Throw your hats in the ring: London gathering Sat 15th

[Stefan]

OK This might be lengthy...

As Noel pointed out earlier in this thread - I have taken a step back from the 9/11 Truth Campaign in recent months for nebulous reasons I wont bore you all with and recently stood down as national secretary, so I'm a bit out of the loop and had missed out on this whole debate.

I never felt like my opinions held any weight as secretary, so it shouldn't make any difference if I go ahead and outline them here now I no longer hold the position. My view is as follows:

The "official" 9/11 Truth Campaign UK has certainly reached a point whereby descisions need to be made in how we define what exactly this campaign is, how it differs from a global and less clearly defined "movement" and what it's role is.

After heavy thought on this I have personally concluded that there are way too many forces pulling in different directions for it ever to act as the hub of an effective grass roots movement. And should therefore be limited to a public front.

Forums

A forum, it must be agreed, can only be a part of a credible campaign if it is tightly moderated and controlled so that it only presents discussion of limited area which are heavily backed by facts and agreed on by everyone else. There is some limited benefit to this - to publicise actions and events and as a way for new people to connect with other activists.

If people can't accept this we will never go anywhere.

I think most of the people who come here do so because they want what this forum represents - a free-speech-zone without boundaries where people who have located the rabbit hole to explore its depths and would not want to see it sanitised. And so instead it was agreed to take action which would allow the forum to continue but also to clearly divorse it from the campaign so it could not damage credibility.

This seemed to be agreed long ago among well-known activists - what DIDN'T happen and must now is that this agreement should be effectively put into action.

I felt a great deal of frustration over the fact that having got there with the name "Peacing It Together" the unpopularity of the name led to a complete turn around in our strategy.

WHY?

If people didn't like "Peacing it Together" that is one thing, but I could not believe my eyes that in changing it we went back on the general point of the change and the forum's title started with "9/11". At first there was a large discaimer at the top of the site, that is now smaller and near the bottom of the front page. The result is we are now with the forum exactly where we were months ago - with a forum which to the passer by is the website of the UK 9/11 Truth Movement and is a complete PR disaster.

We need to remove 9/11 from the Url and from the title of this forum

As far as a reputable and sanitised 9/11 forum goes - there is no reason to replicate this ourselves, just use 9/11 Truth Action.

Website

I will explain below where I think we should be going with grassroots campaigning. What this campaign DOES need is a highly polished website which we can direct potential recruits/interested parties/media/politicians/public figures/potential donors to.

We do not have this.

On the part of the site where people are directed to find out more about 9/11 we have:

- This forum - referred to as the official forum of the 9/11 Truth Campaign
- David Shaylers website - where he now outlines why he is the messiah
- Sites sympathetic to NPT/DEW and Fakery theories

All we need in this section is:

- 9/11 Research/WTC7
- Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
- Journal of 9/11 Studies
- Co-operative Research

I'm sure I'm missing a couple which would be good - but my general point should be clear.

Areas Covered

In terms of 9/11 - It is time to nail a hammer in the coffin of the idea that the campaign can ever be effective if we show too much respect to minority theories which could cause ridicule.

I am all for allowing discussion of NPT/Fakery/DEW and the like on this forum (as long as the forum is cosmetically divorsed PROPERLY THIS TIME from the campaign) - but NOT ON THE OFFICIAL SITE.

I'm trying to say who is right and who is wrong (although most of you know my views) it is about what is going to help us gain credibility with the general public, with senior induviduals, the media and so on.

All we need to do is effectively dismantle the official story - we can leave the forming of induvidual opinions for forums like this one which hopefully will soon no longer be mistaken as a campaign site.

In terms of content covered, I think the declaration which chrisc has posted here offers a blue print all official campaign fronts should follow.

Where does this leave REAL grass roots activism?

We are better off acting in unity with the 11th Day of the Month global actions, and continuing to grow the new more controlled groups such as We Are Change and Make War History (although in my opinion MWH needs to be far more strategic and directed than they are - but that's none of my business).

The stigma against the term "9/11 Truth" is such that we may be better off ultimatley letting non-explicit groups like WAC and MWH gain credibility and introduce 9/11 Truth as part of a much broader package - and if it's not clear I mean broader in terms of War/Civil Liberites/opposition to police state foundations like ID Cards, CCTV, DNA DB and so on.

