Submitted by juandelacruz on Thu, 2009-05-14 03:20.
Hi G,
Can you assemble a compendium for censor slimeballs like this guy and Huffington and Kos? They should be shamed publicly for controlling the information that reaches the public.
There are a lot of obvious ones, like the well known "debunkers", but probably a lot like this wikipedia guy who are flying under the radar. Can people come up with as many names as they can think of and post in comments? I can then start working on a standard format for their profiles...
Submitted by juandelacruz on Fri, 2009-05-15 01:00.
I dont consider A Huffington a debunker per se, but she has admitted that her site maintains a policy to censor 9-11 posts and comments. I think the same holds at Kos. I will post info on them which is easy enough to find.
You can throw John Amato of Crooksandliars.com into that phony liberal gatekeeper pool. I was banned years ago for posting 9/11 comments on that site, along with many other people. He actually used the-"I know somebody who died on 9/11" excuse to engage in rampant censorship of all 9/11 comments. Pathetic.
I should like to emphasize that the purpose of compiling such a list is absolutely not to encourage any kind of harassment or other mistreatment of the people who will be included. It is instead intended to provide an accurate historical record for posterity so that even if it is not realistic to hold them accountable in a legal sense, the fact that they were so wrong and caused so much harm intentionally or not will be public knowledge and will hopefully encourage people to take anything they say in the future with a grain of salt.
Chomksy yes and Zinn yes, based on in my opinion that he more than backtracked, he outright said-"it doesnt matter even if it is" a la Chomsky didnt he? Its almost like Chomsky or one of his acolytes got to him he sounded so similar. He also of course went with the Chomsky favorite that it-"distracts" from other issues. Because Chomsky has gotten so much done and has really slowed down the empire he and Zinn oppose so much right? I regret ever buying "A Peoples History of the US" because of his statements on 9/11 as of late(among other reasons).
Jon Gold is not a demolition denier as much as he is a demolition detractor. And however much I dislike his brand of truthing I don't think he deserves to be on this particular list...
I agree(I was the one who gave the example of Amato and C&L by the way-I think I set a record for number of times banned from that site before I just gave up on it), people shouldnt misconstrue this as some sort of "witch hunt" or anything, but they should know that what they say, if they have any kind of prominence in media and political circles(even online) matters and people like us will take notice. And so will the historical record.
 About Penn and Teller, I obviously couldnt agree more based on pretending Hufschmid was about all the 9/11 movement had(and regardless of his obvious faults and likely status as a "professional", they were completely unnfair), but damn, I didnt know they helped to fund JREF, thats interesting.Â
An old hoax living on. It's clear that this whole bit just arose over Bollyn playing on different usages of the word "cousin." One definition that is sometimes used identifies people as cousins of the nth order if they share a common ancestor removed from each of them by n + 1 generations. A stricter defintion uses the word "cousin" only in relation to what the broader definition would label as "first-cousins," i.e., the sharing of a common grandparent. Obviously Bollyn got this woman to say something which involved the word "cousin" without ever clarifying whether this meant "first-cousin," second-cousin or something else. If they are really related I haven't been able to track it in the genealogy records yet:
Bollyn was being irresponsible by failing to ask Judy "are they actually cousins first removed?" and simply running off with the "cousin" quote.
It's also very misleading for Bollyn to repeat the "senior researcher" claim as if that were some type of title. He was the research editor of the PM magazine at the time, but he was one of 9 reporters on the story.
...to simply say flat out "THEY ARE NOT RELATED". If they could, they already would have. Ergo, when Ben's mom said they were cousins, she meant they were family, whichever way you define cousins. Also, how long before he served as the senior researcher on the 9/11 story had Ben Chertoff been employed by Popular Mechanics? You may want people to believe this is yet another innocent and meaningless coincidence of the kind of which there are so many in the story of 9/11 and its cover up, but of course you would, wouldn't you.
Of course they're probably distantly related. Benjamin Chertoff has suggested that himself quite openly. The point is they've not first-cousins, have never had any personal relations and don't know each other. Benjamin Chertoff's paternal grandfather was Moishe Chertoff
since Benjamin Chertoff comes from the Andrew Elan Chertoff branch and Michael Chertoff from the Mordechai Chertoff branch, but there is probably is a common connection somewhere back there. But it's clear that their common name does not originate from a shared grandfather.
