Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Current Issue: Fallacy of the 'big tent' (5 posts)

  1. truthmover
    Administrator

    Current Issue: Fallacy of the 'big tent'

    David Shayler's recent comments about missiles and holograms being "the truth" directly undermine the credibility of the movement, and I find it entirely unacceptable that an ex-MI5 agent wouldn't be aware of this. We must not simply excuse this behavior as potentially naive.

    People who think that planes didn't hit the WTC are simply incorrect. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Period. End of story. Thank you, and goodnight. Its not true! Not truth.

    Sure, there is a great deal of intriguing speculation about what hit the buildings, but that's a far cry from having a valid theory supported by adequate evidence. I've reviewed the evidence regarding missiles, holograms, and video manipulation. I don't find it very compelling and it does not lead me to the same conclusions as those who promote it. So do we, in the name of having a 'big tent' of mutual support, allow things that are NOT TRUE to be an active part of a 'truth movement'?

    What role have these lines of inquiry served in 9/11 truth movement? In my experience these hypotheses have lead to the following results. Talking points for mainstream news seeking to present our cause in the most incredible manner possible. A point of cleavage within the movement between those with a more scientific approach, and those who are inspired more by imagery and intrigue. A continuous distraction as we debate factual details instead of helping inspire one another to take action.

    As this negative impact on the movement serves the interests of the institution, is it not reasonable to assume that our infiltrators would be supporting this approach? We know we are infiltrated, and acting like we can ignore this is dangerous. Of course, what these people are doing is a lot more important that who they are specifically, which is nearly impossible to determine. We must identify the strategies of subversion. What do YOU think our infiltrators would be doing?

    There are hundreds of books about the JFK assassination, many of them written by people who also think aliens have invaded the Earth. There's certainly no 'big tent;' in that movement. In fact there are documented cases of obvious attempts to lead people away from the most relevant facts. Just like 9/11, different agencies are competing to pass the blame. The 9/11 Truth Movement should not be viewed as a 'big tent' for the same reason. Some of the people in this movement, who are trying very hard to appear genuine, are in fact trying to undermine or re-direct our efforts.

    So if we assume that these people exist, and that they would be trying to exercise some public influence over our message, then some of those people and organizations who claim to support our efforts must be corrupt. And I'm not willing to say its a waste of time to consider this just because we can't figure out exactly who they are. Once again, its about identifying the strategies. Unfortunately, there are some influential people within the movement who are quite obviously doing things that undermine our credibility. Saying that missiles hidden by holograms hit the WTC is bad! BAD BAD BAD!!!! Its not just another opinion of someone who cares about the truth in their own unique way.

    And where are these theories in the movement? Michael Ruppert, Barrie Zwicker, Nafeez Ahmed, Paul Thompson, Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin. As far as I'm concerned the contribution of these people, and those who share similar priorities, is the core of our movement. And none of these people consider these hypotheses worthy of mention.

    I'm really trying to not let this debate get reduced into a matter of style or opinion. "No planes" theories provide no contribution to our establishing probable cause to suspect complicity. They very often come from people who appear far less interested in the most well founded evidence. And ultimately, they are used by mainstream shills to question our sanity.

    There is a definitive strategic decision to be made here. You either think the 9/11 truth movement should promote only its best founded evidence and theories, or you think it should also promote is more speculative hypotheses. Can we afford to have the 'big tent' mentality in a revolutionary movement highly susceptible to espionage and subversion?

    No!

    I anticipate the possible responses of people in the movement who might get on me about how we all just need to get along. Or how I need to have a friendly tone about everything. Or how I should engage these people in debate. Or how I should simply provide a better example. Or how I should not alienate naive yet well intended people pushing for the truth.

    No!

    Representing the truth is not bending into popular appeals to unity that subvert that effort. The atomic weight of argon doesn't change based on popular opinion, and large airplanes hit the WTC.

    (Disclaimer: I fully support the totally open exploration of all facts and the wildest of speculation in attempting to understand those facts. That's good science. The 9/11 truth movement research community is an essential part of the whole. But as I've said many times, what the movement promotes is very different than the sum total of all its research. We promote the best we have to offer.)

    Posted 17 years ago #
  2. Victronix
    Member

    One person recently promoting Shayler -- fully informed of the above info -- has been Fred Burks of wanttoknow.info, a new Advisory Board member for 911truth.org.

