Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

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

  1. JohnA
    Member

    i think its a waste of time to continue to belabor the point. yes - the initiative was deeply flawed and all warnings to that effect were ignored. i get it.

    and certainly there is something to learn from this experience - and yes i would encourage you to carefully document what happened - so these characters cannot yet again rehabilitate their own reputations and yet again claim a central position in any future initiatives. i would certainly document carefully what happened - as a cautionary tale.

    but - i think something unexpected happened here - despite NYCCAN's 'shitty foundation.' i think there is a real reason to put a positive spin on all of this. there is some clear momentum here. legitimate issues and legitmate whistleblowers have surfaced and people rallied behind a unified call for accountability.

    that is something you guys should be leveraging to the hilt!

    what's your end game here?

    think of it this way - this is a chance to take NYCCAN and FLIP IT into something that YOU control.

    fill the vacuum.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  2. christs4sale
    Administrator

    NYC CAN Email from Ted Walter:

    The Turning Point

    October 16, 2009

    In the fall of 2008, the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative realized that both strategy and tone were moving its effort no closer to broadening its support. Facing a wary, apathetic public and a stalled momentum, leadership was replaced, strategy was revamped and its mission rebranded.

    Launched in early 2009 as NYC CAN, the new organization proceeded to effectively engage voters in a rational dialogue concerning the unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 and the best interests of our country. Our vehicle for engagement was a public referendum to create a real, independent, evidence-driven investigation into those questions that remain, eight years later, unaddressed.

    That revamped strategy – focused and methodical, free of divisive rhetoric, ill-advised conjecture and alienating political judgments – succeeded in garnering the support of 80,000 NYC voters, over one-hundred 9/11 family members, dozens of first responders and survivors and leading 9/11 family advocates including ‘Jersey Girls’ Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza as well as Bill Doyle, Monica Gabrielle and others.

    NYC CAN also received backing from the most trusted leaders in the 9/11 truth movement, including David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones and Niels Harrit; and the endorsement of respected whistleblowers Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer and FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley, TIME’s 2002 Person of the Year.

    Universally positive coverage on a cross-section of media platforms including the Baltimore Chronicle, the Newark Star-Ledger, the Villager, and even the New York Post; online outlets like the Examiner and Raw Story; and on-air interviews with France 24, Russia Today, Talk Radio Europe, NPR and Air America all brought our case directly to the vot! ing public.

    In unprecedented fashion, the community dedicated to the pursuit of answers demonstrated its dedication to what works by funding what works. Their financial assistance came not through a handful of large donations but in the form of thousands of smaller, affordable donations from across this country and around the world. This outpouring of generosity paved the way to where we stand today and we thank you all.

    NYC CAN’s campaign was carefully orchestrated to engage voter support by presenting incontrovertible discrepancies to combat skepticism and create reasonable doubt. We countered objection with fact instead of theory, allowing individual deductive reasoning to poke its own holes in the 9/11 Commission’s story. By doing so we persuaded 80,000 New York City voters to listen, think and act.

    Therein lies the template for success in reaching our universal goal.

    Lessons Learned

    That success, however, will not manifest itself as the referendum we envisioned on the ballot in NYC on November 3rd. In the process of our petition drive and court challenges, we learned the hard way that public referendums are not the vehicle by which to navigate the byzantine rules that govern the corrupt landscape of New York politics.

    Midway through our petition drive we, along with our fellow New Yorkers, who twice voted to limit city officials to two terms, watched in disbelief as our own elected representatives, those to whom these term limits would apply, overturned the will of the people in a naked grasp for power.

    Emboldened by this successful slap down of democracy, the City of New York and the State Supreme Court denied the will of 80,000 voters to place NYC CAN’s referendum on November’s ballot. In doing so, the City’s Corporation Counsel – while forced to acknowledge in open court that no investigation into 9/11 of any kind, criminal or otherwise, had ever been conducted by the City of New York – labeled the will of the people “irrelevant”.

    A lone Supreme Court Justice, while demonstrating no comprehension or interest in the fundamental aspects of the events of 9/11 or the basis of our case – not to mention justice or truth – sided with the will of the City over the will of the people whose interests he is sworn to protect.

    While the petition had its flaws, it was secure enough to be implemented if the City and the Supreme Court were so inclined. It took the petition and legal processes to realize that the current City administration will stop at nothing to keep 9/11 in the rear view mirror. Our best and current expert legal advice indicates that no petition of this kind, however framed, can ever be assured success in New York City. Hence, no more time, energy, or money will be spent on this court action or a new petition effort.

    Those who wield political power will be swayed neither by rational dialogue nor the best interests of those they are meant to serve, as their motivation to act is based upon that which it always has – an insulating propagation of self-interest. Only by winning the hearts and minds of the people will our voice be heard in the halls of power that govern this country. Only when that voice echoes our message will it reverberate through those halls too loudly to be ignored. Only when the people wield the threat of their vote will those in power be forced to act.

    It is to the people we must make our appeal. Only then will we succeed.

    Lessons learned? With the experience gained in persuading 80,000 NYC voters to act, the strategy that will work has become ever more clear: a national public relations campaign to persuade the American public to rethink the bill of goods they were sold and now accept as bible truth. Public relations is a time-tested strategy that has been embraced across the board and through the ages; this proven methodology has been utilized to the advantage of the most progressive elements of society and embedded in the core strategy of every corporation in America. Why?

    Because it works.

