to grow a truth movement that has political teeth, I don't see where being so strident about a conclusion (as opposed to a call for an investigation which could lead to this conclusion) makes much sense. As a form of protest, directed directly at the government, I can see it, but directed at the public, it has probably scared more people away than attracted them.
_________________ Currently working on a new website
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1959 Location: South London
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:49 pm Post subject:
scubadiver wrote:
While I think of it, I have been pointed to a series of 50 Youtube clips called "The Arrivals" along the lines Zeitgiest etc...
Number 24 was posted on Facebook which is useful:
I think there's a lot of wisdom on this thread. We do have to be careful about how we present our message.
I know one academic supporter of our cause whoo keeps his distance because he hates the shouting of slogans, the screaming, the bickering etc. But then he's an academic and we should expect the approach that works in academic circles to be very different from that which works on the street.
As a result of campaigning on this issue for the past five years I have come to certain conclusions:
1 People are far more interested in getting you to listen to their opinions than in listening to yours, so show an interest in their lives, ask them questions and establish a rapport with them. Then they may show some curiosity about you and what you have to say.
2 Don't preach! It puts up people's defences.
3 Recognise the ego problem. Most people have some pride in their own opinions and don't like to be put into situations where someone is claiming that they are misguided. This is probably particularly true of alpha males. You need to use a subtle approach to get through to them.
4 Never call anyone names however frustrated you may get with them. Once you've called them names you've lost them.
5 Avoid "straw man arguments". That means don't argue against a position which they don't actually hold, though the position you're arguing against may be an exaggeration or misrepresentation of their position. Doing this infuriates people. We need really to take care to understand the other person's opinion and why they hold it.
6 Avoid public criticism of your colleagues in the movement. If you have differences with someone that need resolving take it up with them.
7 Be friendly and keep a sense of humour.
On my coach journy to Paris from London and back last weekend for the international 9/11 Truth conference "Vers La Verite", http://www.verslaverite.org/ I had a chance to put these principle into practice with three different travellers:
1 BD, an Iraqi-Lebanese guy educated in Paris for a time and now living in the London area,
2 IM, a British Asian manager of a department in Marks and Spencer in the English West Midlands,
3 JL, a French guy working in computers in the south of England.
I had good fun getting to know them all and getting them interested in the questions that must be raised about 9/11. They were all supportive in their various ways.
IM already had his own severe doubts about the OCT and wanted to know more.
JL had never heard of questioning the OCT before but during our conversation became convinced he should be looking at it.
BD, considering his semi-Iraqi background, was surprisingly the least enthusiastically interested, telling me that his Iraqi dad is apt to make the same arguments as I was making, though he was unsure that his dad was right, but he said he was quite sure that the US and UK had supplied weapons to Saddam Hussein. That's a start.
As for the videos on this thread, I wish the movie makers would take care with the music they put on their soundtracks. It should not drown out the speech, nor even make the speech a strain to lisen to.
Such is the case particularly with the Freedon Unplugged one especially. I reckon movie directors should be asking themselves whether music on the sound-track when you're trying to get across a spoken message is necessary at all. Is it perhaps just a cultrural habit like "chips with everything" or "custard with everything"?
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:12 pm Post subject:
Xmas dale wrote
Quote:
As for the videos on this thread, I wish the movie makers would take care with the music they put on their soundtracks. It should not drown out the speech, nor even make the speech a strain to lisen to.
Such is the case particularly with the Freedon Unplugged one especially. I reckon movie directors should be asking themselves whether music on the sound-track when you're trying to get across a spoken message is necessary at all. Is it perhaps just a cultrural habit like "chips with everything" or "custard with everything"
With you on that one Xmasdale but i think its more of an age thing! Dont you remember your parents always wondering about the music you liked as a youngster.
Sound advice on the other points also although i do think a bit of preaching is ok as long as its moderated. The newspaper sellers used to shout out "read all about it" Now theres an idea for someone. A makeshift paper stand , some relevant literature, a 9/11 truther as the newspaper seller shouting. "Read all about it traces of explosives found in World Trade Centre debris" _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
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 You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
