➡ This article discusses the concept of “Yes, And,” a technique used in improvisational theater that can be applied to everyday conversations to improve communication and build rapport. Instead of immediately rejecting someone’s statement, the idea is to agree and add more information, which can be more persuasive and lead to more productive dialogues. However, it doesn’t mean uncritically accepting everything, but finding points of agreement and reframing the conversation. The author suggests that this technique can be used in various situations, including discussions about controversial topics like 9/11 conspiracy theories, to encourage open dialogue and understanding.
➡ The article discusses the changing public perception of the 9/11 event, with more people, including influential figures, starting to question the official narrative. The author suggests that instead of dismissing these partial truths, they should be used as a conversation starter to introduce the broader truth about 9/11. The author warns against falling victim to gaslighting and insists that the truth about 9/11 has always been there, regardless of what the establishment says. The article ends by encouraging readers to continue questioning and seeking the truth about 9/11.
➡ James Corbett encourages better communication by suggesting people respond with “yes, and” instead of shutting down conversations. He also appreciates a member who requested his report to be included in the Calgary Public Library, and encourages others to do the same. He ends by promoting his documentary about the truth behind Al-Qaeda, available for free on his website or for purchase on DVD.

Welcome back, friends. Welcome back to The Corporate Report. This is James Corbett of corporatereport.com coming to you in September of 2025 with another edition of SolutionsWatch. And as you know by now, the remit of the SolutionsWatch D program is to present, examine, critically think about ways that you can hopefully improve your life and change the world for the better. So here is a simple piece of advice that could change your life forever. The next time you are engaged in what could be an argument with someone with whom you might disagree, instead of reflexively saying, no, you’re wrong.

And let me tell you why. How about responding with something different instead? Hi, we were learning how to do some improv warmups. And now we’re going to show you how to play Yes And. If you’re familiar with improvisational theater, you’re probably familiar with Yes And. Yes And is a general philosophy to agree with what your partner is saying and then to add additional information. In order to play Yes And as a warmup exercise, have your team partner up into pairs of two. At that point in time, the pairs are going to turn facing each other, and they’re going to speak some information into existence, at which point the next player is going to Yes And It, which means to agree with and add more detail to the situation.

Watch Daniel and I go through this a couple of times, and I think you’ll understand. I went to the bank today. Yes, and it was awesome. They had completely renovated the entire building. Yes, and the renovations were so nice that they caught my eye when I was driving down the road. Yes, and I thought they were so beautiful. I thought I’d take a picture with my new camera phone. Yes, and once I had 40 pictures, I published an album called Pictures of My Favorite Bank, What Looks Cool. Yes, and I posted it online on a website, and it got up to 40,000 hits a day.

That’s how you play Yes And. You just continue to agree with what your partner has said and then add new information. Yes, and it’s great. Yes, and we hope that you learned how to play it. What? Yes, and instead of No, but what on earth are you talking about, James? Yes, I’m sure everyone at this point has heard of the silly improv game tactic technique of Yes, Anding statements, instead of immediately rejecting what someone has said. And if you have spent any time in the online motivational speaking spaces, you have probably seen how many people have attempted to articulate how this improv game idea can be applied to conversations in your real life and to hopefully improve your communication and your ability to build rapport with others.

And so I don’t think I need to elaborate too much on how this tactic and technique can be used in conversation to actually be more persuasive. I mean, why would you Yes, and someone instead of No, but because you’re going to be a thousand times more persuasive if you take on board what the other person is saying and add to it. Now, of course, obviously, this doesn’t mean that you Yes, and everything or that you simply uncritically accept what everyone whatever anyone says. Oh, murder and rape should be legal. Yes, and no, not necessarily.

Of course, this does not mean compromising one’s principles, but finding points of accord finding points of agreement with someone and then reframing the conversation can be an incredibly effective way of getting people to see your point of view. Now practicing Yes, And is something that actors and improv artists to do this a lot. You know, it’s a protocol that basically allows for anything to happen. You know, and it goes like this, no matter what your fellow actors present to you, instead of negating it instead of belittling it or disagreeing with it, your job is to basically accept the situation and then build upon it.

So yes, is the acknowledgement. And then the you know, the but is the actual building on it. Keith, and I really want you all to know here is that this is not consenting in any way. It’s just an approach and device understanding and creating more open dialogue. So let me illustrate this as an example. So say, you know, one person loves Cristiano Ronaldo, another person is not a fan. And so person, person one says, I hate Cristiano Ronaldo, he’s so so it’s too full of himself, he doesn’t care about others. And then the person two is like, Okay, I love that you value compassion and selflessness.