    There is one question we must ask ourselves at this turning point for a movement unquestionably marginalized and discredited, surely by outside forces opposed to any further investigation, but also by its own hesitance to honestly assess what is not working and alter its course. This issue, like the questions to which we all seek answers, remains unaddressed but can no longer be ignored.

    What holds our movement back from embracing what works?

    Certainly those who give of their time, their talents and their energy to further this pursuit of answers do so with the very best intentions. Best intentions, in light of the progress we clearly have not made, are no longer good enough. Individual agendas, splintered strategies, unfocused action and information overload all play into our detractors’ hands and contribute to the lack of direction that leaves our movement marginalized, our voice muted and our goals unmet.

    Our hearts are in the right place; when our message and delivery is, we will capture the hearts and minds of America. We will never silence those who would silence us; we can, however, drown those voices in public outcry if we commit to a voice that America will not only listen to but also hear.

    A Multi-Tiered Strategy

    The secret to success for nonprofits and social activists lay in the ability to employ the business marketing tools that have proven effective in promoting social agenda and persuading the general public, without whose support such efforts rarely succeed.

    Perhaps it is time to acknowledge (and abandon) methodologies that keep our movement marginalized – radical rhetoric, vitriolic accusation and wild conjecture wrapped in off-putting self-righteousness – and embrace a strategy that changes not what we say but how we say it in order to be heard.

    The science of public relations – the subtle art of persuasion – is a discipline that must be adopted by our movement. Those who effectively employ public relations to their benefit understand that a bat to the head is never an effective course of action in attaining desired results.

    As with any marketing or sales effort or any successful social movement, one must engender trust before one seeks to close the sale. The problem inherent in our movement and its passionate base is the desire to close the sale without making the sale. We need to take a step back, recalibrate, redefine and reeducate. We need to employ persuasion, not pressure, with the right strategy and the right voice.

    And who decides whose voice that is?

    Reason must decide. The litmus test is simple. Who do the American people trust? Their elected officials? Not since Watergate. Celebrities? Celebrities certainly matter insomuch as they can draw attention to a cause and to its informed and authoritative spokespeople, but they are rarely seen or respected as such by the general public.

    So who engenders both the respect and the trust required to begin to awaken an apathetic American public? Oddly enough, that voice comes from high within the very government seen by some to be the major roadblock to attaining our goals, or worse, as the main perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks. Such theorizing is destructive to any effective press for truth and should find no home here. Evidence matters. Facts matter. Image matters. Theories don’t.

    This movement doesn’t need a strategy to win your support; you don’t need persuading – you are the movement. We need a voice to engage those without whose support we cannot succeed.

    It’s all about perception.

    Men and women of unassailable integrity – military commanders, CIA, FBI and military intelligence agents, aviation experts and senior-level administration officials – have already spoken out, putting name and reputations on the line. Men and women with a deep and pervasive understanding of how the United States government works and whose service to our country place them in a position above reproach. Men and women who can create reasonable doubt in the mind of the American public and steer attention to the authoritative voices that can cement that doubt.

    These men and women, viewed by the American public as real American heroes, offer the promise of revitalizing our movement and engaging the general public on a level that today lies beyond our reach. Our movement may not perceive generals and CIA agents as the obvious choice, but must understand we could not ask for more effective spokespersons to engage the American public.

    Again, we are not talking about the generals currently waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are talking about those who have already spoken out and lent their good name and stellar reputations to this cause.

    Despite the presence of such credible voices, our movement has been unable to create a vehicle with which to launch a strategic nationwide campaign that can wrestle momentum from the hands of those who seek to bury the truth and place it in the hands of those who would expose it to the light of day.

    Until now.

    Public Relations

    There are two available options to engage the general public – advertising and public relations. Advertising space and time in the mass media is extremely expensive and often negatively viewed by the public as an attempt to manipulate. Conversely, public relations carries no cost for coverage and its efforts to humanize an issue and create goodwill in order to gain public support are generally viewed as balanced and believable. In a perfectly funded world both methodologies would be utilized. As nonprofits and social activists rarely enjoy that option, fiscal realities dictate viable action – a public relations campaign.

    While effective public relations can be costly, the net benefit in shaping one’s image, promoting one’s cause and garnering the requisite support make it a worthy investment. The right PR firm not only partners in shaping strategy and message to convey the desired image, but also maintains the media contacts to bring that message directly to the public.

    The most daunting challenge PR firms face in effectively conveying an image with which the public will identify lies in identifying trusted spokespersons that can articulate message in a manner that engenders their support. Those individuals have already been identified. All that remains is the crafting of the message and the vehicle for the right spokespeople to drive that message home.

    Message massage is of paramount importance with any polarizing issue; what you say and how you say it take on an equal importance. While there are those who can follow the existing trail of evidence down the rabbit hole, our target demographic – a preoccupied American public – cannot. Our message must be re-calibrated to begin at the start with the most fundamental discrepancies and omissions in the 9/11 Commission Report in order to begin to chip away at the stone.

    The general public’s attention span is short and their grasp of these issues is tenuous at best. Our message must harness and repeat the core concepts undeniable by the most hardened skeptics and that message must be repeated again and again before the onion can be peeled.

    We must also bear in mind that while 9/11 changed our world overnight, it will take us considerably longer to change the public’s perception and understanding of the issues at hand. One effective piece in the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune or one interview with Katie Couric or Anderson Cooper, or any one placement in any new media, will not accomplish our goal. Our goal is now multimedia saturation – a consistent stream of stories through a cross-section of print media, regional, network and cable news outlets and their Internet counterparts.

