Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

My thoughts about TruthMove (28 posts)

  1. Diane
    Member

    Perhaps the follwing will be dismissed as just me being naive. But, given that TruthMove does profess to be concerned about how the 9/11 Truth movement comes across to the general public, including newcomers to the movement, I hope people here won't mind some feedback from a newcomer on how you're coming across. I should also mention that, although I'm new to 9/11 Truth, I've been intermittently involved in other political movements, and various nonpolitical groups too, in the past, so I do have some relevant experience. So, please hear me out.

    First, I agree about the importance of putting forward the best evidence and discouraging wild speculation. And I would like to see more groups that focus just on determining the facts of what happened on 9/11, without any larger political agenda. But I would ALSO love to see a more clearly articulated left wing of the 9/11 Truth movement too, as a counterbalance to the Ron Paul crowd and Alex Jones' "New World Order" nuttiness, which seems to have been swallowed whole by We Are Change.

    However, so far I have four problems with TruthMove:

    First, I'm extremely frustrated that TruthMove has not yet managed to hold regular meetings, or indeed any meetings at all that are announced more than a day or two in advance.

    I am glad to see, in the thread "Enough is enough," some recognition of the problem that TruthMove failed to provide an alternative to the other events held this weekend. I hope this means you'll soon start holding meetings and other events. More about this in the "Enough is enough" thread.

    Second, although I do understand and agree with the necessity of criticizing bad ideas and behavior, I have to say I'm unnerved by all the speculation here about various people being government agents. In most cases, these accusations are being made on what look to me like very flimsy grounds, on account of what look to me like ordinary human failings such as hot-temperedness or gullibility, or perhaps just strong belief in a "big tent" political strategy.

    Indeed it's likely that disruptive government agents would promote nutty ideas and obnoxious, divisive behavior. However, by no means does it seem likely to me that all or even most of the people who do these things, even habitually, are government agents. In my experience, people who do these sorts of things can be found everywhere, not just in the kinds of organizations that would be likely to attract the attention of government agents. In my experience, most people in general are far from perfectly rational. Lots of people have all sorts of obnoxious habits. And the U.S. educational system doesn't do a good job of training people in critical thinking skills, or in the art of giving and receiving constructive criticism.

    Furthermore, although it does seem likely the neo-con cabal is indeed doing what it can to derail the 9/11 Truth movement, it nevertheless seems to me unlikely to me that the movement could be crawling with agents to the extent that some people believe, for a reason I'll explain below.

    On the following pages:

    http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=... http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=...

    you can download the following, dealing with COINTELPRO: (1) audio excerpts from a documentary by Adi Gevins, and (2) an interview with Dr. William Pepper about COINTELPRO.

    One thing I noticed was Adi Gevins' explanation of how various COINTELPRO activities were eventually exposed, via, among other things, the testimony of former FBI agents and informers. Apparently these folks, while acting as agents or informers, had believed that they were doing something good and patriotic, only to realize later that their activities served no good purpose after all, and were just causing harm.

    It is easy to imagine how the agents and informers of the 1960's might have believed that they were doing good. They thought of themselves as fighting against Communism, a movement which, however noble its ideals, had clear ties to a foreign power that was the U.S.A.'s number one geopolitical rival. So it was easy to convince huge numbers of Americans (including even a lot of liberals, let alone the average FBI agent or informer), that Communists were an inherently treasonous bunch. And indeed Communists were a part of the mass movements of the 1960's, even if only a small part. So it's easy to see how a lot of people might have believed that they were doing their patriotic duty by helping the government keep tabs on various left-wing political movements, or even by disrupting them to prevent them from achieving goals desired by the Communists.

    As an example of COINTELPRO disruption back in the 1960's, William Pepper mentions the Black Caucus and its government-agent-inspired divisiveness. It is easy to imagine how some rank-and-file FBI agents might have believed that they were doing their patriotic duty by promoting black separatism, thereby helping to keep black people away from those awful Communists. (Other people involved in that particular disruption were recruited from street gangs.)

    On the other hand, I have to wonder: What could possibly be going on inside the heads of those government agents who have infiltrated the 9/11 Truth movement with the aim of disrupting it? Are all of them knowingly engaged in covering up a blatantly treasonous criminal conspiracy? I seriously doubt that very many of them could hang around the 9/11 Truth movement for very long without becoming convinced that there most likely was indeed bigtime treason at the top. That being the case, how can they possibly continue to imagine, for very long, that they are doing good by disrupting the 9/11 Truth movement? Or are they all a bunch of sociopaths? It seems to me that most rank-and-file government employees, including most rank-and-file FBI and CIA agents, would need to maintain a patriotic self-image. But what could possibly be patriotic about covering up the murder of thousands of innocent American civilians? Only a handful of elite neo-cons could possibly believe such a thing, it seems to me.

