Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

William Pepper 9/11 Independent Citizens Commission (DOA?) - NYCCAN (157 posts)

  1. mark
    Member

    70,000 people in a city of about eight million people where there are not a lot of Republicans is less than one percent, assuming that all of the signatures are of authentic people and not duplicates and joke names.

    Signing a petition - whether a real name or Mr. D. Duck or Mr. M. Mouse - is not the same as organizing a social movement. And to have those with a track record that is questionable at best in charge of these sorts of campaigns suggests some very deep flaws in these sorts of processes.

    It's not limited to the 9/11 "truth" movement, it is endemic in most social change efforts.

    Yes, there are a lot of people who'd like their voices heard, which makes charades like this initiative all the more painful to watch.

    If the sincere people who want to be heard ever managed to organize something that avoids the lunacy and is competently organized, that would be more encouraging.

    Efforts designed to soak up energy and fail are not something to cheer.

    It is a symbolic victory, but for the coverup, not for "our" side.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  2. truthmover
    Administrator

    Good comment Mark.

    but you are really missing the forest for the trees here. if THIS is not a HUGE symbolic victory - i do not know what IS. instead of gloating you should be working to promote this fact.

    Apples and oranges. My vigorous critique of the initiatives problems has nothing to do with what is positive about it. And as there are 100 people praising the effort despite it's problems to every one person talking about them, I don't feel compelled to call this a victory. You can do that.

    You are also making the same attribution error that Jon keeps making about me. Exactly who am I gloating over. That would be to assume I'm happy about something. That I'm happy about this failure. And that would only serve to undermine or distract from the point I am trying to make.

    People, such as yourself, anticipated these problems. You did so with certain information and certain priorities. Those things are important. Especially so when the problems have arisen.

    I am NOT assuming that people learned some kind of lesson. But rather than get all weepy and start cheer leading because we all want to feel good, I'm assuming people need to hear that some of us knew this was going to happen.

    Yes, there are some victories to count here. But I think its totally useless to avoid our failures for the sake of morale.

    This was a huge failure and there should be no risk that the same mistakes will be made again. First on the list of lessons learned is that Les Jamison should never ever be responsible for anything in this movement ever again.

    I'm not optimistic.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  3. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Some reflections on the recent NYCCAN thread on Blogger:

    I have decided to stop posting on 911blogger due to the pig pen that it has become. A moderated forum that allows that much crap to be posted and has been caught censoring those I support is not worth the time I have to post. I think that this forum deserves far more attention than Blogger.

    Some of the comments are either misinformed or are consciously supporting the other side.

    Jonathan Mark said:

    yes.. make les jamieson the scapegoat..

    rather than finding fault where it is deserved..

    les founded this initiative in nyc and personally led the effort to collect over 30,000 petitioners.. and then handed it over to stop the scape goating.. and asked ted walter to be the director with a board of family-survivors-responders proving where les jamieson was coming from in spearheading this project..

    He completely overlooks any of Les' history and past behavior that we have documented on this site. It is very clear why Les Jamieson should have no part in any action or organization related to any activism at this point.

    Atomic Bomb and many others are either confusing or "confusing" disinformation and slander with legitimate constructive criticism. I do not think that any mass media organization or disinformation agent is providing the same critique that Jules, Michael or Arabesque have been providing. Not even close. The legitimate constructive criticism they are providing would definitely make the 9/11 movement stronger. Only something really weak has a difficult time withstanding constructive criticism. I agree with Arabesque's post on Truthaction that these people want "no criticism."

    Jon Gold posted:

    In the email chain you were apart of, I agree.

    Edit: According to Kyle, the "final edit and legal review was done by Bill Pepper" and "the earliest iterations of the draft language were a collaborative effort that involved Carl Person, Les and others who were involved over a year and half or so ago." Kyle also pointed out that, "it is the substance and details of the Petition calling for and structuring an unprecedented Citizens' Commission that matters here and that is being challenged by the City Clerk's office. It's an unprecedented proposal that is being forwarded here in Petition/Ballot initiative format establishing a unique Commission that would be funded privately by donation (akin to how private funds are often raised for official gov't supported memorials) but backed up by the full power of the City government as far as their jurisdiction extends, at least as I understand it."

