[Imc-uk-features] Should IMC be PROMOTING 9/11 'Truth' stuff? NO!
Chris
chris at aktivix.org
Wed Nov 14 15:06:57 PST 2007
Hi
Short answer for all those who are fed up with long emails: YES
On Wed 14-Nov-2007 at 02:24:39AM +0000,
barry.kade at aktivix.org wrote:
>
> Why has the '9/11 truth' movement story been highlighted
> / promoted (suggesting IMC approval)?
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/385787.html
>
> I don't think Indymedia should PROMOTE this (but it
> should not 'hide' it either).
I promoted it because we have a policy of promoting
reports of protests (as distinct from 9/11 related
articles that are not reports of protests) and there have
been past reports of 9/11 truth protests that have been
promoted (by people OTHER than me) -- there is a
prescendent for this and if you would like I'll trawl
through the archives for this list and the internal
comments in admin and properly document this matter.
However it has now been de-promoted and there was this
discussion in IRC about it:
11:37 < ana> just unpromoted 385787
11:37 < ana> as requested on features list... i agree
11:39 <@chrisc> i don't
11:40 <@chrisc> it's a report of PROTESTS
11:40 <@chrisc> you know, getting out on the streets
11:40 * chrisc will write an email about this this afternoon
11:43 <@chrisc> ana: reports of 9/11 truth protests have been promoted in the past
11:43 <@chrisc> by maqui and others
11:44 < ana> ok
11:44 < ana> leaving it to you then
11:44 < ana> i 'm not even sure if unticking 'propoted' is the correct thing to do...
11:44 <@chrisc> if you want to set a new prescedent that 9/11 truth protest reports shouldn't
be promoted then that's is another discussion we are gonna have to have...
11:44 <@chrisc> yes that is the way to depromote something
11:44 <@ekes> the clear difference in the past has always been about actions/protests reports
and meetings/analysis
11:45 <@chrisc> ekes: right
11:45 <@chrisc> i'd be probably be aganst promoting anyting 9/11 related if it isn't a report
of a protest
Personally I think it should be promoted again, but I will
leave this for someone else to do -- if anyone else agrees
that we should stay with the existing custom and practice
of promoting grassroot 911 truth movement protest reports.
> I don't want to clog up this list by sparking a dreary
> rehearsal of all the claims and counter-claims about
> 9/11. Just I don't think IMC should promote this
> movement with highlighted boxes of their actions on the
> newswire.
I don't agree and I also think that we clearly need a
proper discussion of this issue -- we have been putting it
off for a very long time and having some discussion about
it prior to the face-to-face discussions in Wales and
elsewhere would make sense.
> I myself am open minded about 9/11, but sceptical about
> many of the 'truth movements' claims - they strike me
> as a bit cultish, bizarre and embarrassing.
Well, to be honest, you have fallen into the same trap as
the mainstream media and many on the left -- you seem to
think that to doubt the "official conspiracy theory" means
that you have to accept insane ideas like Directed Energy
Weapons (DEW) brought down the towers, or No-Planes hit
the towers and it was all done with TV-Fakery. This
*very* clearly isn't the case at all.
The "official conspiracy theory" is clearly full of holes
-- this has in effect been admitted by the chair of the
911 Commission Report, as Peter Tatchell has highlighted
[1] (though Peter Tatchell also appears to have been
seriously taken in by obvious and intentional
disinformation -- all the sites he linked to in his
article are *very* dubious at *best* [2]).
Regarding the "a bit cultish" accusation, I guess you have
come across the 911 Cultwatch site [3] run by Notes from
the Borderland and their associated blog [4] and perhaps
this is where you got the "a bit cultish" idea from?
I have a few problems with 911 Cultwatch, firstly I don't
think they are accurately using the term cult, there *are*
cults using the issue of 9/11 to recruit, for example
Laura Knight Jadczyk's Cassiopaea cult [5] who think that
the planet is run by "ultraterrestials" from another
dimension and who get their gems of wisdom via
communications with aliens from Cassiopaea via an ouija
board -- this is a *real* cult, has 911 Cultwatch exposed
them? Why do they matter, you might reasonably ask, if
they are clearly so totally bonkers -- well because they
have a slick front end [6] that *appears* to be a serious
alternative news site, it's a site that runs many articles
that would be at home on Indymedia and this is not
accidential -- they need some good material on there to
give the impression that they are balanced and honest,
it's the bait to hook people. They have even reproduced,
without permission, a photo of mine from a London anti-war
demonstration on their site -- this is why exposing *real*
cults like this is important, but it's not something that
911 "cultwatch" does.
