TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Movement Emergency!!! The time for a clear distinction is upon us. (11 posts)

1. truthmover
   Administrator

   Back to two movements. I argued that there are two separate movements, one invested in fact, the other equally invested in speculation, and I'd now add ideology to that.

   Many of those posting here have been fighting an uphill battle against the inclusion of 'everything else' for so long. We have been trying to reason with people who are not willing or capable. We have been frustrated just as many of them would hope. Yet all this we can set aside.

   TruthMove has made a strong attempt to this point not to be distracted by 'everything else.' And quite frankly is now seems that 'everything else' has the spotlight, and has a lot more attention than the responsible core of the movement. So then I ask you all, what is this list, and does it matter in any kind of a concrete way? I think it should.

   http://stj911.org/resources/index.html

   TruthMove has been working to promote exactly this kind of coalition, and are honored to be included, and yet this has not yet amounted to any kind of explicit indication of the distinction so important to all of us. Yes, we are trying to exclude certain things. The 'big tent' came and went.

   So, its time for the PC gloves to come off. We are not trying to unify with speculators, ideologues, and infiltrators just because they get lots of web traffic. We're invested in something very different. So one thing we could do to radically alter the public perception of our cause would be to present a unified front behind a new movement altogether. How about the 9/11 Accountability Movement? We demand answers! If all those on the list above agreed to a specific platform, strongly rooted in a respect for the traditions of science, history, and journalism, and all our past struggles for civil rights, we might be able to draw as much attention together as 'everything else' is able to draw.

   We very simply need to send out a message that there IS a reputable core of the movement, that we have a coalition committed to a responsible approach, and that we we do not include ourselves in what has presently come to be viewed as the 9/11 truth movement.

   The kicker for me is Jim Fetzer's continued inclusion. Yes, maybe he has spoiled the pot. It does not appear that he is going to be driven out of town any time soon, in a figurative sense. And so in many ways it is our responsibility to the truth that we distance what we are trying to accomplish from 'everything else.'

   I see this as an issue of the utmost importance for the future of the 9/11 movement. People fear this kind of broad change. We have worked so hard together for public awareness of "9/11 truth", and yet that term now seems to imply something we had not intended. Our priorities must help us rise above our fear and take a step that we might rather enjoy. Oh, sure, it will come with its share of hate mail. Bleh.

   A stern warning, channeled from somewhere inside me not so personally biased: This is a 'recognize the problem now, or it may be too late' situation. If we don't do something like this now, all our efforts may be buried under a mountain of propaganda. Circumstances warrant that we make distinctions that will indicate the specific character and strength of our intentions. The quality of our individual websites, forums, and articles, are not sufficient to draw the level of public attention we are trying to achieve. All of us founding a new movement might turn some heads, make our common priorities more clear, and allow us to simply walk away from all that distraction.

   So how about it? The 9/11 accountability movement? Or something in that vein? Maybe just my inspired babbling? I'm not sure what I have proposed is likely, but is might be essential.

   Posted 17 years ago #
2. Victronix
   Member

   The kicker for me is Jim Fetzer's continued inclusion.

   The problem is that when someone gets a free plane ticket to NYC and hotel room, they will come to almost any event, and family members will show up because it is a fundraiser, apparently. The NYC events this Anniversary make the local ones over here look great by comparison they are so ludicrous. Why would a lawyer like Pepper appear on a stage with a UFOlogist making the case? He's been informed but is still on the list for that event. I hope he will say something about his own position on the evidence. I know of one person who will make the case against misinformation openly at the event, but that's all.

   Its true that the only way to have reasonable events, websites, publications, etc. is to do them completely ourselves. That takes a lot of work but obviously both of our groups have good sites and yours has a good forum. We've had a major event over here. You guys would do a great service to have an event yourselves. An event can solidify the start of a new movement, a new era. The event we had with Jones at UC Berkeley elicited the initial overt exposure of Fetzer & Wood when they felt compelled to broadcast the space beams theory on the same day. Events make a big impact on local communities.

   Posted 17 years ago #
3. Victronix
   Member

   But yes, I'm really getting sick of the thick-headedness of most people when it comes to all this (discrediting by association, etc) . . . how long it takes people to "get it," years normally. We probably have really made a lot of impact in people's awareness because we are practically the only ones' openly taking this stuff on. But it's still a drag to have to do it all.