It's really lame of Bollyn to pull a hoax like this. You know that if a normal woman is called up and asked whether her son is related to someone who works around the President's office she's going to have an incentive to want to hype the "yes, my boy has relatives in big places" without first thinking that it might be interpreted in an incriminating way. That's a real reporter's job is supposed to involve calmly following up the question by seeking to clarify such things as "Now, ma'am, I'd just like to clarify if they're actually first-cousins who have known each other in the past or not." There's no reason to give away anything more about who he is or what his goal as a reporter may be. Just ironing out the details in a professional way would be good enough.
B. Chertoff joined PM in September 2004 and the famous issue came out in March 2005. Nothing odd about that. Remember, contrary to another hoax made up by Bollyn, he was not the "senior researcher" on the March 2005 piece. He was one of 9 reporters on the story, along with a bunch of other copy editors, layout designers, production managers, fact-checkers, and what not. The six-month gap between his joining PM and the later publication only sounds noteworthy if you imagine B. Chertoff as having some supreme authority over the contents of what went into the March 2005 article. Since he did not possess any such supreme editorial jurisdiction the whole thing is meaningless.
This is another good example of how Bollyn uses leading questions in a way that is altogether unprofessional for a reporter. The way Bollyn led into this was he asked "Were you the senior researcher on the story?" and B. Chertoff just said "I guess so." He probably wasn't sure what Bollyn was driving at. A professional way of approaching the matter would have been for Bollyn to simply ask for clarification of B. Chertoff's exact duties on the job as described in his own words, inquiring as to whether or not he held any special titles in his capacity. As it is Bollyn just made up the phrase "senior researcher" and after getting B. Chertoff to utter "I guess so" he passed it along to his readers as if this were a genuinely verified official position when it clearly is not. Just another example of how dishonest Bollyn can be.
Submitted by juandelacruz on Fri, 2009-05-15 14:55.
The supercars.net forum mods locked my account when I posted 9-11 info in a thread that somebody else started. I don't know which mod locked my account.
A filairsoft.com forum mod threatened me with bodily injury when I posted 9-11 info in response to several moderator's questions about 9-11. I have this particular thread saved up in a screen print to file before the whole thread was deleted.
Submitted by juandelacruz on Fri, 2009-05-15 16:59.
At the left-leaning HuffingtonPost.com, which got 600,000 comments last month, the site has a paid staff of 30 full-time and part-time moderators who work in shifts around-the-clock to filter each blog comment. They also “post-moderate†the comments attached to news stories appearing on the site.
While there are certain computer technologies that can flag inappropriate comments based on key words, Huff Post Editor in Chief Arianna Huffington says that it still requires a human eye to keep the comments in line with her site’s posting policies.
“There are certain obvious things we have, certain specific things,†says Huffington. “Conspiracy theories — we don’t allow conspiracy theories. If you thought Sept. 11 was caused by the Bush administration, your comment is not going to appear unless it is a mistake.â€
DailyKos accepts that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by agents of Al-Qaeda. It is forbidden to write diaries that:
1. refer to claims that American, British, Israeli, or any government assisted in the attacks
2. refer to claims that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC and Pentagon were not the cause of the damage to those buildings or their subsequent collapse.
Authoring or recommending these diaries may result in banning from Daily Kos.
and yes, he is in. top ten, imho... we should probably include the usual suspects from all the forums... Kos has "Mia Dolan" among many others, Alternet has "EncinoM", "GuitarBill", et al, my fave at Amazon is "Suetonius", and I have to look up to remember the guy on the Dawkins skeptoid forum... [edit: he is "Econ41", also added link -gReT] Oh, and speaking of skeptoids--Michael Shermer! And Jim Meigs. And Davin Coburn.
Then there's the "professional" debunkers like Mark Roberts, etc...
David Corn, formerly of CIA fake left rag The Nation, currently Washington Editor of Mother Jones(yet another magazine i was forced to stop buying).
And Micheal Shermer might be the single most annoying person on the planet with his shit eating grin thats always plastered on his smug know it all face while he spews his "conventional wisdom". God I hate that man, almost as much as I hate Gerald Posner. Add him too,haha.
Submitted by juandelacruz on Wed, 2009-05-20 01:56.
A recent event at DailyKos underlines the policy to ban 9-11 discussion. Markos personally banned a longtime contributor for suggesting a LIHOP angle on 9-11. Another contributor started a poll on who wanted the banned diarist to be reinstated with the following results:
Should Tocquedeville be unbanned?
Yes 67% 5588 votes
No 32% 2741 votes
total 8329 votes
This is as clear a message as any that Markos is controlling 9-11 info against the wishes of his site's users.
