Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Enough Is Enough (144 posts)

  1. truthmover
    Administrator

    Moderator Comment

    Comments about site moderation should be made on the Forum Guidelines thread. We are not in the habit of deleting posts, and would rather not. Frustration is welcome on our forum. You can be candid here. But that comes with some necessary candor. Most people are pretty good at saying, "I am feel frustrated, now here's the issue." Distinguishing between our personal frustrations and the logical reasons for them is the responsibility of every poster.

    A personal example, not very moderator like of me. I am frustrated with Les Jamieson over how he set up, promoted, and moderated his event. I have many fact and experience based concerns that I have expressed here at the forum. I can find many reasons inside myself to be angry with him, but that is more about me than him. Expressing anger toward him serves no logical purpose, and in fact diminishes me and the presentation of my legitimate concerns about his actions.

    If someone posts something based more in anger than reason, or confusing the two, please do not respond, as the post may be deleted. You can't sit in our sandbox unless you play nice. No throwing sand, or stealing the shovel. And everyone gets to use the pail. We're trying to build a really big sand castle over here. Join us, or don't stomp around too hard.


    "If there are sound reasons or bases for the points you demand, then there is no need to use violence. On the other hand, when there is no sound reason that concessions should be made to you but mainly your own desire, then reason cannot work and you have to rely on force. Thus, using force is not a sign of strength but rather a sign of weakness. Even in daily human contact, if we talk seriously, using reasons, there is no need to feel anger. We can argue the points. When we fail to prove with reason, then anger comes. When reason ends, then anger begins. Therefore, anger is a sign of weakness." - His Holiness the Dalai Lama

    Posted 17 years ago #
  2. DBLS
    Inactive

    Ok I apologise for insults made by me to people after like I felt like I was being censored, it's not cool and I'll admit that. Also maybe some of the grievances that you guys had over what went down in NY recently have validity, but what made me object so strongly was the hatred and contempt for people like Luke Rudkowski and Alex Jones that I saw. I found that distasteful and perhaps it clouded my judgment to other points which may have been valid.

    I don't know the situation and circumstances in NY but I know there's some fracture amongst the 9/11 Truth groups, which I think is a real shame. Please people don't resort to unproductive garbage. Get proactive and if you have to do some positive out reach to people in our own movement do it and get some dialogue and respect going.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  3. truthmover
    Administrator

    We understand your frustration at all this mess but we didn't create this controversy. It felt a bit like you were shooting the messenger. We have some really informed and thoughtful posters here, whatever you happen to think of TruthMove's position on the local scene, and many of us are equally concerned about what went down in NYC. It's not like these concerns would not have arisen if we weren't talking about them. And here you will at least find people trying to come up with a positive response, even as we express all our frustration.

    As christs4sale has clarified for us, this can't be more about loyalty to our associations than it is about loyalty to our principles. No one is above critique.

    Dem, expression of hatred and contempt is obviously against our forum guidelines. If you really feel that one of our posters, including ourselves, has said something that negative, feel free to let us know what you are concerned about. One of the big problems I had with your recent posts was that you didn't provide examples. Exactly which comment did you find hateful? You might really do someone some good by being more direct and specific. I think most of us are happy to clarify any statements we have made. But not as likely if you approach with anger.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  4. redhed718
    Member

    This message is and update on the current conditions i posted about and the solutions provided . And the progress being made by wearechange to honor our agreements made to the people and 1st responders.Its cut and pasted verbatum from the wearechange forums today.

