Prof Griffin, meeting eval, L report, website, webtools project meeting

yes .... I was just joking :] ................

thinking about Bush-Cheney term, yes also, I agree now ..

it is good to keep it around ...

so, the reference then I'm for the best is "Bush-Cheney conspiracy" ...

thanks

Petr

ps

Meeting actually was good in most parts, until it blew up in the last minutes. Speakers watched their time on, and Rodney was pacing managing it enough to keep it rolling, with rhythm.

Chris,

group appreciates you made it to a part of meeting.

Unfortunately, you missed the best part, the good presentations of Mark and David covering the Leg meeting.

Also, the group is technologically retarded-like enough not to have audio or video link, so you have heard the coverage ..

oh well, I do not seem to be able with the project Webtools to move members to embrace technology.

People are calling for sites down - i think we should call for sites up, on the other hand.

I agree good will be, since it is draft group official material repository /.net site/, that Mark place the word "draft" there ..

Positively, Mark did a lot of work on it for the movement and for the group with it. I appreciate it, do not want and will not review or correct it.

I agree with Hank and Jim we need to stress positive and be supportive. How can we try to "organize California", if we are getting constantly lost on quasi-personal issues?

I trust Mark handsomely with facts on the web.

Some more looks, widgets, completion, details of site, yes, there is always what to improve.

Anybody, put up a page, site present it to a group, lets see if it can be a group official site.

Im calling for everybody to get you blog, site up - first to test it, evaluate it, .. so it can be just a mockup site.

Im calling on you use the technology, the web. Today its the quick thing, minutes, hours, can we, or do we have time to review a lot,all of pages ??

Tomorrow,

Il be on a second floor Shields library, ready to answer your question, go through registrations, signups.

8:45. am

It'd be fantastic if David could write a page, a blog, couple paragraphs about the history of 9/11 movement and its presence on the web. Who else if not him?

It'd be great if Ken could wrote, or record digitally, his accomplishments, his work, his experiences. Or, try to to put already existing texts online .....

I cannot speak to Ken / Mark controversy, brought up with resolution by Howard. I am not part of it.

Il send a short email dealing with real issues, questions Mark and David raised.

Petr

bcc to gg and bl

=============================

=============================

================================

--- On Wed, 7/22/09, Petr Buben < As I am for inclusiveness, cooperation and results, I think Mark's letter, specifically #1, is good, and good enough to be sent. I do not see it as a particular issue to talk about. Lets look and move forward. Further, if Howard feels strongly, has a firm opinion about the feedback, his whole input should be included in the letter also. The real issue is - who is driving towards the next L meeting? That needs to be addressed. And real issues need to be worked on, not idling with empty spinning wheels on procedures. A couple of thoughts on your interesting text, Howard. The term "Bush-Cheney theory" .. I have never heard it before. I'm not sure if it is the most exact or efficient term. ... How about "public perception of events", or "publicly accepted version of events" ...... "is patently wrong, by now per irrefutable scientific evidence". The official scientific technical explanation of events was irrefutably disproved, April 09, Harrit, Jones, Ryan, and was never credibly and factually explained or documented again. In the case of building WTC-7, sudden implosive collapse, official explanation is and always was nonexistent, just as public perception that fire inside the building caused the collapse event. Since April of 2009, there exists the definitive, conclusive scientific evidence, that "public perception of events" and "official explanation" are both completely and factually false and wrong. Accepted public perception being "A group of Saudi religious terrorists flew 2 hijacked airliners into WTC-1 WTC-2, causing their sudden implosion and pulverazition, flew an airliner into Pentagon, causing damage to the building, and finally another hijacked airliner crashed in Pennsylvania. A private note NOTHING, nothing from above, nothing that is being currently "publicly officially perceived" or "publicly officially accepted", or "officially explained", is true...... Nothing. It is that known 9/11 domino effect notion - that if one single piece of chain of events is proven false, the whole, complete event explanation collapses, and EVERYTHING becomes false, prepared operation. And that is what it really is. This is the logical conclusion. Petr bcc to http://91investigate.blogspot.com, ... need to edit parts out? Unless all the highest relevant officials of the time are conclusively questioned under the polygraph lie detector, we will NEVER know what really happened.