As an anarchist, it concerns me that the New York City Independent Media Center has been consistently removing any posts (OR EVEN COMMENTS!) regarding issues pertaining to the 9/11 Truth Movement.
As someone who has frequented the IMC network since almost its inception during the Seattle WTO uprisings, it pains me to see how an IMC site can censor the most crucial topic of our time: discovering the hidden truths about what took place on 9/11 and how the Commission's final report omitted and distorted much of the credible evidence that was available.
Why is the NYC IMC consistently removing any article having to do with this topic? Please prove me wrong by NOT removing this post. Otherwise, I will post this very article on every IMC site in the nation as a call to keep a hawk's eye-view on the NYC IMC and how it relates (by not accepting) any posts OR EVEN REPLIES that openly question the reality of 9/11/01. It appears as though the NYC IMC is attempting to black this issue out, making one wonder if those who now run this site are responsible, having insider knowledge about U.S. government complicity in 9/11. If so, you are now marked.
Come forward and tell the truth instead of running from it. The first and fourth amendments are at stake. And with the Patriot Act, we cannot afford to silence dissent, especially on a forum with the stated goal of opposing the suppression of free speech. This isn't intended to be spam or trolling, this is a legitimate concern from someone who's been actively involved in the Global Justice movement almost since its North American inception.
This article has been saved and is pending the outcome of what happens to this post as to whether it'll be posted on every U.S. IMC site, and perhaps others. The 9/11 Truth movement is about to make a huge "coming out" party and if this does indeed occur, the NYC IMC will have a very bright light cast onto it...
(I found this while googling around, no endorsement of this website implied)
"Criticism of 9/11 conspiracy theories" is one of his main themes, according to wikipedia.
His htpieces seem to get published all around the globe in various languages
...between active deniers and "fake truthers", at least for now. maybe it's my love of categories but I really think that they are worth keeping on separate lists...
Hi G, Can you assemble a
Hi G,
Can you assemble a compendium for censor slimeballs like this guy and Huffington and Kos? They should be shamed publicly for controlling the information that reaches the public.
sure, how about some nominations?
There are a lot of obvious ones, like the well known "debunkers", but probably a lot like this wikipedia guy who are flying under the radar. Can people come up with as many names as they can think of and post in comments? I can then start working on a standard format for their profiles...
I dont consider A Huffington
I dont consider A Huffington a debunker per se, but she has admitted that her site maintains a policy to censor 9-11 posts and comments. I think the same holds at Kos. I will post info on them which is easy enough to find.
You can throw John Amato of
You can throw John Amato of Crooksandliars.com into that phony liberal gatekeeper pool. I was banned years ago for posting 9/11 comments on that site, along with many other people. He actually used the-"I know somebody who died on 9/11" excuse to engage in rampant censorship of all 9/11 comments. Pathetic.
excellent, keep em coming!
I should like to emphasize that the purpose of compiling such a list is absolutely not to encourage any kind of harassment or other mistreatment of the people who will be included. It is instead intended to provide an accurate historical record for posterity so that even if it is not realistic to hold them accountable in a legal sense, the fact that they were so wrong and caused so much harm intentionally or not will be public knowledge and will hopefully encourage people to take anything they say in the future with a grain of salt.
Penn & Teller
Candidates for top 10 position on the list are Penn & Teller.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I
Video watched 1,295,684 times!
As a reminder, P & T financially supported Debunker Central, a.k.a. the James Randi JREF-forum.
DEFINITELY Penn and Teller
yes.
chris matthews
remember the 911-was-an-inside-job  bullhorn crowd seen and heard right behind him during the dem convention?
CNN's Paula Zahn and Larry King
9/11 classic: http://www.youtube.com/v/bB6nDk_FEBs&hl=nl&fs=1
Pure propaganda.
agree
n/t
Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky do not care about who was behind 9/
Howard Zinn in Montreal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WXU4eir-i8
Noam Chomsky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFtHEP_fyyg
Chomsky yes, but Zinn?
I think Zinn deserves a break because he did endorse DRG's books, even if he backpedaled that surely helped us reach a lot of people...
I think Zinn deserves it.....
Chomksy yes and Zinn yes, based on in my opinion that he more than backtracked, he outright said-"it doesnt matter even if it is" a la Chomsky didnt he? Its almost like Chomsky or one of his acolytes got to him he sounded so similar. He also of course went with the Chomsky favorite that it-"distracts" from other issues. Because Chomsky has gotten so much done and has really slowed down the empire he and Zinn oppose so much right? I regret ever buying "A Peoples History of the US" because of his statements on 9/11 as of late(among other reasons).
