Throw your hats in the ring: London gathering Sat 15th

[xmasdale]

I have spoken to some of the activists who are standing down from the national committee. I understand that none of them is standing down from active involvement in the 9/11 Truth Campaign, merely from their current committee roles.

Belinda no longer wants to be treasurer - can't say I blame her.

Justin wants to concentrate on the wider picture, drawing together a wider general truth campaign.

Stefan feels rather burnt out and that he has not therefore been doing much for the campaign recently, but has plans for several projects connected with the campaign.

Ian has been campaigning hard for the past four years and really started the whole campaign off. He deserves a break, whether or not he gets heavily involved with Make War History.

I'm not sure what Annie's plans are.

I was effectively a national organiser for the first couple of years of this campaign, but decided not to stand for the committee during 2007-8. That did not stop me from being active.

We have thousands of supporters and I'm sure we will find people for the new committee. I hope that this year the full committee, including a representative from each local group, will meet more frequently so that this campaign is truly representative of its grass roots and the regions and less London dominated.

I presume we shall have an AGM, probably in May. The last one was in Leeds. Where would supporters like the next one? At that meeting I presume we will elect a new committee.

No need to panic!

Noel

[TonyGosling]

Great idea to have free hosting - prachtig!

[chrisc]

I think that this place needs a radical shakeup and lots of nonsense needs to be dumped, how about adopting / working along the lines of the Truth Move 2008 Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth Declaration?

http://www.truthmove.org/content/2008-declaration/

Sorry I can't make it to London this weekend, I hope the demo and the meetup go well.

[Anthony Lawson]

Dodgy

[xmasdale]

[chrisc]

[chrisc]

[TonyGosling]

If by 'Big Tent' you mean a forum focussed on critiquing the war on terror - focussing on 9/11 and 7/7 but including everything else 'off' the front page then a 'Big Tent' is perfect. I think its a confusing expession but there you go.

It's impossible to say what discussions we're having now on this forum will prove significant in the future so if any of our users have what you might call a 'moment of clarity' we should always allow those ideas to be posted here and to be discussed.

There are people who want to limit what's up for discussion and even shut us down completely. But I'm not one of them - the difference in my mind is simply whether material is on the front page or not. Crazy and controversial stuff in 'controversies'.

However deliberate disruption and racist posts as well as private communications posted on the public forum etc. will be banned/deleted.

[outsider]

We Are Change clip from Bruxelles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smzZFmI5lt4

Jolly good show, WAC! (as usual!).

[TonyGosling]

Interesting meeting - solutions please on a postcard to ian Neal by 15th June 2008 when then plug will be pulled by Simon

I shall be putting in a proposal to the AGM to move to a new domain.

[Frazzel]

Lets move the forum site to another domain - i agree.

The forum must continue because it is doing a very important job.
In the U.K there are few groups who question the official versions of 911, 7/7. And also other events such as the supposed earthquake that england and wales had recently, also hidden history such as operation gladio, to mention but a few.
We are living in a time when the so-called left wing and alternative media are themselves only too willing to go along with the o.c.t on anything.

Recently, thanks to a good team of moderators and the editor, the forum looks much more professional and is hence, more likely to attract a larger audience, and we will be taken more seriously. Obviously you cannot please everyone. Compared to the past, when it looked a mess and reflected badly upon us.

Information may well be available on other sites, but this site is dynamic, interactive, a place where anyone can post. although theres alot of news content, it is unlike a newspaper in that we are doing the job that msm newspapers wont do.

Obviously, the 911 campaign needs its own seperate website which is more specific and focussed on 911, which it has.
The forum, when i hope, it is allowed to move to another domain, can of course, change its name to better describe itself as being concerned with the wider picture.

I hope people will support this proposal of tonys's at the AGM

[Frazzel]

Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: forums focus

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

re: the forum.
we need the message of 911 and 7/7 out there to the general public. i know it can be boring for those of us gemmed up on it to keep on campaigning around this, but we must remember that theres many more people out there that find this stuff is all new to them. thats why we need a forum for people to post questions and look for research etc.
although the forum is also about the wider picture, i hope the forum in its new guise on a new domain will still need to prioritise 911 and 7/7 for the reasons given.
we still need people to realise that the people in power can resort to lies, disinformation, and are capable of crimes against their own country men and women such as 9/11
despite others more pessimistic outlook, i think there are more and more people coming on board. its not coming to happen over night. its a slow process.
_________________
"injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" Martin Luther king

[astro3]

A Meeting with The Terminator

Mr Aronowitz kept repeating at the meeting that he had made the decision, to ‘pull the plug’ and that it would be for our own good. This site will just be frozen and go into a limbo somewhere. He owns the domain for www.nineeleven.co.uk and it would be an easy matter for him to hand it over to someone else in the group. But, that did not seem to be quite what he had in mind. His function seemed to be more of a Sword of Damocles. My impression, which may be mistaken, is that he has in mind two things: termination of this site by 15th June, and non-surrender of that URL so no-one else will be able to continue it.

In my opinion, he explained to us the reason for this forthcoming action, which pertained to Zion. He had been disturbed by continuing ‘anti-semitic’ references on the site he explained, and also ‘hate’ postings. Jews do use claims of ‘hate’ when eg disapproval of Israel bombardment of Lebanon is expressed. I surmise that my own articles may here be alluded to, eg ‘Zakheim and his missing trillions’, or Lucky Larry Silverstein getting his four billion to rebuild the WTC from Euro-insurance companies, etc.

A recent circular by Ian Henshall warned our group against succumbing to ‘anti-semitism’ so perhaps Simon was just agreeing with this? The US State Department defines ‘anti-semitism’ in terms of criticism of Israel*, and perhaps this was what Mr Aronowitz had in mind? Personally I'm very pro-Semitic: Semitic races are Arab, and not more than 15% of Israeli citizens are of Semitic extraction. Do I digress?

You see, Webster Tarpley’s book does have a chapter on Israel and Mossad etc, but at the end of the day he has them doing nothing more than espionage. I don't personally accept that view as my essay '9/11 and Zion' makes clear: www.911action.org/911-and-zion/ There is a deep level of involvement because of the very dire fusion of interests between international Zionism and the US Neo-Con movement** – which spells bad news for the Human Race. Any member complaining about ‘anti-semitism’ should therefore be invited to define the meaning of this term.

*State Department's office of global anti-Semitism.
www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/40258.htm
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_pub lic_laws&docid=f:publ332.108

** Michael Collins piper, The High Priests of War 2004 washington DC.

[ian neal]

IMO Simon wasn't referring to your writing Nick. If you doubt that there are links posted on this site to people and sites expressing anti-semtic views I suggest you familiarise yourself with some of the posts and links I have recently challenged on the holocaust thread.

Both Simon and Ian H I know have no problem with legitimate criticism of Israel and it is a complete misrepresentation to make out the need to rethink the future of this site and the web presence of 9/11 truth in this country can be condensed down to this one issue.

When I get a chance I will type up my understanding of what Simon said which I will run by him before posting. I will also set out my understanding of what was agreed at the meeting, what needs to happen before June 15th and the process for making decisions but it is incorrect to say

"no-one else will be able to continue it"

In a nutshell, what was agreed was that the final decision for the future of this site will be made by the campaign committee and ratified at the next AGM. At present I have 4 people who have tentatively expressed an interest (i.e. thrown their hats in the ring). Once the decision is made and implemented, ownership and responsibility will be permanently transferred and the campaign will never again have a say in its operation.

One option the campaign may wish to consider is the freezing and archiving of this site and starting a fresh, but that will only happen if someone proposes this option and if the committee support it.

Another option is the one Tony describes: namely that the forum migrates to another URL and continues under Tony's overall management.

But like I say when I get the time I will set this out in more detail and circulate here and to the national email list/committee members.

Ta

Ian

[TonyGosling]

Please note that the following people who currently have important roles in the forum management were not able to make it there:

Mick Meaney
James Robinson
John White
Moheen Yaseen
Caz (who moderates the War On Children section from Australia)

I also cannot understand why Ian has not publicised the names of the 4 people making 'offers' to take over the site. Why the reluctance?

Does anyone really want someone else to take it over?

If I was actually in charge, as I am supposed to be by now. I would be able to just get on and migrate the site away from this nineeleven.co.uk domain which is soon to die.

As it is we have another 2 month period of 'faffing' as the deadline comes ever closer and chances for a successful migration become ever slimmer. The earlier we migrate the better since that allows an old version of this site to at least be there to redirect people to the new.

All it will involve is a new registration process for out current users and we'll be up and away again.

