Mon16Apr - LONDON - film premiere BBC/Guy Smith

[B]

Well spoken Stelios, Tom & Stefan.

Yes in retrospect this should have been advertised as an EVENING WITH DAVID SHAYLER rather than an evening with the 9/11 Truth Campaign!!

Anyone who is thinking to book David in from now to do a 9/11 talk take note you’ll get far more than 9/11 – CONTAINS EXPLOSIVE MATERIAL Handle with Care should be on the side of the box.

As we floundered about from topic to topic and the Z & J-words flew about I couldn't help contrasting in my mind the masterly control of the subject-matter shown by Norman Baker MP in Lewes last week, on the subject of the death of Dr David Kelly. That was how it's done: a clear presentation of the facts and FOCUS, from start to finish. Pressed on things he was not comfortable about or that remain speculative NB said simply “I don’t know” or “I’m not going down there”. His non-engagement in fact flagged up the dodgy areas far more effectively than had he proffered a personal opinion.

There will come a time when all kinds of peripherally-related issues can be brought into the mix of an evening on 9/11 but we’re way off that. For the moment the uninitiated, who are legion let’s never forget, need educating in the BASIC FACTS of what occurred on September 11th 2001, whilst initiates – the majority of those in the room last night – need to hone our skills in presenting the story in a cogent way for the benefit of the uninitiated. We all need to become ambassadors for 9/11 Truth and to become better and better and more and more professional at doing this all-important job.

Sadly David’s exposition and indeed the film in its unfinished state helped neither of the above groups, neither the uninitiated nor the already-active initiates.

What we did have however was an amazingly frank debate about who/what was at the back of 9/11 which clearly did please some of the audience and maybe that in itself was necessary? Although I have to say I personally winced the whole way through that and as ‘compere’ (of sorts) tried (and failed!) to steer us back onto a less inflammatory course.

In fact I’m finally going to have to part company with David if he sticks to this particular tack publicly, as no doubt being David he will! In my own view

(a) ‘Zionists’ are not per se/exclusively responsible for 9/11; to have succeeded (so far!) this has to have been a WORLD PLOT, involving all kinds of different groups/individuals with a SHARED INTEREST & MINDSET;

(b) It’s WAY TOO EARLY to begin publicly pointing the finger at any particular group or even individuals, although we can all keep our own private list of suspects;

(c) We’d do far better and we’d be on safer, less potentially divisive ground if we work at the matter from the OPPOSITE direction, a kind of Occam’s Razor approach, and begin by identifying who was NOT involved in 9/11 & the underlying agenda and who is NOT involved in the ensuing cover-up?? Think about that – anyone NOT involved in 9/11 or the cover-up, the BBC is now off the list!! But even there it will not be the whole of the BBC and some in there will want to be on our list and we need to make contact with those – d’you see what I’m saying?

Anyway no doubt there will be more discussion of this semi-disastrous event at the next London planning meeting. At least it’s become clear as a result of last night that to have any hope of carrying on a successful CAMPAIGN we really need to lay down some firm ground-rules and insist that our speakers stick to them.

Otherwise we might as well give up campaigning here and now and just be a MOVEMENT – which is still an option. What do all think?

[The Watcher]

tomi01uk wrote:

[Jack]

I tend to agree that David's style was quite obnoxious and his content was often off-topic or speculative rather than fact based and focused on 9/11. Different opinions surrounding 9/11 and the New World Order (which I think most people agree is emerging) such as the focus on Zionism is part of what makes this movement dynamic and diverse, but I think David shouldn't act all offended and shout things like "it's worse that Nazism" when people tell him it's too sensitive and, in fact, not a productive avenue to pursue. I would have been very uncomfortable had any of my friends or family agreed to come last night. It was a bit of a sloppy approach to the whole 9/11 issue, especially from the perspective of a newcomer, I think.

[Snowygrouch]

All,
I wasnt there so I cant really comment intelligently. However I will say the following.

1: The days of a broad church of casual membership of our "movement" should be brought to a sharp closeure.
Its long overdue for tight goals to be agreed and stuck to.

