Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 1:25 pm Post subject: Heavy Handed Censorship Continues at "Truth" Sites
Recently there has been overt censorship of prominent 9/11 Researchers on the corporate-run sites MySpace, YouTube, and Loose Change. Killtown has had his MySpace and YouTube accounts deleted, and been suspended from Loose Change for posting evidence which invalidates the "official alternative theory" promoted by this site.
Killtown and Genghis6199 have had their accounts suspended for telling the truth about the 9/11 Attacks. Here on this very forum a policy of promoting unsubstantiated theories on the main page, while ridiculing hard evidence of TV Fakery as "controversial" continues.
If the purpose of this site is to promote the Bush / Blair worldview why not rename it as such. How about "The British 9/11 Campaign"? Or "7/7 again in '07"?
The fact that the moderators here engage in name-calling and ridicule should be duly noted by any would-be truth-seekers who venture onto this forum.
The following post contains incontrovertible evidence of TV Fakery that even the blind can appreciate. The same video sequence has been aired with three completely different audio tracks. If this is considered controversial, it is only because of the personal agendas of the moderators here, and not because of any ambiguity in the evidence itself.
No one doubts that faked versions of the original video CNN footage now exist on the internet. Most of us here just don't accept the ORIGINAL version was faked. So your comparisons don't prove your case because - unlike you - we don't see anything strange in there existing on the internet different versions of the same footage. They are no doubt manufactured as disinformation to confuse and mislead.
fred are you suggesting that those who disagree with you should be censored whilst complaining about being censored even though no one has stopped you from putting you view across on this site??
I'm suggesting that the evidence for TV Fakery is overwhelming, and it no longer belongs as a 9/11 Truth Controversy. The exact means by which the towers were destroyed could be "controversial". The names of people who were in charge of the various operational units who carried out the attacks could be controversial. It's no longer a matter of controversy that there was a major media hoax connected with 9/11 and used to sell the War on Terror to a traumatized and unsuspecting public.
I'm at a loss to explain how John White could misinterpret my article as a plea for more censorship.
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 11:22 pm Post subject: Re: Heavy Handed Censorship Continues at "Truth" S
Fred wrote:
Killtown and Genghis6199 have had their accounts suspended for telling the truth about the 9/11 Attacks.
If they follow your MO, it's easier to imagine they were banned for continually reposting the same videos several times every day, hurling insults left right and centre, starting campaigns of abuse against all the organisers of the sites, acusing anyone who doesn't agree with them of being government agents, acusing everyone who disagrees with them as all being the same person and calling everyone who disagrees with them liars.
Quote:
Here on this very forum a policy of promoting unsubstantiated theories on the main page, while ridiculing hard evidence of TV Fakery as "controversial" continues.
Wrong. The theories discussed on the main page tend to be supported by evidence and factual arguments, whereas everything you come up with comes from "doesn't that look like...?" armchair science and a complete ignorance of a little thing called perspective.
Quote:
If the purpose of this site is to promote the Bush / Blair worldview why not rename it as such. How about "The British 9/11 Campaign"? Or "7/7 again in '07"?
Right. The Bush/Blair world view is that 9/11 was an inside job? I must have missed that twin podium speech of theirs.
Quote:
The fact that the moderators here engage in name-calling and ridicule should be duly noted by any would-be truth-seekers who venture onto this forum.
Except no one but you sees this name calling and ridicule. They see people reacting to your campaign of abuse in a fairly dignified manner, while not letting you walk all over them without expressing their views that your theories are based on absolutley 0 evidence.
Quote:
The following post contains incontrovertible evidence of TV Fakery that even the blind can appreciate.
How exactly? Lots of wierd noises, repetition, flickering images and bizarre insertion of soft porn and octopuss'? Sterling research...
Quote:
The same video sequence has been aired with three completely different audio tracks.
Explain how exactly? I hear exactly the same audio at three slightly different speeds.
Quote:
If this is considered controversial, it is only because of the personal agendas of the moderators here, and not because of any ambiguity in the evidence itself.
