(N.B. originally posted on Reddit)
As a community we need to prepare a response strategy for the push back that can be expected when Prof. Hulsey's final report on the collapse of Building 7 is issued sometime in September. Dr. Hulsey's report will undoubtedly be the strongest challenge to the myths built by the conspirators of 9/11 in nearly two decades. That group (shall one call them Dick's Working Group? - DWG) will almost certainly already have a plan in place for how to minimize Hulsey/Xiao/Quan's findings. Following is my best guess of their multi-pronged attack (based on what they have done in the past) followed by some notions of how we should plan to react. (N.B. I've no doubt that groups like AE911Truth will also already have been thinking about this, but hopefully this posting will provide more input and a wider awareness of what we need to be prepared for).
Guesses of DWG's Response to Hulsey's findings followed by notions for responding:
Reddit completely closes 911Truth community.
- Response: Community moves instantly to Saidit.net 's 911truth community (Saidit is a reddit look-alike site).
Broad attacks in the Mockingbird-friendly media (N.B. mockingbird refers to the CIA's program of using media assets to forward their particular point of view in the 1970s). These broad-based media attacks invariably are built around a small set of "authorities" who denounce new findings.
- Response: We should depend on AE911Truth to quickly post on their website specific responses that deal with any points raised by "authoritative" backers of NIST hypotheses. At a minimum those responses should include clear answers to arguments used in the past (e.g. fireproofing removed from steel in WTC 1 and 2 by airplane strike, pancake-like collapse expected, weakening of steel from fire, "raging" fires in building 7, and et cetera.) From that posting this community should write letters-to-the-editor for any publication that echos DWG points mindlessly.
Attacks on visible personalities with the 9/11 Truth community
- Response: As hard as this is to say, perhaps it's best that we don't--as a community--rush to defend 911 Truth personalities from personal attacks. This idea is based on the observation that the most prominent and believable spokespersons for this community have a long history of dealing with attacks making them the best persons to handle them. By not trying to defend everyone and focusing on the logical argument that needs to be won in the public sphere, we can keep our collective energy focus on the most important objective. Sidetracking us has long been the most effective method of diluting our efforts.
Quislings suddenly jumping to the forefront to speak online for 9/11 truth.
- Response: Identifying people whose real objective is to sabotage the 9/11 truth message is the most difficult part. However, given that the number of authoritative voices in 9/11 truth community are relatively small, any 2nd tier personality that jumps into the fray with slightly wobbly alternatives should be viewed with some suspicion. Our online position should be to point out that as much as this person's visibility at this moment is appreciated, the right persons for definitive statements about Hulsey's report are the people who have been at the front edge of the 9/11 truth community for a long time.
Broad Online attacks on 9/11 truth.
- Response: The best defense of troll-organized attacks on anyone online is to keep in mind that one should never be responding to the troll. Use the opportunity raised by the troll's comments as a moment to point out the most unavoidable truths about the events of that day. Do not attempt to respond to every troll argue put forth. Keep in mind when crafting responses that the real object is not changing the mind of a single troll, but to gain the heart of all their readers. Never ever respond emotionally! Never be tempted to respond curse-for-curse to attacks online!
Suggestions for proactive actions to support Hulsey's findings:
Use any commentary in local media about the 9/11 anniversary to point out Hulsey's findings with Letters-to-the-editor and call-in to local talk shows.
As soon as the report is issued (and you've had time to read it) use every social media to post links and comments pointing out Hulsey's findings. The proper place for the links to his report will likely be AE911Truth's website.
Recontact people you have written to or had long (unproductive) conversations with about 9/11 in the past pointing to the new evidence. For example, if one has written Bill Moyers about his 9/11 position or the editor of Scientific American, write them a personal letter again pointing out--very, very politely--that new evidence supporting our position that the full truth about 9/11 has never gotten a proper hearing is once again supported by proper science.
Don't be afraid to bring up the subject once again with relatives and family members--keeping in mind that these are people you will likely have to see again--and point out that the certainty of our position on 9/11 has been supported by a very thorough analysis of the collapse of World Trade 7. This study is likely the single most powerful piece of new evidence about 9/11 in nearly 20 years making now the time to speak out!
AE911Truth should post--before Hulsey's report--a thorough listing of all the defensive actions taken to prevent the truth from getting out over the last 20 years as clear evidence of an organized opposition.
Obviously, I can't speak for anyone else here, but it does seem to me that we can expect an organized response, so we might as well be prepare. And, even though we have to prepare in public, having a large group of people ready to answer the obvious things we can expect can't hurt us. Please feel free to list other expected actions from DWG and possible responses in the comments!