    Go figure.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  3. truthmover
    Administrator

    Checked out wanttoknow.info

    Standard procedure: If you are going to specifically site something, provide a reference. How do I know that Burks promoted Shayler. While I generally try to trust people, I still don't accept controversial assertions without something to back them up.

    Now, I don't assume you would have said this if their weren't some basis. But I'm not going to comb through the maze that is wanttoknow to find it.

    The website contains much that is beneficial, and I think his links page is pretty good, but unfortunately it also deals with UFO's. I enjoy getting into that stuff, but don't feel that its inclusion in a website dealing with far more important issues is very strategic or tactful. This certainly could be used to make the movement look nutty and insensitive. I'm not sure people like Fred think about this angle.

    If I was one of the family members of the victims fighting for justice and accountability, I could imagine being pretty upset about someone thinking that this was in any way equivalent to UFO research. He should have created another website for his more speculative inquiry.

    The 9/11 truth movement is about exposing the most people to the most important facts. Facts that may bear on their future survival. Imagine for a moment, an environmental website, that for some reason has a page all about Paris Hilton. It just doesn't work. These two things don't logically or comfortably sit at the same table.

    Forming alliances in the 9/11 truth movement is a challenge. Operating independently gives you great latitude but little leverage. Working with other people we inevitably have to make compromises.

    Right now I'm a lot more concerned about the alliance of Fetzer, Seigel, and Haupt. These guys don't even agree on what happened, but seem allied in promoting only the most speculative evidence, and making the biggest stink possible, attacking eveyone else, all the time.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  4. truthmover
    Administrator

    On second reading...

    I think I may have misread your intent. Sorry if I jumped the gun. I figured you were attacking 911truth.org with undue cause, as I have never heard that Fred Burks promoted Shayler, and you didn't provide a reference. With all the recent attacks on the movement I've been feeling a bit punchy.

    I hope you were able to get past the attitude to the point of my message above, which I hope we agree on. Some times its difficult to tell genuine skepticism from disingenuous provocation. I never like to make the wrong call.

    Thanks for your input at out forum. I'll try to relax a bit. :)

    Posted 17 years ago #
  5. Victronix
    Member

    No problem - I only have limited time to be on here.

    One read I would recommend is this interview in the WSJ. Fred thinks this is a great article. He calls it part of his 'week of fame.' Fred states:

    "Having assumed the article would be buried somewhere in a middle section, I was amazed on Tuesday morning to find both a long article and a drawing of myself published on the front page of this most distinguished paper! Besides the obvious hook of my testimony as a presidential interpreter in the terrorism trial, the two journalists and their editors may have been impressed with my openness and my deep commitment to building a brighter future for us all."
    http://www.wanttoknow.info/050226fredburkswsj

    Here is the article:

    Lost in Translation: How Bush Interpreter Got Through Security
    He Is Fluent in Indonesian, But He Also Testifies For Accused Terrorist
    By ANDREW HIGGINS and JAY SOLOMON
    Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
    February 22, 2005; Page A1
    JAKARTA, Indonesia -- Frederick Burks believes in UFOs, communes with dolphins, runs a Web site that promotes conspiracy theories about U.S. complicity in the 9/11 attacks and thinks Washington may have had a hand in blowing up bars on the Indonesian resort island of Bali.
    http://www.wanttoknow.info/050226fredburkswsj

    This is a new Advisory Board member of 9/11 Truth! Isn't it wonderful!?

    Fred is a sweet person, looks out for others, but while he thinks its important to have a list of prominent individuals questioning 9/11, he apparently doesn't care what else they are questioning, such as hologram promoter Shayler, no-planes-at-the-WTC advocate Reynolds, and energy-beam-supporter Fetzer. I know people who have declined to allow their names on the site because of these people, but the webmaster won't remove them from the list.

    Actually, I should add a whole thread about that site . . .

    I don't mean to be rude to Fred -- he appears to have good intentions and seems to have 'turned on' many people to questioning 9/11. But unfortunately, when we mix 9/11 with mind control, communing with the dead, and UFOs - plus promote hologram advocates for good measure - in the end, it may not matter HOW many people one turns on . . .

    An endless treadmill, keeping everyone busy going nowhere.

    The important point to remember is that the extreme lunacy and the extreme abusers make the moderate ones look palatable -- don't fall for this. "Mixing" is just as bad as holograms when it comes to keeping a movement afloat.

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.