[chrisc]

[ian neal]

[blackbear]

chrisc (critics corner) states....

" I think the war was and is primarially about oil "

Alicethe kurious...

Zionist apologists now claim that it was the oil companies who pushed for this invasion. Yet at the time, the loud chorus for invading Iraq was coming from zionist-dominated media, and from Israel itself, and zionist zealots such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, etc. The oil companies, and even Bush pere himself, spoke out against invading Iraq, which makes perfect sense, since the invasion has actually endangered the already well-entrenched American oil interests in that country, and even in that region.

chrisc......You appear to endorse "the truthmove" site, which states on its eleven pieces of evidence about 9/11.......mentions two countries.... US + Pakistan.....

Do you enjoy paddling in denile.

On the PNAC

And if "the elites" were indeed running Israel as a patsie, why would there have to be so many committed, zionist agents, many with dual citizenship, actually making policy, for the United States? The PNAC, for example, made up of individuals whose loyalty to Israel is well-documented and extreme, wrote what amounts to the foreign policy blueprint of the Bush administration, before Bush was even (s)elected. As for the invasion of Iraq, which Israeli strategists have desired above all, for decades: since the findings of America's own intelligence agencies did not support the WMD claims made by Israel and its agents, these Israeli agents were allowed to open their own office in the Pentagon, to cook up the "evidence" they needed.

Cui Bono.....doh....

Also, Israel runs the largest and most deeply embedded espionage network in the U.S., that comprises all forms of electronic surveillance, even of sensitive military installations, at the highest levels, even the White House, according to some accounts. Why would "the elites" tolerate such activities by their "patsie"? Who are the individuals making the decisions to allow Israeli firms free reign to compromise the security of the United States?

BUT

And, of course, it's not just in the U.S. If we examine the career of Tony Blair, for example, his meteoric rise from obscurity shortly after being recruited by a group of zionist businessmen, who financed and organized his campaign, we can learn a lot about how zionist agents such as he can be propelled to the highest offices. The "Friends of Israel" organization, which is embedded at the highest levels of both the Conservative and Labour Parties in the UK, has managed to ensure that in matters of interest to Israel, both Ministers and their "shadow" counterparts are committed zionist agents, whose every decision complies exactly with Israel's most extreme demands.

9/11.....good day for Israel.

[Anthony Lawson]

Is This Legitimate Criticism of Israel and Certain Jews?


From the 2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth

[TonyGosling]

Okay, last post on that please, discuss it by email or elsewhere than this thread.

[Anthony Lawson]

Illegitimate Comment

[Frazzel]

unless i am going deaf or something, i distinctintly heard that simon threatened not to give the url to someone if he himself, did not agree with that person taking it over. hence simon wants to do as he pleases regardless of the committees decision which in my mind is dictatorial. thats why we need another domain name.

i hope decsions will be taken asap as i think it is URGENT given that people will be looking at the forum in larger numbers after certain documentaries are aired. we cant allow the forum to be merely an archive and frozen.

anti racist or antisemetic posts of course should be pulled by the moderators, but i think we need to determine what is antisemitic. criticism of mossad, pf zionism which is an ideaolgy not specific to israelis, israeli foreign and domestic policy, israeli genocide of palestinians is not antisemitic. thats like saying criticism of us govt and policy is anti-american.
if we have to spell this out on the front page then lets put that on the front page so its clear to everyone.
so any posts that demonise jews for being jews or any other race etc are not tolerated. that of course must be taken down by the moderators. all dynamic sites ahere anyone can post will have their share of racist etc posters which have to be banned from posting etc. theres nothing you can do to stop them except making sure the moderators do their job. its certainly no reason for us to have a frozen site as that means the racists etc have won doesnt it! they would love to see the site down or frozen. well lets not give in to them.
thats why i support tonys proposal and i suggest the new title reflects the fact that we are about 911 and the wider picture, so 911 should be in the title somewhere.

[karlos]

Surely the domain must be transfered to the campaign.
Nominet has a complaints procedure for getting domains transfered to the legitimate party.

For example say Mr John Smith registered a domain greenpeace.co.uk the organisation trading as greenpeace would actually have the right to ask nominet to transfer the domain to them.

