Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

NY911Truth still active? (43 posts)

  1. truthmod
    Administrator

    As for who controls the NYC ballot initiative, it's my impression that William Pepper has more control over it than Les does. This past winter, an earlier version of the ballot initiative was ditched in favor of a new version proposed by WP, who also seems to have the upper hand in terms of connections, access to funding sources, etc.

    What are your impressions of William Pepper?

    This sounds very naive to me. Les is the coordinator in NY, he's the point man. William Pepper is probably too busy with his law practice to be involved in grassroots efforts like this. William Pepper, although he speaks a good game on disinfo, has proven himself not to be very discerning when it comes to his own associations.

    Diane, your continuing support of Les, and your inability to acknowledge the credibility and overwhelming number of critiques of him is very problematic. Also, your continual nagging that others such as TruthMove or Nick or John should be doing what you want to see, is disrespectful. We do what we can. And we've done a hell of a lot. Give us a break.

    I tried to push to create a big anniversary event last 9/11. But because of various people's lack of time, energy, or commitment, it didn't happen. Live and learn.

    Being involved in this work is hard. I do not have excess energy to deal with the bullshit and the drama and the general lack of productiveness and efficiency. Several group projects I've been involved with have disintegrated, leaving the members more pessimistic and exhausted.

    Not only do we have government agents actively thwarting our efforts, we also have many alienated, insecure, undisciplined, uneducated, unreasonable people among our ranks. I'm not calling anyone in particular out here, just saying that these characteristics exist in many people who are involved in this subculture.

    I have found that many of the most critical people within the movement are the only ones who are actually holding up any standards and forwarding our cause. Many of these people have already "said goodbye" to the movement in some form or another. I don't consider myself part of "the 9/11 truth movement." I'm a part of the truth movement, with a history as old as human civilization--a movement that will never be co-opted, no matter what doublespeak the future (and present) holds.

    If a history of this (9/11) movement is ever written, I think it should acknowledge how many of the original and the most effective/responsible people involved were marginalized as the disinfo freaks, big tent airheads, and ignorant fascistic elements took over.

    Diane, additionally, your focus on a new "independent investigation of 9/11" seems very limited. That's not the only goal. There are many valid and effective forms of activism. Encouraging people up to wake up to reality, responsibly and soberly, and pointing them in the right directions is also a very noble pursuit. So is learning to build a sustainable culture. Personally, I think we have less of a chance of waking up society through 9/11 truth than we do through Environmental truth. 9/11 consciousness may play a role in activating or radicalizing some people as to the urgency of the reality of our broader situation. But if it doesn't (as has been amply demonstrated), it will be yet another avenue of denial and subjugation.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  2. Diane
    Member

    Truthmod wrote:

    Les is the coordinator in NY, he's the point man.

    Yes, he's the coordinator of volunteers collecting signatures. But he isn't in charge of the proposed commission itself. And Les does seem to be deferring to whatever William Pepper wants, as far as I can tell.

    I have found that many of the most critical people within the movement are the only ones who are actually holding up any standards and forwarding our cause. Many of these people have already "said goodbye" to the movement in some form or another.

    I've noticed, and that's very unfortunate.

    However, if I am going to participate in the 9/11 Truth movement at all, I have to work with people who are, currently, actively involved in the movement, and to do whatever I can to try to convince those people to raise their standards. Given my goals, there's no other alternative for me.

    Diane, additionally, your focus on a new "independent investigation of 9/11" seems very limited. That's not the only goal.

    It's not your only goal, and that's fine. However, as far as my interest in 9/11 is concerned, support for an actual, concrete effort toward a new investigation is absolutely pivotal.

    Diane, your continuing support of Les, and your inability to acknowledge the credibility and overwhelming number of critiques of him is very problematic. Also, your continual nagging that others such as TruthMove or Nick or John should be doing what you want to see, is disrespectful.

    Are you and others here willing to stop nagging me about Les? If and whenever anyone criticizes me for associating with Les, my response will always be to challenge my critics to organize (or perhaps help me to organize) a better concrete alternative that is consistent with the goal of a new investigation of 9/11.

    There are a gazillion writers about 9/11. Thus, I can easily afford to be picky about which writers I endorse. Likewise, there are a gazillion 9/11 videos. Thus, I can easily afford to be picky about which 9/11 videos I endorse.

    However, right now, there's only one concrete, organized effort toward a new investigation of 9/11. So, I'm in no position to be picky about which one of those I endorse.

    Also, here in New York City, there are only two active organizations I can get involved in. So, if I want to be involved in any local activist group, my only alternative is to choose the one group that isn't officially dedicated to promoting a religiously bigoted ideology. To the extent that religiously bigoted ideologies nevertheless get promoted even within that one group too, I will confront them and actively oppose them, not quit altogether because of them.

    And we've done a hell of a lot. Give us a break.

