TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Enough Is Enough (144 posts)

76. NicholasLevis
    Member

    As for LC,

    In 2005 and 2006 I spent weeks trying to get people in NY to reflect critically about LC. I don't know how many times I ran down the faults for example on the unsubstantiated Cleveland nonsense, which of course also originated with Haupt and his bud Woody and puzzingly got a boost from Ruppert of all people in his book. I knew all along that the merits of the case probably wouldn't matter in the end, because I was trying to compete with MTV. And though I was not out-argued on the merits, I was out-worked and out-maneuvered by the likes of Rudkowski and Jamieson. They had the greater staying power for these constant and endless meetings, and by far the greater patience for people who have no clue what they're talking about. (I know, my inability to deal with uneducated and/or slow people is a serious weakness, nothing I am proud of, and the previous sentence may indicate an insurmountable and unforgivable expression of contempt on my part.) The big tent philosophy satisfied the psychological needs of just enough foot-soldiers to guarantee that the same faulty reasoning and alienating style of dealing with the skeptical minded would come to prevail within the "truth" group, even as people who could get lives elsewhere went ahead and did so. Rudkowski and Jamieson used their positions to phase out the literature I had authored and the group had used for two years, and to replace it with more "accessible" leaflets full of red herrings, nonsense, and (even when right) alienating rhetoric.

    LC was the most decisive step, as you say.

    Posted 17 years ago #
77. truthmod
    Administrator

    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....

    TruthandJustice, that's a pretty ambitious plan, I'm not sure the movement is ready for it. I would advocate something more streamlined, in which the experienced and reasonable activists/researchers who recognize an affinity between themselves (I would include most people on this forum) would create a new alliance. This alliance would be necessarily exclusive internally, but it would be very broad and inclusive externally (aiming toward the mainstream public and trying to get many people involved). A perfect example of something we could do:

    http://digitalstyledesigns.com/pages/signarchive.h...

    Jan Hoyer's sign campaign, which made 9/11 truth highly visible all the way back in 2004. It also made 9/11 truth feel allied to the peace movement and it made us feel less isolated and more optimistic. What happened, where did this campaign go? How come I haven't seen a protest dotted with "Stop the 9/11 Cover Up" signs since 2004? How much did this cost? Can we do it again?

    What else could we do? Organize conferences, collaborate on web projects and provide a badly-needed reliable and trusted voice. We could cross promote, we could trust each other, we could start to feel positive about all this again...

    Posted 17 years ago #
78. TruthandJustice911
    Member

    Okay, for some reason my entire post didn't get through, here's the full text........

    Thanks very much. Actually, the resolution doesn't necessarily 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 constituents in that state.

    2. Each group will have a 'group rep,' voted in by their group.

    3. Each group will be made up of 'campaign activist reps.'

    The group and state representatives will make up the national 9/11 truth campaign 'congress.'

    These groups and state reps will have the responsibility (only) of representing the needs of their groups and states. And they will put forth different initiatives, measures, and so on.....

    Some activist reps, state reps, and group reps have the option making up a particular committee and department that they would like to specialize in. I have a very detailed list of potential committees and departments.

    Other intra-movement groups or committees [GC for short] (separate for the congress) would include: Family Member's group or committee [GC for short] (made up of victims family members fighting for truth), Whistleblower's [GC], Scientists and Academics [GC], First Responders [GC], Public/Military Officials [GC], etc...

    So again, this wouldn't be so much centralized as it would be groups sharing equal responsibilities, voting on strategies, measuring progress, focusing tasks and energies on important areas.

    Another part of this resolution proposes a movement 'constitution' which would establish how these different groups, committees, depts, etc would be set up and how they would interact with one another. It would also establish a code of conduct for our national campaign, principles, mission and vision statement, and our core values. All of these rooted firmly in the revelation of truth, patriotism, change, social justice, and honor of the families....

    Both parts of this comprehensive resolution, the structure and the constitution, are currently a draft or model of what one could be. We have identified, in the documents current form, all areas possible that we can focus on. What we're looking for is to put together a national conference where we could really put this together with inputs from 911 and truth groups across the country. In a way, this would be similar to a constitutional convention.

    What's being proposed here might seem overreaching or too ambitious. I would say that this is the very least we could do. What we're attempting to do is essentially indict those responsible for 9/11 and most likely responsible for atrocities for decades. These people are able to carry out these attacks and be so effective b/c of their organizational skills. They are able to appeal to the mainstream and brainwash them. Meanwhile, we struggle day by day and watch them Very Easy marginalize us. One reason that they are able to do this so easily is because of our lack of organization and strength. It is because of unprofessionalism and lack of clear message and cohesiveness. How would we look to mainstream Americans if we were able to tell them that," We are the National 9/11 Truth Campaign. We have a congress consisting of reps from all 50 states. We have departments, committees, programs, campaigns, and a membership of *,, Americans across the country. We also have groups and committees consisting of a powerful victims families group, whistleblowers, military and public officials, 911 first responders, etc.....

