site credibility issues

[Andrew Johnson]

Wilbert Smith (1910-1962)

"I make no attempt to 'prove' anything, and have no intention of doing so. It is up to each and every one to search out the truth and decide for themselves just what is truth. Truth needs no justification; it stands alone."

[ian neal]

Just to clarify what I and others are proposing

To make the separation between the public presentation of the campaign and this forum more obvious and even more explicit

This allows this forum to continue to serve the purpose it does and allows all to speak their own truth: speaking in support of but not on behalf of the campaign, whilst developing a separate campaign website with a clear professional message that defines the campaign.

Why? Because in order to get the wider public (who are largely still unaware of the main questions and evidence presented by the 9/11 truth movement) to consider the evidence and do their own research, it is necessary to present the clearest and most credible message.

It is not a question of either / or but both

[andrewwatson]

[John White]

I've continued to consider the issues of this thread carefully over the last few days, and I have now decided that it would be better to split the forum from the campaign, to give the campaign the best possible chance of having a solid platform to bring other parties on board who have still not made the jump of questioning the basic elements of the official story

This can hardly be done when the campaign is still wedded to the forum, which is acurately reflecting the mass of weak theories and fantasy thinking that is propogating across the internet as a whole. Thats not to blame the forum itself for that, but the campaign needs clarity and effectivness, not a smokescreen, and its needs must come first

[Ally]

aye john, just as well your opinion don't count for sh*t.

but I do agree, lets have a forum for real 911ers (those battling it out for the last 4+ years) and one for 911 lite'ers (those who jumped on the wagon in the last six months and think they know everything & want to split the movement)

we'll soon see which gathers the most moss.

[John White]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Ally]

[John White]

I'm supporting a call already made. Do try to keep up with the news

[Ally]

[John White]

Why dont you? Better yet, go and debate "no Planes" and "beam weapons" in critics corner if you truly believe they stand up. Shouldnt be a problem for such a scared and hardened "warrior"

[ian neal]

Thanks for all your thoughts.

Ally and TTWSU3, show a bit more respect to people who hold differing views, please.

I will discuss our options with others and then propose a more concrete plan.

Anyone want to feed in ideas can PM and I'll give you my mobile number or continue to post here.

[Ally]

[wepmob2000]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[andyb]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[andyb]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[wepmob2000]

[andyb]

[Belinda]

hopefully these (wearisome) wrangles will soon be ironed out when we get the new campaign forum going, this will then be the 'research' forum and people will be free to argue about planes and pods and beams to their heart's content without being relegated to critics corner (which need at that point no longer exist).

but there'll still be a need possibly for a corner for OFF-TOPIC stuff and IMO a CORNER in the traditional sense for people to be sent to when they're rude!!!

[Ally]

[ian neal]

Bangs head on desk and wonders............

[xmasdale]

[ian neal]

[Justin]

Ian, once again you have described our approach to campaigning for the truth perfectly - the simple rule is to treat people like you wish to be treated yourself. Harnessing humility and humour are great ways to win over people to your point of view.

With the words of David Ray Griffin at the Conway Hall still ringing in our ears, our future campaigning zeal and expertise must be focused on why and how the official 9/11 story is not sustainable or believable. It is not up to us to prove what actually happened on that fateful day - this will all come out later once mass public opinion demands the truth. I can appreciate why people do try to work out how it was actually done but the time spent doing this is just providing the 'hidden hand' with ammunition to use against us.

Our focus must be on campaigning against the official version of events. We are in for the long haul - Christmas is fast approaching and our momentum will inevitably slacken off somewhat during this time of distraction. However, with the arrival of Loose Change 3 hopefully in the cinemas in the Spring of next year, plus our own 7/7/7 event and the setting up of local active Truth groups all around the country, the wind would appear set fair for us. All I ask people to do on this forum is to ask yourselves each day "what have I actually done to get the truth out today?"

[Pikey]

At the committee meeting in Blackpool early in the year it was actioned to set up an official website with no forum.

This thread, started by Suspecta titled "site credibility issues" is suggesting censorship of wilder 911 theories. The wildest theory I have read about 911 is that 19 Arab Muslims with boxcutters were responsible for the crime of my lifetime.

IMO the only censorship on this forum should be non 911 issues (that excludes issues speculated as possible 911 issues such as the Illuminati and secret societies, etc) and those who insult, "flame" and aim to create division and trouble within the movement.

Personally I do not have a problem with those who speculate what really did happen on 911. Its up to the individual to decide what he/she wants to believe.

IMO the site credibility issue is tolerance of personal insults and moderation. Over the last four months the forum has become dominated by a MINORITY dishing out personal insults, being rude and disrespectful
and getting away with it. The latest recipient I have read of this has been Keith Motherson from Gordboy who followed this up by refering to me as a "prat". The inevitable result of this acceptance of insults by moderators is that "insults" breed "insults" just as "negative" input tends to breed "negative" input

Personally I feel there should be a code of conduct clearly notified to everyone who registers and an agreement to this. Then a moderation policy of zero tolerance applied to this code of conduct.

Sadly there is not a balance of male and female energy on this website, if there were with the exception of the abnormal (re: Badger Kitten re: Rachel North) this forum would be a more civilised place and more appealing to the wider audience. Its always refreshing to read the ego-free,positive and wise input from Belinda, Annie and Linda.

Belinda suggests a corner for people to be put when they are rude.........a sin bin a months ban from posting on the the website!!!!!!

The decision to accommodate the shills/Trolls/critics with Critics corner was a brave and respectful one based on trust that they would remain in CC. Sadly they abuse the ruling and trust and take advantage or our limited but dedicated moderation resources.

I disagree with iro (by the way iro how did we avoid not meeting each other at Belindas after the DRG event?) that this website has become a "grand failure". I do agree though it becomes a negative experience when you encounter personal insults and negative input.

This website, second only to our individual campaigners/supporters and truth groups remains our best asset and the only facility at present that gives polarisation to the GB & I movement.

TWSU3 wasn't Andy B the guy responsible for the project management of our recent highly successful 5th anniversary gathering and DRG event in London? A huge and key individual contribution and definitely one which earned respect IMO.

Justin IMO is spot on with:-

[iro]

[Pikey]

No iro sadly i dont think we spoke to each other. I remember Olly and Chris the cameraman as they were with David Shayler alot. I spoke to Frog about his experience about putting a bet on 911 and the follow up from the authorities!

Hopefully we will meet up and enjoy some 911 fellowship at next years gathering.