Jack White Posted October 19, 2006 Author Share Posted October 19, 2006 "Hitler said, 'the bigger the lie, the more easily the public will accept it.'" The actual quote was "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it." And it was Goebbels not Hitler. It unfortunately is quite true, perhaps this explains 16% of the population believing that it is "somewhat likely" or "very likely" that CD was used to bring down the WTC. " Hitler writes in "Mein Kampf" (MURPHY translation: page 134:) "All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 It appears that neither Hitler nor Goebbels said “the bigger the lie, the more easily the public will accept it." nor "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it" and citations that they did are based on misquoting that passage from Mein Kampf. I admit when I’m wrong Jack, maybe you should do likewise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 I admit when I’m wrong Jack, maybe you should do likewise. Yes. Right. Of course you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 (edited) It appears that neither Hitler nor Goebbels said “the bigger the lie, the more easily the public will accept it." nor "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it" and citations that they did are based on misquoting that passage from Mein Kampf. I admit when I’m wrong Jack, maybe you should do likewise. The Wikipedia entry is helpful on this issue. Ironically, people who quote Goebbels and Hitler on the use of the Big Lie are unwittingly quoting an OSS report! I have that report somewhere, and will have to find it and go back through it. Big Lie From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The phrase Big Lie refers to a propaganda technique which entered mass consciousness with Adolf Hitler's 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf. In that book Hitler wrote that people came to believe that Germany lost World War I in the field due to a propaganda technique used by Jews who were influential in the German press. This technique, he believed, consisted of telling a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe anyone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously". The first documented use of the phrase "big lie" is in the corresponding passage: "in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility".¹ Later, Joseph Goebbels put forth a slightly different theory which has come to be more commonly associated with the phrase big lie. In this theory, the English are attributed with using a propaganda technique wherein they had the mendacity to "lie big" and "stick to it".² There is an uncited rumor to the effect that Goebbels also offered up his version of the big lie technique without attributing it to either Jewish or Allied propaganda. That uncited quote is the most wide-spread attribution of the big lie, and it is usually given in a context where the implication is that the propaganda technique was invented by Goebbels, who was the propaganda minister for the Third Reich.³ The phrase was also used (on page 51) in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile [1] His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. - OSS report page 51 [2] [edit] Edited October 19, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 I believe that people often fall for big lies more often then small ones.....some psycholgical effect is operating here - an incredulity factor - that no one would / could make up such a big lie..so it must be true...and/or it is beyond their sense of the normal range of fibs, white-lies, tall-tales and day-to-day lies...so they have nothing to match it against [can't remember the last time I saw the WTC fall and certainly not due to a scenario like this...] so accept it when it comes from authority....as they have been trained...daddy, police, military, corporations, rich and famous, president and all his noble men...Xa, Xa, Xa. Wow! What an original theory!! As to Peter's straw man it not just the government that backs the collapse theory and says a 757 hit the Pentagon but every qualified expert who has studied these questions. He seems to be alluding the apeal to authority logical fallicy which is only a fallicy when the 'authority' is not an expert in subject of dispute. For example -9/11 revisionist make a big deal about Kevin Ryan having worked for UL but normally omit that he worked for a water testing company bought by UL only a few moth before the attacks and that he had no involement in the companies standards testing activities, -ST911 likes to make a big deal about the PhD's in their ranks but these advanced degrees are not in applicable subjects, -Jeffery King is often described by "truthers" as an "MIT engineer" but he is a physician who got a BS in electrical engineering from that school decades ago and only briefly worked as a PE. Electrical engineering of course doesn't offer special insight into building collapses. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 20, 2006 Author Share Posted October 20, 2006 Dozens of surveillance videos exist which could prove whether AA77 hit the Pentagon OR NOT. Why are these videos all being withheld, when they could resolve all doubts about the official story? