Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Two movements: The 9/11truth vs. 9/11speculation movements. (44 posts)

  1. truthmover
    Administrator

    Two movements: The 9/11truth vs. 9/11speculation movements.

    When I first got into this, I didn't know which websites to trust. The big challenge at the time was 911review.com vs 911review.org. I soon realized that I could look at the links on each page to see quite clearly who these projects had decided to endorse. The line was quite distinct between the two, and I knew one of them had to be a shady enterprise.

    The same pattern can be seen today, and the two sides haven't changed much since then. Now we have 911research vs. 911researchers, and the Scholars for Truth vs the Scholars for Truth and Justice. Take a look at the two lists of web links below to get a sense of what I'm suggesting. (Notice that - scholarsfor911truth/911scholars.org/scholarsfor911truth.org - the Fetzer scholars website is three of the links in the second list, and going to that site you see that there is a new banner link to 911researchers, a Seigel/Haupt production.)

    I'll put this another way. Paul Thomson, Nafeez Ahmed, Barrie Zwicker, Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin...or Dave VonKleist, Rick Seigel, Jim Fetzer, Nico Haupt, Judy Wood, and David Shayler? I'm over-generalizing to make a point. I have come to think that these people are really not on the same team. We can't miss the fact that all the people supporting the most speculative evidence are supporting one another.

    THIS BRINGS ME TO THE POINT: We need to stop trying to prevent a split in the movement that is inherent to our having been infiltrated by those with different priorities. This split has been there since the beginning and its not going away.

    This is one important reason to reject the 'big tent' mentality. The core of this movement, its facts and priorities have not changed. We have established probable cause to suspect government complicity. Anything detracting from this case or its promotion is not a part of the truth movement. In other words, the movement hasn't ever really split. THERE IS ANOTHER MOVEMENT, ADOPTING OUR THEMES, THAT HAS NO PARTICULAR DEDICATION TO THE TRUTH. I'll call them the '9/11 speculation movement.'

    We can't let our efforts be undermined by people on a different course. I think the best hope we have is to stick together, not get distracted, stay on message, and keep this obvious coalition of government agents and the logically challenged at arms distance. But while we keep them at arms distance, we are also competing for the attention of the curious. Our movement must be stronger than theirs and more compelling.

    Group A: (From 911truth.org)

    9/11 Petition & Complaint--Justice for 9/11 9-11 Research
    9-11 Review 9/11 Reading Room
    YBBS.com 9/11 Visibility Project
    911Blogger.com
    911campusaction.blogspot.com 911Courage.org
    911dust.org 911EnvironmentalAction
    911files.net
    911Keymaster/Willie Rodiguez 911podcasts.com
    911Proof
    911revisited.com
    911ShareTheTruth
    Center for Research on Globalization Citizens for Legitimate Government: 9/11 Exposition Zone Colorado911.info CommunityCurrency.org/9-11 Complete 9/11 Timeline Daniel Ellsberg Whistleblower Project National Whistleblower Center OpenTheGovernment.org National Security Archive Project on Government Secrecy Deception Dollars DigitalStyleCreations Emergency Truth Convergence Family Steering Committee Feal Good Foundation Flight77.info Flybynews.com Global Outlook magazine Guns and Butter Archives ImprobableCollapse.com InformationLiberation INN World Report Journal of 911 Studies Knowledge Driven Revolution LoneLantern.org MUJCA-NET National Security Whistleblowers Coalition NY 9/11 Truth Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee Pentagonresearch.com Peter Dale Scott Petition to Senate to Investigate 9/11 Oddities Radio Free Oklahoma September 11 Victims sf911truth.org Spychips.com Summer of Truth Taking Aim TruthMove.org Tyranny Alert WantToKnow.info Watchdog: 9/11 Citizens Watch WhoKilledJohnO'Neill? WTC Environmental Organization Wtc7.net

    Group B: (From 911researchers.com, not 911research)

    911blimp.net 911 Eyewitness Rick Siegel killtown scholarsfor911truth 911scholars.org team8plus.org Judy Wood No More Games Reopen 911 Gerard Holmgren nw0.info terrorize.dk 11syyskuu.org 20010911.se serendipity.li eqgen.nl/aanslagen911 onderzoek911.nl waarheid911.nl vkmag.com/zapruder hintergrund.de broeckers.com ditkannietwaarzijn.nl reopen911.online.fr editionsdemilune.com scholarsfor911truth.org 911logic

    Posted 7 years ago #
  2. Victronix
    Member

    Unfortunately, 911blogger links to many of the disinfo sites as well, so putting that site down as *not *disinfo is somewhat questionable. Sites that openly mix things like hologram promoters with real researchers, sites which have no-plane-at-the-Pentagon/ no plane in Penn front and center with no qualifiers at all, sites which prominently link to disinfo while pretending "it's all good," etc. . . . these sites each add up to disinfo, however sincere and well-intentioned and hard-working the groups or webmasters are.

    Here's blogger's list and I'll bold or put notes by the ones I know of -

    <Moderator edit: The full list is here. http://www.911blogger.com/ List below is all those sites highlighted or commented on by the author of this post.>

    patriotsquestion911.com - Reynolds and Shayler promoted on there
    scholarsfor911truth.org - apparently doesn't yet know of the new site . . .
    ny911truth.org - links to Jimmy Walter's reopen site (nukes, blue screen fakery), serendipity (nukes, blue screen fakery)
    dc911truth.org - lots of public promotion of the website with little effort on an evidence section, primarily only sends people to view 9/11 Mysteries.
    911citizenscourt.com - top story promotes Reynolds and Wood speaking in DC!!! disinfo alert.
    - after a public effort on the part of several activists, this group apparently no longer thinks that planes were swapped in Cleveland and FL 93 never hit the ground at all . . . but it presents the Pentagon situation via a PDF paper by UFO-ologist Jim Marrs and Navy employee Barbara Honegger, who has said she thinks that Al Qaeda penetrated the US government to find out about the war games to enable them to launch the attacks. She's also previously said "Iran did it," about the attacks. That paper links to total911.info as a resource, a known hoax/disruptor, for a reference to Global Hawk, etc. The group seems to be trying, but haven't yet figured some things out, despite surprising success with their petition to the city and the ensuing public ballot access. Hope people can continue to work on them.

