 |
truthaction.org
9/11 TRUTH NOW
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1704
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:43 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | I would wonder how Mr Gold would ever forgive himself if he fails in this task. |
Since he's openly promoting it, I suppose he'll feel the same amount of regret as the organizers of all the big tent hoax conferences felt, who invited Morgan Reynolds, Rick Siegel, Alfred Webre, etc. And then they did it all again. And again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 1550
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The picture becomes more clear.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/17161
| Quote: | Carrying Forward the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative (summary edit)
Petitioners for the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative have now gathered in excess of 27,000 signatures of NY City registered voters who are in favor of the creation of a new, independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks.
However, since a minimum of 30,000 valid signatures is required plus an extra margin of several thousand is recommended, it appears that time has run out to meet the Sept. 4th deadline for getting this public referendum onto the Nov. 2008 ballot.
Although this is a great disappointment to the dozens of dedicated people working on the Initiative, they have also accepted that it may be a blessing in disguise. The presidential race would have drawn so much media attention as to overshadow this effort to establish a new, independent, and impartial “truth commission”.
Therefore, it has been decided that it’s best to continue the petition drive into the next election cycle, since the current petitions will still be usable.
It’s important to note that in addition to the collection of 27,000 signatures, there have been other related accomplishments. ... (The good stuff)
That said, many of us here continue to believe that the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative is the culmination of 7 years of research and activism because it’s designed to result in a legally recognized investigation. So we are strategizing for the next stage.
Les Jamieson
Coordinator
NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative |
_________________
http://911truthburnout.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1704
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Everyone waits for word from master. Then they spread it and discuss, to no avail.
Maybe it's time for, at least, an essay describing the problems so far, and what a real initiative should look like. We'll post it at 9-11 Review if someone writes it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diane
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 592
Location: New York City
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| victronix01 wrote: | | Maybe it's time for, at least, an essay describing the problems so far, and what a real initiative should look like. We'll post it at 9-11 Review if someone writes it. |
Has anyone written such an essay yet?
If one or more of the critics of the NYC ballot initiative could write up what a real initiative should look like, that would certainly be a step in the right direction. (Of course, that would be just a first step. We would then need people to nail down the details, such as putting the actual proposed commission together, and then to do further organizing and outreach.)
Having read through this thread, I do see various problems with the ballot initiative in its present form. But I'm very frustrated at the absence of a concrete alternative -- and at the apparent lack of willingness and/or ability, on the part of any of the current ballot initiative's NYC-based critics, to put together a concrete alternative, or to launch any concrete effort to do so.
_________________
Diane
New York City Activist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1704
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No, no one has written one yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diane
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 592
Location: New York City
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| victronix01 wrote: | | No, no one has written one yet. |
Thanks for the info.
If you want people NOT to support the ballot initiative, I would strongly suggest that you do everything you can to convince your New York friends to create a viable concrete alternative.
Don't you see how most people in the 9/11 Truth movement will inevitably continue to agree with Jon Gold's statements in this thread (and my own very similar recent statements in the TruthMove forum) unless someone else, here in New York City, creates a viable concrete alternative???
_________________
Diane
New York City Activist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 1550
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EPIC 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT FAIL!!!!
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20789#comment-213057
| Quote: | The reasons given [by the city clerk for rejecting the initiative] were:
First, the federal government has jurisdiction over an investigation into the attacks that took place on September 11 as well as the causes of those attacks. Establishing a local commission to conduct such an investigation far exceeds the proper scope and purpose of the petition process of the MHRL. Second, the petition fails to provide an adequate financing plan for the Commission as required by section 37 of the MHRL. Third, the petition's method of designating Commissioners conflicts with state laws relating to the election or appointment of public officers and the residency of public officers. Fourth, the petition overrearches in its attempt to confer a range of law enforcement and prosecutorial powers on the Commission. Fifth, the subject of this proposed amendment to the Charter does not relate to an existing Charter provision as is required by section 37. |
This means that NYCCAN is dead in the water. The reasons given above for dismissing the initiative appear valid, and very much related to concerns that a few of us have been expressed for over a year about the content of the initiative itself.
http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/871?replies=99
I suppose I should make it clear that I'm very disappointed by this. But not at all surprised. And I think it would be really useful for people to reflect on the lessons that can be learned here.
All of the concerns myself and others expressed were based on sound reasoning. We have been fighting for what we felt was best for the movement. And our concerns turned out to be valid. But this is by no means the first time.
THIS is why bandwagons and big tents don't work. THIS is why we need people more committed to principle than association willing to forgo popularity and a sense of inclusion in order to stand up for effective standards and strategies.
