Suggested Rules When Debating 9/11 Truth
Follow these guidelines when speaking publicly and representing Minnesota 9/11 Truth.
- Present facts
Present facts that are known and have been documented in official investigations such as the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST investigation. It is critical that personal opinions, which we all have, are not presented as being represented by Minnesota 9/11 Truth. This is imperative to our credibility. Encourage others to look closely at the evidence and decide for themselves when asked for your personal opinion. - Leave room for debate
We strongly believe that the physical evidence does not support the official explanation. That is to say that the Official Investigations came to a conclusion that is extremely implausible. Saying “impossible” can turn people off, and if we leave a small window open we can encourage others to take a look again. Our goal is to have other citizens take a look and this is a most reasonable request from citizen to citizen.The 9/11 Commission went into the investigation with a predetermined outcome and ignored any evidence that did not support that outcome. As citizens we deserve better than this.
- Present yourself well
It is important that we are viewed as average citizens who are exercising our right and duty to question that which deserves questioning. Our message gets lost when we deviate from a simple, accurate and reasonable message. Do not swear or use emotionally charged words. Keep it simple and factual. - Stay focused and on topic
The following statement is the best and easiest aspect of 9/11 to prove:The three WTC buildings did not collapse strictly due to fire, as the official story has indicated.
Stay on on the topic of 9/11 and focus on the World Trade Center. The Pentagon and Shanksville, PA flights have serious questions but it is much easier to show the evidence of the WTC towers. In whatever flight that is discussed, question the official story due to physical evidence.
- Avoid speculation
We are not experts with all the answers. It is the responsibility of the investigatory bodies to determine the most reasonable cause. This is not what happened. Our government gave us the most implausible cause. Do not offer speculation of what you think happened even if you have strong evidence. Share the evidence, but stick to the facts.Based on the evidence that I have seen, it is unreasonable to believe the official explanation.
- Use simple terminology
Be able to explain the evidence using simple analogies and without using structural engineering terms. Example questions to ask:- How can the top of a building crush the bottom 80% without resistance?
- Why did the top of WTC 1 and 2 not topple or tilt to one side when it hit the solid building below?
- How could a media outlet report the collapse of a building prior to it actually collapsing?
Be gracious, courteous and above all, genuine. The story speaks for itself.