Home          Evidence       Strategy       FAQ       Report       News       Contact

InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up Now


Pages: (3) [1] 2 3  ( Go to first unread post )

 Barrie Zwicker Endorses Citizen Investigation Team, Censored at 911blogger
Craig Ranke CIT
Posted: Aug 1 2010, 08:30 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 3,930
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07



Open Letter from:
Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team
August 1, 2010

Re: Censorship of a major 9/11 Truth figure at 911blogger.com

To everyone concerned with the truth:

Renowned journalist, author, and media critic Barrie Zwicker has joined the growing list of intellectuals, experts, scholars, activists, journalists, pilots, and concerned citizens who have spoken out in favor of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) and our presentation National Security Alert, some of whom are quoted here.

Barrie has also taken it upon himself to speak out very strongly against those attempting to cast doubt on us and/or our findings.

A video and accompanying text of his endorsement is available on this web page.



It now has been 10 days since Barrie's confirmed effort to submit this to 911blogger.com, and his post has not been approved for publication (more on this later). He has told us he still maintains hope that "this de facto censorship, at the premiere 9/11 Truth site, against support for a major team of 9/11 researchers and their original and highly-significant research will eventually be lifted, for the sake of those who visit the site in search of facts and opinions falling squarely within the mandate of 911blogger.com".

He added that if 911blogger does not revert to serving the cause of 9/11 Truth, which he believes it started out doing, it will have to join an all-too-long list of disinformation sources to be included in the book he is writing on false flag operators, false flag organizations and false flag operations. He said this troubles him deeply.

For those who aren't aware, CIT has been under assault from the owners of 911blogger for more than two years. For the record:

The history of 911blogger and CIT

The owner of the 911blogger website when I was first made aware of it in 2007 was known only by the name "Reprehensor". He originally banned CIT in 2008, following a poll he had conducted on the site. I am certain that I was not alone in feeling the poll was unfairly worded. It asked, "Do you believe the Pentagon Fly-Over Theory as proposed by the Pentacon team (CIT)?" (likely leading to "no" votes from people who were unfamiliar with the evidence supporting that conclusion) - rather than the more appropriate "Do you believe the Pentagon attack plane flew north of the Citgo gas station as stated by the independently corroborated eyewitnesses presented by CIT?" that would refer to the evidence, rather than the conclusion out of context. As far as I know, this is the only poll that has ever been posted on that site, and despite the unfair choice of wording, the poll showed a majority did indeed support the flyover conclusion.

"Reprehensor" said in the thread that, since we won the poll, as opposed to forbidding discussion of our work altogether, he would allow our entries to continue to appear in the blog section (as opposed to the more visible news section) which he had already been limiting them to for quite some time. However, he immediately made another post propagating the websites of three detractors of ours, including John Farmer, who was not a 9/11 truth researcher at all, but a belligerent government story defender/established "JREFer" who had openly called us "counter-intelligence". Naturally that upset us, as it amounted to a direct attack from the site owner - as did the poll itself, regardless of our winning it. Reprehensor used our upset response to his attack as an excuse to ban us, while proclaiming that people interested in our work would have to visit our website directly, and that it would not be "promoted" on 911blogger any longer. You can read our full comments in the thread in context and decide for yourself if our banning was justified.

As a side note, all three of the detractors he linked to in that post have effectively disappeared from the CIT-bashing business, as well as the entire 9/11 truth discussion, while John Farmer was discredited so badly that he went so far as to remove from the internet his entire website and every bit of "research" or information that he had ever published, including all of his numerous critiques of CIT. The fact that all three of these formerly aggressive detractors have disappeared - while we're still here - speaks volumes.

After we were banned from 911blogger, we continued our investigation, uncovered a massive catalog of additional new evidence, while attention to the information we uncovered continued to grow by leaps and bounds. Eventually when others would post stuff about our findings on 911blogger, the posts did start to show up again in the "blog" section - despite Reprehensor's resolve not to "promote" our work at all after he banned us. Of course these posts would be heavily attacked by the regular members there who man the site, and we were unable to respond to defend ourselves because we were banned.