Secondly 911 Cultwatch are associated with the *worst*
elements in the 911 truth movement -- elements that we
should have nothing what so ever to do with -- the 911
truth movement equivalent of Redwatch. I mean specifically
their support for Nico Haupt, promoter of psyco psyop
videos -- multimedia versions of Redwatch, who have been
described by one indymedia activist, who has been stalked
in this manner, as the "Merchants of Pus" [7]. After it
was pointed out to 911 Cultwatch that they were promoting
Nico Haupt [8] they amended their link to him, to add a
disclaimer, it now reads, "Whilst we do not endorse the
site owners no-plane theory rubbish, his views on fellow
cultists make this site essential." [9]
Nico Haupt is a stalker, for example there is a video of
him [10] in which, (35mins in) he rings George
Washington's work place (he is a fairly prominent US 9/11
truth activist, see his blog for more info [11]) to leave
the message that he is "interfering with undercover FBI
activities". On the same day that this video is posted,
16th October, Nico reported [12] that George Washington
was taking a back seat at 911Blogger and posts his real
name and photo -- this is the same kind of harassment that
Redwatch are responsible for. This video ends with Nico
saying that "plane huggers are pedophiles" -- "plane
huggers" being his term for people who think that planes
hit the WTC towers in 9/11.
Furthermore, there is a video of Nico Haupt disrupting a
public meeting in NYC [13] which seems a lot like the
"concerted attempts to drown out critics and a nasty
intimidatory atmosphere overall" that 911 Cultwatch,
rightly, speak out against on their site [3].
911 Cultwatch clearly need do some research into Nico
Haupt's material, read his blog [14] and watch his videos
[15] and the Paula Gloria videos he features [16] in and
the wq2rx videos he promotes [17] -- they clearly don't
know what they are doing by promoting him as somone who's
"views on fellow cultists make this site essential", or do
they?
911 Cultwatch don't only promote TV-Fakery and No-Planes
non-sense by linking to Nico, their blog often links to
well known disinformation sources in a manner that is
*less* critical than most in the 911 truth movement who
*never* link to such discredited sources.
For example on 9th October [18] they covered a moderator,
Andrew Johnson, standing down at the, totally dire,
nineeleven.co.uk site and the fact that he had set up his
own discussion board and they speculate whether "the
debate will be any more rational on this new site remains
to be seen", but it is obvious that there is no chance of
this and they should realise this, after all they
correctly label him as a No-Planes "theorist" and a quick
look at his new site which has "research" topics such as
Directed Energy Topics (DEW), Mininukes at WTC Research
and Media Fakery Research make it very clear that this is
a disinformation orientated site on which there is no
chance of *any* rational debate.
Another example, on October 25th [19] they mention an
article in a totally deadfull looking US magazine called
Paranoid and comment on the note at the end of the
article, "Paranoia does not endorse a particular 9/11
theory, and encourages critical analysis of all 9/11
theories" and go on to say "it is hard to be opposed to
critical analysis in any shape or form. The question is,
when you look at the 9/11 'truth' movement, is critical
analysis what is really happening?" This is absurd if you
look at the article in question [20] because it is the
most awfull, non-scientific load of drivel imagineable --
it is a PR piece for one of the most discredited 9/11
"researchers" there is, Judy Wood, it contains: "Judy Wood
emerges as an exceptional figure who, with her blend of
science training and common sense, has arrived at a
conclusion that is at once fantastical and convincing:
directed energy weapons were necessarily deployed on Black
Tuesday." If you want to know how barking she is then
watch the video of her being interviewed by Greg Jenkins
[21] and read the analysis of the interview [22] and look
at some of the other resources [23] produced *by* the 9/11
truth movement debunking this disinformation artist.