    There's no reason that we can't have this and many other great ideas put forth by all of us. It's the very least we can do. I'm a firm believer in if you keep saying that you can't achieve a certain goal, you never will. So, when it comes to things as ambitious as this, there's no harm in trying. Given the current state of our movement, what do we have to lose? Then again, what do we have to gain?

    Posted 17 years ago #
79. TruthandJustice911
    Member

    Jan Hoyer's sign campaign, which made 9/11 truth highly visible all the way back in 2004. It also made 9/11 truth feel allied to the peace movement and it made us feel less isolated and more optimistic. What happened, where did this campaign go?

    Oh yes, I like Jan! :) and I agreed with her that we need to shift the image of the movement away from the black t-shirts to a more inviting and pleasant image. I think that we need to pull together some of the best graphic artists, like Jan, and develop a powerful marketing and advertising campaign that will improve our image.

    What else could we do? Organize conferences, collaborate on web projects and provide a badly-needed reliable and trusted voice. We could cross promote, we could trust each other, we could start to feel positive about all this again...

    The first step is to organize the conference of all 911 conferences that will seek to strategize, not the same busines as usual, learning of evidence etc... The confernece that we are still contemplating about has a program itenerary ready that I'll be more than happy to share here. I dont have it with me here, but I'll post it when I'm home.

    As of right now, we need to identify who in the movement KNOWS that we are in GREAT NEED of a change and form a core group from that and move from there. All of our ideas can be deliberated upon and then we could bring this to life with a national conference. Then we would go from there.

    Posted 17 years ago #
80. TruthandJustice911
    Member

    I also wanted to add that I am in FULL support of the idea that this movement should become much more inclusive of women and that women should take a more active role in our movement. This was touched upon either by Jan or someone else in some other posts.

    We might find that with women taking on more prominent roles and having a stronger voice, we will begin to see that needed change in image and appeal. - This coming from a male in his mid 20's.

    Posted 17 years ago #
81. JohnA
    Member

    To the moderator response:

    NO problem. I appreciate your candor. I think that is the one essential difference between this forum - and others we see descending into chaos. these discussions are constructive - not destructive.

    Just two points:

    Point 1: I think that its great that the issue of CD is being constructively discussed here. Please understand that i am not saying CD itself is a problem. i myself wrote an editorial "Confessions of a Controlled Demolition Convert " which, if you Google, you will see has been posted all over the internet. i have never retracted this statement - and although i still question this theory as vigorously as possible - i am still of a mind to (like all things related to 911) demand answers that add up. so far - there is sufficient evidence to doubt and question the official story.

    But i do see a PROBLEM with CD as it is being presented to the masses. Although you and I may 'believe' something - and, in our amateur capacity feel that the science backs it up - the sad truth about this issue is that a very small percentage of the people who are advocating it are actually QUALIFIED to do so. (myself included)

    when i was on FoxNews you may have noticed my annoyance at being put in the position of being asked to defend a theory that i do not possess the scholastic pedigree to defend.

    we should learn from this. our opponents LOVE hearing expert opinions (sarcasm intended) from amateurs.

    So - we see a high level of misinformation about CD passing as science and fact - coming from people without the requisite skills and background to properly represent the science. this is a problem that not only threatens to undermine 911 Truth - but also may in fact BURY CD as a theory itself.

    i DO welcome ae911 as a terrific effort to take this issue directly to the experts. peer review among structural engineers needs to take place - not kids in black T-shirts.

    but - i also see a problem with this issue - which to the unititiated masses appears on the surface to be extremely contentious - being presented front and center of the movement - carelessly - with arrogance - from people who are not qualified to do so.