Eventually the site changed hands from "Reprehensor" to Justin Keogh, who is a member of the board of directors of AE911Truth. By this point CIT was a rather hot-topic of discussion that would come up quite often, usually from a small group of posters who would regularly insert sideways attacks against us, sometimes in threads regarding unrelated topics. However, things really heated up after the release of National Security Alert, when we put out our press release announcing our initial list of respected supporters who had provided statements praising us and our work. A blog submission regarding our 2009 conference in Arlington, which also quoted supportive statements from Richard Gage, Ed Asner, Peter Dale Scott, David Ray Griffin, and Aidan Monaghan (a well-known contributor to 911Blogger), caused a firestorm from the usual suspects.

It was then 100% clear that we had the public support of an unprecedented number of respected movement leaders, while our detractors were falling by the wayside, and National Security Alert was quickly becoming the definitive "go to" presentation regarding the Pentagon attack. We had become the hot-topic at 911blogger, and it was obvious that attention to the information wasn't going away any time soon.

Because of all this, in October of 2009 I decided to reach out to Justin Keogh directly to see if he would be willing to lift our ban from his site (implemented by the previous owner), or to give me a good reason why we weren't allowed to defend ourselves against the regular attacks on us and our work that he clearly was allowing on the site. We had a disappointing exchange that in essence exposed the fact that this arbitrary ban is based on nothing but pure censorship and control of the information. I highly recommend you read that discussion here for yourself. Most who have done so have agreed the nature of the exchange is very revealing.

The discussion about us on their site raged on without us, as they were unable to contain the growing popularity and attention that the definitive evidence we had uncovered was receiving as National Security Alert continued to explode.

In early 2010 there was an aggressive attempt by one of the moderators who goes by "loose nuke" (alleged real name Erik Larson) to rebut our findings and cast doubt on us personally by claiming we had questionable "methods". He went so far as to meet in person with two witnesses whom we had also previously met with. Ironically he simply ended up confirming what we reported (see here and here), yet his articles were deceptively written to imply the opposite and cast doubt on our "methods" anyway. In addition to being published by a 911Blogger moderator on that site, these dishonest hit-pieces were also promoted by Larson and others via full search-engine-optimized (SEO) "stalker blog" style dissemination efforts at other online locations.

The controllers of 911blogger responded to this clear inability to control our rise by not only upholding our completely unjustified ban but eventually going so far as to silence our most vocal supporters, such as Adam Syed, Adam Ruff, Stefan, and a poster who goes by "onesliceshort".

Then on July 6th, 2010, we announced our upcoming European tour this September for the 9th anniversary of the attacks. A random poster submitted this to 911blogger and on July 8th, which was a Thursday, it was surprisingly published on the front page as a "news" item.

Although many of our most vocal supporters were recently silenced, the comments came fast and furious - mostly from the usual suspect detractors - but there was still vigorous defense of us from several other members. By Monday morning, the thread had reached 438 comments - as can be seen in this screen shot from July 12th, 2010.

As far as I know, that is the most commented thread in 911blogger's history.

It then had to have been 100% apparent to the site controllers that there was no possible way they could contain the discussion without an all-out purge of anyone who supports us. So they proceeded to silence anyone and everyone who spoke out in our favor in that thread. Perhaps even worse, they outright deleted literally dozens of already posted comments. By later in the day the post count had actually gone DOWN by scores of posts, and as you can see from the following screen shot taken just the other day, the current count is still at 359, which means at least 79 comments were removed: screenshot here. As of this writing you can still see this same post count on the blog of the user who originally made the post.

Now of course with our supporters safely removed, and many of their posts blatantly deleted, 911blogger had effectively gamed their vote system, so now whatever posts in our favor that were left were simply voted down into oblivion, with zero opposition to worry about.

