site credibility issues

[suspecta]

I see there's a move to get well-known people on board. All well and good, but looking at this site with an objective eye I do see quite a lot that would potentially put off any rational-minded person off from being associated with us here.

Shouldn't we be aiming to avoid discussions of the wilder theories and limiting discussion to what we actually know, ie facts rather than speculation?

The people at the seventh of july site seem to understand this well and keep their discussions well within the bounds of acceptibility to any rational-minded person. I know for a fact that a lot of average people would be put off by some of the discussions here; surely this isn't what we want?

Or could some of the people who start the wilder discussions be intelligence plants aiming to make this site look irrational?

I really don't know.

How about this: if you're not an intel plant please think very carefully before posting anything that might alienate a possible convert to the cause of getting the truth about 9-11 and the phony 'war on terror' out to the people.

If anybody here begs to differ look what happened when Jon Ronson came over for a look: he was immediately assailed by strident anti-Zionist ravings - hardly the best way of keepiing him on board. Unsurprisingly he quickly became alienated and then left - permamently.

Suspecta

[blackbear]

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


Don't forget the pipeline or the holocaust against the black moustaches.

William Rodriguez........"thousands didn't turn up for work."

[Cornflour]

[BigD]

[BigD]

Oh, re the site credibility issues, you do understand it has none don’t you?, bit like the members and the bs they promote.

You lot ever thought about, I don’t know………. Hum……………………….. Leaving your * pits located in your mommies’ attic and going down the pub to meet members of the opposite sex (hell, even the same sex if you’re that way inclined)

Perhaps have a few beers, leer at the barmaid leaning over the corner with her knockers hanging out and then grab a kebab and a slapper on the way home??

Thought not, might be to much like having a life for people (using the term loosely) who swim in the shallow end of the gene pool.

Getting there yet Ian?

[Andrew Johnson]

[alwun]

watch out folks.. so let's look at bigD and their input.

firstly we are encouraged to believe or imagine that D is a big boy - or girl, of course.
We cannot be sure about the sex of big D but we have a few pointers towards their idea of 'havin or getting a "life"'. It appears to involve drinking beers and looking at 'slappers' and 'knockers'.
The terminologies employed here need no explanation, but it is useful to point out that these expressions are well past their sell by date, and were ever only used - back in the day - by the 'hard of thinking'. So we can see that there is indeed a 'hard' side to bigD.

must dash..

more later.. this is a fertile ground for elementary linguistic analysis. I'll be back.

cheers Al..

[ian neal]

The growth and moderation of this site and its forum has been an organic somewhat chaotic. Until fairly recently we attracted no critics. This has clearly changed and hence why we created critics corner so we didn't get drowned in the sort offensive ill-informed bs of Big D et co

The sites moderation is not set in stone and should be subject to on going discussion, but that discussion should largely be limited to those supporting the campaign soI propose this thread is moved to the suggestions section. Critics can continue to discuss how they are censored etc blah blah on geo's thread in critics corner or elsewhere in cyberspace.

This thread is solely for campaign supporters. Critics posts will be removed from it.

When I get a chance I will try and contribute to this thread, but I have other things to do today. Thanks for starting it suspecta.

Cheers

Ian

[suspecta]

[ian neal]

No need for embarassment suspecta.

I think we would all like the case for the 9/11 truth to be made in such a way that is as credible and effective as possible. When I say 'all', I mean all genuine campaigners.

I certainly reckonise that there is loads of stuff posted on this forum that does not necessarily achieve this and this is widely recognised. There are long talked about plans to launch a 'shop window' credible site whose aim is to present the campaign's case in the most effective way possible. Our lack of capacity means this is taking longer than anyone would wish. There is an opportunity for campaigners to feed in content or suggestions to this site as it is still very much work in progress (PM me if anyone is interested).

Once this goes live, it is likely this forum will be 'repackaged' to describe it as it more accurately is: an online community of campaigners who will maintain a healthy independence to the campaign itself.

The other point to make is that the way this forum is moderated has changed over time as the forum has attracted more posters and traffic. Critics corner for example is a relatively new introduction. The principles of 'no endorsement' and no promotion of hatred are fixed but beyond that how this bit of cyber space operates is open to discussion.

Just to pose a few questions to consider.