    Meanwhile - all of the other research is thrown to the side unless it magically FITS the CD meme. attacks are launched against activists who seek to place the issue in its proper perspective. the issue is sensationalized and commercialized. it is publicly ridiculed and held up by debunkers as PROOF that the movement has lost its marbles. it is the most easily mocked.

    you yourself have been quite vocal about the leadership skills of Les Jamieson and Luke in NYC. i would like to point out that the pivital point in the NYC movement took place when these two individuals started placing CD front and center at ground zero. they printed up huge photos and huge signs. they printed up fliers. all sense of balance was thrown out the window and CD became the central presence at ground zero. meetings became divisive as CD became the only acceptable marketing tool.

    i would also like to point out that when WingTV attended the 2005 anniversary at ground zero with a huge CD sign - it was the one thing the media DID report on. photos included.

    i would also like to report that Haupt widely disseminated reports that Levis and Albanese were infiltrators to the NY movement because we were 'blocking' CD.

    it is also important to note that 911Eyewitness became the bible to many CD advocates - despite the highly questionable content - and SOURCE.

    do we see a pattern here? isn't it strange that CD has received some of its strongest support from those very same activists that TruthMove features prominently on its disinformation pages?

    and is it wrong for us to question this?

    Point 2: I apologize for referencing 'another poster here.' but i do think it is important to note that i did not mention any names.

    it is also important to note that many other forums DO mention names. many of the attacks against activists like Gold, Levis (tarred and feathered), myself and others have included threats to our safety and the violation of our privacy in the form of publicly posted home addresses and phone numbers. i have publicly been accused of being a member of al qaeda and the JDL!! LOL!!

    My question for you - as a moderator - is: how do you deal with the inclusion of posters here who have a clear track record of this sort of behavior? How do you deal with posters who clearly spread disinformation and smear campaigns elsewhere?

    i think that's a valid question.

    but - i do agree that my approach would only serve to incite. i'll try to limit my comments to specifics.

    Posted 17 years ago #
82. Victronix
    Member

    do we see a pattern here? isn't it strange that CD has received some of its strongest support from those very same activists that TruthMove features prominently on its disinformation pages?

    and is it wrong for us to question this?

    It is abundantly clear the demolition is used to mock us and typically is paired with no plane at the Pentagon. At the same time. when Steven Jones got on MSNBC to discuss B7 they would not show the collapse video.

    I agree that credibility is a problem around this issue and you cite good examples. OTOH, even Robert Fisk is now inching out of the darkness to ask those questions. And several of the examples you cited -- Nico, WING -- are known disinfo that will promote nonsense no matter what else the rest of us are trying to do or say. They even don't just use the issues, they make up their own issues.

    Ultimately, we won't be able to control what people talk about, but leadership could help to put out to people what the best way to approach this topic is.

    Around the issue of the Pentagon, Steven Jones early on realized it was best to limit the public statements to "We don't know what happened there," with several questions added which don't point to 'no planes' (Richard Gage takes this position also) yet we see that that doesn't stop people from saying it over and over.

    So although these are issues, my tendency is to feel that we can only lead by example. Someone who doesn't feel comfortable with it can say that -- "We are a varied and international movement and different members have different points of emphasis, mine is x. I don't feel I have expertise to talk about areas outside x."

    The interesting thing about the whole issue of expertise is that the official reports come in at least 3 different versions. The 'experts' are grasping, themselves, for answers and those have changed, not stayed the same. The whole investigation ends when the collapse starts. When you really look into the official reports and the various statements, you realize how flimsy the whole thing is. We all have our own realm of beliefs around this issue on both sides, but the fact that the official story defenders' positions are just as 'theoretical' is something that means that increasingly over time, more and more will see through them and start to wonder.

    To me, the main obstacles to most people's understanding of the demolitions are that they literally haven't looked at the points, or that they literally don't think that way and don't have science training. There are some people who intuitively understand it (as someone in psychology I'm fascinated by this, the people who believed on day one, as they saw the towers, that they were demolished), and some people will never believe it until the evidence is undeniable and the court case has concluded. I think that divide is something we have to manage in a respectful way.

    The working group that helped Kevin Ryan put on his 600 person event in Bloomington this anniversary included a city council person. That's something. Then he was interviewed in the newspaper. That is taking our movement forward in many ways.

    There is a demolition hypothesis page on wikipedia for a reason, and not because so many 911 truth people put it there -- the person who created it is not an activist and not onboard with questioning the attacks, but is a thinking person that saw merit to the fact that so many people are questioning it and he felt surprised and intrigued by it, not threatened. That issue is now a part of our language. We have to find a way to work with it, even as the Nico's of the world are using it also. I think we have to remember that if they weren't using that, it would only be something else. The Pentagon would be being pushed harder and from more directions, most likely. More films, more military people saying the hole was too small. The 'no hijackers at all' claim would be being screamed. Other tactics would be being used.

    A pattern is likely there because it was easiest at the time. Now, with Kevin Ryan, Jones, Gage, city council people, etc., it becomes less easy. I would expect the Pentagon issue to ramp up more in the near future.