Barrie Zwicker speaks out

We were very pleased to hear from Barrie Zwicker that he was willing to publicly support us, and speak out against those who have chosen to spend so much energy to attack us or implement blatant thought control efforts to marginalize our work. Barrie video recorded his endorsement and submitted it to 911blogger under his own account (bwz) on Thursday morning, July 22nd, 2010, at 11:06 AM. Here is a screen shot of that submission:

user posted image


As you can see at the top of the screen shot, Barrie received the typical message saying that his post "has been submitted for moderation and won't be listed publicly until it has been approved." It has now been ten days since Barrie's submission and it has still not been approved (and numerous subsequent submissions from other users have). A week after making his submission, Barrie told us he wrote to Justin Keogh directly to inquire about the status of it, asking whether there was anything about his post that contravened publication protocols. The fact that he has not received even the dignity of a response - despite plenty of other moderator activity evident during this period - can only force us to come to the conclusion that 911Blogger has taken it upon themselves to censor this respected, prolific, well-spoken, well-liked, tireless, and outspoken voice for 9/11 truth.

Oddly, this morning a post appeared in the blog section under the account of moderator "loose nuke" announcing and lamenting the endorsement. The post disappeared within minutes. You can still find it on google web cache here, and we have saved screen shots of the entry here, as well as the comment left by "loose nuke" here. The fact that they failed to approve Barrie's post, but posted the endorsement themselves ten days later, only to instantly remove it, can only be described as a schizophrenic reaction, so exactly what they will do after this letter is published is anyone's guess. However at this point it can not be denied that Barrie has been censored.

Also, let's not forget that even if they would have let Barrie post his endorsement instead of censoring him, or if they do end up finally allowing it to be published after the time of this writing (8/1/10), it almost certainly would have/will be accompanied by dishonest "criticism" of and outright attacks against CIT, the evidence we have uncovered, and possibly even Barrie, links to dishonest hit pieces against CIT, etc., all from the same cast of characters who have spearheaded the campaign against us for so long now. The post by "loose nuke" only further confirms this fact, which anyone who has paid close attention would anticipate anyway.

And, more importantly, these posts likely would/will go completely unchallenged and unrebutted, not because they are salient, but because, again, in addition to having banned us long ago, 911Blogger has recently purged most if not all of the users who have previously spoken strongly in our favor and who have the knowledge to defend us and our work appropriately.

A natural question we should all ask ourselves is: How could it come to be that the most popular website supposedly dedicated to 9/11 truth happens to be controlled by people who have an interest in marginalizing, attacking, and silencing widely-respected citizen investigators who have uncovered critical information exposing the 9/11 deception, and anyone who supports them, from long-time contributors to their site to people like Barrie Zwicker?

Obviously we have personally given lots of thought and study to that question since our unwarranted banning over two years ago, and we encourage others to wrestle with this critical question as well, because it has some pretty serious implications regarding where we're at as a "movement" and where we're heading moving forward.

Regardless, we feel that the censorship of a person who is arguably Canada's most prominent voice for 9/11 Truth proves more than ever that the site is beyond repair. We therefore feel that it is incumbent upon everyone who cares about 9/11 truth to condemn and abandon the site for these established practices, thereby removing it from its position of influence. To not do so will be to acquiesce to this extreme censorship and gatekeeping, and to assure that it will continue and even worsen.

Again, all of our most knowledgeable and articulate supporters -- people who are able to successfully rebut and set the record straight about the dishonest attacks and hit pieces against us -- have now been completely banned from 911Blogger at a time when we have more support than ever within the "9/11 truth movement" and we are preparing to tour Europe with the support of 9/11 truth groups there. Think about that. Then, please add your voice to ours and our many supporters, including Barrie Zwicker. Please act now to stop this assault on the truth about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.

Peace,

Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team
Top
Adam Ruff
Posted: Aug 2 2010, 01:24 AM


Curious Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 19
Member No.: 1,160
Joined: 20-May 10



Well said Craig!

