The website hasn't been updated since August. What are Les and friends up to?
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
NY911Truth still active? (43 posts)
-
Posted 16 years ago #
-
They've temporarily stopped holding Sunday evening events at the church, in favor of putting 100% of their efforts into collecting signatures for the ballot initiative.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Thanks for the info. Good to know.
Posted 16 years ago # -
I saw Les and others at Union Sq doing their thing. No one seemed to be paying much attention to them when I was there.
Posted 16 years ago # -
I once sat waiting for my wife observing Les attempting to gain signatures for his ballot initiative. he stood there holding a clipboard - and in the one hour i observed him he did not approach one person. i guess he expected people to approach him?
is that the way to get signatures?
Posted 16 years ago # -
I once sat waiting for my wife observing Les attempting to gain signatures for his ballot initiative. he stood there holding a clipboard - and in the one hour i observed him he did not approach one person. i guess he expected people to approach him?
is that the way to get signatures?
I've observed this process on dozens of occasions over the last year. Sometimes from a distance and sometimes in ear shot. In all those times I only saw Les speaking to someone on one occasion, and he seemed bored by the conversation if not annoyed.
There were rarely more than two or three people early on. In the last couple months before the deadline, I started to see more people and younger faces. For all my critique and skepticism about Les, I had a bit of hope that the project might generate greater interest in participation. And yet, that hope didn't stand up to my understanding of Les.
Yet again he's found a way to squander any momentum his actions have generated. I won't bother with motivation, but the result always seems the same with Les. Do something half-assed and alienate the people who want to do it better.
Posted 16 years ago # -
John A wrote:
I once sat waiting for my wife observing Les attempting to gain signatures for his ballot initiative. he stood there holding a clipboard - and in the one hour i observed him he did not approach one person. i guess he expected people to approach him?
How long ago was this, and where was this? Did he have signs? If so, he might have expected the signs to attract people's attention. He has told me that when he set up signs in Union Square during the "Green Markets" there this past summer, a lot of people approached him.
Also, he has told me that he and the little groups of people who go out with him have not been the only people collecting signatures. Apparently they've spent money on some professional signature-gatherers as well.
truthmover wrote:
I've observed this process on dozens of occasions over the last year. Sometimes from a distance and sometimes in ear shot. In all those times I only saw Les speaking to someone on one occasion, and he seemed bored by the conversation if not annoyed.
This is not what I observed approximately a month ago outside the auditorium at Cooper Union, where he did a pretty good job of approaching people and collecting signatures. Perhaps he has gotten better at it?
Posted 16 years ago # -
i guess. it was mid-summer and he had a banner strapped to a lamp-post at the mouth of the large subway entrance at 14th street.
i am not assigning 'motivation' behind his style (simply strongly suggesting it in a subjective biased way - LOL!!)
but it is interesting that you quote Les as saying that "a lot of people approached him."
anyone who has attempted to collect signatures on a petition knows that you cannot just wait for people to approach you. they won't.
Posted 16 years ago # -
John A wrote:
anyone who has attempted to collect signatures on a petition knows that you cannot just wait for people to approach you. they won't.
I know from experience that, if you have sufficiently eye-catching signs (especially signs with pictures), quite a few people [b][i]will[/i][/b] walk up and take a look. Of course I don't know whether the particular sign you saw was sufficiently eye-catching to attract the attention of very many passers-by. However, I do know that past NY 9/11 Truth street actions, of which I participated in quite a few last fall, did rely on signs to attract attention.
Posted 16 years ago # -
you would think that the looming deadline and overwhelming numbers required to get this on the ballot would require a more aggresive approach.
"Hi - may I interupt your day to take a look at a petition?"
gee - how hard is that?
Diane - please do keep in mind that this is the same man who ran a 9/11 anniversary event in which a slide show was presented to the audience labeling some of our most prominent activists as TERRORISTS and AGENTS.
i just need to return this discussion back to reality.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Webster Tarpley's behavior at last year's NY 9/11 Truth conference was, of course, reprehensible, but I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion of our varying observations about Les collecting signatures for the ballot initiative.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Les Jamieson is responsible for who he presents to the public as an authority on 9/11 Truth. he is responsible for the content of his own events. He is responsible for REPEATEDLY presenting 'activists' who are hostile - not just to the movement - but to the TRUTH. Nico Haupt? Judy Woods? Paula Gloria?
He is responsible for selling a magazine "Criminal Politics" at a 9/11 Truth event - in which virulent and disgusting antisemitic articles appear. he is responsible for appointing a UFO advocate to the ballot initiative.