    In addition to saturating all media outlets at our disposal, we must provide tangible platforms our spokespersons can use to drive a renewed public interest into action.

    Strategic Political Engagement

    NYC CAN was the movement’s first step into the arena of electoral politics. The 9/11 referendum afforded NYC CAN a platform to engage hundreds of thousands of voters in a carefully orchestrated dialogue to reshape the public’s attitude toward its government’s actions as they relate to 9/11. Regardless of the referendum’s outcome, the campaign was a success in heightening public awareness of the need to demand answers to the questions our government continues to ignore. As awareness grows, so grows the peril to the elected representatives that refuse to act.

    And that is exactly the point.

    New York City is only one among countless opportunities to skin the cat. There are 9/11 advocates all across the country, many of which are presently engaged in civic action. While we encourage all groups to continue or begin to act, we would hope that all see the power and importance of those actions when taken under the umbrella of one common strategy, harnessing the strength of a unified, professionally crafted message.

    Ballot initiatives, whether meant to enact legislation or to express the will of the people in a non-binding resolution, carry weight both as voter actions unto themselves and as platforms for civic engagement as part of the overall campaign. Their eventual outcome may in fact be of less importance than the civic engagement they engender.

    We must also engage in efforts to pass local resolutions calling for further investigation into 9/11 as such efforts also raise the public profile of our mission. We must use that strategy to continue to lobby top officials and district attorneys. In states and cities where ballot initiatives are not accepted, as well as in states and cities where they are, our strategy can lay the groundwork that opens the door to running and supporting candidates on a platform of 9/11 accountability.

    Keep in mind that which bears repeating; the outcome of these efforts may prove less important than the civic engagement these campaigns will engender. Much like public relations, saturation is the name of the game. Without tangible vehicles that enable civic engagement, our efforts to reshape the public’s perception will be for naught.

    An Untangled Web

    The concept and execution of our strategy presents both challenge and opportunity to the movement. As if through the looking glass in a world where bad is good and up becomes down, being too well versed in the intricacies of 9/11 can become a handicap once we acknowledge that our target demographic simply is not.

    The average American’s general perception of September 11th can be summed up in five short words: two planes and two towers. It is up to us to reshape that perception using evidence in a manner that will lead to the requisite reasonable doubt of the story the public has come to accept.

    There is certainly no lack of credible, well-documented research covering a myriad of 9/11 topics splashed across the Internet on countless websites.

    Therein lies the problem.

    Too much information, too many details and too many story lines muddy the waters for those too confused to digest the overload of information. In addition, rampant rhetoric and conjecture (for which there is no place) leave our target demographic wary and unconvinced, making it that much easier for our detractors to continue to marginalize our movement.

    It’s all about how we bait the hook.

    A haphazard dissemination of everything under the 9/11 sun, from credible evidence to amateur analysis, and from half-baked theory to full-blown truth, is not the way to convert the pervasive skepticism we face today. When we learn to control the content, flow and presentation of information in a more simplified and direct fashion we will control its effect.

    What is missing is one carefully vetted, content-controlled web presence – a virtual ‘Citizens’ Commission’ containing a professionally designed interactive catalogue of the most legally sound evidence and a video portal for expert testimony to be used in an eventual investigation or court action. Laid out in easy-to-navigate chapter and verse, casual inquiry moves efficiently from the center of the story outward. If executed properly, casual inquiry will work its way to responsible, civic-minded action. But we must begin with the basics.

    Every successful salesman understands the value of well-crafted collateral sales material. There is no end to what a true 9/11 homepage, a disciplined 9/11 primer, can become and no limit to its value in reaching our goal.

    But we must begin at the start, always mindful that in order to close the sale we have to make the sale.

    Our 9/11 Wake Up Call

    We are at war against a government that has used the events of 9/11 to hijack a country from her people and placed the interests of the rich and the powerful above justice and truth. Wars can only be won through strategy, commitment and discipline.

    Present strategy has moved us no closer to our goal; in fact, some of the actions this movement has embraced hold us back from gaining any real momentum, working to the benefit of the very people who stand in opposition to the truth. Our detractors love those who will carry their water, whether consciously or not, doing real damage to any chance of success.

    We know many of you, like us, see our marginalized movement’s stalled momentum as a call to effective action – a call to take the fight to our detractors by using the very tools they employ to promote their own agenda. We must use these same time-tested tools to elevate our own search for answers with a campaign directed at the hearts and minds of the American people:

    • a professional rollout of a national public relations campaign and trusted spokespeople to reshape image and regain momentum in order to broaden our reach

    • a uniform and coordinated methodology for regional action feeding off and feeding into that campaign nationwide

    • a disciplined Internet presence structured in content and tone to reshape public perception and create reasonable doubt

    Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. As we see ourselves in no position to argue, we would urge all who share our simple goal – truthful answers to reasonable questions – to abandon those methodologies which have proven, over and over again, not to work and come together in support of the time-tested strategies that will.

    Let us move closer to our goals by accepting that the only effective path to success is through a course of action that engenders the support of the American public. We are committed only to the strategies that have stood the test of time. We urge the leaders of every like-minded organization to unite in a call for answers that is sure to be heard when we raise our voice as one.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  3. Victronix
    Member

    While the petition had its flaws, it was secure enough to be implemented if the City and the Supreme Court were so inclined.