In closing

I hope I am being cynical when I say I doubt any of my recommendations will go down well - If I sensed any serious and sensible will to make this thing successful then I would probably be saying all this as secretary and not a slightly worn down and burnt out campaigner.

The idea expressed by many on this thread that it would be a disaster for 9/11 truth if this forum was not the first point of call for new people is a blistering indication of how far removed from reality many of us really are.

[ianrcrane]

Stefan wrote:

[Stefan]

[Jack]

I am in complete agreement with Stefan on this.

I wouldn't dream of giving the link to this site to beginners.

[911Eyewitness]

[TonyGosling]

Thanks so much for just caring about us over here Rick and thereby ensuring that a real Special Relationship across the Atlantic lives on. Be assured that we are as dismayed by this rotten call by one of the forum's founders as you are. Short of a court case against a fellow activist what can we do??

Thanks for your righteous feistiness - nay anger!

[ianrcrane]

Stefan wrote:

[scubadiver]

[Annie]

[Stefan]

Annie,
Thank you, you put that far more succinctly than I have managed so far on this thread.

[Snowygrouch]

Its pretty clear to me what the problem is here,
This of course will not be popular or go down well with alot of people (so should be well in keeping with most of my posts).

Every person here needs to take a deep introspective analysis of their emotional involvement with this forum; 9/11 and their own personal crusades against "darkness" and whatever else that means to them personally.

I strongly suspect that many people got into 9.11 as it was "the next..." in a long line of events they felt compelled to campaign/speak/write/blog about, be it chemtrails, zionism, peak oil, global warming, banking or organized religion.

As such (like it or not), for you this forum represents an important place to converse, to "network", feel at ease and generally enjoy chatting with like minded people -a commodity in small numbers-. So for the forum to be disbanded is a disaster in your perspectives -perhaps justifiably so-.

However from the perspective of actually opening NEW peoples eyes, this forum is not and COULD NEVER have been an effective tool.

To imagine that anyone not already "in the zone" visiting this page would come away with any sort of clear picture about a rational; focused and professional campaign is -to be very polite- optimistic.

Someone who posed an article on the News page here 10 days ago entitled "ex Vampire speaks out" should be aware of the fallout from such things and should have known better given their intelligence.

In the format we have, this forum is not in any shape to form a part of the future of the 9.11 campaign.

That is: IF your definition of "campaign" is an organized effort to alert people not already aware of a specific issue.

This forums best use is to allow campaigners to network and to provide a source for news outside the realm of the BBC.

We can discuss all we like, the fact remains that there are too many internal differences (of both opinion and end-goals) to use this site as a 9.11 site.This forum should STAY and be re-named as a general alternative news site with a general forum.

Whatever fantasies any of us may have about it being a "campaign tool" are just that. Fantasies. The reasons for this are numerous and known. However if these factors -like posting news stories about vampires- are still here in 2008....they always will be.

Accept the forum for what it IS. Not what we wanted/hoped it to be.
Ian, much respect my friend but 7 years of archived 9/11 material is doing nobody any good at all.
Archive it and store it, we may need access to such information again if certain events occur. But be under no illusions about it being useful for furthering the current campaign.
Ian, you`re right this IS an amazing resource, for seasoned campaigners already well involved to use as a research site. NOT for the general populace who "happen" across the forum.

Sad....but true.

For those of us who got into 9.11`esque issues after 9.11. Our perspectives, goals and opinions as to what forms an effective campaign are so radically different; there cannot be a sucessful collaboration. I`ve had enough instances of being associated with "NPT", Chemtrails, Aliens and the like, to last 50 lifetimes.

These things are not my concern, not my responsibility to investigate nor do they assist in rasing SERIOUS awareness of 9/11 in the populace.
As such, any collaboration between those that disagree with the last sentence, is not a realistic proposition.
Again. sad but true.
What do I suggest?

I suggest that those of similar minds, group and carry on their fight in their own solid, units. To not do so; is probably the most graphic example of the phrase "too many cooks spoil the broth" I have ever experienced.