    Sophia has PENTACON on her front page for a reason. She has money, she has a name, she has an audience, and she will be making a film. The time to start strategize to take that issue apart is now, not when the film comes out.

    Posted 17 years ago #
83. NicholasLevis
    Member

    I think John's comments go to the heart of the problems that come up when one forefronts demolition.

    It entails instantly conveying and having people accept the following three steps:

    1) Official story is a cover-up.

    2) The suppressed evidence points to a covert operation of the intel complex (false flag event).

    3) Furthermore, the buildings were blown up.

    Please note that 3 necessarily entails 2: if the WTC was blown up then for sure the aerial attacks were an inside job.

    But 2 can stand on its own: 9/11 can be an inside job without bombs at the WTC.

    For many reasons, I think that if I accept 2, then 3 follows logically as the near-certain completion of the psy-op that 2 begins.

    But outsiders to these considerations are going to have to buy 2 regardless, whether or not 3 is considered.

    An inside job already entails the complicity of the main Bush regime players and a fair number of operatives placed at FBI, CIA and NORAD to steer the pre-9/11 investigations so as to protect the patsies, disseminate the warnings (while simultaneously making sure they go nowhere), arrange the wargames and standdown. This is complicated stuff!

    It also necessitates 2a) establishing the motive (presumably: 9/11 exploitation justifies global war and a fascist transformation at home). This part's usually easy, but people wonder what the additional motive of 3 is supposed to be. (This requires discussion at length of psy-ops, which again is a whole separate area that people don't know much about.)

    Conveniently, we see the surface evidence of 2 already in the actions of the chain of command on the day. In fact, everywhere we dig, we turn up more that suggests the outlines of such a plot, and that provides the probable cause standard for a grand jury or other criminal investigation aimed at people we can actually name (at least some of them).

    This same racketeering organization is involved in 3, which however entails an additional, separate group of conspirators and foot-soldiers who are arranging the destruction of the buildings. This expansion of the number of criminals and of the complexity of the operation is one reason it automatically seems outlandish to those who have not yet immersed themselves in the overall evidence for 1 and 2.

    Another reason it seems outlandish is because 3 adds such enormity and deliberation beyond the already horrible planes plot.

    On its surface, furthermore, 3 seems to afford much less plausible deniability to the official leaders, i.e. you can see how regime members think they're going to get away with the planes plot, but not with the bombs plot.

    So if you want to convince someone who may not even have fully absorbed 1, you are best off shooting for 1 and 2 first, and leaving 3 up to them.

    There are other considerations: Science is never slam-dunk, as you say Victoria, and as I am also well aware. So if you forefront 3, you end up having a debate about squibs and residues, at best with equally qualified experts batting on each side, instead of examining the past criminal record of U.S. regimes and of the very players in charge of the Bush regime.

    In practice of course, the debate is more often between self-appointed lonely guys in black t-shirts with a faux-thug pose screaming "squibs! murder! proof!" at Ground Zero tourists; while a smaller group of self-appointed debunkers nearby pretend to wear the time-honored mantle of skepticism (hell, even atheism) while screaming back: "conspiracy theorists! woos! apologists for murder!"

    But again, Victoria, please address this point: You are forced to argue for a larger and (to the initiate) less believable conspiracy in 3 than in 2. Whereas 2 opens the way to 3.

    Posted 17 years ago #
84. Victronix
    Member

    But again, Victoria, please address this point: You are forced to argue for a larger and (to the initiate) less believable conspiracy in 3 than in 2. Whereas 2 opens the way to 3.

    Then why does a Bloomington city council person want to ask questions about demolition? Why did Robert Fisk ask his first real questions around demolition issues?

    3) Furthermore, the buildings were blown up.

    Shock Doctrine. It exists as a philosophy because it works in real life.

    I have to go out now, otherwise I would go on longer here, far too long probably!

    Thanks for the thoughts and discussion.

    Posted 17 years ago #
85. JohnA
    Member

    Victoria - very good post.

    but one thing does stand out. You mention that the government produced 3 reports that fail to explain the phenomenon as evidence.

    i am reminded also that the government releases highly suspicious video tapes of the Pentagon - almost DESIGNED to inspire speculation and suspicion.

    is it as all possible that the government is actively STOKING red herrings?

    Posted 17 years ago #
86. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Victoria,

    Your quickie answers disappoint me.

    "Why does a Bloomington council member..." please! Why do the other council members not address the same concern? Either way, irrelevant. Tell me instead what your experience is with potentially valid sample sizes of initiates to 9/11 skepticism.