    Back in the 1960's, the popular ideology of anti-Communism could easily have kept even the most poliitically liberal-minded FBI agents wholeheartedly loyal to the government agenda, at least for a while. But what contemporary ideology could be equivalently effective for agents in the 9/11 Truth movement? I suppose rank-and-file FBI and CIA agents could be told that we're secretly controlled by Al Qaeda, but that would be plainly ridiculous to almost anyone who has hung around the 9/11 Truth movement for even a few weeks, it seems to me, in contrast to the Communist Party's obvious ties to the Soviet Union.

    So, while it seems to me likely that there are indeed some disinfo agents in the 9/11 Truth movement, it also seems to me that the number of deliberate disinfo agents would necessarily be quite limited. It seems to me that having too many agents involved in the movement would be too risky to the morale of the relevant government agencies themselves, it seems to me, hence too great a risk to the perps.

    Hence it seems to me most likely that the 9/11 Truth movement has been infiltrated only by a handful of agents with close ties to the neo-con elite. I seriously doubt that very many agents would be trusted with such a mission.

    Furthermore, it seems to me that too much paranoia about agents can cripple a group. I wonder if it's part of the reason why TruthMove has not been able to get off the ground with regular meetings. Obviously, too much suspiciousness can be extremely divisive. Also, it seems to me likely that too much suspiciousness would be extremely offputting to new members -- whereas criticism of the more outrageous theories is not offputting, but attractive, at least to me.

    It seems to me that it would be more productive just to point out bad behavior without jumping to conclusions about what it may imply about a person's motives, except in the most extreme cases. I do think it's important to remind people to be more careful to avoid promoting nonsense and to avoid behaviors that serve only to divide the 9/11 Truth movement from its most natural allies. It is also worthwhile to point out the kinds of things that agents are likely to do, and perhaps even to point out that particular behaviors are typical of agnets, when asking specific people not to engage in those behaviors. But still I think it's best to avoid accusing any specific person of being an agent, or insinuating that any specific person might be an agent, without presenting VERY strong evidence. There's a very delicate balance to be trod here, it seems to me. Certainly, criticism should not be avoided. But too much suspiciousness is harmful. I think the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" should apply to specific individual people, even though it's ALSO desirable to warn about the dangers of particular ideas, actions, etc.

    Anyhow, my third major point of disagreement with many folks here on the TruthMove board has to do with the issue of how one deals with right-wingers in the 9/11 Truth movement, and likewise other people one might disapprove of on grounds other than promotion of 9/11-related nonsense.

    For an example of how this issue SHOULD be handled, it might be wise to look at the anti-war movement. The anti-war movement does have a right wing, as exemplified by the website antiwar.com and by various right wing groups I've run into at anti-war rallies. There are even quite a few blatant anti-Jew bigots and Holocaust Revisionists who have endorsed the anti-war movement (and antiwar.com in particular, listed as a recommended link on at least two Holocaust Revisionist websites, IHR and CODOH). However, as far as I am aware, hardly anyone thinks of the anti-war movement as a right-wing movement. And hardly anyone, other than the most rabid Zionists, would dismiss the anti-war movement as a whole as anti-semitic. The anti-war movement is clearly dominated by leftists and liberals, for the most part. And, as far as I am aware, it would seem that "discrediting by association" is not a big problem for the anti-war movement. By way of trying to discredit the anti-war movement, all that most pro-war commentators have managed to come up with is juvenile personal insults such as "moonbats," plus, of course, the claim that we anti-war folks are undermining the morale of the troops and are therefore treasonous. As far as I can tell, the leftists are able to dominate the anti-war movement NOT via any concerted effort to drive out the right wingers, but simply by having a bunch of reasonably well-organized leftist groups such as World Can't Wait.