    This gets one sentence and it was likely the entire make-or-break issue. The rest of this means almost nothing. If you have fatal flaws in the petition, PR means zero.

    This email appears to be 99.99% PR rah rah and .001% mention of the factual problem.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  4. JohnA
    Member

    oh - i don't know. you seem overly harsh.

    he does seem to be challenging the broader issue of disfunction in the movement:

    Present strategy has moved us no closer to our goal; in fact, some of the actions this movement has embraced hold us back from gaining any real momentum, working to the benefit of the very people who stand in opposition to the truth. Our detractors love those who will carry their water, whether consciously or not, doing real damage to any chance of success.

    wouldn't you agree? it seems like he's hitting the nail right on the head here?

    and:

    A haphazard dissemination of everything under the 9/11 sun, from credible evidence to amateur analysis, and from half-baked theory to full-blown truth, is not the way to convert the pervasive skepticism we face today. When we learn to control the content, flow and presentation of information in a more simplified and direct fashion we will control its effect.

    seems like a good solid statement as well. Isn't this the sort of thing that you always say?

    at this point i really do think that the old adage applies - 'you are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem'

    Posted 14 years ago #
  5. christs4sale
    Administrator

    He is just speaking in generalizations. It is William Pepper all over again. He says the right stuff on a general level, but his actions, affiliations and attention to specific details do not reflect what he is saying. I do not need to hear these generalizations from anyone careless enough to have Kevin Barrett as one of his few 9/11-related friends on Facebook or from someone that is not willing to call out specific people for their misdoings or specific events that have dug this movement's grave a little deeper. On the face of it, the Facebook thing might sound childish, but I have noticed that that level of attention to detail can be an indicator of an individual's critical abilities.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  6. christs4sale
    Administrator

    NYCCAN Case info:

    I hate to say where I had to go to get this link. I cannot find any of this stuff on the NYCCAN website.

    http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/SQLData.js...

    Posted 14 years ago #
  7. JohnA
    Member

    well - i agree. but it sounds like you have expectations for him to personally lead - and go on some sort of crusade against certain people. i wish this movement DID have a leader who was able to do that - but Ted's probably not the man for that job. you won't get any argument out of me on that.

    according to some people - he's just someone who stepped up and tried to do something with a deeply flawed and ill-conceived ballot initiative. was he an intentional saboteur? i really don't know. never met the guy.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  8. Victronix
    Member

    he's just someone who stepped up and tried to do something with a deeply flawed and ill-conceived ballot initiative. was he an intentional saboteur?

    Doesn't matter if he is or isn't, but if something is deeply flawed you don't just hang a curtain over the holes and hope for the best, you make the difficult choices.

    The length of his email, mostly bluster, suggests he cannot engage in self critique or make the difficult choices. If you cannot communicate in a meaningful way with the movement, how can you with the general public?

    I expect he's sincere and genuinely trying, probably did his best. I don't know him, but he was at the helm of a failed initiative that many people tried to warn him about. He apparently ignored it.

    Nothing personal is necessary.

    None of us are perfect, and yes, I'm harsh at times, but unfortunately that's what's necessary to succeed in most endeavors.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  9. Victronix
    Member

    Basics . . . from the link above --

    The State Constitution provides that all officers of local government whose elcction or appointmcnt is not provided for by the Constitution shall be elected by the people of local government or of some division thereof or appointed by such officers of the local government as may be provided by law” (NY Consl. art. IX (j 1 [b]). Thus, thc State Constitution vests local government with the right to confer upon their officers the authority to appoint other officers of local government. . . . Here, the seven commissions named were not elected and surely not appointed by officers of the local government with concomitant authority. Indeed, the Petition simply lists thc seven commissioners without any reference that their selection was by an officer of local govenment. The unilateral designation of commissioners by specific name (Petition, 11 3) appears to be inconsistent with the State Constitution and not valid.

    It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand that basics like how the commissioners are chosen and where they reside are part of state law.

    They sought to amend the Charter.

    Has anyone involved in this ever successfully amended a government Charter before? City or State? I tend to doubt it. That is a major issue for even very seasoned election professionals and most petitions trying to do so can be ground to a halt on that basic issue alone. City and State officials will sometimes amend Charters fairly easily by using language and propaganda that the public doesn't understand, but if word gets out about what they are really doing, even they often cannot do it.

    There was ZERO about 9/11 or any of the content issues in there -- no need to bother. So claims about the judge blocking the truth or anything like that are completely unfounded.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  10. nornnxx65
    Member

    Seems to me a petition initiative drafted to comply with State law and the City Charter might be able do something useful- perhaps an investigation limited to aspects within NYC jurisdiction, or that enjoins NYC from cooperating with specific post-9/11 changes, unless certain proofs/evidence of Al Qaeda/Bin Laden's responsibility for certain events are made public by the Feds- i don't know- it would be good to consult a competent and sincere lawyer, and a new initiative should be started by serious activists- waiting for someone else to do it and then trying to steer it in the right direction, it might well end up like NYCCAN.

    From The Turning Point: "A lone Supreme Court Justice, while demonstrating no comprehension or interest in the fundamental aspects of the events of 9/11 or the basis of our case – not to mention justice or truth – sided with the will of the City over the will of the people whose interests he is sworn to protect."