It's considered controversial because it is the rantings of a man blinded by a single minded and wrong headed obsessopm; there is no evidence.
You are allowed to continue posting here because of an extremley liberal and generous policy of free speech on behalf of the moderators. What you continue to do is damage the 9/11 Truth Campaign. You do it every day. If this was my forum you'd have been banned weeks ago, you continue to bite the hand that feeds you and attack the very people who allow you to continue with this tripe day in day out.
If I were you I would write a long public letter of grovelling thanks to Ian Neal and John White for their leniency, and grovelling apology for your continued sniping.
But you don't want to stay here do you? Your latest video shows you are desparate to be banned so you can continue to use it as a medal of your "oppression" to tout at other forums on your way to being banned there too. _________________
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 1:14 am Post subject: Re: Heavy Handed Censorship Continues at "Truth" S
Fred wrote:
.......... invalidates the "official alternative theory" promoted by this site.
..........
Here on this very forum a policy of promoting unsubstantiated theories on the main page, while ridiculing hard evidence of TV Fakery as "controversial" continues.
........
The fact that the moderators here engage in name-calling and ridicule should be duly noted by any would-be truth-seekers who venture onto this forum.
Leaving aside the discussion of the 'incontrovertible evidence' which can continue on the threads that already exist for this and leaving aside the censorship of killtown et al on other sites, let me tell you Fred this site has no policy of promoting any one theory.
Which bit of
Quote:
The campaign recognizes that there is a diverse range of opinion amongst 9/11 truth campaigners. The campaign does not endorse any one position. What we do say is when taken in totality the evidence overwhelmingly supports the need to reopen
are you struggling with.
The campaign is about one thing, building a united movement. A movement that unites all those who believe 9/11 was an inside job and includes all swathes of opinion including those that share your views.
The views expressed on this forum are those of the individuals concerned (and that includes individual moderators) and they do not represent the campaign. I can assure you this forum is moderated according to this same policy: we do not endorse any one position or theory and we do not moderate based of the personal views of the moderators, but solely on the moderation policy and personal discretion. The beliefs of individual moderators should be given no more weight than any one elses here. If users feel the moderators are moderating in an unfair way, biased by their own personal beliefs they should discuss this with me or another moderator.
What specific actions of the moderators do you object to? How beyond placing threads dealing with most controversial such as TV fakery in the 9/11 controversies section, do you believe this forum censors your views?
Placing a thread in the controversies section means that it is controversial amongst 9/11 campaigners, it divides opinion amongst honest campaigners. Whatever else you say TV fakery undoubtedly divides opinion. Placing TV fakery in this section (along side Steve Jones' thermate theories) does not mean the moderators either support or reject these theories, even less that the moderation will be biased against those promoting TV fakery.
Until last week I didn't have administration privalages to the site and so I have been limited in the extent I could influence the site. Now that I do have administration privalages, I can assure you that this forum will not censor controversial theories such as TV fakery. But equally the forum will insist that these theories are discussed respectfully and politely and will ban those who refuse to do so.
If you doubt my integrity and commitment to ensure fair moderation, say so and provide supporting evidence. If you have specific greivances about specific moderator decisions you should discuss this with me by email. When you say this site or forum is promoting any particular theory or presentation of the evidence in preference to any other, that is untrue.
Continue to question my integrity without backing it up and you will, with some regret, be banned. I say with regret because anyone who knows me or my role in promoting a network of campaigners in this country will know that uniting us together as a loose network of grassroots activists with limited central control has been my prime motivation.
A network united by
a rejection of dogma, intolerance, racism and violence
a knowledge that in all probability 9/11 was an inside job and
a hope that this truth will transform the world for the better
A network that accepts and is even be proud of the range of opinion within it and the tolerance of those differences
A network united in the need to build a professional, credible campaign and that hopefully recognises the limitations of public forums as a present our message.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 3:35 am Post subject: Censorship Should be More Heavy Handed, Not Less
Censorship Should be More Heavy Handed, Not Less
But I would add that is better to be a little slow at removing the rantings of someone like Fred, than to shoot from the hip and maybe get rid of someone who had something important to say, but who was not very good at saying it.
