David Ray Griffin has tentatively agreed to oversee a 9/11 Political Action Fund

Daricus spoke with Griffin last night and reports as follows:

"I spoke with him about your idea and he was actually quite receptive. He said that he would use the money for three or four organizations, (911truth.org being one example) plus an investigative project." (see: http://www.911blogger.com/node/8652#comment-143264)

Next steps: Bank account overseen by Griffin, PayPal account connected to it.

Please make suggestions below.

My suggestion:

There will be a need for input from people who make donations, and that can be arranged. But Americans too often get lost in the political process and fail to sieze the moment. We have an exemplary leader in Griffin. He has proved himself in every way. Let's begin this project by trusting him.

Organization, MONEY, and David Ray Griffin

It's time for us to start putting up some real MONEY. The best way to do this would be to get David Ray Griffin to oversee an account. We all trust him and believe he is wise and parctical. He could get plenty of help and make the spending 100% transparent. Congressional and presidential andidates that are in favor of a real 9/11 investigation get money. Candidates that are not infavor get ads targeting their stupid positions.

If anyone can get in touch with DRG and get him to agree to this, I am sure that many of us will be more than willing to send in one week's pay or better.

Count me in!

More thoughts on what to do and how to be most effective

I posted this answer to "moodforaday" in one of my other posts. I believe the subject of goals for 9/11 Truth is of paramount importance and I hope that this discussion will both inspire us and help us move forward.

To moodforaday:

I also am "heartened to see the movement grow" and agree that "we probably will get the media before we get Congress."

But ultimately, this issue will have to be investigated and only Congress has the power and jurisdiction. I mentioned Kucinich only because he has already decided to open a "limited investigation" in September.

I have been making the point about a new Congressional investigation for three main reasons:

1) It is the logical next step and in perfect accord with the scientific method. (If the theory contains serious anomalies, it must be reconsidered.)

2) Only Congress has the legal authority to require testimony under oath.

3) It is the clearest way to state our argument. For this reason, it is fairly easy to defend. It is hard for the average person to disagree with it.

Some basic ideas that we should all be thinking about and try to agree on

1) What we already have:

We have terrific leaders--Griffin, Tarpley, Zwicker, Jones, Ryan, Hoffman, etc.

We have fantastic PR--Videos, photos, papers, essays

We have great slogans--9-11 Truth, 9-11 Was an Inside Job, etc.

We have the truth--And we can express it in simple terms, e.g. the collapse times completely refute the official story

We have the internet--And we dominate it!

2) What we need:

Focus on a clear outcome--New Congressional investigation (best would be a special prosecutor)

Keep the basic argument more or less the same--The official story is wrong and therefore we need a new investigation.

More pressure on mainstream institutions--academics, media, Congress, religious groups

Keep the energy growing--keep going with the blogs, the signs, the grass-roots, talking to people, etc.

Continued discussion of the facts and details of the case (avoid having these detract from the main public message)

3) What we should avoid:

Fighting among ourselves, name-calling, being egotistical, being insulting to those who disagree with us

Some truths that must be faced by the 9/11 Truth movement and what to do about them

Why we need to focus more intently on the goal of getting Congress to authorize a new investigation into 9/11.

Part One:

1) We have very strong evidence that the official story is false.

2) We do NOT have evidence strong enough to lead any prosecutor to take the case to court.

3) We will probably NOT find any new material evidence (WTC steel, dust, material proof of explosives). And even if we did find it, it would not have a reliable chain of custody and so would be mostly worthless.

4) We are not supported by any major institutions--mainstream media, academia, the gov't, etc.--though there are a fair number of individuals in some of these institutions who do support us.

5) As a movement, we do not have a clear goal.

Some conclusions that can be drawn from these points:

1) Haggling over space beams or thermite is a waste of time for most of us because neither case can be proved due to a lack of strong material evidence for either. It is fine for some people to spend time on this question.

Evidence, lack of evidence, and what to do now

Item: Jim Fetzer, Steve Jones, etc. Jim's blog of a few days ago went on and on about the evidence, what shows what, etc.:

Comment: I do not believe that there is any viable material evidence from the WTC and that there most likely never will be. Analyses of the dust are interesting, but not definitive. There will never be strong evidence from any of the steel or other rubble because 1) most of it has been destroyed, 2) what is left is not representative, and 3) there has been no credible chain of custody, so we will never be able to make definitive statements based on this kind of evidence.

Item: Flight 93 crash site, the Pentagon:

Comment: Much the same as above. There never will be good physical evidence from these locations because if it has not been destroyed it has been tampered with.

Item: Phone calls from the planes:

Comment: There MAY be some evidence here if we can find the phone records. But these, too, could easily be tampered with.

Item: Atta's luggage, the passport.

Comment: Ditto.

Item: What evidence do we have?

Litigating Criminal Negligence?

There are a number of slogans that get kicked around in the "9/11 Truth Movment," but one that is repeated often is the call for a truly independent investigation. I believe that is a good issue to stick with, but I do wonder if we might also consider changing the language a bit. With foreknowlege widely reported on in the MSM I wonder if it would be more appropriate to call for a criminal investigation into the Bush administration's negligence regarding 9/11. Such an investigation if vigorously pursued would turn up evidence of complicity along the way.
Who could bring charges of criminal negligence against the President and his administration? Could any citizen seek litigation, or would the courts only hear a case from one of the families of the 9/11 victims?