Michael Moore makes fun of police
And he tries to stir up racial trouble. Like Alex Jones and Jon Stewart, Moore does not encourage discussions of our problems. Instead he ridicules and encourages fear of the police. The jokes are funny, but laughing at the police doesn't help the police, and it doesn't help us. The police and military have become Zionist attack dogs. Hating or laughing at them will not help us! The citizens need to do a better job voting, and the police need to clean up their leadership, and then do their job by arresting Michael Moore and his agent Ari Emanuel and his brother Rahm, Larry Silverstein, the Bronfmans, and thousands of others who are obviously covering up Zionist crimes.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Sunday, March 18, 2007
The detailed timeline of the events surrounding the police assault and TASERing of Christopher Bollyn is now on-line at Rumor Mill News:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=101044
It is also on his webpage at The French Connection website:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Timeline_of_Events-arrest.html
This timeline clearly reveals that the Hoffman Estates police conspired to assault and TASER Bollyn before they arrived at his home.
The real question is who was really behind this attack on one of the leading independent investigators of the "false flag" 9/11 terror attacks.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=101044
It is also on his webpage at The French Connection website:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Timeline_of_Events-arrest.html
This timeline clearly reveals that the Hoffman Estates police conspired to assault and TASER Bollyn before they arrived at his home.
The real question is who was really behind this attack on one of the leading independent investigators of the "false flag" 9/11 terror attacks.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Q: Many thanks for the excellent film clip.
re, from above: "Well, it was in all the newspapers, or at least it was in Time magazine and in US News and World Report and that story has been verified by a number of senior israeli military officers and reporters."
I believe that is a direct quote from Lieutenant James Ennes, of U.S.S. Liberty, being interviewed by Daryl Smith. I would like to fill in a few blanks, if I may. Apparently, there were some very lucid accounts of this occurrence in the ISRAELI papers as well:
1,000+ Egyptian Military Officers Executed by Israeli Army in 1967
Reprinted with permission from The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May/June 1996
USS Liberty: Did Israel commit one war crime to hide another? By James M. Ennes, Jr.
Article Published on U.S.S. Liberty Memorial Pages, March 27, 1998
Washington Report readers know the story well. In 1967 on the fourth day of the Six Day War, the armed forces of Israel attacked the American intelligence ship USS Liberty for 90 minutes in international waters in broad daylight following several hours of close, low-level reconnaissance. Thirty-four men died, 171 were hurt, and the ship was so badly damaged that it had to be scrapped.
The government of Israel has lied about the circumstances ever since, telling a story markedly different from that told by American survivors. Congress has refused to question Israel's demonstrably false account, even though the State Department's own analysis finds the Israeli story to be untrue.
Yet the most pressing question remaining from that infamy is not whether the attack was deliberate. That was settled long ago for most reasonable people. THE QUESTION IS WHY Israel risked its cozy relationship with America by killing American seaman on the high seas.
Indeed, spokesmen for Israel use that question in Israel's defense. Why, they ask, would Israel risk alienating its American friends?
So why did Israel attack? Intelligence analysts and others have long supposed that Israel attacked to prevent the ship from reporting the impending invasion of the Golan Heights, then imminent despite cease fire pleas by the United States. Israel's defenders reject that explanation.
Recent reports in the Israeli and Egyptian press suggest another powerful possibility.
According to eyewitness accounts by Israeli officers and journalists, the Israeli Army - the army that claims to hold itself to a higher moral standard than other armies - executed as many as 1,000 Arab prisoners during the 1967 war.
Historian GABBY BRON [ quoted in film clip ] wrote in the YEDIOT AHRONOT in ISRAEL that he witnessed Israeli troops executing Egyptian prisoners on the morning of June 8, 1967, in the Sinai town of El Arish.
