[Imc-uk-features] FEAT PROPASAL: The 9/11 Truth Movement takes to the streets

[maqui]

hello

On Thursday, September 14, 2006, at 02:04  am, Chris wrote:

> Hi
>
> Here is a new version of the article:
>
>   https://wiki.sheffieldsocialforum.org.uk/911#UK_Article

Thanks Chris for this new version. I also think it is much more 
suitable for the uk's front page, and I second it to go up. Also big up 
to you (and other Sheffield folk) for your work in these features. I 
think they are obviously researched, well written and put together with 
lots of background info. .. proper journalism work! :-)

Anyhow, my five pence on this 911 issue (in relation to IMC):

I really haven't got and informed view with all this. I haven't 
followed, nor researched, the masses of info that has been coming out 
from almost all quarters of the 'political spectrum' on this issue. 
Almost everyday I see a new site about the "911 truth', but I can't be 
really bothered to go into this too deeply. It is true that I am very 
skeptical of the official version, and I believe most people also are. 
Basically, it is also true that there are many persuasive arguments out 
there questioning what actually happened that day. Or at least, I 
guess, an increasing number of people are refuting the official version 
of events as there are too many muddy aspects in the official story. 
But personally (and partially due to my lack of research of the 
'evidence' provided by the 911 Truth Movement) I am more inclined to 
take the view of, for example, last week's write up in Schnews. I 
thought that one was, as usual with them, a very good piece.

Anyway, it also seems to be a fact (as Chris mentions in one of his 
mails) that the 'global skeptical camp' ('truth movement' or whatever) 
is growing, and as it does, it is getting organised in grass roots 
movements, campaigns and so on. And so, I think that as such, they 
deserve a space in Indymedia, not least because corporate media is 
either ignoring or simply treating as loony any version that 
contravenes the official story. I think the article proposed rightly 
links the 911 event with the permanent 'war on terror' we've been 
dragged into by these sort of neo-fascist clans in washington and in 
london (the ones in madrid were finally scraped into the dust bin 
almost two years ago! :)  Also the first bit of the feature's also 
rightly links to issues about the current attacks on civil liberties, 
police raids, renditions and so on. I think the abstract of both 
versions of this feature are *very* good in doing this, and so, i am in 
favour to publish it in the middle column in the front page.

As far as the story about WTC7. The same as I think gdm mentioned, I 
would make that bit into a separate newswire article, and then add it 
to the a feature as another link.  As another view, research, 'piece of 
evidence' or whatever people may want to call it. The main reason for 
this is that i think that by having it in the body of the feature (as 
it is in the first version) it gives the impression that this is a sort 
of 'editorial' position of Indy on this issue, which to me is a no no 
as others have already said. As zak points out, I also don't think Indy 
is the sort of place where this debate should take place. On the other 
hand, it is clear that Chris and other Sheffield folk have been looking 
into this event closely, and have put quite a lot of time and effort 
into making it a document. Therefore I think it would not only be a 
pity to 'loose' it by leaving it unpublished (although now i see that 
it is in Sheffield IMC), but also a mistake to simply label it as 
'conspirational' or 'loony'. That would be too simplistic. In a sense, 
to me is again down to trust and relying in one's social networks. I 
mean, I guess if I had seen that WTC7 bit in some 'truth' website out 
there that I don't know anything about, I would look at it much more 
sceptically, but if it comes from someone I know and respect, then I am 
more inclined to give it some time, init?

Last thing I'd like to mention. There's no doubt that when (or if) this 
feature is published in the front page, there will be monumental amount 
of comments of all sorts being posted, probably too many and too 
parochial. I hope people are ready to deal with this and it doesn't 
become a dumping ground for all kinds of crap.

Anyway, probably rambling too much already.

Laters

maqui