What Do JREF'ers Think Would be Optimal Messaging for WE ARE CHANGE?

Which messaging (via their signs) is optimal for WE ARE CHANGE in street action?

  • The 'usual': "911 was an inside job" or "Google WTC7"

    Votes: 3 60.0%

  • "Google FALSE FLAG ATTACKS"

    Votes: 2 40.0%
  • Total voters
    5

metamars

Graduate Poster
M
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
1,207
Here is a question for the intellects, great and small, of JREF to ponder.

Which messaging by WE ARE CHANGE, in their street actions, would result in the most subsequent research by passers-by that see their signs?

Would "911 was an inside job" or "Google WTC7", stimulate more subsequent research? Or, would signs that say

"Google FALSE FLAG ATTACKS" stimulate more subsequent research by passers-by?
 
Last edited:
How about..

"We don't understand building collapses, firefighting, explosives or sound... but please give us a new 9/11 investigation!"

...probably a bit wordy.
 
Last edited:
metamars said:
Here is a question for the intellects, great and small, of JREF to ponder.

Which messaging by WE ARE CHANGE, in their street actions, would result in the most subsequent research by passers-by that see their signs?

Would "911 was an inside job" or "Google WTC7", stimulate more subsequent research? Or, would signs that say

"Google FALSE FLAG ATTACKS" stimulate more subsequent research by passers-by?
Click to expand...

The last thing a truther should want is for someone to do research....

If you look at both sides of the debate it doesnt take long to figure out which one is likely correct and which one is the rantings of morons and linatics......
 
How about being honest

" We missed out on the punk movement and need to be P***ed off about something. Hate the government. "
 
metamars said:
Would "911 was an inside job" or "Google WTC7", stimulate more subsequent research? Or, would signs that say

"Google FALSE FLAG ATTACKS" stimulate more subsequent research by passers-by?
Click to expand...
The first is old, anyone likely to be interested will have seen it already. The second is too cryptic, unlikely to attract attention, plus it's also easily misremembered. The third is less well known, and easy to remember, so is probably the easiest option.

Let's not pretend that We Are Change really want people to do research or think for themselves, though: they're out to sell the truther line. A more honest approach might be to point potential recruits at www.wearechange.org, where they can be told what to believe.
 
There are 2 key measures in advertising media - reach and frequency.

Taking the second first, sadly, "9/11 was an inside job" would be more effective. Repetition is one of the keys to enabling your audience to remember your message. Since 9/11 truth is invisible outside of the internet, probably 9 of 10 people haven't heard that phrase, but at least you have the 10% where you can repeat and reinforce the message. Keep it fresh and top of mind while you attempt to grow your base.

As to reach, "we are change" should probably hijack some singles / dating / pr0n URLs and recruit unsuspecting internet users have lots of people at big marches that have a chance of being noticed by the public.

This message would be more accurate though. :)
 
Last edited:
"We hate the FDNY/NYPD"

"Bloomberg did 9-11"

"Da Joos did it!!!!"

"Got 9-11?"

"No judge, no jury, just kill the bastards!!"
 
Last edited:
What Do JREF'ers Think Would be Optimal Messaging for WE ARE CHANGE?
Click to expand...

Man, talk about hanging the curveball. Fine, I'll swing:

"Bring back Psycho Dad!"
"Lose Weight Now! Ask Me How!"
"Honk if you love cookies!"
 
"Blonds love 9-11 Truth"

"Hot chicks dig Truth"

"If you ain't got Truth, you might as well die"

"9-11 Truth= free pizza!!!"
 
A W Smith said:
just a FYI, these are the Google results for False Flag Attacks

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=FALSE+FLAG+ATTACK&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&oq=

nothing 911 related appears on the first page of results. Almost as if the conspiracy theorists are hiding in a church basement somewhere in Manhattan on Thursdays.
Click to expand...

I suppose I should have been clearer. When I wrote

Which messaging by WE ARE CHANGE, in their street actions, would result in the most subsequent research by passers-by that see their signs?
Click to expand...

I didn't want to suggest that the research resulting from the "Google FALSE FLAG ATTACKS" had to lead to 911 specific topics, nor even We Are Change.

Since most everybody knows about 911, and I assume most of the adult population also knows about the "911 was an inside job" meme, I assume that many Americans, if they knew the history of false flag attacks, will make the connection, without having to be told about it explicitly, anyway. After all, 'false flag attack' and '911 was an inside job' bear the superclass:subclass relationship. You'd have to be a little dense not to realize that, on your own.

Whatever the case may be, I am curious as to which sort of messaging would actually affect the behavior of passers-by more, regardless of what it leads to next.

I can think of a low cost experiment that would speak to the issue, though not directly answer it. If you designed an experiment where there was a background messaging, a captive subject (who was not aware of the true purpose of the experiment), and ready access to the internet during the, say, 1 hour of 'captivity', you might get useful data.
 
Since most everybody knows about 911, and I assume most of the adult population also knows about the "911 was an inside job" meme, I assume that many Americans, if they knew the history of false flag attacks, will make the connection, without having to be told about it explicitly, anyway. After all, 'false flag attack' and '911 was an inside job' bear the superclass:subclass relationship. You'd have to be a little dense not to realize that, on your own.
Click to expand...
You are making a lot of assumptions based on some tenuous information, my friend. The fact that you are one of the more articulate adherents to this belief system probably explains its "success" thus far.
 
carlitos said:
You are making a lot of assumptions based on some tenuous information, my friend. The fact that you are one of the more articulate adherents to this belief system probably explains its "success" thus far.
Click to expand...

While I've met people who thought the idea was nutty, I don't think I've met any adult, in the last 5 years, who hadn't heard of the idea, itself.

Then again, I don't get out, much.
 
metamars said:
Since most everybody knows about 911, and I assume most of the adult population also knows about the "911 was an inside job" meme, I assume that many Americans, if they knew the history of false flag attacks, will make the connection, without having to be told about it explicitly, anyway. After all, 'false flag attack' and '911 was an inside job' bear the superclass:subclass relationship. You'd have to be a little dense not to realize that, on your own.
Click to expand...

Yet the connection is not as obvious within Google search results. Therefore, street action participants simply holding up signs asking passers by to "Google False Flag Attacks" won't necessarily be led to support beliefs of a 911 inside job conspiracy. WHAT YOU NEED is evidence of such a conspiracy. and you have none.
 
Yes, I have to agree with AW, metamars. Why on Earth are you debating on what your signs should say when what you REALLY need is support of any respected scientific community, main-stream media, academia, or law enforcement agencies? Alas, for that you need real evidence. No, not the crap you folks CALL evidence, but the real stuff that gets real people who can make things happen to pay attention and....well....make things happen. You know, the kind you don't have.

Going about it your way insures your delightful little movement continues its fall into obscurity.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't use "False Flag Attack". I never even heard that term before talking with CT's. I don't think the average Joe would even know what you were talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom