NYC CAN: The Turning Point

I did not write this. - Jon

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 voting 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.

Thinkers think and talkers talk. Patriots ACT.

www.NYCCAN.org

You have got it absolutely right, Jon.

This is the exact same argument I have made when witnessing confrontational encounters posted here and elsewhere, where the message gets lost in how the message is delivered. If there is a silver-lining to the defeat in the NYC referendum effort it is in the lessons learned on how to approach the public most effectively and sway the most hearts. Thank you for this well written essay on what needs to be done. I sincerely hope the Blogger community of activists, enthusiastic, daring, courageous... but at times woefully mistaken in how to change minds and sway hearts, will take heed and adopt the NYCAN strategy.

Thank you, Jon. You have performed an invaluable service to the movement with this posting....

Thanks...

I did not write it. There is a lot of valuable information in this. I hope that people read it, and digest it to the best of their ability.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Thank you for posting this, Jon

Those of us who got it as an email know you didn’t write it, but a casual reader may assume you did. Why not add a one-sentence intro at the top along the lines of your Edit, to avoid any confusion?

Just so you know...

I was asked to remove the author's names. The primary author was 9/11 Family Member Chris Burke.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Thanks again

I didn't mean for it to become such a hassle.

NYC CAN

The name says it all. Don't give up.

William Pepper Explains Why 9/11 Ballot Initiative Fight Ended

Tuesday, October 20, 2009
William Pepper Explains Why 9/11 Ballot Initiative Fight Ended, Suggests Loose Timetable for Bush-Cheney War Crimes Prosecution
http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2009/10/william-pepper-explains-why-911-b...

Wow

If true, I find this very troubling:

"Pepper also confirmed the rumor that a professor who is an expert on election law refused to help NYCcan.org after Pepper was unable to promise the professor that the results of a genuine 9/11 investigation would not hurt Israel."

FYI, here’s the audio.

This is just my recording of the 7-minute segment of William Pepper discussing NYC CAN on Kevin Barrett’s “Fair and Balanced” radio program yesterday, 10/20/09.

williampepper

The original show is archived here:
"War Crime Trials-Arrests: William Pepper & Joshua Blakeney on Fair & Balanced"
By noliesradio
This show was broadcast October 20, 2009.
It is now archived here — Use Player

http://noliesradio.org/archives/7193
(Turn off the live feed on the far right before launching).

Please don't use this to start another flame war on ant-Semitism. The election law professor's concern about harming Israel is legitimate. But I also have an ethical problem with a lawyer who, if he's a member of the NY Bar sworn to uphold the law, would refuse to join a public effort for a true criminal investigation, simply because he feared that "Israeli activists or operatives were going to be in any way brought into the limelight because of 9/11." As William Pepper put it, laughing, "Why are you asking me that? Do you know something that I don't know."

Is this just one man's personal anxiety, or is it a kind of group-think censorship hanging like a toxic cloud in the legal circles of New York? If the latter, I can see why an appeal would be a lost cause.

Correction:

Barrett updated his blog entry:
"Pepper also confirmed the rumor that a professor who is an expert on election law, when asked to help NYCcan.org, asked Pepper to promise him that the results of a genuine 9/11 investigation would not hurt Israel. Pepper naturally said he could not promise what might come of an investigation. Contrary to my earlier erroneous report, the professor did NOT refuse to help NYCcan.org. A thank-you to Ted Walter for correcting this."

It's troubling that Barrett is still claiming the above on his blog; from listening to the audio, it's clear that Pepper did not say he was asked to promise anything, or that he said he could not- this is my transcript of that part, which starts at 9":

Kevin Barrett- "By the way, can you- feel free to not answer this, if you don't want to, but can you confirm or deny a rumor that a leading Constitutional scholar refused to help NYCCAN.org when he asked- said 'Promise me that this will not hurt Israel', and you couldn't promise him that?

William Pepper- "He's not a Constitutional scholar- at all- he is an election law specialist. The election laws in any jurisdiction tend to require a good deal of very particular experience... and knowledge. As this was a particular election- I won't name him, but there was a particular election lawyer who is a specialist in this area, and, yes, he did raise the issue of- he did specifically raise the issue of Israel, and whether or not the Israeli activists or operatives were in any way going to be brought into the limelight because of 9/11. (chuckles) So I guess I was amused with the query, and I said, 'Why are you asking me that; do you know something that I don't know?'"

KB- "Well, some people say that everybody knows there was an Israeli angle to 9/11, and it's the worst kept secret out there, but- a lot of people are worried about that."

WP- "Anyway, that was the nature of that conversation, yes."

EDIT- punctuation for clarity- 'Why are you asking me that; do you know something that I don't know?'"

All that said, it's a 'strange' question to ask- a natural inference is the one that Barrett made; that the election expert was concerned how an investigation might affect Israel. Still, as much as the 9/11 truth movement has been disparaged for being associated with certain claims that have been discredited, I think it's very important to be accurate, not make inferences, not go beyond the evidence. And Barrett has discredited himself numerous times:
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1887&postdays=0&postorder=a...

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

That is unfortunate

Thank you for correcting that and thank you for posting a transcript, loose nuke.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

you're welcome, I try to help

William Pepper is involved

and he is giving very sound advise.

If a professor cannot be fair minded, then they are not the right person.

Sounds like Dr. Pepper {:-} has his water foul properly aligned.

NYC CAN, with his help, will find the right person.

start of a discussion

I welcome this discussion piece, which I think should be talked about widely--respectfully, but critically where appropriate. Maybe something very good will come from the discussion.

A few points to start us off:

1. I welcome the suggestion that we are a rather chaotic movement and that there ought to be some consensus points reached that we can emphasize in our work. I hope these consensus points can be agreed to without diluting the diversity and creativity of the movement.
2. I am not so happy with the language of marketing and public relations. I think these are, in the minds of many, almost as bad as "advertizing" in terms of their low credibility, and for good reason. I'm not yet convinced that morality-based social movements need to use business models.
3. This doesn't mean we don't need effective communication strategies. But I would prefer to talk about effective communication and persuasion rather than public relations, which is typically, like marketing, connected to selling things to people. We are not selling and we are not making a profit, and we are not interested in deceiving or putting "spin" on what we do. The strength of the movement is in its insistence on truth. I think truth and PR seldom travel well together. I'm sure some will think I have an unnecessarily dim view of PR.
4. A new web presence in the form of a Citizens' Commission sounds good to me, but, of course, it will be in addition to existing websites; it will not replace them. If it is really well designed and run it will become a center of activity; if it isn't, it will die.
5. As for the people who will make a credible presence and leadership, I think you first need to ask who your audience is. I'm assuming that the audience this document is concerned with is the US population. I'm not in a good position to say who is held in respect by this population. CIA officers and generals? I find that a bit surprising, but if it's true, then it would make sense to choose some of the honest and ethically suitable reps from these who are willing to talk about the 9/11 fraud. People, perhaps, like Bob Bowman. But I'd advise not to put all your eggs in one basket: have some leaders from different sectors of society. Most surverys put health professionals (including doctors and pharmicists) at the top of the "most trusted" list, and politicians as a group are usually very low on the list--there's a survery every year that goes through all this. So, have some health people, some religious leaders, some business leaders (careful on this one, especially at the moment), and so on.

As a non-US citizen, I'd have to object if our most visible leadership were drawn from US politics, the military and the CIA. This is not a social movement I could identify with or that I would want to work with. So let's think about valuing diversity

6. The whole emphasis on patriotism seems very American to me. I guess if it works for the American movement, then use it, but it doesn't speak to me at all. Tolstoy has an essay called something like, "patriotism or peace." He doesn't think they are both possible; we have to choose. I might not go that far, but I think we have to remember that patriotism is responsible for many of the millions of deaths through war in the last 200 years. We also should remember that American patriotism does not put people's mind at ease outside the US. Too many flags connected to too many invasions. I'd be careful with this one if you want a global movement.

Thanks, Dr. MacQueen

I wrote my response before yours appeared. I agree with much of what you say, especially re: "patriotism" and using CIA and such as poster boys.

I don't agree...

With everything in this, but I do agree with a lot... I just went through, and picked out the parts I really liked, and will try to write something to elaborate... It may take me some time.

I will say that I to welcome the discussion.

Edit: I'd also like to say that I don't think this thread should become a blame game thread. This person, that argument, etc... is responsible...

I also think votes should be disregarded in this thread because the system is rigged. I think they should be done away with at this point personally.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

"I also think votes should

"I also think votes should be disregarded in this thread because the system is rigged. I think they should be done away with at this point personally."

Spoken like a true King of the Forest wannabe.

--
"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Dir. Bldg. & Fire Research Lab. (NIST)
"We are [still] unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." (NIST)

More like...

Someone who has been on 911blogger.com since its inception, and knows when "shenanigans" are taking place. 911Blogger.com has a plethora of "new" people on it who are up to no good. I can't tell you how many people agree with me. A lot of old posters aren't here anymore. That should say something. Funny how the people advocating the least amount of change are getting the most votes. ;)


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Change?

"Funny how the people advocating the least amount of change are getting the most votes."

And this is coming from someone who has 'doubts' about the Controlled Demolition at Ground Zero, and who purports that FIight 77 actually did hit the Pentagon, and who is adamant that if someone talks about Israel's involvement in 9-11 or any other False Flag attack without footnoting that 90% of the blame goes on the U.S. Government is bad for the 9-11 Truth movement?

What least amount of change are you talking about? Least amount of change back toward the official story?