    The latest Zogby poll shows 1/3 of the U.S. population is ready to accept government complicity in 9/11 - treason, enough to topple the government! - but only 5 percent currently go for government orchestration. Focus on that 1/3 and you will get them to join the 5 percent. But you have to meet them where they are.

    "Shock doctrine" - sure, if you read my post you'll know I have that in there. It's why 2 in my list logically leads to 3 (for me). But it doesn't answer my concerns about forefronting 3 instead of 2.

    Posted 17 years ago #
87. truthmover
    Administrator

    John,

    Thanks a lot for being understanding. Your concerns about CD are well stated here, and I think we all recognize that this issue requires some discussion amid our concerns for the future of the movement.

    My question for you - as a moderator - is: how do you deal with the inclusion of posters here who have a clear track record of this sort of behavior? How do you deal with posters who clearly spread disinformation and smear campaigns elsewhere?

    Good question. Anyone can post here. The contribution of people with a history of disruption will be closely monitored. As these people would have a tendency to violate our forum guidelines, it is likely they wouldn't last long here. We have and will continue to delete threads and posts that violate the guidelines. So far we haven't had to boot anyone because most people get the picture the third time you delete a thread of theirs just after it was posted. This has happened only 2 or 3 times now, and been relatively invisible to our regular posters. Most of it will be gone before you see it.

    This all comes back whether its on topic and whether its reasonable. Disinformation, other that the discussion of its impact, is off topic on this forum. Smear campaigns are not reasonable. The guidelines provide the administrative authority necessary to be decisive in their application.

    Finally, there is an element of leadership and a related element of trust in this. Our moderation here is based on a great deal of experience, much of which we share with others here. We have seen and taken note of the strategic road blocks and pit falls that others have faced in different venues. We have spent a great deal of time talking about how to do it more effectively.

    Much of the discussion here about recent issues we have had in the past about similar previous issues. In fact the foundation of TruthMove was motivated, a year and half ago, by a response to similar conditions. Since then we have been trying to facilitate exactly what you see happening now on this forum. Unfortunately it took many witnessing the KW to recognize that our concerns were not merely local bias, or divisive disruption.

    So we were prepared for this and in that sense can provide some kind of leadership here on the forum by its careful moderation and sensitivity to these concerns. Let this space be an example of exactly what we are all saying the movement needs more of. But that comes with some trust, very much founded in our openness and willingness to respond to critique. We make mistakes. And we know that the community of people we trust will let us know in a constructive way.

    So, carry on.

    Posted 17 years ago #
88. JonGold
    Member

    I'm so used to 911Blogger.com, I'm thinking that what I'm about to say may start a "flame war." Bare in mind, I am just as guilty as everyone. Also, even I don't think I can change in this regard. I've read too much, and seen too much to think otherwise. That being said...

    Does anyone else think that the "9/11 was an inside job" slogan, or even the version I use, "elements of our Government were complicit in the attacks" was the wrong way to go about it? We passed judgment (based on legitimate evidence), but we passed judgment nevertheless. In America, it's supposed to be that you are innocent until proven guilty. Granted, the judicial system is extremely corrupt, and I doubt we will ever get the investigation we want (even though I still have hope). I also think in some regards, we have proven it beyond the shadow of doubt (hence the reason I said "even I don't think I can change in this regard").

    We used to jump on the Jersey Girls (myself included) when they didn't say the magic words on TV. We used to jump on Cynthia McKinney for being too "LIHOP" (I have since realized that Cynthia was reaching out to the majority, she is, after all, a politician).

    Maybe it's best to promote the idea that the Bush Administration, and others, have earned the title of suspect for the crimes of 9/11. We can prove motive (BIG TIME). We can prove means (You mean to tell me that if this Government, or elements of it wanted to pull of something like 9/11, they wouldn't have the ability? Give me a f-ing break. With the intelligence agencies, and military available? Again, give me a f-ing break. Plus, we can also prove they have thought about it before.). We can prove opportunity (Why are all of the whereabout accounts of members of this Administration up in the air with regard to that day?). I know it's a lot more involved than what I referenced, but please try and cut me some slack for not mentioning every aspect of evidence we have for complicity.

    I also think we can prove criminal negligence and obstruction of justice. Two real charges. Instead of reaching out to the "scientific community" as often as we do in the hopes that someone will corroborate all of our "science", why don't we start reaching out to the legal community? A concerted effort to present our case to any prosecutor that will give us the time of day? I am not a lawyer, and I'm sure it's not as easy as that, but would it hurt to try?

    If what I mentioned is a good route (and my ego isn't big enough to convince me that it is), how do we get the "masses" to follow suit?