    After speaking with members form wearechange some correctioned to be made to this post.
    1. All money collected WILL go to 1st responders as promised. The fact is we didnt break even this year. But breaking even or not. wearechange will honor its promises 2. Gary Franchie had his time replaced.I spoke to Gary personally. We had a conversation on this wqeekends events and Gary told me what had happened. He then told me he got a phonecall and apology from Luke and was squeeed in.Sorry for the misqoute gary. As far as many 1st responders opinions of our actions. We are currently consulting our 1st responders personally to find out what our mistakes were and what we can do to solve these situations. As far as the tshirts.Its done.What can we do at this point. Maybe a chance to get new designs from the public and vote on them for next year. as far as Luke and Tom go . I saw no difference in attiude from either one of them but to be honest,my issues with Luke and Tom are my own.Although i would have hoped that reading this topic would have merrited me a conversation from either one of them. But my personal issues with thema are just that. I still feel the way i do about them though. Tom I was your friend,i dont know what happened.Same with you Luke.Nobody is Looking to you for leadership. We are all leaders in this group.But bea=cause u put yourself on the frontline you must understand that people will look ot YOu at times for an explination. Especially those you know and who care about you. As far as Alex Jones goes. What can i say. The man hates pople. But he wants to save humanity. A strange mix. I still think his personality is 2 faced but i cant take away from him the good as he does. For all of you who expect a coversation and a handshake out of him,good luck. And for the 1st responders we will do more. Remember folks.50,000 came to NY to help from around the country and the world. YOu can find those in your own communities and ask them,personally,what you can do for them personally.You can tell them about the John Fealgood Foundtaion and help them get in contact.You can post the names of the 1st responders in 1 place and we can get a fully tally count of the full amount of 1st responders there really are. No one kept a roster of names to keep track of these guys. But 6 years later,one needs to be made. I hope this post clears and doubts i may have put in the minds of people about wearechange. My intention was not to do that,but to reaise enough awareness in the group to our mistakes so theat we may correct them. I never saw how anyone could be too busy to hear me out for literally 2 minutes but that was the case. So, I aired it out here. And it was addressed in person. Arent forums great!!!!!Kepp fighting for 9 11 truth everyone. Truth and Justice will prevail

    Posted 17 years ago #
  5. Thanks for the update red. I'll still need to see the proof, of course, but that is not your obligation. Sinse several hundred people easy attended each event...at least 30,000 had to come in from the four days, just from the tickets. Who knows how much more from the shirts, probably a few thousand. So a significant amount of money should have reached the 1st responders. Anyway, an official total on the tickets and on the money to cost ratio should be made available, if not, well the proper procedures need to be enacted.

    But on the rest, which i guess prior to the money fiasco was the sticking point...no surprise that there was no formal apology, just selfpraise for their actions. As a matter of fact i haven't yet even seen one direct response to everyone's disgust and dismay, from their end. Just hint shots from a pp article or two. I don't know what people are going to do to change the course, i feel like we are politico's talking about iraq when i say that, aye..but perhaps enough people didn't like what they saw where in, if everyone makes other options known, people will flock away from them. I think that will be hardest with Jones, though. Probably not even possible, hate to say it. Seems like he has a grip on the vast majority of the movement. Don't know if those events changed it much, probably a bit, but enough?

    I'd say it'd be wise to call a non-partisan, non-group(i guess you could say multi-organizational) event, soon..to show some kind of alternative, and some kind of unity. That might be the only saving grace. I don't know.

    Some thoughts:

    Nicolas, i get what you are saying regarding the name phrase. I guess i wasn't trying to suggest we could change it on a big level at this point, it was more of a personal thought out loud. Maybe another time, or place(thread) was a good idea. But at least we all have the power to coin it as we choose for ourselves. I kinda like the fusing of 9/11 truth with 9/11 awareness, 9/11 truth awareness, Jan? Maybe.

    Thanks Nicolas, for the suggestion of saving the ridiculous monster truck rallyish intro, and to whom saved it. Though i think they are content to leave it up there, you never know. So good call on that.

    I still strongly disagree with eliminating of any posts, regardless of content(unless spam of course). I know there's supposed to be another place to disagree, but i'm not going to go on a rant as i've spoke on this previously. It pushes me away. I really like what goes on here, outside of that. Alot of intelligent conversation. But that is a sticker for me.

    I hope everyone has a good evening.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  6. truthmover
    Administrator

    Sweetsacrifice,

    I haven't responded adequately to your intial post which I felt well summarized our concerns here. I was intimidated to respond as I have so much to say, but I feel that you and all the posters here have convered the issue well. Glad to have you posting here.

    Regarding deleting post: Keeping this forum from turning into what we see at nearly every other forum in the movement is our goal. And we have a pretty good idea what the problems are and how to deal with them. Our guidelines are based entirely on direct experience. This is a highly moderated forum, and yet more open to candid discussion than most. Many aren't used to that. As I've made clear elsewhere, its very simply a matter of enforcing the forum guidelines. It is on topic and is it reasonable?

    Please keep in mind that the reason that some of us are posting here at all is exacty due to our commitment to firm moderation. 911Blogger doesn't delete posts, and that causes them, from time to time, to delete entire threads. This will not be happening here. We will delete off topic or unreasonable threads before people comment, and we will delete individual posts within threads. If someone posts something mean and it gets deleted, they are free to repost their comments in a manner that respects the forum guidelines.

