Welcome Dele and thank you.
Your right on time. The TM forum is seeing much greater participation, and from some very thoughtful and informed participants in the movement who seem to 'get it' as you say. I use that term privately, as it can seem a bit haughty, but none the less, it does seem like some people just don't 'get it' when it comes to many of the concerns we are expressing here or even the importance of expressing them.
Your post very closely echoes the sentiments recently expressed here by many others. You are definitely on the same page with us.
Regarding the big picture: For anyone not yet hip to our angle, here's the summary. Most progressive movements for change and even some traditionalist groups all have a mutual concern for promoting informed consent (Declaration of Independence) and the inalienable rights necessary for its promotion (First Amendment). We all want the public to examine facts that have been un or under reported by official channels of information. Whether we care about the war, or our elections, or preservation of the Constitution, or the environment, or 9/11 truth, we all want people to be able to make choices for themselves that will greatly impact their present and future with a clear view of what is actually happening.
The big point being that along side each of our individual, regional, and ideological concerns, there is also a parallel and very potentially unifying concern for our basic right to the truth.
In developing this project we had a couple of primary motivations. First, that we could find no 9/11 website that presented the issues in both an easily accessible format and also free of fantasy. Second, after having left NY911Truth, we felt responsible to the movement to present its reasonable face, NYC being an important movement location. Third, in creating the project we simply tried to think of the most broad an unifying concept we could. That lead us to promoting a concept that we felt could bridge the gap between the many interest groups we see who all seem to be saying very similar things. But that could not come at the expense of excluding 9/11 truth. That wouldn't have been honest of us.
Many in the movement are presently trying to build coalition with other movements. 9/11 truth is becoming better accepted, and people in every movement are starting to recognize that it may only be our unified action that is capable of putting a dent in our present course.
Therefore, I'd like to offer a re-framing of this whole debate about infiltration. Perhaps this broad coalition is essential for the greater promotion of 9/11 truth. In this effort, the face of 9/11 truth we present would only the most responsible. Therefore, those who advance the 'big tent' approach prevent themselves from having the opportunity to form these kinds of coalitions.
There will inevitably be people who attempt to prevent this kind of coalition. Webster Tarpley's behavior around the Kennebunkport Warning comes to mind. But that does seem to be the direction that many concerned 9/11 truthers are going. The 9/11 truth movement is starting to get a bit too muddy. I like to think of it as the murky swamp of 9/11 speculation. Working with people who are reasonable and committed in other groups allows us to step away from the swamp.
Then again, we don't have a swamp here at the TM forum, and that gives me hope that the core of the 9/11 truth movement can muster up some unity and make a statement loud and clear that the movement contains a sector that can not easily be dismissed. The most positive strategy of course is to lead by example.