truthaction.org/forum/ - promotion of 9/11 activism

[gareth]

Rather than hijack this earlier thread i thought it might be better to raise this as separate issue...

so in response to but not at directly.....

[TonyGosling]

IMO there's no reason why anyone can't organise and announce an action by posting an event here.
If you want we could also have a private 'event' forum that organisers would moderate who could view and post - though I'm not sure it's really that secure

Anyway, good luck on 911TruthNow too, the more the merrier!



Is there a good pagefor UK readers to start?

[gareth]

[Stefan]

Hi all,
Many thanks for the help from YT and ChrisC at TruthAction.org, as of today the forum now has a dedicated UK Forum.

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=52

This is not a forum to discuss which theory we like best, or to delve into "the bigger picture" the remit is simple - to enable serious hands-on activists to connect, to flag up events, organise activism, and find other people in your area ready to spread the word on the street.

We hope the serious activists will join us there!

Before joining, best to read the guiding principles:

Mission Statement

truthaction.org is dedicated to achieving justice for the crimes of 9/11. To this end our primary focus is promoting activism to raise awareness about the lies of the official 9/11 story and to push for an independent criminal investigation into those events.

It is our aim to grow the movement for truth on a global level through the promotion of International Days of Truth Action on the Eleventh Day of Every Month and to encourage and support everyday activism.

We aim to put an end to the global war on terror by exposing the truth about its foundational myth. 9/11 truth is the key to stopping the global war machine.

We aim to restore our rights and civil liberties and repeal all laws based on 9/11 propaganda.

The 9/11 Truth Movement is at the forefront of the global movements for justice and peace and we will continue to build bridges with our natural allies within these movements.

truthaction.org is a wholly peaceful organisation and we totally reject violence in activism.


Recommendations for 9/11 Truth Activism

Guiding Principles

We support the following:

1. A dedication to rational, dignified and non-violent activism and debate motivated by compassion, justice and truth
2. Awareness of public perception and the need for a strategic and responsible promotion and presentation of our cause
3. A commitment to building credibility and encouraging constructive alliances with the peace movement and other natural allies
4. Adherence to the scientific method and journalistic standards with a focus on facts, substance, and sources
5. Continually reaching out to new people in new places and in new ways

Conversely, we will actively seek to counteract, minimize and withdraw from the following:

1. Motivations based on ego, hatred and personal agendas
2. Promotion of speculative and unsubstantiated claims
3. Disruptive, divisive, diversionary and irrational behaviour
4. Damaging and marginalizing associations
5. Highly partisan representations of the movement and cults of personality
6. Ongoing debate on divisive issues (see section on divisive issues)

We will engage others in the movement to make them aware of our recommendations, developing constructive dialogue while raising awareness of them and the reasoning behind them, while being open to critique and revision. We will disengage from groups and persons that continue with destructive or divisive behaviour.


Dealing with destructive and divisive behaviour

1) Identify and critique behaviour that is harmful to the movement (i.e. speculative theories without evidence and activists who engage in disruptive behaviour, divisive incidents, etc). Challenge leaders who unreasonably continue to support and tolerate such damaging behaviour.

2) Refuse to debate solidly debunked theories by simply referencing responsible websites, articles, and blogs which have already refuted such claims

3) Discourage unnecessary and unproductive antagonism (i.e. infighting, personal attacks, gossip, etc.) that wastes time and causes divisiveness.

4) Avoid the divisive labelling of individuals and groups.(i.e. shill, agent etc)

5) Be aware and vigilant concerning the presence of agent provocateurs within the movement. Do not engage in witch hunts or unsubstantiated accusations. Treat those who continually, and despite consultation, act in word and deed in the manner of agent provocateurs, as such. While these people can rarely be proven to be agents, they should be treated as counterproductive and untrustworthy. Such groups and individuals should not be engaged in unproductive ways, such as aggression, name-calling, personal attacks, etc. Instead, the substance of their destructive behaviour should be detailed, after which they should be avoided when possible. If appropriate, exclusionary action (banning from forums or groups, removal of links from websites, cancellation of speaking engagements etc.) or in extreme cases legal action should be taken.

