911Blogger did finally respond on the many complaints (review)

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-06-30/911blogger-rules-moderation-policy...

The time prior to the 911Blogger response (and my own) I read some threads about 911Blogger, Truthaction, accusations about censorship, etc, because I wasn’t really informed about individual names (Albanese, Gold) in previous discussions.

This 'not being informed' on the level of individuals was not just laziness. My search for news on 9/11 and working on Waarheid911.com is, beside other responsibilities, very time consuming and has IMHO more priority than focusing on the inside. I'll explain why. But I did agree on some basic critics uttered on the WTCDemolition forum. I also gave notice about the way critics in general were being handled and how it concerned me.

It takes a long time to build-up some credibility, but structural distrust is established in just a few moments.

My concerns were especially aimed at the risk of creating an image of a ‘truthmovement’ that is more involved in internal quarrels, than efficiently trying to deliver important information about the case of 9/11. It’s very easy for so called (motivated) ‘disinformation agents’ to use such an image to underline their skepticism – perfectly fitting in the public’s perception about silly or even dangerous messengers. Just read the papers to see how this works.
My concern is also prompted by the fact that focusing on internal habits, faults or mistakes, is easier and more obvious (because it’s closer by) than focusing on actual matters where things are already said so many times. Like many movements before us we are confronted with the difficulty of overseeing the main goals and instead tilting to house-holding matters within our own habitat.

My first question was: how serious are all the accusations to 911Blogger, and since the long waiting response from the 911Bloggersite: what did they do to deal with it?

I’m aware that my judgments are personal and that my knowledge can’t be complete. For so far I’m still convinced that 911Blogger showed a lack of feedback to their contributors, because let’s be fair: 911Blogger is a co-product from many people who try to select or write good articles. Complaints about refusals without being told why, or without telling what exactly the policy is, are in my point of view valid complaints.

General Rules

The General Rules as being carried out today are not answering these complaints. I also had the experience of not being informed on refusals and I’m certain that my choices were never promoting hatred, racism, violence, terrorism or criminal actions. They were never sexual or pornographic, or continuing the same arguments over and over, never insulting and never from multiple accounts.

Israel

But is an article with some factual information on Israel considered as racism?
I guess 911Blogger should be clearer. They seem to be very cautious, which I welcome because the subject requires the utmost caution due to many quite successful efforts to label truthers as anti-Semites and due to all emotions that are involved anyway.

Still facts or criticism should be allowed on every segment of what happened on September 11. 911Blogger has the obligation to define it’s policy on all kinds of sensitivities that have reasons to be mentioned. Labeling people or nations with unnecessary qualifications – like naming them Zionists all the time - with all idiom characteristics that hate can gather – should be dejected in my opinion and mentioned in the policy rules as a reason for refusal.

It’s just the information, facts that can speak for themselves. 911Blogger refused the one contribution about Israeli involvement that I delivered, a well argued and fact based article. They didn’t explain this either, although I asked for it.

Answering with a bunch of general rules

Knowing about the complaints from WTCDemolition.com, I consider this kind of answering as disrespectful. These general rules does not seem to answer the real problems as being exposed in many threads. I mean the lack of transparency due to the internal policy of 911Blogger (and perhaps some other linked parties). Not to forget to mention the disrespectful neglecting of those who did invest in the same goal of creating an informative website with high quality.

Nevertheless, I agree with 911Blogger’s statement that calling each other ‘liars’ or disinformation agent’ is not tolerable. This kind of labeling people makes it impossible to exchange real arguments. It’s exactly the same as calling a 9/11 skeptic a ‘conspiracy theorist’. Once being said, it’s impossible to maintain a substantial conversation about facts. We are doing the same as the mainstream media when giving each other such kind of labels. Once again: facts will do, most of the rest is vanity.

Another question is: HOW BAD is the 911Blogger behavior?

I think it’s important to aim at 911Blogger’s lack of transparency. 911Blogger should respond on that. They didn’t. Their response today doesn’t seem fair, considering the questions that were asked or the complaints being delivered. By not answering these responses the critics (and anger) will logically increase.

But the accusations that 911Blogger is a (motivated) disinformant doesn’t seem right in my opinion. Accusations in threads that 911Blogger is (structural) denying or downplaying the role of controlled demolition at the WTC doesn’t seem credible.
There are a lot of articles posted about the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who support the evidence of CD openly. I have no clue that 911Blogger is boycotting our important professor David Ray Griffin. Facts of these kinds did not seem to speak for themselves in the threads that I was able to read. Talking about openness: it should be possible to criticize even David Ray Griffin. It will make the man the living entity he actually is, potentially able to make mistakes.

What about men like Albanese and Gold?

When swimming against a main stream, it’s always much more difficult to reach certain goals. Every minority in history will know this. Women in certain times had to prove their skills to be twice as good as men in the same position. What to think about blacks, native people, gay people, from the perspective as being a minority?

When we say that government is lying on such a scale, we have to be extremely truthfull and integer ourselves. We can’t permit missteps like lies or dirty tricks. But the fact that we’re dealing with people who did so (Nullum humani mihi alienum/nothing human is alien to me ;-), doesn’t prove the fact that they’re intentional disinformation agents. It’s not professional behavior. It’s risky and not responsible. Perhaps it’s egoistic and based on the wish to be an outstanding leader or a hero, or another product of distrust (Just summing up some options, not aiming at Albanese or Gold in particular).

When ‘the movement’ will be more successful we will be challenged by our egos. Let’s not step in the trap of seeing an agent behind every tree!

It’s the information, stupid! Information will do. Information will protect whistle blowers. But internal quarrels will endanger the same brave men and women. We have a responsibility to carry.

What about real agents?

Real motivated and educated disinformation agents will certainly be active in the field of information gathering and information distributing. I don’t think they are with many, but when active on news forums they will have lots of ignorant or/and pubertal followers in their slipstream. Misinforming is much easier than informing, because misinformation can be anything. True information is about facts and asks for some knowledge and integer preparation!

Misinforming is a part of the game when having this war on information. In previous replies I said: let agents do their work because we can’t stop them, we really can’t. When ten agents won’t work, they will launch more. This intention is already proved. It’s just a flaw in our strategy when we are trying all the time to respond on their silly efforts. This responding will result in endless fights and personal accusations. Many times it will result in accusations to each other, just because we distrust each other, have different opinions or itching egos.

The only thing we CAN do is much more powerful. That is giving the right information, truth full because fact based. We need to have several podia with valid information flows to attract the public we really need. That’s the public who wants to know the truth about 9/11.

Debunking misinformation

On these podia we can also debunk misinformation on a professional and responsible way. Not like a bunch of quarreling school kids complaining all the time. That kind of behavior is the real disinformation; the highest reward for every ‘disinformation agent’. It will discourage most readers. Real warriors are not simply brave fighters; they use strategy and a full focus on their main goals.