The moderators already remove material or lock threads that step over this line described here

If the forum did delete more material or remove posters that in the opinion of the moderators (assuming we all agreed) damaged the credibility of the campaign, on what criteria should we decide what is credible and what is not?

How do we guard against the forum becoming purely a mouth piece for the moderators and those who agree with them and in effect becoming a giant echo chamber that excludes genuine campaigners who happen to disagree with the 'party line'?

Is this not our exact problem with the leadership of the Stop the War Coalition in that they censor 9/11 truth from any of their national platforms purely because they disagree and fear it will damage their 'credibility'?

Is it not the responsibility of the leadership of any supposed grassroots movement to give voice to the full spectrum of beliefs that it claims to represent and not just a sanitised version of the 'truth'?

How do we avoid creating schisms within the movement based on what evidence to present (see US movement for many examples)?

How do we avoid the egos and power games or just serious divisions arising from discussion over whose platform or beliefs should take precedence over anothers?

That said I do know what you are talking about and share many of your concerns. Of course I see certain posts and inwardly groan, wishing that some people would keep their wisdom to themselves or say it in a different way. I also fully expect that it is inevitable that some people (a very small number I'm sure) will be posing as genuine supporters but in reality are working to undermine the campaign for whatever reasons.

But then would anyone wish the moderators acted on their unproven suspicions.

And then there are the critics. Many of whom are beyond any doubt in my mind are here to deliberately damage us (again for whatever reasons). Yet to ban them, in my opinion, would throw up as many problems as it apparently solves.

The question is what is the best solution or compromise. Suggestions welcome. Personally I like the idea of a forum (as proposed previously by Andrew Johnson) consisting only of campaigners who through their words and actions are known (or atleast in all probability believed to be) genuine. But how to establish such a forum and how to remain open to new comers. Not saying it's not possible and as we grow it may be necessary, but needs careful thought.

However, nothing is set in stone and we, the moderators, do not pretend to have all the answers.

One final point. Many of the most effective and busiest campaigners never or hardly ever post here. They are too busy out and about doing stuff. The forum is not the only way to build a network of campaigners and certainly not the best way to actually get to know each other.

The internet and web based communication is transforming how we get information and build networks, but it is not a substitute for the real world or face to face interaction.

More to follow when I get a chance

Cheers

Ian

[xmasdale]

Certainly there are people I know who have considered taking us seriously but, having looked at this forum, have decided against doing so.

The secret IMHO is to get our new website up and running asap as a shop window on the Campaign for 9/11 Truth.

Perhaps we should then rename this website as "Network for Anarchic Discussion on 9/11" or somesuch. When that has been done people will look to the new website to discover what the Campaign is about and would approach this forum with realistic expectations about what they would find here.

But how do we get the Campaign website functioning quickly? What is now holding it back?

Noel

[ianrcrane]

My understanding is that Adrian has announced that the new Campaign website is basically up & running. Having put out an open invitation for items to be submitted for inclusion on the new website, he is apparently still waiting!

This would seem to present a golden opportunity, for those who have expressed their frustration at some of the www.nineeleven.co.uk content, to take the initiative by making a direct contribution to the embryonic Campaign website.

If the dabate continues to generate nothing more than exchanges over what should or should not be posted on the new website, it could be a long time coming!

Alternatively, write your article(s) and submit them to Adrian, who as Editor of the new website will decide whether or not they are appropriate to publish. As with any news or information medium, if articles are published which Campaigners disagree with, they will have the opportunity to express their point of view.

However, as one of the more active 9/11 Truth Campaigners, I have absolute confidence in Adrian's judgement and ability to apply the appropriate degree of discernment.

Ian R. Crane

[ian neal]

Thanks Ian

(I editted your post to change www.nineeleven.com to .co.uk)

So there you have it. Those who wish to influence the face of new Campaign website, here is your invitation to do so.

Before firing off loads of content may I suggest touching base with Adrian to ensure your contribution is helpful and in line with his thinking.

Further debate on this forum's moderation and how it can be improved is very welcome

[xmasdale]

I think this is a constructive thread and we should therefore not let it fall off the list on the front page.

Noel

[heart-earth]

Keith Olbermann lost 2 friends in one of the planes and 2 in the WTC.
Thats odd in my point of view.
Where dos michael tsarion know all his information from.
Look at his shadow in "destruction of atlantis" which is 119 minutes long!!!

