9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom

The Bigger Picture :: RE: Tony Blair pelted with eggs and shoes in Ireland

scienceplease 2

Author: scienceplease 2
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:18 pm (GMT 0)

"Tony Blair cancels book signing amid protest fears..."

And elsewhere in the news... get ready for the sick bag on the following:

Blair admits lying

Blair give too much detail on his sexual relationships...

Quote:

TONY BLAIR shocked Britain yesterday when he confessed he lied in office to get his own way.

The former PM revealed how running the country meant he was forced to stretch the truth �past breaking point�.

Writing in his autobiography, A Journey, which came out yesterday, Mr Blair, 57, admits resorting to deception. He said: �Politicians are obliged from time to time to conceal the truth, to bend it and even distort it, where the interests of the bigger strategic goal demand it.� One tricky moment came during Northern Ireland peace negotiations. With talks deadlocked, he said: �I took horrendous chances in what I was telling each side the other had agreed to � stretching the truth, I fear, on occasions past breaking point.�

... he also shocks readers by laying bare his intimate sex secrets, including erotic details of being in bed with wife Cherie, 55.

Recalling a night of passion before going for the Labour leadership, he said: �That night she cradled me in her arms and soothed me; told me what I needed to be told; strengthened me; made me feel what I was about to do was right.

�I needed that love Cherie gave me, selfishly. I devoured it to give me strength, I was an animal following my instinct.�

The Bigger Picture :: RE: Diana inquest - Philip and Charles wanted her dead

scienceplease 2

Author: scienceplease 2
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:09 pm (GMT 0)

So there's Diana, Camilia, Tiggy (see above), Kanga...

Quote:

When Kanga Tryon - once a household name and a central figure in the life of the Prince of Wales - died almost three months after Princess Diana, in 1997, she was quickly forgotten.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1076026/The-lonely-death-Charless-mistress.html

...and the dumped florist with the dead husband?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/09/28/prince-charles-makes-personal-florist-sarah-champier-lowe-redundant-115875-21706893/

Sounding more like the "Six wives of Henry VIII"...

Events :: RE: 9/11 - 2010 9th Anniversary TV Schedule

numeral

Author: numeral
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:00 pm (GMT 0)

GodSavetheTeam wrote:

Quote:

As I remember, in the clip of them leaving the flat the reason they didn't capture the second strike is because they were zooming in on falling people.

Bob and Bri may have edited out the second strike because of a good taste issue. You'd have to ask them.

Ok, I get it. It's good taste to video the jumpers but bad taste to record the second strike. Why should we have to ask them? They should have stated what they were hiding.
_________________
Follow the numbers

The War On Children and the Family :: Halal-only Menus

Iftikhar

Author: Iftikhar
Subject: Halal-only Menus
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 6:21 pm (GMT 0)

Halal-only Menus
RESIDENTS across Harrow have vented their anger about proposals to have Halal-only menus in primary schools in the borough. Meat is meat. What does it matter how it�s killed? These stupid parents should find other things to whine about. Halal meat is more hygienically processed anyway.The newspaper revealed exclusively how Harrow Council has employed a catering company to only prepare Halal meat � to serve youngsters in Harrow. This is nothing new to my knowledge, Tower Hamlets council been doing Halal meat in schools for at least 3 years or more.

The Halal slaughter method (along with Shechita which is the name for pretty much the same method used by Jews) is not cruel at all. When the animal's throat is slit, it results in a massive drop in blood pressure causing pretty much instantaneous unconsciousness. As long as the cut is performed correctly the animal will feel a mere instant of pain compared to the intense suffering they can go through in abattoir's with the "normal" slaughter method. The link that has been made between this story and Britain becoming an Islamic State is a bit extreme. The majority of British people are atheist. But it doesn't mean we can't try and make life easier and better for people of all faiths and cultures. All children should be offered a choice. That way Muslims can eat what they want and non-Muslims can eat what they want.

The Muslim community has been passing through a phase of fourth Crusades. The battleground is the field of education, where the young generation will be educated properly with the Holly Quran in one hand and Sciences in other hand to serve humanity. A true Muslim is a citizen of the world, which has become a small global village. We are going to prepare our youth to achieve that objective in the long run. A true Muslim believes in Prophet Moses and the Prophet Jesus and without them one cannot be a Muslim. My suggestion is that in all state, independent and Christian based school special attention should be given to the teaching of Comparative Religion and Islam should be taught by qualified Muslim Teachers to make the children aware the closeness of Islam to Christianity and Judaism which will help them to think about Islam, as �A Pragmatic and Modern Way of Life,� during their life time. Those state schools where Muslim children are in majority may be opted out as Muslim Academies.