In this case, Fred has had ample space to prove that what he has to say is important—in 9 days he’s posted 149 times; an average of 16.56 posts per day—but does not appear to have done so.
One classic example was Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 1:06 pm on the “Pretend Controversy” topic:
Quote:
1. The CNN video was not shot from any location
Need I say more?
If this were ancient Greece, Fred’s name would appear on my pottery shard, in any ostracism process, that is if I were not one of the slaves having to clean up the broken crockery, after the Senate had voted. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Last edited by Anthony Lawson on Sun May 06, 2007 3:37 am; edited 1 time in total
TV Fakery is not "controversial" at all. If your goal is to have a united forum that ignores the evidence and puts established facts into the "controversy" section, go right ahead. I would only hope that any post that mentions a "plane" crashing into anything on September 11, 2001 would go into the controversy section as well, since it is apparent that a large and growing number of researchers understand that the plane crash story was a fiction designed to launch the war on terror.
I object to the conduct of the moderators here attacking and ridiculing posters. The only reason I condescended to post here was because of the smear campaing of lies launched by one of your moderators, who, the last time I checked is still infesting this very forum.
Is it true that you banned David Carmichael? He asked about 30 times for clarification of just what fact stated in my video was in dispute, and was ridiculed by several hundred posts from your moderators here. That's not a "truth" campaign of any sort. I'm pleased that you've taken a firm stand against Censorship, Ian, and I trust that you'll do the right thing and either allow the TV Fakery evidence in the main forum, or move the "plane crash" official story propaganda into the "Controversies" section.
Hi Anthony Lawson, do me a quick favor and post a video shot from the same location as the CNN shot. I'm sure you won't have any trouble finding some footage from the same location, since you're certain it exists. If you can't find some video, ask one of your many friends in New York to go take some footage please.
Thanks for being such a good sport and diligent researcher. I look forward to your posting. In fact, I would encourage anyone here to "recreate" the CNN shot. It should be easy since Manhattan is such a densely populated place, and it has been photographed and videotaped millions of times.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 3:42 am Post subject: He's fast
He's Fast, You've Got to Give Him That
He's up to 151 posts, now, in the blink of an eye. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Thanks, but I'd appreciate it if you leave the silly comments for people like Ian Neal. I posted video here which shows that CNN aired three different audio tracks along with their fake video. Why don't one of you frisky little chappies go and see for yourselves that the CNN footage cannot possibly be real because it changes each time they air it.
Run along now. It would be nice to see a serious posting from the folks here once in a while. Three different audio tracks aired by CNN. Fact.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 4:31 am Post subject: Not Shot from Any Location?
Not Shot from Any Location?
I do not make ‘silly comments’ I make valid ones.
The word ‘shot,’ in the way you are associating it with the word ‘video’ has a definite meaning. An early camera, used for taking pictures of moving objects, was shaped and held like a shot gun. That is where the expression ‘shooting pictures’ came from, and it has stuck.
Today, a video camera is placed in a certain position—the ‘location’—and the ‘video’ ‘shot’ is taken. Therefore, to write that ‘The CNN video was not shot from any location’ is manifestly absurd. But you wrote it, and left yourself open to valid criticism, because a video camera cannot be placed in ‘no location’ and still record a video image.
If you mean that the CNN video was faked in some other way—a computer generated graphic would be an option—then that is what you should have written. You are like so many other posters on this site who seem to think that the amount they write is important, and that accuracy is not.
If you want to be taken seriously, carefully check that what you have written accurately conveys what you mean. Then check it again. That way, you will spend less time defending yourself, provided, of course, that what you really ‘mean’ has any validity. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
The CNN video is fake. It was not shot with a camera from any location anywhere. It's animation. You are welcome to go to New York and verify that for yourself.