I also value compassion and selflessness. Here’s some instances where Ronaldo showed some compassion and selflessness in person. Oh, okay. Yeah, I guess I guess that’s a and then the conversation all of a sudden goes from I hate this guy to like it. And then you start to really dig deeper into why that happens. But if you had responded to that, like, well, whatever messy is not that good either. You lose sight of actually growing through that. And in that situation, your person might end up loving Ronaldo, the person might, you know, change his argument to be, well, this guy is really selfless and all that.

So yes, and is a good situation for you to get rid of the ego, be more open and express more possibilities. So let’s ego more openness, more possibilities. All right, a fairly trivial example, but I trust in the imagination of my audience enough that you will be able to understand how this could apply more direct more generally in the conversations that you are having in your life, the arguments that you were having in your life, well, maybe more conversational than argumentational. And perhaps that is a way to be more persuasive, or at the very least, even if you don’t manage to convince the other person that Ronaldo is a great person.

At the very least, you can drill down on what it is about a person that you value. And then you can argue about whether this person displays those traits or not, which seems to be a more fruitful, more meaningful conversation than simply I hate this person, I love this person, you’re wrong, you’re stupid. That does not seem that it’s going to be a productive dialogue. So again, I trust that you’ll be able to see how this could apply in a number of situations and a number of conversations that you might run into in your daily life.

But this is the corporate report. So let’s bring it down to something that may be more to the point for people in my general audience. Let’s imagine a situation. Let’s imagine that, for example, you are a 9-11 truth crusader, and you have been for a couple of decades now. And it’s been your hope, your dream for decades to be able to convince people to, at the very least, take a look at some of the anomalies surrounding the official fairy tale of 9-11, so that they will be able to see that they have been lied to and thus start questioning the events for themselves.

Seems like a reasonable goal for a 9-11 truther over the past couple of decades, although it’s been so frustrating because no one wants to. I’ve reached the people I can reach and everyone else won’t take a look. Now let’s imagine that there is a breakthrough moment. Let’s imagine that there are people stepping up on not just a media platform, but the national stage involved in the highest levels of government that people still venerate so much, who are willing to come out on that limb and start raising these questions to the national audience.

Imagine that that breakthrough occurs. What is your response? Do you, A, immediately start denouncing those people as shills and controlled, limited hangout propaganda agents because they’re not talking about this particular minutiae of what I’ve been researching for the past two decades? Or, B, do you, yes, and those statements? Yes, there are a lot of problems with the official 9-11 conspiracy. And here’s another. Which do you think would be the more effective tactic? This is not some theoretical, hypothetical question. It’s a question that we are all now confronted with. As ranking member, our chairman then, Richard Blumenthal, he wanted to do an investigation of the PGA’s negotiation with Liv Golf.

I didn’t think it was particularly appropriate that we would do that, but the result of that, he held a pretty high-profile hearing. The result of that is we had all the 9-11 families start approaching me in the hallways of our Senate office buildings, pleading with me to use this moment to get the FBI to turn over an unredacted version of their report on what Saudi Arabia knew about 9-11. That’s what started me down this journey on 9-11. So, in that hearing, kind of bushwhacked Senator Blumenthal, and I asked him to join me in requesting the FBI provide that unredacted report, which they never did, of course.

But that then connected me to people who wanted to convey information to me. I’ve got a good friend, a contractor in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, Ben Gantler, Gantler Construction, knows a lot about construction, knows a lot about structural engineering, who quite honestly started sending me the best of James Corbett report, and connected me with Richard Gage. And so, I started looking at documentaries, you know, like yours, calling out Bravo 7, Building 7, Graham McQueen’s kind of final interview. And, again, when you get the information, your eyes open up, you see these very legitimate questions being raised, and no answer is being provided whatsoever.

In fact, then when you just raise the issue, when you question it, you get those kind of headlines. But what’s, I mean, I’m just asking these very legitimate questions. Why can’t we do that, which, of course, just raises my suspicion levels. Interesting and provocative words, I’m sure you’ll agree, particularly so because they are coming from the chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in the U.S. Senate. Now, I guess there are a couple of ways you could respond to this. One is to go, you silly, you shill, you control limited hangout operation, propaganda, psy-op agent, I reject you in everything you stand for.