    --pause for doing other things today . . . but you see what I mean when you accept 9/11 blogger as a "neutral" source. It's basically an uncritical portal into disinfo. I'll just bold the other ones I see which have significant disinfo issues:

    911truthla.us
    pilotsfor911truth.org
    911courage.org - promotes questionable and likely hoax media to DC politicos trying to prove AA77 never hit the Pentagon. Strong promotion of 'Patriots Question 9/11' which prominently features Reynolds, Fetzer and Shayler, known hoax promoters. That site then links to debunked hoax sites like In Plane Site which features pods, and Reopen 9/11 for blue screen fakery and nukes.
    questioning911.com - no plane in Penn
    legitgov.org - uncritically promotes hoax sites
    v911t.org
    mujca.com - Kevin Barrett is enabling Fetzer by participating in his radio show . . . he's said he wants to try to effect change with him but it appears that won't even start to happen for months. No one can understand why he has paired with Fetzer in this way.
    911truthnow.org
    911eyewitness.com - horrible! known attacker Rick Siegel has threatened people's lives, telling them to sleep with their eyes open, etc. No site should EVER be linking to his!
    timetowakeup.net - listed 2x on here . . . Icke, Rense, Shayler
    killtown - terrible
    8thestate.com - Few are aware that the guy claiming to be a whistleblower also asks why we haven't seen the tail numbers on any of the planes, suggesting he thinks none of the planes were the real planes (no planes at WTC)
    ReOpen911.org
    911truestory.com - links to Judy Wood flawed paper right next to Jones - no one minding the store
    wanttoknow.info
    team8plus.org
    bush911video.com - bizarre link farm
    explosive911analysis.com - another Aidan Monaghan site with no one minding the store, text overlayed all over the place, lots of speculation mixed with real, debunked theories like B6 explosion included
    911blimp.net
    911truthradio.com
    physics911.net
    jonhs.net/911/ uncritical link farm to videos
    nw0.info - can't even open this site
    comcast.net/~skydrifter
    investigate911.com - pods
    www.timetowakeup.net - Icke, Rense, Shayler

    Posted 7 years ago #
  3. truthmover
    Administrator

    911Blogger is a whole different animal.

    You raise an issue that is worth addressing, but I think that the best course of action is contacting the administrators of 911Blogger directly about your concerns.

    We at TruthMove have also been wondering if this list couldn't use an update. As you point out, at the very least they should get rid of the dead links.

    But you should consider the role 911Blogger plays in the community before you question their motives. The two lists above are from sites that intend on educating the public about 9/11 truth, while 911Blogger is an open social forum.

    Websites intending to be an educational resource about the issue have a responsibility to present only the evidence and analysis that they find best founded and most compelling. For this reason, we can look to the list these sites present and get a sense of which evidence and analysis they prioritize.

    On the other hand, 911Blogger is not intending to set the priorities of the movement. Its a portal through which the movement can do that for itself.

    Now the admins do have their opinions. And they express them often. And after some time paying attention to what they are saying, I'd have to say I'm a fan. They may give you a list of nearly every site that asked to be included, but their understanding of the movement is clear, and their contribution is huge.

    Personally, I'm not that concerned about the list, because anyone paying attention to what's being posted on 911Blogger wouldn't be lead to these sites. I think the quality of posting is quite high, and the number of wingnuts at a minimum.

    Are you a poster? You should come join the conversation. I guarantee you won't be brainwashed.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  4. Victronix
    Member

    I agree that blogger is whole different animal, so deserves a special location within the range of animals. The jump to suggest I'm questioning motives is unfounded. I'm certain that dz and others involved are sincere. Unfortunately, so are the majority of those who end up spreading disinfo unwittingly. People have posted their concerns about blogger's broadcasting of obvious disinfo links on that site but it went nowhere.

    Does blogger do us all a service? Indeed. And most of us rely on it heavily, and are thankful for it. But what if there were a "blogger" site without all the disinfo links?

    Often the only way that disinfo can enter a scene is to come with a special gem to buy its way in. Blogger is a gem, sure, but also a swamp, despite the likely good intentions of it's creators - while some may disagree, it appears that this amounts to treading water more than moving ahead. I don't say this to attack the site, but in the hopes of advising a continuing move forward toward truth and not promotion of "everything." I see endless positive promotion of hoax stuff on there by the readership, especially around Loose Change. In fact, the site seems like a portal for the promotion of Loose Change completely uncritically, and this has been the front of center of mainstream media attack on us. Similarly there was massive massive promotion of Jim Fetzer on there, no matter what lunacy he put forth mixed with the real stuff, and no effort whatsoever to note the problem with this until the damage was already done. Those attempting to educate people on that situation were endlessly attacked by the no plane promoters that Fetzer supports. Those trying to point out the hoaxes were described as agents over and over.

    Blogger is a similar model to indymedia -- everyone has a say and the reader is trusted to figure things out on their own. Fine. But the unfortunate reality is that time has shown that that model actually does not work in 9/11 truth. In 9/11 truth there is an information war going on, so hoax and disinformation areas typically have endless resources with which to overwhelm sincere efforts (can't imagine why!). By linking to every site uncritically, blogger buys into the disinfo trap of "its all good," albeit with sincere and well meaning intentions, but in the end, flooding the good stuff with unsubstantiated hoaxes and a complete unwillingness to engage in self-critique. Those who question the claims that planes were swapped in Cleveland are attacked relentlessly by the no planers. Today, take a look, many many 9/11 "truth" sites say that a plane was never even IN Penn, but was swapped.