Bilingual Muslim children need to learn and be well versed in Standard English to follow the National Curriculum and go for higher studies and research to serve humanity. The problem is that they learn English in the streets and in the playgrounds. British schooling does not teach English to migrant children. The teachers let them speak the same accent in the classroom. They have no courage to stop them or correct them. This is one of the main reasons why one third of children have difficulties with reading when they leave primary schools. Majority of such children are bilingual Muslims. They often speak "street" with its own grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation. In other European countries and in the sub-continent argot and slang are not allowed into the classrooms. In Britain primary school teachers do not feel that it's role to interfere with self-expression in any shape or form. They encourage children to read poems and stories written in ethnic dialects.

There are couples of state schools in Harrow where Muslim children are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be opted out as Muslim Academies so that non-Muslim children could enjoy their own meals in their own schools.
Iftikhar Ahmad
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

Events :: RE: 9/11 - 2010 9th Anniversary TV Schedule

GodSaveTheTeam

Author: GodSaveTheTeam
Subject: Re: Propaganda, though
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 6:18 pm (GMT 0)

insidejob wrote:

GodSavetheTeam

Quote:

It focussed on a few people that were looking up in awe at what had happened (in their eyes) and many turned to the camera and said things like "we should just go to war with the arabs right this second" and "I think we should just go over to the middle east and bomb it all to kingdom come" and "let's just kill them all right now".

But...in these scenes most people were just shocked and puzzled. One or two were very different and wanted to bomb Muslims.

Yes. Remember propaganda? The idea that it was Osama Bin Laden responsible would have been bandied about within minutes of the second strike. Some people would have been shocked and awed. Others would have been upset, terrified angry etc. The "kill the arabs" declaration isn't completely an unnatural response.

Quote:

Were these people plants? Who was doing the filming at Times Square and why?

Dont know. Why dont you try and find out.

Quote:

Some of the amateur filming was just strange. There were two films by ordinary people filming from nearby flats. What was strange, was that the camera was still being held after the second plane struck and they took the decision to leave the flat. The continued filming meant you heard the fear and panic they had. And despite cameras being trained on the towers no film captured the second plane.

This may have been a good taste issue. The documentary makers may have left out the second strike because no one really needs reminding of it yet again. You may think that's strange but you have to ask the doc makers.

As I remember, in the clip of them leaving the flat the reason they didn't capture the second strike is because they were zooming in on falling people.

Bob and Bri may have edited out the second strike because of a good taste issue. You'd have to ask them.

Quote:

There is also audio on films of explosions or bangs going off in the towers. I did not notice any of this in the film.

Indeed. These may have been edited out on purpose. As with most of the above. But in the end it's purely speculative and not provable. The climate at the moment means that if you cant prove your evidence you're a crazy conspiracy theorist and pose a serious risk of violence.

Stick to good evidence is all I can say.

The Bigger Picture :: RE: Diana inquest - Philip and Charles wanted her dead

Life

Author: Life
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:03 pm (GMT 0)

This chap could be of immense interest in relation to Diana

In Profile : Michael Edward Stanley Gibbins

http://www.lifeinthemixtalk.com/?p=16515

_________________
KEEP IT REAL

Events :: RE: Sat11Sep - LONDON - Passing Clouds 9/11 conference/party

Andrew.

Author: Andrew.
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:10 pm (GMT 0)

[quote="ian neal"]

Andrew. wrote:

From Reinvestigate 911?

Quote:

We intend to brand the event to be visually attractive, much along the lines of an event like Love Box or Bestival, moving away from the more ubiquitous and stark red/black/white truth imagery to something lighter and more representative of 'Truth', which after all is a positive and spiritual concept.

I thiink the quote is from passing clouds

Ok, but what is wrong with it?

The Bigger Picture :: RE: Nazi industrialists spirited to Argentina in secret sub 1944

TonyGosling

Author: TonyGosling
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:57 am (GMT 0)

Peculiar thing here is the trail of looted gold from Nazi Germany to Buenos Aires (presumably then controlled by the continuity Nazi HQ up in the Andes) then transferred to Allan Dulles people in New Yok in 1950.
_________________
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/

9/11 & 7/7 Truth News :: RE: MI6/GCHQ worker found murdered in London flat

jazds

Author: jazds
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:57 am (GMT 0)

Tony I doubt very much this was carried out by a foreign government, although it could have been carried out by allied agents of a foriegn government with the approval of the UK goon command.

You would have to be an insane moron to take a job in intelligence or become an agent, I can think of dozens of strange deaths from the past - the story of Jonathan Moyle, who was bumped off in Chile, was just one name I'd forgotten about. I may be wrong but wasn't there another guy who died in stange circumstances in a similar place just prior to Jonathan? Then there are all the agents who had become assets while involved with loyalist or republican terrorist organisations, whose names were leaked, who were imprisoned, or who died, or were killed or disapeared in stange circumstances. All those people, concerned about what they had become involved in, concerned about others, like Martin McGartland, who saved over 50 lives but when he was exposed the UK goons set him up to be knocked off! Read the book 50 Dead Men Walking or watch the film. I found the book very dificult to read, I couldn't believe that the people tasked with defending this country were so incredibly cold blooded, moronic, counter productive and evil.

