Wouldn't we gain credence if the 9/11 groups all joined forced?

[cyberpj]

My own favorites folder contains 9 separate sites and I know, from staying in touch with this forum, that there are many many more that have valuable claims and evidence.

Doesn't it make sense that both the groups and the claims and the evidence would have much more power if they united into one huge National Group?

I have the exact same feelings about the Stolen Elections groups.

I just don't understand why people keep creating and maintaining all these small separate entities than can be shot down or ignored one at a time.

THE POWER COMES WITH THE SIZE THAT CAN NO LONGER BE IGNORED.

Thoughts?

[petgoat]

1. Joining Forces

One problem with big tents is that inevitably people join who others
feel are lacking in credibility.

Thus 911truth and Jim Hoffman, rightly or wrongly, don't want to be
associated with webfairy's pods or holograms.

Another problem is that people get into feuds--Mike Ruppert's with
Stanley Hilton's for instance. Some people say Philip Berg's RICO
lawsuit is designed to fail and to discredit the movement. Some
people accuse John Judge of being a disinfo agent because of his claim
that a friend saw 757 wreckage in the Pentagon; some people claim
Pentagon missile theorists are dupes of a disinfo campaign. David Ray
Griffin seems skeptical of Ruppert's wargames thesis.


It would be great if people could work on resolving these disputes.

[cyberpj]

2. Well we need to do something because this is where we're losing

Both Republican and ultra-right groups do this very well - and it gives them power by numbers.

FIRST - you find the issues you agree on - those are always the biggest issues anyway - and agree to be loud and move forward on those issues TOGETHER.

Dems and Dem issues need to get rid of that 'herding cats' joke or we'll never get anywhere.

[StrafingMoose]

3. Question....

"David Ray Griffin seems skeptical of Ruppert's wargames thesis."

Hm, do you have any quotes of Griffin on this? I'd be very interested, thanks.

[spooked911]

4. I don't think he's published anything saying this

At the end of his recent 9/11 commission critique book he talks a little about the wargames but really neglects them overall.

I heard second-hand at the truth emergency convergence in WashDC that Griffin doesn't really buy the wargame scenario as liad out by Ruppert. Other people also quesiton if the wargames really confused the air response, although I think they certainly had some effect-- particularly in the early stages of the hijackings before the towers were hit.

[petgoat]

9. David Ray Griffin on Ruppert's Wargame Thesis

I overstated in saying Griffin was skeptical. My impression from the end of his Madison lecture was that in response to a question he said he
had not studied the wargames and thus could not comment on them.

That Griffin's failure to study them comes from skepticism is my own
inference, and may be incorrect.

[Bushwick Bill]

6. In Griffin's Madison Speech

He was extremely complimentary of Ruppert during the Q&A at the end. From what I remember, Griffin said that the wargames issue is one that he finds interesting, but doesn't really know much about to discuss it in detail. What surprised me was that Griffin said he now essentially agrees with Ruppert's thesis that Cheney was the mastermind. I was glad to hear that because it put two of the more notable speakers on the same page.

[spooked911]

5. I agree-- this is a great point. I think people worry too much about the

divisions between different 9/11 skeptics and not enough on what we do agree about-- that it was an inside job, some sort of covert operation that was sanctioned by US intelligence agencies at very high levels.

Do you have any suggestions how to join forces?

Personally, I like 9/11truth.org in terms of being a pretty good unifying force. But probably there are some things that other people don't like about
9/11truth.org that i don't know of. Nico Haupt is a major 9/11 researcher and is very dismissive of 9/11 truth.org for reasons I don't quite understand.

I think the major problem is that there is too much distrust of other people's motives-- people think certain people are CIA/FBI moles or something for supporting what they think are the more obscure/esoteric/weird theories.

But I really think we should all respect each other's opinions-- although we can certainly disagree about how the operation was done, the important thing is that it was an inside job.

[cyberpj]

8. My only suggestion is that you have to find the things all agree on

and start there.

If all these groups join forces on just one or two items that they can all agree on that could at least get the proverbial foot in the door.

If all agree that it was demolition - start there.

Or if all just agree that more answers are needed - start there.

But join together or the sounds you make will continue to scatter in the breeze of the laughter of one group that knows how to stick together - that is the one thing they do very very well.

[MrSammo1]

7. Join the group

that points to the real terrorists. The ones behind 911.
The neocon murderers that pulled it off!

[demodewd]

10. a tendency

I think there is a tendency with those of high profile,Hoffman,Jacobs,Singh et al to declare the parameters of legitimate inquiry and then they become the accepted norm to be emulated by participants like us here at du. Take the pod,is it a legitimate area of inquiry here? For some it is apparently not and these voices are so adamant that those of us who believe it has legitimacy soon become inclined to shut up about it because we know what will happen predictably if we post about it. The same group of people as has happened before will descend on it like a famished buzzard on two day old roadkill.

[petgoat]

12. When I Came to 9/11 Truth I Saw Some of the Demolition Sites

and found them really disturbing to my complacency, but I recognized
that anybody with Photoshop could make disturbing pictures. That Nader,
Cobb, and Badnarik had signed the 9/11 truth statement did a lot to
legitimize 911truth.org in my eyes. Nick Levis's essay there about
disinformation and pod theory I thus took as gospel.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2004081007575214

The pods have been putatively debunked as mere reflections from a
native bulge in the fuselage between the wings. If there are
de-debunkings I'd certainly like to see them.