The point I'm making is that 911 Cultwatch appear to be
intentionally ignorant that people like Judy Wood have
been totally demolished by the mainstream 911 truth
movement -- by failing to separate the disinformation from
the good information they end up performing the same role
as the MSM and the debunking sites, but from the left -- I
have heard many lefties / anarchist / anti-capitalists
cite 911 Cultwatch as proof that there is nothing of
substance in any of the criticism of the official story of
911, this is the function they appear to serve. For
example this is *exactly* what one Indymedia activist
contributed to the discussion under the Westway following
the London Indymedia screening of Everybody's Gotta Learn
Sometime [24], the audio of this discussion is available
on the site [25].
Of course there are cult-like aspects to the following
that the right wing nationailst and war profiteer Alex
Jones has or the fans that David "a reptilian bloodline
rules the world" Ike has but again this isn't something
that 911 Cultwatch address. These characters are already
so discredited that I haven't even bothered spending that
much time looking into what they are doing and saying.
So, moving on from the "cultish" accusation, Barry also
used the terms "bizarre and embarrassing" -- this is far
too kind a description for most the 911 truth sites I have
looked at in the UK, for example RINF.com has run an
article on claims that there were nuclear reactors under
the twin towers and has a "science correspondent" who is a
fan of Judy Wood [26]. The "official" 9/11 truth campaign
(Britian and Ireland) site has a web site [27] which is
down because they haven't paid Alex Jones for the hosting,
they have a links page [28] which *still* has a link to
David "I'm Brian and so is my wife" Shayler [29], not that
there was *ever* a good excuse for linking to David
Shaylers site, especially once he started claiming that
the twin towers were not hit by planes but by missiles
cloaked in holograms.
The "unofficial" nineeleven.co.uk discussion board is
totally swamped with disinformation, trolls have been
encouraged at the same time as genuine activists were not
having their accounts activated [30], and Tony Gosling has
played a part in this [31]. And don't get me started on
their discussions on matters such as climate change, peak
oil, "chemtrails" or the holocaust... it is worse than you
can probably imagine, "bizarre and embarrassing" doesn't
come close.
The mainseam media coverage in the UK has been dire, from
the awfull George Monbiot articles to the ones that
"appear" to favour the 911 truth movement from Peter
Tatchell and Robert Fisk, but which are actually subtly
pushing disinformation [32] -- when Robert Fisk wrote:
"Two prominent American professors of mechanical
engineering – very definitely not in the "raver" bracket –
are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this
final report on the grounds that it could be "fraudulent
or deceptive"." it appears that he was actually refering
to Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds who are totally raving
bonkers.
> We should oppose the 'war on terror' and the occupations
> of Iraq/ Afghanistan and the Iraq war plans anyway -
> even if 9/11 was not an 'inside job' and was actually
> committed by some alleged entity called 'Al Qaeda'. We
> do not need to believe in a grand conspiracy to oppose
> these bloody wars.
Of course we don't -- where has any anyone suggested
otherwise?
However the evidence that 9/11 *was* an inside job is
totally overwhelming, from the mode of structural failure
of Building 7 which was covered in a feature article last
year [33] to the detailed work of Nafeez Ahmed [34]. I
could go on about this, at great length, but this email
has already taken far longer than I hoped it would, so
it's not going to happen in this email.
> It suggests weak politics. Please, I hope IMC UK is not
> becoming 'fortean times'!
Don't be absurd. Have you even looked at the "War on
Terror" topic page? [35] Indymedia isn't in any shape or
form becoming like the Fortean Times.
> I quite liked the Schnews take on all this, whatever its
> faults: http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news559.htm
Yes, it was a step in the right direction, in as much as
it recognised that there was a issue here, but it made the
same mistake as the MSM and the likes of 911 Cultwatch of
totally failing to differentiate the disinformation from
the good information. In addition it's worth pointing out
that this article has been cited by, what appears to be,
an inept and clumsy fishing attempt on the site [36].
> Anyway, much love to all who oppose the Empire -
> whatever crackpot views have filled some of your heads -
> understandable given the current weak state of the
> genuine mass anti-capitalist resistance movements!
I find this really patronising and condesending, what
"crackpot views" do you think I have in my head?