Events :: RE: 9/11 - 2010 9th Anniversary TV Schedule

insidejob

Author: insidejob
Subject: Propaganda, though
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:53 am (GMT 0)

GodSavetheTeam

Quote:

But...in these scenes most people were just shocked and puzzled. One or two were very different and wanted to bomb Muslims. Were these people plants? Who was doing the filming at Times Square and why?

Some of the amateur filming was just strange. There were two films by ordinary people filming from nearby flats. What was strange, was that the camera was still being held after the second plane struck and they took the decision to leave the flat. The continued filming meant you heard the fear and panic they had. And despite cameras being trained on the towers no film captured the second plane. The Bob and Bri film was the oddest. They managed to edit out the second plane. Bizarre.

There is also audio on films of explosions or bangs going off in the towers. I did not notice any of this in the film.

Multimedia :: RE: Worthy Music Releases

Disco_Destroyer

Author: Disco_Destroyer
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:47 am (GMT 0)

wow some truly cultural input!

[Rock+Orchestra Symphony] Seo Taiji - T'ik T'ak

Link

_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'

www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer

Events :: RE: 9/11 9th Anniversary Events

item8

Author: item8
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:13 am (GMT 0)

http://theintelhub.com/2010/09/05/911-truth-is-still-the-issue/

9/11 was an Inside Job: 9/11 Truth is STILL the Issue

September 5, 2010 by Alex

"On this 144th episode of The Corbett Report podcast we take a moment on the brink of the 9th anniversary of 9/11 to ponder the state of 9/11 Truth. What have we learned, what have we gained, and what have we left to achieve? Join us for this special edition of the podcast where we talk to Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, Bob Bowman, Luke Rudkowski, Anthony Flammia and others about one of the key issues of our time."

A number of videos totalling about one hour 15 minutes.

Events :: 9/11 9th Anniversary Events

item8

Author: item8
Subject: 9/11 9th Anniversary Events
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:08 am (GMT 0)

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=12391&title=9-11-9th-anniversary-events---luke-rudkowski-of-we-are-change-on-corbettreport

Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change on Corbettreport. 12 minute video interview.

Other Controversies :: RE: Is Climate Change really man-made?

item8

Author: item8
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:41 am (GMT 0)

TonyGosling wrote:

crikey!

Imagine my shock!!

Events :: RE: Sat11Sep - LONDON - Passing Clouds 9/11 conference/party

ian neal

Author: ian neal
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:46 am (GMT 0)

[quote="Andrew."]From Reinvestigate 911?

Quote:

I thiink the quote is from passing clouds

Other Controversies :: RE: Is Climate Change really man-made?

TonyGosling

Author: TonyGosling
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:38 am (GMT 0)

crikey!

scubadiver wrote:

A cunning bid to shore up the ruins of the IPCC

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7981979/A-cunning-bid-to-shore-up-the-ruins-of-the-IPCC.html

Quote:

A report on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on behalf of the world's leading scientific academies, last week provoked even some of the more committed believers in man-made global warming to demand the resignation of Dr Rajendra Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC. But is the report all that it seems?

...

When, some years ago, I began the research for my book The Real Global Warming Disaster, nothing surprised me more than discovering how widely the nature of the IPCC is misunderstood. It is invariably portrayed as a body representing the top scientists in the world, objectively weighing the complex forces that shape Earth's climate. In reality, it's nothing of the kind.

The men who set up the panel – led by its first chairman Bert Bolin, a Swedish meteorologist, and John Houghton, then head of the UK Met Office and first chairman of the IPCC's scientific working group – were already believers in what they called "human-induced climate change". The IPCC was, from the start, essentially a political pressure group, producing evidence to support the view that global warming was the most serious crisis facing the planet. This guided the selection of all the key scientists chosen to compile the IPCC's findings (such as those involved in the Climategate affair). And this explains all the searching questions that have built up around its hugely influential reports ever since.

...

Perhaps the most telling controversy arose over the notorious "hockey stick" graph, the centrepiece of the IPCC's third report in 2001. It rewrote climate history to show a world that was now dramatically hotter than it had been for at least 1,000 years. Promoted by Houghton and others as the ultimate emblem of the cause, it was eventually shown to have been no more than the result of trickery with a computer programme.

...

Again and again the 2007 report has been found to be in flagrant breach of the IPCC's own rules. For instance, it cited no fewer than 16 articles from a single issue of one climate journal – which had been published after the IPCC's official cut-off date and should therefore have been disallowed. In each of the thousands of instances where the IPCC broke its rules, the claims it made were all in one direction: to hype up alarm over the extent and effects of climate change beyond anything science could justify.