Bron reported that he saw about 150 Egyptian POWs being held at the El Arish airport where they were sitting on the ground, densely crowded together with their hands held on the back of their necks. Every few minutes, Bron writes, Israeli soldiers would escort an Egyptian POW from the group to a hearing conducted by two men in Israeli army uniforms. Then the man would be taken away, given a spade, and forced to dig his own grave.
"I watched as (one) man dug a hole for about 15 minutes," Bron wrote. "Afterwards, the (Israeli military) policeman told him to throw the shovel away, and then one of them leveled an Uzi at him and shot two short bursts, each of three or four bullets."
Bron says he witnessed about ten such executions, until the grave was filled. Then an Israeli Colonel threatened him with a revolver, forcing him to leave the area.
USS Liberty was nearby
As those executions were underway, America's most sophisticated intelligence platform, USS Liberty, was less than 13 miles from El Arish.
We were close enough to see the town mosque with the naked eye. With binoculars we could make out individual buildings and might have seen the executions if we had looked in the right place.
Could our operators have heard voice radio messages revealing these killings? Did senior Israeli officers sanction the murders, or did they learn of them? How would they have reacted to the knowledge that USS Liberty was nearby and might have heard incriminating radio traffic?
Would they have been desperate enough to attack an American ship? .....................................
What a 'cryptical' way that history has, of finally revealing itself ! Perhaps these new ISRAELI revelations, ( they do it every time ) will be the proverbial frosting on their cake, by finally and completely airing out the real U.S.S. LIBERTY MASSACRE, which ironically enough, just happened to occur SIMULTANEOUSLY with this EGYPTIAN MASSACRE, right within striking distance.
It should now be much better known how these pathological prevaricators simply love to crow about their murderous exploits. So maybe this time we should just take their own word for it, and let them "dig their OWN grave", so to speak.
Is it any coincidence that an ISRAELI filmmaker would release a DOCUMENTARY of these exploits, in the very week preceding Purim ? For what ? To "entertain" the troops, for the "festival" ? - ( with tales of heroic "massacres" ? )
...and just in case you might think I'm being 'biased' in my presentation, let's not forget to give the Zionist CAMERA some good "exposure" for quite promptly crawling all over this like flies on shitpaper:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=66&x_article=1291
re, from above: "Well, it was in all the newspapers, or at least it was in Time magazine and in US News and World Report and that story has been verified by a number of senior israeli military officers and reporters."
I believe that is a direct quote from Lieutenant James Ennes, of U.S.S. Liberty, being interviewed by Daryl Smith. I would like to fill in a few blanks, if I may. Apparently, there were some very lucid accounts of this occurrence in the ISRAELI papers as well:
1,000+ Egyptian Military Officers Executed by Israeli Army in 1967
Reprinted with permission from The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May/June 1996
USS Liberty: Did Israel commit one war crime to hide another? By James M. Ennes, Jr.
Article Published on U.S.S. Liberty Memorial Pages, March 27, 1998
Washington Report readers know the story well. In 1967 on the fourth day of the Six Day War, the armed forces of Israel attacked the American intelligence ship USS Liberty for 90 minutes in international waters in broad daylight following several hours of close, low-level reconnaissance. Thirty-four men died, 171 were hurt, and the ship was so badly damaged that it had to be scrapped.
The government of Israel has lied about the circumstances ever since, telling a story markedly different from that told by American survivors. Congress has refused to question Israel's demonstrably false account, even though the State Department's own analysis finds the Israeli story to be untrue.
Yet the most pressing question remaining from that infamy is not whether the attack was deliberate. That was settled long ago for most reasonable people. THE QUESTION IS WHY Israel risked its cozy relationship with America by killing American seaman on the high seas.
Indeed, spokesmen for Israel use that question in Israel's defense. Why, they ask, would Israel risk alienating its American friends?
So why did Israel attack? Intelligence analysts and others have long supposed that Israel attacked to prevent the ship from reporting the impending invasion of the Golan Heights, then imminent despite cease fire pleas by the United States. Israel's defenders reject that explanation.