The three towers at WTC came down in Controlled Demolition, Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, and people can feel free to talk about Israel's involvement in crimes against the world without mentioning the U.S. and vice versa.

Peace,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

I've heard from...

A few key people that it's people like you who are the problem. Take that for what it's worth, and really think about it. And don't ask me who because "there is no need for me to put people on the spot at this point."

Now... you do your thing, and I will do my thing.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Jon, I'd like to speak as

Jon, I'd like to speak as someone relatively new to all this. I've read a lot on 911blogger over the past couple years, but have but never spoke out much, as I don't feel as qualified to give my opinion, and many others say what I wish I could but more eloquently. I agree with a lot of what you say, and appreciate the time you've given. Many of your posts are relevant and interesting to read (especially your main response on this thread), however, you come across as bitter and aggresive a lot of the time. You often speak like you believe you are above the majority of other posters. You've been here longer, so you are a better, or more valuable, more important. You seem angry toward people who provide constructive criticism. Your whole air is negative at times, and you often come across, to me at least, as self-absorbed and self-important. I have noticed this attitude since the earliest posts I have read of yours, and it seems only to have got more extreme. There's no doubt you have been and are an asset to this movement, but you don't do yourself any favours. This whole movement relies on fresh insight and input. Please, take it from me, you put people off with your negative attitude and tone.

9/11 Sites...

Have been infiltrated for years. 911Visibility.org, or septembereleventh.org was infiltrated by people who would name themselves "GoldIsAFag" or "GoldsDeadGrandfather," etc... this site was infiltrated by "TV Fakery", "Holocaust Revisionists", and several other "groups" who like to bring down 9/11 sites. It's not my imagination. As far as being bitter... when you have gotten the amount of attacks I've gotten over the years, because you participate in a cause you care so much about, maybe you'll understand why I come across as "bitter." These bitter battles don't take place off of the internet for the most part.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Excess focus on the self ...

.... unfortunately comes across as self-absorbed, even if it's not meant that way.

A lot of people ... notice 911 sites have been infiltrated.
A lot of people ... have had negative comment and been attacked.
A lot of people .... participate because they care.

Reading your post it sounds like you want to claim the golden badge for "Most Victimised Of All'.

You might not mean it that way but that's kind of how it comes across.

My two cents...

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.

I agree with this sentiment.

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.

It does work. That's why when people in our Government decide they want to sell something like a war, they use it to their advantage. Eventually you see a ridiculous amount of people thinking things like Iraq had something to do with 9/11, or Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda, or that Iraq even had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

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.

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 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.

It’s all about perception.

What I think doesn't work are slogans like "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!", "FALSE FLAG ATTACK", "NEW WORLD ORDER", "9/11=CONTROLLED DEMOLITION." What I think doesn't work is screaming at people, or calling them a traitor or murderer. What I think doesn't work are constant debates, or treating people with disrespect as a result of those debates (especially on websites where people might be reading the comments, and shy away because of the debates). What I think doesn't work are using divisive terms like LIHOP/MIHOP. We are people that question the official account of 9/11, and want truth and justice. Not LIHOPPERS and MIHOPPERS. What I think doesn't work is saying that everything that happens is a "FALSE FLAG ATTACK." Slogans that I have found do work are "9/11 TRUTH NOW", "ASK QUESTIONS/DEMAND ANSWERS", "EXPOSE THE 9/11 COVER-UP", "SUPPORT THE 9/11 FAMILIES", "INVESTIGATE 9/11", "SUPPORT THE 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS", "9/11 TRUTH ENDS WAR."

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.

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.

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.

Whenever I talk or write, I do so as if I'm talking to someone that's never looked at this stuff before. I have said many times that we should stick to basics. Start off by asking someone whether or not they think the Government lied about 9/11. Then move into how ridiculous the investigations were. Then talk about the family members that question the official account, and are still seeking truth and justice. Then talk about the responders. Then talk about the unanswered questions. Then talk about how the "Post-9/11 World" is a detriment to humanity. In my opinion, there should be a method by which we try to do things.

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.

A lot of what I said is exactly how I've tried to approach things, and it has worked for me. A LOT. I am not a PHD, and yet some people listen to what I have to say. Because I have been careful to the best of my ability.

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.

Our job is to try and reach people, and make them aware of how important it is to seek accountability and justice for the 9/11 attacks. Again, our job is to reach people. We have managed to reach a lot of people, but the amount of people willing to take action for this cause is not where it should be. That is what public relations is all about. We have to destroy the "Conspiracy Theorist, Lunatic, Tinfoil Hat Wearers, Anti-Semitic, Holocaust Denying" labels they have used against us, and change the way people perceive us. Should we use Generals, and CIA, etc...? I don't know. We've had bad experiences in the past with individuals who were "noteworthy." If a method can be developed that works, and they stick to it... great...

As far as having a central website... I just don't think it's going to happen regardless of whether or not I agree with the idea.

Mark Twain said a true patriot loves their country all of the time, and their Government when it deserves it. Maybe a true patriot can love their world as well.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Patriot

.. is apparently a 'glittering generality', according to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glittering_generality

Which would presumably make for good PR.

However, this word has different meanings in other countries. It sounds a bit like nationalist, or Patriot missile. How important is it to convince American patriots as opposed to everyone else? Maybe very.

Mark Twain has plenty of credibility though.

Call it Patriotism...

Call it speaking truth to power, call it being a responsible citizen, call it doing the right thing, call it what you like.

I discovered that quote right around the time I realized I was taking part in a false sense of patriotism. The "Patriotic Binge" as Michael Parenti refers to it. I liked it. I don't like seeing our politicians wear an American Flag pin as if they love this country. I don't like how Fox News constantly uses Red/White/Blue with every background they use. Wrapping one's self in the flag irks me. I like that quote, but don't know much about the man who said it.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

on patriotism, and the pursuit of truth

all good points, 911satya. thanks.
patriotism doesn't speak to me either, and i am an american. here’s a link purporting to indicate what tolstoy said in “patriotism or peace:” http://salsa.net/peace/conv/8weekconv7-3.html. an editorial note there indicates that tolstoy’s books were important in winning over gandhi to the idea of non-resistance to evil, which begs the question: can/how might we apply gandhi’s successful world changing principles in our 9/11 context, and help bring about peace and justice? in part, i would say, by doing what everyone is already doing here: searching for/broadcasting truth, while not becoming violent. truth and nonviolence are key elements of gandhi’s “satyagraha” (of which i am sure you are aware, given your handle) pasted below, and which is worthy of consideration by all 911 truth seekers, i respectfully submit. note especially items 1, 2, and 8.

Satyagraha...conquers by conversion, producing neither defeat nor victory, but new harmony. It entails 11 great vows:

1. Non-violence. Not harming your enemies but reaching out to them in forgiveness and hospitality. Non-cooperation with those who use violence and collaboration with those who do not.

2. Strict adherence to Truth - this includes honesty, but goes beyond it to mean living actively in accord with what you know to be true. Rather than in wishful compromise.

3. Non-stealing - not exploiting others and actively avoiding any practice or product that involves use of fear, violence, addiction or fraud.

4. Ecological chastity - not raising children to live in poverty or animals to live in squalor. Working on the quality of all lives you create, consume or displace. Studying, adapting and propagating Permaculture.

5. Non-possession. Not the same as poverty, this means taking only what you need and providing the rest to benefit others in need. The opposite of waste, hoarding, and indulgence.

6. Choosing to work only in efforts to improve the human dignity and mutual understanding of your fellow people. All other forms of work serve purposes of tyranny.

7. Non-addiction. Freeing yourself from all personal dependencies including cigarettes, sugar, alcohol, caffeine, mass media and artificial foods. Addiction inevitably leads to compromise.

8. Fearlessness - courage on all occasions. The solution to terrorism is refusing to act from fear. Acting constructively, mindfully, to own your own life.

9. Equal respect for any religion or philosophy that observes the Golden Rule: "Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself".

10. Initiating and participating in grass roots economic strategies such as small farm shares, boycotting franchise stores, open sourcing, mutual credit systems, and a determination to consume only local, ethically grown produce.

11. Non-racism - not just tolerance, but working to combine foreign cultures fruitfully with your own. Adapting Satyagraha so that it can propagate with these.

THANKS for Posting Satyagraha

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?
http://www.northtexas911truth.com/

Gatekeeping

I'm not sure PR can overcome gatekeeping. How many potential lawsuits have been nixed by Judge Hellerstein? How many politicians have looked directly at the evidence and feigned ignorance? How many media outlets pretend the Internet does not exist?

There is a second threat to a PR campaign: counter-intelligence. Or disinformation. Or call it what you will. Even the best framing of where we must begin always encounters the usual stable of distractions (the psychology of the conspiracist, bigotry, misinformation, etc.).

Perhaps we should consider 9/11 Truth something that will never acquire majority support? Yes, I know some people interpret the polls to suggest majority support already exists; however, I think it's fair to say nationwide, and even worldwide, support for 9/11 Truth remains in the 30%-40% range. New Yorkers, of course, were already two-thirds in support of a new investigation back in 2004.

What if we consider 9/11 Truth as something that cannot be won by popular opinion, because the gatekeepers, whether they are doing so on orders or simply because of generalized fear, will always block substantial progress on this issue. Why, for example, have there been no trials for the lies surrounding the invasion of Iraq? That's a case at least as definitive as 9/11 Truth, maybe more. On a related note, I am reminded of Paul Craig Roberts piece about the sociological study that showed why some people continue to maintain false beliefs even in the presence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

I put this question to the rest of you: What if our strategy going forward were based on the assumption that popular opinion will not resolve anything surrounding 9/11? Is that dangerous? Can it be the premise for a better approach? What do you think?