    Similarly, to counteract the right-wingers in the 9/11 Truth movement, it seems to me that it shouldn't be necessary to go on a concerted campaign to drive the right wingers out of the movement as a whole. Certainly the right wingers SHOULD be critiqued, but what's more important is simply to organize some large, explicitly left-wing groups within the 9/11 Truth movement. As I see it, one of the 9/11 Truth movement's main problems is not the mere presence of right wing groups, but rather a relative ABSENCE of well-organized, highly visible left-wing groups. Here in New York, the 9/11 Truth movement now has a big right-wing group (We Are Change) plus a left-leaning "big tent" group (NY 9/11 Truth), but no big, solidly leftist group, and that's a big problem, in my opinion. But I don't feel that it's necessary for leftists to separate totally from the 9/11 Truth movement and build a totally separate movement. What's necessary, in my opinion, is to build some strong left-wing groups within the 9/11 Truth movement -- as well as some groups without any political agendas other than bringing the perpetrators to justice.

    Fourth, more generally, I feel that worries about "discrediting by association," while valid up to a point, can be carried too far. In my opinion there's nothing wrong with having some "big tent" groups. What's necessary is that there should ALSO be well-organized, thriving groups and networks with stricter standards, and which aim to promote critical thinking within the larger 9/11 Truth movement. Once the stricter groups are active enough and have won enough support, it would then be much easier to pressure the "big tent" groups to have at least SOME standards, or at least to avoid featuring the nuttier people and ideas in their public presentations. Ideally, the "big tent" groups could also serve as an arena in which the movement's various factions could debate their differences in front of a larger crowd.

    From my own perspective as a newcomer to the 9/11 Truth movement who was previously prejudiced against the movement because of exposure to nuttiness such as the fake video theories, all it took to overcome that prejudice on my part was a good look at Jim Hoffman's site, including his critiques of the no-planes theories. It was reassuring to me to see that there is a variety of opinion within the movement, and that there are folks who encourage critical, careful thinking. I was further reassured when Jim Hoffman thanked me for the email I sent him pointing out various minor errors I found on his websites. However, I would NOT feel good about the 9/11 Truth movement if it somehow managed to have a uniform politically correct line on almost every relevant issue, even if the correct line were reasonably sensible. This would make me feel as if the 9/11 Truth movement were a cult, or something.

    EVERY political movement, and indeed every organized subculture, political or otherwise, is going to attract its share of undesirables. Efforts to drive them all out of the movement, beyond the most extreme cases, are in most cases futile. Worse yet, to the extent that such efforts are successful, they may also have undesirable side-effects, such as a chilling effect on legitimate disagreement.

    As far as I am aware, every political movement has had fights over boundaries and who's in, who's out. There have been lots of similar fights within the GLBT rights movement, for example. As far as I am aware, nearly all these battles, with only rare exceptions, have eventually been won in favor of inclusion. The only case I'm aware of where a group was successfully excluded from the GLBT rights movement in the long run, after a protracted battle, was NAMBLA, a pedophile advocacy group. (This was back in the 1980's. Here in New York, NAMBLA was allowed to have a contingent in the annual Gay Pride parade for one or two years sometime in the early 1980's, but never again since then.)

    Of course, the 9/11 Truth movement and the GLBT rights movement are very different kinds of movements. The GLBT movement is a human rights movement, whereas the 9/11 Truth movement is (or should be) an attempt to bring some very powerful criminals to justice. So there will necessarily be some big differences between the two movements. For example, it's much more important to promote careful critical thinking within the 9/11 Truth movement than within the GLBT rights movement (although careful critical thinking is desirable in the latter movement too). And the GLBT rights movement isn't nearly as much of a potential threat to this country's power structure as the 9/11 Truth movement is. Nevertheless, there are some dynamics common to nearly all political movements, hence important lessons that can be learned from other political movements.

    One lesson that can be learned from the GLBT rights movement is that it IS possible for a political movement to have lots and lots of factions, yet still be a strong movement despite -- or perhaps because of -- the diversity of groups. Here in New York, the GLBT community consists of hundreds of different groups, including at least a few dozen different political groups. But nearly all these many different groups march together in a show of unity every June, in the annual Pride parade. And the parade is very well-organized. To be eligible to march, each participating organization must appoint at least two parade marshals who attend a series of training sessions in the weeks before the march. Also, if I'm not mistaken, all the participating groups are allowed and encouraged to participate in planning meetings. Thus, in my opinion, the GLBT movement has a very effective combination of unity and diversity, including some groups that otherwise don't get along particularly well.

