Breakthrough on British TV:BBC Question time Blackpool 22/9/

[Abandoned Ego]

[spun]

[Seb]

I haven't seen the Question Time episode, but I also think that we shouldn't have focused on the missile. I honestly think it's the weakest part of the Loose Change documentary. Dylan Avery says " a missile is fired from the plane" [paraphrase]. I can't for the life of me see that missile.

Here is what I would have done.

1) Start off by ridiculing the official conspiracy theory that: 19 Arab hijackers with boxcutters -- overseen by bin Laden in a cave, with a laptop -- managed to single-handedly defeat America's trillion dollar defence system. And by ridiculing, I mean ridiculing. Making some people in the room feel silly if necessary, and yet, do so as politely as possible.

2) Go for the collapse of the WTC towers (will start a new thread on this soon). The speed at which the two towers collapsed, especially the South Tower, at virtually freefall speed, (and ten seconds according to the 9/11 Commission).

3) If there's enough time point out that the whole of the USAF went AWOL. In Barrie Zwicker's words:

[Abandoned Ego]

Ive asked you a few questions spun,

regrettably you havent ( as I might expect) answered any of them.

to quote you - Scroll back -

But to start with the obvious one. One that we can all see. One that even the village idiot can understand.

Will you be there in Manchester, Brighton, or elsewhere in the QT series ?

Do you advocate a 'follow up' policy ? All ive heard from you is nothing but negativity. It strikes me as if you almost want us to fail.

In order to dissipate my feeling, perhaps you might explain to us how we as a movement should progress, instead of continually defacating on those with the courage to speak their mind

Perhaps you have some hidden revelation ? Some secret activity that gets the message across ?

Heres your chance

It really is that simple

[spun]

[spun]

[Jim]

Try here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/#

TC: ~13:35

[Ally]

[Andrew Johnson]

People - you're breaking my heart.....

[spun]

[ian neal]

Peace and love, good people, peace and love.

We all get emotional over this stuff because we know what 9/11 could do and yet how vulnerable we still are. Now you are free to send each other abusive PMs but I really wouldn't advice it. Firstly do we know who we are talking to. We should try to take the time to get to know each other and respect each others differences. I guarantee that we will never get us all singing from the same 'hymn sheet' so I would avoid trying (at least too hard). Instead use these boards to seek out kindred spirits that you can connect with

Re DB: Here is my two penneth worth

Good on you David for having the balls to say what you did on QT and for putting your money where your mouth is regarding your exhibition.

I know the advice to leave the pods, etc alone (along with the other material at your exhibition) has been offered to you before. That you choose to ignore this advice is absoluteley fine. Who are we to police or sanction you?

Personally, I share the view that the pods, etc would be amongst the LAST things I would focus on.

What this does raise is the issue of 'no endorsement' and 'no spokespeople'

Why no endorsement: simply put because if we focus on the messenger rather than message, our critics will focus on 'weaknesses' of the messenger rather than the evidence. If I were playing devil's advocat I could find 'dirt' or flawed reasoning on most 9/11 campaigners, just by focussing on our differences. We need to be comfortable with being part of a movement that ranges from Michael Meacher to David Icke. If we seek to define a position within that spectrum we will open ourselves to division and conflict where none is needed.

We only need to be aware of the divisions that have arisen in the US (and we should all be aware of them) to see how damaging in fighting and accusations can be. Or in deed be aware of how so many of 'political' movements have been derailed.

Let me give an example. One of the most prolific and effective speakers on 9/11 this year has been David Shayler. As you know he is ex MI5. David has a critic by the name of Larry OHara who believes David might still be working for the the intelligence services. This is no secret, you just need google. Now what I say, is so what? It might be true, it might not. There is no evidence that makes the case in a compelling way, so if we were to discuss the issue it would be conjecture. But let us assume for a minute that he is batting for the other side. Still so what? This only becomes a problem if we have official or semi-official spokes people for the British movement and he were one of them. I use David S merely to illustrate, but I say if spokes and 'disinformationists' want to join us, so what? It is only an issue if we have a centralised campaign dominated by a few individuals who try to impose a position. The key to our success will be about empowering individual activists to spread the evidence by word of mouth using the full range of materials/DVDs etc available.