If you don't want to go to New York, you may verify that the footage is fake by watching any of the many excellent videos which debunk the CNN footage.
Perhaps you were not able to read my posts here which explained exactly why the CNN footage is fake because they were sabotaged by one of the moderators on this site and moved into the "controversies" section.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 5:10 am Post subject: Why Bother?
Why Bother?
Quote:
The CNN video is fake. It was not shot with a camera from any location anywhere. It's animation. You are welcome to go to New York and verify that for yourself.
Now you say it is animation.
Don't bother to answer this, I will not be accessing this subject again. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
I said it was animation long ago. If you hadn't been a victim of the site censorshop you would know that already.
Fred - could you give an example of how this site has censored you? Specifically in such a way that would have denied Anthony access to 'the truth'?
stefan wrote:
Explain how exactly? I hear exactly the same audio at three slightly different speeds.
yeah, that's what I heard.
Mind you, without a clear demonstration of where the clips originated from, it's functionally useless 'evidence' anyway. If it can be demonstrated a clip was broadcast by a network and when, that's very different to "here it is with no attempt to source it" or "I found it on youtube". _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Thanks, but I'd appreciate it if you leave the silly comments for people like Ian Neal. I posted video here which shows that CNN aired three different audio tracks along with their fake video. Why don't one of you frisky little chappies go and see for yourselves that the CNN footage cannot possibly be real because it changes each time they air it.
Run along now. It would be nice to see a serious posting from the folks here once in a while. Three different audio tracks aired by CNN. Fact.
Wit without discretion...
Fact? Nope. You don't know the footage you dragged off the internet somewhere WAS the original version. All you have is three different edited versions of it and no information about their provenance. You expect us still to take your claims seriously? It's YOU who can't be serious!
Since you asked, Dogs, this site has allowed its moderator to move threads exposing TV Fakery into the dustbin and the controversies section. Consequently people who come here for information can't get it. It took a couple of weeks and many emails from genuine Truthers here to even get an account open, while John White was slandering me with false accusations.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 11:09 am Post subject: Re: Censorship Should be More Heavy Handed, Not Less
Anthony Lawson wrote:
Censorship Should be More Heavy Handed, Not Less
Entirely agree - when a big controversy such as Fred's stuff begins to rage with strong feelings on either side, turning into a bun-fight the best thing to do is not to censor the material but to move it to a 'controversies' or similar section so that the discussion can continue but it is not allowed to drag the forum down with ill-feeling.
Anyone who demands their particular controversial story must take centre-stage is being counter-productive. It's really down to us moderators, and I have 110% support for John White in this, to decide if it's a big enough story (such as the BBC World WTC collapse clairvoyance) to merit an appearance on the front page or in and non-controversial section of the forum.
As mods we rely on polite helpful hints from users, people such as David W J Sherlock who write angry PMs demanding their stuff be put centre stage are simply flagging themselves up as not a good people person. Like, if a user is trying to divide the mods or believes we are 'part of the conspiracy' why are they here?
TV Fakery is not "controversial" at all. If your goal is to have a united forum that ignores the evidence and puts established facts into the "controversy" section, go right ahead. I would only hope that any post that mentions a "plane" crashing into anything on September 11, 2001 would go into the controversy section as well, since it is apparent that a large and growing number of researchers understand that the plane crash story was a fiction designed to launch the war on terror.
I object to the conduct of the moderators here attacking and ridiculing posters. The only reason I condescended to post here was because of the smear campaing of lies launched by one of your moderators, who, the last time I checked is still infesting this very forum.
Is it true that you banned David Carmichael? He asked about 30 times for clarification of just what fact stated in my video was in dispute, and was ridiculed by several hundred posts from your moderators here. That's not a "truth" campaign of any sort. I'm pleased that you've taken a firm stand against Censorship, Ian, and I trust that you'll do the right thing and either allow the TV Fakery evidence in the main forum, or move the "plane crash" official story propaganda into the "Controversies" section.
