TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Latest Hoax Article: Fetzer & Barrett Promote TV Fakery (31 posts)

26. JV
    Member

    Re: the indymedia thing (don't know how to quote yet) No, I was there when mere mention of 9/11 truth was verbotten. Still is, I guess. But it was '03 and '04, well before even truthers were comfortable with controlled demolition (no planes wasn't heard of then). Here is all that's left of my first foray http://nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=635... nyc.Indymedia didn't preserve it in a readable or complete format, but WhatReallyHappened.com saw fit to link to the original which was hosted on EmpireWatch.org.

    Nyc.indymedia.org has been 'shut down' to truth since day one. They use whatever excuse is fashionable not to talk about 9/11, although the anti-semetic thing was their favorite. They would bring it up whether or not you did.

    My deprogramming techniques are far more advanced than a pre-recorded 'no planes' loop anyway. Remember, it's all about speaking at the level to which your subject can relate. And then showing the way forward. ...and just because you almost asked :-), I do think AirCraft were used to impact the towers. But that's just my opinion.

    ... and, for Max It was nice to see you in St. Mark's park the other day. I forgot to mention that i had signed up to your forum as 'JV'. Keep hittin' streets! — Jonathon

    Posted 17 years ago #
27. truthmod
    Administrator

    Yes, I had it out with NYC indymedia a couple years ago too. I went to one of their meetings and had a very bitter email exchange with their main anti-9/11 truth crusader, Jed Brandt. He was very stuck on the idea that 9/11 skepticism equated to anti-semitism.

    They absolutely refused to let us post an announcement for the 2005 anniversary event, and even took down postings about the Cynthia McKinney hearings on CSPAN and the David Ray Griffin interview in the LA Times! As far as I could tell, NYC Indymedia was independent only in that it was independently censored by a small group of controlling publishers.

    http://nyc.indymedia.org/or/2005/08/55802.html http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-nyc-web/2...

    Welcome to the board Jonathon, keep up the good work!

    BTW, to quote, you place a ">" in front of the line.

    Posted 17 years ago #
28. Victronix
    Member

    But it was '03 and '04, well before even truthers were comfortable with controlled demolition (no planes wasn't heard of then).

    Actually it was. The webfairy, Gerard Holmgren and Scott Loughrey were pretty intense back then and everytime I went on nyc.indymedia I would see screaming posts about how no planes at all were involved (911hoax.com).

    an example -

    "Indymedia" is a government-sponsored fraud. While pretending to be supportive of free speech, it has silenced any mention of the 911 since the early days of this website. (You can find latest examples of Indymedia's censorship of the 911 Hoax here. Indymedia must be COINTELPRO." IndyMedia Hysteria http://www.911hoax.com/default_Main_page.asp http://www.911hoax.com/Indymedia_Hysteria.asp

    911hoax --"Was 911 a Video Movie?" -- is archived starting in 2003 on 9/11.

    Posted 17 years ago #
29. Arabesque
    Member

    FlashBack: Kevin Barrett: Beam weapons critics making 'a tactical mistake' http://www.911blogger.com/node/4980

    "I would urge people to go take a look at this material".

    ''I think we don't really need any kind of unanimity from researchers''

    ''I don't think this is doing any permanent harm to the 9/11 movement ''

    ''I think people who are blowing it up into something really huge are either sort of panicking or just making a tactical mistake''

    ''...people who are really sort of allergic to the idea that some kind of unconventional technology might have been used. ''

    ''[the perpetrators] would have taken advantage of the most advanced technologies of deception and demolition, and in fact they would have arranged it in such a way that anyone who figured out exactly what happened and described it accurately would sound completely insane''

    ''So, I wouldn't rule out anything and I think we need to allow researchers to pursue their own path,''

    ''we need to criticize each other in a hopefully amicable manner''

    Posted 17 years ago #
30. Arabesque
    Member

    James Fetzer: Cap Times does readers disservice by not reporting evidence from 9/11 Scholars for Truth conference

    "Copious quantities of easily verifiable discoveries were presented... including multiple proofs that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon."

    http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/letters/204849

    Thankfully, one writer decided not to take the bait and report on the dubious "smoking guns" in the disinfo conference

    Posted 17 years ago #
31. Victronix
    Member

    The cycle goes like this:

    • hoax claim put forth (i.e., pods)

    • claim is refuted easily within the 9/11 community using rational arguments and evidence

    • strawman arguments are advanced claiming censorship, limitations being put on research, and how we need to "keep the door open"

    • response: weak and debatable evidence should never be put forth to the PUBLIC, internal research has many places which are not public in which it can advance, and of course, the scientific method should be used, which necessarily will either open or close the door.

    • then hoax claim appears in films being sold to the public

    • cycle continues . . .

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.