    The above statement is misleading. As Vic has pointed out, the real problem was the petition language was flawed. The judge, compelled to uphold the State Constitution (and not unilaterally override the NYC Charter) was compelled to disallow it.

    "While the petition had its flaws, it was secure enough to be implemented if the City and the Supreme Court were so inclined."

    The above statement is false- hopefully soon there will be some clear answers on who made that judgment.

    We know that Dennis P. McMahon was advising- McMahon is a registered NY attorney but doesn't have a normal website advertising legal services- instead he has this site: http://www.journeyintothemystic.com/

    We also know that William Pepper was advising- Christsforsale has pointed out some issues with him, and, imho, it would be good to start a thread documenting them- if that's been done already, someone please link it here. Here's one more, from PDS' Road to 9/11: "Unfortunately, Pepper also transmitted the claim made to him that the 20th Special Forces Group had a sniper team in Memphis on April 4, 1968, to ensure that King was murdered. I believe from my own research that the sniper team story was disinformation from high sources designed to discredit Pepper. In particular, an alleged authorizing cable, citing Operation Garden Plot, is to a trained reader a self-revealing forgery (photo #33, see 424)." (pg 285n15)

    According to Jon Gold at 911Blogger, "Just so you know... I was asked to remove the author's names. The primary author was 9/11 Family Member Chris Burke." http://www.911blogger.com/node/21649#comment-21981... Both Pepper and McMahon may have contributed significantly to "The Turning Point"- who but an attorney would feel qualified to state, "it was secure enough to be implemented"?

    Considering what the NYC Clerk wrote in his 9/8 and 9/24 Memos, it's clear the initiative was doomed to fail- that Pepper and Person didn't know that/didn't research it and figure it out is incredible- it may amount to legal malpractice, considering how badly flawed the petition was. NYCCAN has never posted these Memos, and I'm still waiting for an answer as to why not. A LashL at JREF got them from a "source" she refused to identify. I just got them today from the NYC Clerk's office, after requesting them Oct 19 around 2:30pm. I may upload them somewhere, but you might as well get them here- wading thru the mass of juvenile insults and gloating is annoying, but it's good for the soul and broadens the mind, and there are some that are particularly enlightening. forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5142681&postcount=601

    Pepper recently confirmed that an election law expert was consulted, in response to Barrett asking him about a 'rumor' that was right up Barrett's alley. And it's not Dennis P. McMahon, as I had assumed it was- was anyone else aware that McMahon was not the "most experienced election lawyer in New York City" that was referred to in a NYCCAN fundraising appeal? http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=34337...

    And see this:

    (LashL Oct 12, 2009) forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5198265&postcount=828  "I guess this would be a good time to add that NYCCANT did actually consult a real election lawyer (an experienced and well respected one) after they submitted their horrifically doomed-to-fail petition, but the real lawyer told them that their petition could not and would not possibly succeed. 

    So, NYCCANT carried on with its doomed-to-fail petition and its doomed-to-fail non-practicing lawyer, Dennis Whatsisname, instead of retaining the real lawyer, and instead of telling its membership that the petition could not possibly succeed. 

    NYCCANT chose to fleece as many naive truthers as possible for a few more dollars before it went down in flames, as it knew would happen.

    Normally, one would say "good on ya" to NYCCANT for actually consulting a legitimate lawyer with legitimate experience (unlike that Dennis fellow), but NYCCANT never once told its gaggle of naive morons that it had received legal advice indicating that the petition was destined to fail, and NYCCANT knew that it was going to fail spectacularly but remained silent about that. Instead, NYCCANT strung its gaggle of "truther" lemmings along for as long as it could, right up to the enbarrassing failure that iresulted.

    How frigging sad is that? Very, very sad.

    Last edited by LashL; 12th October 2009 at 10:22 PM. Reason: blabbedy blah, edited for alcohol and such :)"

    Posted 14 years ago #
  11. truthmover
    Administrator

    Great post Rancho.

    I knew this initiative was being set up to fail the moment that Les took on the cause. Later, reading the initiative itself, it was very clear to this non-lawyer that the initiative was written to ensure failure.

    Think for yourself about how seriously YOU would take such a process, and how carefully YOU would research the subject. A lawyer would make the process go quick. But if someone came to me tomorrow and told me it were up to me to make sure the initiative were legal, I'm sure I could figure it out in a couple of weeks.

    Well, some of those involved ARE lawyers.

    So what's the excuse? ... Really, there is none. There is no excuse for the very basic lack of preparation we see above. It can not be excused as incompetence, as the legality of the initiative is one of the primary concerns involved.

    No, this is sabotage. And while it benefits us little to point fingers, unless someone like Les stands out like a sore thumb, we can't ignore the very real possibility that this whole thing was an operation meant to prevent an effective alternative, undermine confidence in the initiative system, and siphon movement resources.

    This seems relevant right now. It's not complete. But it helps me focus.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  12. christs4sale
    Administrator

    You can connect Paula Gloria to Barrett and Tarpley as she has interviewed them both, but her interactions with Nico were far more than just interviews.

    Here is the thread that covers most of the William Pepper information: http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1498?replies=...

    Posted 14 years ago #
  13. nornnxx65
    Member

    Correct Barrett/Pepper link at truthaction http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=34343...

    truthmover that is a real handy graphic, though links would be even better. As christs4sale (thx for the Pepper link) pointed out Pepper's facebook friended Barrett (and appeared on his show), there's a direct link there, too. And his essentially sticking up for Mitchell in effect ties him to him- it sure doesn't distance him. Who in the hell picked Mitchell again? It's never been disclosed who exactly picked the Commissioners, has it?