    This was never the case before Loose Change. I know, I've been here and working well before the film. This is direct evidence of the way misinformation is spread.

    This is related to the model that blogger espouses, "Big Tent." But Big Tent -- "it's all good" -- primarily helps spread disinfo, and the wide propagation of a completely baseless claim of plane swapping in the case of FL 93 is evidence for the way Big Tent functions. Here is a description of the idea:

    "One technique which has recently been promoted in the 9/11 Truth Movement is the "Big Tent" idea -- that all theories must be embraced in order to grow the movement. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to quickly realize that this technique benefits the disinformation promoters, not those promoting competent scientific analyses, like Steven Jones. Rational analyses of what happened on 9/11 will ultimately expose the truth, while nonscientific analyses can only be counterproductive to that end. Indeed, the association of ideas like pods, no planes, and missiles with Jones' analyses will tend to drain credibility from Jones' paper, while benefiting nonscientific or disinformation promoters. Interestingly, many of those promoting the most extreme ideas appear to have unlimited cash, unlimited free time, and unlimited bandwidth to promote their efforts -- resources that individuals like Jones cannot match.

    Importantly, Big Tent preys on good people. Those who want to expose truth are the same people who often want to help other people and consequently, can often be victimized or manipulated when their values -- a hope for equal treatment of all peoples in the world -- are exploited to shame them into embracing nonsense theories in order to 'treat all fairly.'

    Ultimately, the Big Tent approach can be expected to limit the 9/11 Truth Movement to those willing to digest hoaxes along with the real information.** Inevitably, this will keep credible media and researchers away from the movement in order to distance themselves from what they might describe as laughable, or ideas which would negatively impact their careers if they were associated with them.**"

    Some good examples of the relevance of inserting nonsense into legitimate claims to tank them is here:

    "During the Jim Garrison trial of Clay Shaw (1967) in the JFK assassination, a witness showed up who linked Lee Oswald and Shaw. Despite warnings from his staff, Garrison used this witness. But once he was on the stand, the witness claimed that he fingerprinted his own daughter every night to prevent substitutions by "them".

    During the House Select Committee on Assassinations (1976), the committee made a point of calling a witness who claimed that the open umbrella by the motorcade route in Dallas was actually a poison dart gun that had fired a dart at JFK to paralyze him, in order to make him an easier target. The actual umbrella was then displayed amidst jokes and laughter and great rolling of eyes, and shown to be merely an umbrella.

    More recently, Congressional hearings into abuses by the BATF featured one witness, dressed in camo and identifying himself as a member of a free militia, who claimed that the US Government had built and was testing a machine that made tornados.

    In all three cases the witnesses were plants by the government whose job it was to taint any real questions of what the government was up to with silliness that the media could use to make fun of the whole issue and those who dared question the official story.

    The media focused on the "fingerprint man" to ridicule Jim Garrison. (Years later Richard Helms admitted under oath that Clay Shaw had been a CIA contract agent after all). The story about the umbrella at Dealey Plaza was focused on by the media to show how silly the entire issue of questioning the Warren Report was (but fell flat on its face when the HSCA concluded that there had been more than one gunman in Dealey Plaza that day) and, of course, "Tornado man", camo and all, was the featured video clip on the news reports of the hearings into BATF, to the exclusion of the family members of dozens of people mistakenly shot by the BATF when the BATF raided the wrong homes. BATF, it should also be remembered, was the agency which, in an attempt to stage a news-worthy raid on "gun nuts", initiated the Waco disaster.

    The game is an old one, to plant bogus and easily disproved claims in any inquiry into what the government is doing, in order to ridicule those asking questions. In the old days it worked, because the media was under government control and could be counted on to withhold exposure of the fraud until it could most damage those who asked questions. These days, in the age of the internet, such planted hoaxes do not survive because the questions the media should ask but refuse to do so ARE asked and answered.

    For example, the claim is that the 9-11 masterminds used a missile on the Pentagon to simulate the impact of the aircraft then spirited away the actual plane and killed the crew and passengers. Why would anyone bother? If the end result is the death of the occupants, why not go ahead and carry the crash out?

    Those who argue that there was no plane at the Pentagon are either spooks, or those whose knowledge of physics is based on cartoons where characters leave clear outline shapes in walls they penetrate. Airplanes are built to fly through the air, not burrow through solid objects. Built for economy, not combat, passenger jets are, compared to a building, as light and as fragile as a glass Christmas tree ornament.

    The "No plane at the Pentagon" story has failed to catch on to the degree where it can be used to discredit those who wonder just who was really behind the 9-11 staged terrorist attacks. Those spooks who promoted the story realize that they are at risk of exposure so their only remaining tactic is to try to claim that anyone who does not agree with them must be the government plant. If I directly responded, their goal would be not to conduct a debate, but simply to tie up as much of my limited time as they could in an endless unwinnable argument while they stand there with their hair on fire claiming they cannot smell any smoke.

    The internet has become the high ground in the war for the minds of America. The claim that there was no plane at the Pentagon is a diversionary attack by an enemy that survives only by secrecy and deception."

    But should I dare to question the idea that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon on blogger, I would be attacked night and day. Instead of saying that we literally do not have enough information to know what happened, sites like blogger have an ongoing selective bias towards "no 757" on there, and endless attacks on anyone who questions that. Those who like Loose Change apparently feel they must defend each of its claims rather than reach neutral territory for the sake of the entire movement. The uncritical promotion of Loose Change is a part of the association of "no planes," literally, with the real questions.

    I think the quality of posting is quite high, and the number of wingnuts at a minimum.

    It's slowly getting better but I wouldn't agree. I see John Albanese attacked endlessly on there for his good comments, constantly called an agent, etc.