Fund New Zogby Poll

I received this letter as well and like what it says. At least the effort will continue and not just vanish.

I sent Ted an email asking NYC CAN to fund a new 9/11 Zogby Poll for New York with remaining money that would have been used for advertising the referendum. This would be money well spent. We would have fresh ammunition for dealing with Reps. and get a shot in the arm...... Over half of New Yorkers should support a new investigation--- if not MUCH more! (We want the NY poll since it will be higher than the national average). If you agree: tedwalter@nyccan.org

Lot of talk here about the movement moving backward.

Lot of talk here about the movement moving backward, and losing momentum. I see the opposite. We are moving forward at an accelerated rate. Thanks for the effort of those who organized and supported NYC CAN, but NYC CAN is not the gage for measuring the success of the 9-11 Truth Movement. People were warning about the potential dead end NYC CAN was up against from when the idea was first presented. As Janice Matthews told me long ago, this is a movement of the people. We can not depend on politicians or celebrities. We must reach out to our neighbors, coworkers, and everyone else we see in the streets. As we get closer to the tipping point, then the politicians and celebrities will climb aboard.

Maybe NYC CAN had to happen if only to reinforce the awareness that we can not look to use the compromised justice system and voting system to wake the people up. A lot of money and time went into NYC CAN. I would love to see the attorneys who put their time into that endeavor instead put their time into defending 9-11 Truth activists who have been fired from their job because of their activism and had their apartment raided and all their belongings taken from them by the Department of Homeland Security probably just because they are Muslim - Muslim Marine vet 9/11 activist Muhammed Abdullah http://m911t.blogspot.com/2009/10/muslim-marine-vet-truther-targeted-in.....

"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"

I disagree whole-heartedly. The 9-11 Truth movement has moved so much closer to our goal. I see a massive increase in awareness since 3.5 years ago. Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth membership has grown by over 400% in the past 2 years. More people are showing up to WeAreChangeLA street actions than ever before. We are lot less marginalized than we were 6 months ago, not to mention 3 years ago.

"What is missing is one carefully vetted, content-controlled web presence"

There is a danger in centralizing the 9-11 Truth movement. Let's keep it organic. That's what has been so very successful up to this point, that I don't see a need to alter course. Members of the 9-11 Truth movement have disagreements in other issues regarding what happened that day and who is responsible. Controlled Demolition at Ground Zero has been carefully vetted and proven, yet there are actually people in the 9-11 Truth movement who proclaim their unexplainable doubts about CD, including you Jon. By having a varied array of separate investigations going on at the same time, we can be much more effective and difficult to control (especially control of content). Some people in the 9-11 Truth movement label any investigation into Israel's involvement into 9-11 as anti-Semitic and racist, so what would happen to that wing of our investigation on a 'content-controlled web presence'?

Each member of the 9-11 Truth Movement will put their energy toward what they see is working and where their hearts tell them. I think any effort to pressure people to put all their support behind one publicity strategy or another will turn people away from this movement much more than attract people into it.

I feel so blessed to be a part of this movement, and I have met so many people who are incredibly beautiful on the inside. Thanks go out to all of you for all that you do. Keep it up. We are prevailing.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

A few points

- I agree with Bruno. The truth movement is growing and not going away.

- Re : Advertising. I had no time for it. Shilling capitalist crap etc. Had no time for it until I was running a small business,and had a superior venture/business/ product at a lower price - and no one knew about it. People HAVE to know.
I was at one of Richard Gage's early presentations because of local advertising on this city's most listened to radio station.
Is the Truth Movement doing advertising ? A full page ad in the New York Times, stating facts, signed by prominent people etc.. ?

As having some background in journalism I can't believe what has occurred to the so -called profession. Canada's RCMP to Mexico, Poland's government on the Canadian taser case - ie.- governments usually have an inquiry as to why their citizen's died overseas. Why not on 9/11 ?
And any hack reporter looking into a local's death at World Trade Center could write a feature bio of the deceased and then ask a few questions....

" She/he died in the World Trade Center on 9/11 - and no one's been charged with her/his murder.
I saw Richard Gage's presentation over a year ago.

http://www.ae911truth.org

He and over 900 engineers and architects are having a few problems with the official story.
Apparently free fall collapse speed through undamaged steel structure is impossible.
Let alone the free fall collapse speed of Building 7 - that wasn't even hit by an airplane.

What happened to Norad ? They are ready to take out Paine Stuart's plane in minutes, or chase a balloon - but can't defend Washington - an hour and a half or so after the first tower was struck ? WTF?
And no one was demoted or fired.

What about this 'nano thermite' found in the dust ? It's a high explosive.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000000...

What was it doing there ?

What about these 'Dancing Israelis' Celebrating with lighters in front of the smoldering ruins ?
Do you think some of these guys could be brought in for questioning ?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw

Or what happened to these guys from Urban Moving Systems ?

http://www.state.nj.us/lps/ca/press/storage.htm

They left quickly after 9/11 and didn't even give access to people's furniture ?

Where did Dominic Suter go ?"

My last comments on a Jon Gold blog were removed by either by Jon or by this site.
So. Wish me luck.
'Test"
'Test" One Two.

Comment removed?

What was the reason given?

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

You know what... never mind

I don't want to get caught up in a side conversation about deleted comments on 911blogger.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

Right

It was on the "New 9/11 Inquiry Squashed: Truth Quest Stopped By City Hall" thread

Comments by me, Jon, and Zombie Bill hicks ? were all removed. No reason.

I couldn't care less either .
Keep up the good work Bruno, Jeremy, Katie and everyone in LA.
You should all be in government !

Cheers

or I guess, more accurately your term 'with you in the struggle.'

They were probably removed because you attacked me.

Though I had nothing to do with their removal.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Yeah Right

All we want is the Truth Jon
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16943

If you want to call off the quest for truth because you consider it anti-semitic.
Good luck.
9/11 was an inside job - and I don't know why your posts are on the front page of this site.

The truth is...

That you blatantly attacked me in that thread, you keep posting the link to my personal psyop, and you accuse me of calling people "anti-semitic" for looking into Israel. What is perceived as "anti-semitic" is ONLY pointing to Israel's possible involvement in the attacks, and forgetting about our own Government's possible involvement, as well as others. What is "anti-semitic" is making up stories about "dual citizenship" which have been shown to be false over and over again, just to create a narrative that involves Israel. What is "anti-semitic" is accusing someone of being a sayanim or Zionist simply because they are Jewish even though they promote more about Israel than most people. The people that participate in these practices do not help this cause in my opinion.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Any Examples ?

I believe the only 'tip' I gave to you and Hicks on that thread was to look up the definition of 'rhetorical question.'
(I previously learned from this site you didn't understand 'gravity' and 'resistance' - so I figured my last '?' was a lost cause.)
All the rest of my comments were facts.
Having problems with facts Jon ?

Advertising: Full page Ads in Newspapers

I don't know how much money NYC CAN has left over or what our prospects might be for ad-specific fundraising, but I think we need to do this at this point. Not cheap, but worth the investment.

Washington Post. A full-run, full-page black and white ad in the Washington Post can cost about $100,000.

Los Angeles Times. A full-run, full-page black and white ad in the LA Times will run about $70,000.
http://www.gaebler.com/Newspaper-Advertising-Costs.htm

This would create quite a stir!

Assuming they would even accept an ad

Assuming they would even accept an ad. There's no law that says a paper must accept any ad and there's plenty of precedent for not accepting controversial ads. But yes raise the money and try. Maybe Charlie Sheen or Alex Jones could put up some cash for such an effort. Plus even getting turned down is news in itself. Good thought RL McGee.

They...

Would.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Newspapers are not all that popular.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

Newspaper ads: Lessons from Jimmy Walter

Maybe he was the wrong sponsor/spokesman, or maybe he was just ahead of his time, but Jimmy Walter didn’t get far with a PR blitz five years ago. It's a much different climate now. If he can be reached, he may be willing to fund another effort. Does anyone have any updates?

The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Walter :

Since January 2005, Walter has been living in self-imposed exile in Vienna, Austria, after being attacked and threatened due to his campaign.[1][2][5][9]
. . .
Reopen 9/11 campaign

Walter began a series of advertisements about the September 11, 2001 attacks in October 2004, which included full page ads in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, and 30 second cable television spots on CNN, Fox News, and ESPN. They implied that no plane flew in to The Pentagon, and that 7 World Trade Center was brought down by internal explosives. They called for a new investigation into what happened on September 11, and referred viewers to the website reopen911.org.[8][15] In conjunction with the campaign, Walter sponsored an October 2004 Zogby poll, which found that 66% of New York City residents wanted a fuller investigation of the events of September 11.[8][16] Walter said that he began the campaign when he did to influence the presidential election against George W. Bush.[17]

Walter's theory is that the hijacked planes were replaced by remote controlled drones that were crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon,[17] while the buildings were brought down by preset explosives,[4] to create a pretext for the war in Afghanistan and 2003 invasion of Iraq.[17] Walter still hasn't come up with a viable theory is to where the passengers of those planes went. At the web site, Walter offered a US$10,000 reward for a mathematical proof of how the World Trade Center buildings collapsed from the fire and impact, the way the 9/11 Commission said.[4][18] By 2005, the reward had grown to $1,000,000 for proof that explosives were not used in the collapse of the World Trade Center.[5]

On November 10, and November 11, 2004, Walter appeared on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360°, where he debated journalist Gerald Posner about the claims made by the campaign.[16][18] On May 9, 2005, Walter was featured on the "Conspiracy Theories" episode of Showtime cable television program Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.[19]

As of December 2004, Walter estimated the total cost of the campaign at more than $3 million;[4][15] by December 2005 it rose to $5.5 million.[1]

In May 2005, Walter financed European tours of speaking engagements for William Rodriguez and his lawyer in the Rodriguez v. Bush lawsuit, Philip Berg. [20] Rodriguez claims that he saved hundreds of people in the World Trade Center who were trapped behind locked fire escape doors.

