Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Latest Hoax Effort - International 9/11 Tribunal (28 posts)

  1. Victronix
    Member

    The title sounds good -

    INTERNATIONAL 9/11 CITIZEN'S WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/911/2007/06/internat...

    but upon closer inspection one finds that it's tied to the hoax injected Vancouver conference and sure enough, what is it promoting front and center as 'evidence'? Directed Energy Weapons and Missile at the Pentagon.

    Here's a relevant excerpt:

    "II. Overwhelming evidence exists that the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were instances of controlled demolition, and/or of the application of exotic weapons such as land-based, air-based or possible space-based Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). But al-Qaeda operatives could not have obtained the needed access to the buildings to plant the explosives and would not have ensured that the buildings come straight down. Nor could al-Qaeda operatives have obtained command and control of advanced Directed Energy Weapons, Microfusion devices (4th generation mini-nuclear weapons), bunker-busters, or other exotic weapons alternatives that are known to be in the deployment or testing phase in the US Defense arsenal. The controlled demolition and/or Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) or exotic weapons application, therefore, had to be the work of U.S. Government and other insiders." http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/911/2007/06/internat...

    Please speak out against this effort anyplace that you see it and if you know anyone going to the conference, it will be announced there and should be resisted openly.

    DATE/TIME OF 9/11 WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL ANNOUNCEMENT: Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 6PM PDT @ Main Stage The Maritime Labour Centre 1880 Triumph St., Vancouver, B.C. V5L 1K3 CANADA

    Related links -

    http://911blogger.com/node/9413 http://911blogger.com/node/9404 http://www.v911truth.org/conference2007.html

    (If you want to merge this comment with my other post, feel free to. I just think that for now, it's important to spread this info)

    Posted 17 years ago #
  2. JohnA
    Member

    I wish this movement had a coordinated mass-distribution broadcasting element to confront this.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  3. Victronix
    Member

    Yes, at the very least we have a disinfo blog that only exposes this stuff, with just a handful of interested people on board who would post regularly. It could include a sign-up email list so people could be warned in advance of the propaganda coming their way.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  4. JohnA
    Member

    Looks like 911Researchers and Nico are turning their guns towards you now Victronix. They picked up on your Blogger entries.

    But - is there anyone they have NOT turned their guns towards?

    Posted 17 years ago #
  5. Victronix
    Member

    Thanks, it's like going to a psych ward to read those . . . interesting, bizarre, nothing else like it. Also interesting to see how they morph over time.

    Anyway, I had a response from the lawyer involved on the blogger thread.

    http://911blogger.com/node/9428

    He's a UFO-logist so one has to keep that in mind - nothing is too far out, publicly. I don't reject the idea of UFOs, I just wouldn't do tribunals saying there were space weapons . . .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Webre

    Posted 17 years ago #
  6. truthmod
    Administrator

    Yeah, it's funny how they're from this site "peaceinspace" which ties in so perfectly with the space beams theory.

    http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/

    These people are highly suspicious. Why do people with supposed "credentials" always show up to promote the most way-out crap evidence? Yeah, I know, it's the only way to get this ridiculousness promulgated.

    No offense to all the genuine CD researchers out there, but why the myopic focus on physical evidence anyway? Why the minutae? If JFK proved anything, it is that physical evidence, detail, and volume of research do not equate to truth or justice. We need to move on to a results and action-based movement, while only promoting the most effective, accurate, and irrefutable evidence.

    And now this. Is Guns & Butter really that stupid? http://www.911blogger.com/node/9470

    Guns & Butter Wednesday June 20, 2007, 1:00pm

    What Didn't Hit the Pentagon

    with Dave von Kleistt, April Gallop and Barbara Honegger. Dave von Kleist examines mainstream media coverage of the attack on the Pentagon; Pentagon survivor April Gallop describes her experiences on September 11th, 2001, her first day back at work as an administrative specialist with the U.S. Army at the Pentagon, after maternity leave; and Barbara Honegger, Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Post-Graduate School, discusses her article, "The Pentagon Attack Papers".