    While we humans make mistakes and most of the people in the christs4sale link have made some, that Pepper was directly involved in the drafting of such a badly flawed petition seems more than an excusable oversight, imho- judgment like that is not to be relied on.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  14. nornnxx65
    Member

    'surprised'?

    (Brainster) forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5208728&postcount=861

    Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus ETA: Just out of curiosity, how did you find this out? I don't think names or any other revealing information is necessary - obviously, where obsessives like conspiracy addicts are concerned, you really, really want to maintain net anonymity - but still, it'd be informative to know this.

    I can't speak about LashL's source (because I don't know it), but you would be surprised at some of the people who have fed me information over the last three years--very surprised. Remember, there are factions within the movement that cannot stand other factions, because they believe the other guys are disinformation operatives or on the wrong track or they were drummed out of the clubhouse. Of course I have to verify this much more carefully than I would something else, but many of the claims have checked out, and some have led to pretty substantial changes in the movement.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  15. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Barrett is Walter's Facebook friend. Not Pepper's. I do not think that Pepper is on Facebook or any forum directly. It is just weird as you would think that people, if they care about disinformation, would care about a little detail such as a Facebook friend. Cindy Sheehan and Cynthia McKinney are both friends with Barrett. Granted they have a ton of friends each and probably do not have the time to look into people's histories as much as they should. Walter on the other hand has Barrett out of about five 9/11-related people. I would think that if you are only a friend to a few of them then you would pick them wisely.

    Thanks for the excellent posts nornnxx65.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  16. nornnxx65
    Member

    Barrett is Walter's Facebook friend. Not Pepper's.

    Thx for the correction, guess i was reading thru a bit fast trying to catch up.

    I would think that if you are only a friend to a few of them then you would pick them wisely.

    It certainly stands out more. I hope Cindy and Cynthia have been made aware of Barrett's history.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  17. Victronix
    Member

    Latest on NYCCAN --

    Jonathan,

    I am sorry to tell you last minute that I cannot to be on the call tonight. Something rather serious has come up suddenly, I wish I could be on but it won't be possible tonight. However, I will make sure to be on the call next month, which is okay because I will have much more to report then as our new efforts will be underway and we will be looking to partner with people in other states. You can report to everyone on the call that right now we are planning:

    -a nationwide campaign to pass local resolutions calling for a new investigation, either through local advisory ballot initiatives, or by lobbying supportive city councils where advisory initiatives are not allowed. Other causes like troop withdrawal and impeachment gained and manifested strength through this kind of coordinated national campaign.

    -a PR campaign employing former government, military and intelligence professionals and hiring a PR firm to ensure access to mainstream media and a perfectly crafted public image. Writing of grant proposals for this project, an for the nationwide ballot initiative campaign, is underway. We expect to raise significant sums of money to help make 2010 a watershed year for 9/11 accountability to fully enter the mainstream.

    -sustained campaign lobbying new Manhattan DA to open an investigation into the destruction of the buildings.

    -getting close to a civil suit brought by 9/11 families so that we will have court ordered subpoena power.

    I look forward to speaking with you and other organizers next month.

    Best, Ted

    Posted 14 years ago #
  18. mark
    Member

    "a PR campaign employing former government, military and intelligence professionals and hiring a PR firm to ensure access to mainstream media and a perfectly crafted public image."

    Sounds like what the "9/11 Truth Movement" has been for years. It was a perfectly crafted image to get the media to highlight "no plane" and "demolition" while ignoring suppressed warnings and overlapping wargames. Mission accomplished!

    Posted 14 years ago #
  19. truthmod
    Administrator

    Yeah I wonder if these guys get mixed up sometimes when they have to write mission statements and reports for both their handlers and their dupes.

    Not that I know anything about Ted Walter specifically, but it is a curious thing to ponder...

    Posted 14 years ago #
  20. christs4sale
    Administrator

    November 3, 2009

    Dear Friends,

    Today the people of New York City go to the polls to vote yes or no to a billionaire mayor who overturned the will of the people to allow himself to run for a third term and then spent $100 million to retain his throne. While this enemy of democracy sits happily on that throne and on today’s ballot, not one vote will be cast to answer the question 80,000 New York City voters agreed must be asked: whether to establish an independent commission to investigate the events of September 11, 2001.

    We all know the federal government never conducted a real 9/11 investigation. Less talked about but recently admitted in open court by the City of New York: it too has never conducted any investigation of any kind into 9/11, an event that took the lives of 1,127 of its own residents. The will of the people to finally have this investigation? “Irrelevant” according to Mike Bloomberg’s Corporation Counsel.

    Not irrelevant.

    With the voice of 80,000 New Yorkers and you behind us, NYC CAN will bring the pursuit of honest answers to reasonable questions to the hearts and minds of the American people in 2010. Let this dark day for democracy mark the beginning of an era when the voice of common sense echoes from every corner of this country becoming too loud to be dismissed as irrelevant.

    As we stand at this turning point, about to embark upon the next phase of our journey, we thank you for getting us to where we stand today, and we count on you to stand together with us as we continue our pursuit.