Diane - i really have to call you out on this.
what don't you get here? how hostile to the movement does someone have to be before you are willing to stop endorsing their work?
what will you endorse next? the KKK Soul Food Collective? (ignore that smell of bitter almonds)
Posted 16 years ago # -
Why do I support the NYC ballot initiative (albeit with reservations)? Simply because, as far as I am aware, there isn't, currently, any other concrete effort toward an independent investigation of 9/11.
Dennis Kucinich has mentioned a possible "Truth and Reconciliation" commission, but, as far as I'm aware, there's no actual organized effort behind that yet.
As soon as you or others here launch (or can point me toward) a concrete, focused effort that's better than the NYC ballot initiative, then I'll be happy to support it instead of the NYC ballot initiative.
In the meantime, I want to support some concrete effort, even if I'm less than completely satisfied with it. I am not content just to sit around and moan about the sorry state of the 9/11 Truth movement. Nor do I feel comfortable with activism that focuses purely on raising awareness and not on any concrete action toward an independent investigation. Yet, alas, I don't feel qualified to launch a concrete effort on my own.
Maybe I'd feel differently about this if I were an oldtimer like you. However, if you wish to persaude relative newcomers to the 9/11 Truth movement not to support the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative, it seems to me that the best way to accomplish that is to launch a better alternative. Otherwise, it seems to me, your criticism is likely to be seen as purely destructive, not constructive, toward the central goal of the 9/11 Truth movement -- which originally was, after all, to have a truly independent investigation of 9/11.
I do sympathize with many (though not all) of your concerns. But I am even more frustrated by the absence of a better concrete effort.
Could someone here please, please, please, PLEASE actually launch something?
Perhaps a revival of the Justice for 9/11 complaint, now that Spitzer is no longer around?
Jon Gold? Are you still in touch with the Jersey Girls? Is there any chance that any of them would be interested in getting together with other 9/11 Truth movement oldtimers to organize some concrete, focused proposal for an independent investigation?
I really would like to support something better than the NYC ballot initiative. Just organize it, please, someone out there. Please?
Posted 16 years ago # -
JohnA wrote:
He is responsible for selling a magazine "Criminal Politics" at a 9/11 Truth event
Just one 9/11 Truth event, or repeatedly? And are you sure he was aware of its contents before he allowed it to be sold?
Unfortunately, there is only one regularly active 9/11 Truth group in NYC besides New York 9/11 Truth -- We Are Change, which is committed to supporting Alex Jones, who regularly hosts the likes of Texe Marrs, Henry Makow, et al. At least New York 9/11 Truth isn't committed to supporting any of these folks.
When I attended meetings of New York 9/11 Truth last fall and winter, there were quite a few things I was bothered by, e.g. the endorsement of "Illuminati" claims by various people and in various videos. However, there were also quite a few people who sympathized with my complaints about these things. So, I didn't feel that I was getting absolutely nowhere.
Posted 16 years ago # -
"Webster Tarpley's behavior at last year's NY 9/11 Truth conference was, of course, reprehensible, but I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion"
What? You're out to lunch.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Indeed I don't see how Tarpley's behavior at the conference is particularly relevant to the discussion of our varying observations about Les collecting signatures for the ballot initiative. What exactly do these two things have to do with each other?
Could you please respond with something substantive, rather than a personal insult (calling me "out to lunch")?
Also, do you have anything to say about what I consider to be the more important question: Is anyone here willing to launch any concrete, organized effort, better than the NYC ballot initiative, toward what I understand to be the central goal of the 9/11 Truth movement, namely an independent investigation of 9/11?
Posted 16 years ago # -
Just one 9/11 Truth event, or repeatedly?
Repeatedly.
And are you sure he was aware of its contents before he allowed it to be sold?
He was the one bringing & laying out the inventory. He said he'd stop, did it again, later defended it as containing good information.
Scans of "Criminal Politics": http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/12?replies=7
It's part of a long pattern of giving a platform to fanatics and idiots in the name of the "big tent."
Posted 16 years ago # -
Nick, it frustrates me no end that, while you've responded to me on this issue, you have not responded to my response to you in the thread about your interview with Carol Brouillet.
What can I possibly do to motivate you and others here to do something concrete that's better than the NYC Ballot Initiative? Or at least to respond to my efforts to counter your pessimism?
Could we please talk about the latter issue? Please?
If you guys aren't willing or able to build something concrete, then I have little choice but to work with what's already out there - and to hope that Lorie Van Auken and William Pepper will be able to steer it in the right directions - since I don't have the necessary connections to launch something similar on my own. (At least some of you guys do have a lot more connections than I do, since you've been around the movement a lot longer.)