    He's right. This is "unprecedented." He's right in saying this is "unprecedented" unlike those who say 9/11 was "unprecedented/unimaginable."

    As I said before, did anybody really think this would be easy? I "endorse the fight" so long as the families do. It may bring us some attention, and if it's what they want to do, then I support it.

    Bingo. Carl Person and Les Jamieson. We all know about Jamieson, but Person has a similar history. Look at Paula Gloria's video channel on Youtube and he was a guest and co-attendee to many events with her long after she began "handling" the crazies. He also founded: http://www.911realinvestigation.org/

    William Pepper loves to speak about disinformation, but he has no problem working along side it and continuing to share the stage with it. See my previous post on Pepper.

    Those three are largely responsible for the foundation that could and probably will cause the house to collapse.

    To top it off, Sander Hicks, who I have no hope in at this point, has a position on NYCCAN as Treasurer and is the organizer of the We Demand Transparency Conference, which is having an NYCCAN day and looks like it will be Ready For Mainstream part 2.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  4. JohnA
    Member

    from my endorsement:

    NYC CAN affords us a very powerful public forum for determining for ourselves, once and for all, if we can discern fact from fiction -- and friend from foe.

    the question is - how do we go about the process of leveraging this to once and for all turn the tables on these people and create zero-tolerance for their future participation?

    we have succeeded to a certain extend. clowns like Fetzer and Wood are pretty much blackballed from any legitimate consideration. BUT - certain gray area activists like Barrett and Jamieson continue to be listed by 911Truth.org as legitimate activists.

    the question you raise about Blogger is an interesting one. We have had similar discussions about the moderator style of TruthAction. I respect Cosmos (whether he realizes it or not) - but - have been somewhat flabbergasted that the forum tolerates endless disruption from CIT and other unsavory 'untruths' about NWO rubbish, etc etc.

    there is no right or wrong here. the fact that a forum allows certain 'ideas' to be explored does not necessarily mean the forum endorses those ideas.

    in some ways i can understand the concept that allows for a 'Free Market' of ideas, where vigorous debate should lead to a certain level of self-censorship and 'truthyness'

    unfortunately, in this particular climate, where i think it is clear that disruptors can and will take advantage of the loose moderator styles of Blogger and TruthAction - the result is that sincere posters are driven off the boards (thru a combination of tag-team peer pressure and outright belligerence) - and replaced, in some cases, with a disinfo agenda that essentially CENSORS opposing viewpoints.

    so - to those moderators who wish to encourage a free market of ideas - the opposite can actually occur with trolls essentially controlling what is allowed to be said.

    Christs4Sale - if i were you i would take Julian's approach to dealing with this. refuse to yield. if you boycott the forum itself you are in fact giving them what they want.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  5. JohnA
    Member

    you've got black-op activists like Fetzer and Reynolds and Wood

    you've got gray area activists like Barrett and Jamieson who continue to promote them

    you've got beige area activists like Matthews and Hence who still defend gray area activists

    and you've got Julian who is as white as the driven snow. lol

    Posted 14 years ago #
  6. christs4sale
    Administrator

    It is true that the most transparent of disinformation has been eliminated from most of the major 9/11 forums, but I believe that most of the gray area activists are really black-op activists, to use your terms, but are just playing a good-cop bad-cop routine. The black-op activists are there to take the heat off of the gray area activists who are doing the real damage. By dealing with the black-op activists, we convince ourselves that we are dealing with disinfo while being deceived by the real problem. We can add Hicks to gray, as his recent behavior has convinced me that he is consciously up to no good but still is good at walking the credibility line, and Pepper to beige in my opinion. I do not know about Matthews, but I have personally seen Hence defend a few things, like Edgar Mitchell, that I would have expected someone with his track-record to oppose.

    there is no right or wrong here. the fact that a forum allows certain 'ideas' to be explored does not necessarily mean the forum endorses those ideas.