    Yes, you've done a hell of a lot -- in the past. Thank you for all the work that you and others here have done. But this doesn't address my need/desire for something to be involved in now.

    Please give me a break. Please accept my desire to encourage higher standards while working within what exists now, given the absence of a better (in terms of my goals) alternative.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  3. chrisc
    Member

    Are you and others here willing to stop nagging me about Les?

    I hope not.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  4. Diane
    Member

    chrisc wrote:

    I hope not.

    Then are you willing at least to accompany any and all such nagging with constructive suggestions as to what else I can do that would be productive toward the goal of a new investigation, or at least toward further disclosure by whistleblowers, etc.?

    Keep in mind that I am not interested in participating in activism which takes the form of (1) convincing people that 9/11 was an inside job and (2) using that to promote some larger agenda not directly related to obtaining disclosure about 9/11. The latter seems to be TruthMove's preferred form of 9/11 activism, and I certainly don't condemn TruthMove for that -- I see it as a valuable potential counterweight to We Are Change, which has a similar overall strategy (using 9/11 to promote a larger agenda), though WAS has (a) a radically different larger agenda and (b) less caution about what kind of evidence is used. However, to me, the call for further disclosure and investigation with teeth is crucial.

    I don't have a problem with other people here not sharing my priorities. Different people will inevitably have different priorities; we can't all be expected to be passionate about the exact same things. But I do have a problem with people griping about me pursing the original central goal of the 9/11 Truth movement in what seems to me to be the only viable way.

    So, if anyone wants me to take seriously any complaint about my involvement in the one local group that's actually doing anything directly related to what I'm interested in accomplishing, any such complaint absolutely must be accompanied by constructive advice as to possible alternatives relevant to my goals, preferably in at least a 5 to 1 ratio (at least 5 times as much space devoted to constructive alternatives as to complaints about Les).

    Posted 9 years ago #
  5. JohnA
    Member

    Diane - i wish i could suggest something. i wish i could see a clear path towards activism.

    but, at this point many of us feel that unless we can clear 'the path' of debris - disinformation and disruptors that have accumulated over the years- we cannot effectively reach our goal.

    for many of us this has been priority #1.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  6. Victronix
    Member

    in what seems to me to be the only viable way.

    Ultimately it won't be too viable when someone with a history of highly disruptive public events and meetings is the organizer because they will lead the effort into that same direction because that is who they are. Instead, it will be a path backward which basically drains activists and burns them and discourages anyone else from doing the same thing. That's the risk. It's not just viable -- many things are viable, but it's also a risk and the generally known quantity is spelled out for why it is a risk on here.

    Some of us have a sense of the damage that can be done because we've seen it happen before.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  7. Diane
    Member

    JohnA wrote:

    Diane - i wish i could suggest something. i wish i could see a clear path towards activism.

    but, at this point many of us feel that unless we can clear 'the path' of debris - disinformation and disruptors that have accumulated over the years- we cannot effectively reach our goal.

    for many of us this has been priority #1.

    I think I understand why you feel that this is important. To some degree I agree. I too favor a cautious, rigorous approach, with emphasis on the kinds of evidence that are legally actionable.

    However, it seems to me that many people in the 9/11 Truth movement will be more inclined to listen to your criticisms only if you can also point to a concrete, constructive alternative. Otherwise your criticisms are likely to be seen as purely negative.

    Furthermore, without a constructive alternative to point to -- and without an emphasis on that constructive alternative -- you cannot possibly hope to gain a following. And, without a following, you cannot possibly hope even to compete with, let alone marginalize, the "disinformation and disruptors."

    Posted 9 years ago #
  8. emanuel
    Member

    Nick,

    Let me clarify, in no way was I saying I first came up with the phrase "9/11 truth." But I still believe I was the one who added "movement" to it. I remember first using this phrase with Bill Douglas when he came to Seattle and I suggested to him that we combine efforts (meaning his Kansas City group and our Seattle group), and create a national organization and website to encourage the formation of other local groups and build a "9/11 truth movement." This was in the fall of 2003.

    Now I could be wrong that nobody used this phrase before that, but if so I had never heard it used before. Then of course we used it all over our website, and a few dozen other "9/11 Visibility" groups formed around the country, and the nextt thing you know everyone was using it. But again, I could be wrong about being the first to use the phrase ever. It's not like it matters. We were all instrumental in it's spreading into common usage.

    Mostly the thing I remember most is that when Amy Goodman finally agreed to have Griffin on her show, she made it a debate format with Chip Berlet, and she introduced him as an expert in "Conspiracy Theory Movements." She never once said, "9/11 Truth Movement" on the show. I took it as an insult, a belittling of what I/we were trying to build, which was decisively not a "theory" and/or research society, but a political movement.