Regardless of how "ideal" the above is, this is the fact....

It WAS 2001

Its NOW 2008

Our progress.....commendable but insufficient. FACT.

It will no doubt be said that what has happened is on account of work by "them" along the classic, "divide and conquer" lines. This may well be correct, however it changes not; our CURRENT predicament and our CURRENT predicament is all we have to work with.

Time for a new strategem...........
Calum Douglas

[scubadiver]

[ianrcrane]

So what's changed?

The following quote is an extract from an Email I received, dated 28th April 2006, regarding the proposition to establish a 9/11 Campaign website ... with the primary objective to distance the Campaign from the forum.

So, what has actually happened in the interim? Well, the alternative site was set up by Adrian and Adrian waited ... & waited ... & waited ... but still those arguing the case for a separate Campaign site failed to deliver any content for posting on the newly established Campaign website!

So here we are two years later ... forgive me if I sense a touch of deja vu. Perhaps the situation is a little different now as this forum apparently has to move to a new URL ... but it is absolutely critical that the new URL contains a 9/11 reference. Failure to do so can only be seen as an abject denial of the multi-dimensional context surrounding the events of 9/11.

Those who wish to present a one-dimensional case for 9/11 Truth have had the tools to do so for at least two years and have singularly failed to take advantage of that opportunity.

So you don't like the idea of newcomers to 9/11 anomalies stumbling across this forum? Well, your challenge is to create the Campaign forum as per your grand design. The official campaign website awaits your contribution .... just as it has for the past two years!

So Calum, Stefan and others who want to do something different ... go do it ... but have the good grace to recognise that this resource is an integral part of 9/11 Truth and should continue in that vein, with an appropriately descriptive URL; i.e. 911 or some version thereof.

[Snowygrouch]

Ian,
I`d say thats all very fair comment.

C.

[outsider]

I believe 9/11 is the key to just how evil our Governments are (though I personally have been aware of this for many years, having been involved with Human Rights and Solidarity campaigns since the '70's), but is not a 'stand alone' subject. I believe the mix on our Forum is fine, and should be kept 'as is' when we switch to new site.
Obviously our Moderators have to keep weeding out anti-Semitism, personal attacks, obvious disinfo etc.
!A Luta Continua!

[Stefan]

Ian,
I'm getting a little mystified by your reading of the situation.

Let me make this clear - I do not want to create a campaign forum for per my "grand design" because I have come to the conclusion - as the majority of activists in the group did some time ago that a free speech forum cannot be a part of a publicly acceptable campaign.

I'm going to repeat that as it has failed to settle in by saying it just once in any of my previous posts: a free speech forum cannot be a part of a publicly acceptable campaign.

The only way to do this is to mimic Truthaction's policy of heavy moderation - this works to be sure - and the result is credible - but starting a new forum based on the same parameters could only ever be a clone - there is only so much 9/11 news to go around and therefore all we would end with would be duplicated discussions in different nations - none of them telling anyone anymore than they would be able to get from reading 9/11blogger every day (which I and most of us already do), which of course is perfect for beginners.

This is the reason for my suggestion (both to activists here and to Truthaction) that they simply set up regional forums and act as THE sanitised 911 forum - we don't need more than one with parameters that tight. Posters who really want to just discuss 9/11 as a de-contextualised topic can visit that site, but importantly it can be used to publicise UK events and actions (which we should continue to do here as well of course) and as a starting point for new people in the UK who are just finding out about 9/11. One of the forum heads of that board has said he/she would be happy to set up a regional forum for us should we wish - I suggest we take them up on that offer.

In the mean time, as you rightly point out, there is some work that needs doing on the .net site - so we can forward interested parties to it, but for no grander role. The failure after a year to do this properly does not reverse the decisions made, as (unless I am reading you wrong) you seem to be implying. And this forum can continue as a resource for extended research.

Grassroots activism will be making or breaking of us - not who says what on which forum. The only relevant role of a forum to a campaign is flagging up events and organising actions - this can be done at Truthaction and here.