    You should come join the conversation. I guarantee you won't be brainwashed.

    I have done some posts, but like most, I have a day job and can't be sitting on there night and day the way many disinfo people are.

    What is the solution? I don't know. But think about it. Discuss the problem rather than exclusively defending blogger. I think the site is slowly moving forward, but still it serves as a portal to funnel hoax stuff into the movement until a few people who are critical and call for strong evidence, like myself, work overtime and have to be attacked endlessly to expose the misinformation. How can blogger make it easier to keep misinformation to a minimum? Promoting every single viewing of LC all over the country without a single link to anything critiquing that film spreads no plane stuff into our movement. This is a huge problem that people like myself have to spend way way too much time trying to correct when the damage has been done.

    Not all news is good news.

    I recommend this video . . . good use of video -

    Physicist Dr. Greg Jenkins Interviews Dr. Judy Wood
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240...

    Posted 7 years ago #
  5. truthmod
    Administrator

    Blogger

    Yeah, it's a little strange that 911Blogger won't even remove team8plus from their links after Nico Haupt has attacked them and basically called them nazis. Maybe there should be a coordinated campaign from the respected leaders of the movement to have blogger narrow down its links?

    I don't know if it's possible to start an alternative "blogger" site for 9/11 at this point. It may be more feasible to convince the people behind 911blogger to be a little more discerning. Open user comments will never be free of disinfo, but as far as official content goes, blogger could do a whole lot better.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  6. truthmover
    Administrator

    We generally agree.

    I certainly wasn't placing 911Blogger above criticism. Has anyone even written then to inquire about this? They may have addressed this issue before. Maybe not.

    I recommend a simply inquiry before we get too up in arms about this.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  7. Victronix
    Member

    I don't think anyone's getting up in arms, but yes, I would support a coordinated effort to bring more credibility to that site, starting with their links.

    While the reality of people checking those links may be limited, the image that list puts out is, "accept everything, it's all good." We really need to move away from that model, which does not work in an information war. Quantity is not better than quality.

    Naturally though, any attempt to make a change will result in blowback with attacks from the no planers.

    I see already on the story today where a scholars member was interviewed and he no-plane in Penn idea is highlighted with no critique . . . the generally excellent flight93 site is immediately being called a "spook site." That's really sad. Newbies to the site are then brainwashed to see that site as a "spook site," when it is literally the best resource for that crash in existance.

    But this is how it's done. Our best researchers are labelled as "spooks" from day 1 if they aren't pushing "no plane" and everyone just allows it.

    Blogger is a very powerful means to promote those ideas into the movement. Assuming that good will naturally triumph over bad in the scheme of things is about as viable as like trickle down economics.

    We need to take the short-term intense blowback to move forward to real change necessary toward credibility and a real investigation. This is why the scholars site is now a real site and not a fake one. We went through hell, but we made it.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  8. Fr@nk
    Member

    Re: Two movements: The 9/11truth vs. 9/11speculation movemen

    truthmover Wrote:

    When I first got into this, I didn't know which websites to trust. The big challenge at the time was 911review.com vs 911review.org. I soon realized that I could look at the links on each page to see quite clearly who these projects had decided to endorse. The line was quite distinct between the two, and I knew one of them had to be a shady enterprise

    As webmaster from the Dutch site http://www.waarheid911.nl I welcome your idea to accomplish a better presentation of reliable 911 sites. But I can't deny the risk of such efforts because of the highly disputable choices that must be made in the middle of both extremes, between the 'good sites' and the 'bad sites'. The worst threat for the 'truthmovement' is not a readers lack to make the right judgments, but the output of heavy quarrel between those who stand against the 911-readings of US-Government. We simply can't afford to blow up between our own walls. I mean, the existence of unreliable sites is a fact we have to live with. You can't destroy them. People with an opportunity to choose, do make good choices after all. More public knowledge does lead to the better product.

    I think a better option to stimulate reliable 911-sites is to make your own site as good as possible and still warn visitors not to accept conclusions without questioning them. We have to be aimed more outwards to reach new visitors more productive. My experience is that truth movements are far to busy with themselves, trying hard to be confirmed in long accepted visions. It's much harder (and asks more knowledge and quality) to find arguments confirmed by people who are not already convinced.
    Dividing 911-sites in 'good' and 'bad' can cause frictions (I know, you are talking much more diplomatic, but let's be fair about the essence). For example: What the heck makes you think that my site and the other Dutch site http://www.onderzoek911.nl should be sorted under 9/11 speculation movements? Catch my drift?

    Waarheid911 never handles conspiracy theories. It's purpose is to make readers aware of all things that happened on 9/11 itself. It compares the official story with everything that can be seen and checked on open sources. It also confronts visitors with debunking sites or opposite opinions to stimulate people to think for them selves. Of course my vision is shining through (in the way I select facts). But the only authentic opinion is men's own opinion. Delivering facts is therefore the only goal.

    I'm not claiming that waarheid911 is a perfect 911-site. In the contrary. I honestly tell you that I feel shortcomings all the time and that the perfect presentation of all facts is miles away. We're peddling against the stream, therefore making mistakes can not be prevented.
    It takes much, much time to reduce the risks of adapting unreliable facts. Time most people don't have. Even more reason not to speculate, but only endorse facts as long they will do. Well, at least you'll understand why my efforts for 911-truth are written in the Dutch language ;-)

    Posted 7 years ago #
  9. SkepticGuy
    Member

    If I may be so bold...

    While you haven't known me very long, I've known and speculated on "9/11 conspiracy theories" since the afternoon of 9/11/2001... and even participated in the discussions of "something's coming" in the months prior to 9/11/2001 on various boards.

    Having a massive number of concerns related to operating our own multi-subject board (of which 9/11 conspiracies continues to be an important part), we focused on our own path of critical analysis of available information, and haven't reached out to any "truth" organizations... until now.

