All quotes are from Metamars.
As a rough sketch, this appeal for large numbers of small donations would probably appear on sites with a lot of traffic. It would appear as an appeal to channel funds to a particular 911 project or a small number of projects.
You've mentioned 2 general types of possibilities:
1) Investigative reporting.
2) Technical projects.
In order to do this you would try to appeal to people who have sites which are considered central and receive many hits daily.
Great idea. Unfortunately, I have already had some experience communicating with "management" at STJ911 and Richard Gage. They would have the popular appeal to actualize this idea. Their agendas are set in stone.
I'd like to see a banner ad at all of the 911 web sites, as well as leaders in the field speak up, in the form of endorsing the idea in print and in their speeches. As for "set in stone", I agree that stj911 is censoring and marginalizing, - even on a
private forum - but it's an exaggeration to think of it like the old Soviet Union. Anyway, since one of the projects would be to study the dust samples, I don't see what the objection could be. If there
was an objection, then of course that would invite all sorts of, well, conspiracy theories regarding what is actually going on there.
They consider microspheres to be some kind of smoking gun, yet Streven Jones cannot answer the most elementary counter-arguments against this. He simply ignores them.
He recently said (in the forum) that he invites questions. However, I don't see where he's adequately answered the questions already put to him. I normally stay out of arguments involving chemistry, knowing very little of it, but that's the way I see it.
Concerning Steven, you ask
As Frank Greening has mentioned to me a few times, Steven Jones claims to have examined "hundreds" of spheres. Yet only a handful of these were ever made public. Even in the few that were made public Frank has noticed inconsistencies between individual spheres, suggesting multiple origins of the spheres.
Frank can comment no further because he and everyone else are denied access to the data.
I was talking about access to physical samples. As far as I know, Jones is not hogging the hard data (unlike our 'friends' at NIST), and recently called for help analyzing the dust at a public presentation (within the last 2 months, I believe). Just because Jones has examined hundreds of spheres, that doesn't mean that he's taken careful measurements of all of them.
I really don't know why I was recently banned from the STJ911 forum,
Which is outrageous, by the way. I've asked about this, in the forum, and gotten no answer.
but mentioning these contradictions and the absurd division of sceintific arguments into 2 artificial, discriminatory classes must have been the reason.
I believe you were banned because you pressed the issue of getting answers to Greening's reasonable questions. Apparently, "Vic" considers this some sort of attack on "our theories".
So you can clearly see that publicly promoting microspheres as a smoking gun and putting all ones "eggs" into that basket is a recipe for total failure. My only question remaining is whether it is a planned, intentional intellectual suicide or is it just accidental?
I think you're reading too much into it when you suggest intentional suicide, and too little into it when you suggest accident. You should read "The Trouble with Physics" and "Not Even Wrong" to better understand what is happening. You're ignoring psychological and sociological factors. You can see a similar 'paring down of alternative explanations' right in this thread. Despite replying, at length, wherein I get into the subject of motivations for not doing investigative reporting, subsequent posters seem unable to wrap their minds around it. They insist on interpreting my answer to imply "just fear" or "they are part of the conspiracy". I'm afraid that even if I spent all my waking hours trying to reason with such people, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. They have their conspiracist worldview, and they're sticking to it. Also, as is typical, they're not really interested investigating the subject of their theory - viz., investigative journalists
themselves. Mustn't let any ugly facts derail their beautiful, anti-CT theories!
Hopefully, you are more facile of mind, and will seriously consider the analyses done by scientists who study the behavior of scientists, and who feel no need to confine themselves to a conspiracy vs. accident dichotomy.
This is not just Vic. Gurich sent an e-mail to Kevin Ryan and got a rather strange reply suggesting that many people agree with her actions.
Ryan is probably correct, though that's nothing to brag about!
On the more popular front appeals for small donations on 911 Blogger for either investigative reporting or technical projects would probably be run through the STJ911 and AE911T "filter" and be soundly rejected.
We disagree, but why waste time on such a disagreement? If anybody ever picks up the ball and runs with it, they would do well to
ask these organizations. You don't really know what the response would be, unless you're psychic, in which case James Randi has a big prize for you.
My guess is that with proper, sane management of STJ911, AE911T and the 911 Research websites your idea of small donation funding can become a wonderful tool.
Cool!
But without the support of these 3 sites they will treat you as unwanted competition and effectively work against you.
There are other fish in the sea. 911truth.org is a big one. Snag them, and I'm sure a lot of others would follow. Surprisingly, there's what appears to be a significant 911 Truth movement in Europe.
As you implicitly suggest, these institutions must be by-passed. There is not much point waiting for these institutions to reform themselves. Big money has no interest in reforming them. A careful observer could have seen the decay spreading for some time now.
I started listening to Gary Null decades ago. Talk about eye-opening. BTW, I had posted a link to my "Putting the NY Times Out of Business" on Gary Null's web site, hoping that he, of all people, would be interested. Don't know if he saw it, but I'm afraid that he, too, is not seeing the potential for bypassing television.
It was more than that. He received zero help. He told me that he sensed something was rather strange about STJ911.
Go into almost any church and ask about who volunteers their time, vs. what is needed. Talk to your neighbors about holding an anti-war demonstration in your city park, and see who agrees to show up. Talk to your local Boy Scout troop about what percentage of fathers ever accompany their troop on a hike. I believe you'll find a modified pareto's type of rule holds, with something like 5% of the people doing 95% of the volunteering.
If stj911 has 400 members, half are scientists, and only 40 of those, say, know how to do FEM, 5% of those forty is exactly 2 people. If Lon is one of them, the other one may have been in the hospital, planning a wedding, fill in some other activity. I don't think it's all that strange.
So, just as an outline, how would you visualize the idea of microfunding manifesting through 911 truth?
Once the infrastructure is there, slap banner ads on as many 911 web sites as will accept them, contact all leaders, and hope for the best. It's not all that complicated.
Can you see how, by using the current structure, an appeal to STJ911, AE911T and 911 Research would be a key place to start?
Considering what is mentioned in this post, can you see how those in the best position to actualize this good idea will become your greatest obstacle?
This is why I use the word "strangle-hold".
I don't see the "strangle-hold", I see an idea whose time had not come in 2001, 2002, ..., 2007, even, but which is being developed even as we speak. Newassignment.net launched July 2006, and for sure there was not a funding mechanism infrastructure extant at that time. In fact, the spot.us web site is not open for business, yet!
One thing one needs, in attempting to change societies big and small, is patience.