In 2006, Walter traveled to Malaysia with Rodriguez, appearing at a conference with Michael Collins Piper. Rodriguez and Walter also traveled to Venezuela. [21]

Confronting the Evidence

Walter produced a video documentary called Confronting the Evidence in 2005 and distributed over 300,000 free copies on DVD,[1] including one to every household in Tony Blair's Sedgefield constituency.[22] Confronting the Evidence was broadcast on Italian Rai Tre television on September 24, 2006 at 9:00 p.m., during the Report program.[23]

###

Where are the Mad Men? We need a Don Draper.

Great! Fund the very entities covering up the truth about 9/11.

I cannot even express how bad an idea this is especially when you have multiple truely independent news outlets struggling to get ANY funding at all. I have started a news outlet, Abby has started one, many others are doing the same and believe me the 70K you are talking about handing over to our literal enemies would go one hell of a long way in the hands of people who are trying without ANY funding to compete with corporate media lies and propaganda. Big Media and the lies they tell: http://www.youtube.com/user/unspunnewz#p/a/u/2/DxL2RYEILSY

My channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/unspunnewz
Abby's channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/THEN3TWORK
A channel in the UK: http://www.youtube.com/user/ACriticalState
A great satire channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/fknnewz

There are dozens more and to be quite honest dumping money in the pockets of the media whores who ridicule us daily leaves a very bad taste in my mouth when we should be cancelling our subscriptions in an effort to starve them out.

For the record over a year ago when Sibel Edmonds offered to break her gag order to the first media outlet that would broadcast her story I offered to fly to her at my own expense with a professional camera crew and get her story on the record (Alex Jones and the WeAreChange network would have gotten it out there). Brad from Brad Blog passed along the offer and she ignored me because I am not (MSM) and elected to instead go to England (because none of the US MSM whores would cover her story) and give her exclusive interview to Rupert F"**ing Murdoch's outlet. This by the way was long after this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wei_hJdwkxY (my part about Sibel starts at 5:16 into the video).

So Sibel apparently preferred to not be heard at all in America rather then tell her story to an independent media source who went to bat for her against Henry Waxman. Why? She did it because, at the time, she was under the false impression that the MSM cares about truth and justice and the American way. The 9/11 truth movement to a large degree still suffers from this same delusion illustrated perfectly by your suggestion to pay them for ad space.

I am sorry if I am being rude here but if the 9/11 truth movement doesn't "get it" by now that the MSM is our mortal enemy (and apparently they don't) then they never will. By turning to the MSM you are feeding the forces who are united against us, with our limited resources, while at the same time starving the very people who would love nothing more then to tell the 9/11 truth story.

This is the problem with most of the "9/11 movement" and if I may be so bold it was the problem with the NYC CAN as well. We and they turn to the enemy as though they are the ones who will somehow "come around" and support us. Get this through your heads "9/11 movement" the US Government will do EVERYTHING in it's power to stop us, I mean EVERYTHING. Turning to them for help illustrates just how naive most of the "movement" really is. Turning to the MSM as though they are going to do a sudden about face and honestly tell our story is equally naive and borders on delusional.

If you want to be heard get behind the people who will tell your story and cut off support to the enemy. Cancel the news paper, cancel your DirecTV (owned by Murdoch), or better yet turn off your TVs permanently. Get in the fight for real, get up to speed on who the real enemy is, support the ones on your side for gods sake.

makes sense. . .

. . . to not rely heavily on mainstream media (is that what "msm" is?), and i agree it is unwise to expect them to come around. they are nothing but a p.r. firm for the powers that be. but...would you simply not bother trying to reach people who pay attention only to mainstream media? seems that would be a huge % of the american public we'd be writiing off. if you did want to reach them, how would you go about it if not thru thru mainstream media?

Of course we try and reach everyone.

Yes MSM is mainstream media.

I am not advocating turning our backs on anyone or ignoring those who only watch TV. What I am advocating is educating people not only about 9/11 but at the same time also educating them about how corrupt and distorted the MSM really is and how false their message is while highlighting the damage it does to them personally. The two go hand in hand and one supports the other. I find the Monsanto rBGH story to be very effective in exposing the MSM for what they really are.

I suggest we encourage people to turn on alternative media sources so they can get the truth about not only 9/11 but about all the issues that affect their lives. In that way we would be fighting a much more effective battle because on the one hand we are taking away support from our mortal enemy (MSM) thus weakening them while at the same time giving people an alternative that will help them understand the truth about 9/11, about war for profit, about banking scams, etc. thus turning them into effective activists themselves over time.

Believing...

That Controlled Demolition took place at the WTC is not a prerequisite for being a participant in this cause in my opinion. I'm curious though... you say "some people in the 9-11 Truth movement label any investigation into Israel's involvement into 9-11 as anti-Semitic and racist."

Who? Also, do you think this is a good movie?

Edit: You know what? Never mind Bruno... it's obvious that we do not like one another. You do your thing, and I'll do mine.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Who?

There is no need for me to put people on the spot at this point on labeling truthers as racist or anti-Semitic. I will do it as it happens. We are an intelligent bunch in this movement. I trust others will take note when it happens.

As far as Missing Links, the movie, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7877765982288566190, Is there anything inaccurate about the content of that movie in regards to who did what, when and where? I would like to know so that I can educate others. I've watched just some of it in parts and that was a long time ago. I will try to watch it all the way through soon. We do not make copies of it or pass it out in WACLA. The biggest issue I have with it without having watched the entire movie is that the narrator says to the best of my memory things like "and he is a Jew".

We need a way to point out Israel and Mossad connections without calling someone a "Jew". My Jewish friends do take offense to being grouped in with the criminals, and I can understand why. I do not like it when others talk about the 'evil White man', but I do face up to it. White men have done bad things to other ethnic groups. I take responsibility for that and keep that sensitivity in my daily life. Could it be that members of the Jewish community should do the same?

I think members of the Jewish community do need to take responsibility and speak out against Israel's (and Israel advocates and supporters in our government, banks, and media) participation in crimes or the cover up of crimes. It's difficult for Gentiles to speak out on that subject because there has been a successful effort to brand anybody who accuses Israel of wrong doing as anti-Semitic. It's quite disconcerting when members of the 9-11 Truth movement use that word. We need to be more sensitive when pointing out the problems we have with someone's approach or style without just generally labeling them anti-Semitic. Do you have a suggestion how to better describe the criminals who are in party with the Mossad? This message board, http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5367, does the same thing ( so-and-so "is a Jew"), but all the information is absolutely accurate as far as I know.

My 'thing' is to move the 9-11 Truth Movement forward, and I think maybe you and I see the direction 'forward' differently. Having those different views can be good for the movement, as long as we stick to the high ground in our treatment of each other and of everyone else, including not using debunker tactics against others. Controlled Demolition at Ground Zero is a fact, and I will speak up every time you or anybody else expresses 'doubts' on that subject.

Peace,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

P.S. More on the subject of documentation about Israel's involvement in 9-11 and other crimes. I have not read Chris Bollyn's ebook. I did read one chapter online when it was sent to my email, and I was not totally captivated by it. My question in regards to Bollyn is: does he give specifics about who did what and how they did it, and how he figured that out, or is his information presented in the form of generalities like an essay? More than one person suggested I read the book "Synagogue of Satan" which is apparently about the history of the Rothschilds and how infiltration of the nation's government and business infrastructure occurred since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913. If anybody else has read that book, then please enlighten us.

...

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17469


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Good article, summarizing the situation, charting the future.

Do I dare to say, well-managed, vetted, credible web presence?

That be http://AE911Truth.org , http://stj911.org, http://JournalOf911Studies.com, then sidebar links and facts collections of http://911Blogger.com and http://911Truth.org.
Other links may be http://Visibility911.com, and others off the lists .....

I think this is good enough.

collection at http://krunchd.com/911
:]
http://twitter.com/Demand911Truth

"While the petition had its flaws"

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

I would like to hear what the authors say the flaws in the petition were.

And I would also like to see the Clerk's full filing- it should be available from the Clerk's office, but NYCCAN could post it- they must have a copy. I couldn't find it online- if it's available, someone please post the text/link. The claim "it was secure enough to be implemented" is an opinion. Obviously, the judge did not agree, and raised some reasonable issues- but he also referred in a general way to the Clerk's arguments, which we have yet to see in full.

As i said in a previous thread, this decision could be appealed to the SCOTUS, but even better would be to create a petition initiative without the flawed language- that is not being proposed here. I'm not convinced this is "justice denied"; the authors of this post have admitted it has flaws

I'm emailing Kyle Hence and Ted Walter

For the record- again- this is what the judge said:

"The essence of what petitioners seek is to create by City law a private
investigative and prosecutorial body with broad subpoena power to look into all
aspects of the events leading up to and succeeding 9/11. Petitioners’ counsel
acknowledged that no private body with subpoena power has ever been created by City
law (tr. pp. 49, 70). Although paragraph 10 of the Petition states that the Commission
shall be a “law-enforcement agency,” with power to indict in courts “in the City of
New York or elsewhere,” and shall have “the same immunities, privileges and
prosecutorial discretion granted under law to elected prosecutors” (¶ 14), petitioners’
counsel acknowledged that the law enforcement language “is inappropriate” (tr. p. 75).