    Posted 17 years ago #
89. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Your post might inspire irrational flames on blogger, but you know I think it's reasonable.

    I think "9/11 was an inside job" became the slogan out of desperation - as a means of attracting attention once reason and evidence too often failed to do so. Although, ugh, I seem to remember Nico and Angie were the first to raise it in New York.

    The standard for criminal investigation (as opposed to conviction) is probable cause. This was where we (the 911Truth.org group at the time) were in the fall of 2004: the AG petition and case at Justicefor911.org. The idea was for this to turn into similar complaints in many other states, and to focus on the legal community, as you say.

    We failed to follow up from that point, for various reasons. And the momentum was picked up by Jones and LC and for that matter 911blogger riding on the celebrity appeal and shock of the slogan.

    But it's still there, as you say.

    Posted 17 years ago #
90. JonGold
    Member

    Can you guys give me suggestions for my "Who Is?" series?

    Posted 17 years ago #
91. truthmover
    Administrator

    Jon,

    Well said. We're right on the same page with you here. No flame wars necessary. In fact this has been discussed recently on the forum in a couple places.

    TruthMove specifically just added a question mark to our sign that says this, and will be retiring the sign, and that slogan before long.

    But, Jon, we don't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what a jury is supposed to do. A prosecuter only requires probable cause to initiate a hearing before a judge. And thus our addition to you statement. We have probable cause to suspect that "elements of our Government were complicit in the attacks." So I just turned an assertion into a reasonable suspicion. As you imply, that may me a more powerful statement than any definite assertions we might make.

    When it comes to forging alliances with other activist groups, we may want to be even more open ended than that. For instance, it seems quite reasonable to most that the 9/11 Commission Report was bogus. Most assume the government will be biased in accounting for its actions. So I often tell people on the street, unreceptive to complicity, that at the very least we know that the official account is full of holes, and that we therefore demand answers to our questions about these holes. 9/11 questions are more easy to swallow initially than 9/11 answers. And when people start asking these questions for themselves, they may very well come to some conclusions of their own. Pushing this movement outside its own circle will have to involve presenting only those conclusions that are best supported. For instance, we know that the government is lying to us about what happened that day.

    And yet like you Jon, I have a hard time excluding my very strong suspicion of complicity or facilitation. All indicators point in that direction. And simply asking questions doesn't seem to hold on to the emergency we are all facing. Asking questions makes sense only so long as you expect an answer at some point. The 9/11 truth movement has progressed greatly as we have not waited for official answers that may never come, and instead started digging up answers on our own. And many of them are strongly conclusive.

    I suppose this is all an audience issue. We just have to present this issue in a manner to which our audience would be most receptive. For instance, we discuss complicity in here on our forum. But if you look at our 9/11 truth section, we have an approach that intends to respect the skepticism of the reader. And when we are out on the street, we have flyers that are strictly factual, and we adapt to the skepticism of each person who wants to speak with us. Some of those people are interested in our views on complicity. Some of them can only agree that our government is lying to us. But other than the angry people we encounter, we can find some degree of common concern with nearly anyone willing to talk. The common thread is that everyone paying attention is concerned about how many lies we are being told. Everyone seems to value informed consent.

    TruthMove, in having concern for a broad array of issues, is promoting what we have seen is the unifying potential of our shared concern for informed consent. A lack of informed consent related to taxation was one of the motivations for our Revolutionary War. And the problem is now worse than ever. Many of us are thinking that the progress of the movement right now depends upon we who are reasonable forming alliances with other movements. It is only we who are reasonable who might have that opportunity. But what then will be the basis of that alliance? We think it is the fact that we are all trying to accurately inform the public and protect our right to do so.

    Posted 17 years ago #
92. JohnA
    Member

    i was always against the use of that term. the first big split in NYC took place over a very similar debate - whether we should use "The Bush Regime Engineered 911" as a slogan or "Support the Victim's Families - Demand 911 Truth" on our banner. I coined the "support the families' phrase that ultimately was used. but it did not last long.

