NYC CAN drops ballot intitiative strategy for PR effort

Group promoting vote on new 9-11 probe will switch to PR effort
by Peter Duveen

PETER'S NEW YORK, Friday, October 16, 2009--Political activists promoting a ballot initiative to establish a new investigation into the events of September 11, 2001 have abandoned that effort in favor of a public relations push, according to an email sent out by the group today.

NYC CAN, which mounted a petition drive among New York City voters for a ballot initiative to establish a commission to reinvestigate 9-11, had gathered 80,000 signatures of registered New York City voters in support of the measure. A judge recently shot the petition down, meaning that the measure will not appear on the New York City ballot this November.

Instead of mounting a new petition drive, the organization has chosen to pursue other avenues to broaden public acceptance for the need for a new 9-11 investigation, according to a statement emailed to supporters.

"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," the statement said. "Hence, no more time, energy, or money will be spent on this court action or a new petition effort."

The group instead intends to mount a massive public relations effort directed, not at public officials, who it has decided do not have the best interests of the public at heart, but at the public itself.

"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," the statement said. "Only by winning the hearts and minds of the people will our voice be heard in the halls of power that govern this country. "

The statement said NYC CAN would rely on prominent individuals who have embraced the need for a new investigation, and pare its message down to focus on facts, not theories, that demonstrate a need for such an investigation.

"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," the email said. "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."

As far as the tone of the message to be delivered, it will be nonconfrontational, and steer away from particular theories on exactly what took place on 9-11.

"Too much information, too many details and too many story lines muddy the waters for those too confused to digest the overload of information," the statement said. "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."

NYC CAN's website at lists four members of a steering committee, among whom are those who lost loved ones in the 9-11 attacks, and one who survived the collapses of the World Trade Center towers. Ted Walters is listed as the organization's executive director.

The organization's decision to back away from another try at a ballot initiative will undoubtedly be a surprise to many who believed that a refined effort could have brought results in 2010. Others, however, contend that the attempt to put a measure on the ballot was doomed from the start in terms of obtaining its original objective. Still others say the additional public exposure has benefited the 9-11 Truth movement--the name generally assigned to a worldwide effort to resolve what are thought to be contradictions embodied in the official explanation for the events of that day.

On September 11, 2001, according to official accounts, four commercial airliners were hijacked by teams of Moslems from the Middle East. Two of the airliners were flown into each of the twin towers of New York City's World Trade Center, reducing both buildings to piles of rubble. A third airliner was flown into the Pentagon building in Arlington, Va., while a fourth crashed in a field in rural Pennsylvania, allegedly on its way to another target before being forced down by passengers.

Critics of the government's version of events focus on a host of issues and questions, including:

1. why U.S.Air Force jets failed to intercept the hijacked airliners;

2. why the World Trade Center towers, and a third 47-story office tower in the World Trade Center complex, collapsed vertically in seconds into relatively compact piles of rubble--a result critics charge was out of proportion to the damage inflicted by the airliners;

3. a lack of airliner wreckage at the Pentagon crash site;

4. anomalies at the crash site of the fourth airliner which was said to have been brought down by passengers who overpowered the hijackers;

5. Contradictions and fallacious statements contained in the 9-11 Commission Report--the government's last word on what happened on 9-11.

A number of notables have pushed for a new 9-11 investigation, a short list of which would include former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, show business icons Rosie O'Donnell, Daniel Sunjata and Charlie Sheen, and former Reagan Administration Treasury official and columnist Paul Craig Roberts.

Only days after 9-11, two prominent columnists, Robert Novak and William Safire, hinted that insiders in government or elsewhere may have played a role in orchestrating the events of that day. The mainstream press has since marginalized such views, although alternative news sources, upon which the public increasingly relies, continue to give them a voice. NYC CAN indicated that it would steer clear of such conclusions, preferring to focus on the facts.

"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," the email said.

(Original article, with corrections and additions, may be found at

Can someone explain the preferred approach of NYC CAN?

From the article, NYC CAN (which I supported ), stated:

" NYC CAN indicated that it would steer clear of such conclusions, preferring to focus on the facts.

"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," the email said."

So just how does one "focus on the facts" without a "dissemination of ... credible evidence"?

I agree with not disseminating amateur analysis or half-baked theory -- but how about "full-blown truth"?

Surely the article does not tell the whole strategy proposed by NYC CAN -- I would like to know what they propose if not a presentation of "credible evidence" and "full-blown truth."

What is the strategy, then?

From the "Turning Point"

Here are a few more quotes that might clarify NYC CAN's stand and which I should perhaps have included in the article.

"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."

I personally feel theories are good and we need more and better theories of all types. In fact, theories are absolutely necessary for charting a course of investigation, since if we felt nothing was amiss, we would be led to do nothing.

As human beings, we are theorizing animals. In order to still the human mind, one would have to have everyone on a regimen of very strong drugs, or rely on surgery such as lobotomies. However, I can see the value in focusing, especially in a PR effort, on a particular strata of information that has the the broadest public support and comprehension, and is incontrovertable. In light of that, their second suggestion is a good one:

"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."

I attended two CAN events in the city, even though I live four hours away, and I donated. But I don't think it is necessarily in the movement's interest to create a unified front, which could indeed be infiltrated and neutralized. I'm sure that whatever CAN comes up with, they will get a lot of support. They seem to want to bring the revolution into the ranks of the establishment, and that may be to everyone's benefit.

Agreed Steve

9/11 was a criminal conspiracy.