    Posted 17 years ago #
  7. Victronix
    Member

    Why the minutae?

    It's frustrating, of course.

    We don't need minutae, but it happens. That's part of scientific research. That's why most people don't read scientific journals, they're all about minutae. I know, I do science for a living (when the grants are funded).

    The strong evidence for CD is actually simple, the speeds of collapses, for one. You can handwave all you want about it, but most people who see the collapse of 7 understand it intuitively. You have to violate physical laws to achieve that. The explosions are 1200 feet in diameter. That's almost as wide as the towers are tall. Etc.

    A goal of those arguing fine details is to keep things bogged down. Indeed.

    But if we shied away from all arguments supporting real science because there was too much minutae that the other side could use against us, we'd be teaching creationism in schools today. Some people have spent a lot of time and effort arguing the minutae to make the case for evolution and continue to today. They have to if we want to live free of religion taking over everything in this country. Don't be afraid of the minutae of science. Look to who is saying things that make the most sense, who treat others reasonably (hoax promoters tend to attack very quickly and generally don't understand science), and who don't promote ideas that cannot be proven at all (space weapons and God).

    I wrote up a response to the GnB post. We were really disappointed and sort of shocked -- Bonnie is someone we know and like. We don't know why she did this. Now more of a waste of all of our time.

    The best way we can expose the hoaxes is to support each other's efforts. I'll add the link to this site to my comment, and we'll see if it can stick around. The hoaxers survive with the illusion of being many more than they are. It's not hard to accomplish that. I try to post as many different links debunking the no planes hoaxes as I can to indicate broad support. The newest on the block is Arabesque, who has done good work. Support him/her with links if you can.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  8. truthmod
    Administrator

    I agree with you completely, I just get frustrated sometimes. And I find that the propensity for details and physical evidence in this movement, can easily be steered in the direction of disinformation. This can result in many fine minds wasting valuable time considering and refuting completely baseless claims.

    We must continue to have credible researchers doing detail-oriented work (and logically refuting the bullshit)--it is indispensable. Scientific minds should rightly fill this role and give us an outline of accurate data and analyses. But the public, outward side of the movement can't be neglected, and needs to be more cohesive, savvy, and focused on the simplest, most cogent evidence.

    TruthMove was founded on just these principles. Additionally, we saw a major lack of scope in much of the 9/11 truth movement--it seemed like there were many people caught up in webs of tiny details while neglecting the implications and the bigger picture.

    We are dealing with a public that has almost no attention span. We must speak in terms they can understand and we must accompany the dry details with a popular message of context and meaning. Historically, morally, economically, what kind of system would create a 9/11 inside job? What does this mean and what else is going on in our world?

    Essentially, what I'm saying is that the movement shouldn't be about Ptech, or thermite, or Ben Sliney, or clocks stopping, or books not burning because a missile hit the Pentagon; it should be about a massive popular movement toward true democratic values of truth and justice.

    The facts of government corruption and deception are simple and irrefutable; we must proliferate these facts strategically and always with our audience in mind.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  9. truthmover
    Administrator

    9/11 Disinfo blog?

    9/11 disinfo is a common search term that has lead many to our site. Google '9/11 disinformation' and you get links to all the good guys before any debunkers. Oilempire, 9/11research, Press for Truth, The War on Freedom, TruthMove... Its seems that people are curious about this phenomenon. Maybe we could use a 9/11 Disinfo Report.

    The people at this thread are enough to start a blog, and we know others who might participate. But we all know how controversial, and potentially distracting or divisive this could be. I think this might be a solid contribution to the movement, but we would have to portray the blog as having some journalistic intent. It can't host any rants, or comments overly dismissive of whole groups or projects. We all agree on the obvious bad guys, Fetzer/Seigel/Von Kleist/Haupt, but how would we be critical of Alex Jones or Loose Change, for instance, without making ourselves the center of a distracting argument. Then again, maybe someone really needs to get that argument started?

    It might be best to focus on countering factual inaccuracies, and providing logical critique of strategies. It would be good to include some criticism of the good guys as well, in order to appear more balanced. And we would need to have some kind of introductory statement that well summarized our intent.