Or B, yes. And which do you think would be more effective, even, as a conversation starter or a way of drawing attention to your cause? To fight against the momentum that is happening or to go with the momentum and get in front of it. I humbly pause it today that the second would, regardless of anything else, at least be the more effective form of communication here. And this is just a psychological insight. It’s not even a statement about the facts of the universe. It’s just a statement about psychology. In fact, as Senator Johnson goes on to point out in that interview, which I hope you’ve seen by now, but if not, follow the link from the show notes to see the entire interview.

As Senator Johnson goes on to point out, most people have not brought themselves to really ask the questions about the 9-11 fairy tale because they are afraid of the answer. And obviously there are a number of reasons why they’re afraid of the answer, but perhaps they are even afraid of asking the question because humans, I don’t know if you’ve noticed this in your travels around the globe and your conversations with other human beings, but humans tend to require social proof, more so than they require cold, logical, emotionless, rational evidence. People respond to social proof.

That is to say, if everyone around you seems to be saying that 9-11 truthers are crazy, weirdo, fringe, nuts, and you don’t want to be associated with them, or you’ll get the ick on you, people will not question 9-11 and they will be vociferous against it. And when that social proof Overton window moment changes and suddenly, oh, okay, senators and journalists and professors and all sorts of people are questioning this, it is now okay to ask questions. People will start asking questions. And who will be there to supply the answers? Is it the people saying everyone who’s involved in this is an agent and I reject everything? Or the people going, yes, yes, yeah, there are a lot of questions about 9-11, including, and then you have some information you can throw in people’s faces that might allow them to understand more about what is happening.

Again, I posit that that is a more effective tactic if your goal is truly to reach people who have not yet been reached for various reasons, not because they are incapable of understanding or incapable of questioning the 9-11 fairy tale, but because they have not seen the social proof yet. Well, here it is. This is the point that I was attempting to articulate in an editorial that I wrote a few months ago as this changing turning of the tide on 9-11 was starting to take place. Not only, of course, Senator Johnson and ex-Congressman Weldon and ex-Congressman Kucinich and the others participating in the turning the tide 9-11 conference taking place on September 11th this year, but also, for example, the task force set up under the Trump administration that’s looking into, amongst other things, the 9-11 files, et cetera, and that editorial called Buckle Up Folks, you’re about to see the mother of all gaslighting operations, was an incredibly successful and popular article.

In fact, it is the most popular editorial I’ve ever posted to Substack. By far and away, the most likes, the most shares, the most restacks of any editorial I’ve written so far, but I wonder if people read all the way to the end because this was ultimately the point I was making about this and about the moment that is clearly happening right now for 9-11 Truth, the unimaginable moment that we could not have even dreamt of 20 years ago when a lot of us were starting out advocating for 9-11 Truth. Suddenly, here we are.

So what do we do with this moment? Well, as I pen towards the end of that editorial on Buckle Up Folks, I say we could question the sincerity of those on the 9-11 files. We could also question the motives of any of the congressmen, senators, journalists, and others who are suddenly coming out and admitting they were wrong about 9-11. And we could question whether these partial admissions are themselves in service of a limited hangout designed to lead us to a watered-down version of 9-11 Truth that completely avoids assigning actual blame for these events to any identifiable individuals.

Yes, we could do all of that, and no doubt we should. But perhaps that misses the point. The point being that there is an opportunity here not to denigrate these partial 9-11 Truths, but instead to accept them and to get in front of the public conversation that is about to take place around them. Like a good improv actor, we can yes-and these statements and use them as a conversation starter to ease the public into the broader world of 9-11 Truth. There is no doubt that the Overton window is shifting on the 9-11 conversation.

There is also no doubt the public is being gaslit to believe that the 9-11 liars can now be trusted and that the 9-11 truthers, who were right all along, are still cranks and weirdos. But if there is any moment in which the average Joe or Jane might realize they’ve been lied to, and any moment in which they can correctly identify the liars, this is that moment. First, however, we must make sure we don’t fall victim to the gaslighting ourselves. Never forget, you were right about 9-11 Truth even when they tried to insist you were wrong about it.

Don’t forget either that their admission you were right changes nothing except the position of the Overton window. So stop letting them set the window. To even get excited about the fact that the truth is finally coming to light is to give the establishment mouthpieces too much credit. They’re not shedding light on anything. They’re just admitting that they can’t stop the light from shining anymore. 9-11 was an inside job, always has been, who cares what the gaslighter said for 24 years straight, and who cares what they’re saying now. I think that’s really the point of this conversation, and I again would like to suggest that yes and is one way of approaching this.