Upon review of the papers submitted, the court finds that the well researched
and reasoned report of the Referee should be confirmed as it correctly shows the legal
infirmities in the Petition. While petitioners’ counsel argues that the severability
provision of paragraph 20 of the Petition allows the court to strike any provisions
thereof that are unconstitutional or invalid, the extent of the impropriety of the
proposal, as correctly set forth by the Referee, would result in a substantial evisceration
of the Petition and, even if legally permissible, would be inappropriate as inconsistent
with the law sought by the signatories to the Petition."

http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/09.10.09LehnerOrder.pdf

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

The decision should be appealed

Clarification: The “Supreme Court” in New York is misnamed. It’s only a trial court; its decisions can be appealed to the intermediate Appellate Division, then to the Court of Appeals (the highest court in NY State). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Supreme_Court
Beyond that, the SCOTUS would have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from there (unless it involved an interstate dispute, treaty or Constitutional issue). 28 USC 1257 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00001257----000-.html

Loose Nuke, I don’t think amending the petition will do any good. It may wind up before Judge Lehner again next year and suffer the same fate. The travesty of his decision is not that it has no legal basis, but that it violates the fundamental spirit of the democratic process. This was not a petition to create a private 9/11 Commission; it was a petition to allow the people of New York City to vote on whether to create one. The commission itself could have been challenged (and modified) later, on other legal grounds. Instead, Judge Lehner decided arbitrarily to deny New Yorkers any chance to even consider the issue. He flatly refused the request to strike any troublesome provisions, saying it might lead to a “substantial evisceration of the Petition.” What hypocrisy. On the one hand he denies the will of 80,000 citizens, and on the other he’s worried about weakening their petition.

As an outside observer, I think an appeal is worth the effort, even if it’s a lost cause for this November. It will certainly generate the publicity called for by the authors of this article. As corrupt as the court system of New York may be, it’s only by holding their feet to the fire, by continuing to press for truth and justice through the system, that the corruption will be exposed.

Giving up now is not the answer.

The appeal

"The travesty of his decision is not that it has no legal basis, but that it violates the fundamental spirit of the democratic process. This was not a petition to create a private 9/11 Commission; it was a petition to allow the people of New York City to vote on whether to create one."

This sounds like a very strong position. What authority does the judge or anyone else have to decide whether or not this goes before the people for a vote? The petition had the required number of signatures, so doesn't that decide it right there?

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

Agreed

From the introduction to the Petition: I do hereby sign this Petition, as set forth below and on the two additional pages, to enable the contents of this Petition (or an approved summary) to be submitted to the electors of New York City at a general election.

As I read it, what 80,000 citizens of New York City demanded was that the question of creating a 9/11 commission be placed on the ballot in the upcoming general election, so that the entire electorate could vote on the issue. The question before Judge Lehner was not whether the commission was valid (which could be challenged and decided later), but whether the petition was valid. There’s a big difference.

Lehner’s decision was premature. At the very least, he should have allowed the petition to be amended so that it could go before the voters. Whatever legal basis he gives, the practical effect of his ruling is to deny the fundamental right of the citizens of New York City to petition their government. This is a violation of the NY State constitution (Art. I, Sec. 9) and sets a terrible precedent.

That’s why I’m (humbly) pushing for an appeal. I’d be very surprised if he’s not overturned, even if has to go up to the Court of Appeals -- which is likely.

And again, the publicity generated can only be good for the movement.

A belated PS... for what it's worth

No comment.

Source: http://www.nysun.com/new-york/lehner-known-for-pooper-scooper-law/79867/

Lehner: Known For 'Pooper-Scooper Law'
By Special to the Sun | June 12, 2008

Judge Lehner

A state Supreme Court Judge, Edward Lehner, who will retire in 2009 due to age limits, is making headlines this week for ordering Albany to raise state judges' wages. But until now, he has been best-known for a law he co-wrote as a young state assemblyman 30 years ago, which changed New York City's streets.

The law is popularly known as the "pooper-scooper law," requiring citizens to clean up after their dogs. Shortly after that success, he went on the bench in 1980 as a civil court judge and was elevated to the state Supreme Court in 1987.

Judge Lehner's more recent cases include Donald Trump's failed suit for control of the Empire State Building in 1999. The judge also allowed construction of a New York University dorm in 2006 against the wishes of nearby residents. A year later, he issued an important ruling that reduced the number of co-op shareholders who were exempted from typical rules such as sublet fees. And in January, he sided with pedicab owners in a dispute with the city over who should be allowed to apply for pedicab licenses.

According to the legal Web publication Judicial Reports, Judge Lehner's decisions have been appealed over 300 times in the last seven years, making him one of New York's most appealed judges. He was reversed only a third of the time, however, a relatively low rate.

NY Appellate Screwy

The NY Post and other newspapers have written about the various strange decisions in the NY Supreme Court and Appellate Court. There's no reason to trust the Appellate as being a further remedy to Judge Lerner. It would just eat up time and money. NY CAN is right - on to more public exposure.

When ever there's a community meeting with questions and answers in your town or neighborhood, that's the time to bring up 9/11 truth.

Election Fraud is real

How many of us (or anybody else) knows how votes are counted? What is the process? Isn't it true that every vote is counted by computer, no matter how the vote is cast?

Even if an appeal is successful in a compromised justice system, and the vote is put before the people on whether or not to have an independent investigation, and the majority of the people vote YES, then what would guarantee the results would be counted fairly? And if the results come back as a defeat to the referendum, then what kind of blow would that be to the morale of the 9-11 Truth movement?

That's a lot of hurdles to overcome with little confidence the results would be counted in our favor.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

Appeal

I think it was a bit precipitious, and a shock to many, that an appeal will not be pursued, or that there won't be another attempt with a revised petition. Who made these decisions? It seems that not all the important players were consulted. It was like, "Boom!"

The judge was not the problem, the petitions flaws were

Remember, the judge expressed surprise that the city had never investigated, and even appeared to support the idea that it should be investigated. Here's the original coverage:

When asked by the Judge whether or not there has been an investigation into 9/11 by New York City authorities, Steve Kitzinger, the City’s lawyer, replied, “It’s irrelevant”, to which the packed courtroom was loudly disdainful, some openly laughing in disbelief. At which point Mr. Kitzinger prevailed upon Judge Lehner to quiet the crowd, which the Judge did. With order restored, the Judge again asked Kitzinger if the City had done anything to investigate 9/11. Kitzinger flatly responded, “No.” “The City never did anything?” retorted the Judge in disbelief. Nothing, Kitzinger admitted.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21515

It's tempting to assume that the judge wanted to quash justice and so "killed" the case, but we have no actual evidence for that. In fact, the judge mentions nothing at all about 9/11 evidence one way or another in his decision.

The city obviously did not want the case to happen, but they were able to stop the initiative on the procedural flaws in which the initiative would have required changes to the city or state Charter, or both. If you have ever been involved in attempting to pass an initiative or a proposition which required changes to a city Charter, you have some idea of how extraordinary of a requirement that can be. Charters are put in place for a reason and often to protect the public and the city's interests. For example, a city Charter may limit development in certain areas to maintain the quality of life for the residents, or make requirements of elected officials to keep them accountable.

While we know there are many people who would not an investigation of the attacks to take place, many postings and articles are mistakenly assuming that the judge intentionally blocked the case because of a political motive. We just don't have evidence for that.

I recommend that people read the actual documents in the case. Here is an excerpt of one of the documents:

The State Constitution provides that all officers of local government whose election or appointment 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”. Thus, the 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 the seven commissioners without any reference that their selection was by an officer of local government. The unilateral designation of commissioners by specific name (Petition, 11 3) appears to be inconsistent with the State Constitution and not valid.
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/SQLData.jsp?IndexNo=110779-2009

Would we really want the State of NY to stop requiring that public officials be elected or appointed by elected officials? Or should the State start making exceptions to it's laws on a case by case basis?

The Way Forward

Nothing in the 9/11 truth movement has given me more hope than the NYCCAN incentive, but I am not entirely convinced by this conclusion.

I think this is the time (and maybe this is the place) to have this discussion of where to go next, so I would like to hear as much input on this thread as possible.

I tend to agree with Bruno in that through diversity there is the greatest chance of widespread creativity and the greatest chance of change.
Evolution and human culture never put all its eggs in one basket , and when it did it invariably failed (World Banking System?).

It is equally valid to suggest that 911 truth will never pass the tipping point. For example how many Americans know what happened, but realise that their only asset is the military, and without imperialism & superiority they will rapidly become 3rd world?

I always believed that 911 truth was the key to overthrowing the oligarchy because it is so easily demonstrated, - Its not that difficult , my 13 year old daughter "gets it " (Amazingly) from a critical thinking group within school time!. The bigger problem is the manufacture of consent in Pseudo Democracies.

Maybe the greater motivation now is recession and repulsion at banking cynicism, and a political movement that embraces real change in government through a number of questions including 911 is a better strategy, a 3rd way, maybe the Greens ? Is there any way the movement can become part of a viable alternative political force?

If not, then possibly consider massive passive resistance? It worked for Gandhi ?

I will give this discussion considerable thought and post my considered response to it and the comments later.

One final suggestion, Symbols (Without words) can cut through culture, (Think CND Symbol) If the design is good it would be trendy on t-shirts lapel badges etc, and would demonstrate widespread support , and be instantly recognizable worldwide without getting in your Face!, and without everyone conforming to singing from the same hymn sheet.