    Another place to disagree? Please disagree here. Please vigorously debate. Please feel free to be frustrated, but make sure to distinquish that from your point. Just don't call anyone names. Don't speculate about people's unknown intentions. Don't overly generalize about any entire group. Don't push speculations before facts. I could go on, but we are all supposed to have heard this all before.

    We thing the forum guidelines are reasonable, at least in light of our specific strategic concerns here. They are open to debate on the Guidelines thread. We adapt them as necessary. You might not like our rules, but there is nothing unreasonable about asking people to read and respect them.

    I am interested in your perspective on this. I'm hoping we can save some time and talk about this in person before long. And we hope you won't go away. We really appreciate that you and redhed718 are here posting. It gives us a glimmer of hope that individuals in each of these groups may be able to come to some kind of understanding.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  7. JonGold
    Member

    Does anyone else get the feeling that, with regard to posting information about 9/11, you MUST stick to things related to either Controlled Demolition or Israel, or you are chastised, and attacked? Is that my imagination?

    Posted 17 years ago #
  8. JonGold
    Member

    What a great system. “We” provide the insanity, and the “Weekly Standard” covers it.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklystandard/20070918/cm...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  9. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Jon:

    That is one common variant of the neurotic approach to 9/11. You have to talk about the Towers first, second, and last, except for throwing in some stuff about the "dancing Israelis" and lucky Larry. Otherwise you're gatekeeping, etc.

    Another, about as common, demands that you talk about NWO, bankers, IRS and the other tropes of right wing conspiracy theory.

    Most important: you are wimp if you just talk about the Bush mob, the CIA, the history of imperialism, deep politics, parapolitics and covert ops. Of course, these subjects are well documented and serve as a gateway to all others. When I got into 9/11 truth, I thought it was the key to finally waking Americans up to their own government and system - not to some other, foreign or parasitic outside ruling entity that we can pretend is not a product of our own system. This is avoidance.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  10. JonGold
    Member

    I posted a thread on blogger about John O'Neill. Not about the movie, but about the man. From information obtained at www.cooperativeresearch.org.

    "100% MSM sources... wkjo doesn't mention Israel once! read the transcripts. this is limited hangout as far as i'm concerned."

    I posted another thread about Harry Samit...

    "blah blah blah... everything piece of information you know is planted... But lucky for us....even without the Moussaoui Circus Freak Show we still have building 7!

    An obvious, in your face, controlled demolition."

    The thing I think is funny is that when someone posts a thread about Controlled Demolition, etc... I don't go into those threads, and say, "BLAH BLAH BLAH PAKISTAN... BLAH BLAH BLAH SAUDI ARABIA... BLAH BLAH BLAH LIMITED HANGOUT..."

    Posted 17 years ago #
  11. truthmod
    Administrator

    From the Weekly Standard piece:

    Alfred Webre, who was given 45 minutes to talk on the topics "9/11 as a war crime" and the "development of [an] international tribunal" for the Bush administration. After touching on those subjects (to great applause), he veered off course, arguing that an "artificial intelligence matrix" controlled by the Rothschild family might have caused 9/11, that the cancer rate in Iraq now stands at 30 percent, that AIDS is a biological weapon created to control the population, that global warming is being caused by a black hole 23 light years from Earth, and that the NYPD was employing a supersonic crowd disruption device that was depressing turnout.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  12. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Check it out, no need for slander here - the debunker crew must love it when all they have to do is report the facts.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  13. truthmover
    Administrator

    That's a pretty accurate representation.

    Giveback and I attended this lecture, and the above quote that truthmod posted pretty well sums it us. As you say Nick, the debunkers get a free ride with this one. And that was very likely his intention. Unfortunately I just don't buy the idea that these well educated people, like Fetzer, Tarpley, and Webre would act unintentionally in such an obviously irrational manner.

    In the past we have seen many respond to a statement like that by protest that these people are just neurotic ego cases. And in some cases this is true. But many of us find it very hard to accept that this movement has been heavily infiltrated and that people saying these kinds of things would be our primary suspects. To me that's kind of like supporting the incompetence theory of 9/11. How often can educated people do exactly the wrong thing for the movement, and simply be viewed as not knowing any better, or operating on ego, or simply having a different strategy. No! Alfred Webre does know better!