Because let’s not forget that the black pillars out there, both undoubtedly opposition agents of various sorts, but also those who have fallen victim to the opposition conditioning, their ultimate message is you are weak, you are pathetic, you are powerless, victims who will always be victims and victimized by the they, them, those who control everything and nothing you do or say can ever matter at all. They hang out opposition shill who comes along and puts out 90% of the truth, but leaves out the 10% that really matters. You’re just a powerless victim in this and there’s nothing you can do.

Oh no, they’ve only told 90% of the truth. Oh wait, no, as directly opposed to that. Once again, I hope people understand that the real purpose of Solutions Watch is to let you know, no, you are powerful. You do have a say. There is no one controlling your tongue. You might think I’m limited hangout crazed gatekeeping opposition shill. So what do you do with this? No, but blah, blah, blah. Or yes, and here’s the part that’s being left out, right? And that’s when you come along with information that can hopefully change someone’s paradigm.

Might I humbly suggest reportage essays on the New World Order in which there are multiple essays that revolve around 9-11 truth and pieces of the puzzle that these people may or may not be talking about. Who cares? I’m talking about it and here I can let you know about it. Now that it’s okay to question 9-11, here are some more questions about 9-11 and what really happened that day. Or how about 9-11 war games, 9-11 trillions, 9-11 suspects, or any of my other 9-11 work. Again, that’s the work that I’ve been doing.

No one’s cut out my tongue or stopped me. They’ve tried to take down my channel and other such things. But at any rate, I’m still here. I’m still talking. I’m still telling the truth as I see it. And everyone out there can do that as well. Yes, there are questions about 9-11 and dot, dot, dot, dot. I think that again is a more fruitful conversation that you’re going to find will unlock more minds than the no-butt conversation. Having said that, I’m sure there are some no-buts out there in the audience. No, no, you’re absolutely wrong about this, James, and let me tell you why.

So as a little experiment, why don’t we try putting today’s lesson into practice? So once again, I’m going to, oh my god, James, how could you close off the comments on Gootube? Oh no, you’re clearly a shell. I’m going to close down the comments on all of the platforms. The only place to comment will be CorbettReport.com. So if you want to leave your angry response, what a shell. Leave it there. But I challenge you to leave it in the form of a yes and response. Yes, James, you’re right. There are problems with the way that people are communicating, and this is what I suggest people do about it.

Again, I think that’s going to be a more effective tactic. Why not try it out? Or at the very least, if you’re not interested in playing the comment game online, fine, good, fair enough. Why don’t you try applying this in your day-to-day life and let me know how that goes for you? Once again, I think it will at least be a way to encourage conversation rather than shut down conversation. And isn’t that what we’re attempting to do? I’ll leave that there with you today, but I would also like to give a special thanks once again to a particular CorbettReport audience member who I have not gotten approval to use her name, so I won’t use it on air.

But she has gone ahead and requested through the Calgary Public Library request system Reportage to be put into the Calgary Public Library. And it is now there with two copies that are now in the Calgary Public Library, both of which are currently checked out with people holding the waiting for it to be returned so that they can get it. So thank you so much for that. That is, it seems like a small gesture, but it is a huge gesture. So I would hope other people in their local municipality would be going to the library and using the library request system to request that they get copies of this book.

That would be a huge help for me. Also, thank you to everyone who has left a review of this book, wherever you purchased it, through whatever medium you purchased it on, whatever online review system they might may or may not have. I truly appreciate all the reviews. They truly do help to get the word out about this important subject and an important subject matter like 9-11 Truth. Having said that, I think we’re going to leave it there for today. I’m James Corbett of corporatereport.com. Looking forward to talking to you again in the near future.

We all know the story of Osama bin Laden in Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden was responsible for today’s attack. So often was that story repeated in the wake of 9-11 that the hypnotized public forgot that it was, at base, just that. A story. If they didn’t have an Osama bin Laden out there, they’d invent one. In False Flags, The Secret History of Al-Qaeda, you will learn the truth behind that story and uncover the lies that led to the war of terror. Our war on terror begins with Al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. Watch the documentary for free at corporatereport.com slash Al-Qaeda or support the filmmaker and purchase the documentary on DVD at newworldnextweek.com.

[tr:trw].

See more of The Corbett Report on their Public Channel and the MPN The Corbett Report channel.