All that effort and money for very little outcome. I'm certain those most invested will begin to count the few benefits this process has offered. Those things should not be ignored. But more important for us not to ignore is the fact that some of us saw this coming for almost two years and stood up to our peers in order to express our concerns.
I think people should come to more greatly value the kind of invested dissent being offered by people who care enough about the movement to go out on a lonely limb to defend good strategy.
I don't like it out here, but if we don't do it who will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1704
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Third, the petition's method of designating Commissioners conflicts with state laws relating to the election or appointment of public officers and the residency of public officers. |
This is an interesting one.
NYS Public Officers Law
http://www.tenant.net/Other_Laws/Pubofc/pubofc02.html
It says they need to be a resident of the state, to start with. That seems very basic. I wonder what their defense will be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rancho Truth
Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 331
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
thanks for that link, Vic- here's the NY MHRL:
http://www.celdf.org/NewYorkMunicipalHomeRuleLaw/tabid/294/Default.aspx
Relevant section:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20789#comment-213098
| truthmover wrote: | THIS is why bandwagons and big tents don't work. THIS is why we need people more committed to principle than association willing to forgo popularity and a sense of inclusion in order to stand up for effective standards and strategies.
All that effort and money for very little outcome. |
I agree- whatever victories/good have come from this, it should've been designed to succeed- was it designed to fail? Whatever good/victories can be counted, if was set up to fail and fails, it was also a big money/energy/time drain, and will likely cause some to lose hope/faith/trust. Screw Loose has already used this 'invalidation' as another mocking point.
After both sides present their arguments on Monday, we'll see for ourselves- and if the NYC Clerks reasons are seen to be valid, Pepper/Person/others w/ legal background who drafted the petition need to be asked why the petition wasn't drafted so that it complied with the law?
Let it be a lesson, for sure. Diane asked last pg- 2008- if anyone had drafted a proper initiative- tragic that that was never done- i think the arguments from this Monday will reveal a lot about what potential an NYC initiative has- perhaps an investigation into certain aspects/evidence that NYC has jurisdiction, perhaps an initiative that does something else...
My comment at 911blogger:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20789#comment-213087
_________________
http://911reports.com/
http://www.historycommons.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arabesque
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 1437
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Posted a comment there.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20789#comment-213151
There are voices who call for "no criticism" and I strongly disagree with that. Oddly enough, the people who call for "no criticism" don't hesitate to criticize those who criticize.
Members of the 9/11 truth movement would only laugh if they are told "Don't criticize the official story of 9/11." There is really no difference between saying "don't criticize the official 9/11 story" and "don't criticize the 9/11 truth movement". You don't get to pick and choose what people can and can not criticize. Pointing out the good and bad only helps the 9/11 truth movement get stronger, learn from mistakes, and advance our case and cause for Justice.
Particularly when people are willing to listen to fair criticism and learn from it.
_________________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcterus
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 698
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I really don't understand how censorship is consistent with a 9/11 Truth Movement. Truth implies...well...the truth...
_________________
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com
Last edited by Arcterus on Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 1550
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good response. Thanks for the backup Arabesque.
I'm really unhappy with how this is playing out. I'm wondering if any lessons will be learned.
What will Les Jamieson be in charge of next?
What big idea will be handed to people who don't have the skills to pull it off next?
What plan will go underscrutinized next?
The main problem with the ballot initiative, other than those who set it up, was the ballot initiative itself. I recall 'reporting' on its contents and feeling like those supporting it hadn't read it yet.
Those problems suggested likely outcomes. And what we see here was certainly one of those. Some people foresaw those outcomes and tried their best to warn everyone.
We were criticized from the beginning as antagonistic. I really feel like I got the 'dissent is unpatriotic' treatment.
This is a movement about a huge gruesome tragedy. Do I really need to couch everything I say in happy speak to keep from rubbing peoples egos the wrong way? The stakes are so much bigger than our egos.
I was right about the 'Ready for Mainstream' conference. I was right about NYCCAN. I've expressed strong reservations about the "We Damand Transparency" conference. All three involve Les Jamieson. Is anyone going to listen to me, or all the others expressing similar concerns, this time around?
When does our skepticism become valuable? When does our insight get some respect?
As I've said before, I am invested in the truth of the truth movement. You can't have a valid movement for truth populated by people who can't deal with the practical realities of the challenge we face.
Infiltration is real. Disinformation works because it's convincing. Certain strategies are not effective. Research is very different than promotion.
We are not the enemy. Fallacy, group think, and ignorance are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zombie bill hicks
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 411
Location: West Virginia
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excellent post, Jules and Arabesque.