I know that others here apparently feel that it would be better have no 9/11 Truth movement at all than to have anything that has anything whatsoever to do with Les. At this point at least, I don't agree with that sentiment. But it seems unlikely that we can have a rational discussion about it here, given the intensity of some people's emotions on this topic. So, instead of getting into further altercation here about Les, I would prefer to talk about what people here can do, concretely, that would better than what already exists.
Posted 16 years ago # -
it is a false dichotomy to suggest that we are not entitled to withhold our endorsement of Les' initiative - simply because we ourselves have not launched an initiative of our own.
it is also patently false to claim that we are not entitled to voice opposition to an initiative under the CONTROL - financially and operationally - of someone dedicated to the idea of POISONING our efforts.
you are asking us to participate in the destruction of the 9/11 Truth movement.
i, for one, will not do it.
i have been around for TOO long, and witnessed too many things, to make the mistake of handing over my blind trust, yet again, to someone PROVEN to be INTENTIONALLY sabotaging the 9/11 Truth movement.
you need to get that Diane. it is my opinion that Les' actions are intentional. understand that. it is my opinion that it is Les's JOB is to put an END to ANY public investigation into 9/11. that's my opinion.
so - we have a standoff here.
you seem intelligent - SURELY you do not expect me to support an initiative by someone i BELIEVE is an intentional disruptor and saboteur.
Posted 16 years ago # -
.
What can I possibly do to motivate you and others here to do something concrete that's better than the NYC Ballot Initiative? Or at least to respond to my efforts to counter your pessimism?
I'm not "pessimistic," I did much that was concrete, devoted four years to this effort, saw it decline intellectually and spiritually, and was at one point pushed out by the very people you think merit your support. You'll excuse me if I don't want to devote myself to it any more at least until I see others starting an organization that is intellectually rigorous, humble, and devoted to a strategy that seeks to build coalitions for disclosure, justice and accountability beyond the automatic "inside job" box. It's time for others to take that initiative.
Posted 16 years ago # -
I feel exactly the same was as Nick. I was in the movement from the beginning, also. In fact, I believe I was the first to use the phrase, "9/11 truth movement," on my organization's website, septembereleventh.org. I cringe at that thought now, since the "movement" has become a joke. I commend sincere activists like yourself trying to rejuvenate it, but if you didn't go through what Nick and I did, you have no idea what you are up against. Have you read my farewell article to the 9/11 truth movement?
http://www.septembereleventh.org/five_years_later....
I wrote this with new activists in mind, as a warning of what they were in for. It chronicles a lot of what happened to the early movement. There's also a link in that article to a speech on 9/11 I gave at Portland State University to a fairly large crowd of Howard Dean supports. I know you only have dial-up, but if you are able to listen to an mp3, this talk might not educate you on anything you don't already know, but it will give you a good sense of what the "movement" did to me and others, and why we left it.
http://septembereleventh.org/documents/deaniac.mp3
One caveat, in the talk I repeat the "WTC powerdown" claim, which I later learned was disinfo.
Emanuel
Posted 16 years ago # -
To JohnA:
I never said that you, or others here, are not entitled to withhold your endorsement" of the NYC ballot initiative. I said that I don't feel comfortable withholding my endorsement of it (albeit with reservations), given the absence of any concrete alternative at the present time.
As for who controls the NYC ballot initiative, it's my impression that William Pepper has more control over it than Les does. This past winter, an earlier version of the ballot initiative was ditched in favor of a new version proposed by WP, who also seems to have the upper hand in terms of connections, access to funding sources, etc.
What are your impressions of William Pepper?
My own reservations about the ballot initiative have more to do with who some of the other proposed commissioners are. As I said, though, I can only hope that Lorie Van Auken and William Pepper will steer things in the right direction.
Posted 16 years ago # -
In fact, I believe I was the first to use the phrase, "9/11 truth movement," on my organization's website, septembereleventh.org.
Nope. Maybe "movement," but certainly not 9/11 truth. As a coinage it came up long before that between Carol Brouillet, Kubiak, certain others and myself while we communicated already in 2002. Perhaps it's inevitable that this would have been the name, but not necessarily; before 9/11, was there a "JFK truth movement"? The San Fran group became 9/11 Truth Alliance early and I remember a physical-meeting debate in Sept. 2002 over what a national org should be called. At my insistence and finally by consensus it was to be 9/11 Truth (alliance, movement, or otherwise) and as a result Kyle Hence first registered 911Truth.org and I published the phrase "9/11 truth disclosure movement there" in Sept. 2003 (see archive of Oct. 11): http://web.archive.org/web/*/911truth.org
The first time the phrase comes up on your site is Jan. 1, 2004, says wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://septembereleventh.org
Perhaps what you're remembering is the later conference call in 2004, that included both of us and you carried the day arguing for 911Truth.org as an org name instead of my own 9/11 Truth Alliance. Of course that was very, very wise, though at the time I was quite retro about anything calling itself "dot-org," it sounded like a terrible capitulation to the capitalist zeitgeist, and I liked traditional sounding names best.