    Yes, Webre really did make the comment about exotic weapons being used on the audience. And he also stated that they had measured a high level of EM radiation around the venue before the event. Our strategy here at TruthMove does not included trying to do the impossible, and finger agents. However, we are carefully looking at patterns of behavior that undermine the movement, and trying to determine who appears to be doing the most damage from within. And right now it appears to be these people with lots of education and little apparent rationality. Are they agents? Doesn't matter. Are they intentionally undermining our efforts? It sure looks like it.

    Anyone with me on this? Tarpley knows exactly what he is doing. Read one of his books and then try to suggest that he would operate without strategic intent. The guy is totally brilliant. I've heard a lot of talk about his particular mania, and found none of it to provide any kind of excuse for his actions.

    Once again, to answer critics, yes there are neurotic ego cases causing us problems. But I suspect that our infiltrators are standing among them.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  14. JohnA
    Member

    I share Jon Gold's concerns.

    Its funny how those who are so quick to accuse others of being 'gatekeepers' appear to be quietly waiting in the wings to distort any and all exchanges that take place on 911Blogger:

    http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/355

    ad hominum attacks - name calling - accusations that i am a member of the JDL? why? because i do not care to discuss CD on a message board expressly set up to discuss Harry Sammit? because i know disruption and baiting when i see it?

    i've seen this same circle accuse jon and myself of being in the employ of Larry Silverstein. One of these posters occasionally posts here - although i sense she realizes that this message board is very carefully moderated to prevent these sorts of smear campaigns - so she seems on her best behavior.

    it is interesting to note that this same message board posted a photo of the Israeli flag superimposed with the nazi swastika - and there were lengthy discussions on why this was NOT inappropriate.

    but this appears to be an all too familiar tactic lately in the 911 Truth movement. you disagree with me? then i will post crap about you all over the internet to destroy your reputation. it is the same tactic that some of the MOST divisive members of this movement use.

    Tarpley accuses people of being cointelpro and chechen (spelling?) rebels for wearing sunglasses and a beard?

    Jon and I have had extended discussions on the 'controlled demolition' problem - and how to deal with it. clearly this topic is problematic. it appears that the key problem with this issue is the 'exclusivity' of the theory. it bleeds over into every other issue - and a series of 911 truth squads appear to be lurking online seeking to tar anyone who dares question the wisdom of placing this theory front and center of the movement.

    Quote from Bill Maher on HBO last friday:

    "Please stop asking me to cover this ridiculous issue on my show, and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for YOU"

    (much laughter and applause)

    meanwhile - some of the most important research is summarily dismissed as "planted" without a shred of evidence to support such a claim.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  15. It's taken me a coulpe days to thorooughly read through all of these posts related to the current State of The Movement. Before signing up for this forum, I felt as if I was the only one within the 911 movement that felt this way.

    The thoughts and views that have been expressed here are quite VALID. As far as the image of the movement with the black t-shirts, the start-status of our 'leaders' and the pull of this movement away from its true mission - full 9/11 truth disclosure, prosecution of the criminals, and needed social change through revelation, among other things, is very troubling to a LOT of people within the movement.

    ALL of us, or most of us, who have posted in this forum recognizes that our movement is currently undergoing threat of imploding upon itsefl for various reasons. We ALL have great ideas about how to pull us away from this dangerous path. Theres no reason that we all cannot bacd together and begin starting an action NOW. Some of you nkow that I have been working on a comprehensive strategy resolution for our movement since last winter. It has undergone criticism, review, editing, and praise from peers.

    During this past summer, an organizing committee was put together to organize a national summit to analyze the progress of the movement and sign off on a strategy for the entire movement. That summit had to be postponed because of disruption efforts. I personally asked Truthmove at first to support our effort; however, I regret that that didn't materialize most liekly because of the termoil that had developed within the committee. However, that has allowed me and a couple other people more time to fine tune and add to this comprehensive resolution for our movement.

    I would like to offer to everyone in here who is concerned about the direction of this movement to help in this great effort that I have embarked on (ESPECIALLY TRUTHMOVE). I originally picked them because these guys have the DISCIPLINE and philosophy needed to sustain a successful movement for truth and justice! I think that together with the strategy resolution and the great work, ideas, and future work of this awesome organization (TruthMove) we will be able to seize upon an excellent opportunity to restructure our movement and give it the REAL organization, family-member oriented, truth and justice seeking, professional, honorable, and mainstream appealing theme that it so desparately needs!