[suspecta]

Re site credibility issues I think it's a fantastic idea to have a site where only factual stuff is discussed and the wilder ideas kept at bay. I think there probably are people here whose purpose is to disrupt and undermine but I agree that you have to give them the benefit of the doubt most of the time. This place serves a fantastic purpose but there is also a need for a British 9-11 site with appeal for absolutely anyone, not just the most free-thinking!

Suspecta

[iro]

the truth is this forum like most of its kind is full of idiots and pathological persons who are unconstrained from their normal social conditions and like to be extroverted and ego-centric.

a forum is possibly the worst way a movement can represent itself as the riff raff have as much voice and presence as the more moderate and prudent members.... if anyone wants to take that as elitist they are welcome - but it is true nonetheless. The events of late call for tough talking and im glad theres a good debate raging.

Since the 9/11 movement has decided to play the conventional socio-political game and challenge within the society for change and a new investigation of 9/11 then it must play the politics game and form a robust and impenetrable political party and organisational structure - otherwise its a feeding frenzy for detractors who outnumber 'us' vastly.

I dont agree with the above - but bearing the route taken thus far its the only way forward ... im in favour of ditching the whole approach and following a civil disobedience and proactive path as politics is rotten and cannot be beaten at its own game...something along the lines of the fathers for justice movement synthesised with Satyagraha - no violence, just direct and visible protest that really sticks a cog in the works of society and makes people listen.

there you go - two options.

as for the forum... well i've stuck with it due to the worthiness of the cause... but i have had a really negative experience here and find the place immensely negative and conflictory - not what i expected when i joined... in fact i come here less and less these days as this place is just eating itself up with one argument and shill attack after another. I have even been called a shill and enemy of 9/11 truth myself so i know in part how jon ronson feels after his experience here.

this is no environment for constructive endeavour, nor is it a good advertisement or resource for curious seekers... in that sense it is a grand failure.

[ian neal]

Thanks iro and personally I believe you are correct (re the limitations of this forum). I speak as someone who was instrumental in its creation and who has seen it evolve (or should that be regress) over time. If we took registration and number of posts/day as a measure of success then this forum is going from strength to strength, but if you see it as a vehicle for presenting credibly 9/11 truth in this country, it feels like it is loosing its way. I have noticed over time that you are not the only person who has become disenchanted with this way of raising awareness.

I also agree that civil disobedience is the way forward, but any campaign of civil disobedience and peaceful direct action requires a clear platform around which to unite. That was always the aim of the front page statement and the forum's principles of 'no endorsement', non-violence and rejection of division and bigotry together with the promotion of respect and tolerance amongst the diverse supporters that this campaign hoped to attract.

I don't have any illusions that a genuine new investigation will occur within the existing political landscape. It will require a mass popluar movement made up of people from all walks of life and with support from across the political spectrum and support from within the key institutions of power.

And for that to happen will require people to leave their key boards and start small peaceful direct actions from which bigger things will grow.

As I said earlier today, my gut feeling is that this forum in its current format has 'had its day' and that was a widely held view from this evening's London meeting, but I want to hear from others before taking any decisions (or atleast using my influence to make a decision).

Thanks for your supportive PM btw

[TimmyG]

my thoughts echo what has already been said.

the movements going nowhere via this forum. if i was a mod posts like 'jon ronson is a shill' and hologram stuff would just be deleted.

[paul wright]

I don't know what the problem is. With a single issue forum there's only so much you can say about the single issue, and if you try to keep it at that it will obviously spill over to more oblique theorising and off-topic stuff. Does that really matter? There are always enough people to bring it back to the point, if they're that bothered.
Does it matter if we piss Jon Ronson off? Why? Because he's a minor celebrity able to write stuff in national newspapers and books? Do we have to be always appealing to people with some kind of authority or celebrity to verify our own thoughts and actions? Isn't this the kind of increasingly disempowering societal matrix we ought to reject? Are those who moan about the way the forum is going, doing all in their power to organise amongst real people out there and draw them in to what this movement's really about? Or are they just tapping in their complaints in the same way that the more provocational are tapping in their personal weirdness and view of events, which as we know may turn out to be quite realistic
My point is we have to be out there doing it, not just handing out dvds but actually getting people together in public spaces to discuss and act on the knowledge. Once people have started to get it through some kind of 3D occurrence, they are far more likely to be able to enter this forum, and to decide what's wheat and what's chaff
Speaking from experience
So no negativity, just try your best in the outside world on the streets and in public places, and do your thing in here. That way it works out

[iro]

there are several many ways ahead that would represent methods for progress ... and still providing a forum to bang ideas around..
heres a couple off the top of my head...