So how does 'no spokes people' work? We all are free to speak in support of but not FOR the campaign. When we (as in those who have been most active to date) are approached (as we occasionally are) to put forward a person to speak about the campaign, we will obviously approach and recommend people we consider to be the most convincing, credible, knowledgeable and articulate to speak in support of the campaign. It should always be understood however that they speak in a personal capacity. In that personal capacity they are free to speak their truth however outlandish.

It is unavoidable that our critics will point to the 'loony fringe' conspiracy theorists to discredit us. Our response should be yes, David Icke, US patriots, Alex Jones and all sorts of supposed 'nut-jobs' support the call for a further inquiry, but so also do the 9/11 family groups and numerous credible public figures (as listed on the front page). Are the 9/11 families groups tin foil hat wearing loonytunes as well? Is the evidence they point to not also to be found in the reports and pages of the mainstream media if you look hard enough?

What I think would be helpful is greater debate on how to best present 9/11 truth to the media, politicians and people in general. A media strategy without the 'party line'

Hope this helps

But most of all peace and love, good people

[Seb]

Many thanks!

[Graham]

jeeez.

dimbleby just dimisses the whole thing with "well what about the calls to relatives"....

err calls on what? cell phones?

[Graham]

just read through post.

if someone can follow up in Brighton, how about going with the most obvious pointer to complicity.

CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Everyone can see how fast they came down.

Pancakes my ass.

Can we have a mass complaint session against question time, for DD dimissing the question like that?

[Diddlydum]

[ian neal]

I've just reread my last post and just wanted to clarify that I'm not suggesting that David S is anything other than what he says he is. I just used this example to illustrate how our critics will use personal attack to discredit the messenger rather than address the message. If we enter into this game, we channel our energies on our differences, rather than building what unites us.

We need to discuss how best we communicate 9/11 truth to different audiences including on question time. Key in this discussion is what issue or evidence do you first bring up in challenging the official version. What other evidence do we use.

When we discuss this (including the wisdom of referring to pods, etc) let us avoid the disharmony that has grown amongst certain US campaigners over the 911 In Plane Site DVD and subsequent infighting. Ultimately what we are about (IMO) is building a people's movement for truth, transparency and transformation across a whole range of issues and based on the knowledge that we are one.

This will only happen if we focus on what unites us and learn to accept our differences


I

I just feel our energies are better focused on

[Diddlydum]

[Seb]

Can you backup your claim, Diddlydum?

[Sinclair]

I don't want to stir up any infighting, which is what I see happening here. This subject (with the most pages/views) is where people are slagging each other off.

I was a bit startled when I saw David Boyle on QT. I was aware that a 9/11 question m,ay come up. DB turned the Iraq/Basra question around - his first statement that "...this is all about oil" was something that I reckon everybody in the room felt, but then he did jump to the WTC/pod issue from nowhere & I think that must have thrown viewers/the panel into the '..oh no this guy's a bit of a nutter' camp. Having said that what would anyone say given such a short time slot to speak. I would mention WTC7 & just ask people to google that. Only 3 steel framed construction buildings have EVER collapsed through fire damage - all 3 on 9/11 & very little people know about WTC7. A quick reference to PNAC stating the necessity for a pretext to the expansion of American interests/resource domination, & then I'd probably have been interrupted by Davie Dimbley by then..........

Message to Spun,
On page 1 of this thread you state:

[Ally]

DISINFO or MATURE DISCUSSION ???


Impossible UA 175 Photo Comparison
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=10548&postd ays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

Do you really mean to tell me an aluminium nose could pass all the way through bricks and steel intact ??
http://thewebfairy.com/911/missileout/index.htm

[spun]

While I certainly agree this movement is brimming with disinfo agents, I think it's very much down to the individual to judge who is working for who.

I am aware of the issues concerning Mark Rabinowitz, however I believe a commerical arliner did strike the Pentagon and they are holding back the second tape proving this - for the time being.

The web site oilempire.us has valid information which speaks to me. I can't defend all of it because I haven't read every page, but the pages that I have, for the most part, I agree with.

I do not believe any web site has all of the facts and the majority are spreading disinformation without realising it, to a small degree.

My feeling is that if the movement is to gain the credibility it needs, all media breakthroughs should contain solid information which can be backed up and verified without problems. No disputes. If there is a dispute, it should be ignored whilst in the public spotlight. We have enough evidence to prove the official 9/11 story is just that, a story.

I do not see the point in focusing on theories anymore. After 4 years of investigating and discovering a mountain of real facts, to waste time on theories (true or not) is only counter productive.