We`ve had 5 years of a "loose organization of like minded individuals" and while we have made much progress, I think this indicates to me a change is required. We must organize or......you know what the other one is.

2: If anyone even THINKS about mentioning anything non-factual at this talk I`ll be speaking at soon the`ll be booted out the door; personally by me. Dont care who you are.

I wasnt there so I wont make any accusations or point fingers but if the posts here are representative.......I`m concerned.

Still; its happened....done over. If it didnt go as planned, then we had best sort out WHY and what we`re going to do about it..sharpish!

Calum

[tomi01uk]

And here it is again:

The meeting was good last night in that thee were more in attendence than the previous meeting. It was good to see so many people come to listen to what they can do to help the movement. These people are angry, concerned and want others to talk to who have also "taken the red pill". An event that should of inspired everyone was turned into a verbal combat zone because several people there objected to David Shaylor's use of the word Zionists when describing the elite power groups.
Here is my opinion; David does himself a disservice while delivering his very astute and well presented observations and facts by exceeding the middle ground where this movement needs to be based. Leave the Zionist discussion to the coffee table or pub talk with other like minded friends, the movement needs to base itself in the middle ground.
I am going to stay in this movement and I am going to do all I can to help it, but I will fight inside of it and outside of it to make sure it is a movement that can move mounds of people. In order to get as many people as possible to look at it and see that A NEW INVESTIGATION with TEETH is necessary we need to stop the fringe sh*t. And we need to be careful not to allow it to colour this movement. It is not OUR BUSINESS to "PROVE" how the buildings went down. It is our business to make sure we get the resources, the movement and the investigation along with documents, witnesses and hearings to disclose what the truth is. In order to do this we must protect this movement from being coloured all to easily as some crackpot organisation. If we want this movement to succeed we need to frame it in a way that won't embarrass the average poplulatin to take a stand with us. We are not a group of people saying the USA didn't land on the moon, we are not a group of people wearing tin hats and thinking holograms of planes were involved, we are people who question the official theories of what happened and want an viable investigation, prosecution of those who are quilty finally and foremost we want the truth.

To that end I object strongly to all references at this delicate time of the movement to all fringe theories and speculations and associations to this movement.

[tomi01uk]

It can only succeed if we are reasonable and walk as an organisation down the middle. Because it is the middle area where we will gain the masses to swing the pendellum into a new investigation.

Without a mass movement it will not happen. And the masses of people out there will be put off by the "no plane-ers". Pretty simple formula, no?

[Stefan]

Snowygrouch,
I don't think you have to worry about that at your talk, since the diversion here was from on-stage, not inherent in any of the organisation of the evening.

And I very much doubt your going to find Gordon Ross talking about anything other than engineering and physics!

[karlos]

no planers is the least of our problems.
In fact no planers are also 911 truthers so deserve to be on board.

hemp, chemtrails, growing your own veg, making your own fuel, aids vaccines, flouride, drinking your own piss!!
people have to leave these views at home they have nothing to do with 911 or 7/7
for the truth campaign to succeed it needs to concentrate on core issues.
We can all privately and seperately campaign for whatever else we want but NOT during 911 time.

So i think the truth party needs to have a constitution and membership and RULES
I have suggested that we should stick our own candidate up for election for London Mayor next year. Just think what that would achieve?

When a CND spokesman comes on tv he does NOT talk about flouride. When a green party MEP is interviewed he does NOT talk about 911 truth does he?

We need our own spokesman our own PR department and our own rules of engagement, issues we are into and not talk, mention, discuss, entertain anything else. Anyone who does not stick to the script should be kicked out.Like Galloway was from Labour, like KIlroy was from UKIP.

The Hemp campaign is a well funded and well organised SEPERATE campaign. I grew up in Tottenham and know all about about it. And i dont agree with it. But i shouldnt be dicussing it here on the 911 and 7/7 website. Lets organise properly and learn to keep our private thoughts private. Or else forget 911 7/7 truth and concentrate on your other campaigns?