    Likewise, in order for future 9/11 anniversay events to be successful, it will be necessary for the events to be planned by a committee representing a coalition of diverse groups, with an agreed-upon set of rules -- such having, as speakers at the main events, only those people that all the groups can agree on. Thus, for example, if We Are Change wants Alex Jones as a speaker, they would need to host him in a time slot during which the various groups have agreed to hold separate events, rather than at one of the main events sponsored by the coalition as a whole. This would go a long way toward helping to keep the soundest evidence in the foreground and keep the nonsense, speculation, and political agendas in the background, without any need to go on a purist crusade to ostracize all groups one doesn't agree with.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  2. Victronix
    Member

    Thanks for your thoughts. Too much to cover here, but . . .

    I agree that discrediting by association can go too far but a big difference between 9/11 and the peace movement is that keeping 9/11 covered up requires keeping the information away from people, and that is best done by shaming everyone before they can even look at the questions. If you want to see how this is done in action, take a look at the Guardian guy who tried to write a piece on the questions . . . I really recommend it, the level of attack he just came under in a single day -

    http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell...

    The most important thing for the attackers is to shame him away from his position. He, and many others on there, are shocked because this is not the level of stuff that the antiwar people are subjected to. They are allowed debate on the issues, not utter slamdown for daring to imagine peace.

    However, as far as I am aware, hardly anyone thinks of the anti-war movement as a right-wing movement. And hardly anyone, other than the most rabid Zionists, would dismiss the anti-war movement as a whole as anti-semitic.

    Read up on the hitpieces -- there are only a handful of common attacks they use over and over and over and they are like a formula -

    Those nutcases think:

    "Jews Did It" "A plane didn't hit the Pentagon" "The buildings were blown up"

    One of these three is not like the others . . . but bundling it in helps to keep anyone from looking too closely at it. These are a limited number of issues we have to deal with. Mark is right on the Pentagon issue. And the role of the nonsense advocates is to pack us in with so much nonsense crowd around us (attracted by the nonsense) that we literally give up, as you can see, many already have.

    I do think your point about dealing with the right wing is important.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  3. Arabesque
    Member

    I have to say, great post.

    Very useful and I have thought about some of these issues. I am not very familiar with the anti-war movement so your comments here are informative.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  4. Diane
    Member

    The 9/11 Truth movement is not the only political movement that has been subjected to extreme shaming. In the mid-to-late 1960's, "women's lib" was relentlessly ridiculed by many. Yet the feminist movement did eventually succeed, at least partially, in many though not all of its goals.

    Of course, the feminist movement is not nearly as great a potential threat to the powers-that-be as the 9/11 Truth movement is. Another important difference is that feminism faced primarily a battle over value judgments rather than a battle over alleged facts.

    Nevertheless, to this day, a residuum of anti-feminist shaming lingers on, despite the movement's successes. To this day, a lot of people who fit the dictionary definition of "feminist" are scared to call themselves feminists. So, the history of modern feminism may provide some insight as to how and how not to deal with the problem of extreme shaming.

    Back in the late 1960's, feminists were commonly dismissed as "bra burners" and "lesbians." The latter was an extremely effective insult back in the late 1960's, before the nascent gay rights movement -- another movement subject to extreme shaming back then -- had managed to make any significant headway. The "bra burner" label arose from a journalistic misinterpretation of an action at the Miss America Pageant protest in 1968.

    The "lesbian" insult was extremely divisive. At first, heterosexual feminists reacted by trying to drive out-of-the-closet lesbians out of the feminist movement. Sometime around 1970, there was a purge of lesbians from the National Organization of Women. Many lesbians reacted to the heterosexist bigotry by becoming "lesbian-feminists," proclaiming that feminists SHOULD be lesbians, because heterosexual feminists were "sleeping with the enemy." Eventually, N.O.W. managed to reach a compromise position, advocating lesbian rights while rejecting claims of lesbian superiority. This compromise, while reasonable by today's standards, looked suicidal to at least some heterosexual feminists back in the early 1970's. These feminists felt that feminism should not deal with lesbian rights issues at all, to avoid tarring feminism with the "lesbian" label. But this eventually became a non-issue.

    Of course, being a lesbian is certainly not at all the same thing as being a person who advocates nonsense. But it's also true that, over the years, a lot of nonsense has been advocated in the name of feminism, including the notion of lesbian superiority. And this and other nonsense has been used to try to discredit feminism as a whole.

    Nevertheless, the movement did manage to make progress, and managed to do so WITHOUT a sustained effort to ostracize all the nonsense advocates. Feminists eventually won many victories by (1) clearly articulating the movement's rational core, over and over again; (2) organizing feminist political pressure groups, separate from larger progressive movements; and then (3) forming alliances with larger progressive movements.