    I've seen every manifestation of the wildest of 9/11 ideas, from devils in the smoke to holographic projections. Few of them have a chance of resonating with the average joe, much less capturing the attention of investigative journalists. And those precious few subjects that might resonate, are so polluted and irrevocably tainted with hateful bile and/or ill-advised commentary, that there's little or no hope.

    There needs to be reformation. If the "Truth Movement" is strict Catholicism, then someone needs to form the Church Of England. (For lack of a better analogy.)

    Settle on five clear, concise, and believable core issues that point to serious cause for concern. Keep them simple. Then, learn to act like Proctor & Gamble and "sell" these clear ideas with simple eloquence in a professional and credible way.

    If it works, and it gains traction with the public, every "truth group" will be scrambling to follow your lead.

    And... I think I know how to do it with a new site, name, and icon.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  10. truthmover
    Administrator

    To clarity further

    As webmaster from the Dutch site http://www.waarheid911.nl I welcome your idea to accomplish a better presentation of reliable 911 sites. But I can't deny the risk of such efforts because of the highly disputable choices that must be made in the middle of both extremes, between the 'good sites' and the 'bad sites'. The worst threat for the 'truthmovement' is not a readers lack to make the right judgments, but the output of heavy quarrel between those who stand against the 911-readings of US-Government. We simply can't afford to blow up between our own walls. I mean, the existence of unreliable sites is a fact we have to live with. You can't destroy them. People with an opportunity to choose, do make good choices after all. More public knowledge does lead to the better product.

    I agree with most everything you have said. However, my initial suggestion was that the reputable core of the movement was just coming to define itself, and recognize the nature of its opposition. And I was also suggesting that these lists of links represent lines that have been drawn for a great while. You are correct that the infighting is a great threat to the movement. However, I'm more concerned that the reason people get baited into these distracting arguments, is due to their not recognizing that they are arguing with people who only claim to represent the movement's priorities.

    In other words, this is not infighting at all, but people with intentions other than our own, who are trying to undermine our efforts. Fetzer/Seigel/Haupt, are the culmination of that alternative network that the links have indicated for so long. The lines have been drawn more clearly than ever, and optimistically, I consider this coalition as a sign that their position is under attack. They had to join efforts to defend one another.

    I agree that we can't destroy them, and that would be a very undemocratic approach. We are asking people to be discerning, and even to look at these people's sites to decide for themselves who they feel is making an honest attempt to present the facts. But we are also asking people to be aware of the fact that there is a concerted effort to undermine the 9/11 truth movement from within, and recognizing this fact, and seeing where the lines have long been drawn, people are armed with knowledge that makes them more resistant to the allure of arguing with people who want exactly that.

    Its certainly not a call to division, but a possible indication of what stands before us. I know how difficult it can be to decide what to include and not. That can be a rather personal decision. But it must also be logical and strategic. Just keep at it. We are continuing to update our site as people offer their criticism. Be honest and responsive, and everyone will know that you are a genuine seeker of truth.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  11. Fr@nk
    Member

    Re: To clarity further

    truthmover Wrote:

    I agree with most everything you have said. However, my initial suggestion was that the reputable core of the movement was just coming to define itself, and recognize the nature of its opposition. And I was also suggesting that these lists of links represent lines that have been drawn for a great while. You are correct that the infighting is a great threat to the movement. However, I'm more concerned that the reason people get baited into these distracting arguments, is due to their not recognizing that they are arguing with people who only claim to represent the movement's priorities

    I figure that seen from the inside, your point of view is very reasonable. But that's not what the newcomer/visitor is experiencing when he sees two opposite columns of 911-sites with all the risks of subjective deformation as a result of personal convictions and partly ingnorance. Site-owners can be triggered in the most negative way. I'm talking again about the mid-area between the extremes of good and bad sites.
    Still, I welcome your initiative for offering a more reliable package of sites to the public. But, I'm reluctant to compensate the rejection of "the 'big tent' mentality" with a narrow kind of control mark policy (exaggerated). Enough distinction can be made with quality reviews (e.g. about documentaries) without mentioning competitive sites. Your proposal for better lists can also be realized by omitting suspicious or bad sites, without making a point about their lack of integrity or quality. In my previous reply I illustrated the rather painful risks. Unfair or wrong decisions are easily made.
    Mutual misunderstanding resulting in public fights are in nobodies interest, except the parties who keep supporting the official 911-stories. Theoretically '911-skeptics' with explicit indecent behavior can be wolfs in sheep clothes who are waiting every conflict to be happen.

    At last I guess my main effort is to put some accents on your remarks, having the idea that in essence we agree more than it seems like.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  12. truthmover
    Administrator

    They are the instigators. We are responding.

    Your proposal for better lists can also be realized by omitting suspicious or bad sites, without making a point about their lack of integrity or quality. In my previous reply I illustrated the rather painful risks. Unfair or wrong decisions are easily made. Mutual misunderstanding resulting in public fights are in nobodies interest, except the parties who keep supporting the official 911-stories. Theoretically '911-skeptics' with explicit indecent behavior can be wolfs in sheep clothes who are waiting every conflict to be happen.

    Once again we share strategic concerns. I totally get your point. We have a great deal of concern for the impact of everything at our site on the new visitor.

    But TruthMove is not trying to polish the movement for people's view. If my post encourages even one person to look at 911truth.org, and then compare it to 911researchers.com, I accomplished something. Dave VonKleist, Rick Seigel, Jim Fetzer, Nico Haupt, Judy Wood, David Shayler...No! I'm taking a stand against the suggestion that these people are invested in the same priorities and motivations that found this movement. They are doing something altogether different.

    I don't hate them. I don't deny their freedom of speech. I even appreciate the realm of the strange and unusual. UFO, astral projection, anti-gravity research. Fascinating stuff, if even only for its sci-fi/fantasy value.