[Snowygrouch]

Splendid Stefan

[Skeptic]

[tomi01uk]

Right now I am listening to this:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/7886

It's the The San Diego Citizen's Grand Jury, Featuring Don Paul, Jim Hoffman, and Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

In London we have a great opportunity to bring a similiar event. The movement here needs credibility. It can have credibility if we allow holograms for planes to replace other more readily digestible facts. And there are enough FACTS to be turned over that wild speculation only shoots this movement in the kneecaps.

[Stefan]

Tomi,
See the upcoming Calum Douglas and Gordon ross event "9/11: Separating Facts from Fiction" currently on the events board for something more along those lines.

All the reserach is fact based, both have qualifications in engineering; I for one am really looking forward to it already.

[Zabooka]

I also decided to go out and do "damage control" like Stephan.

I had to clarify to people that there is no 'officiality' in the Truth Movement. There is no overall spokesperson and so forth. There are various people.

I pointed them to "911 Press For Truth" as I was wearing their T-Shirt, and said you have the families and victim groups, much led by the Family Steering Committee (before and through the 911 Commission's time), who have their spokespersons.
You have PilotsFor911Truth, who have their spokespersons.

However, even the Jewish man, who respectfully stood and spoke about how Zionism can be seen as an offensive word for some Jews. It certainly was too painful for the lone 15yr old young lad, who was here on his own. He was Jewish. How he must have felt, that he was like the only Jew in the room, full of people who probably look at him and think of Palestine is all your fault.

I and you do not know what went through that poor boys head and heart. However, its a sensitivity that could have easily been addressed by an apology, we did not mean to offend anyone and we are sorry to offend anyone.

That was partly done by Shayler's distinction which he made asap, as the boy was walking out, between Zionism and Judaism. However, I feel that some people felt that he and others could have been more humble and sensitive, by at least apologising.

However, you still have to keep in mind. That you can not be held responsible for everyone that is offended. For instance, I am in a room full of racists and I start talking about people of races other than themselves. Would that be insensitive and offensive of me to do so?

Plus, Shayler would not stand down, or at least clarify his simile of Nazism and Zionsim, this means that anyone could concoct any meaning for what he actually meant and what he did not mean. It could have helped if people looked at many Jewish sites, such as http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
and http://www.jfjfp.org/ (Jews For Justice For Palestinians).

You can find many places where Jewish people themselves are appalled by the Israeli State and compare it to Nazi Rule.

I would also enquire as to how www.mujca.com (Muslim, Jewish, Christian Alliance; for 9/11 Truth) deal with such issues.

However, getting BACK TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND... I do feel, that the screening of the film and all efforts made before it were tremendous. What I mean by this, is the effort to get the film made, the efforts to get people to the event and so forth.

Sometimes I feel that it would have been fantastic, if Shayler perhaps just stopped there and had a Q&A. However, if there were no Jewish people, or if there were Jewish people in the room but they were not offended, do you think we would have had what we did have?
Can we hold Shayler solely responsible for that young boy being there and him walking out? He did make a strong distinction between Judaism and Zionism. What more can you ask of him?

However, at the same time... somethings I believe and others have already said is this. We should have not advertised this as a 9/11 Truth Evening, instead it should have been "An Evening with David Shayler". This is early damage control. Perhaps this should be done for all future events. Indeed we have steep learning curves, some may feel not steep enough.

On a good point, during my 'damage controlling' outside, I did manage to talk with that Jewish man who spoke up also after others had pointed out about the boy leaving upset. He did have a smile on his face, he was smart enough to know that the movement is a great deal more than just David Shayler and he did enquire to know when the next event it to be. So it seems, most people will be coming and perhaps telling others about the next two coming events.

So in conclusion, we did get what we wanted. People hooked and willing to come back for more. Plus, we have learned how to do "pre-damage control", but not saying its a 9/11 Truth Evening, but saying its an evening with 'so and so', thus any damage caused is restricted some what to the said party.

Bravo Chaps... oh and one last thing. Learn to not raise your voices, not quicken your speech, learn to listen and be patient.