[demodewd]

13. debunked..

Putatively debunked by whom? What sources are you refering to?

[petgoat]

15. Debunked by Whom?

Pod theory has been putatively debunked by Popular Mechanics, and Jim
Hoffman's de-debunking of PM cited 911 skeptics' sites that attack pod
theory, specifically mentioning oilempire.us and questionsquestions.net.

[demodewd]

17. well...

Well that about takes care of it then doesn't it. If Jim Hoffman debunks it then we must move on. He is one of our leaders. We must obey.

[janedoe]

20. Let's not sweat the small stuff.

That will only distract from a concise message.

I think we all can agree on the basics, and that's all we need to agree on.

For example, it doesn't matter WHAT hit the pentagon, as we all know that SOMETHING did. The fact that we don't know and have no proof beyond the official "cause we said so," means that we need to have a useful investigation. The 911 omission commission didn't prove WHAT happened or even HOW it happened. They failed at their job. We are still in need of a competent investigation. End of story.

The same argument can be made for each of the other events that day. It's not our job to prove what happened. It's our job to hire competent people who will serve this country.

Failure to determine what hit the Pentagon and how it was able to bypass our "superior" defense system is a serious threat to our national security. We should all care! Failure to address this issue goes beyond negligence. It's an act of treason. Anyone who stands in the way of a true investigation should be charged with treason.

[JackRiddler]

18. I beg you please

Never take anything I write (or anyone else writes) as "gospel."

That's certainly not my intent. Like anyone else should, I present arguments back up with what I take to be the facts.

(Nick Levis)

The article you mention, with links to other articles on "the pod" is here:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040810075752147

[petgoat]

19. Never Take Anything as Gospel

Nick, in my own mind the use of the word "gospel" was informed by
the fact that a biochemist I used to live with was very fond of the
term "the current dogma" when she wanted to talk about prevailing
scientific theories.

I could be convinced that pod theory was correct by convincing
evidence, but I have no reason to investigate it to try to convince
myself. I don't consider it a real productive issue.

It could be that WTC explosives is not a real productive issue
either--I just happen to find the collapse interesting intellectually.

I would like it if more people would do more strategic thinking on
just what is the most productive issue and why.

"Productive" I would define as politically powerful so as to stimulate
calls for new investigations.

Maybe someone else would define "productive" in another way.

[janedoe]

21. It looks like we are thinking along the same lines.

Sorry, I didn't see your post (or took too long posting mine).
(see post #20, above).

Let's say you own a bank. The bank supervisor hires an armed officer to watch the vault after hours. The next morning you discover the bank is unlocked and the vault is empty. The bank supervisor questions the officer, who shrugs his shoulders and says, "I dunno what happened. I guess the locks just quit workin' or somethin'." And the bank supervisor thanks him for his testimony and gives him a raise. Do you then give the supervisor a raise? Or do you fire him and call for a criminal investigation?

We are the owners of this country. It is our job to hold folks accountable. If the bank manager hires incompetent people, they are incompetent , too, and should also be fired.

Shrugging off national security is far worse than "just" incompetence. That's a conscious choice, which in essence, is a conscious choice to leave the bank unlocked and vault door wide open. But, in the case of national security, a conscious choice to leave the bank unlocked is treason.

(...but who'd have thought that a thief would wander into the bank if I left it open? But, hey, I'm only in charge of national security. What do I care?)

[spooked911]

24. That's a good analogy except that a lot of people died on 9/11

which makes it even more serious but also more easy to demagogue. I.e. by questioning the official story and blaming the government, you are "dishonoring" the dead. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be swayed by that argument.

The other problem is we are saying the government, at some level, let its people be murdered. In your analogy it would be like the security guard having his own money in the vault that was looted. Why would he steal his own money and blame it on someone else?

(I know the answer, I'm just saying this is a better analogy)

[spooked911]

14. Yes, I agree. However, since the pod IS controversial, surely it can

be put on the back burner of issues. We need to unify around common issues-- i.e 1) there is clearly some government complicity, 2) there is a cover-up, 3) there are lots of important unanswered questions about 9/11. I think ALL of us can agree to those three points.

[petgoat]

16. The Most Basic Issue is the Lack of Credibility of the Official Story

and the need for a new investigation.

According to Zogby 2/3 of New Yorkers want a new investgation by Eliot
Spitzer or Congress.

[spooked911]

25. Yes, say it loud and say it proud!!!!!

[MercutioATC]

22. The pod is not "controversial", it's physically impossible.

Just show me how a landing gear can deploy with the "pod" there...it simply isn't possible.

Also, notice that the wing root DOES make a pronounced bulge where the "pod" is alleged to be.

[pauldp]

11. You are right. By remaining fragmented we play into the Thug strategy.

Divide and conquer is a principal tactic for them.

If you think we're up against it now, just wait till we seriously try to unify, but unify we must.

[Christophera]

23. Very Valid Point-Discussions Lack Finality, Product-Let Agreement Control

That is a point I've been trying to make for 3 years.

The 9-11 truth movement really needs a message board that the discussion itself controls. In other words, we need a board that lets our reasonable agreement control the thread popularity rather than som other factor none will identify.

Here is my idea for such a board. "Poll To Post".

http://algoxy.com/poly/polltopost.html

I've suggested to the major 9-11 .orgs and major .orgs for peace and environment that such a software be funded, but no response has been forthcoming.