Jon Gold: WTC demolition denier
Jon announced his departure from 911blogger a few days ago... to return today:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20098
ehhhh...
Jon Gold is not a demolition denier as much as he is a demolition detractor. And however much I dislike his brand of truthing I don't think he deserves to be on this particular list...
O'Reilly compares 9/11 truth to Nazi's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMbCgCT09JU
O'Reilly Calls Willie Nelson a Pinhead Over 9/11 Remarks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSByug87_gY
Geraldo Rivera gave the "9/11 Truth" The Finger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_l1LvSoD48
FOX: GERALDO MOCKS 9/11 TRUTH PROTESTERS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx9YPi6bcjg
yeah and he also insinuated we are domestic terrorists
and he's just so slimy all around...
I agree(I was the one who
I agree(I was the one who gave the example of Amato and C&L by the way-I think I set a record for number of times banned from that site before I just gave up on it), people shouldnt misconstrue this as some sort of "witch hunt" or anything, but they should know that what they say, if they have any kind of prominence in media and political circles(even online) matters and people like us will take notice. And so will the historical record.
 About Penn and Teller, I obviously couldnt agree more based on pretending Hufschmid was about all the 9/11 movement had(and regardless of his obvious faults and likely status as a "professional", they were completely unnfair), but damn, I didnt know they helped to fund JREF, thats interesting.Â
Ben Chertoff (Popular Mechanics)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlurmJzQmzE
Interview Ben Chertoff with Alex Jones.
Intro Bollyn met Jones.
'Could not remember' that he was a nephew of Michael Chertoff.
An old hoax living on. It's
An old hoax living on. It's clear that this whole bit just arose over Bollyn playing on different usages of the word "cousin." One definition that is sometimes used identifies people as cousins of the nth order if they share a common ancestor removed from each of them by n + 1 generations. A stricter defintion uses the word "cousin" only in relation to what the broader definition would label as "first-cousins," i.e., the sharing of a common grandparent. Obviously Bollyn got this woman to say something which involved the word "cousin" without ever clarifying whether this meant "first-cousin," second-cousin or something else. If they are really related I haven't been able to track it in the genealogy records yet:
http://chertoff.netfirms.com/mordcher/html/dat0.htm
Bollyn was being irresponsible by failing to ask Judy "are they actually cousins first removed?" and simply running off with the "cousin" quote.
It's also very misleading for Bollyn to repeat the "senior researcher" claim as if that were some type of title. He was the research editor of the PM magazine at the time, but he was one of 9 reporters on the story.
no one, including Popular Mechanics, has been willing (or able)
...to simply say flat out "THEY ARE NOT RELATED". If they could, they already would have. Ergo, when Ben's mom said they were cousins, she meant they were family, whichever way you define cousins. Also, how long before he served as the senior researcher on the 9/11 story had Ben Chertoff been employed by Popular Mechanics? You may want people to believe this is yet another innocent and meaningless coincidence of the kind of which there are so many in the story of 9/11 and its cover up, but of course you would, wouldn't you.
Of course they're probably
Of course they're probably distantly related. Benjamin Chertoff has suggested that himself quite openly. The point is they've not first-cousins, have never had any personal relations and don't know each other. Benjamin Chertoff's paternal grandfather was Moishe Chertoff
http://chertoff.netfirms.com/andrewch/html/dat0.htm
and Michael Chertoff's paternal grandfather was Paul Chertoff:
http://chertoff.netfirms.com/mordcher/html/dat0.htm
They come out of different branches of the Chertoff family
http://chertoff.netfirms.com/chertoff_name_index.htm
since Benjamin Chertoff comes from the Andrew Elan Chertoff branch and Michael Chertoff from the Mordechai Chertoff branch, but there is probably is a common connection somewhere back there. But it's clear that their common name does not originate from a shared grandfather.
It's really lame of Bollyn to pull a hoax like this. You know that if a normal woman is called up and asked whether her son is related to someone who works around the President's office she's going to have an incentive to want to hype the "yes, my boy has relatives in big places" without first thinking that it might be interpreted in an incriminating way. That's a real reporter's job is supposed to involve calmly following up the question by seeking to clarify such things as "Now, ma'am, I'd just like to clarify if they're actually first-cousins who have known each other in the past or not." There's no reason to give away anything more about who he is or what his goal as a reporter may be. Just ironing out the details in a professional way would be good enough.