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 The corporate media and the government are following the simple principle of "don't ask, don't tell" about such videotapes. This principle applies to any number of things about 9/11. The principle is easily applied in sheepfolds like today's America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Smith Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 (edited) Those tapes don't show anything anyway. The military citadel of the worlds largest super power didn't have any cameras that captured a clear image of American Airlines Flight 77 as it struck the building at ground level without causing so much as a blemish to the surrounding lawn. Just accept their explanation and go back to sleep. Everything is fine. Edited October 20, 2006 by Brian Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Jack you have already made this claim a few times and you have been asked to document that the flight path of the plane would have crossed the field of view of the cameras but have thus far failed to do so. Now that you have started a thread on the subject perhaps you will produce some. Do you think the VDoT is “in on it” too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Do you think the VDoT is “in on it” too?[/size] I imagine the VDoT's tapes were quickly confiscated like everyone else's. The VDoT may not even know what was on its tapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 20, 2006 Author Share Posted October 20, 2006 Jack you have already made this claim a few times and you have been asked to document that the flight path of the plane would have crossed the field of view of the cameras but have thus far failed to do so. Now that you have started a thread on the subject perhaps you will produce some. Do you think the VDoT is “in on it” too? Colby would not recognize documentation if it bit him on the butt. But for others who may be interested, here is the "documentation". Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 20, 2006 Author Share Posted October 20, 2006 The corporate media and the government are following the simple principle of "don't ask, don't tell" about such videotapes. This principle applies to any number of things about 9/11. The principle is easily applied in sheepfolds like today's America. ...maybe...It takes time to clone Rosemary Woods. Seriously though, the bigger question IMO is why the 'press' and 'congress', nay even the public are not up in arms crying out for them...along with all the other evidence [audio tapes, documents, NORAD info, closed door interviews with W and his gang on events, et al.] Hey, but for that matter they haven't yet come 'clean' with all the evidence and infomation on 11/22/63....so there seems to be a backlog on honesty, disclosure and dare I say - TRUTH!...maybe they will 'catch up' before the world ends...or maybe they will just leave it to what's-his-name who is supposed to be comin' back..... As an atheist [and not from a christian heritage even] that is just baloney to me...but if I read that 'guys' philosophy correctly....if he did return those now thinking they are his flock would be quite surprised to find his philosophy was very radical and not in any way what most who claim to follow his philosophy subscribe to now....but that is another topic..... Peter, I am not an atheist, but I agree with what you say. True Christianity teaches that there will be FALSE PROPHETS who "come in his name" who are to be rejected. W and his hypocritical crowd are the epitome of FALSE PROPHETS. Most of history's wars have been waged in the name of religion of one sort or another. The "war on terror" is really a war on Islam. The false prophets carefully avoid the term "crusade" which was another "Christian" attempt to destroy Islam. Every warring faction avers that "God is on our side." Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 20, 2006 Author Share Posted October 20, 2006 Jack you have already made this claim a few times and you have been asked to document that the flight path of the plane would have crossed the field of view of the cameras but have thus far failed to do so. Now that you have started a thread on the subject perhaps you will produce some. Do you think the VDoT is “in on it” too? Colby would not recognize documentation if it bit him on the butt. But for others who may be interested, here is the "documentation". Jack Another aid to understanding the alleged AA77 flight path. The giant 757 flew over the freeway bridge at less than 20 feet altitude...something NO spectators observed. Have you ever been twenty feet underneath roaring jet engine? The noise is deafening. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 (edited) [1] http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=746514&postcount=173 [1] http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html [1] http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family...pf_200tech.html [1] http://www.saltire.com/applets/triangles/tri1s2a.htm set ‘side AC’ to 58, ‘angle BAC’ to 48 and ‘side BCA’ to 90. C = is the camera position. [1] http://www.virginiadot.org/comtravel/eoc/eoc-main.asp [1] http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt no mention of them [1] http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=746514&postcount=173 Edited October 21, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 [1] http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=746514&postcount=173[1] http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html [1] http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family...pf_200tech.html [1] http://www.saltire.com/applets/triangles/tri1s2a.htm set ‘side AC’ to 58, ‘angle BAC’ to 48 and ‘side BCA’ to 90. C = is the camera position. [1] http://www.virginiadot.org/comtravel/eoc/eoc-main.asp [1] http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt no mention of them [1] http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=746514&postcount=173 Care to cite any evidence? You do know what that is don't you? A bunch of websites say somethig is true doesn't constitute evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now