    I always felt somewhat fustrated that we had 'the goods' on this administration as soon as they began lieing about the events of that day. hell - we even have Thomas Keane publicly admitting that they considered criminal charges against NORAD for intentionally lieing.

    that was the smoking gun. we had a massive breakdown in security - with no logical or verifiable answers provided by our government.

    remember - we live in a country where a sitting president was impeached for lieing about an extra-marital affair. yet - the mass murder of 3,000 people - and a subsequent coverup which included blatant and demonstrable lies - was not picked up on by the 'left' (as one might expect they would). i always felt that demanding and compelling people to give verifiably correct answers was the key to our success.

    part of the vacuum of accountability had to do with misplaced feelings of patriotism and 'unity' and 'standing behind the president' in the wake of the disaster. i understand that.

    but - out of frustration the 911 movement decided that - in the vacuum of accountability - we ourselves would decide to 'crack the case' and provide all the answers. we decided "911 was in inside job" as the answer to these unanswered questions and lies.

    unfortunately - this killed the 911 Accountability movement. it undercut and overshadowed the victim's families who were legally taking their case directly to the government. it killed any chance of the 911 Truth movement being viewed as concerned citizens demanding answers. we crossed over into 'conspiracy theorists.'

    Posted 17 years ago #
93. jan
    Member

    Fascinating discussions here.

    I've meant to thank truthmove for their presence at GZ on Sept. 11th and excellent video and report. The report was an excellent brief combination of facts and honest feelings, and the video was moving.

    Thanks much for the nods.

    <Jan Hoyer's sign campaign, which made 9/11 truth highly visible all the way back in 2004. It also made 9/11 truth feel allied to the peace movement and it made us feel less isolated and more optimistic. What happened, where did this campaign go? How come I haven't seen a protest dotted with "Stop the 9/11 Cover Up" signs since 2004? How much did this cost? Can we do it again?>

    My estimate is that the original sign campaign of a few thousand STOP the 9-11 COVER-UP signs cost about $600-$800, with a reasonable price granted because of the printer (911sharethetruth) having his website included in the list of three websites. Gabriel was also responsible for the listing inclusion of 911review.org, a Nico site. However, paper prices have risen since 2004, so not sure what that would translate into today. Shipping costs were an additional factor that a few helped with.

    To briefly clarify, the original March 2004 9-11 sign campaign "STOP the 9-11 COVER UP" was an all volunteer team effort of the founding National 9-11 Visibility Project, and dedicated activists from KC, Seattle, SF and NYC. The second sets of signs "EXPOSE" and "ONLY 9/11 TRUTH" were produced by staff effort of 911truth.org.

    What happened? Without being in NYC, I am not privy to what happened there in 2005. However, I had newly been named art director for 911truth.org and very clearly recall the period after the DC ETC event when LC aggressively entered the scene and was appointed/deemed as representatives of the 9/11 truth movement.

    IMHO, this slow public appearance change occured for a complex mix of reasons that includes aggressive tactics, marketing (and design) inexperience by leaders, miscommunications and simple human constraints. Just as Nick mentions that the original NYC, excellent educational literature was phased out and replaced, the original 911 truth movement signage has been similarly slowly replaced.

    One recent activism photo exemplifies what happened to the public perception of the 9/11 truth movement and previous 9/11 signage. It is my belief that the cheerful fellow holding the STOP the 9-11 COVER-UP sign is fairly typical of founding 911 truth activists. Friendly looking, non-threatening, and very approachable (similar to truthmove).

    In contrast, the 9/11 TRUTH NOW sign blocks the STOP sign. Peaceful activists using the demanding NOW signs appear darker to me. No disrespect intended, but I will go out on a limb and suggest that the image of a Marine in Dress Blues at this time just might be an image that alienates some of our intended allies. http://www.digitalstyledesigns.com/images/marinesi...

    <tm: Can we do it again?> A remake of the original signage campaigns would be doable if certain factors fell into place. Once a committee decided on the slogan, it would be a simple matter to design and print the signs. Funding and sign distribution would be the biggest factors that would determine success. TruthMove would seem to be in a fresh and trusted position to launch a new campaign.

    Vic mentioned a major concern that I share regarding any 9/11 truth/justice/awareness proposal. At this point in history, Americans are (rightly) focused on the upcoming attack on Iran. IMO, a counterproductive backlash would occur from our biggest potential allies if a marketing campaign were not carefully crafted. That said, launching a new public image/sign campaign has vast potential to work.

    (I nearly included two slogans for consideration, but it might be wiser to share through private email.)

    On a different note... (Because of a few people included, these videos are not the best examples, but I believe they show balance to the current stereotypical perception of "Truthers" as out of the mainstream and needing Paxil. These 2004 audiences seem very sane and articulate.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1NIP0Bcu4U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5MyLpbtzFw&mod...

    Peace, Jan

    Posted 17 years ago #
94. JonGold
    Member

    Hey Jan...

    http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=218

    Posted 17 years ago #
95. jan
    Member

    Thanks for the link, Jon.

    This probably belongs on a new thread, but I respectfully suggest that those who have an interest in visually effective design should study the last photo of activists holding signs (objectively). http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2...

