Which way, 911-truth? Our greatest strength is, also, our greatest weakness.

So here we are in year zero plus eight, and time keeps slipping into yesterday. What shape are we in? Where have we gotten? What, if anything, is our goal? How are we going to agree on a goal, and who will carry it out, and through what means will it be accomplished? It's really incredible, if you think about it. In fact, the more you think about it, the more incredible it becomes: despite all of our progress, the world is still operating under the same demonstrably false paradigm.

Unfortunately, human beings are spectacularly adaptable to a fault. We adjust to new macro-level realities before we have a chance to decide whether we should. The millions of people across the country who know and/or believe that the events of Tuesday morning, September the eleventh, two thousand-and-one could only have been planned and executed by some internal American element are no exception; we, too, have adjusted to the new reality. Granted, we're all doing our best to resist and to sound the alarm that, no, this new reality isn't real, and everything which has since occured in the name of responding to the event and/or protecting against future attacks is based upon a deliberately false premise. But 9-11 truth isn't picking up seem, it's losing the race against time - and losing badly.

In 2006 I was fortunate enough to have worked as the assistant field director for the United States Congressional campaign of Lt. Colonel Robert Bowman, in the Flolrida fifteenth. With barely more than a hundred thousand dollars, Dr. Bowman still managed to get over 43% of the vote in a heavily Republican district. To his credit, Dr. Bowman hasn't given up the fight; he travels around the country and speaks to group after group. But wouldn't it be nice if Bowman's relentless good work, and that of many others, were part of a coordinated effort - a plan of action?

Herein lies the problem: a coordinated effort is wholly antithetical to what 911 truth is all about. Coordinated efforts lead to hierarchical structures of command and control, providing for the perfect target of corruption and infiltration. And who among us are willing to become subservient to a leader, or group of leaders, in furtherance of this noble agenda? Certainly not I. Still, everything has a flip side, and the obvious drawback is that nothing is getting done precisely because there is no coordinated effort. Individuals are doing terrific work on many levels but, as a whole, we still haven't gotten our shit together. No-one and everyone is to blame.

So where do we go from here? There must be a better way. Here in DC, there is a 911-truth group but, I am sorry to say, it doesn't do much of anything. Granted, two of the main participants have gotten a newspaper off the ground called the Rock Creek Free Press which can be found all over town and which is doing terrific work disseminating critical information about September the eleventh, and related materials. But the group, itself, doesn't really do a whole lot: meetings happen only twice a month, one of which is normally devoted to preparing the paper for monthly circulation. Rarely if ever do we discuss larger themes of where are we going, and what are we doing, and what happens next. Sure, we march in local parades, and hand out fliers, and set up booths on the national mall from time to time. But this is Washington, DC, the belly of the beast, the seat of power [like it or not] and one of two journalistic hubs, and we aren't doing anything here which couldn't also be done in any town, in any state. I ran into the same problem on the Bowman campaign, where one of my jobs was to coordinate the activities of volunteers. Some people wanted to do this, and some people wanted to that. Some wanted to stuff envelopes, and nothing more. Some were only comfortable knocking on doors. One way of looking at this state of affairs is with forgiveness: if people are volunteering their time, why not just let them do what they feel most comfortable doing? It's better than not having them on the board at all. Still, another perspective is that volunteers have signed up for a cause, and it's better for the cause if they could do what's needed, instead of merely what they want. At the end of the day, the cause will either succeed or fail, and people should, perhaps, be more concerned about achieving success and avoiding failure than with their own catharsis. Maybe the truth lies somewhere in-between.

My purpose is not to disparage anyone, or any group, but I know that it will be taken that way by some, both here and elsewhere. I can't help that. But isn't it about time that we take a critical look at ourselves, and our efforts? We certainly haven't done everything right. Maybe it's time to turn the page and figure out what needs to change. The questions of who will do the changing, and where it will take place, and when, and how, are critical yet secondary: the first question is whether or not a new direction is needed. From my perspective, the answer is flagrantly self-evident, but there are other voices which need to be heard.

I have one recommendation:

Put ENORMOUS pressure on all alternative media sites to finally present 9/11 truth, OR tell us why they are censoring information vital to the American people, and the people of the world.
There is only one thing that can stop the wars, occupations, torture, wiretapping, the Patriot Act, and the demonization of Arabs: bringing the truth of 9/11 to the world.
The MSM won't do it.
All of work remains unknown to the vast majority of people.
The only way I can think of to move out of this box is to get alternative sites like CommonDreams, Counterpunch, the Nation mag, Z mag, MotherJones, Alternet, antiwar.com, and others to bring ALL of the truth of 9/11 to their readers. If they will not do this, they need to admit they are censoring the news, or at least tell us why they will not present irrefutable evidence that the official story is a lie.

How to do this? I don't know. Protests, stopping of financial support, investigations as to their foundational support, investigations into any other coercion from government or other groups that would not want the truth of 9/11 to come out.
Do any 9/11 truthers know some of the journalists that work closely with these venues?

I know, once we get these media sites to present the truth, that a groundswell of information and awareness will begin and will end with the world finally understanding what happened on 9/11.


Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, the mainstream media is where 3/4ths of people get their news. Giving up on the MSM equals giving up on their audiences, too. We can't cede the airwaves - they're our airwaves - we have to, somehow, reclaim them. As for alternative media...well...it would be nice if there were some sure-fire way of discerning who's who. If sites like Counterpunch, et al. were to pick up the ball of 9-11 truth, they would have long since done so.