I sent the following letter on Friday July 30th to my very large e-mail list of truthers:

"Fri, July 30, 2010 11:20:54 PM
Barrie Zwicker endorses CIT and their presentation National Security Alert.

Truth movement members,

I have a very important message for your attention today concerning our movement and an attempt to bring it down. Barrie Zwicker, author of Towers Of Deception and producer of numerous outstanding and informative 9/11 truth videos and articles weighs in on the compelling Pentagon evidence presented by the Citizens Investigation Team (CIT) and he addresses the controversy in some circles of the 9/11 truth movement about this vital evidence. For over two years now CIT has been struggling to get their evidence recognized by the larger truth community only to have run into staunch resistance and a concerted disinformation campaign from a few (mainly the owners of 911Blogger and Truthaction) in the truth movement. 911Blogger has recently purged (Stalin style) a large number of truthers from it's blog simply for vocally supporting CIT's work. They have also mass deleted numerous comments supportive of CIT from discussion threads about this issue so that now a completely false impression has been created about the support and strength of this evidence and a false impression has been created about the true numbers of the opposition which are in reality very small. A so called truth site engaging in mass purges and essentially engaging in book burning should give all truthers serious concern.

Mr. Zwicker explains his reasons for supporting CIT in this video and talks about the shadowy disinformation effort going on to suppress it. Thank you Barry! For anyone unfamiliar with CIT's evidence consider viewing their presentation called National Security Alert to be vitally important for your ongoing education about the 9/11 false flag attack. Also voicing your opposition to 911Blogger and Truthaction directly about their extreme suppression and disinformation tactics would be appreciated. Please watch Barry's report at the link below and get involved taking on the disinformationists who have infiltrated our movement.

Barrie Zwicker endorses Citizen Investigation Team's presentation "National Security Alert"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu5wzJtSMhc

Sincerely,

Adam Ruff

I have BCC'd a very large number of truth movement members on this message and I encourage all of you to forward on this message to your contacts in the truth movement to bring addition pressure on 911Blogger and on Truthaction and to expose their deception and suppression of vital 9/11 evidence."


For the record I have corrected in this posting my mispelling of Barrie's name and added the word "supporting" where it was accidentally omitted in the original letter.

Top
Adam Ruff
Posted: Aug 2 2010, 02:00 AM


Curious Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 19
Member No.: 1,160
Joined: 20-May 10



I just took a look at Blogger for Barrie's post to see if they had posted it and came across this entry by the blogger who calls himself/herself Arcterus right at the top of the page:

CIT is useless
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-01/cit-useless

I have taken screen shots of the entire post just in case it should get flushed down the memory hole.

I read this article through and the one thing which strikes me about it right away is that Arcterus clearly does not have a firm grasp of CIT's evidence and several of his/her comments lead me to beleive he/she may not have watched all or any of National Security Alert and may in fact be basing his entire critique on someone elses analysis without checking the facts himself. Arcterus is lashing out blindly here and clearly does not fully grasp just how much of his critique is actually based on proven false critiques that have come before his. For example he sites "south of Citgo" witnesses as though there actually are many and clearly doesn't know that in reality there aren't any at all.

I have the screen shots of this posting which was apparently approved without a moderation delay by the 911Blogger staff while Barrie Zwicker's post remains censored. Should the screen shots become needed just let me know.
Top
Craig Ranke CIT
Posted: Aug 2 2010, 11:19 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 3,930
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07



Thanks for circulating that well-written and passionate letter Adam!

Very well said.

That goofy article by "Arcterus" simply reveals his ignorance regarding our findings while further exposing blogger's deliberate effort to control thought on this topic.

Thanks for saving the screen shots but at this point is seems clear that they really don't care what people think about them and I highly doubt they'll be removing this nonsensical desperate hit-piece.

Top
m reed
Posted: Aug 2 2010, 08:03 PM


Citizen Researcher


Group: Member
Posts: 224
Member No.: 281
Joined: 15-August 08



Craig, your the man!