Anyway, go check Lexis and you'll see me attributed to the first published reference to the complete phrase in newspapers. (SF Chronicle, March 2004).
I know this seems childish but I decided always to insist on credit for anything I did, after seeing how the movement was poisoned by people taking credit and receiving respect as leaders for things they didn't actually do themselves. (Like the subject of this page.) Not that you're anything like that, but the general principle stands.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Nick wrote:
I'm not "pessimistic," I did much that was concrete, devoted four years to this effort, saw it decline intellectually and spiritually, and was at one point pushed out by the very people you think merit your support.
I'd like to hear more about this from you, preferably via a private phone conversation. I'll write a private message to you later in the Truth Action forum.
You'll excuse me if I don't want to devote myself to it any more at least until I see others starting an organization that is intellectually rigorous, humble, and devoted to a strategy that seeks to build coalitions for disclosure, justice and accountability beyond the automatic "inside job" box.
Well, I would like to be involved in starting such an organization, but I'll need a lot of help, advice, and introductions from oldtimers like yourself.
The kind of organization I would like to be involved in starting would, first of all, need to have some concrete effort to point to, in terms of an independent investigation with teeth. To that end, I would need someone to introduce me to the Jersey Girls and to other big-name people whose support and involvement would be needed.
The kind of organization I would like to be involved in starting would not focus on trying to convince people that "9/11 was an inside job." Instead, it would focus on pointing out known government lies, contradictions, and assorted creepy facts that obviously need to be investigated -- and the responsible people held accountable -- even if the most innocent possible interpretations are put on them.
Also, I have a passion for confronting and actively opposing (not just condemning, avoiding, or shunning) religion-based bigotry. Thus, in addition to supporting a new investigation of 9/11, I would want my ideal group to be an active counterweight to the Alex Jones crowd by producing and distributing literature that debunks the more common "Illuminati" and anti-Jewish conspiracy claims, for example.
Nick, might you be interested in joining -- and helping me start -- a group that fits the above description?
Posted 16 years ago # -
Comments on Emanuel Sferios's article 9/11 Five Years Later: What Have We Accomplished? (linked in emanuel's post above):
Today it is rare that I talk to a person who doesn't believe the US government was involved in the attacks in some way. Compared to just two years ago, when people would look at us like we were crazy for suggesting such a thing, this is an amazing success.
Or so it seems. For at the same time, not a single perpetrator of 9/11 has been prosecuted, and the War on Terror continues unabated, as does the endless stream of lies and propaganda designed to keep us fearful and compliant. Why this discrepancy? What accounts for the 9/11 Truth Movement's seeming victory in shattering the American public's blind acceptance of the official story, and the stark reality that nothing has changed politically? In other words, why, in the midst of total success, have we failed?
Were there any serious, concrete efforts (besides the NYC ballot initiative) to obtain a new investigation after the failure of the Justice for 9/11 complaint in 2004? If not, then the answer to the above question may simply be that no one in the 9/11 Truth movement itself took advantage of the change in public opinion to make any serious effort to bring the possible perpetrators to justice.
The 2004 Justice for 9/11 complaint may have been premature, occurring before the change in public opinion which you say happened during 2004 to 2006. Perhaps the Justice for 9/11 complaint might have been more successful had it been launched a year later?
Political change doesn't happen automatically as the result of a change in public opinion. Organized efforts are still needed to get things done politically.
I basically told them that I felt the movement was over, that we had failed, and that the window of opportunity for obtaining justice for 9/11 was closed for good.
I totally disagree with this. The movement just needs to get back on the track of focusing on the things which need to be investigated and which will be most fruitful in calling for a new investigation. And there are signs (such as the popularity of 9/11: Press for Truth) that the movement is indeed starting to find its way back to the right track.
Yet I don't want to reaffirm a false hope that the perpetrators of 9/11 will ever be prosecuted. Rather, I want to try to help people transcend and integrate the truth of 9/11 into a broader awareness of the state of the world today ....
Above is another major difference between you and me. I don't claim to know "the truth of 9/11." I'm far from 100% certain that "9/11 was an inside job"; I see "inside job" as just one of a number of possibilities. There are many possibilities between the extremes of "inside job" and "nothing worse than incompetence." To me the point is to call for an investigation to find out the truth.
Posted 16 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.