I was at the Colleen Rowley/Ray McGovern panel at American University last week with USA Patriot, which is talked about in a different thread, here. I was among those asking the obvious yet, still, highly radioactive questions: how can you present yourselves at a panel entitled Exposing Official Lies and, still, dance around the herd of elephants in the room about what actually transpired on the morning of September the eleventh, two thousand-and-one? What about the obvious controlled demolitions of towers one, two and seven?

McGovern made a quick exit to a different part of the room as soon as he realized what was being asked, (after the panel had concluded). "Excuse me for a moment, " he said, as he quickly made off to someone else, for some reason. When he finally came back around, he would only mumble vague banalities under his breath: words the effect of, "Well, I just haven't seen enough evidence to convince me," and, "I just can't speak to the idea of controlled demolitions," et cetera. He also said, "Look, I just had dinner with David Ray Griffin recently," as if that was meant to butress his fighting-the-good-fight bona fides. Anyone who thinks that Ray Mcgovern is part of 9-11 truth in any way, shape, form or degree needs to do an expiditious re-evaluation, for their own sake.

Coleen Rowley was no different. We kept trying to ask her about controlled demolitions, Pentagon anomolies and incongruencies and all she could manage to squeeze out of her mouth is, "I don't know. I don't know, I'm not an expert. I'm not a scientist. I don't know, I don't know." She must have said it, maybe, fourteen times in the span of forty-five seconds. Then she invoked the name of John Gold, who posts here, saying, "Well, I'm a friend of John Gold; do you know John Gold?" as if she was trying to establish her own bona fides - just like McGovern had done not two minutes prior.

The point is that these individuals are no different than any group or any site which puts itself out there as some kind of anti-establishment, truth-loving, lie-exposing entity which, for whatever set of reasons, won't touch the in-your-face evidence of internal complicity, facilitation and execution - in reference to the events of that otherwise perfect late-summer day. Don't you find it the least bit suspicious that all of these groups and all of these "brave" individuals who know that the United States went to war in Iraq under a demonstrably false premise just can't seem to get their heads around the idea that the war in Afghanistan went off in much the same way, and that there's far more observable evidence for the latter than for the former?

Gatekeepers, once identified, cannot be trusted and must be discarded, whether we're talking about Counterpunch and Antiwar or Ray McGovern and Colleen Rowley. They are not our friends, and we need to stop clinging to their words just because they happen to sound vaguely on-point, from time to time, in some ethereal and round-a-bout way. Our best hopes do not lie with them.

Anyway, I'm still trying to get a broad sense from the participants, here, about whether or not some kind of radical, tactical and strategic shift is necessary and, if not, why not.

I wish we'd get more of a response here.........but..........

I agree with what you have said. The so called alternative media and progressive sites are not our friends. They have their agendas, and they have their goals, and somehow they feel that these will not be enhanced by presenting the truth about the most important moment in American history.
But your point about the MSM is lost on me. It is hopeless. They are owned precisely by the people who do not want 9/11 exposed. They are full of journalists that are part of groups that do not want 9/11 exposed.
We have to realize, and admit, that we cannot get on the msm unless, UNLESS, there is such a groundswell of demand for the truth and evidence from altermative media and their followers............not a huge group but big enough to make a splash.
With the MSM and alternative media completely at war with us, with truth, I just don't see where to turn.
When you have the people that should be on our side, all of them: Amy, Joshua Holland, Noam, Zinn, Justin Raimondo, Cockburn, etc etc...............against us, actually fighting against us and working to make us fail, what in the world can we do.
All I can think of doing is exposing these people, the people who should bring the truth that the msm won't, and embarassing them as minions of the same elite power as the msm.

I have been thoroughly amazed at some very intelligent, liberal, Bush hating and influential people that I know in my area. When I bring up 9/11 truth, any of it,. they stare at me like I'm from outer space. Many of these otherwise very aware progressives really have no idea that there is a legitimate movement exposing the lies of 9/11. Really. They often think I'm kidding, as they know me to be a very rational person.
But what the reason for this is...............it is impossible for them to think that a truly legitimate movement and idea could have been completely hidden from them all this time. They feel that if there was anything to the 9/11 truth, they would have seen it on some of their more liberal ways of getting information. Because it hasn't, they are sure I'm nuts. I get nowhere. I get angry. I come on this website and blame Amy Goodman and Joshua Holland. And I say they have committed treason. And I believe that.
But that still leaves us with what to do.
I don't know.

The need to carry on

The NYC CAN team is currently reorganizing into a national PR organization. But the point is we can't know what will eventually cause the tipping point because there is no precedent for a movement of this kind. There is no certainty that the truth movement will inevitably succeed. David Ray Griffin put it at about 5% chance in an interview. I peg it closer to 25%. If it does happen I believe it will arise from some unexpected quarter: a whistleblower or informant from the inside whose conscience finally breaks their will; or maybe the election of Ron Paul for president in 2012. My wife actually thinks the truth is so horrible it will take 50 years or more to come out. I guess what I'm saying is we need to keep doing all the things we're doing and innovating new tactics and strategies. Leave no stone unturned. Keep the pressure on. Never shut up. Never stand down. The powerful thing about truthers is that once a person wakes up to the truth it is nearly impossible to unlearn it or stop believing. So as our numbers grow and grow and grow, we create a collective consciousness that is hard to derail.

We're in uncharted waters. See how far we've come against the most powerful forces on the planet. That's the power of the truth.