Through all this the IPCC has been exposed for what it truly is: not a proper scientific body but an advocacy group, ready to stop at nothing in hijacking the prestige of science for its cause.

_________________
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/

The Bigger Picture :: RE: Peter Oborne - Britain's Israel lobby

TonyGosling

Author: TonyGosling
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:18 am (GMT 0)

Analysis: the Zionist lobbys in Britain
Fri, 03 Sep 2010 11:09:37 GMT
http://presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=141064

The investigative journalist Janine Robert rightfully believes that the Israeli lobby in Britain has been more successful than its counterparts in the United States.

She argues that in the US, the voting patterns of most of the 14 Jewish Senators in the Senate and 30 Jewish Congressmen and Congresswomen in the House of Representatives appear to be Pro-Israeli, while in the UK, where we have a Jewish community 20 times smaller, there appears to be 18 Pro-Israeli MPs in the House of Commons and 41 Pro-Israeli Lords in the House of Lords. This is the highest Pro-Israeli representation in the West.

She also believes that this achievement is due in part to Tony Blair's patronage. One of Blair's first acts on becoming an MP in 1983 was to join Labour Friends of Israel. But the major change only occurred after he became Prime Minister.

But what exactly is a Pro-Israeli lobby group?

The term Israel lobby in the United Kingdom (also known as the Zionist lobby) is a term used to describe the coalition of groups and individuals who attempt to influence British foreign policy to support Israel and its strategies.

Many decisions made in both Houses of Parliament are made as a direct result of lobbying at the hands of parliamentary colleagues, constituents or even outside pressure groups, including "private companies known as lobbyists" employed by organisations.

These establishments include non-ethnic political groups in addition to grassroots ethnic organisations whether Christian, secular or Jewish-Britons, all of which have seen increasing growth and influence in recent years.

Without a doubt the pro-Israeli lobby in Britain is increasingly spreading its influence within the politicians, media and even celebrities .

Labour Friends of Israel (LFI)

LFI is a UK Parliament-based lobby group promoting support within the British Labour Party for a strong bilateral relationship between Britain and Israel. It also seeks to strengthen ties between the British and the Israeli Labour party.

The lobby was founded in October 1957 at a public rally at the Labour Party Conference; it has since developed into one of the largest special interest groups in the Labour Party, drawing wide support from Members of Parliament and Government Ministers.

According to their manifesto, Labour Friends of Israel supports a two-state solution with Israel recognised and secure within its borders and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. They have been described as "less unquestioning in its support of the Israeli government than the other parties' Zionist lobbies". Between 2001 and 2009 they sponsored more than 60 MPs to visit occupied Palestine.

They have strongly and powerfully lobbied for the UK and EU to cut off financial aid to the Gaza Strip as long as the elected Hamas government is in power. Many of those who are aware of this blame LFI as they share responsibility with Israel for the current atrocious and miserable living conditions in the Gaza Strip.

So who are the prominent figures of the group? One of the most influential figures involved is no other than the former PM Tony Blair, shortly after, Gordon Brown followed in his footsteps. The group's chair is Andrew Gwynne, while other members include the former Home Secretaries David Blunkett and John Reid, former Minister of Europe Chris Bryant, former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Stephen Byers and other high ranking labour politicians.

Conservative friends of Israel (CFI)

According to the lobby's website, it is one of fastest growing lobbies in The United Kingdom currently chaired by Stuart Polak, who in 2009, was named the 61st most-influential right-winger in the United Kingdom. Moreover, reliable statistics show that around 80% of Conservative MPs are members of the CFI.

The group was founded by Conservative MP Michael Fidler and its members include the current British Prime Minister David Cameron, who expressed his pride at being a member of CFI and his admiration for the lobby's key role within the Conservative party.

Other figures include Defence Secretary Liam Fox, who describes Israel's enemies as Britain's enemies tying the Zionist atrocities to British national interests, Foreign Secretary William Hague, who joined CFI at the age of just 15, the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, the Home Secretary Theresa May and Secretary of State for Justice Kennett Clarke.

The existence of so many cabinet ministers has raised concern among political activists and observers who are worried about the influence of a foreign government lobby in the heart of the British political establishment.

Perhaps such worry is in place given the CFI sponsors 6 delegations to Israel each year and maintains constant contact with the Israeli embassy in London.

Liberal Friends of Israel

The Liberal Democrats have in place a parliamentary 'Friends of Israel Group'. In fact it was the liberal democrats who first gave life to primary 'Friends of Israel' group to be born in the British Parliament operating room. The group's website seems stridently Pro-Israel, much more than the websites of the Labour or Conservative groups respectively.

Despite the party's left approach to political issues this lobby has a quite hawkish stance over the Zionist regime . The lobby states its prime objective is "to influence the Party's Middle East policy so it places a high priority on Israel's right to security".