    Yes, nonsense advocates can cause much more harm to the 9/11 Truth movement than they could to the feminist movement. However, I think there are better ways to outmaneuver the nonsense advocates than by trying to ostracize them completely. What's necessary, first, is for the more rational and careful folks to form a well-organized alliance.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  5. Victronix
    Member

    Nevertheless, the movement did manage to make progress, and managed to do so WITHOUT a sustained effort to ostracize all the nonsense advocates.

    Great context! Thanks. And hopeful.

    Another issue however is that the media machine has grown somewhat since then, is more insidious, imo. In contrast though, we also have the internet. I think this polarizes the situation to some extent, creating different groups of people with different understandings of facts, depending on levels of information people are getting.

    I think some of us feel compelled to cope with the nonsense and it's part of our genetic code to do so, to some extent. It's appalling to us.

    But I also think that with a healthy amount of support and organization we would probably all prefer to focus on the facts and the defenders of the official story. We just are tired of being made to look nuts and our immune systems are screaming at us and in overdrive.

    What's necessary, first, is for the more rational and careful folks to form a well-organized alliance.

    Yes. That's been in mind in our (9-11 Research, STJ, etc.) decisions around links and supportive posts, hoping to get people on the same page via our essays and resource pages.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  6. truthmod
    Administrator

    TruthMove is doing the best we can. It's pretty hard keeping up with the latest news and research, maintaining a website, doing street action, and holding events/meetings with just a handful of members, most of whom have full time jobs.

    Additionally, we were pretty busy strategizing and promoting for the General Strike, which we saw as a key opportunity to forge links with the wider progressive, anti-war movement and the expand the credibility of 9/11 truth.

    We welcome suggestions/critique, but maybe a little understanding would be nice too.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  7. The critique is certainly welcome. And the welcoming of critique should be crucial in any movement.

    I do have issue about your speculation about what could be in the heads and hearts of speculative agents. As claims of disinfo can be, this is a notable distraction from 9/11 awareness.

    I agree that disinfo may very well be human failing, and promoting awareness and balance should be primary, as it would make disinfo of any sort irrelevant.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  8. Diane
    Member

    truthmod wrote:

    TruthMove is doing the best we can. It's pretty hard keeping up with the latest news and research, maintaining a website, doing street action, and holding events/meetings with just a handful of members, most of whom have full time jobs.

    Additionally, we were pretty busy strategizing and promoting for the General Strike, which we saw as a key opportunity to forge links with the wider progressive, anti-war movement and the expand the credibility of 9/11 truth.

    We welcome suggestions/critique, but maybe a little understanding would be nice too.

    There's a question of priorities here. Personally I would have given priority to holding regular meetings over promoting something like the General Strike. Only by holding regular meetings, or at least meetings announced some reasonable amount of time in advance, can you really get to know people and thereby grow the number of people willing to work with you on other things. There needs to be a balance between meetings/events and public outreach.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  9. Diane
    Member

    giveback wrote:

    I do have issue about your speculation about what could be in the heads and hearts of speculative agents. As claims of disinfo can be, this is a notable distraction from 9/11 awareness.

    The point of my speculation about what could be going on in the hearts and minds of agents was simply an attempt to counter the overly paranoid speculation about agents, agents everywhere. I certainly wasn't proposing that my thoughts about agents should be something the movement should emphasize front and center.

    I agree that disinfo may very well be human failing, and promoting awareness and balance should be primary, as it would make disinfo of any sort irrelevant.

    Thanks. That was my main point.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  10. Diane
    Member

    Victronix:

    I think some of us feel compelled to cope with the nonsense and it's part of our genetic code to do so, to some extent. It's appalling to us.