    Christs4Sale - if i were you i would take Julian's approach to dealing with this. refuse to yield. if you boycott the forum itself you are in fact giving them what they want.

    In the end, I think that a forum is only as good as its moderation. I agree that a forum does not have to endorse all of the topics discussed on it, but we all have limited time and energy. In a case like the CIT debates on Blogger, it ends up being a drain on our time and energy debating with people who are either misinformed or acting intentionally and whose style of debate does not serve to educate, but just to misinform, slander and disrupt. By refusing to yield, I just worry that we will just waste a lot of our resources on an unfair fight. I only consider it a victory to the other side if we lose the ability to express our ideas and have rational debates with other informed posters and I think that this forum does that very well. Why should a forum moderator allow debates to occur when one side has a very clear pattern of misinforming and slandering and the whole crux of the argument that they are making has already been reasonably proven false? And do not get me wrong, legitimate debates where both sides can agree on facts and citations and can have a basic respect for each other will make any movement much stronger.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  7. JohnA
    Member

    i agree that the gray-area activists are really black-op activists playing the 'good cops'

    but it is so hard to make people understand this. (or they 'won't' understand this)

    i don't think it is a waste of time to refuse to yield to the organized disinfo - just as long as it is not ALL we do with our time. but - we are in the education business - and unless people see alternative viewpoints to CIT - we are sunk. we are the last line of defense in public perception. i wish it was different - but - it is the reality of the situation.

    the way i see it - whenever any of us go head to head with the CIT shills we win - hands down. they can never beat us in an honest debate.

    They can ONLY win thru attrition - by outlasting us. so - for that reason - it is a worthy fight.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  8. christs4sale
    Administrator

    i don't think it is a waste of time to refuse to yield to the organized disinfo - just as long as it is not ALL we do with our time. but - we are in the education business - and unless people see alternative viewpoints to CIT - we are sunk. we are the last line of defense in public perception. i wish it was different - but - it is the reality of the situation.

    the way i see it - whenever any of us go head to head with the CIT shills we win - hands down. they can never beat us in an honest debate.

    I do not want to say that I think it is a waste of time, it does educate us on how disinformation works and responds and it gives other readers an alternative viewpoint to CIT. The voting does seem to reflect that most of the people reading understand who is legit and who is not. I just get worried at times that we can drain ourselves with this.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  9. Victronix
    Member

    the question is - how do we go about the process of leveraging this to once and for all turn the tables on these people and create zero-tolerance for their future participation?

    The only way to have legitimate efforts is to do them yourself and create a firewall against nonsense, as this site has done with it's statement.

    My guess is that a ballot initiative as a method is far too vulnerable to manipulation to be useful.

    Here in CA, we constantly get fake ballot initiatives coming at us from billionaires and everyone has to work nonstop to expose them at election time. The real initiatives, ones which are meaningful, typically have a massive across-the-spectrum effort that goes on to push them through and people with many years of experience are involved in the planning, which takes place years in advance. And even then, one good ad campaign playing to emotions can destroy it.

    I just tend to think that other avenues are better.

    As it is, even the torturers are getting away with it. And the whole world already knows about it and many many people are working constantly to make something happen with that.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  10. Arabesque
    Member

    I agree with Arabesque's post on Truthaction that these people want "no criticism."

    The level of discourse on 911blogger these days is simply embarrassing at times. It's a very frustrating problem. If you debate fools long enough you start to look like one. Now, I can't say the solution is to "ban" these people, but in some cases they are clearly slandering people, and not contributing any real discussion to the site. And it turns the site into a mud bath.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  11. JohnA
    Member

    i stopped posting there years ago because people knew how to play me - and how to take advantage of my sicilian temper. i've been dabbling lately - but have no intention of aiding disruptors by becoming their useful idiot.

    but - i do think it is helpful to have a presence there - and to post links to credible research and sources. simply show that opposing viewpoints exist - and they are well-founded. but don't get down into the mud with anyone.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  12. truthmod
    Administrator

    christs4sale:

    I have decided to stop posting on 911blogger due to the pig pen that it has become.

    I support this decision wholeheartedly. I humbly suggest that you also stop reading 911blogger.