It also attempts to strip statements such as 'Israel "occupies" the West Bank' and 'the Jews created the refugee problem by expelling the Palestinians' reducing them to nothing other than "Myths"

There seems to be other pro-Israeli lobbies within the United Kingdom influencing our ancient democratic political system and lobbying our politicians.

These are lobbying groups such as British Christian Friends of Israel, Northern Ireland Friends of Israel, Scottish Friends of Israel and many more. In its long and distinguished history, Great Britain has never been under the influence of a foreign government lobby group as it currently is. These groups have formed marital relationships with policy makers while simultaneously attempting to stifle criticism of Israel in the press and media regardless of whether or not such criticism is based on our national interests as a sovereign nation.

Whether we like it or not, Israel is a liability for Britain and is not the strategic asset that the Pro-Israeli lobby has long claimed it was.

For example, Israel's atrocities in the Middle East and Africa are doing serious damage to UK's interests in the region. At the height of the matter, British political figures have attempted to exempt Israeli officials from the British Law on their visits to the UK. Against the needs of British Citizens, British politicians are for supporting the Israeli regime and appear ready to change the national laws for the sake of those charged with the crimes against humanity.
_________________
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/

The Bigger Picture :: Nazi industrialists spirited to Argentina in secret sub 1944

TonyGosling

Author: TonyGosling
Subject: Nazi industrialists spirited to Argentina in secret sub 1944
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:13 am (GMT 0)

Project CA35
Edward Michaud is a unique guy. He researched a salvage claim on German Type XIB U-Boat off Cape Cod Project CA35.
http://blip.tv/file/4085933
Nazis fleeing Germany in 1944 used this unique submarine with a massive cargo hold (to carry gold?) in an attempt to secretly escape to the United States and thence to Argentina. They never made it past Cape Cod where the sub was sunk with depth charges dropped by a US Navy blimp. The sub was jamming radio frequencies which was unfortunate, if the blimp's radio had been working it would have almost cretainly been told NOT to sink the sub.
Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and
Recorded by Tony Gosling in Framingham Mass. December 1998. Very little is known about the Type XI-B U-Boat. All official histories state that the vessel type was never built and numerous publications indicate that the Type XI-B submarine design went only as far as a preliminary 'keel laying' at the building yards of Deschimag - A.G. Weser in Bremen, Germany. However, there is a subtle hint that at least one vessel of this type was indeed launched from the Deschimag yards. Contained within the records of the Military archive at Freiburgim-Breisgau, Germany is a brief mention of the "actual" yard trials in the Weser River of the Type XI U-Cruiser having attained a surface speed of 26 knots. This is supported to some degree by Eberhard Roessler's impressive publication "The U-Boat", in which this trial record is partly quoted

see also
http://www.combatsim.com/htm/feb99/typexi-2.htm
_________________
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/

Events :: RE: Sat11Sep - LONDON - Passing Clouds 9/11 conference/party

crazydave

Author: crazydave
Subject: Consensus decision making
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:47 pm (GMT 0)

Hi Ian,

I'm up to my neck in work at the moment and will reply to your post at length at a later date. Seeds of Change run courses on activist training and know allot about consensus decision making. We could ask them for some advice?

The problem with 9/11 Truth at the moment is that no one trusts each other and everyone seems to suspect that everyone else is an MI5 agent!
This is insane and very counter productive eg: http://911truthnews.com/a-response-to-kevin-barretts-attacks/ Great people like Mike Ruppert (who was holding public lectures in November 2001 about 9/11 and has written the classic text, Crossing the Rubicon) have got so pissed off with this insanity that they have left the movement (but it is good to see that Mike will be at the NY conference this year).

Because the official story of 9/11 has proved to be a lie, the 9/11 truth movement is beginning to win the argument but we cannot make much more progress if we cannot organise some kind of consensus and common front, to present our arguments for a new investigation, to the mainstream.

As long as everyone is throwing these 'MI5' accusations around, we will always be a fringe and fragmented movement?

What I'm saying is that its time to grow up and win the argument in the mainstream and to do that we need a some sort of democratic organisation and a forum to allow activists to communicate with each other in an open and respectful way without all this paranoia and name calling.

We cannot make 'their conspiracy' (the elite's conspiracy) make us so paranoid that we cannot trust each other? The only way we can trust each other is by creating an open democratic forum that can make decisions in the open (ie: in public) and put forward a common front that is supported by everyone who is bothered to turn up to meetings and gatherings to vote on whatever decision making process we can all agree on.

I will write more soon.

D

http://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/free/shortconsensus

Seeds for Change - workshops and training for grassroots campaigners

Consensus decision making is a creative and dynamic way of reaching agreement between all members of a group. Instead of simply voting for an item and having the majority of the group getting their way, a consensus group is committed to finding solutions that everyone actively supports - or at least can live with. This makes sure that all opinions, ideas and concerns are taken into account. By listening closely to each other, the group aims to come up with proposals that work for everyone.

