UPDATE: 911truth.org's Anti-hatred Signing Statement

UPDATE: Janice from 911truth.org asked me to post this here as an update, people can still sign if they want to add their name to the list via a new email address they've just set up, here's her massage:

"To sign our statement rejecting this outrageous propaganda repeatedly pushed by Glenn Beck, please send an email to: signature@911truth.org ."

I hope people do sign because it feels good to stand up and this list of signatures can be used to prove 9/11 truth is a peace movement next time Beck or whoever slanders us all again.

Link: 911truth.org's Anti-hatred Signing Statement

911Truth.org does so very many things!

9/11Truth.org tries to help coordinate people all across the country (and world) with monthly meetings. I encourage people to visit the website, and to list events, or their local grassroots contacts.
Our TEXAS EVENT is listed at 911Truth.org.
"WHAT YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT 9/11: Building 7 - Gone in 7"
July 11th Plano, TX

Listen to this cool 60 second 9/11 Truth RADIO ad !!!

I am OK with people signing

I am OK with people signing this statement, but why do we need to dignify the likes of Glenn Beck with any response at all?

Why do we need to respond to spurious charges made by anyone?

JFK on secrecy and the press

As Truthers we make it clear that we support non-violence...

It is important for the 9/11 Truth Movement to repeatedly demonstrate that we are non-violent, non-racist, promote peace, want transparency in government, advocate religious tolerance, etc.
NORTH TEXANS FOR 9/11 TRUTH often repeats this type of message.
Look at our statement with the Conference Center EVENT on July 11th.

By the way, people should Google "711911".

As mentioned, I have no

As mentioned, I have no problem with the singing statement, but I think it is already abundantly clear that we are about 9/11 truth, not violence, racism, religious intolerance, etc.

In many, if not all, cases IMHO it is best to simply ignore people who accuse us of holding positions we do not hold. Seems to me, we are long past needing to answer that kind of nonsense.

Rather than respond to people like Beck, I think we should put our energy into promoting the work of people like Chandler, Gage, Ryan, etc.

JFK on secrecy and the press

I think that it is wise to repeatedly state our non-violence...

The more often groups in our 9/11 Truth Movement repeat our stance the better. We can firm up things by repeatedly stating that we are peaceful, non-violent, non-racist, religiously tolerant, non-political, etc. Our Texas group states this repeatedly in messages and on our websites. See our group's website, plus the website mentioned in the above post. http://www.northtexas911truth.com/joinus.htm

Agreed, TomT

We need to reinforce the idea that the truth movement is a non-partisan movement working for non-violent change based on real transparency in government and the rule of law for all.

Keep up the great work!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

I agree with what you say

I agree with what you say here, but the post at the top is about responding to Beck.

Also, where is the statement people will be signing? I did not find it on their site.

JFK on secrecy and the press

Written by Joshua S.

We advocate a code-of-conduct that subscribes our operations as being: (A) non-violent, (B) non-racist (C) respectful of law enforcement, and most importantly (D) respectful of life & liberty.

We advocate a code-of-conduct that subscribes our operations as being: (A) non-violent, (B) non-racist (C) respectful of law enforcement, and most importantly (D) respectful of life & liberty. The entire method of operation of the "9/11 Truth" is to present to the masses any combination of the following: evidence of collusion/corruption (either proven or circumstantial), factual and verifiable documents, historical analysis, expert professional opinions, private investigations, miscellaneous audio/video, forensics, public statements/speeches, credible eye-witness testimony, highly suspect events, questionable relationships of data and/or withheld, delayed, missing or obfuscated variables... of which we then allow the people to freely weigh and make their own judgements based upon the preponderance of the organized evidence we have presented. Any public demonstrations and/or public informational offerings are actuated upon and guaranteed by our Constitutional rights, conducted civilly and in open consideration and cooperation with our friends in law enforcement (of which I must say we are proud to believe we have established a mutually respectful relationship.)

It has always been our intention, is our intention now and will be our intention in the future to navigate the cause within proper channels and proper conduct in forwarding our objectives in the fight for truth and accountability.


Honestly, this statement

Honestly, this statement sounds overheated to me. I do not see any need to say so much, or maybe any of this at all.

JFK on secrecy and the press

The more we repeat the message, the better....

We should repeat this message in many different ways. It positions our 9/11 Truth Movement firmly as non-racist, non-violent, and non-political. We want to emphasize our peaceful nature and willingness to be friends with law enforcement and the community.
This is one of our best and simplest methods to protect our 9/11 Truth Movement. Let's not kid ourselves...we know that they have more black ops planned for the movement.

A repeated message written in various ways shields us. Things get messy all of a sudden when you are in the outhouse and realize that there is no toilet paper. Let's be prepared.


I don't think we can or want to claim that we are non-political, as we are all about educating and organizing people to take action, very political activities, don't you agree?

We definitely need to be on guard for agent provocateurs as we continue to become more visible.


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Thanks for catching that word!! "Nonpartisan" is the keyword.

Thanks for catching the nomenclature. Nonpartisan is the correct term, not non-political. I have periods of brain gas and I would have entirely missed the nomenclature until you pointed it out. (I need to stop popping aspartame coated fluoride pills, because of all the brain gas.)

I am OK with group

I am OK with group statements, and will sometimes even sign them.

The issues here, for me, are:

1) I see no reason to respond to Beck or people like that. If people think differently and want to respond, I am OK with that and have no objection, though, clearly, I did not mind saying something about it. I, for one, believe I (we) are long past needing to jump every time some jerk pokes us with a stick. It has been probably two years since someone has called me a nut or a conspiracy theorist. Maybe it is different for others. Though Beck and a few others tried to associate us with von Brunn, I do not think they succeeded at all and hence there is no need to respond. I would rather see us take the high road and just ignore Beck and his type.

2) The other statement posted by Joe sounds over heated to me. It should be much shorter and avoid using words like "the masses," which have heavy Communist connotations for many/most readers. If groups want to make statements like that, I am fine with the general idea, but believe more thought might go into the statement.

I do not think that this general discussion is a simple either/or thing--either you approve of statements on non-violence or you do not. The discussion should be about what the statements say, where they are displayed, when they are used, and why.

In some ways, statements of principles are like boycotts in that they can be very effective, but they can also backfire and cause harm to the movement they are designed to support.

There is good psychological evidence that making a big deal about denying spurious charges actually causes people to associate your group with those very charges. That's reason enough to use these statements carefully.

There is nothing violent, racist, or intolerant on any of the main 9/11 sites or within the writings or talks of any of the more prominent 9/11 people. So why enter Glenn Beck's crazy world at all? Or any of the Fox commentators? They are all biased and most people already know that. Those that don't are probably as close to hopeless, politically, as you can get, so directing a message to them is a waste of time and may even be counterproductive, as mentioned just above.

JFK on secrecy and the press