1) an E-newsletter monthly/biweekly in which the staff here for example instead of moderating posts from idiots and chitter chatter could receive submissions of articles and collate them in a pdf. This could of course be linked on the official website, provided freely supported by donations and advertising and a heavily moderated forum could be introduced as a means of a) collecting submissions for the articles to be used and
b) to let members discuss the articles afterwards

2) I dont think you can clearly disassociate this forum from the group - it will remain a thorn and will always be used against the group in the sense of sinn fein/IRA ... if you get my drift. The association is there, and it cannot be severed.. so either this place continues and learns from its moderation mistakes.. or it closes shop. The Admin of illusions is very happy to redirect traffic there for anyone wanting to let off steam on other issues. Maybe some kind of partnership should be discussed at some level possibly... to get the best of both worlds

[dontbelievethehype1970]

A Campaign is not a forum.

Your probably better off moving the forum to a free hosting board such as invisionfree.com, or illusionsforum.

Then build a site which presents the campaign much like say no2id.net. People can support the campaign by signin up, attending rallys etc.

In many ways people coming to nineeleven.co.uk dont wish to endlessly debate what happened but would like to see an alternative pov promoted in the mainstream media and would be prepared to dontate to such an orgainsation.

eg prisonplanet.com

Such a campaign would be less vulnerable to disinformation agents etc.

Sure its good to get peoples input and time etc, but there are other ways in which you can get people involved.

What we need in this country is to promote ethical and credible broadcasting.

eg watch the beginning of this video for an example of nonsense msm, in this case msnbc

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3533643957232437789

Thats what we can realistically achieve in the UK - a raising of awareness that the msm and government cannot be trusted to always tell you the truth etc.

But who has the time and resources to do it? A forum is an easier way of generating content!

In fact my suggestion is to build a campagin site and then link to the forum, stating as you already do that the campaing does not endores the views on the forum. Just take the campaign part of the site to the next level - publish alternative news, try to get some syndication to prisonplanet etc etc etc.

I can offer website / database skills.

Whilst we are about it why not try to set up an 'ethical' political party, or encourage people to run as political candidates. Provide information as to how to run etc.

My 2 minute suggestion:

1. Low taxes and only apportioned taxation.
2. Remove Usery.
3. Clean fuel.
4. Ethical foreign policy.
5. Remove unemployment beneft.
6. Against id and excessive state interference.
7. Against Uncontrolled Immigration.
8. Preserve the nation state.
9. Encourage local democracy.

Posting previously as tabletaz

[iro]

there is no point in playing politics - what a waste of time and energy.

i can't think of a single worse fallacy in our case than doing that... would you play blackjack with your mortgage money in a rigged casino house?

[John White]

I've been considering this debate carefully for several days

In part, I wonder if this perception with a "problem" with the campaign is linked to a general sense of wondering where to go now we have passed the psychological milestone of the 5th anniversary?

I see no reason for this forum not to continue: it has brought over a thousand people together into one community, whatever the differences, and has provided information for many thousands more: in that, it can only be considered an unqualified success at "being what it is"

If there is a crisis, its nature appears to me to be more a crisis of identity than anything else. The site has a mandate and stucture to what is and isnt "acceptable": all that is required is either to take on the task of making those guidelines stick and sending "off topic" conversation elsewhere, or to rethink those guidelines and restructure the Forum as the "UK Truth Campaign Forum" (including 9/11, 7/7 and other topics).

Either option would resolve the current "problems", but either option also requires the determination to make it stick. Certainly I feel capable of playing a part either way.

[ian neal]

I agree it is in large part a crisis of identity, in that this forum is so closely identified as representing the views of the 9/11 truth campaign (Britain & Ireland). This was never my intention since I could foresee some of problems we now face.