    There's nothing wrong with opposing the nonsense. The question is HOW you oppose it. In my opinion, it would be best just to (1) write critiques of the nonsense (as well as critiques of the official story and "debunkers") and (2) build groups and networks with higher standards. What should NOT be done, in my opinion, is to try to drive the "big tent" folks out of the movement as a whole. Attempting to do the latter will just result in a lot of rancor, it seems to me.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  11. JohnA
    Member

    The question of infiltration is not a paranoid one - and for those of us who have witnessed the disruptions within this movement for years now the pattern is clear. This goes way beyond simply forwarding weak research. It appears to be a combination of absurdist research, intentional in-fighting, shared resources among the disruptors, and activists who appear to be working in concert and coordinating their efforts.

    sure - i can believe that a handful of activists are misguided and believe that little green men perpetrated 911. but when i see these very same activists elevated to leadership positions, appearing on known right-wing TV news outlets, sharing IP addresses and business relationships with other known disruptors, launching inexplicable and vicious full-frontal attacks upon other activists, disrupting meetings, and in some cases possessing a long history of this behavior in other movements - i am forced to connect the dots.

    hell - Dr Fetzer wrote papers on the science of disinformation! he later disrupted the JFK movement utilizing the very same techniques that he himself defined in his papers. and now he appears to be setting his sights on disrupting this movement. his ad hominum attacks, his refusal to 'be reasonable, his promotion of other disruptive activists and researchers, and his promotion of absurd theories like 'space beams' makes his participation in the movement highly suspect.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  12. Diane
    Member

    JohnA wrote:

    hell - Dr Fetzer wrote papers on the science of disinformation!

    What papers? So far, all I've found is this one:

    http://www.assassinationscience.com/signsofdisinfo...

    he later disrupted the JFK movement utilizing the very same techniques that he himself defined in his papers.

    Specifics, please? Or a link to some place where I can read the specifics?

    and now he appears to be setting his sights on disrupting this movement.
    his ad hominum attacks, his refusal to 'be reasonable,

    Maybe you're right about Jim Fetzer, but, if you're going to be making personal accusations against anyone, I hope you have lots and lots of very specific evidence at your fingertips. I am a very strong believer in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."

    I've known lots of people who are just plain obnoxious. And I've known lots of people, in lots of different kinds of situations, who engage in ad hominem attacks and who refuse to be reasonable when someone has offended their poor delicate ego. Maybe some of them are agents, but surely they can't ALL be agents. More common, I think, are motives like petty jealousies, plus the fact that the U.S. educational system just doesn't train people in the art of giving and receiving constructive criticism, nor does our society (unlike, say, Japan) have a strong cultural tradition of constructive criticism.

    Plenty of other groups and movements have been afflicted by extremely disruptive infighting. For example, the feminist movement in the late 1960's and early 1970's was notorious for "trashing." See, for example, the following article:

    TRASHING: The Dark Side of Sisterhood by Jo Freeman (originally writing as "Joreen" in 1976) http://www.cwluherstory.org/CWLUArchive/trashing.h...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  13. Diane
    Member

    JohnA wrote:

    and his promotion of absurd theories like 'space beams'

    Actually, Judy Wood's "Star Wars Beam Weapons" paper doesn't specify whether the allegedly probable beam weapons were located in outer space, or somewhere on the ground, e.g. in nearby buildings, or in helicopters, etc. So to refer to it as a "space beam" theory is not quite accurate.

    Can anyone provide a link to a good critique of Judy Wood's paper? The main criticism I've seen so far is that it's unlikely that any such beam weapon could have sufficient energy to accomplish the destruction of the WTC buildings. I would be interested to see a more detailed critique.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  14. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Wood: See http://journalof911studies.com

    Jenkins paper in Volume 8 (pdf).

    To put it briefly: No evidence requires a hypothesis of theoretical directed energy weapons that we don't even know exist, so to posit them and insist on them as a necessity is on the brink of absurdity; but to insist that anyone who points this out is an agent (as Wood has done) is past the brink of disingenuousness.

    Though motives among disinfo exponents may vary - some are fools, some may be Jacobin fanatics, while others are paid-up agents of the state - the MO of the disinfo exponents, in my opinion, is obvious: they cry censorship and harrass everyone as "agents" who do not reproduce their arguments verbatim. For example, 911Truth.org "censors" Haupt by failing to re-publish his papers on "TV Fakery," and is therefore part of THEM.

    This is a form of inoculation or preemptive accusation. Second-generation COINTELPRO (conducted in an atmosphere where all the activists now know about and expect COINTELPRO) works by accusing everyone else of being COINTELPRO before they even conceive that you are the COINTELPRO. Which is not to say that all who raise such accusations are themselves COINTELPRO, but that this first-strike logic is now "embedded" in the situation.

    Again, it's not just that Wood advances an unnecessary and outlandish hypothesis to explain a phenomenon that is easily covered by bombs-in-the-buildings; it's the preemptive and vicious accusations leveled against all others.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  15. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Another tip-off:

    When you push an unnecessary theory that also happens to have specific power to alienate potential allies.