I dont think we can allow this domain to be mothballed. It needs to be maintained. A campaign group cannot be owned and controlled by one person who most of us have never even met. Most of us have regarded this campaign as being a controlled and managed group as it has been aparant for quite some time.
It looks like the 'highgate hub' is finally pulling the plug and moving on to pastures new like the MakeWarsHistory campaign to take that over and make sure that that gets controlled and managed and strangled too.

[Frazzel]

yes i agree it is a problem when one person has overall control. if it is possible for a collective group to buy the new domain name then that means a collective answerable to its members agm could control it which would be more democratic. However the downside is that often it does in the end fall down to one person who has the technical skills needed for the job.

Also theres a problem of funding at the moment. not enough of those members on this forum who have a reasonable salary have donated on a monthly basis, therefore it may have to be down to one indivdidual who is prepared to pay for the domain and web hosting costs as the campaign itself may not have enough funds.

if it is down to one individual, then it has to be someone who we can trust, who agrees to act upon the wishes of the committe at the agm or else we have a problem that that individual brings their own particular bias. for instance, we shouldnt allow gender hatred posts or sexuality haterd posts and if the person owning the domain holds ant-gay view for instance, then they may allow such posts which is out of order and will reflect badly upon us.
we need a broad coalition of people from all sorts of backgrounds who we personally may or may not always agree with, but thats life. Whoever owns the domain will have to accept that, otherwise we might all just as well set up our own extremely partisan 911 website/forum which i would not like to see happen.

[ian neal]

[ian neal]

[karlos]

I have been arguing for a long time for this campaign to behave like a 'normal' campaign like many other more successful groups.
Its's not rocket science.
We have a membership, a sub and one member one vote.
That is democratic and free and fair.
Why should such important issues be dictated from above by people most of us have never met?
Certainly people who were not elected and by people who are unaccountable to anyone.

As you well know i am not scared to stick my head above the parapet and say exactly what other people are thinking.

This forum and domain are assets of this campaign. If this cause is to survive in the UK then it needs to become a democratic accountable organisation like every other similar campaign.

You have complained about having to fund the hosting fees yourself, well again there are many of us ready to chip in. However, it needs to be democratic not by decree.

One question i have, alot of people mention that when this campaign was started it was funded by an american millionaire?
Well, how much did he donate, how was it spent and who is accountable for that.
As this group is described by those in charge as a loose collective, someone has to account for where all that money went and why the campaign is skint now.

[astro3]

The Terminator Strikes Again

Old-timers will recall Simon Aronowitz’ decisive contribution to London's 9/11 movement, that of terminating our connection with the eccentric millionaire, benefactor Jimmy Walters. All those boxes of free DVS we used to get … Simon did that pretty much single-handed. Then he vanished. Now he comes back after a few years’ absence, to inform us that the UK’s top 9/11 site is going to be terminated this June. He wants to ‘put it out of its misery’, he explained to us last Saturday. Well, thanks so much. Its not as if wants to do anything else with it, IMO, as he has mothballed his ‘www.thoughtcrimenews.com’ website since 2005, due to pressure of work (he told me).

It would be incorrect, Ian Neil tells us, to represent SA’s position as "no-one else will be able to continue it [the site]." Would it? He explains, ‘what was agreed was that the final decision for the future of this site will be made by the campaign committee and ratified at the next AGM'. Well, any such ‘final decision’ will only be in the wake of the ultimatum from The Terminator to deny further use of the URL, let's be clear about that.

I would say that the 13-page discussion of ‘The Holocaust’ on this Forum should be deleted as off-topic, and as being against the wish of members; but, I endorse what Anthony Lawson has written above, that for the ‘2008 Declaration’ to ban ‘Jewish conspiracy theories’ is inappropriate and sounds like the ADL (There was one and only one nation on Earth which displayed advance knowledge of when the 9/11 event was going to happen, just as there were voices heard from only one nation which expressed rejoicing and relief, after the event had happened).

[ian neal]

[Frazzel]

ian "proposed that the most democractic body we have available to us is the campaign committee and that given the importance of this site to our history it is right IMO that the committee should be the final decision making body to decide between the different options on the table. This was accepted on Saturday "

no argument. totally agree that the AGM has to decide the future of this site. that was what i was saying. im guilty of using the wrong word - committe - instead of agm. hope ive cleared it up.
if you read my previous posts i was clear REPEAT CLEAR REPEAT CLEAR about a distinction between a wider picture site such as this one and the specific focus of the campaign site.