So happy to see the censorship of CIT finally exposed. CIT and Zwicker together, man they know they're in trouble. This is a great day for 9/11 truth.

As you know, I was banned from Blogger, Truth Action back in '08 for simply endorsing CIT. I never went back to those cites again. Thanks to the efforts of the CIT members who persistently demanded CIT coverage by the leading 9/11 truth cites.

Keep up the great work, and good luck in Europe.


Top
Craig Ranke CIT
Posted: Aug 2 2010, 08:27 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 3,930
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07



You bet m reed.

Thanks for speaking out in our favor!

Top
painter
Posted: Aug 3 2010, 08:22 AM


Curious Citizen


Group: Friends
Posts: 18
Member No.: 951
Joined: 29-December 08



This was my reply to Arcterus' blog post:

Critiques like this are worse than useless

Claiming "objectivity," the author invents a straw man argument in the guise of a hypothetical court case. Even allowing this fantasy, in cross-examination any of the North of Citgo witnesses who indicated they "believed" or "assumed" the plane they saw impacted the Pentagon would have to admit that they did not directly witness such an impact. The author indicates there are many more South of Citgo eyewitnesses but the reality is there are none that have been confirmed and independently verified, as have the 13 North of Citgo eyewitnesses reported by CIT. The fact that CIT found these witnesses and brought their stories to our attention contradicts the stated claim that "CIT is useless." Critiques such as this are worse than useless because they are not objective, do not give credit where credit is due and further a divide in this movement which serves one purpose: To deflect investigative and inquisitive attention away from the events at the Pentagon on 9/11.

This begs the question, why would it be imperative to deflect the attention of the 9/11 Truth Movement away from the Pentagon and down-play the significance of the NOC witnesses? My answer to that question is quite simple: Because the events that occurred at the Pentagon as revealed by the witnesses CIT has made public directly implicates the US DoD in the 9/11 false flag attack and its subsequent cover-up. That is something discussion of what took place in New York does not do.
Top
Adam Syed
Posted: Aug 3 2010, 08:44 AM


Citizen Researcher


Group: Friends
Posts: 444
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 17-August 09



Hey Painter I just sent you a PM.
Top
FedeV
Posted: Aug 4 2010, 01:36 AM


Curious Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 3
Member No.: 1,166
Joined: 27-June 10



HI.
I think you have the censorship problem at 911oz too. The thread was moved in the fighting pit because:

"Please note I am moving this thread to the fighting pit.

The main reason for doing this is because I don't want random visitors to this forum to get the immediate impression that we are a dis-organised rabble who can't even agree with each other.

I think the debate should continue, but it is veering back towards the ad hom style again which makes it unsuitable for the main forum (and will also alienate most thoughtful people)."

Now I see the same pattern that happened with the previous 5-6 threads already moved: blavatsky3 post everyday 3-4 "new" threads ending with "sept 11th is an inside job" mantra and at the end of the week the thread will be in the second page and you can bet blavatsky3 posting will stop. At that moment we'll be safe because the "most thoughtful people" are still unalienated and the impression for the "random visitors" will be a happy united uniformly-thinking family. Can we ask for more?

People are allowed to discuss endlessly on unsupported evidence but when it comes to real witnesses/evidence.....ooooohhh.....is too much for the poor thoughtful man. He must be protected from the real simple truth about the pentagon but at the same time he must shout unsupported that 911 is an inside job. All this is decided by only a few people often the most prominent truth seekers.

I would say incredible but it's not. Is pretty clear and logic what's happening and why.
Top
KP50
Posted: Aug 4 2010, 03:34 AM


Citizen Researcher


Group: Friends
Posts: 246
Member No.: 586
Joined: 24-September 08



QUOTE (FedeV @ Aug 4 2010, 10:36 PM)
HI.
I think you have the censorship problem at 911oz too. The thread was moved in the fighting pit because:

"Please note I am moving this thread to the fighting pit.