    I believe in the potential of our mission and I will never give up until it is accmoplished! We can and WILL accomplish this major task guys!

    Posted 17 years ago #
  16. Victronix
    Member

    As an advocate of controlled demolition I understand the frustration with the rude masses but if we see things that way -- stay away from CD because the rude masses are always pushing it -- we are behaving no differently than the official story defenders.

    Jon's list that he posted one day on blogger when he got angry was almost designed to infuriate everyone who believes CD, not just the rude masses who scream about everything that sounds nutty --

    You know what stinks to high heaven to me?

    Controlled Demolition

    A Missile Hitting The Pentagon

    Fake Tapes

    Fake Witnesses

    The Zionist Control Of The World

    I was so surprised to see this list that I copied it down to respond to it, but now that thread is gone.

    Anyone who believes CD will be annoyed by this because it isn't respectful of on even the most basic level but instead, functions to smear us with ridiculous stuff that people like myself work to expose, stuff that we block from ruining forums, stuff that we debunk, etc. I would never say such a thing of people interested in LIHOP issues -- "That stinks to high heaven." Never. Posting things like this list is jamming a stick into a hornets nest and then saying "Those damn bees!"

    Of course there are rude nutcases all over the entire 9/11 topic. I don't let them define what I do and don't support. But regardless, I don't think I would ever treat the work of anyone doing serious and reasonable work with these kinds of smears, whether I agreed with them or not. And I would never create statements like "The Church of LIHOP" no matter how many people were screaming at me for not doing LIHOP. I might write some things in personal email out of frustration if people were constantly critical of me for something, but what would work better -- I'm sure -- is to simply make a rational statement like "Look, I respect you, you respect me. We're all working toward the same goal" and then ignore them after that. In the end, if they can't respect simple statements, it's only themselves whom they expose as ignorant.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  17. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Victoria,

    My agnosticism aside, you know well that many bogus arguments are advanced for demolition. People are looking for the slam-dunk one-step argument that proves what they think and works universally, so they go for demolition although they tend not to know the physics and engineering and are easily taken in by red herrings - which they then yell fervently on the streets.

    Already the word "controlled" is a highly misleading misnomer, and people use it routinely, including you here. You should know better.

    It does have the bleed-through effect JohnA describes, it usually becomes the first and primary argument for those who adopt it. It also serves as a magnet for all of the truly wacky stuff in Jon G's list. People who push all of the bogus P.E. claims, from pods to no-planes to mininukes on down, invariably take demolition as a given, and it becomes very difficult to separate out the serious arguments for demolition. The rarest are those who deconstruct the NIST report without exposing themselves to attack through needless speculation. Who resist the temptation to provide all answers, to be the one-stop theorists for the masses.

    Without a doubt, there is a church of demolition, even if demolition is proven as you believe. Members of this church attack you simply for not mentioning it in every statement, or for pursuing other avenues of research and argument. The richness of early 9/11 research has largely devolved into one non-stop invocation of "the towers were blown up, case closed."

    I am proud during my five years of 9/11 activism and continuing research to have made a case that convinced hundreds of people directly without making use of the demolition argument, which is not the slam-dunk science that even its serious advocates believe.

    If what you're interested in is raising an irresistible popular demand for disclosure and true investigation, demolition tends to complicate things because it requires additional unnamed conspirators. In the vulgar version, people turn 9/11 the global psy-op into some kind of relatively trivial insurance scam (perpetrated by Jews shudder).

    Most of this is untrue of Jim's approach, which is why he, Kevin Ryan and Jones are the only D researchers (drop the C) I countenance and acknowledge.

    "LIHOP" is one of the worst psy-ops that has been imposed upon us. Do you remember who coined the term? The answer is important!

    If Bush-connected mobsters subcontracted 9/11 through foreigners deliberately, with the PNAC program in mind, it is still an inside job. It is still false-flag or synthetic terror, it is still treason. It is still the trigger for a 21st century fascism and global war of aggression, it is still every inch the same crime in the mold of the Reichstag Fire.

    For me, demolition becomes a question because 9/11 is an inside job. The movement has largely devolved into the present farce because for so many people, 9/11 is an inside job only because they believe (but usually lack the competence to actually show) that the towers were destroyed by explosives.

    I hope you see these paradoxes and recognize the need to take them into account.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  18. truthmover
    Administrator

    Moderator Comment for John

    Your post above violates the Forum Guidelines in two places.