    Any thoughts?

    Posted 17 years ago #
  10. JohnA
    Member

    To a certain extent, the more we attempt to expose disinformation the further away we get from devoting our full resources towards activism. It is a game of “wack a mole” where we get pulled into one worthless debate after another.

    It is for this reason that I am in favor of a strategy I call “wallpapering”

    What I would like to do is devise a very convincing but compact generic warning/statement that could be used to ‘wallpaper’ any and all websites where this disinformation is being distributed. Perhaps the generic warning/statement could include a link to a more expansive website that would basically lay out the facts as to why this information is suspect – perhaps with a signing statement from some of the most prominent names in the movement. It would continue to call for 911 accountability and activism.

    There would be no debate. The statement itself would call for a boycott of all debate with these named individuals. There would be no response to their baiting. Everywhere these disinfo shills show up the same convincing and compact statement would wallpaper the message board. It would follow them everywhere they go – including their own websites - and it would speak for itself.

    People would start to realize that they are seeing this wallpaper warning/statement everywhere. YouTube. Google Video. Blogs. Message Boards. Randi Rhodes. Rosie O’Donnell. Democratic Underground. It would be everywhere.

    No more energy would be wasted debating. It is my belief that people would start to see the wisdom of this approach – and would help spread it. It could go viral.

    How would the disinfo professionals respond? It would require a change in tactics on their part. I’m not sure that they could respond in any effective way – since our answer would always be the same – the same generic warning/statement.

    And it would not be that hard to do.

    One need only Google the name of one of these clowns: CB_Brooklyn - to find a very detailed listing of every message board he contributes to. I know that many of these message boards would WELCOME a sober statement from the 911 Truth Movement addressing the spamming of their boards. A few people dedicating a few hours per week could wallpaper dozens of websites. And since there would be no debate it would not sap our intellectual resources.

    It could even be converted into fliers for distribution at 911 events.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  11. ghenricks
    Member

    Hi John,

    I like your idea. It includes an educational piece (why these websites and persons are suspect, in terms of disinfo tactics) and lists these websites/people that shouldn't be given the time of day. I have often wondered why so many folks get wrapped up in trying to convince these folks; time is precious.

    I do think a glossary of disinfo tactics, with examples from the websites/people you have in mind are essential to avoid their traps.

    Greg Henricks

    Posted 17 years ago #
  12. Victronix
    Member

    Yes, it's a good idea. (Disinfo blog is also a good idea)

    The main defenders of these people will come out of the woodwork, however. People I've mentioned before on here (handlers & Big Tent) will likely step in to stop it, so it would be good to get many signed on whom we know will support it, before approaching those who have handlers involved who might not.

    A lot of newbies don't know the history of these people, so the links and quotes would be key. Newbies on blogger defend Von Kleist, for example.

    What about Wood / Reynolds? Shayler?

    Those are an issue of hardcore disinfo being widely spread on the internet (Wood ranks very high and fools a lot of people with credentials), although they themselves don't get onto the forums, etc. So that may be a different issue. Or could it include both? These are people promoting pseudoscience and hoaxes who have been repeatedly refuted but ignore that fact.

    I support the idea.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  13. JohnA
    Member

    I would probably focus more on specific "research" - as opposed to attacking the personalities who post it. The warning/statement itself could focus on no-planes, missiles at the pentagon, DEW space beams, antisemitism, and pods. (and maybe a few additional topics)

    i would probably name 911Researchers.com as a main hub of disinformation - but once we start naming names we open the floodgates to a flame war and personalized attacks.

    i would just limit it to a generic warning that much of what you see online is part of an organized disruption campaign to spam the web with absurdist theories.

    in a way we would be demonstrating the curious volume of these posts that are swamping the internet on these subject and force people to question where it is all coming from.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  14. truthmover
    Administrator

    Good idea. A couple of thoughts.

    I agree that something like this should appear as constructive as possible. Sticking to the evidence. We can counter Fetzer's work without alienating all of the potentially naive people who have given him credence. For instance...