It's a bad man's world..................

That's the lesson we need to face. It wasn't that the petition was flawed, It is the system that's flawed. At the end of the day it's not that Americans don't know the truth, they do, they might not know the details, but deep down they know or feel nothing can be done about our corrupt system. Sorry, but let's face the fact that too many people who have been exposed to 911 truth directly or indirectly are afraid to talk about or look at it. Plenty of people in high enough places in many areas of power, intellect, and influence refuse to look at the truth because deep down they know the fix is in! Come on folks from the grassy knoll to the church committee to the gulf of tonkin to watergate, Iran contra, BCCI, the S&L crisis, the latest bail outs and I'm just getting warmed up. The point I am trying to make is that like the failed peace movement we continue to underestimate the enemy. This is a war and we refuse to face the scope and organization of the enemy. Do you really think that many of our politicians, intelligence agents, military leaders, stupid talk show hosts, don't know the truth? Of course they do and feel a bigger picture must be at stake or is at stake etc and they refuse to rock the boat. I was talking about 911 in a car rental agency not long ago when some jerk starts trying to shut me up, I ask him about WTC 7, he says it fell down from collateral damage from the twin towers etc. I point out that based upon the time and nature of the collapse that's impossible. This jerk knows the truth... what he says next is "Then why don't you leave the country if you don't like it" Yeah right I don't deserve to be an American and he does. The truth is there is no place to go! So where's the good news? The Good news is 80,000 people in NYC did sign a petition! So go get 80,000 more. Why not? Because the same corrupt judge might not let it fly? So what did you really expect..this is war. Do we need a better strategy? Yeah you bet. Try reading Waging Peace the art of war for the antiwar movement by Scott Ritter. Then you can see how the game is really played. Yes more people are waking up and learning more about the fake history of this country and the world etc. We need to think how the world can really change one thought at a time, one person at a time until yes it does change. So maybe we can organize better! Groups like We Are Change can expand with real leaders and strategies. A&E can get bigger and obtain more and more publicity. Let's advertise in every secondary newspaper in the country. Let's go to the owners and editors and beg them to do the right thing....not for the money.... Let's all make the commitment to talk to ten people a day. When enough people are thinking about 911 and the fake history they keep shoving down our throat then a fire may start somewhere and really spread and rally the people to force the change and justice we all deserve. Then the undisclosed troops may feel they have a chance and perhaps nothing to lose. The truth is we are being killed anyway.

sorry about that

I got a phone call and didn't realize I had already hit the tab, moderator please delete the second posting....thanks

Breaking News

Saturday Oct. 17, 2009 10:18 EDT

British High Court rejects U.S./British cover-up of torture evidence

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Maybe we need to (also) try the foreign angle...

Regardless of the movement, the "rubber hits the road" in ...

Regardless of the movement, the "rubber hits the road" in electoral politics. If you can't replace elected officials, you can't replace bad judges with better people, and you can't replace bad people at the head of the DOJ, FBI, and CIA with better people.

IMO, the best thing that could happen to the 911 Truth Movement is to bifurcate into 2 separate Movements. We are dealing with systemic corruption, and it's about as easy to get a serious 911 Truth re-investigation as it is to get the US to dismantle it's empire (well, most of it), stop funding murderous covert actions, get the Justice Department to seriously look into Sibel Edmond's testimony, get the Justice Department to seriously investigate war crimes by the Bush Administration, or get the Justice Department to seriously consider at what point does not investigating the Bush gang for war crimes means that the Obama Administration is now guilty as an 'accomplice after the fact'.

I don't want write a long essay, but I'll just note that

1) I spelled out some details here, recently, and that the essence of the 2 new movements/organizations I call for are:
a) one is involved in electoral politics, with an 'inside game' that looks to get honest people elected to office, but is silent on "high strangeness" issues like 911. People in this group will look to take over the Democratic and Republican party from below, or work with 3rd parties.
b) the other one is similar to what we have now, but looks to broaden the public's awareness of other "high strangeness" issues/actions by the US government - e.g., it's role in Operation Gladio. So, it not only embraces 911, but embraces other 'high strangeness' events. In time, the 'strangeness' will wear off. If you go this route, you can pretty well kiss goodbye the opportunity to run for office successfully as a Democrat or Republican in the near future.

2) 911 Truthers have struck me as strongly in denial as to what they are up against, and how little political muscle they have. Nobody should get overly discouraged that they haven't had much more effect than other worthy political movements, but nobody should deceive themselves that avoiding the issue of getting better people elected to office is something that can be ignored.

3) I attended a "Left Forum" this week in NYC, and one of the panelists was Tom Hayden, who's got a very good head on his shoulders. The other two panelists were, oh, let's call them 'less enthusiastic' about electoral politics as a means to change. They were roughly analogous to the 911 Truthers that think that just raising the public consciousness about 911 will eventually bring about (to borrow an abused phrase from you-know-who) "change we can believe in".

However, Tom Hayden corrected the other two panelists, by pointing out that the leftist movements that have swept South America work closely with many political parties, and actively work to defeat others. In other words, they engage in electoral politics - and to good effect.

So, I would caution against a Deepak Chopra, Age of Aquarius type of exclusive faith in "conciousness raising". That is not so much to be disparaged, as much as the limitations have to be understood. How any individual chooses to spend their time is a matter of their own predilections and choice, but if everybody goes the consciousness-raising route, then the same type of crooks and creeps that we've been getting stuck with will keep their levers of power. Not good.

Finally, a couple more links having to do with politics as it really is: here and here.

http://www.DemocracyABC.org
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org

The Republicrats are hopelessly co-opted

The political system is rigged and there is little or no possibility of getting pro-9/11Truth candidates elected. Even if you could get a few such people elected they would be shouted down or ignored.

The only viable option is to stay the course and keep 9/11 in front of as many people as possible. We are making progress by spreading the truth. David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage and Steven Jones speak to hundreds but thousands hear or read about it. AE911Truth has gotten air time on PBS, Russia Today, a local FOX station in Fresno and on local and national radio stations. Articles are starting to appear in local newspapers and periodicals. When they do, the response in slightly to overwhelmingly pro-911truth. The tide has turned. The reaction on the street has changed thanks to the patriots who relentlessly take it to the streets. WAC is expanding and learning how to be more effective. The 23 suggestions for organizing effectively, posted by WACLA, come from lessons learned the hard way.

This battle must be be won in the court of public opinion before we have any chance of getting it into a court of law.

You misunderstood - the USA not ready for 911 Truth Candidate

And no, they the mainline parties are not "hopelessly" coopted. In fact, if you look at the math, getting rid of incumbents during primaries should be particularly easy if the electorate would get organized to do so.. What's harder is finding suitable candidates who will buck party insiders who can still get enough funding to win a general election. You've been brain-washed - and I say that quite aware that Congressional elections have gotten more and more uncompetitive, due to gerrymandering and the increasing effectiveness of having superior campaign ca$h. So: "coopted" - yes, absolutely. "hopelessly coopted" - no, absolutely not.

The electoral politics branch that I call for keeps silent about 911 Truth, the JFK assassination, the RFK assassination, etc., etc., until such time as candidates can speak openly about these subjects and still win (for whatever reason that this unfortunate situation pertains). Now, if a particular candidate of such persuasion gets elected, and then loses re-election, and doesn't care to run again, then in the few weeks they have to complete their term, they can come out of the closet and speak their minds, freely. (In fact, I'd prefer it, for such members of Congress who are either Democrats or Republicans.). This branch would have an anti-corruption emphasis, but must avoid anti-corruption statements and positions that are "high strangeness" (with the exception noted in the prior sentence.). So, this branch is vocal about non-strange corruption issues (such as money in politics), but silent about high-strangeness issues. This branch would also teach about the more hidden corrupting action of Democrat and Republican insiders, as eloquently discussed by John Emerson on OpenLeft.com.

The "consciousness-raising" branch would keep silent about supporting specific candidates and parties, although it can (and should, I believe) point people to trans-partisan and multi-partisan efforts that promise to help the electorate get more ethical people elected into office. This is the branch that can talk about David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage and Steven Jones. Of course, privately, members of this branch can vote for or even help elect candidates pushed by the other branch. But people active in this branch cannot take high-profile positions in activities of the other branch. And, except for a rare district here or there, can forget about running for office as members of the Democratic or Republican parties, in the near-term future. The country isn't ready for 911 truth candidates, any more than it's ready for candidates who want full, public investigations of UFO's. (Yeah, Jimmy Carter got elected in spite of being amenable to UFO disclosure, but look what they did to Dennis Kucinich wrt UFO's.)

The branches will have no formal connection, although private, back-channel connections are OK, between individuals who so chose.

http://www.DemocracyABC.org
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org

Then what do they stand for?

Chris, I accept that the republicats are a lost cause. Despite Obama's- 56% approval rating? But is there now at this unique moment in time enough people who realize state corruption, 911 truth , pseudo democracy, anti corporate healthcare reform, who could form a third party funded by the people who really want change rather than to vote red or blue once every 4 years to elect someone else to make all their decisions for them ignoring their interests.

Even if a 3rd part is moderately successful, the issues get a platform and force the major parties to give way to negate the gulf between them and true opposition.

Metamars, Your ideas are interesting but what do your candidates run on if they cant say anything against the grain.? I dont get the logic of excluding 911 on the grounds of High strangeness, when a huge proportion of the population distrust government because of the high strangeness of their 911 explanation & economic policy. I reiterate that the proof of 911 truth is not that intellectually challenging, the problem is apathy, superiority complexes (American Patriotism and faith/conformity above all), and Media control. All the candidates need to highlight is the inadequacies of official explanation and call for an investigation.