    Sincerely,

    Ted Walter

    Posted 14 years ago #
  21. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Charges of Sabotage Plague NY 9-11 Ballot Initiative

    By Mark Anderson

    NEW YORK, N.Y.—The New York City 9-11 ballot proposal is dead, as backers confirmed in writing on Oct. 19. It was intended to be put before city voters Nov. 3.

    Members of New York City Coalition for Accountability Now, or NYC CAN, decided not to appeal State Supreme CourtJudge Ed Lehner’s Oct. 8 decision to uphold the court referee’s recommendation to deny the petition. The petition sought voter approval for a new 9-11 investigation.

    NYC CAN spokesman Ted Walker informed AMERICAN FREE PRESS of this development with an eight-page statement entitled “Turning Point” which already makes a new proposal: A long-term public relations campaign that urges, among other things, 9-11 groups to unify behind this campaign to reach a greater cross section of the American public with a multi-media approach. The claim is that this will require less money than an advertising campaign, but hiring a PR firm, which is not free, is clearly contemplated, as indicated below in a statement excerpt:

    “Lessons learned? With the experience gained in persuading 80,000 NYC voters to act, the strategy that will work has become ever more clear: a national public relations campaign to persuade the American public to rethink the bill of goods they were sold and now accept as bible truth . .... The right PR firm not only partners in shaping strategy and message to convey the desired image, but also maintains the media contacts to bring that message directly to the public. The most daunting challenge PR firms face in effectively conveying an image with which the public will identify lies in identifying trusted spokespersons that can articulate [a] message in a manner that engenders their support. Those individuals have already been identified. All that remains is the crafting of the message and the vehicle for the right spokespeople to drive that message home.”

    While these spokespersons have not yet been named, AFP has chronicled over the last two years that a prior 9-11 ballot proposal was abandoned – some allege toppled—in 2007. The ripples are still being felt today.

    Former Steering Committee member Allan Rohde is among those who recalled that the original New York City 9-11 ballot proposal that called for creating a new office of a city-level attorney general as a proposed funding mechanism, via legal actions including anti-trust suits, was abandoned but perhaps should have been maintained. He feels this matter is especially notable now, in light of the fact that the City Clerk’s office on July 24, 2009 stated in a denial letter that lack of a funding mechanism was among the reasons for denying the current ballot proposal.

    According to Rohde’s allegations, longtime 9-11 ballot-petition leader Les Jamieson originally supported this local attorney general idea but backed away from it when William F. Pepper, a self-described barrister, entered the scene in the summer of 2007. “Pepper came along and demanded that it (the city AG idea) be removed. As soon as Pepper came along, Jamieson went over to his side,” according to Rohde. “When he made this demand we (the steering committee) thought it was a pretty suspicious move.”

    Rohde alleged that Jamieson was promised funding by Pepper and the local AG idea was then removed.

    The local-AG component of the original 9-11 ballot proposal was reported by AFP in the spring of 2007. This specific idea’s creator is Manhattan attorney Carl Person, who at the time offered himself as the candidate to be the first-ever city-level attorney general in the nation.

    Person recalled as this AFP edition went to press that the N.Y. City Council can simply adopt any ballot proposal without the petitioning process. “If they want it, they adopt it, so having not passed it [themselves] they are in opposition to it,” he said of the current 9-11 proposal.

    Rohde believes that, contrary to Pepper’s and Jamieson’s view that the local AG idea would have been too radical a change to get past city election authorities, it may have been the very thing that would have given the ballot idea a better chance because the new AG would have worked on various matters to help New York City citizens besides spearheading a new 9-11 investigation, bringing in money through litigation and giving the city government a new stream of significant revenue.

    “If a city AG could raise money, the city might want it to pass, if even for the AG idea itself,” Rohde said.

    Rohde recalled that committee members looked into Pepper’s background and determined that, in their opinion, “We found out that he was a pretty mysterious man,” as the allegation goes.

    AFP stopped at St. Mark’s Church on Manhattan’s lower-east side for the “We Demand Transparency” event where Pepper was to speak the evening of Sept. 12. However, he did not show up, even though he was described as “chief counsel to NYC CAN” in the event’s advance publicity online. He has authored several notable books, and according to Wikipedia online, he represented James Earl Ray and tried to prove his innocence in the shooting of Martin Luther King “some years after King’s death.”

    Still, the overriding concern is whether the 9-11 ballot proposal intended for the Nov. 3, 2009 election was allegedly mishandled, or worse, in a manner that resulted in legal precedents against such a concept, thereby making any future ballot attempts harder to advance in a legal landscape slanted against a new 9-11 investigation.

    The NYC CAN statement also states: “Our best and current expert legal advice indicates that no petition of this kind, however framed, can ever be assured success in New York City. Hence, no more time, energy, or money will be spent on this court action or a new petition effort.”

    Rohde added that he is surprised that NYC CAN got more than 30,000 signatures approved, given allegations that some petitions were signed by someone other than the actual circulator [i.e. petitioner] in a city that has invalidated petitions for far lesser flaws.

    The statement continues: “Those who wield political power will be swayed neither by rational dialogue nor by the best interests of those they are meant to serve, as their motivation to act is based upon that which it always has – an insulating propagation of self-interest. Only by winning the hearts and minds of the people will our voice be heard in the halls of power that govern this country. Only when that voice echoes our message will it reverberate through those halls too loudly to be ignored. Only when the people wield the threat of their vote will those in power be forced to act. It is to the people we must make our appeal. Only then will we succeed.”