My personal opinion at the time the site was taking shape was to just have the front page statement and petition on the front page with the statements included in about us section (eg no endorsement, non violence, etc) also linked directly. Then great big fat cyber barrier consisting of an unavoidable disclaimer statement separating this front page from a forum behind that makes it crystal clear that the forum views do NOT represent the campaign's position which is essentially a minimalist platform that is both hard hitting and one around which we can all unite

The way it is currently structured with films on our front page and forum links and events, this barrier is barely visible and from this many of the problems stem.

The importance of this separation should now be clear to all, since any public forum you will attract to it views that many will not be happy to be associated with and this undermines the very unity this site aimed to create. It also places far to much importance on the forum as a means of communicating when the real work is face to face and getting away from being key board 'warriors.

What works will evolve over time. We have tried with the current website structure largely unaltered since when the forum started. I suggest it needs rethinking. My proposal is either to redesign the site in line with my suggestions above or consider even more radical separation of campaign and forum.

What are your thoughts John (and others) on this.

[alwun]

Dear Ian,
I would suggest that you can have the best of both worlds. This forum archive must hold a wealth of information, media, and links. I have no doubt that you will be able to construct a suitable 911uk site which can in turn direct people to the forum if desired.
What I mean is, time and personnel permitting, one could compliment the other. The decision is entirely yours rather than mine, and I can see value both in permutation and in the 'divorce' you mentioned.
Here are my thoughts.
I am personally grateful for the fact of the forum, although I can understand your points of view regarding the register of some of the exchanges that take place. I have seen personal vendettas unfold, begun before my time. And witnessed new ones begin. I've said a few unkind words myself, the kind easily said from behind a keyboard. Although some amusement might be derived, there is a hint of unseemliness. I will henceforth refrain. That being said, it is a rare opportunity to see genuine and spirited debate, which more than makes up for the occasional outbursts of inelegance.

Some of the overt hostilities in the Critics Corner, on the other hand, have been instructive, and have alerted me to the reality of pockets of concerted effort to subvert the progress towards re-investigation. I would suggest that this is a useful rite of passage, realising that indeed there is a 'real-time' keyboard campaign being waged to suppress this particular 'story'.
On the 5th anniversary of 911, a Disney'esque docufakery was broadcast over two nights on BBC. I suggest this was another facet of such campaigning.

The warning sign - the disclaimer - that's a vital component.
The amount and variety of wild and wooly claims from which some people should be kept at bay from, may rise. Make it hair raising, would be my advice.
If you need help with the disclaimer, I'm your man. Good luck.

cheers Al..

P.S. As with the Critics in their Corner, why not right away invite way-out theorists and others to share their 'ideas and possibilities' over at 'Paranoids' Parade' or 'Credulists' Couch' or even 'Delusional Drive(l)'. This would provide voluntary segregation, and again could be furnished with its own disclaimer. The notion of suppressing the wilder ideas does not seem right to me, so let them happen between consenting adults in private, as it were.
Such a move would additionally lessen the percieved 'pollution' in the clearer waters of fully acceptable public debate.

[andyb]

I agree with 'Paranoid's Place' for all this No 7x7 and star beam stuff. I also taking the campaign's name from the top of the page would be a good idea, nothing wrong with having a forum but it shouldn't be connected to the campaign

[xmasdale]

We continue to get tied in knots because it is not clear what the purpose of this discussion board is. Researchers want to use it to discuss the finer points of 9/11 research on what must have happened, while campaigners want to use it to present a credible picture of the campaign to the public. These are mutually incompatible objectives. This website needs to be divorced from the campaign so that on it people can discuss what ever they like without their opinions being taken as those of the campaign.

Personally I am far more interested in presenting a credible campaign than in discovering details about how the 9/11 attacks were carried out. If I discovered incontovertible evidence that the attacks were organised by little blue creatures from Mars, but the proof of that could only be understood by someone with a PhD in genetics, I would not consider that proof a useful campaigning tool.

The campaigning technique I would employ is one where we show the evidence and pose the tough questions, but do not attempt to describe what we think really happened in any detail. To claim we know what happened only serves to divide us because we all have different ideas about it.

People who want to discuss what they think really happened should be able to do so in a place where their opinions are not taken as representative of the campaign.

Noel

[Ally]

Sound familiar Noel?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Wise words Indeed Ally

Anybody who is more concerned about their own or this site's credibility is on the wrong track.

The most important thing is The Truth and this site serves a very useful purpose - long may it continue