They can talk about anything except a few taboo topics

Healthcare, banksterism, global warming, a green economy, fair trade, etc., etc., etc.

The taboo subjects are "high strangeness" subjects - 911, JFK assassination, RFK assassination, UFO's. According to the "authorities" and schoolbooks, those are delusions. Hence, they are "strange".

http://www.DemocracyABC.org
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org

Obama

Then what is the difference to Obama's campaign?
This is a 3rd way we are talking about,? The old system of pretending that everybody is saying the same thing, (but you would rather have a drink with one bloke than another) just wont work and will only split votes. The only alternative is honesty , not treating the voter like an idiot, real issues, real facts.

No one is talking about JFK or Moon landings on the ticket, but a 911 "investigation" is surely a vote winner/ difference
along with other concerns?(Accepted don't talk about no planes or energy weapons etc)

I like the fact that you are a realist, and will follow your links when I have more time, but to wait until some new democrat loses his seat then decides to speak out is rather unambitious.

This question is somewhat puzzling

I'll take a guess that you believe that 911 is some sort of Rosetta stone to overcoming governmental corruption and self-aggrandizing (where the 'self' is not an individual, but a group of elites) wars of choice. Against this magical thinking, please observe that there is currently essentially zero support for a re-investigation of 911, in Congress. Zero. And let's not forget that, as far as we can tell, the Bush gang will not even be subject to a Truth and Reconciliation process, which would allow them to get off scott free, in exchange for being honest. Since they can get off scott free, continue making their $100,000 speeches, and not even suffer embarrassment, do not expect any confessions about any substantive crimes which are well short of "high strangeness".

I submit to you that a Rosetta stone which is 8 years old, in this internet and youtube age, isn't really a Rosetta stone.... Not with the present level of systemic corruption in the government, it isn't. Perhaps you are thinking of the schoolbook version of the US government that you were taught in high school??

In point of fact, even avoiding "high strangeness" taboo subjects, one could run a populist (in the sense of majoritarian) campaign, dedicated to any number of popular positions, e.g.: committed to a steep reduction in the size of the American empire, fair trade policies, an aggressive move to a green economy, affordable, quality healthcare for all (and 'free' for at least the poor), campaign finance reform, affordable or free college education (along northern European lines), the closing of regulatory/industry revolving doors, etc.

Until the numbers of ethical members of of Congress reach the level that they can control some committee chairmanships, even an ethical block of Congress critters which avoids "high strangeness" issues are going to be limited in their effectiveness. In fact, until the size of such a block at least reaches numbers sufficient to sabotage the bills of their less ethical congress critters, the effect of an "ethical block" will be minor, indeed. Rather than argue this point, further, if you're really interested you can read the diaries and comments on the "progressive bloc" (also spelled "progressive block") at OpenLeft.com*, which is probably the best political blog I've ever encountered. The front pagers are much more knowledgeable about politics than I will ever be, so you'd best learn at the feet of masters, anyway.

Only when ethical Congress critters grow in numbers even beyond such minimums will we get comprehensive reforms across government. (Another alternative scenario is that economic collapse might lead to a major re-alignment and election of reform-minded candidates, ala the Great Depression. I certainly don't want to count on that scenario - for one thing, there's no guarantee that it will work out like it did in the 30's in the US, and not like a similar scenario did in the 30's in Germany!).

There's no tested formula for when it would become politically feasible to talk openly about 911 and other high-strangeness events, but my best guess is not before the "ethical bloc" has forced enough reform in the US government such that
a) the effects (ito reforms) are significant and
b) the effects (ito reforms) are known to be significant by the American public, such that no amount of plutocratic propaganda can bury the common knowledge of their success, or reverse the block's momentum in growing numbers and influence.

* you can do google searches:
site:openleft.com "progressive bloc"
and
site:openleft.com "progressive block"

http://www.DemocracyABC.org
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org

Somewhat Puzzling?

Metamars,

In spite of your patronising and condescending comments to people taking part in this discussion, I will try and engage you one more time to see if you have anything useful to contribute on this topic other that repeating your mantra of 'no high strangeness in politics’ and restating your unsubstantiated opinion that that 911 is a taboo politically.

The fact that there is no support for 911 investigation within US politics is exactly the reason why we were talking about a third party. I agree with "Brainwashed?" Chris that the two party system is hopelessly co opted, and your observations on the current system only reinforce that view.

Your master plan for change is a non starter faced with the current system as you describe it and media control of public opinion within pseudo democracy.

Your faith in power by representation is quaint but along with your patronising comments and superior attitude problem it also betrays your lack of faith in a truer democracy and openness in government.

You want new candidates for the two parties who are more trustworthy? How do we know they are? It is a lot easier to control a representative than it is to control public opinion.

All the people who engaged in politics for the first time to vote for Obama, who realise now that it was pointless and they effected no change by their contributions.
How do you persuade them now to vote for some new red or blue with their platform being in your words "Healthcare, banksterism, global warming, a green economy, fair trade, etc., etc., etc". when they already did that last time and got nothing.

Though this question may be "somewhat puzzling" to you, you have not answered it yet.

Your plan will have no immediate effect and America will either be 3rd world or will have unleashed nuclear war before anything changes.

If polls are to be believed and a third of Americans are unhappy with the official explanation of 911, what grounds to you have to negate that public interest and claim the subject is taboo politically.
My comments here were about how to tap into that distrust and use it as a political force.

Elsewhere, your contributions to Jref, Randhi Rhodes etc seem to have an agenda to disprove Controlled demolition evidence. That may make you think that the subject is of high strangeness and lead you to lump it with UFOs JFK etc ,but people who contribute here obviously disagree with you. Why then chose to air your opinionation here ? If you went to a scrabble convention then why try to persuade everyone to play tiddly winks instead? Why not go to a tiddly winks convention in the first place (or your Block Progressives site) and air your views there instead?

FYI, I was not educated in an American high school, and I do not consider 911 to be a Rosetta Stone. In fact I think of it more as an Elgin Marble.
Please discuss. (or NOT! Irrelevant!)

Either keep up your distraction, dissemination and superior intellectual mockery and be ignored (at least by me), or say something useful.

You're entitled to your opinion reform of D/R parties - hopeless

However, if you read the recent (fascinating) diaries at OpenLeft by John Emerson, you can see that he doesn't think much about the Democratic Party as whole, much less the behind-the-scene "pros" who care more about their jobs and power than they do about the country, or even the Democratic Party, as a whole. Furthermore, you can see that he has extensive knowledge about 3rd party history in the US. He also writes lucidly.

He doesn't share your "hopeless" opinion, and you present nothing substantial to convince me otherwise. Your argument about voters who voted for Obama is particularly lame. Gee whiz, broken promises by a DLC-approved candidate, whose shown us on a number of occassions his ability to not just lie, but lie convincingly - and you actually think this somehow proves the point that actually reforming the Democratic Party (or Republican Party) is "hopeless"?

FWIW, I'm quite agnostic about how change, in the end, actually occurs - whether by 3rd parties becoming predominant, 3rd parties getting absorbed into mainstream parties, along with a good chunk of their agenda (historically more likely), or through reform of existing parties. However, the mechanism that will make all of those much more plausible, while on the horizon, does not exist yet. Thus, it is not surprising that, e.g., OpenLeft smarties like John Emerson and Paul Rosenberg argue from historical bases, alone - and thus against 3rd parties. The "3rd party vs. reform of existing (Democrat, in the case of the OpenLeft lefties) party" argument is a recurring one at openLeft, and can get quite bitter. However, the more knowledgeable ones seem to usually come down on the side of reform.

In fact, I also favor 3rd party growth for strategic reason. Viz., to force the Dem and Repub insiders to stop obstructing reform, or else the reform-starved voters can go elsewhere. I've not the slightest doubt that they will attempt obstruction. To force them to release their grip, before you can actually dislodge them, you have to threaten them with a viable option. And a viable 3rd party candidate is better than something they don't fear as much, which is you staying home and not voting at all.

Having said that, the question of the wisdom of having 911 Truth as a central plank in any 3rd party run for federal office (in the near future) is another matter. The US is a big place, and there might be a few districts where the net/net of having such a plank makes political sense. Meaning: there might be a few districts where 3rd party candidates having a 911 Truth plank might be helped more than they are hurt. I find this hard to believe, because many people who aren't sympathetic to a 911 Truth position are violently so. Furthermore, the opposing candidates, as well as that loyal friend of American democracy - the main stream media - can be counted on to smear and/or marginalize the 911 Truth espousing candidates.

However, I don't have hard numbers for this view, in the form of statistically significant polling. I doubt such polls even exist. If you know of any such polls, don't be shy - produce them now. I mean polls that ask "If you seriously considered voting for a 3rd party candidate for Representative/Senator/President, would you be more or less inclined to do so for a candidate that insisted on re-investigating 911?"

In short, your opinion seems emotionally based, historically ignorant and invalid, and shallowly reasoned.

I believe I have a more rational basis than you do for belief in at least the partial success of 3rd parties in the not-too-distant future, but that has nothing to do with emotion-laden judgements about what is "hopeless", and what is not. It has to do with technology which doesn't exist, yet, hence I don't want to spend much time expounding it's supposed virtues. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating".

In contrast, reasonable strategies for reform of the Democratic party are being discussed, debated, and yes, pursued, already. Not nearly aggressively enough, to suit my taste, but this is a reality, here today.* (Aside from the Ron Paulista types, I'm not aware of a similar effort within the Republican Party, unfortunately.)