    I've probably visited that site about 3 times in the last 2 years. There are much more productive things to spend one's time on...

    Posted 14 years ago #
  13. Arabesque
    Member

    I've probably visited that site about 3 times in the last 2 years. There are much more productive things to spend one's time on...

    I have also visited the site only a few times this year due some really indefensible things that have happened on this site. Which is too bad considering I was one of the few people trying to promote accurate, and reliable information, and pointing out misinformation. What I also realized (a long time ago) is that there is virtually no one in the truth movement doing this on a consistent basis. Which shows you how weak the movement really is quite frankly. But the amount of attacks allowed against me on the site are disgusting enough to no longer contribute there regularly. When 911 truth is primarily about the reliability of information, and promoting good information (in my opinion) there is a desperate need for people who will critique and expose misinformation.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  14. christs4sale
    Administrator

    name

    The nice-looking, shiny apple with a rotten core continues and no one in it seems to notice or care. Sander Hicks, Les Jamieson, Carl Person's involvement in building the shitty foundation and William Pepper's lack of sense to call out those around him for spreading disinformation. Great combination at the core.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  15. mark
    Member

    Anyone who really thinks a "new investigation" will happen should read the history of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the "new investigation" into JFK and MLK.

    Gaeton Fonzi's book "The Last Investigation" is recommended.


    The Last Investigation, by Gaeton Fonzi

    "The first question I tried to get approved was the one by experience in investigating the case had dictated as a priority: Was there an intelligence agency connection through anti-Castro Cubans and Oswald to the Kennedy assassination? That, I knew, would never pass muster because of the investigative approach and effort it would require. By the nature of its operations, an intelligence agency doesn't leave authentic tracks. One had to look for patterns. The issue I wanted to pursue involved the patterns of verified misinformation -- almost all linking Oswald to Castro -- which were born in Miami immediately after the assassination."

    .... I discovered there are a lot of Cubans in Miami named Julio Fernandez. There are more than a dozen lawyers named Fernandez. Many Cubans, like Americans, are commonly known by their middle name, not their first, and some Cubans are commonly known not by their by father's family name by their matrinomy. Nevertheless, selecting them by their age and word of their anti-Castro activism, I spent weeks talking with scores of Cubans named Julio Fernandez. Schweiker particularly interested in the Julio Fernandez whose name did turn up in an FBI report buried in the Warren Commissions' volume of evidence. I finally tracked him down in upstate New York. He wasn't the Julio Fernandez who had called Clair Boothe Luce. It wasn't until more than a year later, with the broadened access to information I had with the House Assassinations Committee, I discovered that there was no Julio Fernandez who called Luce. She had simply concocted the name for Schweiker.

    What was interesting about the Luce story was that it had a couple of the characteristics common to so many of the other leads which were fed to Schweiker and, later, the House Assassinations Committee and, when checked out, went no where. One such characteristic was that the leads usually could not be dismissed outright because they always contained hard kernels of truth mixed in the fluff.

    book review by NameBase

    www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01/UJ

    Fonzi, Gaeton. The Last Investigation. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1993. 448 pages.

    This is the first comprehensive insider account of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Fonzi was a staff investigator for the HSCA, and before that an investigator for Senator Richard Schweiker, who was interested in the JFK assassination as a member of the Church Committee. Strapped for resources and under deadline pressures, HSCA chief counsel Robert Blakey steered the investigation along avenues that would look good in their report. Blakey gave the CIA plenty of room to maneuver around his investigation, either to enhance his own insider status or because of his realpolitik pragmatism. He blames organized crime for the assassination, while Fonzi is much more interested in anti-Castro Cubans and the CIA. Committee staffers were unable to pursue many promising leads in this area.

    Fonzi spends much energy trying to establish that CIA heavyweight David Atlee Phillips was the "Maurice Bishop" that Alpha 66 founder Antonio Veciana saw with Oswald before the assassination. He convinces his readers on this point, but since there's no corroboration for Veciana's story that Bishop met Oswald, it's unclear where this leaves us. The most interesting portions of the book, therefore, revolve around Fonzi's occasional evidence of disinformation and false leads planted in the paths of Committee investigators, apparently by U.S. intelligence assets.
    ISBN 1-56025-052-6

    Posted 14 years ago #
  16. christs4sale
    Administrator

    We Demand Transparency of NYCCAN!!