Either one accepts the official "conspiracy" or explores other plausible motives, means and opportunities and related supporting evidence.

Exposure of plausible alternative evidence of criminality (murder) on the part of others than those officially accused (e.g.: controlled demolition) will prove to be more effective at generating a new investigation than general curiouosity regarding select questions surrounding 9/11.

It seems that recent media criticism (intentional?) of "conspiracy theories" in general has deterred some from openly exploring plausible alternatives and evidence surrounding 9/11.

Much of the success of this cause thus far is due to the public reaction generated by the discovery of plausible alternative evidence.

Pressure NY AG And NYC DA

The Attorney General of the state of New York and the District Attorney of NYC have the jurisdiction for investigating the evidence for controlled demolition of the WTC buildings and the related deaths of 3,000.

Continuous pressure by the 80,000 New Yorkers who supported the NYCCAN effort and 9/11 victim families will eventually yield results.

Each office were mailed a copy of the Harrit, Jones, Ryan, et al dust paper. They each have a public duty to investigate this evidence or explain to the public why this evidence is insufficient to compel a criminal investigation.

Label/Receipt Number: 7009 0960 0000 4684 3541

Status: Delivered

Your item was delivered at 11:09 am on August 06, 2009 in NEW YORK, NY 10013

Label/Receipt Number: 7009 0960 0000 4681 6385

Status: Delivered

Your item was delivered at 7:52 am on August 07, 2009 in ALBANY, NY 12224

New York City District Attorney

New York State Attorney General

What it comes down to fear of being wrong. Being wrong dramatically decreases credibility. In a democratic process, "credibility" matters. A successful strategy which has this underlying motive requires caution and prioritization. Since all this is largely subjective, this means planning a successful strategy is extremely difficult.

For example: what is 'fact'? Something that can be looked up on History Commons? All History Commons does is capitalize on the "trust" placed in mainstream media. It seems there is a natural friction between credibility and factual accuracy. Credibility can be achieved without factual correctness or sincerity, but with professional propaganda.. President Obama is the living proof. So..NYCCAN faces the same choices and sacrifices politicians do. There is a risk of creeping opportunism at the cost of truth.

That said, so far I support NYCCAN's choices. They have been professional and have been a powerful PR cannon for 9/11 truth. Thanks NYCCAN.

"Leader follows leader from bad to worse, as though by a malign law of nature. One ruler, evil or stupid or violent, breeds another more evil or stupid or violent."Liz McAlister

What is fact?

WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

That is a scientifically proven fact.

This is very specific, easy to state and easy to understand.

A building can fall at free fall acceleration only if all the supporting structure is removed with explosives. The NIST hypothesis does not contain a period of free fall acceleration.

The tiny spheres found in the dust by the USGS, R.J.Lee Co. and professors Steven Jones PhD, Neils Harrit PhD et al, are indisputable evidence of molten iron. This in turn establishes temperatures far above those attainable in jet fuel and office fires.

These are established scientific facts.

The iron spheres are evidence of thermite and/or nano-thermite as there is no other explanation for the once molten spheres in the WTC 7 dust.

The nano-thermite found in the WTC dust is evidence but not yet considered scientific fact. It will be considered science fact when another credible party repeats the analysis and gets the same results.

Mark Basile

Since chemical engineer Mark Basile successfully ignited chips from a sample directly sent to him, and since I consider Mark Basile "another credible party", I consider active thermitic materials scientific fact.

The only criterium for proving a material thermitic is a thermitic reaction. This reaction occurred, therefore the material is thermitic.

"Leader follows leader from bad to worse, as though by a malign law of nature. One ruler, evil or stupid or violent, breeds another more evil or stupid or violent."Liz McAlister

Problem with nanothermite

is not the paper, which is as good an example of the scientific method as one can achieve. But it is a somewhat isolated piece of information. We do not know, for example, the form which the explosives took. There's a lot of debate about that, and it is highly speculative at this point. Also, we do not have the assistance of a forensic expert, who can put together the facts and come up with an educated hypothesis. Although the team who put the nanothermite paper together are experts in their field, they are not criminal investigators. And they certainly lack credibility as such, and i would bet that they would be the first to admit that they lack the expertise. There are people who deal with investigating this sort of incident every day, but it seems we have not been able to get anyone with this expertise to put two and two together in a credible fashion. As such, the nanothermite paper remains an isolated fact that is not bearing the fruit it ought to.

I have also wondered why the quantity of nanothermite material in the dust turned out to be such a large proportion of the dust itself, and if there was any answer to that? I think there have been calculations of the total quantity of unexploded thermite. Isn't it quite large?

Understating the importance of the nano-thermite paper

Calling it an "isolated piece of information" is a non-statement intended to marginalize the paper. It is a very important piece of forensic evidence

"We do not know, for example, the form which the explosives took."
"why the quantity of nanothermite material in the dust?"
It is only necessary to establish the presence if this high tech explosive.
It has no other reason for being in the dust other than being used to bring the towers down.

"we do not have the assistance of a forensic expert"
"Although the team who put the nanothermite paper together are experts in their field, they are not criminal investigators."
Wrong! Your insinuation that only people working for a law enforcement agency can be criminal investigators is absurd. Anyone can apply their expertise to investigate a crime.
forensic: crime solving - relating to the application of science to decide questions arising from crime or litigation.

All this half baked double talk is just an attempt to deny the importance of the presence of this high tech explosive in the WTC dust. The nano-thermine is consistent with the presence of the tiny iron spheres and these two facts are therefore mutually supportive.