   Posted 17 years ago #
4. Diane
   Member

   Victronix wrote: "Why would a lawyer like Pepper appear on a stage with a UFOlogist making the case? He's been informed but is still on the list for that event. I hope he will say something about his own position on the evidence. I know of one person who will make the case against misinformation openly at the event, but that's all."

   I personally hope that both William Pepper and Richard Gage will NOT cancel, but will both make a persuasive case for the need to present only the soundest evidence. Obviously it's too late for TruthMove to organize a separate event for the anniversary weekend.

   Posted 17 years ago #
5. Diane
   Member

   truthmover wrote: "So one thing we could do to radically alter the public perception of our cause would be to present a unified front behind a new movement altogether. How about the 9/11 Accountability Movement?"

   I doubt that adopting a new name would work. Unless you can legally trademark it, there's nothing to stop the nuttier folks from adopting the new name too, as they most likely would if it ever gets popular. Besides, I think most other people in the 9/11 Truth movement would say that they want "Accountability" too.

   Posted 17 years ago #
6. Diane
   Member

   P.S. On the following page:

   http://www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation/

   I just now found a reference to a “9/11 Accountability Conference” run by one Eric D. Williams, said to have written a work of Holocaust revisionism.

   Posted 17 years ago #
7. mark
   Member

   The key point dividing the accurate (mostly?) truth seekers from the speculators / liars / crazies is the crash of Flight 77. While there are lots of sincere people (self included) who got fooled by the hoax of the "Pentagon Cruise Missile," it's been debunked by lots and lots of people in countless ways. If the truth movement can move beyond that, there might be some hope for progress. Are there any other groups besides "truthmove" that explicitly say "no Pentagon plane crash" is BS?

   a list of 9/11 truth activists who debunk "no plane" is at http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-truth.html

   I'm not persuaded by the demolition theories, but whether most of the claims are wrong or all of them are, the core of the case for complicity has nothing to do with the collapse of the towers. I'm not an engineer and won't play one on the internet. I realize it's heresy to say this in most of the "truth movement" these days.

   The emphasis of the media and debunkers - solely on the plane crashes and building collapses - suggests that these are not the most productive areas to focus on.

   Virtually any new name for the movement would be immediately co-opted. A new name would need to reflect the "two front war" aspect of these efforts - against the official story / limited hang out on one side, and the disinformation on the other side.

   Once it's proven (and it is) that there was adequate foreknowledge and efforts to block FBI investigations into the flight schools before 9/11, there isn't any need to develop new evidence -- that is more than enough to highlight what's probably the biggest scandal in US history.

   ---

   9/11 research is a rabbit-hole of Byzantine complexity full of snares and delusions and peopled with false friends, lunatics, earnest lost souls and a few heroes. It's not necessary to understand all the nuances of science and bureaucracy that allowed the government to get away with mass murder, blame it on swarthy foreigners (of whom many are eager accomplices) and use the incident as (in the words of the Cheney, Jeb Bush et al cabal, the Project for a New American Century) "a new Pearl Harbor." At this critical juncture in human history, it's only necessary to understand why they did it. The motive was Peak Oil, a disaster which will affect everyone on the planet, about which all must enlighten themselves and for which all must prepare. -- Jenna Orkin, World Trade Center Environmental Organization http://mikeruppert.blogspot.com/2007/05/epa-whistl...

   Posted 17 years ago #
8. mark
   Member

   I meant to say

   Are there any other 9/11 TRUTH groups besides "truthmove" WHO USE THE WORD TRUTH IN THEIR NAME that explicitly say "no Pentagon plane crash" is BS?

   Posted 17 years ago #
9. Diane
   Member

   The Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice use the word "Truth" in their name and reject the idea of no planes at the Pentagon. The following page on their site doesn't explicitly mention the "no-plane" theories but does explicitly present a view that a plane did hit the Pentagon, together with evidence for same:

   http://stj911.org/evidence/pentagon.html

   Posted 17 years ago #
10. truthmover
    Administrator

    Facts before coalition, and coalition for the facts.