A reason I find this of HUGE importance is there is not a chance in hell of me giving someone I had just convinced to have a look at 9/11 this URL and I know a lot of other campaigners (if not almost all) who feel the same way. If someone is coming to agree with me and stepping over the threshold into 9/11 truth - currently the only way to make sure they find out about UK events and activities is to send them to a forum which may overwhelm or off-put them. If we use Truthaction as a forum we can direct newcomers to in order to find out about stuff that is going on we have a better chance of engendering grassroots activism in new interested parties. We can continue to publicise the same events and actions here hitting two different demographics.

You continue to speak as though your view is the norm and I am suggesting something radical. In reality, you Ian, are trying to reverse a major decision made by the campaign at the same time as you resigned as chair, and I am simply trying to act on that decision. You already had one coup of this nature when at the 11th hour you managed to get the forum name changed from "Peacing it Together" to "9/11 The Bigger Picture and The Quest for Truth" - which completely went against the logic of a name change in the first place and is the principle reason the objective failed. I ask you now to PLEASE stand back and allow the will of the campaign to be applied.

[ianrcrane]

Stefan wrote:

[John White]

[Stefan]

[ianrcrane]

So the issue is actually very straightforward(?); the only source of disagreement is whether the new URL for this forum should contain any reference to 9/11. in any way, shape or form.

Well, Stefan, although I have always supported the proposed Campaign forum, I have never and would never support any attempt to remove the specific 9/11 reference to this forum.

For the record, I was never in favour of establishing a separate Campaign forum. Which by definition would be rather sterile by comparison with this outstanding resource.

The bottom line is that I will campaign against any attempt to marginalise this premier 9/11 related forum just because the official UK 9/11 Truth campaign has failed abysmally to achieve the apparent desired degree of separation.

Stefan, don't take out your frustration on this forum ... instead, focus your creative energies on getting the official UK 9/11 Truth Campaign website properly established.

I'm sure the mods would be quite happy to establish a link to the official website ... just in case anyone turns up here by mistake!


Ian R. Crane

[Stefan]

Ian,
I believe the two issues, although related, are distinct and both need to be dealt with separatly - although both are intrinsic parts of the answer to a single question: How do we create a credible front for a public campaign.

Issue One:
Why do we not have a top-class campaign website, and what is required to reach the point of having one?

Issue Two:
Why is this forum seen as the campaign website?

The view you seem to be proposing is that the answer to issue two is issue one -

That if we had a decent working campaign website, this forum would no longer be seen as an official 9/11 truth website -

- This is where we disagree.

Recently I have been defending this forum on an American forum where it has been heavily under attack. I made the point over and over again that it is not the official website and linked the .net site - the consensus is that a forum with 9/11 in the title and which is the first site to appear when you type "9/11 UK" into Google, will be seen as the 9/11 Truth UK website.

When that debate began, the disclaimer explaining that the website was independent was large and at the top of the front page - now it is reduced in size and burried near the bottom - the situation has in other words got even worse.

Like it or not - it is nothing to do with the failings of the campaign website that this forum is seen as a public front of the UK Campaign: It is because 9/11 is prominent in the title.

We had this solved when it was called "Peaceing Together" - I know that was an unpopular name but it was a happy day for me, then we lurched back into ambiguity with the current forum title.

So my answers to those questions are:

Issue One:
Why do we not have a top-class campaign website, and what is required to reach the point of having one?

Collective failure to act. What we need is a removal of uncredible sources like npt friendly sites, David Shaylers website and most of all the referral on that site of this forum being the official campaign forum. We need a concise position on each area and then links to the best and most credible research sites for each topic. Beyond that - we really don't need much but contact addresses and someone or a team of people willing to man those inboxes. The declaration ChrisC has posted on this site offers the perfect blue print for the content of this site. We already have a nicely designed framework for this to go into. A volunteer who can do web-stuff could acheive this in less than a week. Perhaps ChrisC himself would volunteer?

Issue Two:
Why is this forum seen as the campaign website and what do we need to do to change this?

Because 9/11 is in the title and it is the first page to appear when you goggle "9/11 UK". The second is only in problem while the first is. When it was called "Peacing it Together" and if it were to be called anything else "The Bigger Picture and The Quest for Truth" for example, it still would have been the first thing thing google threw up with the search - but it would not appear to be an explicitly 9/11 based site and therefore would not be assumed to be the UK 9/11 Truth site - the explanation could even explain it was a forum concerned with 9/11 and the context it sat in the world - it would still be "safe".