Consensus is neither compromise nor unanimity - it aims to go further by weaving together everyone's best ideas and most important concerns - a process that often results in surprising and creative solutions, inspiring both the individual and the group as whole.
Working together

At the heart of consensus is a respectful dialogue between equals. It's about everyone working together to meet both the individual's and the group's needs - working with each other rather than for or against each other, something that requires openness and trust.
an onion being peeled - layers marked want, really want, actually need

Consensus is looking for 'win-win' solutions that are acceptable to all - no decision will be made against the will of an individual or a minority. Instead the group adapts to all its members' needs. If everyone agrees to a decision they will all be much more committed to making it happen.

Consensus decision making is based on the idea that people should have full control over their lives and that power should be shared by all, not just concentrated in the hands of a few. It's about having the freedom to decide one's own course in life and the right to play an equal role in creating a common future. This is why it is used widely in groups working towards a more just and equitable society such as small voluntary groups, co-operatives and campaign networks.
Conditions for consensus

* Common Goal: Everyone in the group needs to share a clear common goal and be willing to work together towards it. Work out together what your goals are and how you will get there. If differences arise later, revisit the common goal to help to focus and unite the group.
* Commitment to reaching consensus: Everyone needs to be willing to really give it a go. This means being deeply honest about what it is you want or don't want, and properly listening to what others have to say. Everyone must be willing to shift their positions, to be open to alternative solutions and be able to reassess their needs.
* Trust and openness: We need to be able to trust that everyone shares our commitment to consensus and that everyone respects our opinions and equal rights. It would be a big breach of trust for people to manipulate the process of the meeting in order to get the decision they most want.
* Part of this is to openly express both our desires (what we'd like to see happening), and our needs (what we have to see happen in order to be able to support a decision). If everyone is able to talk openly then the group will have the information it requires to take everyone's positions into account and to come up with a solution that everyone can support.
* Sufficient time for making decisions and for learning to work by consensus. Taking time to make a good decision now can save wasting time revisiting a bad one later.
* Clear Process: It's essential to have a clear process for making decisions and to make sure that everyone has a shared understanding of how it works.
* Active participation: In consensus we all need to actively participate. We need to listen to what everyone has to say, voice our thoughts and feelings about the matter and pro-actively look for solutions that include everyone.

Facilitation

In most meetings, there are one or more facilitators. Their role is to ensure that the tasks of the meeting get done: that decisions are made and implemented. They also help the group to work harmoniously, creatively and democratically.

The facilitators might take steps to keep the meeting focused, or make sure a few people don't dominate the discussion. They might suggest a break when people are getting tired; they might have prepared an agenda and process that will help the group achieve its goals.

The facilitators shouldn't have any more power than anyone else and should stay neutral on the issues under discussion. They're not there to make all the proposals and decide things for a group. They can only do their job with everyone's support and co-operation.

If a small group doesn't give anyone the role of facilitator, then everyone can be responsible for making the process of the meeting work.
The decision making process

The diagram below shows how a discussion evolves during the consensus process. At the beginning it widens out as people bring different perspectives and ideas to the group.

This provides the material needed for a broad-ranging discussion which explores all the options and helps people understand each others' concerns. This can be a turbulent and sometimes difficult stage - people might be grappling with lots of competing or contradictory ideas - but it is the most creative part, so don't lose heart!

Then the group moves on to synthesise a proposal. This means finding the group's common ground, weeding out some ideas and combining all the useful bits into one proposal. Finally, if the group agrees on a proposal a decision is reached and implemented.
diagram showing how a discussion opens out, has a middle discussion phase then is synthesised into one proposal
A consensus flowchart

There are many different ways of reaching consensus. This model outlines the common stages and will work well with up to about 20 people.
consensus flowchart
Agreement and Disagreement

At the decision stage people have several options:

Agreement with the proposal.

Reservations: You are willing to let the proposal go ahead but want to make the group aware you aren't happy with it. You may even put energy into implementing it once your concerns have been acknowledged.

Standing aside: You want to object, but not block the proposal. This means you won't help to implement the decision, but you are willing for the group to go ahead with it. You might stand aside because you disagree with the proposal, or you might like the decision but be unable to support it because you don't have the time or energy.

The group may be happy to accept the stand aside and go ahead, or they may work on a new proposal, especially if there are several stand asides.

A block always stops a proposal from going ahead. It expresses a fundamental objection. It isn't "I don't really like it," or "I liked the other idea better." It means that you cannot live with the proposal. The group can either start work on a new proposal, or look for amendments to overcome the objection.