That's only fair.
Fred you are absolutely right
Anything that mentions planes crashing into buildings must go into controversies
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 1:38 pm Post subject:
Fred wrote:
TV Fakery is not "controversial" at all. >snip the usual bs<
That's only fair.
Fred, listen up.
The fact that most people know that 2+2=4, then you and your cronies come along with ridiculous claims that 2+2=5 does not make the end result of 2+2 'controversial'.
It merely demonstrates that you can't add up. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
I think Ian's description of what qualifies a "controverisal" topic answered this question quite clearly:
It is controversial if it radically divides opinion within the Campaign.
TV Fakery fits this bill, as does the thermite theory, which when I posted a lecture on recently I posted in the controversies section.
You aren't being censored Fred.
Your videos have been allowed here.
What has been dustbinned is repeated postings of the same videos over several threads, and threads with personal attacks in the title or body text.
You have posted what you wanted to put forward. A few have agreed with you, the overwhelming majority have not. Repetition is not going to suddenly turn people around.
You need to refine your argument or try another one. This constant claiming that it has been proved and calling everyone who doesn't think it has a liar is not going to get you anywhere.
It is your responsibility to make your case for your theories, no one deserves being attacked as a result of your failure to convince them.
Start again. Or (please) give up. _________________
If you PM me about the threads that appear outside controversies that you consider controversial I will have a look at them. Discussion about whether there were or were not planes on 9/11 are normally placed in controversies.
I agree there is a growing number of people who are convinced by TV fakery and associated theories, but unless you can show otherwise these people are still a minority and the issue remains highly devisive amongst campaigners and so will remain in controversies.
Amongst the current moderators there are those who agree with you and others who disagree. They post as individuals. There is no co-ordinated effort to censor you. Just individuals who disagree with you including John
Now I ask again other than our decision to have a controversies section what specific actions do you believe amounts to censorship.
I accept that you honestly believe you have proven the CNN footage to be fake. I also accept that there are others who honestly find that you have not.
Clearly you appear unable to really get your head around the fact that this forum does not endorse any one theory or presentation of the evidence.
But imagine that we did and we endorsed your theories and presentations, presumably you would then expect the moderators to censor anyone who challenges the 'truth'. That's not how the forum works. Get used to it
Fred
I agree there is a growing number of people who are convinced by TV fakery and associated theories, but unless you can show otherwise these people are still a minority and the issue remains highly devisive amongst campaigners and so will remain in controversies.
Wow!
What a paragraph.
theories
convinced by TV fakery
these people are still a minority
highly devisive
campaigners
controversies
You will only accept that TV Fakery isnt controversial if Fred can show that people who know that the media images of plane crashes on 9/11 were faked are a majority?
Also you suggesting that because the issue is divisive amongst campaigners that it is therefore controversial. Well, i ask, whos campaign and what campaign is it?
Seems to me that these campaigners will endorse any old nonsense as long as a majority agree on it.
By your standards the least controversial issue is the official story. The majority of the public, UK and US agree with it and the majority of scientific community agree with it yet you place that within a special thread.
Which ever way one cuts it, this forum is cherry picking evidence and issues to suit its own 'campaign' and prefers debatable issues rather than blatant in-your-face facts.
Quote:
Posts which try to ridicule, reject or deny evidence or support the official story will be moved to a special area of the forum when moderators have the time to pick them up
do you reject evidence?
do you deny evidence?
clearly you dont support the official story of hijacked planes flying into the twin towers, do you?
These are the terms of the forum and it is clear you are ignoring them.
I am not challenging anyone or saying anything isn't true = merely I keep seeing 'TV fakery', and we all know the medium we are watching this by, some 5.5 years post-event.
What evidence is there that 100% proves beyond any doubt that CNN or in fact any TV station/network has manipulated or changed or removed or added any elements that were broadcast via televisions sets to national or global viewers?
In other words, how do we know that any of the footage with a 'CNN' logo on it is in any way genuine as it went out on the day on national TV?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