Peace Be Upon Us All
Amen

[SHERITON HOTEL]

I haven't read all the above contributions I'm slightly dyslexic and have little available time but wasn't there a film crew recording everything David Shayler said there last night?We can have a stewards enquiry! As I remember it ,Shayler went to great lengths to distinguish between Zionist hoodlums acting like nazis and decent Jewish people and invited Zionists in the name of love to repent and 'cross the bridge to the moral high ground' so to speak.

That New Yorker heckler made the point that PULL IT is a phrase used by the NYFD as well as being a common term for 'effect a controlled demolition', is Silverstein familiar with NY firefighter parlence? I thought this chap was being a bit petty especially as DS had given his hemp campaign such a good plug.

To the film 'Case Closed', I know I bang on about this but there was no mention in it of whether Guy Smith doctored that Norad/FAA tape at 8.30MINS into 'Conspiracy Files 911', has anyone here gotten a reply from the BBC on this point?

[TonyGosling]

The campaign is to succeed it needs to

1. be able to deliver films on time as advertised and
2. keep strictly to the core issue of 9/11, the war on terror and false flag terror attacks

with regard to the above last night appears to be a minor disaster

One of the main problems is that David Shayler is into slipping other agendas in with the false flag terror stuff which is annoying and sneaky.

Dave is piggy backing on the campaign. All his future events need to be billed seperately to UK 911 Truth IMHO.

[The Watcher]

Snowygrouch bragged:

[paul wright]

The whole thing is when the truth is unleashed, ie the central lies are revealed as such, how can you hope to reign in the side issues?
The problem is that every dogma regarding the consensus reality is untrue
You cant stop that unfocussing. It's a necessary step.
Some people will regard some issues as a step too far, but that's an inevitable part of the awakening

[Stefan]

Look, I wanted to leave this thread to disappear, to not focus on this but look forward to future events, but I feel a strong need to comment on some of the comments on this thread:

The concept of "thought police" or "restricting debate" are not in the least bit of releavnce to events held open and marketed at the general public who's only previous exposure to 9/11 has been the main stream meida, especially in this case, the BBCs Conspiracy Files programme.

dh

We cannot expect "side issues" to be reigned in within the walls of the movement, nor should we. That is not the issue. When we put on an event we have complete control over what we put across to the general public. We should consider very carefully what our aims are and speak to them. In this case our aim was refuting the staw man nonsense proposed by the BBC as an accurate reflection of the 9/11 truth campaigns aims. We can't stop "unfocussing" among a group of people, but a public address can and should be planned and controlled for maximum impact suitable for our proposed auidence.

To say that some issues are always going to be a part of someones "awakening" is irrelevant at an event which was supposedly designed to be an alarm clock.

Each person in this movement develops their own ideas as their own research carries on. No one is trying to limit or belittle this. But people SHOULD BE FREE to develop their own conclusions. And our job is simply to provide them the facts.

The Watcher

You are completley wrong on several fronts.

There is a very clear distinction between facts and theories.

To say that a Nasa thermal imaging photograph recorded surface temparatures of 1377degrees 6 days prior to 9/11 at ground zero is a fact because it can be sourced and is a simple repeating of evidence without speculation. But it will make people think "that's a bit odd" or better still make them ask a question "well there was jet fuel under there right?" the answer to which is "NIST said that all burned off within 15 minutes, mostly outside the towers" and their journey begins.

To speculate or to try to build a case for a particular guilty party or any complex proposal of how the deed was done is a theory, because even if it is a theory based around the available facts it is still routed in speculation. It is what you IMAGINE happened, cannot be proved and will be used against you when people get troubled with facts. "Did you hear that a controlled demolition expert says WTC7 could only have been a CD?" "Oh, so you're saying this was some huge Zionist plot? Prove it!". Believe me this is not unrealistic. I have been debating this issue for a long time and deniers will ALWAYS focus on what you cannot prove to avoid what they cannot answer- look at the BBC conspiracy files -what the evening was supposed to be about do you realise that the end of David's speech would be just as useful to anything else they covered as a way of distracting their audience from the facts? If this had happened a year ago and the BBC had filmed it, it would have taken pride of place in their Conspiracy Files programme.

