A while back we started working on a '9/11 Claims' (working title) project that we shelved for a while, in which we developed a website format for presenting claims made within the movement, summarizing the evidence for and against, and giving each a rating as to how well supported it was based on that evidence. This was meant to include items such as 'A missile hit the pentagon', "The Jews did 9/11", and would now include the Kennebunkport Warning.
In the creation of that project, we didn't think for a second about whether it would be viewed as PC, or possibly rub a a few people the wrong way. For this to be an honest movement, we all just need to do our best to responsibly call it like we see it. TruthMove is fiercely independent in our adherence to principle before association. Rational critique is the engine of science. We hope for as much critique as we have to offer. We hope for mutual development. Others do not. Here we see "academics" not behaving scientifically. Experts who use insults. Intellectuals who advance fallacy.
We felt that this 'Claims' project might be the most positive response we could have to exactly the same problem we faced many months ago. It avoids pointing the finger at people and rather draws attention to the veracity of their statements. It allows the viewer to examine for themselves the available evidence for and against any claim. Like our site, its basically just summaries and links.
So what can we do about this problem we have been facing? Face it together. Unify around a project dedicated to making a clear and rational distinction between that which is and is not well founded in our movement. As far as I can tell, this is the high road to take, and yet maybe bold enough to be effective. We all realize that we have to try something new here. We've been banging our heads up against this for too long in the same manner.
So here's the vision. We get this up, with most of the major MSM claims, divisive hypothetical claims such as DEW use, and raw speculation like the Kennebunkport Warning. We should also include the top well founded 'claims' as well for education and contrast. Once again, this isn't Arabesque vs. Tarpley, as Tarpley would have it. This is fact vs. fallacy.
The project could include the participation of those concerned before its launch, and the endorsement of those willing after. And if enough people helped us make it really solid and unified around promoting the project, it might just become a popular beacon of rationality in our movement. All due respect to many people for laying the ground work for something like this. There would be many links to their websites. But we need something summary that makes it easy for the average person just getting into 9/11 truth to easily engage with this information.
So, that's one fairly well developed option for you. People would retreat from this concept for the reason that it may create some controversy within the movement. But by principle before association, I would argue that we who so clearly recognize these distinctions between fact and fallacy have a responsibility before our responsibility to the movement, to stand up for the facts.
The ultimate theme here is finally that we must unify around promoting the facts as well as refuting the fallacies. We are defending the rational character of the movement as we have for so long. We all recognize the problem. The missing element is some measure of unity around our mutual concerns, and then wide public exposure. We have to be better promoters of our cause than those who attack us.