    One of these posters occasionally posts here - although i sense she realizes that this message board is very carefully moderated to prevent these sorts of smear campaigns - so she seems on her best behavior.

    Your comment about "best behavior" is simply rude, and I'm not sure how many people here feel the same way about the person you are referring to, if they even know who it is. Comments like this might slip by about Fetzer. But not one of our posters. Your indirect characterization of this poster as being someone who would "distort any and all exchanges" in a "smear campaign is not appropriate. Both of the above sound a lot like "ad hominum attacks - name calling - accusations." Please consider the internal and external contradiction you face here.


    the 'controlled demolition' problem

    Your characterization of controlled demolition research as a "problem" stands in contrast to the content of our site, and the opinion of many thoughtful and reasonable people posting here.


    Please refrain from referring indirectly to people on our forum, generalizing about their intent, or making rude comments about them.


    Please refrain from unfairly characterizing the hard work of some of our posters by suggesting it is no more than a problem.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  19. Victronix
    Member

    Paradoxes don't really address the specifics that I was talking about, which is smearing. That's what the official story people do and we don't need to emulate them.

    which is not the slam-dunk science that even its serious advocates believe

    As a scientist I can tell you, little in the entire world of science is slam dunk in any way! We'll have to agree to disagree on the points around demolition, since this isn't the place for that discussion.

    My own feeling is that some people get it right away, and some never do, or have other interests. My position is that we all work in parallel to make the best case on what we are each doing, but if there are errors and wrongs, those must be addressed. Some people will never agree with demolition, like Mark R. But it isn't a case of looking at fuzzy photographs. The official story reports themselves have switched theories because they are only that -- theories. Yet many act like they are truths.

    It also serves as a magnet for all of the truly wacky stuff in Jon G's list.

    I run the forum and am on the committee for a group now numbering over 500 now which is based around the idea that the towers were demolished, and I see no nuttery there that I haven't seen every place else before that. There were tons of rude and out of control nonsense issues from abusive people happening that had nothing to do with demolition for years before it became 'front and center.' Webfairy, to name one. Many more.

    I'm using the term 'controlled' here because that's the phrase everyone is using on this thread. I normally don't in conversation.

    I know Nico coined LIHOP and that's another term I generally never use except for brevity, to make a point.

    The current state of the movement is from LC.

    If what you're interested in is raising an irresistible popular demand for disclosure

    When LC came out, for those interested in any credibility at all around the questions, the job was to expose the nonsense claims. Few even tried. I took that on directly, even in the street with the filmmakers filming my every word. I created a flyer to help separate out the nonsense at the film showings, and people wanted it. Michael Green wrote an essay. Jim H did a complete debunking. It wasn't pretty or easy but we worked like crazy to take down the nutty claims in that. Where were others? Mark was one of the only other ones speaking up.

    Now all over the place I have to debunk the Cleveland crap -- even on "911truth" sites all over the place. I email people the basics and they say that they haven't really looked into it.

    It was nothing before LC. Now it is as though it's ancient texts.

    There is much to complain about regarding nonsense claims and issues of credibility. But demolition is a truth for many, so smearing it isn't going to make it go away. It will only inflame it.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  20. Your characterization of controlled demolition research as a "problem" stands in contrast to the content of our site, and the opinion of many thoughtful and reasonable people posting here.

    Amen!

    Posted 17 years ago #
  21. truthmover
    Administrator

    Not fun. But moving on.

    John, I hope I haven't left your shorts in a bundle. This isn't easy for me, and I take it very seriously. Some may find these comments a bit to administrative or knit picky, but...

    One of the things I know for certain about moderating this forum is that its like balancing on the peak of a steep mountain after being dropped off by helicopter. If you lose balance, there is only one way to go. And once you fall, there's now way to climb back up. Forums are a get it right the first time, one shot deal. And so now that we have many more posters, I am being quite diligent in minding the rules.

    Now back to the subject. TruthandJustice911, thanks for all of your supportive comments. Those are some big shoes to fill. :) We aren't advocating centralized leadership for this movement, but we certainly hope to set a positive example. We are looking forward to seeing what you've been working on.

    Nick and Vic, I think you guys are pretty close to agreement. Yes, CD is used by the MSM to smear us, and many truthers don't well understand it. Yes, there is substantial evidence leading us to suspect a CD. These positions are not mutually exclusive unless someone proposes trying to purge the movement of this issue, or conversely that CD is the only issue. CD is one issue. It appears to be the most convincing to many people. And while we might hope that people would read more books, many can't. If CD is their way to interface with the issue, and leads to greater skepticism, or further investigation, we should be sensitive to our less well educated supporters.