B. Chertoff joined PM in September 2004 and the famous issue came out in March 2005. Nothing odd about that. Remember, contrary to another hoax made up by Bollyn, he was not the "senior researcher" on the March 2005 piece. He was one of 9 reporters on the story, along with a bunch of other copy editors, layout designers, production managers, fact-checkers, and what not. The six-month gap between his joining PM and the later publication only sounds noteworthy if you imagine B. Chertoff as having some supreme authority over the contents of what went into the March 2005 article. Since he did not possess any such supreme editorial jurisdiction the whole thing is meaningless.
This is another good example of how Bollyn uses leading questions in a way that is altogether unprofessional for a reporter. The way Bollyn led into this was he asked "Were you the senior researcher on the story?" and B. Chertoff just said "I guess so." He probably wasn't sure what Bollyn was driving at. A professional way of approaching the matter would have been for Bollyn to simply ask for clarification of B. Chertoff's exact duties on the job as described in his own words, inquiring as to whether or not he held any special titles in his capacity. As it is Bollyn just made up the phrase "senior researcher" and after getting B. Chertoff to utter "I guess so" he passed it along to his readers as if this were a genuinely verified official position when it clearly is not. Just another example of how dishonest Bollyn can be.
The supercars.net forum mods
The supercars.net forum mods locked my account when I posted 9-11 info in a thread that somebody else started. I don't know which mod locked my account.
A filairsoft.com forum mod threatened me with bodily injury when I posted 9-11 info in response to several moderator's questions about 9-11. I have this particular thread saved up in a screen print to file before the whole thread was deleted.
Bill Maher 10/19/07 - 9/11 conspiracy nuts get manhandled
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3F5duZvjvg
Bill Maher kicks 9/11 Truthers off his show - 10/19/ ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUFFpGcsDW8
How dare you Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton threatens student for 911 comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fWSQI13Us4&feature=PlayList&p=3A34DA4E54...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdtTccXcThE&feature=PlayList&p=7C2EEBF82C...
Bill Clinton owns a crazy 9/11 conspiracy theorist
many more...
yeah, but he's probably being blackmailed...
Clintons Contra
Clintons Contra connection:
 http://www.ncoic.com.clinton.htm
 You can see why Bush Sr. wasnt so worried about losing his re-election bid in light of the fact that his skeletons would be safe no matter who won.Â
At the left-leaning
At the left-leaning HuffingtonPost.com, which got 600,000 comments last month, the site has a paid staff of 30 full-time and part-time moderators who work in shifts around-the-clock to filter each blog comment. They also “post-moderate†the comments attached to news stories appearing on the site.
While there are certain computer technologies that can flag inappropriate comments based on key words, Huff Post Editor in Chief Arianna Huffington says that it still requires a human eye to keep the comments in line with her site’s posting policies.
“There are certain obvious things we have, certain specific things,†says Huffington. “Conspiracy theories — we don’t allow conspiracy theories. If you thought Sept. 11 was caused by the Bush administration, your comment is not going to appear unless it is a mistake.â€
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11890_Page3.html
The blog does allow selective info on 9-11 (lihop) to be posted:
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2163
from DailyKos
from DailyKos FAQ
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/DailyKos_FAQ#Diaries
Controversial 9/11 Diaries
DailyKos accepts that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by agents of Al-Qaeda. It is forbidden to write diaries that:
1. refer to claims that American, British, Israeli, or any government assisted in the attacks
2. refer to claims that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC and Pentagon were not the cause of the damage to those buildings or their subsequent collapse.
Authoring or recommending these diaries may result in banning from Daily Kos.
his name is Markos Moulitsas...
and yes, he is in. top ten, imho... we should probably include the usual suspects from all the forums... Kos has "Mia Dolan" among many others, Alternet has "EncinoM", "GuitarBill", et al, my fave at Amazon is "Suetonius", and I have to look up to remember the guy on the Dawkins skeptoid forum... [edit: he is "Econ41", also added link -gReT] Oh, and speaking of skeptoids--Michael Shermer! And Jim Meigs. And Davin Coburn.
Then there's the "professional" debunkers like Mark Roberts, etc...
David Corn, formerly of CIA
David Corn, formerly of CIA fake left rag The Nation, currently Washington Editor of Mother Jones(yet another magazine i was forced to stop buying).
And Micheal Shermer might be the single most annoying person on the planet with his shit eating grin thats always plastered on his smug know it all face while he spews his "conventional wisdom". God I hate that man, almost as much as I hate Gerald Posner. Add him too,haha.