Recent reports in the Israeli and Egyptian press suggest another powerful possibility.
According to eyewitness accounts by Israeli officers and journalists, the Israeli Army - the army that claims to hold itself to a higher moral standard than other armies - executed as many as 1,000 Arab prisoners during the 1967 war.
Historian GABBY BRON [ quoted in film clip ] wrote in the YEDIOT AHRONOT in ISRAEL that he witnessed Israeli troops executing Egyptian prisoners on the morning of June 8, 1967, in the Sinai town of El Arish.
Bron reported that he saw about 150 Egyptian POWs being held at the El Arish airport where they were sitting on the ground, densely crowded together with their hands held on the back of their necks. Every few minutes, Bron writes, Israeli soldiers would escort an Egyptian POW from the group to a hearing conducted by two men in Israeli army uniforms. Then the man would be taken away, given a spade, and forced to dig his own grave.
"I watched as (one) man dug a hole for about 15 minutes," Bron wrote. "Afterwards, the (Israeli military) policeman told him to throw the shovel away, and then one of them leveled an Uzi at him and shot two short bursts, each of three or four bullets."
Bron says he witnessed about ten such executions, until the grave was filled. Then an Israeli Colonel threatened him with a revolver, forcing him to leave the area.
USS Liberty was nearby
As those executions were underway, America's most sophisticated intelligence platform, USS Liberty, was less than 13 miles from El Arish.
We were close enough to see the town mosque with the naked eye. With binoculars we could make out individual buildings and might have seen the executions if we had looked in the right place.
Could our operators have heard voice radio messages revealing these killings? Did senior Israeli officers sanction the murders, or did they learn of them? How would they have reacted to the knowledge that USS Liberty was nearby and might have heard incriminating radio traffic?
Would they have been desperate enough to attack an American ship? .....................................
What a 'cryptical' way that history has, of finally revealing itself ! Perhaps these new ISRAELI revelations, ( they do it every time ) will be the proverbial frosting on their cake, by finally and completely airing out the real U.S.S. LIBERTY MASSACRE, which ironically enough, just happened to occur SIMULTANEOUSLY with this EGYPTIAN MASSACRE, right within striking distance.
It should now be much better known how these pathological prevaricators simply love to crow about their murderous exploits. So maybe this time we should just take their own word for it, and let them "dig their OWN grave", so to speak.
Is it any coincidence that an ISRAELI filmmaker would release a DOCUMENTARY of these exploits, in the very week preceding Purim ? For what ? To "entertain" the troops, for the "festival" ? - ( with tales of heroic "massacres" ? )
...and just in case you might think I'm being 'biased' in my presentation, let's not forget to give the Zionist CAMERA some good "exposure" for quite promptly crawling all over this like flies on shitpaper:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=66&x_article=1291
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
NEW EVIDENCE EMERGES OF POLICE CONSPIRACY TO ASSAULT & TASER BOLLYN
Posted By: ChristopherBollyn
EVIDENCE EMERGES OF POLICE CONSPIRACY
TO ASSAULT & TASER BOLLYN
3 Minutes Before Arriving on Scene Police Reported "Fight in Progress"
By Christopher Bollyn
March 6, 2007
Hoffman Estates, Illinois – Two emergency vehicles from the Hoffman Estates Fire Department were at the Bollyn residence at 20:03:57 – only one second after the arrival of the heavily-armed tactical unit of three men wearing body armor, who assaulted and TASERed me in my front yard on August 15, 2006.
To help establish the facts, I called the chief of the fire department to ask why the medics had not examined me after I had been assaulted and TASERed.
Deputy Chief Robert Gorvett, a local resident who grew up in Hoffman Estates, promptly returned the call and investigated the fire department/police transmissions and communications which preceded the assault.
In the assault, my right elbow was fractured and my body was subjected to 50,000 volts from a TASER gun placed directly over my lower back.
