Google Censors 9/11 Truth - Media Blacklists BBC Fiasco
AirRaid
Media Blacklists BBC Fiasco; Google, Digg Censor 9/11 Truth
News 24 'timestamp' video disappears from Google Video, despite the
fact it's under 30 seconds in length and clearly constitutes fair use,
Digg lets small minority of morons decide its content
Prison Planet | March 1, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
The crowned kings of censorship Google have "pulled" the News 24
"timestamp" video that shows the BBC reporting the collapse of
Building 7 26 minutes before it happened. Meanwhile, the establishment
media continues to ignore the WTC 7 farce as a whole, including the
inconceivable notion that BBC World have mysteriously lost all their
9/11 footage.
Despite the fact that the clip is under 30 seconds in length and
clearly constitutes fair use, Google yanked the video last night after
it was prominently featured in our article yesterday. We have replaced
the video with a You Tube composite of both the "Jane Standley"
footage and the News 24 clip, but for how long this stays active
remains to be seen.
Google and the BBC have a cozy relationship and are currently at an
advanced stage of talks to content share on Google Video. This could
explain why the original "Standley" footage was yanked by Google
within hours of it becoming popular on the Internet on Monday
afternoon.
It seems that the BBC are extremely incompetent when it comes to
looking after their own archived tapes , but remarkably proficient
about getting any embarrassing material scrubbed off the Internet,
with the eager aid of "don't be evil" Google, they compose a
formidable tag team of censorship.
Recall that Google bizarrely wiped a leading mainstream news website
from their search engine altogether last year simply because Space War
carried articles mildly critical of Google's beloved Communist Chinese
paymasters, for whom Yahoo have also shopped numerous dissidents who
have ended up in China's re-education labor camps.
It was also Google Video that were caught on numerous occasions re-
setting viewing figures for Alex Jones' Terror Storm and other 9/11
truth films, to prevent them entering the higher echelons of the
charts and going viral.
Should all this really surprise us when it was CIA seed money that got
Google off the ground in the first place? Just how many calls did
Google's CIA liaison Dr. Rick Steinheiser make from his Office of
Research and Development this week?
Meanwhile, a programmer claims to have hacked Digg and found evidence
of a deliberate campaign to censor controversial news stories and
those relating to 9/11 truth.
The Information Liberation website concludes that there are "Tons of
obvious shills burying our recent explosive WTC 7 articles as well as
many other articles of extreme significance. It's shocking to read the
list and see how much significant, documented, and extremely popular
content is being buried for obvious ideological reasons. This is
completely undemocratic abuse of the Digg system and is proof positive
the Bury feature is being abused to suppress content by vindictive
Anti-Diggers."
The buried list contains the original Building 7 story that was posted
at Prison Planet.com on Monday afternoon. It's reason for burial is
given as "inaccurate," despite the fact that we have proven its
factual basis in triplicate and the BBC has also tacitly admitted
their "error."
Digg's Bury feature is supposed to be used to bury "stories with bad
links, off-topic content, or duplicate entries" in order to remove
"spam out of the system." Unfortunately, as many have experienced, the
Bury feature is frequently used to suppress content based off
ideology. Please encourage Digg to either fix it (perhaps make it
similar to Reddit's down voting) or remove it all together. Email Digg
here and request they please fix the Bury feature.
Whether you choose to believe that it's solely the work of moronic
debunkers or a deliberate Digg policy to censor 9/11 truth, the fact
remains that their supposed "democratic" system is nothing of the
sort. Even if an article gets 2000 diggs, just a fraction of that
number in burials relegates it to the memory hole. Digg should be more
honest about the fact that the content of their website is determined
at the behest of a small minority of semi-retarded Playstation
addicted teenagers rather than the popular interest of the online
community as a whole.
We have uncovered further evidence of Digg censorship and it will
feature on the website later tonight.
48 hours after the BBC issued its pathetic rebuttal to startling
footage that shows their correspondent Jane Standley live on 9/11
reporting the collapse of Building 7 as it mockingly stands behind
her , and the inconceivable excuse that the BBC has lost its 9/11
tapes, no establishment media has picked up on the story, not even to
dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory."
This represents both the stubborn refusal of the dinosaur press to
accept the increasing trend that the Internet sets the news agenda,
and also an appalling media culture that highlights the most
inconsequential claptrap and gives it undeserved prominence.