A recent event at DailyKos
A recent event at DailyKos underlines the policy to ban 9-11 discussion. Markos personally banned a longtime contributor for suggesting a LIHOP angle on 9-11. Another contributor started a poll on who wanted the banned diarist to be reinstated with the following results:
Should Tocquedeville be unbanned?
Yes 67% 5588 votes
No 32% 2741 votes
total 8329 votes
This is as clear a message as any that Markos is controlling 9-11 info against the wishes of his site's users.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/17/732564/-Daily-Kos-diarist,-Tocqu...
he is so fucked
his own users are rebelling against him - he will answer for his actions.
Matt Taibbi.
Matt Taibbi.
Yeah baby.
Then can we make them a collective Keyboard Cat video? ("You've made an ass of yourself for ALL ETERNITY!")
HA!
I love cats. That kid should probably consider punching his dad in the face though.
Fatso passed away in 1987...
So in fact the keyboard cat video is over 20 years old! Weird, huh?
Fatso the cat or the mean
Fatso the cat or the mean annoying loud guy? sorry, bad joke...
related article from indymedia.org
Taken from
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/06/129068.php
NYC IMC's censorship of 9/11 Truth movement
by 9/11 Truth seeker Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 3:12 PM
Copied and pasted from http://www.nyc.indymedia.org and is no longer viewable to the public.
As an anarchist, it concerns me that the New York City Independent Media Center has been consistently removing any posts (OR EVEN COMMENTS!) regarding issues pertaining to the 9/11 Truth Movement.
As someone who has frequented the IMC network since almost its inception during the Seattle WTO uprisings, it pains me to see how an IMC site can censor the most crucial topic of our time: discovering the hidden truths about what took place on 9/11 and how the Commission's final report omitted and distorted much of the credible evidence that was available.
Why is the NYC IMC consistently removing any article having to do with this topic? Please prove me wrong by NOT removing this post. Otherwise, I will post this very article on every IMC site in the nation as a call to keep a hawk's eye-view on the NYC IMC and how it relates (by not accepting) any posts OR EVEN REPLIES that openly question the reality of 9/11/01. It appears as though the NYC IMC is attempting to black this issue out, making one wonder if those who now run this site are responsible, having insider knowledge about U.S. government complicity in 9/11. If so, you are now marked.
Come forward and tell the truth instead of running from it. The first and fourth amendments are at stake. And with the Patriot Act, we cannot afford to silence dissent, especially on a forum with the stated goal of opposing the suppression of free speech. This isn't intended to be spam or trolling, this is a legitimate concern from someone who's been actively involved in the Global Justice movement almost since its North American inception.
This article has been saved and is pending the outcome of what happens to this post as to whether it'll be posted on every U.S. IMC site, and perhaps others. The 9/11 Truth movement is about to make a huge "coming out" party and if this does indeed occur, the NYC IMC will have a very bright light cast onto it...
(I found this while googling around, no endorsement of this website implied)
more of the same in a business forum
http://www.ewealth.com/archive/index.php/t-3454.html
Richard Roeper
remember his book?
http://books.google.com/books?id=rEJp00sYu7AC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=roeper+9...
oooo, yes. obscure but very nasty!
He's got those tell tale close-set eyes of a criminal, what's more...
Alexander Cockburn
"Criticism of 9/11 conspiracy theories" is one of his main themes, according to wikipedia.
His htpieces seem to get published all around the globe in various languages
yes, of course, and George Monbiot
for some reason they remind me of each other--I think Monbiot's hit piece was run in Cockburn's Counterpunch (in addition to Le Monde...)
Charlie Brooker
Horrible, and horribly popular in the UK, pseudo-sceptic Charlie Brooker gets my nomination for this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/september11.usa
Jim Hoffman. And his hatchet
Jim Hoffman. And his hatchet woman Victoria"Victronix"Ashley. And Arabesque. And Reprehensor. I could go on.
I think we should distinguish...
...between active deniers and "fake truthers", at least for now. maybe it's my love of categories but I really think that they are worth keeping on separate lists...
True, though in some ways
True, though in some ways they are sort of one in the same.
John R Moffett
Was it Nanotech-Thermite or Phasers that took down the WTC?
by John R Moffett
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Was-it-Nanotech-Thermite--by-John-R-Mof...
This hit piece was responded to by Michael Green here:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Pardon-Our-Dust-or-Why-t-by-Michael-Gre...
>bump<
this list needs to be updated periodically--suggestions for additions? Thanks!