It is also a PERSONAL BELEIF which you try to ENFORCE on others. To label avoiding doing this as "thought policing" is in fact "thought facism"- you not giving others space or credit enough to process the evidence themselves and come to their own conclusions and instead trying to foist your own ideas on them.

The main point where you are wrong is your "preaching to the choir" jibe- that is not the point of a campaign - a campaign reaches out to as many people as possible, and that is why it is neccesary to remember that our key audience is someone who knows NOTHING about 9/11.

It's too easy to get (as another campaigner commented to me) into a "9/11 Bubble" where all you do is discuss 9/11 with 9/11 people. You all take for granted that people know the basics about building 7, about realistic speeds of a gravitational collapse, about reports of molten metal, about the physical steel samples which were melted and sulfidated. This strong, verefiable evidence which first made us all say "hold on, somethings wrong here" then becomes an irrelevance and you take your thinking on from this point. Onto the next level if you will.

What you are now discussing is completley inaccessable to people who have not passed that stage. You try to make them walk before they can crawl and so their journey to "awakening" begins and ends with falling on their face.

It's like saying to someone "Hey I'm reading this great book!" and then start reading chapter 10 to them to demonstrate this. It's not going to mean anything to them. Instead GIVE THEM THE BOOK, let them open it on the first page and then when they get to chapter ten, you can discuss it with them.

I think I could have summed this whole passage up by saying "We are a campaign not a club".

[londonsound]

well that night was interesting. and so is this thread!

I thought was pretty stylish and well put together though nothing new for veterans like me (i look forward to seeing it next year when it's finished ) . and David is a compelling speaker.....

....but I have to say my heart really sank when I heard David launching into the Protocols of the elders of Zion, blaming Zionism for global imperialism. The slanging match wasn't pretty but it was entertaining. I'm loathe to cast aspersions on anyone but for a moment i thought "add 'no planes' to 'zionists own the media and are the prime movers behind everything' is this trying to sabotage this movement or aid it"

For a moment, i thought, is this what the others really think? For tis not just daft but untrue.

Thankfully contributions from Belinda (who writes beautifully i have to say) and Ian restored my faith in this forum and campaign.

I don't have a problem with what David said about Zionism and Zionists because it offended one person who walked out, or because it's contentious, i have a problem with it because it isn't true!!!

I do think it is a conundrum. Getting a balance between allowing for free expression and honest debate and difference of opinion but not making horrendous PR errors which shoot the campaign in the foot or becoming fly-paper for every fringe theory going.

In truth the only guarantee way of offending no one is to say nothing at all (even then someone will say "you're not saying anything and that offends me"!) .

What if an average uninformed american (and average americans are uninformed!!) walked out because someone said The US was acting as an imperial power determined to control central Asia's resources. Would you want to do "damage limitation" then? probably not.

"Probably not" because that's true. Contentious in mainstream media circles, very offensive to some, but how can i put this.... true.

I think wanting to know in advance what people are going to say or wanting to chuck them out if they don't stick to "the facts"is iffy (whose facts? Who decides which are facts and which are ridiculous assertions, a comittee?). Creativity, theorising, and hypothesising are part of both the scientific and journalistic truth seeking. Just "sticking to the facts" sounds easy, but , strictly speaking, it is neither possible or desirable.

I also think never hearing things you disagree with is terribly boring. I heard zionist neocon Daniel Pipes www.danielpipes.org my personal nominee for the role of Satan if it ever comes up, debating Ken Livingstone http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=21601 and it was great; a frisson created by profound differences of opinion.

Compare that to a procession of speakers at a stop the war event all saying the same thing.

I guess what I'm saying is i don't want thought police, and choir preaching and i don't want stifled debate. but i also don't want a self destructing campaign.

the real problems were/are:

1 The challenge to Shayler's zionist allegation was not robust enough. he was up on stage and had ages to speak and can be a little intimidating. In a fair debate the 'damage' could be limited on the stage and produce 'light' as well as heat.