    Best example: no planes at WTC. It's not enough that 9/11 can be shown to be an inside job, no you have to add some completely unprovable (in fact impossible) stuff about how the planes were digitally inserted into the video and didn't actually crash into the towers.

    This pisses off the relatives of the passengers, not to mention anyone who saw the planes with their own eyes on the ground in Manhattan. When the "theorists" claiming no-planes then turn around and accuse the relatives of being CIA-hired actors and the victims of being non-existent identities created to cash in on insurance scams - bingo, they are on an obvious alienation campaign. When they further post private details of the relatives, when they encourage harrassment against the relatives - what do you think is going on? This is a very transparent way to sow division, hatred, and irrational rejection of any 9/11 skepticism.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  16. JohnA
    Member

    yes she does. she specifically talked about satellite mounted weapons in a radio interview with Dr Fetzer. and he applauded her conclusions.

    with all due respect - you are asking many many questions which would require that i exert quite a bit of time and energy verifying facts that are readily available to you if you are interested in doing the research yourself.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  17. truthmod
    Administrator

    with all due respect - you are asking many many questions which would require that i exert quite a bit of time and energy verifying facts that are readily available to you if you are interested in doing the research yourself.

    THANK YOU, JOHN.

    Diane--we appreciate your interest and suggestions, but maybe you need to put a bit more time into doing your own research, rather than joining a message board requesting that others do the legwork for you. I met you in person and you said you've only been involved in 9/11 for a couple months, correct?

    This forum welcomes everyone, but it is specifically directed toward people who do have a certain amount of experience with these issues. Also, brevity, conciseness, and not repeating the same things over are very much appreciated here.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  18. Victronix
    Member

    [the strike] which we saw as a key opportunity to forge links with the wider progressive, anti-war movement and the expand the credibility of 9/11 truth.

    This was an amazing effort. This was what TM is designed for and you did it and achieved something for the whole movement, something I think almost no one even realizes at this point. You may have even started a new submovement. I started off skeptical on here, and was later convinced as the whole thing grow and took on a life of its own. I started off being literal about it, but in the end it wasn't as much about whether or not people didn't go to work or did exactly as they were supposed to for the strike, it was that everyone had a tool to say "me too!" all around the world and feel safe in doing so, and this was resounding.

    Being linked to by Michael Moore, getting thousands of links on facebook, the direct support of Cindy Sheehan . . . you likey undid anything that Tarpley's debacle could possibly have corrupted.

    How to keep that alive? There needs to be a follow-up to the thousands of links and emails, if nothing more than a thank you or supportive message.

    On another note, we FINALLY listened to the Judy Wood and Fetzer interview when she revealed the space beams idea (I'd always just read about it but didn't play the mp3), and JF really sounds like he's laughing. I've noticed that in other interviews too with him, like the one with Mark Dice. They both seem to be laughing. Judy says "in orbit" here, just to clarify.

    http://truthaction.org/media/Judy_Wood_and_Jim_Fet...

    I think Diane has a natural response and inclination toward fairness, to defend those who are being exposed on here and this is understandable . . . I just think that after a few months of hard work and organizing and getting smashed when a hoax person's face shows up on your tv or their words are in your newspaper, you lose some of that natural drive to treat everyone fairly. Even primates will refuse to play games when they are rigged -- they get it after a few rounds of being hoaxed. But it takes a few rounds.

    I do think she brings a fresh viewpoint also, though, which we could all use.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  19. NicholasLevis
    Member

    You guys came up with the General Strike? (Forgive me, I haven't been following in a couple of months, and I was content with that.)

    Posted 17 years ago #
  20. Diane
    Member

    To Victronix: Thanks for taking the time to explain what the general strike achieved. I was not aware of that.

    As for Judy Wood and "space beams": Apparently she has edited her "Star Wars Beam Weapons" paper since the above-mentioned interview. The version of her paper that I read on her website last week specifically disclaims knowledge of whether the beam weapons were in orbit or somewhere on the ground.

    I'll respond on other matters later. Gotta run now.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  21. truthmod
    Administrator

    You guys came up with the General Strike? (Forgive me, I haven't been following in a couple of months, and I was content with that.)

    Yes Nick, we tried not to take credit for it publicly, but the idea originated right here:

    http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/567?replies=5...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  22. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Agent Provocateurs

    I do not think that it is irrational at all to think that the 9/11 movement is infiltrated on both local and national levels. An issue like 9/11 you can be sure that no chances will be taken to make us as ineffective as possible. There is too much at risk here, especially with such an open wound like 9/11. Think of how many people now question their government, their intelligence system and their economic system on a totally different level.