    So my summary of that would be that CD is important to the movement, but should be promoted very carefully. And that is just about what our CD page says. :)

    Posted 17 years ago #
  22. Victronix
    Member

    Thanks, well put. This is why I come here. People can talk honestly and have reasonable discussion even if we don't agree on every point and the conversation is protected.

    I know it would be hard for me to get a moderator message on here because, like myself, I think everyone on here has the good intentions and are relatively sensitive people and care about what people think of us. The link that John posted is pretty intense and I know the feeling around needing to respond to that stuff. It can get really difficult to cope with. Also though, I think the moderation on this level helps to teach all of us awareness.

    And while we might hope that people would read more books, many can't. If CD is their way to interface with the issue, and leads to greater skepticism, or further investigation, we should be sensitive to our less well educated supporters.

    Who looks out for and doesn't just dis the less well educated? This is an important thing for us to learn, myself included. We exist in our sphere and it's hard to see out of it. One thing I'm acutely aware of is how people who aren't livng ONLINE see one world and people online see another. We need to get out of our online sphere more often. Books are important -- a lot of older educated people read books but aren't online. Films are extremely important - a lot of young people can't slow down to read, but watch every film they can online. Etc.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  23. JonGold
    Member

    Victoria... I apologize if my statement offended you. I have a tendency to be in the middle of a lot of arguments (some by my doing, and some by others, mostly by others), and as a result, occasionally, I "flip my lid." For all its' good, and yes, 911Blogger.com is a good resource for activism, and 9/11 related news (whether it's news you agree with or not), the commenting can be a detriment. The commenting is also a good resource sometimes, however, more often than not, it's a detriment.

    Ever since Steven Jones came out, "Controlled Demolition" has been at the forefront. I like Steven Jones. I think he makes some extremely convincing arguments. That being said, there are questions about "Controlled Demolition" I have that I don't feel have been adequately answered. Those unanswered questions I have are enough for me to put it on the back burner. When I take into account the amount of hit pieces that have been written focusing on it, the amount of media pundits that have successfully managed to make us look like "fools" with it, the amount of sites dedicated to "debunking" it, and the amount of people that look at me like I'm crazy for bringing it up, I tend to think that maybe it shouldn't be getting the focus that it does.

    Well within 70-80% of the posts on 911Blogger.com are about "Controlled Demolition." I remember a time when talking about it was "taboo." It was the "magic bullet" theory of the movement. Something that people would spend years debating about, and never resolve anything (a la JFK). It was the "crazy theory." I have news for everyone. The majority of people still think of it as "crazy." That's the sad truth.

    I have sent Steven Jones articles to help substantiate his claims. I have an archive of Steven Jones articles on my site. I promoted the petition with NIST. I have done my "Controlled Demolition" part. If an inquiry ever takes place, you can rest assured that I will demand that the inquiry includes how and why those buildings came down.

    In the meantime, I'm getting back to the basics. Support the 9/11 Family Members. Support the 9/11 First Responders. Ask questions, and DEMAND answers.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  24. We aren't advocating centralized leadership for this movement, but we certainly hope to set a positive example.

    Thanks very much. Actually, the resolution doesn't neccassarily advocate a centralized movement as it may sound. I understand the dangers of a more centralized movement; however, I believe that even a more centralized structured movement is better than what we have today.

    Just to give a brief explanation of how this "national 911 campaign" would look (beyond the departments, committees, programs, etc...) the base structure of this campaign would be modeled after a 'congress.'

    1.Each of the 50 states, or states that we have groups and individuals in would make up our 'national campaign.' ie - Ohio State Camp., NY State Camp., FL State Camp., etc....

    • each group(s) in each state will have the same amount of power.

    -if/when measures and initiatives are brought forth by a particular group it would be voted on by the entire 'congress'

    -in this way, there is no power struggle, no chance for people to 'rise to the top' and use 9/11 truth as a platform for their ambitions. Moreover, we'll be able to vote on and clarify strategies, campaigns, initiatives,and directions that we should take.

    1. Each state will have at least one '** state rep,' voted in by their constituent group.

    2. Each group will have a 'group rep.'

    Posted 17 years ago #
  25. Victronix
    Member

    Thanks Jon, I appreciate your thoughts on this.

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.