Kudos goes to Wonkette for covering the Building 7 story, but almost
every other so-called "progressive" website has been mute. Crooks and
Liars, one of the biggest liberal blogs on the web, today spotlights a
story about lesbian koala bears. On Tuesday night they led with a
gossip puff piece about Mitt Romney's hair. How can these gatekeepers
claim to represent "alternative media" when they stuff this kind of
crap down our throats on a daily basis, while ignoring massive stories
like the WTC 7 fiasco?
We invited BBC World head of news Richard Porter to appear on The Alex
Jones Show and clarify for us exactly how the BBC managed to lose its
footage, which by the BBC's own regulations has to be archived three
times over , from the single most important event in history since
World War 2.
Porter refused to do the interview.
Al Dykes
AirRaid <AirRa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://tinyurl.com/26wlcv
>
>Media Blacklists BBC Fiasco; Google, Digg Censor 9/11 Truth
>
>News 24 'timestamp' video disappears from Google Video, despite the
>fact it's under 30 seconds in length and clearly constitutes fair use,
>Digg lets small minority of morons decide its content
>
>Prison Planet | March 1, 2007
>Paul Joseph Watson
>
>The crowned kings of censorship Google have "pulled" the News 24
>"timestamp" video that shows the BBC reporting the collapse of
>Building 7 26 minutes before it happened. Meanwhile, the establishment
>media continues to ignore the WTC 7 farce as a whole, including the
>inconceivable notion that BBC World have mysteriously lost all their
>9/11 footage.
>
Whatever happened to the BBC story, it doesn't change the fact that
there isn's anyone with expertise in the construction or demolition of
large buildings that says that explosives or thermate/thermite is
needed to explain how the WTC buildings collapsed.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
Borked Pseudo Mailed
You forgot your hat:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
Big Bill
>Whether you choose to believe that it's solely the work of moronic
>debunkers or a deliberate Digg policy to censor 9/11 truth, the fact
>remains that their supposed "democratic" system is nothing of the
>sort. Even if an article gets 2000 diggs, just a fraction of that
>number in burials relegates it to the memory hole. Digg should be more
>honest about the fact that the content of their website is determined
>at the behest of a small minority of semi-retarded Playstation
>addicted teenagers rather than the popular interest of the online
>community as a whole.
I think most people in Search are aware that DIGG is actually anything
but what it appears to be. It appears spontaneous but seems to be very
controlled.
>We have uncovered further evidence of Digg censorship and it will
>feature on the website later tonight.
>
>48 hours after the BBC issued its pathetic rebuttal to startling
>footage that shows their correspondent Jane Standley live on 9/11
>reporting the collapse of Building 7 as it mockingly stands behind
>her,
Which one is it, and how does someone like me get corroboration of
your suggestion of which one it is?
> and the inconceivable excuse that the BBC has lost its 9/11
>tapes, no establishment media has picked up on the story, not even to
>dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory."
>
>This represents both the stubborn refusal of the dinosaur press to
>accept the increasing trend that the Internet sets the news agenda,
>and also an appalling media culture that highlights the most
>inconsequential claptrap and gives it undeserved prominence.
They'll report it when they think they can profit from it. News
channels are about profit, don't forget, not news.
>Kudos goes to Wonkette for covering the Building 7 story, but almost
>every other so-called "progressive" website has been mute. Crooks and
>Liars, one of the biggest liberal blogs on the web, today spotlights a
>story about lesbian koala bears. On Tuesday night they led with a
>gossip puff piece about Mitt Romney's hair. How can these gatekeepers
>claim to represent "alternative media" when they stuff this kind of
>crap down our throats on a daily basis, while ignoring massive stories
>like the WTC 7 fiasco?
Most people are more interested in puff pieces. Most people=dumb.
>We invited BBC World head of news Richard Porter to appear on The Alex
>Jones Show and clarify for us exactly how the BBC managed to lose its
>footage, which by the BBC's own regulations has to be archived three
>times over , from the single most important event in history since
>World War 2.
>
>Porter refused to do the interview.
Why should he? How much did you offer to pay him? Would he still have
had a job with the Beeb if he'd appeared?
BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-marketing-small-business.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/google-mountain.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-tips.htm