    "The progress of the 9/11 truth movement has been founded on the promotion of well established documentary facts. The case for some measure of government complicity was established long ago. Yet despite this achievement, there are many who continue to pursue highly speculative hypotheses, while also demonstrating little respect for the logical concerns of their peers. The following list of hypotheses are either false, non-essential, or promoted by those who have isolated themselves from any critique.

    (Big font) No-planes at the WTC, Missiles at the Pentagon, Orbital directed energy weapons, Plane pods, The Jews did it,...

    Do not be distracted by fantastic speculation! Please visit the following links where you will find the essential documentary facts that have motivated so many to devote their lives to this movement. (Links)"

    Just a quick stab to get the gears turning. I'm not feeling very linguistic at the moment. I had the thought that the ad could be a big pause button. Wait,...hah...the pause button is two vertical bars, just like the twin towers. It could be an opaque layer behind the words. The two bars with the word pause below. We could make the whole graphic look like a button, with beveled edges.

    Anyway, if this is actually going to happen, I think we should consider how people might misinterpret our intent, and how forum moderators might respond. This could simply draw a number of similar responses, and copy-cats who would quickly gum up all our fora.

    Thoughts?

    Posted 17 years ago #
  15. truthmod
    Administrator

    I do think a glossary of disinfo tactics, with examples from the websites/people you have in mind are essential to avoid their traps.

    We already did this, its here: http://www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation/

    Posted 17 years ago #
  16. Victronix
    Member

    Yes, I agree that personalities isn't the way to go.

    It might be reasonable to mention names of creators/supporters of hoaxes in write-ups, without making the personalities the issue.

    The warning/statement itself could focus on no-planes, missiles at the pentagon, DEW space beams, antisemitism, and pods. (and maybe a few additional topics)

    nukes is the other main one.

    The warning statement could link back to a blog devoted to disinformation and signed onto by groups & individuals maybe . . .

    Posted 17 years ago #
  17. truthmod
    Administrator

    New study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/6/prweb534642.h...

    Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained black box data from the government under the Freedom of Information Act for AA Flight 77, which The 9/11 Report claims hit the Pentagon. Analysis of the data contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude. The plane was too high to hit lamp posts and would have flown over the Pentagon, not impacted with its ground floor. This result confirms and strengthens the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the buillding.

    Madison, WI (PRWEB) June 21, 2007 - A study of the black box data provided by the government to Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. "We have had four lines of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building," said James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "This new study by Pilots drives another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission":

    The new society, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained its 2002 report on American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that, according to the official account, hit the ground floor of the Pentagon after it skimmed over the lawn at 500 mph plus, taking out a series of lamp posts in the process. The pilots not only obtained the flight data but created a computer animation to demonstrate what it told them.

    The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11 According to the report issued by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/), there are major differences between the official account and the flight data:

    a. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events. b. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles. c. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn. d. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time. e. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  18. Victronix
    Member

    Relevant Vancouver coverage -

    Dr. Jones & Dr. Deagle debate the 'micro-fusion' hypothesis http://911blogger.com/node/9590

    Deagle says he thinks the planes that hit the WTC were swapped, aside from his nuke support.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  19. Victronix
    Member

    More on Webre -

    Interviews with Leuren Moret and Alfred Webre on International 9/11 Citizen’s War Crimes Tribunal http://911blogger.com/node/9594

    Do we really want the lawyer representing 9/11 to also be a public advocate of extraterrestrials? And not just ETs but assertions that governments hold UFO technologies???

    “Contact by UFOs is a grassroots education program for humanity,” Webre says. He further adds that there are technologies like anti-gravity and time travel in the possession of certain governments that have been transferred by extraterrestrials. http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1080571

    It isn't a question of whether one believes in ETs or UFOs, it's a question of being a public spokesperson for those and then adding that to our efforts. More to bring us down.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  20. Victronix
    Member

    Trying to cash in any way they can . . . (my bold)

    No references for the claims of radiation, as always.

    ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: CAMPAIGN FOR A POSITIVE FUTURE campaign.&#x... To: CAMPAIGN FOR A POSITIVE FUTURE campaign.&#x... Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 6:21:21 PM Subject: Researchers claim 9/11 sicknesses in the U.S. related to environmental radiation contamination

    Researchers claim 9/11 sicknesses in the U.S. related to environmental radiation contamination by David Jones

    Various researchers and activists inspired by the work of Dr. Karl Ziegler Morgan claim that 9/11 sicknesses are related to environmental radiation contamination.

    The International 9/11 Citizen's War Crimes Tribunal documents that Leuren Moret reported for example, "elevated radiation readings downwind from the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001. Two days after 9/11, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) confirmed that the Pentagon crash site rubble was radioactive and that the probable contaminant was Depleted Uranium (DU)."

    "The entry and exit holes through the Pentagon crash site were the signature of a kinetic energy penetrator, such as a Cruise missile, and the term "punch-out hole" was written by crash site investigators over the exit hole. This is a military term used for kinetic energy penetrators. Major Doug Rokke, former Director of the Gulf War I DU Cleanup Team, reported that an email from the Pentagon 30 minutes after impact confirmed a nuclear device hit the Pentagon on 9/11."

    In April, 2007, Leuren Moret exposed the U.S. military's illegal use of Depleted Uranium (DU) weapons in target practice in Hawaii, in violation of U.S. military environmental regulations. The elevated radiation readings she recorded were carried by ABC-TV news in Hawaii on April 29 and 30, 2007.

    The demonstrated public health effects of Depleted Uranium (DU) weapons include: Diabetes; Cancer; Birth defects; Chronic diseases caused by neurological and neuromuscular radiation damage; Mitochondrial diseases (Chronic fatigue syndrome, Lou Gehrig's, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's; Heart and brain disorders); Global DNA damage in men's sperm; Infertility in women; Learning disabilities such as autism, and dyslexia; Mental Illness; Infant mortality and low birth weights; Increase in death rates and decrease in birth rates.

    Around the Pentagon there were reports of high radiation levels after 9-11 American Free Press has documentation that radiation levels in Alexandria and Leesburg, Va., were much higher than usual on 9-11 and persisted for at least one week afterward.

    In Alexandria, seven miles south of the burning Pentagon, a doctor with years of experience working with radiation issues found elevated radiation levels on 9-11 of 35 to 52 counts per minute (cpm) using a "Radalert 50" Geiger counter.

    One week after 9-11, in Leesburg, 33 miles northwest of the Pentagon, soil readings taken in a residential neighbourhood showed even higher readings of 75 to 83 cpm.

    "That's pretty high," Cindy Folkers of the Washing ton-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) told AFP. Folkers said 7 to 12 cpm is normal background radiation inside the NIRS building, and that outdoor readings of between 12 to 20 cpm are normal in Chevy Chase, Md., outside Washington.

    The Radalert 50, Folkers said, is primarily a gamma ray detector and "detects only 7 percent of the beta radiation and even less of the alpha." This suggests that actual radiation levels may have been significantly higher than those detected by the doctor's Geiger counter.

    "The question is, why?" Folkers said.

    If the radiation came from the explosion and fire at the Pentagon, it most likely did not come from a Boeing 757, which is the type of aircraft that allegedly hit the building.

    "Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747," Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for Boeing's 767, told AFP. "Sometime ago, we switched to tungsten, because it is heavier, more readily available and more cost effective."

    The cost effectiveness argument is debatable. A waste product of U.S. nuclear weapons and energy facilities, DU is reportedly provided by the Department of Energy to national and foreign armament companies free of charge.

    DU is used in a wide variety of missiles in the U.S. arsenal as an armor penetrator. It is also used in the bunker-buster bombs and cruise missiles. Because no photographic evidence of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon is available to the public, 9-11 skeptics and independent researchers claim something else, such as a missile, struck the Pentagon.

    A white flash, not unlike those seen in videos of the planes as they struck the twin towers, occurs when a DU penetrator hits a target.

