ADJ Resigning from 911COUK

[Andrew Johnson]

Hello everyone,

For some time now, I have been unhappy with the “goings on” on this forum and therefore now “resigning” from it. I will not be acting as an admin or moderator directly, though will be assisting with some technical issues in getting the site to run smoothly again (this process has already started). I may post here occasionally, but my new “plans”, and reasons for them, are given below.

1) I became unhappy quite some time ago, when other moderators (you know who you are) were editing headlines (sometimes introducing errors) and were being rude and insulting to both myself and other posters, contravening the moderation policy that we had loosely agreed. At that point, I stopped moderating the forum and just began checking user sign-ups for spammers.

2) I have become very unhappy with the way that “controversial issues” have been treated both by other moderators and a number of posters – some of whom are quite well known campaigners etc. Clearly there should be room for vigorous discussion and reasoned disagreement, but not for unreasonable demands to be made and rudeness to be almost continually in use.

3) Anonymous posters – I have become unhappy with the number of anonymous posters who hardly reveal anything about themselves and when asked they often simply suggest they shouldn’t be being asked. Their style of posting never really adds much if anything to the debate and is typically framed in a sarcastic manner. Some of these posters use handles and some use what appear to be real names. They are almost always derogatory and never offer constructive criticism.

4) Soft censorship – I was particularly surprised when I posted the news about the unsealing of Dr Morgan Reynolds Qui Tam suit against NIST (for fraud) when it was moved to the “Controversial” section – not so much that, but Tony Gosling said he would move it back if I convinced enough people that Morgan Reynolds analysis was valid! Well, I have news for everyone who agreed with Tony – as of Sept 11 2007, the press release I wrote about the legal actions of Prof Judy Wood and Prof Morgan Reynolds has made the Front Page of the “Shoutwire” news service www.shoutwire.com (archived here http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/shoutwire91107.jpg ) and as of typing this the story has had over 2500 reads on 911researchers.com (http://www.911researchers.com/node/947). It’s the only 9/11 story on the front page of Shoutwire today. So is it true to say that a 9/11 forum has (essentially) censored this story MORE than a news feed service? Perhaps you can decide on the answer to that question for yourselves, and the implications of it.

In pointing out how specific problems with the action of other moderators, and actually handling complaints about them on several occasions, I have received little or no support from other people involved in decisions about or the running of this forum. I must emphasise clearly that I refer to the above instances of where other moderators have broken an agreed policy or repeatedly done things they’ve been asked not to do (such as editing post titles). I can therefore not continue being a moderator in this sort of environment. This is a completely separate issue to that of 911 “controversies”, based on strong evidence, such as “No Planes” and the very strong evidence for the use of DEW (or something like it) at the WTC. As I have said on several occasions, I now feel the links between 9/11, Black Technology and the energy cover up are becoming very much clearer.

In circumstances such as these, it is not usually a good idea to just post negative comments – it’s best to take some kind of positive action, even if it’s only symbolic in nature. I hope this action turns out to be more than symbolic, but that depends on YOU.

New Forum

Thanks to the generous help and donation of my friend Tony Jackson at Emporio Design (http://www.emporiodesign.gr/) we have a new forum – running PHPBB (the same software as this forum uses) which is just about ready for use.

www.uk911.info

I will be sending out invites to this forum, although you are free to sign up NOW. However, there are some provisos:

1) The forum is split between RESEARCH and CAMPAIGNING and to post to these areas, you need to sign up WITH YOUR REAL NAME and say whether you are a researcher, a campaigner or both and mention what you have done in either or both of these areas please put this in the "interests" section of your sign up information (although many of you I think I know which categories you fall into).

2) If you don’t use your real name, you will be restricted to the unmoderated areas, there may be 1 or 2 notable exceptions to this (but it likely won’t be more than that).

This has been done for 3 reasons – firstly, to keep the forum better organised and hopefully allow more structured debate and exchange of ideas. Secondly, this should reduce the “troll count”. The trolls can still post in the unmoderated areas, which should operate much as this forum does, but they won’t have access to the areas where known posters post. Thirdly, if this system works, it should reduce the amount of active moderation required for the daily running of the forum

At the moment, all forums are and will be readable and public to everyone, but I may set up some private forums over time.

Who wants to be a moderator on uk911.info?