    Also, do not forget that another way of making someone become an infiltrator is through some form of blackmail or to compromise that person in some way. Please read the Glass House Tapes by Louis Tackwood for a first hand account of this. Louis Tackwood was an inmate who was let go under the condition that he would be an agent provocateur at rallies in the 60s and early 70s. He became a whistle-blower because he thought what he was asked to do was going too far. He eventually was put back into the California prison system and his book is very hard to find. Mae Brussell had several radio shows about him including an interview. I will try to post it.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  23. Diane
    Member

    I wrote earlier:

    From my own perspective as a newcomer to the 9/11 Truth movement who was previously prejudiced against the movement because of exposure to nuttiness such as the fake video theories, all it took to overcome that prejudice on my part was a good look at Jim Hoffman's site, including his critiques of the no-planes theories. It was reassuring to me to see that there is a variety of opinion within the movement, and that there are folks who encourage critical, careful thinking. I was further reassured when Jim Hoffman thanked me for the email I sent him pointing out various minor errors I found on his websites.

    Clarification: These things were "reassuring" in the sense of giving me reason to believe that the 9/11 Truth movement had in it some sane and intelliigent people who were worth listening to. Of course, the consequence -- that people in our government might indeed have murdered thousands of my fellow New Yorkers -- was anything but "reassuring."

    Posted 17 years ago #
  24. Diane
    Member

    christs4sale wrote:

    I do not think that it is irrational at all to think that the 9/11 movement is infiltrated on both local and national levels.

    Agreed so far. I just question (1) the NUMBER of agents likely to be infiltrating the movement and (2) the wisdom of accusing any specific person of being an agent when it's just as likely that the person might just be an asshole.

    An issue like 9/11 you can be sure that no chances will be taken to make us as ineffective as possible. There is too much at risk here, especially with such an open wound like 9/11.

    I agree with this too. However....

    Also, do not forget that another way of making someone become an infiltrator is through some form of blackmail or to compromise that person in some way.

    Good point, one I hadn't thought of before. But you then went on to give an example of such an infiltrator who later became a whistleblower. And it seems to me that, on the 9/11 issue, it would be extremely dangerous to the perpetrators for there to be very many, if any, whistleblowers. This necessity, in turn, would constrain the likely number of agents, it seems to me.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  25. truthmover
    Administrator

    Moderator Comment for Diane

    You have officially exceeded the your limit of moderator patience in regard to comments insensitive to participants of TruthMove.


    There's a question of priorities here. Personally I would have given priority to holding regular meetings over promoting something like the General Strike. Only by holding regular meetings, or at least meetings announced some reasonable amount of time in advance, can you really get to know people and thereby grow the number of people willing to work with you on other things. There needs to be a balance between meetings/events and public outreach.

    Three problems with this comment:

    First, you have twice now begun posts with the direct suggestion that you might be "naive." And yet in contrast, posts such as this one express a tone of authority. These things stand at odds when you speak about our movement or this project. Your experience in other fields is not necessarily directly convertible into a practical understanding of this one, and yet that hasn't stopped you from telling us about our business. The people in here take this incredibly seriously. You are not free to make light of that commitment by indicating no humility toward our experience.

    Second, you are repeating certain criticisms like talking points. You have repeatedly accused us of failing to provide an alternative action on 9/11, and then when you find out what we were up to, you suggest that it was not the right course of action. This kind of behavior appears vindictive rather than constructive and is not welcome here.

    Third, you question our priorities without any knowledge of our present plans, or even recent actions. This approach does not make us want to share with you our plans, as its naive and rude, and does not lend itself to reasonable discussion.

    We have every intention of respecting your insight and experience, but we expect the same from you. We also expect brevity, as TruthMod indicated. You are now posting more here than anyone, which is a bit out of balance considering your lack of experience with these issues.

    Please adapt to the specific environment in here. Have a look at the Forum Guidelines. Read some other posts further down the list. Try to get a feel for how others are using this space. And please be aware that there are experts posting here. Please do not over-extend the authority provided by your expertise. And remember, this is the TruthMove forum. I don't much enjoy this moderation role, but it is necessitated by our insistence that this space will remain a venue for reasonable discussion.

    Please be reasonable.

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.