    (names have been left out to protect the well intentioned, but it is important to learn from our mistakes.)

    The EXPOSE and ONLY 9/11 TRUTH signs are attractive and very effective for closer up audiences and situations.

    However...

    One first basic of Communication Design (and billboard design which is very similar to display design), is that there must be significant contrast between the background and the text. Otherwise, the text will appear muddy and not be easy to quickly read.

    As a graphic artist with 10 years work experience at wide format service bureaus, it is my conclusion that the second set of sign displays created (by myself) for 911truth.org were much less effective visually than the original STOP signs, simply because an inexperienced person was the middleman directing the printing (proof) process and insisted that the printer overly increase the red ink saturation.

    The lack of contrast between red busy background/ black detracted from the sign's readability, lessoned contrast and made the message muddy and virtually unreadable from a distance. In comparision, the somewhat pinkish background of the STOP signs can be seen from very far away, probably a factor in the excellent press in early 2004.

    Also, because the paper was excessively thin, activists had trouble carrying them, most lives were short and it's value lessoned.

    I can't overemphasize how important it is to use an experienced professional for all aspects of display design and prepress preparation.

    Posted 17 years ago #
96. JonGold
    Member

    I do like the black with white knockout "9/11 Truth Now" signs designed by dc911truth.org

    Posted 17 years ago #
97. TruthandJustice911
    Member

    I can't overemphasize how important it is to use an experienced professional for all aspects of display design and prepress preparation.

    Couldn't agree more.

    Does anyone else think that the "9/11 was an inside job" slogan, or even the version I use, "elements of our Government were complicit in the attacks" was the wrong way to go about it? We passed judgment (based on legitimate evidence), but we passed judgment nevertheless.

    Yes Jon, being strong 'believer' in 911 truth, I am sometimes offended when I hear or see people jumping around screaming and chanting "911 was an inside job." Now, if I'm even somewhat uncomfortable with it, I can just imagine the peolpe who we are trying to court and get on our side. My opinion is that we need to totally overhaul our public relations imagine. Changing our slogan is a HUGE step. For ex: 911: Reveal the Truth, Reclaim Our Future. (that was actually used for the chicago conference in 06) 9/11 Truth NOW!, Stop the 911 Coverup! and Jan's recommendations. We should steer clear of slogans which could be seen as disrespectful to the public.

    Posted 17 years ago #
98. TruthandJustice911
    Member

    i DO welcome ae911 as a terrific effort to take this issue directly to the experts. peer review among structural engineers needs to take place - not kids in black T-shirts.

    This statement earlier from JohnA is quite powerful. Along with improving the slogan for our movement, yet another problem we have is that is seems as though our movement has been hijacked by this black t-shirt crowd being propelled by CHANGE, Jones, and others with self-serving interests. We cannot expect to go anywhere if this is the face of our efforts. We need to bring the FMLY MEMBERS, FRST RESPONDERS, WHISTLEBLOWERS, and ESPECIALLY the PROFESSIONALS to the forefront of this seriously important movement and take back our integrity!!!

    Posted 17 years ago #
99. jan
    Member

    MO, this might be a more accurate analogy.

    Since 2005, the 9/11 Truth Movement has become hijacked. It is time for us to begin strategic efforts to reclaim it.

    Posted 17 years ago #
100. giveback
     

     This discussion has gone through some very impressive points, all very central.

     I'd like to continue on the point that truthmover brought up, that "I suppose this is all an audience issue". I find that an extraordinarily common thread in the public sphere is that the concept of an inside job is a personal thing which hits very close to home. I would suggest that most people have done an inside job on themselves and on others. That is, that their initiative and capabilities of skepticism, awareness, honesty, and the forthrightness of all three have been voluntarily undermined, as it is persistently undermined amongst others. They have taken those down possibly for the reason that the information trend setters, especially this administration and the media, have created such overwhelming force, have created such a presence, that the only method of being culturally relevant in any way is to follow suit. They have witnessed the benefits of inside jobs, and most likely want to be not only a winner, but also at least just visible. I find this analogous to the drive to appear wealthy. If the wealthy are clearly going to get all the benefits in the current mode, do everything one can do to appear wealthy, whether or not that is creating an excruciating personal debt.

     I suggest that Controlled Demolition is one of the most graphic examples of an inside job possible, and if the concept of inside job is internalized, it makes sense that it gets a violent reaction. And I mostly mean violence in the form of preemptive denial. If we are shoving CD at the public, there's a good chance we are addressing them at their highest level of pain and concurrent level of defense.

     Posted 17 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.