Site censorship?

[MadgeB]

Fred at 911researchers.com wanted to join in a particular debate on this site but says that he is not allowed to register. Is he being censored? Can any mods answer the question as to whether people are vetted, and rejected if their views are already known to not tally with 'the party line'?

I hope that is not the case and that the issue with Fred is just some sort of admin problem which can be quickly solved, but I think this needs to be cleared up. Thanks.

[ian neal]

Not aware of that. No censorship on the grounds a user being linked to 9/11 researchers or any other 9/11 group. Fred would be welcome. Suggest he contacts Andrew Johnson or JHR re log on problems

[chek]

Before going to too much trouble though, it might be worth letting 'Fred' know we get quite enough No Planes spam already, thanks

[WhoKilledBambi?]

Fred gets 911 youtube vid of the year from me. ACe work dude.


Link

[John White]

He made that?

LOL!

Looking forward to this wunderkind turning up in Controversies

[cynic]

[John White]

[Witchfinder General]

Army psy ops at CNN

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17437

[flamesong]

[MadgeB]

People often get banned on all sorts of sites for being offensive, and I don't object to that (how wonderful it is without Patrick Brown) - the difference here is that the person in question couldn't actually get to make a post in the first place.

[flamesong]

[ian neal]

madge, i've already said fred is not banned from registering because of his views. I don't know what the problem is. I suggest he contacts AJ who as one of the site admins may be able to advise him

[Fallious]

All signs point to this guy being an indescribably dense tele tubby.



A fine and upstanding member of the NPT brotherhood, no doubt.

[John White]

[flamesong]

[MadgeB]

Yeah, I posted your initial response on the 911researchers site, thanks Ian. I then responded to a claim that banning would be the same as vetting.

I see Fallious is doing the usual job of resorting to insults when losing ground. Here's some of what he was failing to respond to in Witchfinder General's link above:

"Army 'psyops' at CNN
News giant employed military 'psychological operations' personnel
Posted: March 3, 2000 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Geoff Metcalf
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

CNN employed active duty U.S. Army psychological operations personnel last year, WorldNetDaily has confirmed through several sources at Fort Bragg and elsewhere.

Maj. Thomas Collins, U.S. Information Service has confirmed that "psyops" (psychological operations) personnel, soldiers and officers, have worked in the CNN headquarters in Atlanta. The lend/lease exercise was part of an Army program called "Training With Industry." According to Collins, the soldiers and officers, "... worked as regular employees of CNN. Conceivably, they would have worked on stories during the Kosovo war. They helped in the production of news."

"When asked if the introduction of military personnel into a civilian news organization was standard operating procedure, one source said, "That question is above my pay grade ... but I hope so. It's what we do."

"The CNN military personnel were members of the Airmobile Fourth Psychological Operations Group, stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. One of the main tasks of this group of almost 1200 soldiers and officers is to spread 'selected information.' Critics say that means dissemination of propaganda."

No doubt they managed a few TV-fakery rehearsals while they were at it.

[John White]

so Madge B:

are you conceeding that there is no censorship on this site?

YES or NO?

(censorship on 9/11 researchers already being conceeded as a fact and a moot point)

[MadgeB]

John White - There is obviously a distinction between (a) banning people for offensive posts, and (b) vetting or not allowing people to post in the first place. (a) is obviously not unheard-of both on this site and elsewhere, but I won't know about (b) until Fred either starts posting here or reports back on what the problem is. As I said, I hope it was just a glitch.

BTW I’m sure you’ll be glad to know that ‘the indescribably dense’ Fred (as the unoriginal spacewaster Fallious calls him) has also done some original research on military PsyOps. See Manipulation of the Media by the Military: Constructing a Fantasy World for the Viewer. http://www.911researchers.com/node/12

Here are a few quotes from research commissioned by the Pentagon and British Ministry of Defence before 9/11:
- “The issue is whether the Western media, most obviously that of the United States, can be manipulated in order to bring about a military deployment; and if so, how this can be done.” Manipulating The Media - Stephen Badsey, British Ministry of Defence.
- “Film or video messages are markedly effective (and preferred to less vivid media) in teaching factual knowledge, are accepted as accurate, and are not perceived as propaganda. Emotional (fear-inducing) appeals are persuasive when they are truly frightful, suggest effective actions to reduce the fear-arousing threat, and the recipients believe that they are able to perform the suggested action.”
- “US forces must be capable of responding to media demands for instantaneous information, and of using the rapid transmission of data to its advantage. This magnifies the importance of tending to image considerations. . . . But it also suggests the need for greater information dominance and for some thought about how modern, real-time news reporting can be used to US advantage in future military operations.
People like pictures, and the believability of video makes pictures more convincing than words: moving pictures "seem utterly real”… People tend to believe what they see on video as positive proof.” Winning CNN Wars, Parameters, Autumn 1994."