I am looking for a volunteer moderator or moderators for the new forum – previous moderators of UK911 need not apply. I would welcome any help with the new forum, but would ask volunteers to supply:


1) Their real name
2) Address
3) Telephone number
4) Their background
5) Brief notes on why they would like to be involved

I don’t think I’ll get many volunteers – so surprise me! I would like a person/people who has/have worked professionally at something, has/have a broadband internet connection etc and is/are very open minded. No rudeness and insulting will be allowed, of course.

Some people may not like the idea of all this – and that’s absolutely fine – because you’ll still have this 911co.uk site (once the technical issues are sorted out) to use as before. You now have a choice of 2 UK oriented forums rather than one – both for free!!

I wish everyone luck in their chosen plans and hope we can all work, in peace, together to unfold human consciousness in a way which is beneficial to all of us and Planet Earth as well.

Andrew

[TonyGosling]

I wish you well Andrew with both your investigations into some extremely difficult, aspects of 9/11 and WoT and with your new forum. Hoping that it becomes a successful campaigning platform. It is possible you are simply ahead of your time, but that doesn't change my determined belief that both press, public and the dark forces may use exotic weaponry to discredit the entire movement.



There was an inevitability to this parting. And rather than pen a long explanation of your accusations I only set on the record that I believe my 'rudeness' over your hyperlink to the JewWatch website, which to your credit you ultimately withdrew, was justified.

[Andrew Johnson]

[gareth]

[Andrew Johnson]

So why hasn't Greg Jenkins started a legal case? Done an RFC?

In any case, I have already written about the Jenkins affair - people just keep reposting it, but the video never changes....

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&tas k=view&id=46&Itemid=60

Do you think the Jenkins approach of trespassing and setting up an Ambush interview, then using ridicule and cheap psychologoical ploys to obfuscate what should be a rational discussion of evidence is an acceptable strategy for pursuing 911 truth?

Do you accept it's a good idea for moderators of UK911 to break an agreed posting policy? What's that got to do with Greg Jenkins or Judy Wood?

If you answer "yes" to either of these questions, then you will understand why I must dissociate myself from people who would say this.

Also, do you agree with soft censorship and "voting on the truth"?

[TonyGosling]

Here is exactly why we have to part company Andrew - because of your refusal to address the point about the jew watch link above.

You skirt around the issue making counter accusations on a different point. This is personal rather than addressing the point in hand.

Anyway - I really do wish you well whatever you may think.

[ian neal]

I see little purpose in revisiting this issue which revolved around private discussions between moderators over whether to ban or warn someone for citing content from what we all agreed is an anti-jewish website 'jewwatch'. For the record I have absolutely zero concerns about Andrew's anti-racist credentials and neither should anyone else

[John White]

I'm glad we can all move forward now

(in case anyone wanted my POV)

[Thermate911]

Not really wishing to butt into turf (star?) wars I have two observations that I respectfully suggest may be considered relevant:

Nyms - I think all here have more than sufficient grasp of the abilities of modern surveillance techniques to surely excuse those of us who, for one reason or another, would rather make 'their' life just that little bit harder. More openness in thought and deed rather than less will bring more into the orbit of truth - if they can stand the stench. Personalities need have nothing to do with this aim - they often seem to hinder.

Divisiveness - Surely, so long as each individual stands up and works effectively for what he or she perceives as being Just and True, no more could be expected of mere fallible humans? At this stage in world affairs, ISTM it matters little how 9/11 was performed yet it matters vitally who performed this atrocity.

But sure - Asking us not to squabble is akin to asking us not to breathe. Who, in all decency, would not occasionally get overwrought, carrying such knowledge as so many of us do now...

Good luck with spreading the known facts of 9/11 wider, Andrew
.

[TonyGosling]

The straight setting of the record is the purpose.
It was Andrew's insistence on keeping his JewWatch link after I increasingly insistently asked him to remove it that annoyed me so much. Please note that he only agreed to remove it AFTER I circulated that email accusing him of being a racist.
"I haven't looked at every page but it seems okay to me" was his penultimate excuse for keeping the link.
IMHO he had let personal baggage against me cloud his better judgement and if you had asked him to Ian I'm sure he would have done it straight away.

[Pikey]

UNITY IS STRENGTH

I am not a no planer. I believe the official version of 911 is a lie, a cover up and demand a professinal INDEPENDENT investigation.

The ptb imo will be absolutely delighted with this latest development in the UK 911 truth campaign

I am absolutely delighted to have joined an organised UK 911 truth campaign since its inception in 2005 and the most positive and uplifting
experience I have found is meeting top quality intelligent individuals like Andrew Johnson.