    And as far as I know, the Kennedy Assassination research community never called itself a "movement." There are huge differences between now and then, and also the circumstances of each event, which I think account for the different organizing responses that followed. For one, the Kennedy Assassination was not a pretext to launch a war. 9/11 was. Thus many of us sought to expose the lie of 9/11 in order to end the war on terror by revealing the baseless-ness of the pretext. There was an anti-war movement already growing that we aligned ourselves with (at least some of us). Hence the word "movement" was appropriate. Street actions became common. I don't think there were many groups in 1963 holding signs in the streets saying, "Kennedy Assassination Truth Now!" I could be wrong about this, but this is my guess.

    Also, I would love to hear the history of how the phrase "9/11 Truth" by itself began. My guess is that it began with the intended implication of "we want the truth about 9/11" and only later morphed into having the popular (and erroneous, and arrogant) implication of "we have the truth" about 9/11.

    And Diane, who are you kidding that an inside job is only a "possibility" for 9/11? Your claim to "only want a real investigation" may be good public strategy (I wish more of the early movement adopted that strategy) but here among other activists it is comes off as disingenuous. You and I both know that elements within the US government were complicit in 9/11 and are covering it up. The fact that there hasn't been a real government investigation is enough proof for that. Also, I am happy that you have come into the movement with intelligence, enthusiasm and hope. Don't let me get you down. Go for it. I just hope the description of our past experiences helps you better understand what you are up against.

    Emanuel

    Posted 9 years ago #
  9. Diane
    Member

    In the Truth Action forum, YT has recently voiced his support for an investigation. Given that a new investigation now seems to be a goal actively supported by YT but not by TruthMove (which seems to have largely moved on to other issues, judging by Truthmod's post at the top of this page, containing the remark "Diane, additionally, your focus on a new 'independent investigation of 9/11' seems very limited"), perhaps the Truth Action forum would be a better place than the TruthMove forum for this discussion. I've started a thread there, titled How to bring about an investigation and/or disclosure?.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  10. Diane
    Member

    emanuel wrote:

    And Diane, who are you kidding that an inside job is only a "possibility" for 9/11? Your claim to "only want a real investigation" may be good public strategy (I wish more of the early movement adopted that strategy) but here among other activists it is comes off as disingenuous.

    No, I'm genuinely not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps I just haven't yet studied enough of the real evidence that has gotten buried beneath all the mounds of disinfo, misinfo, and faulty arguments. Most of the arguments that are most strongly emphasized by the 9/11 Truth movement (at least at the present time) are flawed, in one way or another.

    Nevertheless, I've encountered plenty of real evidence of coverups, contradictions, and general creepiness. I'm inclined to suspect at least some degree of government complicity, but not necessarily a full-fledged "inside job."

    I am, in general, much slower than most people to draw conclusions about things I don't know the specifics of.

    You and I both know that elements within the US government were complicit in 9/11 and are covering it up. The fact that there hasn't been a real government investigation is enough proof for that.

    In response to this, a "debunker" could easily argue that they're just covering up the specifics of incompetence, just to avoid accountability for same.

    My response to this kind of argument from "debunkers" (e.g in some debates in the Democratic Underground forum this past summer) is to challenge the "debunkers" to join us in demanding accountability, and to set an example of how to call for a real investigation without making the kinds of accusations they consider unacceptable. So far, no "debunker" has taken me up on this challenge. Some time in the not too distant future, I plan to make a public challenge of this kind to Chip Berlet, who has claimed to support a new investigation.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  11. truthmod
    Administrator

    In the Truth Action forum, YT has recently voiced his support for an investigation. Given that a new investigation now seems to be a goal actively supported by YT but not by TruthMove (which seems to have largely moved on to other issues, judging by Truthmod's post at the top of this page, containing the remark "Diane, additionally, your focus on a new 'independent investigation of 9/11' seems very limited"), perhaps the Truth Action forum would be a better place than the TruthMove forum for this discussion. I've started a thread there, titled How to bring about an investigation and/or disclosure?.

    Diane, I find most of your writing on the internet to be circular, unfocused, and unproductive. You are also subtly antagonistic, and I would second the use of the term "disingenuous" to describe much of your attitude in online correspondence.

    I think your main effect in interacting with the 9/11 truth movement has been to waste people's time. I also think you take a certain amount of pleasure in annoying people.

    I don't speak solely for TruthMove and your conclusion above (about our non support of a new investigation) is completely faulty and I will not respond to it. Personally, I would prefer that you ceased posting on TruthMove.

    I am very pleased that the conversation here on the TM forum has been very lively recently, but I take our responsibility for providing a focused and productive community resource very seriously. If others have objections to my words above, I will listen to them and consider them honestly.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  12. Diane
    Member

    Just a quick clarification:

    your conclusion above (about our non support of a new investigation) is completely faulty

    You seem to have missed the word "actively" in what I wrote. Do you actively support a new investigation, and, if so, how? I didn't mean to deny that you "support a new investigation" in the sense of considering a new investigation to be desirable at least in theory. However, you seem to have given up on the idea, and you've repeatedly said so.