    Workers and FEMA officials at the Pentagon were seen wearing special protective outfits and respirators. FEMA photos show the workers going through decontamination procedures. Bellinger told AFP that the U.S. Department of Defense was responsible for on-site safety procedures at the Pentagon.

    In New York, however, considerably less attention was paid to the health risks the burning rubble posed to workers at the WTC site. A recent screening done by Mount Sinai Hospital found that nearly three-quarters of the 1,138 first responders had experienced respiratory problems while working at Ground Zero, and half had respiratory ailments that persisted for an average of eight months afterward.

    "We were dumfounded by how many people were sick, and how sick they were, and how sick they still are," said Robin Herbert, co-director of the program.

    "If high radioactive levels were found near the Pentagon (and they were) it certainly would not hurt to similarly test for the presence of radiation sickness in those who spent time around Ground Zero, as well," says Cathy Garger. http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/20...

    --


    Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd ICIS-Institute for Cooperation in Space 3339 West 41 Avenue Vancouver, B.C. V6N3E5 CANADA TEL: 604-733-8134 FAX: 604-733-8135 Email: alw@peaceinspace.com ICIS: http://www.peaceinspace.com CAMPAIGN: http://www.peaceinspace.org NUCLEAR FREE ZONE: http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/nuclear_free_zone/ 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal: http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/911/

    Posted 17 years ago #
  21. Arabesque
    Member

    Thanks for the plug for my work Victronix.

    I personally find it very frustrating the amount of misinformation that floats around within the 9/11 truth movement. Obviously the Pentagon is a very controversial issue, but anyone who has carefully researched the evidence, and looked at the eyewitness testimony, composite photos of the damage at the Pentagon, plane parts, light poles, etc, can figure out pretty reasonably what happened.

    I'm more concerned about people like David Ray Griffin, who I consider to be a pretty good researcher. If there would be some way to get him to look carefully at Hoffman's work, and even my analysis of the eyewitness testimony. I know that he particularly values the worth of eyewitness testimony, as seen in his paper on the explosions at the WTC. There are many good things about Griffin's work, but there are also some problems as well that I have. This, I suppose is true of all 9/11 researchers; you have to sort out the good from the bad, and not take everything at face value. It's a personal sorting that you have to go through. The people who promote misinformation so often it can't be a coincidence are the ones you know to look out for.

    I have written a few articles on disinformation, as well as things on the Pentagon. After writing so many articles at 911blogger, I decided to create my own blog for easier access to those who found my research and papers worthwhile.

    http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/

    Posted 17 years ago #
  22. truthmod
    Administrator

    Welcome to TruthMove Arabesque,

    We share many of your concerns about these dubious pieces of evidence and pointless/harmful lines of questioning. We admire your dedication to helping combat this stuff.

    As people have been considering above, we hope that the movement can come up with some coordinated, simple response, so that we aren't wasting valuable time researching and debating pointless and damaging issues.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  23. truthmover
    Administrator

    Hi Arabesque,

    I'm Jules over at 911blogger. You are a very welcome registrant to our forum. Nearly everyone posting to this thread has been arguing pretty much the same thing over at 911blogger for some time. And we've all been trashed for it from time to time. That community more broadly represents participants in the movement at large. As a result, participation varies from skeptical and informed to dogmatic and naive. Thoughtful commentary is most often buried in cheering and booing. Although I've always been a fan of the site. Its been where we get our movement news for some time. And many classic and even important communications have happened there. The moderators have written many important blog posts, and the Eric Williams fiasco comes to mind.

    Unfortunately, you don't really get a second chance to establish firm rules for participation in a forum. Ae911truth.org just found this out the hard way, scrapping their forum after a few days of JREF muckery. Mark Roberts was their first registrant. I'm also feeling pretty insecure about the future of 911blogger, although I wish them the best of luck is sorting all this out.

