Nasty feeling about this site

[TonyGosling]

So you just carry on regardless. It's not the approach of a mature person who's committed to the wider campaign objectives.

[TonyGosling]

Noel,

Please read my post again. And the forum rules. You haven't understood at all.

[paul wright]

[Rory Winter]

[TonyGosling]

[Rory Winter]

[paul wright]

Tony - nobody's against you
Least of all me
You really need to let it go
I've let a lot of stuff go in order to contribute here

[Keith Mothersson]

I don't think it is negative to question and criticise.

It is good for those who sense an important rule being broken to stick up for it straight-away (not leave everything to the Moderators). Many people are unaware of the rules, didn't come across them.

I have read quite a lot of abusive posts on this forum against No Plane Theories/or NBB and Directed Energy hypotheses (hostilely called 'space beam' weapons). (A few but not most supporters of those hypotheses have in the past been abusive at times, but that doesn't affect the truth or otherwise of those hypotheses, though it does seem to give certain people an excuse to write off everything they believe.)

I have often come across posts from newcomers which assume - without ANY evidence that there were Hijackers involved (also posts from vetrans such as Prof Jones and Willie Rodriquez who also validate that myth).

They don't get moved to controversial theories, even though IMO it is racist to continue to believe in hijackers without ANY evidence.

But if I were to post this link - critiqueing the main planks of Anti-No-Planery http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&tas k=view&id=163&Itemid=60
then that would often be enough to get any thread I posted it on moved to Controversial Theories.

I do believe that there should be a well-organised site for newcomers which concentrates on the strongest evidence (A-List), but which also gives people the B-list truths about our 911-movement (which is a Truth movement, not just an Inquiry movement, and which understands truth as an evolving path) that some of us think Directed energy weapons and some think controlled demolition using explosives/thermite,etc. Also that some of us believe in Big Boeings crashing in 4 places, other in 3, others in 2, others in none.

This should be cited neutrally, encouraging people to investigate with open minds (with links to pro and con in each case) but reminding people that even if they find any of this B-list of not-agreed matters stretching their credulity, then that doesn't mean that the evidence in the A-List is thereby weakened as the laws of physics of falling objects don't change even if some of us believed that little green men from mars were behind the murders that day.

In the B-list should be matters which have come out of the investigative process itself,whether or not wrongly in some people's views. They should not include theories about other aspects of belief, pro-/anti- Europe, Icke's reptile soiciology/history, aliens, cures for cancer, even child abuse and stealing elections, people unless clear links can be shown to how 911 was pulled off or some other flag event. Just 911 and false flag terrorism.

And the A-list should NOT (as so often at present) describe things in such a way as to assume that there were planes and that there were 'attacks on America' and that there were hijackings, and that the buildings came down because of conventional demolition. Instead, on this last point, the word 'destruction' is acceptable.

As well as this focussed and educative and managed website, it would be good to continue with a wide-ranging forum too (wherever hosted), IMO. But hopefully not if the Moderator are sometimes too worried about being sneered at by the existing political classes with the result that they are too quick to shut off certain discussions, or shunt them to less visited places.

And Tony shouldn't moderate if he can't accept the full co-humanity of gays, Muslims, Jews, etc.

However I personally do favour quite a lot of restrictions on people's 'rights' to be abusive - that is because to call someone an * isn't TRUE. On Op Ed news,there are certain trigger words which when one posts, bring up a message asking one to reflect on the importance of comradely discussion and civility and inviting them to rephrase if they think that their use of certain words was inappropriate.

Ideally we could learn Non Violent Communication as per Marshall Rosenberg's book/movement, according to which what would be true is to say "when you do such and such a specific thing, I feel such and such a specific feeling, because I [not because you] because I have such and such a need or such and such a value and therefore i wonder if you could do x specific thing ..."

If we talked more civilly with each other perhaps more women might bother to work with us.

[Pikey]

Comrades the future of our best asset, this website and also the campaign needs to be thrashed out and resolved on this thread now in the private forum and started by Ian Neal in the public forum :-

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=14121

Private forum>Website>Throw your hats in the ring-London gathering Sat 15th March

Simon A has given us until 14th June so the clocks ticking

[Rory Winter]

[ian neal]

No, you are correct Rory. Very few people use the private forum

[numeral]

Hi Keith

[url]
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&tas k=view&id=163&Itemid=60
[/url]
works.