In three words: "Change The Name"

[Pikey]

Firstly I dont think that we should be debating this important issue and exposing our organisational weaknesses on a public forum. Its does not do justice to the fabulous achievements made by dedicated and unresourced volunteers.

Ian Crane was an absolute brilliant Chair, he polarised the campaign and took this campaign to a level that we have not managed to take forward imo. I was saddened when he resigned however I understand the reasons he took for moving on and exposing the bigger picture.

The fact is that this website is regarded as the official 911 website and imo it is our best asset and a fabulous interactive forum and learning resource.

Ian is right about decisions and action not being carried out, for example for those with permitted access check out this thread on the private forum:-

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=944&highlight=blackp ool

The minutes of the first AGM at Blackpool confirming decisions and proposed action never materialised.

Can I suggest that these matters be resolved at the AGM or alterantively a SGM be convened under the constitution: regulations-

[andyb]

All,

i don't see what the big problem is. The campaign took a decision a long time ago to distance itself from the forum. The talk of people not taking the lead in setting up the new site is a bit misleading as it was more of a case of people not wanting to take unilateral desicions and too many cooks at times. This will happen when trying to appease everybody. the campiagn is for a new independcent investigation itno 9/11 and should therefore focus on it's aim. Including subjects like chemtrails, free masonry, peak oil or lack thereof etc do not help in any way whatsoever, irrelevant of how correct they may be. If you think that chemtrails need to be discussed then start a chemtrail campaign etc

I don't see why the forum has to have 9/11 in the title and could just be called 'the Bigger Picture' but as long as it's not connected to the campaign then it can be called whatever . Basically the campaign should not promote the forum at all. Forums are not campaigning tools but are places for people to meet up with other like minded people to share ideas, information and opinions. It's a good resource but I know that very few campaigners use this site regularly anymore for anything other than events.

I would encourage all links to discreditted material be removed form the front page of this site but again if it isn't linked to the campaign that will be up to those who run the site.

As has been said on numerous occasions though this is not the place to make a difference. That is on the streets, go out and give out information(dvd's, leaflets), talk to people, support other campaigns you agree with(you'll tend to find we're all fighting the same beast), put on cinema screenings, arrange talks(there are many good speakers in the UK) . You'll be pleasantly surprised at the reaction you get, I assure you. People know what a crock of rubbish the 9/11 commission report was but they need to see people doing something about it to encourage them to do something about it. Also, should the proverbial poo hit the fan then it's best you have a strong local community. People on the end of a disconnected broadband connection aren't gonna be able to help.

Peace and love
Andy

[Annie]

[Pikey]

[ian neal]

9/11 truth on the web: Call for proposals

Background

Following my announcement that I will no longer be involved with or pay for www.nineeleven.co.uk, a meeting of 9/11 activists was held in London on Sat (March 15). The following is my account of the meeting and the decisions reached.

At this meeting, Simon, the owner of the domain, announced that www.nineeleven.co.uk will stop hosting its current forum from June 15. In the open discussion at the meeting, it was the consensus that

1) The future of the forum should take place within a wider debate on how best to present 9/11 truth on the web and in public

2) The campaign should focus on presenting the strongest, factual case based on evidence that would stand up in a court of law and which is most likely to be effective in winning the central demand for a re-investigation of 9/11. In a nutshell, the view of one prominent campaigner that it is time to "Get serious or forget it; game over" is widely shared.

3) The campaign should continue to build alliances and collaboration with groups in Europe, the US and beyond who share this approach.

4) The campaign should promote and practice respect and tolerance and reject intolerance, racism and dogmatism.

5) There should be a clear separation between the campaign and its message and the wider debate amongst the 911 truth campaigners/community.

None of this is earth shattering. The separation of forum and campaign, the need to promote tolerance and respect and reject racism and the need to professionalise the campaign has all been discussed and agreed before. As mentioned on this thread, the challenge is to implement this consensus.