    Diane, welcome. We broke the Eric Williams story, so I suppose I should have considered that '9/11 Accountability Movement' may not work so well. :)

    And I agree with Mark that a new name could be co-opted. But my general premise still stands.

    ---

    Circumstances warrant that we make distinctions that will indicate the specific character and strength of our intentions. The quality of our individual websites, forums, and articles, are not sufficient to draw the level of public attention we are trying to achieve.

    As Victronix points out, we have good resources at our disposal. But getting people to pay attention to the quality of our work is almost as important as having published it. We may not be doing enough to promote ourselves.

    Diane, your introduction to this movement is far too typical, and perfectly demonstrates what we are up against. And unfortunately not many end up making the critical distinctions for themselves that lead them to 911research, stj911, Oilempire, or TruthMove. When we do street actions, the most common comment we hear is, "Are you that movie?" They are referring to Loose Change, a document with many factual errors. Many of these people move right to the hole in the Pentagon, referred to as 16' wide in the movie.

    But the real problem with this is the perception that the movement is unified. The majority of those not in the movement make no distinction between one presentation of 9/11 truth and another. They have no idea that the issue is now the concern of serious scientists, engineers, historians, and journalists. Why?

    Because Alex Jones and Loose Change have a well funded promotional network that allows them to reach millions of people, and we do not. Part of my point above is that I don't feel that we should be wasting resources trying to compete for public attention with all that. And it may be that the most effective way for us to avoid that would be for us to collectively take a stand for the best this movement has to offer.

    TruthMove was founded with this intent. We're not pulling any punches, making the clear distinction between critique and divisiveness. And very much due to the encouragement of Victronix, Mark, and others, we have recently become even more candid in our expression of the clear distinctions we are seeing between the movement's core priorities, and the apparent priorities of its many organizations and individuals. We have some new people to add to our Disinformation page. Kevin Barrett, comes to mind. Once again, we aren't dividing ourselves from 'everything else', we have always been something altogether different. Although we are seeing people defect.

    Principle before association. The principles founding this project are more important to us that the project itself. More important to us than the movement, or any association we have made. And these principles guide all of our actions. In other words, the project emerged organically as a reflection of our principles. And in a similar way, our associations have grown organically as we gravitate toward those with consonant principles.

    So in many ways I think we have an organic coalition that we should do more to recognize and promote. If not a new name, then as I suggested, maybe a platform. A coalition for the rational investigation of 9/11 that makes it clear what we are not including. SOMETHING needs to happen around this.

    The reason I'm pressing so hard is that we already have that coalition in many ways. Some of us are very independent, while others seek to avoid the perception of divisiveness. But our waters have been become totally opaque with mud. We must acknowledge the extent to which the public perception of the movement is being controlled by mainstream attention on our worst advocates. So we either need to create a boat that's floating on the muddy water, or we need to find another body of water.

    Either way, people need to know that we are here, and understand the foundations of our unity. The future of the movement is certainly at stake.

    Posted 17 years ago #
11. Victronix
    Member

    Mark actually did a pretty intense one-person campaign to expose the hoaxes in In Plane Site when it first came out, and that really helped to keep that film from being promoted in a lot of places and helped people to learn about the hoaxes. He was just one person, but he did the legwork and it really paid off.

    I've been surprised by the difference that I've made as just one person, basically following Mark's model of contacting people directly and giving them the facts, as well as posting reviews which take on the stuff directly, name names, etc. It's amazing how much one person can do when they contact those people who have no idea -- reporters, radio hosts, speakers, etc.

    I especially like the statement made above -

    Principle before association. The principles founding this project are more important to us that the project itself. More important to us than the movement, or any association we have made. And these principles guide all of our actions.

    I think the idea of a coalition that turns the one-person work into a team taking on the tasks is important. Events need to get organized and discrediting stuff needs to be openly debunked. We can't reach millions but when we do something meaningful, those reaching millions will promote it. Such an effort probably needs to start via an email list. I think the whole thing can be done without explicitly saying we don't consider ourselves part of the 9/11 truth movement -- one just doesn't provide the links or the references or the mentions necessary and it develops on its own. The reviews then speak for themselves.

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.