* E.g., they should be calling Obama on his backstabbing, uber lie of a deal with Tauzin/Big Pharma, but they are not. OTOH, they are showing a little edginess, so I give them modest credit where it is due.

http://www.DemocracyABC.org
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org

New third party at a local level may be a good idea

Starting a new third party which openly embraces 911 Truth, for local elections, might be worth trying. Especially in NY, where such a party would be empowered by the fact that they allow fusion voting. (And, of course, is the home of the Manhattan attacks.) If you grow such a party to a big enough size, it might be able to strike a deal (before it grows to a size where it can run it's own candidates) that at least one of the candidates it endorses for a NYC public office must openly support a 911 re-investigation.

Thus, you'd have some 'mindspace payback' early in the process, well before you have the electoral muscle to force a 911 re-investigation.

I never follow politics at the local level (in fact, I don't follow it at the state level, either). Even so, I find it hard to believe that there's much of an essential, party-based difference at the local level. Thus, concerns about vote-splitting, by traditional D and R voters, are automatically lessened.

Perhaps another viable strategy is to try to grow such a 3rd party to a size that the Working Families Party becomes highly interested in merging with it. The 'price' of the merger is to openly embrace a 911 reinvestigation plank.

http://www.DemocracyABC.org
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org

Who said that they "couldn't say anything against the grain"?

To be clear, "against the grain" is ambiguous. E.g., Obama has kept proponents of single payer out of healthcare discussions - even his own ex-doctor!! Thus, the bought and paid for Washington elites consider "single payer" to be "against the grain". However, it's certainly not "against the grain" of the majority of American people.

I've already stated my definition of "high strangeness", and I'm not going to repeat it. It doesn't just mean "against the grain" - that is too general. You could say that, in terms of American politicians and the main stream media, "high strangeness" is "against the grain" because it is "loony", but you didn't say that. (Of course, I mean "loony" from their perspective, not ours.)

http://www.DemocracyABC.org
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org

Your points are valid, however:

The Lie about 911 is so in your face..............an insult to the intelligence of people not only in this country but around the world and it transcends the concept of "High Strangeness" and demands immediate discussion on all levels. Sorry but we have to draw the line somewhere and while I agree that many Americans and their representatives are having a hard time getting their minds around a false flag operation called 911 it's imperative for any real change to take place. Time is not on our side and in my opinion the process you describe would most likely take long enough for 911 to be as relevant as the grassy knoll is today.

Bush Admin's torture legacy was "in our face", w/no consequences

Because it was "in our face", I wouldn't call it "high strangeness", even though I doubt American schoolboy history books will be mentioning this.

So why not "draw the line" on torture? Answer: You can't. You depend on on the Department of Justice to do like it's name says, but surely you realize by now that the Bush Admin is sure to get off, scott-free. So, your good intentions are as wasted as your logic is erroneous.

In our representative democracy, once we invest power in our elected officials every 2 or 4 years, there's only so much you can do to force them to do their jobs. You can't, e.g., impeach a sitting Senator or Representative. Also, you and I cannot impeach a President, though the House of Representatives can. (And how did that work out while George Bush was President?) Basically, you have the right to complain via protests, emails, phone calls, faxes, and ad campaigns.

In case you haven't noticed, you and I don't get to vote or impeach Supreme Court or Federal court judges, either. So, while you theoretically have recourse against the Federal government via bringing suit, that's been a total fail wrt 911. Not surprising, since it's the elected representatives who are the ones who ultimately handle court appointments. Oh, and if something does go to trial, and an FBI which is headed by the equivalent of a J. Edgar Hoover, what confidence can you have in the veracity of their evidence?

I'm sympathetic to the idea of 3rd parties, since that represents an attempt - however historically limited - of striking at the root of the problem (which is bad, unworthy people in positions of power). To call reforming the Democratic or Republican parties "hopeless", though, is irrational. The "reasoning" behind this POV is basically disgust with the D's and R's - not "reasoning" at all. I'd respect people who espouse this point of view if they dealt with the inevitable issues of vote splitting, head on, as well as all the finagling that D's and R's have done to put 3rd parties at a disadvantage. (And as if that's not enough, look at how many lawsuits were brought against Ralph Nader in 2008 by Democratic partisans. The D's and R's have not only worked to make ballot access difficult, their perfectly willing to play dirty even if you do get on the ballot, and have a serious chance of threatening their grip on power.)

If anybody seriously believes that making 911 a part of an electoral strategy, in our current state of systemic corruption, is wise, then they should fund polls which clearly show that to be the case - before they split off votes from either 3rd party candidates, or from bona fide reform candidates of the D and R variety.

http://www.DemocracyABC.org
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org

The whole system is co-opted

Congress has an 11% approval rating but 93% get re-elected. "They" have an unlimited budget and "they" have made getting elected so expensive that we no longer have a real voice.

"getting rid of incumbents during primaries should be particularly easy if the electorate would get organized to do so."

The support just isn't there. There may be a congressional district here and there where it might be able to organize and rally but we will be out spent and shouted down in the media. Look what happened to Cynthia McKinney and Max Cleland. We will have no more luck with the electoral system than we had with the legal system.

However

If NYC CAN were to get someone to run against Bloomberg on a platform of supporting the 80,000 New Yorkers who called for a new investigation, we would have no chance of winning but like the ballot initiative, we could awaken a lot more people, generate a lot of media coverage, and that's what it's all about.

The success of the ballot initiative was inspiring a lot of people to take action. This energy and organization, with the continued financial support of the Truth Movement, could be used to field a candidate for Mayor of NY. The victory is in making the message an accepted part of the public discourse. The odds of winning are zilch so the candidate would not encumbered by having to be PC.

This info-war will be fought and won on the street and in presentations by DRG, RG, SJ, Dylan Avery and others. It will be won by increasing local media acceptance and coverage.

I agree

Without campaign finance reform..........or a third party.........no lasting change can take place....sure there are some breakouts like Mckinney and Ventura but it's only temporary until the machine chews them up. Let's face it as long as you need money money money to get elected and when elected you need more money to get elected how can we expect things to be better for the little guy. Even when we have had a chance in the past with people like Ross Perot the corporate media does it's job. Dennis Kucinich has been in the last two primaries but can't get a fair chance. He's been the smartest and most honest guy on the platform twice and the press limits his exposure, and his own party holds him down. While he may not reflect what everyone on this blog wants.........the country would have had real change if he had been given the chance. And that's the rub because the democrats and republicans don't want real change they like the game just the way it stands.

I like the idea of supporting a candidate who supports NYC CAN why not? The powers that be want NYC CAN to roll up the tent and go away. Don't do it! Don't give up! That would be a waste. You have come this far and the by products of the campaign alone must be worth the effort. You have net worked and organized and fund raised so keep on keeping on. Form a protest outside Amy Goodman's office until she covers the story. Get a concert going for more fund raising. Continue to network with other organizations. Contact your 80,000 signers and ask for more ideas and possible expansion of names. If everyone who signed the petition knows just one more person who will sign and that person knows just one more person real power can start to form.

I just noticed that

Christine O'Neill was on the signatures list.

http://nyccan.org/signatories.php

Wow!

NYC CAN: The Turning Point

The writer is correct we need to use the science of PR to present our message. A mentor once told me, "It is not so important what you say, it is how you say it." So the question is, how can we get thousands of 9/11 Truthers to say it in the most effective way?
Alfons v911t

KISS

You have to rattle their cage in the first 10 seconds. [in plain and simple terms]

Controlled demolition is the only way to make World Trade Center 7 fall at free fall acceleration for over 100 feet.

This is even more effective if they have to ask "What is WTC 7?". Many people shocked to find out there were 3 buildings that collapsed were destroyed on 9/11.

The 100 foot free fall acceleration of WTC 7 is scientific fact, first established by an independent investigator and confirmed by NIST in their final report on the collapse destruction of WTC 7.

All the other "evidence" has been discussed and debated for years. There are stock rebuttals which are plausible enough to keep most OCTers in doubt and denial. The law of gravity is not in doubt. There is no counter argument.

Try your favorite "evidence" and the above on a few OCTers. See which works best.

Well...

Here are some pointers for people.

Stick to basics. The investigations we got were a sham. The "Post-9/11 World" is a detriment to humanity. The families who fought for the creation of the 9/11 Commission, who supplied 100's of well researched questions for the 9/11 Commission to answer, who worked alongside the staffers of the 9/11 Commission, who monitored the 9/11 Commission, in other words... people who know what they're talking about... have called for a new investigation. They are joined by a multitude of other families. The responders are sick & dying.

How do we get thousands of 9/11 Truthers to do it? Good luck.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

I agree that the tide seems to be turning

as more awaken to our situation; for various reasons -

questioning the official story of 9/11 (including the free-fall of WTC7 for over 100 feet and the lack of air-defenses),
the bank bail-outs by both party/ administrations,
the expansion of opium-field poppies in Afghanistan SINCE the US occupation,
the continuing 9/11 wars,
Obama-care,
fast-and-furious gun scandal,
Monsanto and GMO foods,
and the list goes on.

The discussion of what strategy will or might work is extensive at 911blogger; this discussion is not the first time.

Add to the mix of what could change society in a positive way -- please keep this in mind -- a novel energy source at the "per home" level. I do not expect you to believe this until you see the data, but real data are forthcoming. I say this having performed experiments in my laboratory.

I have given two invited talks in Missouri in the last ten days, discussing both 9/11 and alt-energy research. Both talks were well received.