    But this statement announcing the move to a “PR mode” did not sit well with all NYC CAN supporters. Kevin Barrett, a well-known lecturer on 9-11 issues, told AFP: “As a strong supporter of NYC CAN, I am disappointed by their decision to give up the legal fight. Their press release announcing that decision [not to appeal] was not very impressive. It was little more than a long-winded, repetitious diatribe about how the truth movement needs to improve its PR techniques. The thesis was that by abandoning the ballot initiative struggle, and issuing a poorly-written email urging us to get better at PR, NYC CAN was somehow taking the battle for 9/11 truth to the next level. I am baffled by this press release. I would have preferred a clear and concise explanation of precisely why they’re abandoning the project they’ve worked so hard on. ‘Because we ran out of money to pay the lawyers’ would have sufficed.”

    Person disagrees with the city Law Department’s assessment [reported in AFP last week, No. 43, Oct. 26] that the special investigative commission that would have been created had the 9-11 ballot proposal been fully approved lacked legal authority to subpoena witnesses, etc.

    “It was to be a government agency,” given authority by the voters, Person explained, adding, however, that the lack of a clear funding mechanism and the proposed commission’s make-up consisting of a lot of non-New Yorkers helped diminish the petition’s chances, in his view.

    http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/911ballotsto...

    Posted 14 years ago #
  22. mark
    Member

    How convenient that the only "newspaper" that covers this (albeit badly) also supports the idea that Adolf Hitler deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. You can't make this stuff up even if you tried.

    A neo-Nazi publication is likely to be as popular in New York City (which is about one third Jewish) as Mormon missionaries in an Afghan village run by the Taliban. Mission accomplished!


    Note: American Free Press and Barnes Review are sibling publications, with overlapping staff and a common founder. They are the successor efforts to the "Liberty Lobby."

    http://www.barnesreview.org/html/2004.html

    May/June 2004

    Nuremberg: In the National Socialist Mind

    The Nuremberg Congress was a unique phenomenon in the political history of Europe.

    July/August 2004

    Adolf Hitler: An Overlooked Candidate for the Nobel Prize

    A Brief History of Holocaust Revisionism By Willis A. Carto barnesreview.org/Revisionism/revisionism.html

    Auschwitz: The Final Count By Michael Collins Piper A thought-provoking new anthology edited by English historian Vivian Bird casts stark new light on what really happened at Auschwitz during World War II. As the evidence shows, the official "facts" just don’t add up. www.barnesreview.org/auschwitz.htm link moved to www.barnesreview.org/html/tocsept1999.html

    59 AUSCHWITZ:THE FINAL COUNT—MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER

    What did or did not happen at the notorious so-called “Nazi death camp”? Why do the various authorities keep coming up with different and generally smaller figures for the number of people who died there? Why do we still hear “6 million” all the time? A book review . . .

    63 DAVID DUKE: AN AWAKENING—JOHN TIFFANY

    One of the most influential living populist politicians in America has written what liberals are calling his Mein Kampf. David Duke minces no words. A book review . . .

    Posted 14 years ago #
  23. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Cynthia McKinney is a fan of Michael Collins Piper and the American Free Press on Facebook. Am I making too big a deal as to who people associate with on a social networking site? I think that details like this are often representative of an individual's ability to scrutinize in general. On the other hand, I think someone else runs Cynthia's profile for her.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  24. someguy
    Member

    Hi Christs4sale, been reading the threads for a while, decided to create a login.

    To answer your question from the last post, yes, you are making too big of a deal about who people associate with on a social networking site. Ted probably was requested by Kevin Barrett and figured it'd be rude not to accept him. On Cynthia McKinney, its highly probable she isn't even managing her friends or fans of part on her site. It very well could be some handler who thought it'd be cool to add AFP and Michael Collins Piper.

    In all honesty, I don't know or know very little about the inner workings or history of 9/11 truth stuff or half of the characters involved. I ended up involved with NYCCAN after seeing an ad on Craigslist and slowly but surely while working on it got more info after reading stuff like this online.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  25. truthmod
    Administrator

    Welcome to the forum, someguy. I'm sure all of us would benefit from hearing your first hand insight into NYCCAN. Some of us on here are a bit cynical, but not without good reasons and years of experience.


    Ha ha ha. Allan Rohde critiquing Les Jamieson? He's been Jamieson's biggest supporter for years. Wasn't there something about Andy (forget his last name, also another Les right hand man) being suspicious of Les a while back as well. Not that I trust any of these people either which way. There's almost no wrong way to do disinformation. Anybody who "trusted" Les for more than a minute is suspect in my opinion. If not for being agent, then for having horrendous judgment.

    On a more serious note, if anyone has truly "awakened" to the shadiness of Les Jamieson, I commend them.

    According to Rohde’s allegations, longtime 9-11 ballot-petition leader Les Jamieson originally supported this local attorney general idea but backed away from it when William F. Pepper, a self-described barrister, entered the scene in the summer of 2007. “Pepper came along and demanded that it (the city AG idea) be removed. As soon as Pepper came along, Jamieson went over to his side,” according to Rohde. “When he made this demand we (the steering committee) thought it was a pretty suspicious move.”

    Rohde alleged that Jamieson was promised funding by Pepper and the local AG idea was then removed.


    Rohde recalled that committee members looked into Pepper’s background and determined that, in their opinion, “We found out that he was a pretty mysterious man,” as the allegation goes.

    Posted 14 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.