There have been changes made since the begining of this year, particularly with the website and so far this has produced negative results for the campaign.

I agree with Andrews comments about Tony Gosling and John White
having received their petty moderation actions on posts I have put here.

I would like to thank Andrew for the huge contribution he has made to the campaign, and particularly the inspiration he provides to the only way we can together make a difference, with peaceful 911 truth activism.

IMO as a mod he has steered this website through at times very choppy waters so professionally and with dignified reasoning.

Andrew has and continues to resource 911 truth activists at cost or at his expense. In terms of time and their own hard earned cash I only know of one other person in the UK who has contributed more.

I will check out your website forum Andrew! Keep on asking those tough questions and continue to share the information freely and without fear.

Once again well done and thanx Andrew.

[ian neal]

Hi Tony

For the record this was the thread in question which ended up in the bin

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=59308#59308

As you will see the posts and warning related to rodin and not Andrew. We could visit this in greater depth but I believe it will only reach the same conclusions I 've already stated: (1) There is no value in revisiting this and (2) no one should have concerns over Andrew's anti-racist credentials.

I know your questioning of whether Andrew is racist or not was one of the things that most annoyed him, so unless you really wish to reopen this can of worms I would let it rest.

Thanks for the kind words for Andrew, Pikey. Unity is indeed our strength but that should not make us feel like we all have to act under one umbrella and not set up different independent groups and projects (such as Andrew has done). Indeed the movement would be less dynamic and rich if we didn't have individuals and groups going and doing their own thing.

So I would not worry too much about this development. It only becomes an issue if we get into the 'judean peoples' front' vs 'the popular front for judea' syndrome and one thing Andrew has demonstrated is that he is not antagonistic, an egotist or an empire builder. So let Andrew's forum flourish and may a 1000 flowers bloom as it were.

[andyb]

I agree, best of luck to Andrew and thanks for his time and effort put into the forum. we may not have always seen eye to eye but we are both on the same side. I will join your forum andrew but I try not to post too much on forums anymore and focus my energies elsewhere. We should all realise that stephen Jones and Judy woods both agree that the towers not as we were told by NIST. Let's unite and work on this common ground, it's all we need.

[mason-free party]

Yes Andrew has done a fantastic job working like a beaver in his little office..if one man has made a difference to waking up the masses about 9/11 its Andrew....i highly reccomend his latest double sided leaflet "How's this for a 911 Conspiracy theory?"

I will be standing outside Derby University next week giving out this leaflet like i was standing outside Burton Tech. this week supported by many young 911 truth recruits...

[Stephen]

[marky 54]

ER why not address the information rather than just calling everyone a shill or perp. to many people imply it, but i only ever seen it used to avoid information or because people disagree, i never see any actual evidence for the comments.

[ian neal]

Easyrider's evidence free accusations of shilldom removed

[TonyGosling]

Andrew Johnson has not resigned
Andrew Johnson is still a central figure in the management of this forum. He has taken responsibility for transferring this site to the new ISP which now looks likely to be servage.net
He confirmed this to several of us on email. I emailed Andrew asking him to explain this to Ian Neal and John White and I today but didn't get a straight answer.
I understand that Ian needs technical support and help with the move but in the context of Andrew persuading Ian to sack both John White and I as moderators this thread about AJ having resigned is highly misleading.

For the record
Andrew has not gone - it is John and I who have been removed from the management of this forum.

Also, for the record, Andrew Johnson has made much of my 'rudeness' in arguing for my mod privileges to be removed.
He contested over a number of days my request to remove a link to the JewWatch site saying "I had a brief look at JewWatch and it looked fine to me".
Only after I accused him of being a racist did he agree to have the link removed.

[Andrew Johnson]

Ummm - from top of the thread...

[John White]

[Justin]

Tony and John

Please can we drop all this silly bickering - Andrew has got extremely useful skills which the campaign needs. In the two years I have known him, I have found him to be competent, honest, hard working, supportive and sincere. He has also provided us all with huge amounts of campaigning materials largely at his own expense. I know he is looking further down the 'Rabbit Hole' then both of you are (Prof Judy wood etc) but this is no excuse to keep having a go at him.

Please, my friends, use your energies and the undoubted skills and talents you have in frustrating the NWO/Illuminati/Hidden Hand and not a key player on our own side.

Thanks

Justin

[TonyGosling]

Justin,

Can't you see the hypocrisy and injustice here of Andrew 'resigning' on the one hand whilst getting us two sacked?

And since when did setting the record straight for the users and the public amount to 'having a go'.