    Could not agree more Mark. People really need to look at past investigations of controversial topics. An NYCCAN supporter's argument might be that this is not funded by the government and that it is privately funded, but that does not prevent it from being infiltrated. Plus who knows who could be throwing money into this thing and what influence that may have on NYCCAN. All of this on top of very questionable figures who are currently in critical positions and are responsible for creating the underlying foundation that NYCCAN has sprung up from.

    It is weird that a lot of people were turned off to the We Demand Transparency Conference (exemplified by attendance numbers) while many of those same people endorse NYCCAN. The two groups have an interlink of many people who have displayed questionable actions in the past, but one has achieved legitimacy and the other failed miserably (as it should have). Another common trait is that both groups have a complete lack of transparency and democracy. Here are the factors that I think have caused NYCCAN's popularity:

    • the involvement of victims' family members
    • the involvement or endorsement of figures who have achieved legitimacy in the eyes of most people in the general movement
    • a professional-looking design scheme on its posters and website (this might not be that as much of a factor as it lacked this under Les' leadership)
    • an overall feeling that it covers the 9/11 issue in a very broad-based and uniting way (I feel that once you look deeper in to NYCCAN, its history and the people involved; that this is window dressing only)

    My view is not to blindly support this because of the family members. Any normal person who thinks that they can steer this train-wreck waiting to happen in a better direction is not understanding the situation. An organization that was formulated and designed by those whose intentions are to disrupt and neutralize the 9/11 movement is going to have too much baggage to be able to succeed. My view is that we should warn them out of respect for them, so they will not be involved with the disappointments and deceptions that this will further develop into. I think that it is insulting and disrespectful to lure the victim's families into something that is designed to fail at so many points.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  17. truthmover
    Administrator

    "patterns of verified misinformation"

    Thanks, as always Mark, for reminding us about related history. Those promoting the big tent are essentially suggesting that we all ignore historical precedent.

    The phrase above is very useful to us both for promotion and internal moderation. We need people to know that they are being lied to and we need to demand accountability from movement leaders.

    That term is close to the logical basis upon which I believe that a number of those involved in the We Demand Transparency conference should not be trusted. Bottom line: If you lie on a regular basis, you should not be a leader of a truth movement.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  18. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied

    Yesterday afternoon, Justice Edward Lehner of the State Supreme Court rubberstamped Referee Louis Crespo’s recommendation that the decision to establish a local commission to investigate the events of September 11th not be put before the voters on November 3rd.

    After showing interest in weighing both sides’ arguments in the hearing, the Judge’s short decision gives no indication of having considered the arguments put forth in the Petitioners’ memorandum of law, nor any acknowledgement of the need for a new investigation, which the City of New York callously dismissed as “irrelevant”.

    On a dark day for democracy, the patriotic call for answers by hundreds of 9/11 families, first responders and survivors has been stifled, and the will of the people of New York City once again denied.

    Judge Lehner ruled that modifying the petition to make it “legally permissible” would result in it being “inconsistent with the law sought by the signatories of the Petition” despite the fact that all 80,000 signatories agreed by signing the Petition that “If any provision of this law is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions shall be in no manner affected thereby but shall remain in full force and effect.”

    The deadline for inclusion on the ballot falls just before the election, making it possible to appeal Judge Lehner’s decision. NYC CAN is weighing all options and will make an announcement early next week on this issue, as well as on how it will be moving forward on other fronts. Regardless of the outcome in court, the quest for answers continues full throttle. This fight is only the beginning.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  19. truthmover
    Administrator

    Judge Lehner ruled that modifying the petition to make it “legally permissible” would result in it being “inconsistent with the law sought by the signatories of the Petition” despite the fact that all 80,000 signatories agreed by signing the Petition that “If any provision of this law is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions shall be in no manner affected thereby but shall remain in full force and effect.”

