Heavy Handed Censorship Continues at "Truth" Sites

[Miss Anthropy]

[telecasterisation]

[Dogsmilk]

[Killtown]

You are right Fred, this forum just closed my thread just for asking simple questions about what was the deal between you and White:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=8829


Looks like this forum is going the way of LC forum.

[Fred]

John White started his campaign of lies and slander against me before I even found the photo he now claims is fake on the net. His original lie was that I was in the completely wrong location and shooting from the wrong angle. Then he lied and said 19 Rector Street was not 19 Rector Street. His lies never stop.

When David Carmichael asked more than 30 times for John White to indicate what was wrong with the 40-plus location shots I made available to everyone on the internet, John then started a NEW campaign of lies and switched the subject to a photograph taken on 9/11.

So take your moral relativism somehwere else, please. I don't want to hear about it. John White is a liar and Ian White should not allow him as a moderator on this site. The only reason he's still here is because this site is designed to help the perpetrators get away with their crimes, or because Ian Neal is spineless and won't remove the cancer that has taken over his forum. There's no two ways about it.

[KP50]

[marky 54]

there are two types of people on this forum.

1. those who agree

2. those who disagree

which catergory people fit under is never the same dependant on the subject however everyone will fit under one of those catergorys.

i often agree with people who i disagree with on other subjects, welcome to debate and opinon, get use to it.

it seems that the only issue or the real problem some have is ONLY with the people who disagree with "evidence" when it comes to no planes/tv fakery.

everyone disagrees about something and could also be labelled the way you lot have labelled those who disagree with tv fakery etc, for example you disagree there were planes does that make you a gatekeeper to the truth in my eyes?

seriously your starting to sound like a stuck record and i think you just have a grudge with those who disagree with you, what you expected to be differant when ever you started to post on forums and debate evidence ill never know.

fred and others have said some nasty things that are not true yet claim others are liars whilst painting a picture of perfection for themselves, this is getting stupid and it is starting to become obvious what the goal is here.

as fred said in a differant thread "if you researched the real evidence maybe YOUR LITTLE CAMPAGIN might get of the ground"

so i take it the opposite is true, as fred totally sounds like a critic and someone who has a dislike for 9/11 truth. "YOUR LITTLE CAMPAGIN" dosnt sound like a truth seeker to me.

[Witchfinder General]

[ian neal]

Right enough of this nonsense

FYI even before any of this kicked off John had indicated his intention to step down as a moderator and is planning to do so at the end of the month. One of the reasons for this is that he wishes to be free to speak his own truth and partly because he has given considerable time and energy over the past 6 months to moderating this forum calmly and even handedly and wishes a break. Thank you John for all your help.

Now when moderators post here they do so in a personal capacity, as we all do. Just because one moderator has an honest disagreement with you does not mean this forum is biased against you or that there has been any censorship.

If there are multiple threads started on the same topic or whose sole purpose is to attack another user then you should expect them to end up in the bin and locked. This is not censorship, it is good moderation.

But this isn't about John is it? If it wasn't John you were referring to as a liar and a baby rapist (if I remember), you would be attacking others who disagree with you in an equally forthright manner. It seems you just cannot accept that a forum such as this does not endorse any one theory or presentation of the evidence and that the moderation here does not favour supporters of any particular camp. This has always been the driving principle of this network long before anyone had heard of TV fakery or Judith Woods.

So John will be stepping down as moderaqtor, but not because of anything you have said.

I have said elsewhere that in my opinion John should not have said that you Fred are a faker or fraud. He has since clarified that in his opinion you used a faked photo in your evidence. Now you say he has not proven the photo is fake and that's where it currently rests. An honest (and I believe it is honest) difference of opinion.

So stop the name calling. Either agree to disagree with John or engage in a polite discussion of the evidence and trust people with enough intelligence to make up their own minds. If your evidence is so compelling, so proven, others will reach this conclusion soon enough. If not, maybe there is something wrong with the evidence or the way it is presented. Either way, don't expect an endorsement or opinion one way or the other from this forum. We don't do endorsements.

At present there are only two moderators who are currently active and who have the ability to ban a user. They are myself and Andrew Johnson and I only received this privalege last week. As you will know Andrew is supportive of many of the controversial theories. So I can assure you that there has been no censorship of controversial theories and there will continue to be no censorship.

So I feel I have dealt with your concerns regarding

John White
Censorship
Bias

Elsewhere I have answered the accusations that this site promotes certain theories (we don't) and explained why we have a controversies section and why TV fakery is there.

[ian neal]

[Killtown]

[Fred]

Well, I think John's reassignment is for the best. I hope that this forum will be a place where people can read and post the truth without getting shouted down by agents of influence whose only goal is to manipulate sincere people. If it's no longer necessary to fight fire with fire in order to make a point, that will be a clear benefit for everyone. If the lies and slander are finally coming to an end, it's better late than never. I hope that the many clone accounts will be closed as well now that the "evidance" has been universally acknowledged. Although John never apologized, he must know that he failed to silence those who stand for truth.