Its becoming more and more clear that the majority of the truth movement wont hesitate to ask ANYONE questions about 9/11, but when faced with internal critique interpreted as an attack, it unravels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
christs4sale
Joined: 02 Nov 2007
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:55 pm Post subject: Some reflections on the recent NYCCAN thread on Blogger: |
|
|
I have decided to stop posting on 911blogger due to the pig pen that it has become. A moderated forum that allows that much crap to be posted and has been caught censoring those I support is not worth the time I have to post. I think that this forum and Truthmove deserve far more attention than Blogger.
Some of the comments are either misinformed or are consciously supporting the other side.
Jonathan Mark posted on Blogger:
| Quote: | yes.. make les jamieson the scapegoat..
rather than finding fault where it is deserved..
les founded this initiative in nyc and personally led the effort to collect over 30,000 petitioners.. and then handed it over to stop the scape goating.. and asked ted walter to be the director with a board of family-survivors-responders proving where les jamieson was coming from in spearheading this project.. |
He completely overlooks any of Les' history and past behavior that we have documented on Truthmove. It is very clear why Les Jamieson should have no part in any action or organization related to any activism of any kind at this point.
Atomic Bomb and many others are either confusing or "confusing" disinformation and slander with legitimate constructive criticism. I do not think that any mass media organization or disinformation agent is providing the same critique that Jules, Michael or Arabesque have been providing. Not even close. The legitimate constructive criticism they are providing would definitely make the 9/11 movement stronger. Only something really weak has a difficult time withstanding constructive criticism. I agree with Arabesque's post here that these people want "no criticism."
Jon Gold posted on Blogger:
| Quote: | In the email chain you were apart of, I agree.
Edit: According to Kyle, the "final edit and legal review was done by Bill Pepper" and "the earliest iterations of the draft language were a collaborative effort that involved Carl Person, Les and others who were involved over a year and half or so ago." Kyle also pointed out that, "it is the substance and details of the Petition calling for and structuring an unprecedented Citizens' Commission that matters here and that is being challenged by the City Clerk's office. It's an unprecedented proposal that is being forwarded here in Petition/Ballot initiative format establishing a unique Commission that would be funded privately by donation (akin to how private funds are often raised for official gov't supported memorials) but backed up by the full power of the City government as far as their jurisdiction extends, at least as I understand it."
He's right. This is "unprecedented." He's right in saying this is "unprecedented" unlike those who say 9/11 was "unprecedented/unimaginable."
As I said before, did anybody really think this would be easy? I "endorse the fight" so long as the families do. It may bring us some attention, and if it's what they want to do, then I support it. |
Bingo. Carl Person and Les Jamieson. We all know about Jamieson, but Person has a similar history. Look at Paula Gloria's video channel on Youtube and he was a guest and co-attendee to many events with her long after she began "handling" the crazies. He also founded: http://www.911realinvestigation.org/
William Pepper loves to speak about disinformation, but he has no problem working along side it and continuing to share the stage with it. See my previous post on Truthmove on Pepper.
Those three are largely responsible for the shitty foundation that could and probably will cause the house to collapse.
To top it off, Sander Hicks, who I have no hope in at this point (see our posts on Truthmove about him), has a position on NYCCAN as Treasurer and is the organizer of the We Demand Transparency Conference, which is having an NYCCAN day and looks like it will be Ready For Mainstream part 2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diane
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 592
Location: New York City
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| truthmover wrote: | EPIC 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT FAIL!!!!
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20789#comment-213057
| Quote: | The reasons given [by the city clerk for rejecting the initiative] were:
First, the federal government has jurisdiction over an investigation into the attacks that took place on September 11 as well as the causes of those attacks. Establishing a local commission to conduct such an investigation far exceeds the proper scope and purpose of the petition process of the MHRL. Second, the petition fails to provide an adequate financing plan for the Commission as required by section 37 of the MHRL. Third, the petition's method of designating Commissioners conflicts with state laws relating to the election or appointment of public officers and the residency of public officers. Fourth, the petition overrearches in its attempt to confer a range of law enforcement and prosecutorial powers on the Commission. Fifth, the subject of this proposed amendment to the Charter does not relate to an existing Charter provision as is required by section 37. |
This means that NYCCAN is dead in the water. The reasons given above for dismissing the initiative appear valid, and very much related to concerns that a few of us have been expressed for over a year about the content of the initiative itself. |
Does anyone here know a lawyer qualified to look into the above issues and to give an informed opinion as to whether they are indeed valid -- and insurmountable?
If so, my next question would be why William Pepper was not aware of these matters.
_________________
Diane
New York City Activist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