The main reason for doing this is because I don't want random visitors to this forum to get the immediate impression that we are a dis-organised rabble who can't even agree with each other.

I think the debate should continue, but it is veering back towards the ad hom style again which makes it unsuitable for the main forum (and will also alienate most thoughtful people)."

Now I see the same pattern that happened with the previous 5-6 threads already moved: blavatsky3 post everyday 3-4 "new" threads ending with "sept 11th is an inside job" mantra and at the end of the week the thread will be in the second page and you can bet blavatsky3 posting will stop. At that moment we'll be safe because the "most thoughtful people" are still unalienated and the impression for the "random visitors" will be a happy united uniformly-thinking family. Can we ask for more?

People are allowed to discuss endlessly on unsupported evidence but when it comes to real witnesses/evidence.....ooooohhh.....is too much for the poor thoughtful man. He must be protected from the real simple truth about the pentagon but at the same time he must shout unsupported that 911 is an inside job. All this is decided by only a few people often the most prominent truth seekers.

I would say incredible but it's not. Is pretty clear and logic what's happening and why.

Welcome to the forum FedeV.

We were on the same pointless thread over at Pump(sh)itout recently. You make some interesting points.
Top
Stefan
Posted: Aug 12 2010, 05:48 AM


Citizen Researcher


Group: Friends
Posts: 208
Member No.: 1,070
Joined: 19-August 09



QUOTE
The main reason for doing this is because I don't want random visitors to this forum to get the immediate impression that we are a dis-organised rabble who can't even agree with each other.


A disorganised rabble who can't even agree with each other. Isn't that also known as democracy?

I don't know why some people think that it will reflect badly if the broader public sees that people in 9/11 truth circles discuss, debate, challenge each other and disagree.

That is how free human beings act.

Supposedly we should be marching in lock step wearing uniforms, believing and saying the same things and chanting the same slogans.

Yeah, that looks well adjusted and not cult like at all.
Top
onesliceshort
Posted: Aug 12 2010, 05:58 AM


Citizen Investigator


Group: Friends
Posts: 954
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09



QUOTE (Stefan @ Aug 12 2010, 05:48 AM)
QUOTE
The main reason for doing this is because I don't want random visitors to this forum to get the immediate impression that we are a dis-organised rabble who can't even agree with each other.


A disorganised rabble who can't even agree with each other. Isn't that also known as democracy?

I don't know why some people think that it will reflect badly if the broader public sees that people in 9/11 truth circles discuss, debate, challenge each other and disagree.

That is how free human beings act.

Supposedly we should be marching in lock step wearing uniforms, believing and saying the same things and chanting the same slogans.

Yeah, that looks well adjusted and not cult like at all.


laugh.gif

user posted image

To be honest, I think the Pit is becoming a better place to post seeing as how Blavatsky spams other users posts into oblivion on the main forum every day. (Important info but overload)

Top
keenan
Posted: Aug 18 2010, 06:54 PM


Curious Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 29
Member No.: 1,049
Joined: 18-July 09



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Aug 12 2010, 05:58 AM)
QUOTE (Stefan @ Aug 12 2010, 05:48 AM)
QUOTE
The main reason for doing this is because I don't want random visitors to this forum to get the immediate impression that we are a dis-organised rabble who can't even agree with each other.


A disorganised rabble who can't even agree with each other. Isn't that also known as democracy?

I don't know why some people think that it will reflect badly if the broader public sees that people in 9/11 truth circles discuss, debate, challenge each other and disagree.

That is how free human beings act.

Supposedly we should be marching in lock step wearing uniforms, believing and saying the same things and chanting the same slogans.