9/11 was an Imperial act, it was done to justify an
expansion of Imperial War, Imperial Genocide and Empire in
the face of a looming Peak Oil crisis. Who actually did it
is less important than who and what they did it *for*.
I don't have delusions about the nature of Empire -- I
spent a lot of time reposting an excellent series of
lectures on "Empire as a Way of Life" [37], you would
probably like them.
So what about Indymedia's role in all this?
I think that we *should* be promoting reports of protests
and I think we should run feature articles on protests if
they are proposed. We should be totally intollerent of
material that has been proven by the 9/11 truth movement
to be disinformation, for example:
- Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) or nuclear devices were
used to demolish the towers. [38]
- "Plane pods," on the underside of the planes shot
missiles into the towers before impact. [39]
- No planes hit the World Trade Center Towers. [40]
We should be aware of the vast resources that are being
put into the creation and disemination of disinformation
but there are good efforts *within* the 9/11 truth
movement to counter this, for example these resources:
- http://911review.com/disinfo/
- http://www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation/
- http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/search/label/Disinformation
- http://www.oilempire.us/disinfo.html
- http://visibility911.com/reports-cointelpro01.php
The elements in the 911 truth movement that we should be
orientated towards are those getting out on the streets,
the work that is being done by Truth Action,
http://truthaction.org/ and We Are Change UK,
htp://www.wearechange.org.uk/ (the only UK based 9/11 site
I could recommend) and the political analysis of those on
the left like Truth Move, http://www.truthmove.org/ and
the work of bloggers like Diane,
http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/
There is a lot more I wanted to say in this email but I
have run out of time for tonight.
One last thing, when good activists post articles that
expose frauds who have done things like boast about
helping get Toni Negri locked up, articles that expose
people who think they are "leaders" of the 911 truth
movement to be, in fact, ex-"leaders" who does it help
exactly if articles like this are hidden? -- I reversed
Graham Martin's hide of this morning:
> hidden 384979 non-news
> internal 9/11 truthers bitching (open letter)
Chris
[1] 9/11 – The big cover-up?
Even the Chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that
the official evidence they were given was "far from
the truth"
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/380880.html
[2] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/380880.html?c=on#comments
[3] http://www.911cultwatch.org.uk/
[4] http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cultwatch/
[5] http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2434
[6] Signs of the Times
http://www.sott.net/
[7] "Merchants of Pus" - Antiwar community activists
targeted with personal harassment by Right-wingers
Petros Evdokas
http://english-cyprus.indymedia.org/newswire/display/793/index.php
[8] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/385261.html?c=on#c184026
[9] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/385261.html?c=on#c184128
[10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xrwL4yOx9A
[11] http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/
[12] http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=4101
[13] http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLink/1A0C07FAAA9244C080901CAB162DB332/81187/nico-haupt-at-st-marks.aspx
[14] http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001
[15] http://livevideo.com/ewing2001
[16] http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=paulagloria&p=
[17] http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wq2rx
[18] http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cultwatch/2007/10/walkout-from-uk.html
[19] http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cultwatch/2007/10/paranoia-magazi.html
[20] http://www.drjudywood.com/pdf/070802_DEWandthewtc.pdf
[21] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017
[22] http://www.911blogger.com/node/8110
[23] http://www.911disinformation.com/#BeamWeaponsAnchor
[24] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2006/05/341703.html#everybodys-gotta-learn
[25] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/375568.html
[26] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/385296.html?c=on#c184321
[27] http://www.911truthcampaign.net/
[28] http://web.archive.org/web/20070826140909/http://www.911truthcampaign.net/links.php
[29] http://daveshayler.com/
[30] http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8422#8422
[31] http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8237#8237
[32] http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2301
[33] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/350617.html#wtc7
[34] INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM: THE SECRET HISTORY
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/356939.html
Creating Terror
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/376665.html
[35] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/topics/terror/
[36] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/381697.html
[37] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/06/374166.html
[38] http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/energybeam.html
[39] http://www.oilempire.us/pod.html
[40] http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html
--
Aktivix -- Free Software for a Free World
More information about the IMC-UK-Features
mailing list