Fred's is pioneering research, illuminating what really happened on 9/11. I'm sorry some people here would rather that remained hidden.

[xmasdale]

[chek]

So in the year 2007, after everything that's happened, 'Fred' has discovered that the corporate media is directed, manipulated and controlled - sometimes directly by government agencies.

Amazing and informative, if rather old not to mention tired news.

99.999999% of people already know TV is fake.
The way that it's faked is by being selective with what is shown - not by CGI.

I'd have thought that after the tree debacle, 'Fred' might have learned that objective analysis isn't his strongest suit.

[flamesong]

MadgeB, none of this is new.

Everybody knows about Aldous Huxley's book, 'Brave New World', published in 1932 but few are aware of the book he wrote twenty-six years later in 1958, Brave New World Revisited in which he evaluated the predictions the novel made.

I have read it several times and each time it chills me. There is nothing which you quoted here as recent research which was not already germinating in the mind of a writer of fiction 75 years ago and endorsed by the same mind as a philosopher 49 years ago:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brave-World-Revisited-Aldous-Huxley/dp/0099458 233

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World#Brave_New_World_Revisited

But from what I can see, the mythical Fred and his cronies, such as yourself, are actually trying to exploit the techniques you mentioned in an effort to brainwash people into swallowing your ludicrous theories.

This whole censorship deal is just a mind game.

[MadgeB]

Duuuh, chek - You obviously didn't quite grasp the fact that the whole point of the research commissioned by the military was to look at how best to win support for war - focusing on the manipulation of images, especially video, in real-time, using TV news, as that is believed by the population in general.

Stating that, "The way that it's faked is by being selective with what is shown - not by CGI" does not amount to a rebuttal.

[MadgeB]

OK, so I guess the conclusion is that the US military employs all these people for Psychological Operations, puts them into CNN newsrooms in the year before 9/11, teaches them how to manipulate TV news videos to win support for the so-called War on Terror, and then decides - oh no, wait - Aldous Huxley wrote about that a long time ago, so let's not bother.

[flamesong]

[John White]

[MadgeB]

Well it’s really quite simple, isn’t it? If you’re a bit upset about Fred ‘basking in reflected glory’, all you have to do (as was said on the other thread debating this) is produce some video footage that has the same buildings in the same alignment as in the CNN footage. That would be the end of the argument.

In the meanwhile, we have plenty of new footage and some images from the day (http://www.911researchers.com/node/428) showing that the CNN shot is impossible - added to the stationary black smoke, added to the fact that the ghostplane goes into the building intact, added to the delayed fireball, added to the nose-out shots, added to the long shot that shows the explosion and no plane, side-by-side with the same long shot showing the cut-out plane silhouette in place, added to no plane debris, added to no black box, added to no air crash investigation, added to the military embedded in CNN and looking at real-time manipulation of TV news broadcast because people believe it uncritically as ‘fact’ - the list goes on. All in all, no credible evidence whatsoever of a plane hitting the building and plenty of evidence to show TV-fakery.

Flamesong waffling about TV adverts doesn’t come anywhere near close to dealing with the issues.

[John White]

Your a believer.

'Nuff said

[flamesong]

[MadgeB]

John, you do sound uncannily like someone supporting the official 9/11 story arguing with a sceptic. "Oh, you conspiracy theorists are all the same, you just want to believe your little plots and there’s no reasoning with you. Never mind the evidence - there’s really nothing to see here. Move along please."

I suggest that watching this short vid will allow people to make up their own mind whether flamesong's statement bears any relation to the truth, amongst other things. (The link didn't seem to come out properly last time.) http://www.911researchers.com/node/428

[flamesong]