In point of fact, Ian is absolutely right that the evidence for TV Fakery will cause public opinion to turn against the perpetrators of the 9/11 Media Hoax. Those who actively assisted the perpetrators should ask for immunity from prosecution in exchange for information about how the hoax was conducted. In time this will all be sorted out and go down as a particularly sad chapter of history.

Fred

[zark]

[Andrew Johnson]

[ian neal]

Well that might be the conclusion you draw Fred, but like I say, John had talked to me about stepping down over a month ago, during the time his own forum was under attack, so it is unrelated to recent events or to your calls for him to step down. John didn't weasle his way into a position of moderator. He stepped forward because I asked him to do so based on his previous experience and approach to moderating other forums and this invitation was backed by other moderators. I am very grateful for his time and energy that he gave to this and contrary to what you may conclude I know him to be entirely honest in his opposition to your theories.

He will of course be free to continue posting in a personal capacity, but given that all users (whether they are moderators or not) post in personal capacity, there is no great change there. You may find other moderators speak in support or to challenge your theories. You should read nothing into this, since all they are doing is expressing their own views.

As for the accusation that John runs multiple accounts, there is no evidence of this and as I say above, to my mind your differences are nothing more than an honest difference of opinion. Clearly John has failed to change your mind, but equally you have not changed his. Things may have been said that need not have been said before, but to my mind responsibility for this is shared. As long as these discussions are conducted politely without repetition of past accusations, things hopefully will settle down and there will be need for any moderation.

Zark, the point I was making is that the inclusion of a topic in controversies is defined by the whether or not a topic is particularly contentious and devisive amongst 9/11 campaigners ie the whole 9/11 truth movement.

Ultimately what is and is not considered most contentious is subjective, but I have previously listed the subjects that I feel most divide opinion within the movement and pretty clearly TV fakery is one of those issues.

[Stefan]

[chek]

[marky 54]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Stefan]

[John White]

[WhoKilledBambi?]

[John White]

what claims?

[Fred]

"I haven't seen any evidence" -- it's only because you're not looking. It is very easy to get started looking at the evidence for yourself.

1. Install Virtualdub from sf.net
2. Install Super and DownloadHelper
3. Download videos from http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html or any other site of your choosing
4. Convert videos to .avi format using Super
5. Open the .avi files in Virtualdub and go through frame by frame.

Go back and forth between frames and see if what's on the video is physically possible. For example, if there is an explosion and some falling debris, it is not physically possible that the explosion and the debris stand still for 20 frames in a row, while the camera angle changes. Of course, it is possible to animate 20 frames of a video using a still background image of an explosion and falling debris, but it's not possible that such an event actually occured (time does not stand still while the cameraman zooms in or out on a picture.) Watch how the smoke moves and think of the underlying physical process that must be at work. For example, if the smoke suddenly jumps in one frame and spells "9/11" ask yourself what could have happened that would explain that. Would the wind suddenly draw the smoke into the shape of numbers in just a few frames of video? Would the wind stop so that those numbers were visible for 10 frames in a row?

I think you'll find that there's a lot of highly unusual and surprising features of the 9/11 footage that are barely noticible when watched at 30 frames per second.

After that, contrast the various videos that are supposed to be an honest representation of what happened on 9/11, and see whether or not they depict the same event.

I think you'll find it eye-opening.

Cheers,

Fred

[John White]

So, being as the case to be made is to be made frame by frame, and not by watching video at ordinary speed, when are you going to be producing frame by frame presentations Fred?

Don't you think presenting your strongest evidence for fakery might be beneficial to your case? Its interesting that you now support my comment that evidence is best presented as still images

Being as you must already have done what you propose, if you are able to confidently state that this is where proof is to be found, is it reasonable of you to withold this evidence and send truth seekers off to spend hours of their own time "peering down a rabbit hole"?

Surely, if you have found a genuine TV Fakery smoking gun, you would be keen to use it as quickly as possible

[chek]

And of course - leaving your leading suggested impressions aside for now - you can, though no doubt won't explain exactly what the (at least) three compression stages actually do to the image. That's the original source to MPEG2 > Flash > and probably Xvid or DivX (movement dependent codecs) as a minimum.

Though I realise "researchers" don't 'do' technical understandings.
Why should you, when there's so many gullible non-technicians waiting to lap up each and every nonsense quality video clip? It's so much more exciting to be 'on to something'.

I haven't checked your suggested source as my work network blocks Killtown's site as "Non-Traditional Religions and Occult and Folklore", which sounds about right.

[Stefan]

While I appreciate your change in tone to one more polite Fred, I've just spent half an hour trying to download those programmes with no luck, and am now thinking - which video am I supposed to be looking at and which frame does "9/11 appear" in the smoke and wondering if I am going to spend several days looking for what is a result of the creative imagination?

"That cloud looks like a sheepy!"

I'd request that you present these images to us now, so no one has to go through the drawn out process of downloading several programmes and films and watching every frame of them to decide if you have something here.

At least this latest post of yours is a tacit admission that the films you have presented us so far are in fact no sufficient to claim as evidence or proof, which is all I've been saying all along.

[zark]

[Stefan]

Zark,
Ease off on the insults there, Fred's actually started to respond in a civil tone it would be nice if the rest of you followed his lead.

A few points:

[chek]