In an ideal consensus process a block wouldn't happen since any major concerns about a proposal should be addressed before the decision stage. However, sometimes people aren't able to express their concerns clearly enough, or aren't heard by the group. In such situations the block acts as a safeguard to ensure that decisions are supported by everyone.

Being able to block is an integral part of consensus, but it comes with a big responsibility. A block stops other people from doing something that they would like to do, and it should therefore only be used if serious concerns are unresolved.

Make sure everyone understands the different options for expressing disagreement. Often people are confused and block when they'd actually be happy to stand aside. Sometimes people are scared of blocking, even if they are deeply unhappy and use a milder form of disagreement instead.
Guidelines for reaching consensus

* If you don't understand something, don't be afraid to say so.
* Be willing to work towards the solution that's best for everyone, not just what's best for you. Be flexible and willing to give something up to reach an agreement.
* Help to create a respectful and trusting atmosphere. Nobody should be afraid to express their ideas and opinions. Remember that we all have different values, backgrounds and behaviour and we get upset by different things.
* Explain your own position clearly. Be open and honest about the reasons for your view points. Express your concerns early on in the process so that they can be taken into account in any proposals.
* Listen actively to what people are trying to say. Make an effort to understand someone's position and their underlying needs, concerns and emotions. Give everyone space to finish and take time to consider their point of view.
* Think before you speak, listen before you object. Listen to other members' reactions and consider them carefully before pressing your point. Self restraint is essential in consensus - sometimes the biggest obstacle to progress is an individual's attachment to one idea. If another proposal is good, don't complicate matters by opposing it just because it isn't your favourite idea! Ask yourself: "Does this idea work for the group, even if I don't like it the best?" or "Does it matter which one we choose?"
* Don't be afraid of disagreement. Consensus isn't about us all thinking the same thing. Differences of opinion are natural and to be expected.
Disagreements can help a group's decision, because with a wide range of information and opinions, there is a greater chance the group will find good solutions. Easily reached consensus may cover up the fact that some people don't feel safe or confident enough to express their disagreements.

Key skills for consensus

Active Listening: When we actively listen we suspend our own thought processes and give the speaker our full attention. We make a deliberate effort to understand someone's position and their needs, concerns and emotions.

Summarising: A succinct and accurate summary of what's been said so far can really help a group move towards a decision. Outline the emerging common ground as well as the unresolved differences: "It seems like we've almost reached agreement on that bit of the proposal, but we need to explore this part further to address everyone's concerns." Check with everyone that you've got it right.

Synthesis: Find the common ground and any connections between seemingly competing ideas and weave them together to form proposals. Focus on solutions that address the fundamental needs and key concerns that people within the group have.
Consensus in large groups

In large groups it's a good idea to delegate issues to smaller groups, such as working groups or local groups. However, sometimes the issues will be so important that they have to be discussed and decided by everyone. This will often be done in a spokescouncil, which enables hundreds and thousands of people to work together by consensus in an efficient way.

In a spokescouncil the meeting splits into small groups, which start by discussing the issue(s) to come up with concerns and ideas. Spokes (delegates) from each group then meet up in a spokescouncil to feed back these thoughts.

The spokescouncil uses this information to create one or more proposals. These are discussed back in the small groups to check for any amendments and agreement. The results of these discussions are taken to the spokescouncil who should be able to either confirm agreement or draw up new proposals for further discussion. In this way the power to make decisions lies firmly with the small groups, not the spokes.

Fishbowl spokescouncil

The groups sit in an outer circle around the spokes.
diagram showing spokes in a circle, with their groups sitting behind them

This makes the spokes more accountable and reduces the need to repeat information.

The small groups are often based around pre-existing groups such as work teams, local groups or affinity groups. Alternatively, a large group of people might split into smaller groups randomly.

The spoke's role is to feed back information between the small group and the spokescouncil. The spoke needs to act as a voice for everyone within the small group, communicating the breadth of collective thought rather than just their own personal point of view. Being the spoke carries a lot of responsibility to represent information accurately and not to manipulate the process.

Generally spokes don't make decisions for their group but always check back for agreement before a decision is finalised. However, an individual small group may empower their spoke to take decisions within agreed parameters.

Rotating the role of spoke from meeting to meeting is a good idea, as is having two spokes, one of them presenting the viewpoints and proposals from their small group, the other to take notes of what other groups have to say. This helps to ensure that ideas don't get lost or misrepresented.

Why small groups? Some people don't see the need to split into small groups - they want to hear the whole discussion, and have everyone else hear their point of view. However, large plenary meetings make it very difficult for everyone to participate - there's not enough time for everyone to speak and many people feel too intimidated to talk in front of hundreds of people. Breaking into small groups creates safer, more dynamic spaces to work in, includes more people and saves a lot of time. Small groups can also allow several tasks to be done in parallel.

Events :: RE: Sat11Sep - LONDON - Passing Clouds 9/11 conference/party

Andrew.