6) Do not allow the proliferation of irresponsible information or damaging behaviour simply because the individuals or groups in question maintain a certain reputation or notoriety within the movement. The fact that someone may “have done good work in the past” is never a valid excuse to tolerate damaging participation in the present. The movement must be about truth and justice rather than character and popularity.

In Summary: It is in our experience that group unity is not achieved by ignoring divisiveness. It is achieved through civil critique and a constructive response to the disruptive behaviour.


Divisive Issues

1. Debunked Theories

We recognize an important distinction between private speculation and public promotion. Speculation, hypothesis, and experimentation are the basis of the scientific method. However, the promotion of highly speculative claims is irresponsible and damaging to our credibility. Instead, verifiable fact-based research must be primary in our search for and promotion of the truth. For these reasons we do not support the promotion or debate of the following during activism or blogging:

1. No planes hit the WTC towers
2. Directed Energy Weapons were used to demolish the towers
3. Theories based on inconclusive video and photographic evidence


2. Off Topic Associations

Some associations that are damaging and marginalizing to the movement are listed below. It is a historical fact that the mere mention of these topics has been seen to cause us long term damage. Consequently it is considered by TruthAction.org that only a clear focus on 9/11 fact based evidence will achieve our goals.

1. UFO and alien theories
2. Holocaust revisionism
3. Religion based conspiracy theories
4. Moon landing hoax

Note: It is often a method of the media to bait us on various conspiracy theories in an attempt to discredit us. We suggest any questions on unrelated subjects should not be responded to; rather we should redirect the conversation back to the hard evidence regarding 9/11. This approach is also appropriate with the public.

3. What hit the Pentagon?

The question of "what hit the pentagon" has been the single most divisive issue within the movement, but we can all agree that absolutely nothing could have hit the Pentagon without those in charge allowing it to happen. While we support ongoing research into the event, we urge unity on our common ground; refocusing energy towards demanding accountability and away from endless debate. We urge framing our public presentation of the Pentagon issue around unanimously agreed upon issues such as the absent air defence, the missing 2.3 trillion dollars, the conflicting testimonies, the inconsistencies regarding the official flight path of AA77, the very low probability of an amateur pilot achieving the manoeuvre seen and the refusal by government agencies to release evidence.

4. Global Warming

It has become apparent during attempts to reach out to environmentalists in our communities that questioning the veracity of man made global warming has prevented many in this group from continuing dialog with us. We suggest these “off topic” assertions or debates should not be brought to the public domain during 9/11 truth outreach. truthaction.org as a group holds no particular view on this issue.

Conclusion

Many activists came together to make these recommendations possible. We have all had direct experience with behaviour and information that has impeded our cause. Thus we hope this document will help the 9/11 truth movement to achieve greater unity and focus. We encourage activists to cite and link to these recommendations as a standard response to diversionary and disruptive behaviour. Hopefully, this will allow us to move beyond some of our major obstacles to spreading truth and securing justice.

[Wokeman]

Stefan,
I'll be happy to join you

[Stefan]

Thanks Wokeman,
I want to point out this is not a "competitor forum" to this one or any other - it is a board to allow activism and action to flourish.

If you have events, flag them up here, if you want to go out on the streets in your area campaigning, put out a call for people to join you there, ideas of things that worked well, problems you've had and so on - post them.

This forum is not suitable for advertising events, because the only people who use it are the converted, and most of us would not give a neutral interested party on the street the url as it would be plain detrimental, having spent half an hour telling them about the wholely rational arguments for 9/11 Truth, and have them come here and see posts about vampires, ufos and crop circles.

[alwun]

Stefan,

where you say "debunked theories" - no.3 theories based on inconclusive video and photographic evidence. -

the videos which purport to show that planes hit the twin towers have of course been thoroughly debunked.

I find it a shame that a "911 truth" movement is moving away from the actual truth.

all the best

cheers Al..