In order to reach agreement as to the best way forward it was agreed that the campaign committee will be responsible for making the final decision with regards the future management of the forum and the campaign itself. For those who are unaware the committee is made up of representatives of all the local 9/11 truth groups in the UK. Whilst the committee will be responsible for the final decisions, they should take account of opinion both within the local groups and the wider movement.

The key decisions to be made include

1) The future direction and leadership of the UK campaign including allocating responsibility for the campaign’s web presence

2) The future management of the forum or any alternative proposals.

The process for making these decisions.

Those people wishing to put themselves forward to run/lead/co-ordinate any of the following should ‘throw their hats in the ring’:

1) The campaign itself
2) The campaign’s communications: its website/blog/newsletter and its message
3) This forum (or an alternative)

In the first instance I suggest interested people send an email to me setting out in no more than 1 side of A4 (Arial Font 10) which role you are interested in, what you have in mind, what you have to offer and any other information you think appropriate. I will then share these by email with other people who are interested. This allows people with similar ideas and visions to come together and amalgamate/refine their proposals into either joint proposals or competing proposals.

In the event that we have competing proposals, there will be a brief period of ‘lobbying’/discussion both on this forum and by email amongst the proposers / the campaign committee, followed by a vote by the committee to select the most popular.

The vote will be in private. Committee members would email me their votes. The votes would be confirmed by a trusted third party (such as Stefan, our out-going secretary). The votes would be on a single transferable vote system. (Further details on this will be provided if required, i.e. if we have 3 or more competing proposals).

Finally once the decision on the future of this forum is agreed, it will be wholly independent of the campaign and the campaign committee will never again influence its management.

It is hoped that these decisions can be made and implemented by the end of April at the latest and ratified at the next AGM, which will be held in early June. The details are to be confirmed but in all likelihood will be either the w/e of May 31/June 1 or June 7/8 in Bristol.

Having summarized the meeting of March 15 and what was agreed, let me give a few thoughts on the discussions on this thread.

It is my firm belief that 9/11 truth both in this country and globally is at a crossroads. I used to think that the evidence and case to re-investigate 9/11 was so strong, so clear cut, that the approach we have taken to date of organizing national tours, distributing DVDs, leaflets and books and supporting the growth of grassroots activism and local groups would, in itself, be sufficient to generate an unstoppable truth wave that would catch fire amongst peace, stop the war, social justice and green activists and force 9/11 truth into the mainstream.

Now whilst we continue to make progress on some fronts and we have lots to look back on and be proud of, I no longer believe that this approach is sufficient. In short I agree with those who say it is time to "Get serious or forget it; game over". By ‘game over’ I mean ‘game over’ in terms of building a credible campaign. And by ‘serious’, I mean professional.

So we are clear it may help to unpack what to me professional campaigning means.

Firstly it means ‘employing’ people with the required skills and experience to run a professional campaign: People with a successful track record in political campaigning and activism, engaging with and influencing the media, fundraising, communications and basic management competence, etc. Here are a few examples from the charity world (campaigning and communications/PR) As you can see from this, people with these skills and experience typically command around £30k/year +.

So it follows the second requirement for professional is money. It is a tribute to the strength of our cause and the dedication of so many volunteers that we have got this far on such an absolute shoe string, but realistically to make the next step up the campaign desperately needs some serious money. I know of several successful campaigning organizations that are run by a handful of people, but even with a staff of 4-5 (say co-ordinator, website manager/IT, fundraising, press and communications and research assistant) such a campaign would need close £200k/year to operate. Now as it happens there are a few tentative opportunities to raise this kind of money through rich benefactors and a few high profile public figures who may be prepared support or endorse a professional 9/11 campaign, but only if it is professional.

So it follows that the third requirement for a professional campaign is that its message is tight, convincing and professionally communicated. Without this we will never attract the type of money we need to make a difference. This means we need to grasp the nettle and address the tensions that exist within the 9/11 truth movement. The tensions between encouraging freedom of speech/thought and controlling the campaign’s message: In essence the issues addressed in the recent declaration from truth move (which is clearly closely aligned to truthaction, NY911truth and Mark Robinowitz (Oil Empire).

http://www.truthmove.org/content/2008-declaration/

If you haven’t done so already please have a good read of this declaration and the other stuff on their site.