[John White]

[Keith Mothersson]

Hi John,

That is interesting that the Controversies section is much visited. To the extent that I assumed the opposite, I am sorry for my mistake. But that doesn't cover the fundamental problem that the site is seen to distance itself from Wood's huge photo archive of EVIDENCE, and yet not from posts which assume the EVIDENCE-FREE hijackers stuff.
[url]http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/stories/911/noevidence.pdf  [/url]

[quote]If anyone is of the opinion that the work of people like Wood or Shack should be plastered all over articles and news I believe that they really need to get a grip on the interests of this site[/quote]

Not plastered all over; I don't hold a candle for Shack's work, haven't examined it. But Wood's work is a huge archive, with extensive court case affadavits (Inquiry anyone?) and Morgan Rynold's is a heavyweight deserves to be taken seriously too, as also Andrew Johnson's research.

With goodwill we can create a concordat for the researchers and the 'professional communicators' to live with each other and for stuff to be agreed that goes on the latter showcase site. But we won't manage this agreement if people keep ignoring the fact that the highly controversial 'hijackers' hypothesis is treated as non-controversial, and if people insist on describing the destruction of the towers in Jonesian terminology (or solely in Woodian terminology either).

I AGREE withe the Basic Case front window website proposals! But NOT if they are a cover for Jones/Floum to gain control of 'the truth' that we in the 911 truth movement are pursuing and are supposed to believe.

Hopefully no one in the UK is using the former desideratum as a cover for the latter objective, but the test will be whether people are prepared to settle on agreed facts such as WTC7 and speed of DESTRUCTION (sic - not Collapse, or controlled demolition, please, or else we get back into Jones versus Wood) of the Twin Towers.

Other candidates for the Main Shop window of Agreed facts are put options; absence of actual-hijackers-on-the-day evidence - see Elias Davidson's [url]http://aldelis.net/english/images/stories/911/noevidence.pdf[/url  ] ; whole in Pentagon too small; promotion for those who 'failed' that day; US military Anthrax sent to senators resisting Patriot Act; planting of evidence; prevention of investigations; resistance to Inquiry.

There should also be a mechanism - truth assizes, protocols for the rival arguments to get to grips with each other in prepared, time framed process of discussion - for stuff to move from 'Not agreed' to 'Mostly agreed' - else we would still be back at Unaswered Questions or at most LIHOP.

9/11 Truth is a process, and our Basic case website should warn people it is a journey, that we need to get good at assessing things for ourselves, including holding various hypotheses in our minds with shifting degrees of doubt, and without resorting to scorn or switching off as we have been dysfunctionally programmed to do. Plus there should be [u]even-handed [/u]links to and thumbnail descriptions of the main reseachers websites as well as archives such as Patriots question 911.

[IanFantom]

I think this sort of polemic, on this sort of forum, is to be expected. It dramatically supports the idea that seems to be gaining ground that controversial issues should be aired freely in a private forum, and that the common ground should be aired in an accessible manner in the public web pages. See the postings on the forum about this website.

I personally have no problem in looking in the dustbin for finding really valuable insights to problems. I'm used to that elsewhere. I bet Tony is, too

Regards, Ian.

[marky 54]

it's easy to see how peoples minds runaway into a conspiracy theory, well once you read this thread that is.

thanks for an insight into the process. you take none facts or speculation then structure a theory around it and convince yourself it must be true.

i think some people are being over paranoid and turning on eachother and losing focus in favour of personnal beliefs.

[Jane]

I don't ever post on this Forum these days but having just been taking a look, I will make one (and possibly final) posting here please try and take it in - it will save a lot of infighting:

"The Greatest Truth There Is, Is to "Know Thyself!" (not the "no planes theory", the lizards or the Freemasons!) but "Know Thyself!" then you have only yourself to battle it out with - that I would think is the real "Jihad" and the hardest one!

[TonyGosling]

You hit the nail on the head John
Interesting reactions in retrospect though