    I'm having a hard time thinking of one assessment/prediction I made that hasn't turned out to be true.

    When I've argued over the past couple years with some of the initiatives biggest supporters their ultimate statement in response to the concerns I expressed was finally that we could get the initiative passed and then rewrite it.

    XXX!!!

    It has seemed readily apparent to me that both legally and morally it's not acceptable to change the content of an initiative that people have signed. They are signing onto exactly what they were presented and nothing more or less.

    MASSIVE FAIL!!!

    Bottom line: The ballot initiative was an intentional distraction, drain on resources and morale, and way to prevent others from trying to do it right. Lots of honest, hard working, activists got honestly sucked in and that was the point.

    Few will recognize the extent to which Les Jamieson was largely responsible for this outcome.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  20. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Judge Lehner's order:

    name
    name
    name

    http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/09.10.09LehnerO...

    Posted 14 years ago #
  21. truthmod
    Administrator

    My condolences to Carl Person and Lu Ann Horstman Person.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  22. Victronix
    Member

    It appears to have been set-up to fail with the "never before" type provisions for privatizing a public role, etc. The judge -- because of that alone -- did the right thing. He wouldn't have had to know a single thing about 9/11 to reject it on this basis alone. My question is why it took so long. What other ballot initiatives go to the voters with completely new methods for enacting the content of the initiative? I'd like to know.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  23. christs4sale
    Administrator

    With the people attached to this (Les, Sander, Carl Person) some of the people involved really should have known better and saw what was coming. I just hope that people who are involved with future efforts like this have learned a lesson from this experience and when they form whatever succeeds this, they will be very cautious who they let into the organization and that the organization will be as democratic and transparent as reasonably possible.

    Hey give credit where credit is due. I do not think that it is that easy to deceive people for such a long period of time and achieve legitimacy to that level. Les probably got a promotion for this.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  24. JohnA
    Member

    i know you don't want to hear this - because your feelings about this are vastly colored by your feelings about Les and Sander, etc etc) ... and i share those feelings...

    but - this is not a total loss. in fact i still view it as a significant accomplishment - DESPITE the best efforts of some to undermine its integrity - and set it up to fail.

    This initiative drew out public statements from people i believed were long lost and permanently silenced from this movement.

    Just the fact that people like LTC Anthony Shaffer resurfaced - after years of silence - and issued a PUBLIC STATEMENT confirming that - YES - his life and career were ruined for blowing the whistle on Able Danger and this government's foreknowledge of the alleged attackers and their preparations in Florida.

    and the same could be said for Colleen Rowley and others.

    could you ask for a better mandate for reinvigorating the questions associated with 9/11? these are real life people - decorated vets and FBI agents - with a story to tell.

    instead of doing a victory dance in the end zone over this initiative's failures - you should be promoting the fact that the issue very clearly still lives on in these people's lives - and ask why?.

    Shaffer's written statement should be posted EVERYWHERE.

    and when Arianna Huffington declares her disdain for conspiracy theories - you can ask her: "WHat would you say to LTC Anthony Shaffer?"

    Posted 14 years ago #
  25. christs4sale
    Administrator

    This initiative drew out public statements from people i believed were long lost and permanently silenced from this movement.

    NYCCAN did show that there are so many people out that will come out of the woodwork to support an effort related to 9/11 when it appears to be even just slightly above the garbage standards that most of this movement has devolved into. On the surface, it really did have the appeal. But going back to my house analogy, I do not think that any amount of Rowleys, Shaffers, family members or Sunjatas that make the house really excellent will change the shitty foundation that Les, Person and Pepper built. That being said, I think it is inevitable that there will be an effort to have another one of these and if it does happen, we should make every attempt possible to make sure that the foundation is free of any of the elements that the old one had. Do you think that it would be constructive to make an outline constructively criticizing the last initiative? Something that could be a document like the Truthmove Declaration that we can get a lot of people to support it and to add to it. I am not convinced that a ballot initiative is the right approach, but if it is going to happen again, we might as well try to steer it in the best direction possible from the start.

    Posted 14 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.