I agree with 90-95% of what is in this and IMO it forms a good basis for discussion. However there are some important bits that do raise concerns for me.

Whilst I agree 100% not to publicly campaign on what are termed ‘highly speculative claims’ (such as DEW and TV fakery theories), I do not agree that they have necessarily been debunked (as the document claims). They remain areas of ongoing investigation and hence not yet suitable as pillars of 9/11 campaigning IMO. Big difference.

Similarly, whilst I agree 100% that the campaign should not associate itself with issues which undermine public support (such as holocaust ‘denial’, moon landing ‘hoax’, challenging climate change consensus), at the same time truthmove need to recognize that their site effectively endorses Mike Ruppert and Oil Empire and lends support for ‘Peak Oil’ (as in imminent Peak Oil) and global warming (as in the IPCC view that GW is primarily caused by human activities (AGW)). IMO the 9/11 truth can happily work alongside the green movement without endorsing either Peak Oil or AGW.

They also criticize the concept of the ‘big tent’. In essence, this forum is akin to the big tent in that (broadly speaking) all views are permitted here (provided the basic rules of tolerance and respect are observed). Personally I think there can still be a place and role for a forum like this, provided it is very much secondary in terms of profile and importance to professional campaign and clearly seen as independent and separate from the campaign. The difficulty is that this forum has a profile within 9/11 truth in the UK far beyond what it deserves. It never was intended to be and never will be an effective way to promote 9/11 truth to the wider public.

So for this reason I fully support Simon in his decision to refuse to host the forum on www.nineeleven.co.uk after June 15. So what if content on this site is lower down in search engines? Good I say. The forum can migrate to a new URL and grow and adapt. The 9/11 choir will always know how to find it, if we want to.

One option, which has not been mentioned yet, is for the campaign / anyone else who is serious about presenting 9/11 truth in a professional manner to approach Simon with a proposition to host the campaign site or a credible alternative at this URL. Part of the negotiations around this could include the ownership of the actual URL. Ultimately I believe squabbles over URL ownership are secondary to the quality of the content. Basically if the content is professional, tight and builds a strong reputation, it could be hosted at www.tinfoilhatters.com and it would still flourish.

A half-way house on the road to a professional campaign

Whilst most of us would unite behind a professional campaign, we need to be realistic that without the money it will take time to build. As a first step on this road, I suggest the campaign needs to focus on revamping its website. It need only be a blog and associated monthly bulletin; the equivalent of www.911blogger.com but with a UK focus. A place to present the best, breaking news from 9/11 truth and UK truth activism, without the baggage that goes with running a ‘big tent’ forum and aimed at people who frankly can’t be arsed with forums. So as well as inviting people to step forward to run this forum, I urge people to think beyond this, consider leaving this forum in the hands of the current moderators and instead propose an alternative news/campaign blog.

My reasons for stepping down

Finally I want to explain that my reason from stepping down from both the forum and the co-chairmanship of the campaign are as follows

1) I have a full-time job and 4 school age children, one of whom is just getting over a long term illness so basically I don’t have the time to do justice to this role, especially in terms of taking the campaign forward to this next step.

2) We all have baggage. Whilst I know that I, along with Annie and Justin, will continue campaigning and we are happy to support, advice and work with new campaign officers, we also acknowledge that our presence could be causing a barrier to a new professional campaign emerging. Justin makes no secret of his friendship and support of David Icke. Annie has her association with former employers and I’ve been at this too long and need to take one step back. I believe professional campaign is more likely to happen with an injection fresh ideas and enthusiasm. We also all feel that we can all be just as effective and active without the constraints of a label called ‘co-chair’.

3) We also wanted to knock on the head the whispering insinuations from certain quarters (such as karlos) that this campaign is gate-kept by an unaccountable clique centred on ‘highgate house’. Someone else can have the joy of batting away such bs.

Right that’s enough from me. Peace, love and unity everyone

Ian Neal

[Jack]

At the moment, if you type "British 9/11 Truth Campaign" into google, the first two links are to this site. Not good.

I also can't believe that the official campaign itself has a link to david shayler's site.

[ian neal]

[TonyGosling]

Thank you sir! IMO a bad place to make decisions and a good place to make a mountain out of a molehill.