    But I want every person new to the movement to know that there is a concerted effort by agents and fools to discredit the movement. Nico Haupt has even explicitly stated his intention to bring down the "limited hangout", "fascist", "gatekeeper" core of the movement as represented by 911truth.org. The lines have been drawn by them. We can not let this go unchecked. And at the same time, we can't be baited into pointless distraction.

    Essentially my point was that any reasonable person can look at a website, see who that project has associated itself with, and get a sense for themselves of the level of historical/journalistic quality. But that being said, I also suggest that while there are a great diversity of 9/11 websites, that many of the least credible appear to be exclusively affiliated with one another. And this is exemplified by the Fetzer/Seigel/Haupt alliance.

    I'm more concerned about people who stumble on their sites first. Ultimately I think this movement by its nature is a somewhat contentious business. But so far, I have found that this punchy debate has been moving the movement toward a more focused and reputable concern for the facts at hand. Any movement this prone to infiltration can not sit idly by while cointel operations are being implemented to undermine our efforts. We have to keep each other in check. Anyone who exempts themselves from this communal process of review, is likely more invested in propaganda than education.

    I'm here. I'm being honest. I'm open to criticism. I'm able to debate. And most importantly, my hypotheses are not insulated from logical critique. I'm willing to change my mind, just as the movement has been able to grow. People who systematically betray the essential discursive nature of the truth, aren't demonstrating a capacity to participate in the 9/11 truth movement. I don't know how else to put this. It's like some people showed up at the chess club to play checkers. We might be so kind as to offer them tables, but they are still playing a different game.

    You suggested that editorial review was important, and here it is. I don't see one movement with many varying unique approaches. I see people honestly seeking the truth, and others looking for something else entirely, while associating their BS with our effort to expose essential facts.

    In the end, I wonder whether Fetzer cares more about fringe 9/11 speculation, or interrupting the Global Dominance Project. Does he care more about defending his research and associates than the strategic priorities of the movement? Those people are the one's creating tension, not us. We have decided to respond.

    Once again, I agree with your angle, but I think we need to be a bit more weary than you suggest regarding those who specifically intend to undermine us. We have to know who they are, how they operate, and what they are up to. And then, once we are educated about them, we need to pay them no more attention than necessary. We must not be distracted by these people, but we can not ignore their intentions.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  13. truthmover
    Administrator

    Here's a healthy thread on the subject over at 911Blogger

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/6298#comment

    Posted 7 years ago #
  14. Victronix
    Member

    The thing about Shayler is that people don't really think it through. They hear how good he sounds and they fall for him and then no matter what bogus thing comes out of his mouth, they're willing to let it pass.

    This is similar to Morgan Reynolds. He talks a great talk on a radio show. Very eloquent. So people didn't want to let go, and some still have not, no matter what he says about real planes not having hit the WTC.

    And this is how disinfo works -- in order to penetrate a group you have to arrive with a useful package and provide something that the group does not have, a big name, special info, a skill others don't have, etc. So a lot of people go around saying "But he's so . . ." before they drop so many bombshells that no one can deny it, and by then, the damage is done.

    What else did they accomplish while planting "no planes?" We may never know. Likely that isn't all they're doing.

    But anyway, my original point was that when you really look at it, the argument of "but they're really okay" doesn't make sense for 2 reasons.

    1) As a rule, no one any of us knows in person really believes that what hit the WTC was not commercial jets, or involved any holograms. So this is insane and suggests they are not capable of critical thinking.

    2) Even if for some strange reason they got fooled into thinking real planes didn't hit the towers, they should NEVER NEVER NEVER talk about that viewpoint to mainstream media as a PUBLIC SPOKESPERSON for ther rest of US -- the little people, the grassroots activists working on this everyday -- all over the world. This is reckless and wrong and no leader who does this should ever be allowed to be considered a "leader" again. To say to MILLIONS of people that real planes didn't hit the WTC????

    There is literally no excuse, any way you cut it. It's a psyop, and nothing more.

    The sad thing is, even Charlie Sheen was saying the planes that hit the WTC didn't seem like any planes he'd ever seen . . . Because he never said any more on that that I'm aware of, I tend to just think he didn't really think about it. It seemed like a mention in passing. But it's worth keeping an eye on.

    And for the record, I spoke to Jason Bermas in Oakland, CA outside of the Loose Change film showing and he insisted to me that those were some kind of military drones that hit the WTC towers. He laughed at me when I said they were real planes. He asked who was paying me to be there.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  15. Fr@nk
    Member

    Re: They are the instigators. We are responding.

    truthmover Wrote:

    [...]Once again, I agree with your angle, but I think we need to be a bit more weary than you suggest regarding those who specifically intend to undermine us. We have to know who they are, how they operate, and what they are up to. And then, once we are educated about them, we need to pay them no more attention than necessary. We must not be distracted by these people, but we can not ignore their intentions

    Thanks for your thinking & communicating about strategics and the way to handle wrong intentions. I'm willing to 'believe'(and therefore still careful ;-) ) that your impressions about risks are based on more knowledge and experiences in the field of researchers. Perhaps this is partly your advantage of being more familiar with the English language (I read quit slow and therefore skip parts of the enormous info supplies). Other reason is that I am, in line with your rightfull intentions, completely focussed on verifiable facts; or at least facts that can be verified on reliable open source material. In my review about 911 witness, for example, I warn readers for incorrect scientific claims.

    I close with a remark about those who link 9/11 to subjects as Ufo's or other controversial phenomenons. I'm a strong pleader - in the Netherlands - not to link these subjects because it makes 9/11 implausible for the real conspiracy skeptics. I take this group most serious because I consider it as permissible and rightful to be skeptic on such grotesque occurrences as 9/11. My complain to most of these people is there unwillingness to explore serious arguments against the official 911-story. Thats the alarming signal, not their disagreement.
    I wander...