[Ally]

So you've spent 4 years investigating and the rest of us need not bother examining the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE anymore, despite none of us having ever heard of you we should accept that FLIGHT 77 hit the Pentagon.


LMFAO.

I don't trust anyone that tells you not to examine the evidence or think for yourself never mind that bull about the Pentagon.

[spun]

[Graham]

can someone check spuns IP?

oilempire is blatant disinfo site.

planes are irrelevent in the Controlled Demoliton argument, as a plane did not hit building.

[spun]

[Ally]

^^^SHILL^^^


Anyone prove me wrong?

[Sinclair]

Spun,

You say...

[ian neal]

No I can't prove you are wrong Ally. Just as anyone who accused you of being a shill can not be proved wrong. Short of hard and fast evidence proving someone is deliberately sabotaging the 9/11 truth movement (like a pay slip from MI6) I work on the assumption that we are all sincere in our support for the campaign statement.

That some activists choose to promote 9/11 truth one way and others choose another is fine by me. What was really positive to me from Sunday's conference was the degree to which the principles of no endorsement and accepting that the 'centre' can not and should not try to police or dictate the message and nature of 9/11 activism at the local level was accepted. It's function is to support and promote networks and cooperation rather than direct activities.

I feel much of the division and acrimony that has occured in the US appears to be based on a false logic amongst a few campaigners that there is a need to battle for what is 'acceptable evidence' and what is not. Why not empower grassroots activists to offer the full range of 9/11 truth resources and let public opinion/demand determine what is convincing evidence.

It is not that discussion of evidence or the most effective communication strategies is off limits. Nothing is off limits (with the exception that these boards are intended for people who support the campaign statement)

For anyone who is mystified as to why there is this schism regarding whether or not to use 'the pod evidence' and other arguments similar arguments about such and such a person being a schill or disinformationist, I offer the following links.

I hesitate to do this because I don't want to draw attention to what divides different activists, but all campaigners should be broadly aware of these accusations and divisions. Mostly in order to understand how damaging this has been to the energy and unity of activism in the states. You don't need to have a PhD in political science to know that the favourite strategy of the powers that be in undermining popular movements is divide and rule.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id15.html
http://911review.com/infowars.html
http://www.breakfornews.com/TheCIAInternetFakes.htm
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/08/323457.shtml

I'm sure some of this divide and rule has been deliberately seeded by the powers that be. Where certain US activists (and it is only a few) have gone wrong I suggest is feeding these divisions by playing the game. In some ways even by commenting on this I can be seen to be fuelling the game, but I want to describe how this network aims to be different. It aims to unite all activists be they pod people or non-pod people, lizard people or non-lizard people, peak oilers and non peak oilers in promoting public awareness and debate of all of the evidence.

We should not be afraid to discuss these issues. But we should avoid IMO personal attacks and accusations that has so soured relations in the US.

BW

Ian

[Pikey]

Spot on Ian I think we should all focus on your final paragraph and move on and use our limited energy and resources to contribute to the success of the campaign.

This thread has generated alot of negative correspondence and thanks to the like of Spun and Co I suspect it has not achieved what I wished it to.......to inspire others to take action in supporting the UK 911 truth campaign.

Lets hope that Xmasdale gets an opportunity at QT at Brighton.

One point I forgot to mention in my report is they search and scan you before going in. I was surprised they never discarded the dvds I had in my bag, especially in view of the producer notifying me at the end when I was distributing the dvds to those asking for them, that this was not permitted and he politely asked me to leave the set!

I suspect they will be more alert next time!

[spun]

I'm not sure about being called a shrill, but that's OK, I've been called worse. This might shock you though:

I have recently learnt that Freemasons started one of the northern 9/11 groups, which is strongly connected to this fraction of the movement. This information was passed to me by a third party and if true, casts a shadow on the motives of the group(s).

I'm not saying by any means that it is true, but would like someone to clarify this. In my opinion it is better to talk about these things here.

Without opening up a debate about Freemasons, they are generally regarded as part of the pyramid structure which keeps most of us down. The more I research this fraction of the movement, the more murky things seem.

Believe it or not, I'm highlighting these issues in the hope that you can protect this and other elements of the 9/11 truth movement from ridicule.

I am not trying to sabotage the movement, however it is better for someone who is on the same side as you to raise these issues instead of someone who wants to see us fail. As I have said before:

This Is Not A Game