[Stefan]

Al,
That is the TruthAction declaration, not my own words, however for the most part I agree with them.

If you really think there is anything to the beamery/fakery/noplanery stuff, you can see it as a declaration to a credible campaign. I personally see it as a declaration to a truthful one as well...

As I have said before, the extent to which I would define myself as a "truth seeker" is limited to my private thoughts or discussions with friends. I am a Peace Activist and a Campaigner for 9/11 Truth - not a preacher of what I have personally decided is the truth.

There are as many truths in this movement, as there are people - but there is one which joins us all - the official story is a lie.

I wish people would get off their semi-religious and selfish high horses, from where it appears that finding a truth for personal satisfaction is bigger than convincing those of the lies which constrict them, and changing society.

No one can think "fakery/noplanes/beamery" is the way to wake people up, even those who believe that kind of thing. So what is this for you? If you want a religion go to a church or a mosque or a temple. We're trying to change the world here.

[ian neal]

I see this as a welcome development. The greater the choice available, the more likely campaigners will be able to find a forum that suits their needs.

As I say here, in terms of minimising tensions between different beliefs and campaigning strategies, I would like to see more neutral language used: So instead of 'debunked theories', contested theories would be more neutral

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=116181&highlight=#11 6181

But otherwise a welcome addition

[Stefan]

[gareth]

[ian neal]

I know and that's fine. But as you well know there are many people who are either inclined to believe these theories or else keep an open mind but who also recognise the value of what truthaction are saying in terms of campaigning on the strongest and least contested evidence.

If truthaction wishes to attract these campaigners they MAY wish to use more neutral language. In the same way that it neatly sidesteps controversies over anthropogenic climate change by simply stating that it has no position on the subject.

Still each to their own and I will be happy to post there

[TonyGosling]

[alwun]

Hi Stefan,

I take your points. Well put.

cheers Al..

[Mark Gobell]

If we accept the notion that a non-lizard-esque approach to campaigning will bear fruits then twould be hard to argue with such an outcome.

Fast forward . . .


No lizards, no strange theories . . . .

For how long must this approach take hold for it to become credible ?

It's almost 7 years since whatever happened in America, happened.

Has the truth of what happened been stymied by lizards et al ?

If it has, in your mind, then cross over to the straight and narrow.

If you think it hasn't then what is this initiative hoping to change ?

For exmaple:

Does negating climate change, or whatever tructhaction have agreed to disbar, alter the fact that WTC7 has still not been explained?

The idea that credibility is built on only talking about "credible" issues, imo, is just not credible. . .

[chrisc]

[Mark Gobell]

Hmm.

Yes I did.

[chrisc]

So, where does it talk about "negating climate change"?

It says:

[Mark Gobell]

No particular view on this issue?

Is that why you haven't watched the Al Gore classic?

Environmentalists are going to be the fulcrum of 911 truth ?

Are you missing something dot dot dot

[chrisc]

[Mark Gobell]

You "explained" in that post did you?

[chek]

[chek]

[gareth]

*Bump*

[Newspeak International]

I would contribute despite my reservations on the limitations.
The only problem is my account has been deleted,though my username
is still in effect.No resolution despite direct emails to re-instate my account?

newspeak (obviously)

[paul wright]

The very ultimate limited hangout. The problem is that people at large need to understand a whole lot of understandings at a fast pace. Lot's of people I know understand 9/11 as an inside job, but so what? Vote in Obama and it's ok. What else can you do about it?
Lack of understanding and connection to the central plot
Are the likes of Stefan and Ian being succoured to chrisc's central manouevre. The acceptable leftist Indymedia version of 9/11
The one to soon emerge on the world stage, and trigger the new order
Does this make Tony's new version redundant?

[acrobat74]

Scope and prioritization are good, they serve well against diversion and divide-and-conquer methods.

Good luck.

[chrisc]

[Newspeak International]

[Newspeak International]

Any answer to my question.chrisc or Stefan or whoever?