Many of the signators of the above petition are members of groups involved in the wider peace movement which, although not specifically calling for a national citizen's investigation into the "official story" surrounding 9/11, are certainly raising serious questions about the so-called "war on terrorism."
Beyond these associations, UQ maintains ongoing and close correspondence with M. Ruppert, Michel Chussudovsky, John Judge, Dave Ratcliffe, Carol Brouillet, each of whom are, (or will soon be) discussed below.
The UQ website, as yet, is a modest one, (presently undergoing transition). I recommend readers visit and stay tuned to future developments.
In my opinion, the second most-significant development of late is the rather sudden arrival of Paul Thompson's "timeline."
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/
or,
http://cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/index.htm
I don't think it an exaggeration to say no other single document will have as much of an impact on the the credibility and readership of the 9/11 debate, (over the foreseeable future) as this one.
Why?
Not only is it massive in scope, brutally-precise in its references to the most credible, and relevant online sources, its organizational coherence is simply astounding.
The main "timeline" is organized into a dozen different formats, for pursuing various aspects of the case.
The author shows an uncanny ability to identify the relevant facts within the various reports, and lays them out in a clear, concise fashion. Combine this with his steady hand in keeping his own interpretations of the facts to a minimum, and we have a body of evidence upon which serious researchers can confidently focus at least a few month's attention -to explore the meaning of the various facts at hand -rather than having to search, organize and verify.
In having performed this monumental task, in providing such a service, Mr. Thompson may have also posed to us a challenge: recognize the limits to a particular way of doing things, the need for an adjustment, and the opportunity to take this investigation to a whole other level.
The issue of 9/11, (in terms of information) is massive, as is Paul's "timeline." The focus, clarity, coherence, of his "timeline" has come from a single mind; and there is, in turn, a limit to what a single mind can do.
Though Paul will continue to search, write, add new information and offer fresh insights, I believe he has posited to us the limitations of what the focus of a single individual can do -that, in order to advance our investigation to the next level, it's time for a qualitative shift in how we organize and exchange information: not simply to gather, analyse, and organize information as individuals, but to begin organizing ourselves to work together on a common research project, (which is capable of sufficiently grasping the "event," as a whole).
In other words, it seems fair to say that "Thompson's timeline" has sufficiently covered the breadth of the 9/11 "thang," that for someone to come up with another "timeline," it would seem, well, redundant.
I mean, there will always be new things to add to this "timeline," like any other. This one is simply so comprehensive that it doesn't seem, (for the foreseeable future) that there is going to be another "timeline" of near equal scope... with vastly different yet equally well-referenced/relevant material. It only seems an efficient use of our time to leverage on the work that has already been done -rather than have three, five, fifteen different massive "timelines" with only a few variant facts in each.
The task now before us does not seem to be to create new and better "timelines"; rather, it seems time for a number of us to work together on assessing what the evidence in the timeline means, and amend/expand the body of understanding in an organized manner.
I'm not suggesting that every researcher in our loose-knit community be involved in such a project. There are many contributors who will continue contributing worthwhile material regardless. I'm suggesting that, in order for our investigation as a whole to move to the "next level," then a certain core of researchers, a critical mass, must commit them/ourselves to working as a team on a common, concrete project, (sufficiently reflective of the whole).
Only in this way does it seem possible for us to transform the limitations of "too-much" information -one person's brilliance- into a deeper quality of understanding, shared.
I believe Paul Thompson's "timeline" has arrived to present to us this challenge/opportunity -an achievement worthy of such commitment. It must be equally clear that in studying, refining, adapting, and amending such material, it is time for our emphasis to shift from information towards dialogue.
We need to put more emphasis in raising the quality/clarity of our dialogues.
In this, we may be talking about how to bring two important components of our citizen's investigation... closer together.
I refer here to the informal community of independent websites/investigators, (operating as a source of information and expression) and the various 9/11 message-boards which have also been a hotbed of grass-roots activity, (operating as a source of information and dialogue).
I speak of two message-boards in particular,
http://www.guerrillanews.com/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/postlist.pl?Cat=&Board=state
and,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID43&conf=DCConfID14
In general, there seems to be a division between the investigative community in the macro sense, the various message-boards which have been created to facillitate public discussion, and the e-lists within which we researchers/citizens tend to dialogue in relative isolation.
I believe a large part of the resistance on the part of researchers, (to using the public message-boards) is due to the difficulty in maintaining a focused discussion. i.e. open public access means people of varying commitment/background can easily dilute the focus on a given task/question at hand... simply by not paying attention to what's already been said.
This is stating things simply. Multiple human communication can be a complex affair. I believe it fair to say that there is room for increasing the clarity of focus on what is being discussed, generally speaking, in the message-board format. I further believe it's time that we take up this challenge, by creating a clear intention around the desire to discuss various aspects of Paul Thompson's "timeline" in a serious, focused manner.
It appears the tools are hand, as is the talent, and connections; all that is needed is the action to bring the various parts together.
Perhaps the next most-important development in the 911 citizen's investigation, (imo) has been the arrival of Nafeez Ahmed's book, "The War on Freedom."
http://waronfreedom.mediamonitors.net
It has been available for a few months online, (albeit to a limited extent). In mid- July it started to become widely available in U.S. bookstores.
In terms of bringing the 911 issues into the general public's eye, perhaps no other document stands, at present, as potential equal.
The book is widely-recognized in the 911 investigative community as being exceptionally comprehensive, thoroughly referenced to credible sources, and stunning in its conclusions.
Many of us, (inluding http://www.unansweredquestions.org) have taken it upon them/ourselves to help promote and distribute the book as a pillar of public-awareness strategy.
Like Michael Ruppert's "Truth and Lies of 911" video, Nafeez's book has become a favorite "fundraiser gift" for those donating to Pacific radio stations.
The main limitation, naturally, is that, as a book, "The War on Freedom" cannot directly serve to feed the online discussion -as can Paul Thompson's "timeline," (or my own, "Unanswered Questions"). It's not possible to place the whole of this information in front of our viewscreens. Significant excerpts, however, have been posted, that we can have a taste of the depth and precise analysis involved.
http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc708.html
Here are two reviews:
http://www.communitycurrency.org/Review.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MCC208A.html
I highly recommend the book.