Yeah, that looks well adjusted and not cult like at all.


laugh.gif

user posted image

To be honest, I think the Pit is becoming a better place to post seeing as how Blavatsky spams other users posts into oblivion on the main forum every day. (Important info but overload)

I think they are referring to the 9/11 LIHOP movement, not the 9/11 Truth movement. The 9/11 LIHOP movment, run by the shills at TrueFaction and 911Blogger, enforce a one-voice LIHOP policy in which everyone must march in lock-step to the LIHOP dogma. Check out their new disinfo website, 911truthnews.com, in which they announce that there will be no open discussion allowed at all. That is the model of "transparency" and free flow of information - NOT!, that they wish to enforce in their movement. Fortunately, as an alternative, there exists an alternative and growing 9/11 Truth movement...

To re-iterate:

there exists a 9/11 Llie-hop (LIHOP) movement
there exists a 9/11 Truth movement

The two are mutually exclusive

The LIHOP shills' main strategy is to keep people from understanding this distinction.
Top
Adam Ruff
Posted: Sep 5 2010, 05:34 AM


Curious Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 19
Member No.: 1,160
Joined: 20-May 10



I just sent the following letter to the entire 911Blogger team:

911Blogger Owners and Moderators,

My name is Adam Ruff. I am a former contributor to 911Blogger and reporter for Unspun Newz http://www.youtube.com/user/unspunnewz?feature=mhum. I would like to ask you all some questions on the record regarding your involvement with 911Blogger and would appreciate your response to them for my upcoming report on 911Blogger and the Citizens Investigation Team (CIT). Please reply back individually or as a group with your thoughts about each question written below the question itself so your responses will not get confused or be misunderstood. Thank you.

Q: Now that such a large number of people have been banned from 911Blogger apparently without violating the site rules and without an explanation do you feel the site is fulfilling it's purpose better today then it was prior to the mass banning? If so can you explain how the site has improved or how the truth movement has benefited from the mass banning?

Q: What is official 911Blogger editorial policy regarding CIT's pentagon evidence and regarding CIT supporters posting on 911Blogger?

Q: What is 911Bloggers official position in regard to censorship and the 1st amendment to the US Constitution? Can you elaborate on that position specifically as it relates to private property rights vs. free speech rights?

Q: In light of the recent endorsements of CIT from Barrie Zwicker http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu5wzJtSMhc and Dwain Deets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYGkiYmVUmg , endorsements which were very critical of censorship efforts against CIT within the truth movement, do you feel that it may have been ill advised to take such a harsh stance against CIT yourselves or do you feel as though your stance is justified and correct? Could you explain your answer?

Q: How involved were each of you personally in deciding who would be banned from 911Blogger? Did you make the decisions in each case yourself or was it a committee decision involving all/some of the other moderators as to who would be banned?

Q: Do you contend that those individuals banned without explanation over the last few months were not banned because of their support for CIT but for some other reason? If so why were they banned and how do you explain the large numbers of CIT supporters in the banned group?

Q: Do you consider 911Bloggers efforts to suppress CIT's evidence and purge CIT's supporters from your site to be successful? If so how do you measure that success?

Q: If it should turn out that CIT, Barrie Zwicker, Dwain Deets, and the many CIT supporters purged from 911Blogger were proved correct in their conclusions about the pentagon attack (I.E. the fly over happened, the pole damage was staged, etc) how will you restore 911Bloggers reputation and make up for the tremendous damage that has been done to the truth movement and to it's members who were wrongly silenced?

Q: Are you willing to debate CIT on the subject of the pentagon provided a neutral debate setting, established debate rules, and equal representative teams can be arranged? If not can you tell us why you choose to decline such a debate?

Q: If none of you are willing to answer any of the above questions is there any statement you would like to make on behalf of 911Blogger that you would like me to include in my report?

I look forward to your timely response,

Adam Ruff
Unspun Newz

P.S. I have BCC'd a number of truth movement members on this message in order to keep all this out in the open.
Top
onesliceshort
Posted: Sep 5 2010, 06:04 AM


Citizen Investigator


Group: Friends
Posts: 954
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09



thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif

ETA I forgot how "annoying" Maher is....nice job Adam!
Top
« Next Oldest | CIT response | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (3) [1] 2 3 



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.2770 seconds | Archive