    I don't speak solely for TruthMove

    Who else do you speak for?

    I'm sorry you perceive me as "disingenuous" and "subtly antagonistic." I'm sorry you perceive me as just trying to annoy people. The latter is certainly not my aim. Perhaps you and I might get along better if we knew each other in person.

    Since you've asked me to leave here, I will. Again, to anyone who wishes to continue this conversation with me, I would suggest doing so in the thread How to bring about an investigation and/or disclosure? in the Truth Action forum.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  13. JohnA
    Member

    However, it seems to me that many people in the 9/11 Truth movement will be more inclined to listen to your criticisms only if you can also point to a concrete, constructive alternative. Otherwise your criticisms are likely to be seen as purely negative.>

    i did point to an alternative. i made a film. i promoted it.

    people here have created websites and forums.

    people here have hit the streets with banners and literature.

    people here have organized large events.

    people here have crafted and filed complaints with the NY AG.

    all of this seems to fly under your logic radar - and you continue to insinuate that we are just being 'negative' because we will not endorse nor promote the work of a known disruptor and purveyor of disinformation.

    and then you tell us we offer no alternatives. we HAVE been the alternative. we ARE the alternative.

    why don't YOU try to be a leader for a change - and stop hitching your wagon to Les Jamieson's initiatives - and blaming US for not doing better.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  14. mark
    Member

    Emanuel wrote:

    " For one, the Kennedy Assassination was not a pretext to launch a war. "

    There was a danger shortly afterwards that it would be used to start a war with Cuba and the USSR, who were (initially) being falsely blamed for the attack.

    In the longer run, the coup against Kennedy led to an escalation of the War on Viet Nam, but that change was marketed as supposedly being in agreement with Kennedy's policies, when in reality he was trying to scale back the war machine.

    I strongly recommend the following book:

    JFK And the Unspeakable Why He Died & Why It Matters (Orbis Books, 2008), by James Douglass.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  15. JennySparks
    Member

    He is responsible for selling a magazine "Criminal Politics" at a 9/11 Truth event

    Just one 9/11 Truth event, or repeatedly?

    Once was too many.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  16. truthmov
    Key Master

    Thanks for the support John. I hope others here aren't put off by my harsh words for Diane. If anyone wants some background on Diane's online work, they might want to check out her blog, where she writes blog entries about responses to responses on posts on forums, etc. etc.. It all seems pretty insular, circular and unproductive to me. On top of that, Diane is (self-admittedly) fairly new to the 9/11 TM. She posted to our forum several months ago (maybe a year) and most of us at TruthMove found her comments to be distracting and unfocused.

    http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/

    Enough of that. And now back to the thread...

    Emanuel wrote:

    I took it as an insult, a belittling of what I/we were trying to build, which was decisively not a "theory" and/or research society, but a political movement.


    I don't think there were many groups in 1963 holding signs in the streets saying, "Kennedy Assassination Truth Now!" I could be wrong about this, but this is my guess.

    This is an essential difference between 9/11 and JFK skeptics, but both "movements" have been thoroughly sabotaged. Building a political movement is an admirable goal and its probably the only way we're ever going achieve real fundamental change (not Obamachange). It strikes me that if you look at the 9/11 movement in terms of 3 sections: the research community, the management/promotion wing, and the "boots in the street" activists, ALL THREE have been either subverted or misdirected. The street activists in particular have been so overwhelmingly molded into the Alex Jones/WeAreChange image, that most people don't notice or pay attention to the few reasonable people out there holding 9/11 signs and banners.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  17. JohnA
    Member

    I think Diane is sincere. she has in intellectual curiosity about all of this - and seems to sincerely want to see progress and movement in the movement. but - she also seems to be struggling with some of these concepts - and we should perhaps accept this as an impasse.

    If Diane at some point find that 'path' to meaningful and effective activism, i will support her efforts. but - unfortunately, all of us have been around the block too many times to launch head first into actions that are tainted by characters we know are disreputable.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  18. NicholasLevis
    Member

    .

    I don't think Diane is disingenuous. But Diane, on this point you seem unnecessarily dense. We all remember being part of a better alternative, a better organization than the one currently around Les - and we watched him (among others) consistently take actions to destroy it, and to create the present lame state of a "big tent" movement that welcomes or at least wittingly harbors precisely the tendencies such as "anti-Illumnism," anti-Semitism, pseudo-science and half-chewed myths about the millennial bankers' conspiracy that you yourself say you most object to. The reaction here is unavoidable if you come to defend his initiative; and it is undeniably his initiative.

    .

    Posted 9 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.