    About those UFO spotters: These people are (in general) not part of an organized initiative to harm the 911Truthmovement. I know several truth finders of this kind. They just don't have the classical scientific approach that (in my opinion) is necessary to convince the main stream and political and journalistic protagonists.
    I do not criticize their ideas, but their strategy. But still they have the good right to express and design their range of thoughts. Therefore it's better to approach this category of 911-researchers on their tactics instead of criticizing their ideas! I do not consider their attitude as unwillingness, but as a expression of strong cultural changes in the way of thinking of many, many people. These approaches doesn't deserve hostility, because they are not intent to be negative. On my site I evoked 911-site-owners to make a strict distinction between 911 and other subjects. I make strategic statements, no substantial blames.
    I agree with your efforts to make better distinction on main 911-sites in scientific approach. My only fear is the approach of fellow 911-(conspiracy)sites as antagonists or (unconsciously) suggesting that they are our enemies. That will weaken the 911-Truthmovement at most. Substantial strategic profiling on main important sites will do, is my conviction. That will in the end define the standard.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  16. Victronix
    Member

    My only fear is the approach of fellow 911-(conspiracy)sites as antagonists or (unconsciously) suggesting that they are our enemies. That will weaken the 911-Truthmovement at most.

    Shayler and Reynolds are worth discussing and indeed decrease the overall credibility of the movement. They are classic examples, textbook cases. We must learn from these models if we are to move forward. We especially must learn what mistakes people make when they accept them, why, and what to do to prevent that in the future.

    I was there when the 'scholars' decided to accept Reynolds as a member, and many of us spoke out to warn them about his viewpoint that planes didn't hit the WTC. Their viewpoint was, "I'm sure he'll come around . . . he has so many great connections . . . after we all have some discussions and examinations of the evidence, he'll understand."

    This is a normal response. But naive. He never did come around, and only discredited people who tried to reach out to him.

    It was the same response from scholars with Fetzer -- "we just have to make him understand, I'm sure when we explain it to him, he will get it."

    Some people literally cannot understand, or have another agenda. These are the key cases to discuss - Fetzer, Reynolds, Wood, Shayler, etc. They are out in the open.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  17. truthmover
    Administrator

    I second that.

    Some people literally cannot understand, or have another agenda. These are the key cases to discuss - Fetzer, Reynolds, Wood, Shayler, etc. They are out in the open.

    Yes! The 9/11 truth movement having an 'inclusive' attitude, doesn't mean that the movement includes fallacy. Anyone openly demonstrating an adherence to fallacy, is no scientist, historian, journalist, or honest citizen, and most certainly shouldn't be participating in a truth movement.

    As you suggest, their behavior is right out of the book. I keep getting hung up on this. How textbook it all seems. As I've said elsewhere, we don't have to accuse them of being agents, we just have to be concerned about why they are acting like agents.

    Ultimately, people don't generally know much about covert operations, and trust the marketplace of idea a bit too much. The idea that we simply all present the evidence in our own way, and then let the public decide where to turn betrays the fact that there is a concerted effort to undermine our effort using disinformation. The reality of this movement's infiltration must not be ignored. We must not present a unified front with those who do not share our priorities.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  18. Fr@nk
    Member

    Re: I second that.

    truthmover Wrote:

    Ultimately, people don't generally know much about covert operations, and trust the marketplace of idea a bit too much. The idea that we simply all present the evidence in our own way, and then let the public decide where to turn betrays the fact that there is a concerted effort to undermine our effort using disinformation. The reality of this movement's infiltration must not be ignored. We must not present a unified front with those who do not share our priorities

    I see no problem, as long as the context of the critics can be well distinguished by readers and newcomers. That's also the most difficult part. Strong convictions are there to be neglected (by it's owner) because of their nature of self-evidence. Hostility can be set easily without knowing true intentions. Defining people with no solid scientific skills as not honest, can create wrong senses of risk, feelings to be victims of non-existing conspiracies and even fear to express pungent ideas among each other. Not at least, they create (a sense of) conflicts between truthfinders which will harm the believability of the 'truthmovement'.

    Truthmover: "Anyone openly demonstrating an adherence to fallacy, is no scientist, historian, journalist, or honest citizen"

    That's my point. I agree statement above when applied on scientist, historians and journalists in most absolute sense (although I never met those persons with clean records). But not particular on 'honest citizens'. And even classic educated scientists do often step in the trap of fallacy, where it is less observed because covered by their (technical) jargon.
    To strong believes in own convictions will create such traps, therefore it's very important to try to have an eye for the intentions behind, instead of focusing on the (wrong) statement itself. I still consider most 911 sceptics, also amateurs, as goodwilling, not denying the few shady examples that asks for severe caution.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  19. truthmover
    Administrator

    To clarify...

    My comments in this instance were referring to Fetzer, Shayler, etc. Prominent people in the movement, with some influence, who actively promote fallacies.

    I wasn't here referring to misinformed posters who we do hope will come here, feel included, and be hopefully guided toward more calculated action.

    My point was that just as we might counter the government spin coming out of FOX News, we must also counter the disinformation being promoted by people, who as I suggested in the original post, do not share our basic priorities. Jim Fetzer is not a valid contributor to the 9/11 Truth Movement. And yes, honest people are often mislead, and need to be informed about the basic foundations of this movement before they ally themselves with idiots or agents.

    Everything you say applies perfectly to our attitude toward anyone who genuinely seeks the truth. But don't you acknowledge that we have adversaries who claim to be a part of the movement? And then can't you understand why TruthMove is taking a stand against the perception that these people are on our team?

    Posted 7 years ago #
  20. Fr@nk
    Member

    Re: To clarify...

    truthmover Wrote:

    Everything you say applies perfectly to our attitude toward anyone who genuinely seeks the truth. But don't you acknowledge that we have adversaries who claim to be a part of the movement?