2 many people strongly identify Shayler with the campaign and he strikes me as simultaneously brave/brilliant and under-informed/loose cannon. This needs looking at.

3 Tackling Zionism (or making any allegations about Jews. How most people, especially Jews, hear it) is a sociopolitical "third rail". Extremely sensitive for obvious historical reasons and potentially very very damaging. Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8tfhqmGkSw

clearly a trap we don't want to fall into, but mainly cause it aint so!!

Would anyone care if he were dissing americans?

lets have some heated debates!!

Here endeth my two penneth

onwards upwards


Mykal


[/i][/quote]

[londonsound]

like your last post stefan.
I don't agree completely but some good points well made.

Mykal

[Snowygrouch]

"We are a campaign not a club"

Best bloody thing I`ve read all month.

[The Watcher]

The following video contains only FACTS:


Link


If the youtube link above doesn't work, go to: http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/disease.swf

The Watcher

[The Watcher]

Stranger Than Fiction

An Independent Investigation of 911 and the War on Terrorism

To ignore the wider connectivity is either intellectual dishonesty or cognitive dissonance.

www.rense.com/general31/thr.htm

The Watcher

[Zabooka]

Thank you for that post 'Watcher', very powerful straight to the point facts there.

To be honest, I want to know where is it written that Zionist means Jewish? You do not even have to be Jewish to be Zionist. There are right-wing Christian Zionists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist

Below is an interesting quote...

[The Watcher]

Zabooka wrote:

[Zabooka]

gah.. this is becoming one of those crazy threads again... okay, Im leaving hopefully with my final comments. Apart from the ugly despensation of some loudly shared words... The event was lovely!

For me, its all about making the next two events EVEN BIGGER!

[karlos]

WHATEVER HAPPENS regarding the video of the evening

the best thing to do is PULL IT

so whoever has it you had better pull it

because sticking that on the net will be disasterous

[ianrcrane]

Stefan wrote:

[Stefan]

Ian,
Some solid good points there and I agree with most of your comments, although I can't comment on your criticism of the London group before I joined it, and is perhaps a little unfair as it has been long standing members who have taken the inititative to make these public events happen.

I would say one thing:

Any "thirst" existing members of the Campaign may have to hear speculatory theories this time next year will be as self serving and detrimental then as it is now:

Our auidence, as a campaign, will still be the unititiated this time next year, the year after, and the year after that.

The problem as I perceive it is people who have long been "in the bubble" who are "bored" of the dry standard awakening tools because they've been discussed for so long, and forget that the audience is people who hasn't heard it yet and instead polarise themselves and become inaccessable.

There has been suggestions in London of more "socials" where members can happliy meet over beer or juice and discuss complex theories to their hearts content amongst ourselves. I'm all for that.

I hope I will be able to keep a clear head this time next year, and this time the year after and remember our cause is not our members entertainment, but the furthering of our cause and bringing the important questions to the widest possible audience.

[hampton]

where's the videos of all these events?
i'm sure others would like to see them.
otherwise, what's the point of filming?
these are time sensitive issues and anything which can get people to sit up and listen should be out on the web asap.
where's "short-changed"?
where's the lastest bbc shayler doc?

as for quote:
"hemp, chemtrails, growing your own veg, making your own fuel, aids vaccines, flouride, drinking your own piss!!
people have to leave these views at home they have nothing to do with 911 or 7/7"

they have both nothing and everything to do with 911.
we are poisoned daily and too reliant on technology. this is how they get away with 911.
we must take power back from those who control our lives.
we are living in a world of near total disinfo but i think it would be sensible to ease people into these difficult topics.
maybe provide leaflets on some of the more controversial issues.
we can't just give people one piece of the puzzle, you have to give them as many as they can handle without scaring them away.
if anyone thinks that 911 is the only thing wrong with the world then they are as delusional as people who deny 911 was an inside job.