Author: Andrew.
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:47 pm (GMT 0)

From Reinvestigate 911?

Quote:

ian neal wrote:

Quote:

How do you 'police' such a system? Who polices it?

Let�s start here then, the quote from Reinvestigate 911 posted is? As a test what is wrong with it?

The Bigger Picture :: RE: Israeli war crimes against Iran on the radar

Disco_Destroyer

Author: Disco_Destroyer
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 4:00 pm (GMT 0)

Here comes the next bout of War Propaganda:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-488559

Quote:

Ukrainian arms dealers smuggled 18 nuclear-capable cruise missiles to Iran and China in 1999-2001, Ukraine's prosecutor-general has said.

US destroys missile with airborne laser for first time

Link

_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'

www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer

Events :: RE: 9/11 - 2010 9th Anniversary TV Schedule

Mark Gobell

Author: Mark Gobell
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:51 pm (GMT 0)

Doh! Corrected.

I thought last night's 102 minutes was interesting too.

First shots I've seen from inside WTC7 also.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.

Events :: RE: 9/11 - 2010 9th Anniversary TV Schedule

scienceplease 2

Author: scienceplease 2
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:45 pm (GMT 0)

The title of this thread is wrong, surely. It's 2010 that's the 9th anniversary...

Events :: RE: 9/11 - 2010 9th Anniversary TV Schedule

GodSaveTheTeam

Author: GodSaveTheTeam
Subject: Re: 2009 9th Anniversary TV Schedule
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:15 pm (GMT 0)

Mark Gobell wrote:

A thread for the UK TV programs marking the 9th anniversary of 9/11.

Channel 4 - Saturday 4th September 7:00pm
102 Minutes That Changed America

I watched this yesterday and to be fair it was quite interesting.

There was a collection of clips of people looking up at a big TV screen in the city showing the live scene from ground zero of the two towers with smoke billowing out of them.

It focussed on a few people that were looking up in awe at what had happened (in their eyes) and many turned to the camera and said things like "we should just go to war with the arabs right this second" and "I think we should just go over to the middle east and bomb it all to kingdom come" and "let's just kill them all right now".

How well it worked.

There were also a few shots of police and the like saying things like "we gotta move outa here now the buildings are unstable."

Doesn't necessarily mean that that was owing to fire and plane damage alone though.

Also as a side issue there were a lot of ground level shots after the 1st strike and then the second strike (pre collapse) which showed streets covered with bits of paper. Casting more doubt on one of the bits of "evidence" used to promote DEW theory.

Events :: RE: Sat11Sep - LONDON - Passing Clouds 9/11 conference/party

ian neal

Author: ian neal
Subject: Re: Democracy Now
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 2:45 pm (GMT 0)

crazydave wrote:

As long as the UK 9/11 truth movement (Re-investigate 9/11, Truth Action etc) are organised via undemocratic and anti-democratic principles and practices, I cannot (in good conscience) take part in the campaigning and activities of these groups.................

Fine by me.

Correct me if I'm wrong Dave but were you not at the meeting in Bristol when the old British 9/11 Truth campaign was formally disbanded? I believe you were.

In which case you should know some of the circumstances around its disbandment. The lack of concensus or even engagement in the questions I ask you below were at the heart of the decision to disband the national campaign and end the attempt for a 'big tent' approach based on 'democratic' or 'consensus based decision making' between local autonomous ghroups

Anyone who knows the history of the movement in this country will know that the old campaign did attempt to base early decision making on openness and a form of democratic or concensual decision making.

Anyone who knows this history will also know that the process of attempting to bring together disparate opinions, strategies, individuals and groups together in a unified campaign did not work. The tensions too great, the democratic mechanisms too weak and too poorly defined and understood ... even assuming that this approach of seeking to unify a broad grassroots movement under one banner was the correct one, which with hindsight I don't believe it was.

But if you reckon it is so straight forward dave perhaps you can answer the following

Who gets a vote?

How do you qualify? Is everyone's voice and vote given equal weight regardless of the wisdom of that voice or the degree of activism that person is engaged in or regardless of whether they are believed by some to be state agents or gate-keepers or whatever

What questions/issues does this constituency get to vote on?

Who decides what votes are held, their wording and timing? Are votes held for all decisions or just some? Who decides these questions?

How do people vote? Postal? By email? At an 'Annual conference'? In public or in private? Who counts the votes?

Then imagine that you have 100 different people offering a 100 different answers to these questions. How do you reconcile these differences, who decides on what the final compromise is?

How do you avoid this process becoming one gigantic waste of time and energy?

How do you 'police' such a system? Who polices it?

How do you accommodate or exclude mavericks such as David Shayler or Nick K? Who decides who is 'excluded'? On what criteria?

Can you give me examples of organisations especially campaigning organisations that you believe are truly 'democratic' or which embodies 'concensus decision making'?