This is typical from reports I have heard, though the donation bit is new. Certainly the amount asked for is right out. A dollar would be reasonable, for repeat members. Asking newcomers is just boneheaded.
They virtually demanded that everyone leave their name and e-mail. I told them I would prefer not to. I got a few curious looks after this, like I was a G-man or something.
This is very clumsy. This should always be presented as a choice. OTOH its a good idea to go prepared with an email account dedicated just for this, or better yet, send someone in your place to scope the sitch out(if you think something really shady might be going on). Buy them a pizza. ;-)
The people themselves had a lot of frenetic energy. I think a good portion of the attendees aren't the best socializers in everyday society. This is probably why it was easier for them to accept the truths about 911, figuring they weren't fitting into the mainstream anyways and had nothing to lose. Unfortunately, I think this makes 911truth more of a local club for them to have social interaction, and not as a place to create worthwhile activism. It pretty much felt like One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest.
I've also heard this reported. Question: how long has the group been in existence? If it's been for more than a year and they have events to point to, I'd go carefully.
They're organized enough to ask for money and have contact lists, but they can't socialize effectively? I call this the "wacky outsiders" performance. If you stay long enough, you'll be able to see who is probably real and who is probably putting on an act. Also watch out for people who say they're proud to be called "conspiracy theorists". The goal could be to alienate level headed people(they just go away) and consolidate control over the remaining folks who identify culturally with how the group is presenting itself.
You might think I'm being harsh, but in discussing this with other activists--peace activists--the group dynamics reported in many 911 groups are off the charts into strangeness, even by radical/outsider politics standards.
Also beware of the tag team "sane group" that will pop up if the wackyness wasn't enough to put you off. Some clues they are not what they seem to be, are making assertions that reveal they know more than they should as they have presented themselves.
Example: saying "so and so has aligned themselves with right wing people", when this has not actually been observed, nor has the person expressed these views in your presence. And when you ask how they know this, they get vague about how they know this or specific cases. Answer: it was an assertion with the goal of consolidating your political allegiance--you weren't supposed to question it critically. The key here is the assertion was true. Once you start digging, you realize the "sane group's" knowledge base contradicts their story about themselves. The most glaring question being, if they knew about this objectionable stuff for months, possibly years, why are they still in the group? And if the rest of the group hates them so much, why weren't they kicked out?