As you know I have tried today to get a straight answer out of Andrew privately on email. I have nothing personal against Andrew but I'm not going to allow him to pull the wool over peoples' eyes as he has done on this matter, mosly by personal phone calls to Ian.

Your very partial intervention can only add fuel to the fire.

[Justin]

Tony, I'm not at all adding fuel to the fire, I'm simply trying to make you realise just how childish all this has become - especially to those of us who see and know the Big Picture and how little time we've got before the cell door shuts and we are living as part of a Global Fascist Dictatorship. You know we have a huge task ahead - your own excellent work in exposing the Bilderberg Group meetings confirms this. Please, ease off, take a deep breath and let's get on with the real show. Just shake hands with Andrew and go and have a drink together. I know you feel as though you and John are the aggrieved party in no longer managing this Forum, but in the great scheme of things, is it really THAT important? We've all got egos to keep under control, I'm no exception as my other half keeps telling me! But the one thing I have developed in the twenty years I've been campaigning against our Friends in the Shadows is a thick skin and a sense of humour.

Justin

[TonyGosling]

I take these sort of responsiblities of honesty, openness and accountability seriously.
It's not in the least 'childish' to let users on the forum know what has happened to the site over the last two weeks.
I would much rather Andrew had come clean himself about his continuing central involvement as well as his behind-the-scenes role in getting John and I sacked.
These changes have been made in opposition to the wishes of many campaigners and it's a 'vote of no confidence' in what had become, under our watch, one of the slickest, fastest moving and most popular truth sites in the world.

[ian neal]

The ISP problems will be sorted. I can only apologise for the delay in implementing this and thank Andrew for volunteering to help me with this despite his sincere wish to totally step aside from involvement in the forum. Once our current technical difficulties are over Andrew will cease involvement, although I will continue to seek his opinion since I value it.

Yes I spoke with Andrew regarding his concerns regularly as I speak with others. I only wish I had more clearly intervened before now. Still we are where we are.

Andrew hasn't put any pressure on me. My experience of Andrew is that he doesn't work by pressurising anyone. He has given me his opinion and explained how he sees it. As I describe in my proposal 'future of the forum', it was my proposed solution to moderate alone (with Mick's support when I'm unavailable). I said this is a temporary solution siince I want to hand this responsibility over and reduce my day to day involvement within the next 6 month and that the decision on who should take over should rest with the campaign committee. So it should be apparant this is not a power grab. It is an attempt to put things on a more accountable footing. I only enacted my suggestions after discussion and agreement of annie and justin as co-chairs.

John and you have not been sacked. My reasons as I have explained several times is to reduce tensions and restore trust that the forum's moderation is fair and seen to be fair. My proposal suggested a role for you around flagging up the most newsworthy content on the front page which was in line with what we have discussed and in line with what you and john proposed to me on Friday. I said I would justify my proposal further if necessary but I thought this unwise certainly on a public forum.

One of the reasons I proposed the committee should assume responsibility for holding accountable the forum's managers is because I wanted a clear mechanism to discuss this and decide the forum's future management. I said this by email yesterday to all the campaign committee yourself included. This way we can have this discussion amongst ourselves and not in public and any one who is interested in influencing the committees deliberations on the forum will know who to talk to. Isn't this a better way to discuss this rather than on the forum itself?

That said if it is true that

[John White]

[John White]

[ian neal]

Firstly let me repeat my thanks to you John for being kind enough to respond to MY request that you help as a moderator.

Secondly we can revisit what lies behind MY suggested changes. Why I believe this is the best solution? Why the tensions have arisen? But I really think that unwise. With the possible exception of discussing the moderation of '9/11 controversies' since I know you strongly believe that the work of Judy Woods/NPTs/DEWsTvF is bunkum and disinfo.

I'm sorry you don't accept my assurances of temporariness. You will just have to wait and see if Andrew and I keep our words. As for me stepping aside I will do so just as soon as the co-chairs and committee agree on an alternative. There is an open invitation/request for a volunteer/s to put forward proposals for the site's future moderation and management. If there is genuinely support for this site to be moderated in a radically different way this will undoubtedly be reflected in opinion amongst the campaign committee and so will come to pass.

But the most effective way to influence things is either (1) to work with me and implement what we discussed on Friday or (2) develop and put forward a proposal of your own for the forum's future for consideration by the committee or (3) talk to committee members and influence their thinking or (4) propose a better more accountable process to determine the forum's management.

[ian neal]

[John White]