    I certainly do. I hope I made some contribution in having this delicate balance between right and wrong doing 'skeptics', more defined.
    You said: "Anyone openly demonstrating an adherence to fallacy, is no scientist, historian, journalist, or honest citizen"

    This "openly demonstrating" can be a translation of our own mistrust. What is clear for you and the ones who agree, is not an effortless truth for all 911-skeptics who work on other levels.
    But people who intentionally try to undermine our important goal to uncover the truth, can never be persuaded with logic sense. Like you I consider them as serious threads. I hope I wasn't unclear about that.

    truthmover Wrote:

    And then can't you understand why TruthMove is taking a stand against the perception that these people are on our team

    Yes, I can.
    My efforts were intended to prevent a circumstance of throwing away, with our struggle, "the baby with the wash water" (don't know if this is also an English saying). To throw away our credibility because of tensions between each other (what in fact can be a most serious goal from those who try to mislead the people about 9/11). I appreciate your efforts, warnings and open discussion.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  21. Victronix
    Member

    Jim Fetzer is not a valid contributor to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

    But some people keep him propped up and connected at the hip to the most valid contributors under the guise of "Big Tent" -

    http://mujca.com/scholars.htm

    This also needs to be spoken out against . . . to claim that simply "having two groups with two distinctive personalities and methodologies is a good thing" is simply wrong!! It has nothing to do with personalities/methodologies and everything to do with hoaxes like nukes and space weapons, and belligerent abusers, like Siegel, promoted front and center by Fetzer!

    Regardless of "good intentions," this is just wrong.

    Of the 386 scholars members contacted by email for a vote on whether to stick with or break from Fetzer, 226 responded. Of those, 201 voted to join a new group away from Fetzer (89%), while only 43 voted to stay connected to Fetzer (could vote for both groups) (19%).
    http://stj911.org/faq.html#quest7

    So to call for UNITY with Fetzer is openly ignoring the WILL of the scholars themselves, who spoke in the vote that Kevin was involved in counting!! This message went out on Kevin's email list and serves only to further the agenda of Fetzer, not the real scientists or researchers who have to battle him and his attack crowd and being trashed by him via news articles and TV specials.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  22. truthmod
    Administrator

    Barrett

    It seems like Kevin Barrett hasn't been exhibiting the best judgment recently.

    Sure, go ahead and call us divisive because we make qualitative distinctions. So be it.

    Progress happens through distinctions and leaders who can help others see why one path is better than another. This will be the way of the true truth movement.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  23. Fr@nk
    Member

    Victronix Wrote:

    Jim Fetzer is not a valid contributor to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

    But some people keep him propped up and connected at the hip to the most valid contributors under the guise of "Big Tent" -
    [...]
    This also needs to be spoken out against . . . to claim that simply "having two groups with two distinctive personalities and methodologies is a good thing" is simply wrong!! It has nothing to do with personalities/methodologies and everything to do with hoaxes like nukes and space weapons, and belligerent abusers, like Siegel, promoted front and center by Fetzer!

    Regardless of "good intentions," this is just wrong.

    My point is that you can't wipe out streams that conflict with your mindset. I'm not protecting someone, only make a pragmatic appraisal. Those different streams will profile themselves more separate in their own direction and will cause a confusing total image for newcomers, people who haven't yet made their opinion about 9/11. You can't prevent them from logging onto their websites. Don't forget that also quality newspapers sell much less then the infotainment in scandal papers.
    The only way - in my opinion - to neutralize bad elements, is to communicate (with them) about their arguments or strategic emplacement. Thats the way of natural correction. You can only successfully disqualify a party when you can prove it's bad intentions by arguments.

    Victronix Wrote:

    Of the 386 scholars members contacted by email for a vote on whether to stick with or break from Fetzer, 226 responded. Of those, 201 voted to join a new group away from Fetzer (89%), while only 43 voted to stay connected to Fetzer (could vote for both groups) (19%).
    http://stj911.org/faq.html#quest

    How can someone keep his legitimacy and believability when 89% is questioning his authority? You see, thats how these processes should correct themselves. Such a poll is a strong indicator and should correct those kind of unbalanced growth.

    Victronix Wrote:

    So to call for UNITY with Fetzer is openly ignoring the WILL of the scholars themselves, who spoke in the vote that Kevin was involved in counting!! This message went out on Kevin's email list and serves only to further the agenda of Fetzer, not the real scientists or researchers who have to battle him and his attack crowd and being trashed by him via news articles and TV specials

    Because you can't wipe out someone as Fetzer, the best way to neutralize it's influence is confronting his ideas and arguments on a substantial base. Not in emotional attacks or separation, but with knowledge and common sense. This will help both parties (if no bad intentions are involved). It will also help newcomers to make their own decisions based on arguments and facts.

    About the idea of clearing lists and label other website as speculation movements, I remember you about the qualification of my own 911-website (waarheid911.nl) in the opening article of this topic. What brought someone to decide that my site is among the bad examples? Probably you don't know. I guess that arguments will fail on this and some other examples. But this kind of behavior will cause the kind of rumor and fragmentation that most 911-'conspiracy' debunkers love to see.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  24. Victronix
    Member

    You see, thats how these processes should correct themselves.

    But they won't when they are being artificially propped up by influential people with an agenda. It should work that way, but it's not a natural process. It's an internet with a massively funded intelligence agency attached to it.

    I think there's a difference between spreading rumors and doing necessary internal critique focused on the content, not the person.

    What brought someone to decide that my site is among the bad examples? Probably you don't know.

    I tried to get on there just now and got "under construction."

    Posted 7 years ago #
  25. Fr@nk
    Member

    Victronix Wrote:

    What brought someone to decide that my site is among the bad examples? Probably you don't know.

    I tried to get on there just now and got "under construction.&quot
    No problems seen: http://www.waarheid911.nl

    Posted 7 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.