    Our forum is small, but participation has proceeded organically according to our priorities and forum guidelines. People posting here are pretty active in the movement, as we hope to encourage more people to utilize this space in which we are willing to host reasonable discussion about both information and disinformation in the movement. Many in the movement appear to find this topic taboo, as it undermines the 'big tent'. TruthMove has no commitment to any movement or ideology before the truth. Informed consent is primary. Independent science, history, and journalism. The core of the movement must come to distinguish itself from those invested in something entirely different.

    Mass extinction vs. "WMD at the WTC"? One is a global crisis affecting everything. The other is an internet fantasy. This forum is about encouraging each other to take action based on our globally shared priorities. People lost in the minutia of 9/11 oddity and speculation will not be distracting us from our focus on these priorities. No posts off topic to the Truth Movement.

    So we look forward to more of your posts in the future. I'll go check out your blog. Happy 4th. I suppose I'll be celebrating my ability to do what we are doing. Beats living Cambodia.

    And, yes, we really do need to get DRG hip to a few things. He's always just a step away from having it all figured out. I'm really concerned that LCFC will be full of problems, and that DRG having fact checked the movie will tarnish his reputation. But then again, I suppose for the moment I am hoping for the best.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  24. Arabesque
    Member

    Thank you for the kind words Jules, and I agree with your comments; I share your opinions.

    You said: "And, yes, we really do need to get DRG hip to a few things. He's always just a step away from having it all figured out. I'm really concerned that LCFC will be full of problems, and that DRG having fact checked the movie will tarnish his reputation. But then again, I suppose for the moment I am hoping for the best."

    The fact that DRG is fact checking the LC movie is somewhat reassuring, but in light of his views on the Pentagon is troubling. The release of the Pentagon videos definitively showing a 757 in combination with the release of this film would be a devastating blow to the credibility of the movement.

    The commenting situation at 911blogger is unfortunate. I have been the source of a few attacks--especially for my review of the PentaCon, which is one of the most ridiculously absurd 9/11 documentaries ever made. I almost regret making this review after all of the attacks against me for doing this, but seeing that DRG quoted this film as a reference in his book D911D [!!!], I felt like I had to do something after spending considerable time researching the eyewitness testimony.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  25. imgstacke
    Member

    I have been interested in understanding the tactics of the disinfo artists since day one. My awakening came as a result of watching 9/11 Eyewitness and was automatically following the wrong line of reasoning for the destruction of the Towers. I will never forgive Siegel for that deception. I joined ST911 back in the spring of 06 to help in anyway that I could. After putting my skills of analyzing images to work on one particular website (Jack White) and positively identifying as Disinfo, I had tripped over a web of deception (as past connections between White and Fetzer revealed much established behavior) and had announced to Prof. Jones that I was going to attempt to sift through and act against the promoters of disinformation within the forum. Since that time of study of these individuals over a long period of time I have come to the conclusion that the most dangerous of these individuals are the ones that act as bridges to give legitimacy and credibility to others and ideas. I call them the "Sane" Moderates, and they cause debate on a subject to continue well past the point of reasonable debate. As these individuals are exposed they move further away from the core of the movement and as such a second rank of "sane" moderates must fill in to keep the debate on the ideas in the movement. It is very subtle and very damaging to name names - as to do so is to create automatic disruption. After reading this thread I fully support an effort to clearly identify the disinfo as Ideas, rather then people. It is much easier for someone to be objective when evaluating an idea, trust never enters into the judgment, when focused on the individual disruption occurs every time, and is exploited to create more chaos and confusion in the movement.

    I remember in the first weeks of being in the forum I asked repeatedly for a list of confirmed facts of 9/11, and as no one could provide them I had to research on my own the validity of so many different lines of reasoning. I am grateful for the education, but I would suspect most people do not have the time/resources/background to go to such lengths.

    Highlighting the Disinformation and explaining objectively why it is disinformation (well sourced) would be of great benefit to the community as it will allow people to evaluate who is promoting what, and who is supporting whom, allowing them to make their own judgments.

    I may not have always had this mindset concerning disinformation agents, or agents of disinformation, but this is the way I see it today. Their aim is not to convince people of lies but to raise the signal-to-noise ratio so high that the truth becomes faintly heard.

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.