What Dep. Fire Chief Gorvett told me indicates that the police had provided false information to the central 911 dispatch – saying there was a "fight in progress" – which resulted in the dispatcher calling in fire department emergency vehicles. The 911 dispatch had heard this false police report and contacted the fire department at 20:01:06 – nearly three minutes before the undercover tactical unit had even arrived at my house.
The police log indicates that the undercover tactical unit only arrived on the scene at 20:03:56, only one second before the fire department, although an Officer Joseph Kruschel was logged in as being on the scene at 20:03:28.
Kruschel, however, evidently remained out of sight in order to allow the three-man tactical team to approach the Bollyn family first. This action indicates that there was a plan to provoke a confrontation. The three-man tactical unit was led by an officer named Michael Barber who had worked with the Department of Homeland Security in Katrina-ravaged New Orleans.
Barber was also the officer who TASERed me in front of my wife and 8-year-old daughter while I was handcuffed and forcibly restrained by two men who pinned me to the ground. Another officer named Timothy J. Stoy, a former jail guard at Cook County Jail, restrained me for the duration of the assault by kneeling with his full body weight (ca. 200 lbs.) on the temple of my head as Barber TASERed me. This tactic is employed to paralyze the victim by putting intense pressure on the nerve center on the side of the head.
My wife said that my face had turned purple and that my eyes were bulging out of my head and that I appeared to have great difficulty breathing. Shocked by the brutal assault, my wife Helje tried to photograph the assault but was told by the third unidentified man, who we later discovered was Officer Darin Felgenhauer, that if she dared to take any photos she would be arrested as well.
Helje, who grew up in Soviet-occupied Estonia and who traveled widely in the Soviet Union, says that she never experienced such police brutality anywhere, although she was politically active and married to a well-known Estonian rock singer and political dissident against the Soviet occupation of Estonia. She and her former husband, Urmas Alender, who perished in the 1994 sinking of Estonia, had been monitored by the notorious KGB for years.
Gorvett looked into the fire department log and found that the first fire department vehicle was on the scene at 20:03:57 – exactly one second after the undercover police tactical unit arrived. This corroborates Helje's testimony that the fire department was on the scene before I was TASERed. Indeed, the fire department was on the scene before any contact was made between the police and my family.
Two days later, we asked Chief of Police Clint Herdegen to explain why so many police and the fire department had been called to the scene. He said the fire department medics are called when somebody has been TASERed.
So why were they on the scene before I was TASERed? And why were 11 police officers on the scene of a non-emergency 911 call? Anybody would wonder about such an overwhelming response to a simple call to the police concerning a suspicious vehicle in the neighborhood.
The police tactical unit that marched up my driveway was completely unwilling to identify themselves or explain their purpose at my home. The unidentified men appeared eager for a confrontation and within a minute of their arrival, they had assaulted and TASERed me. I had committed no crime and there had been no arrest, warnings, or orders given prior to the assault. Furthermore, I was completely unable to resist the attack by the three men in any way during the assault.
Twenty-nine seconds after arriving at my house, at 20:04:26, the fire department emergency crew notified dispatch that they were back in service, although they did not leave the scene. They gave the "back in service" notification before the tactical unit had assaulted and TASERed me – something they must have witnessed.
The medics' failure to examine me indicates that the fire department's policy is inadequate in regard to TASER victims. Gorvett told me that the department does not even have policy guidelines relating to medical treatment of TASER victims.
I told Chief Gorvett that many healthy people have died shortly after being TASERed and asked why the medics had not checked my health after I had been TASERed in front of professional medics, while I had been forcibly restrained. According to Chief Herdegen, the use of the TASER is why the fire department had been called to the scene in the first place.
Had the medics checked my condition they would have seen that I was not drunk or on drugs, as the fabricated police report alleges, and would have seen that my elbow was injured. They may have even noticed the superficial wounds caused by the TASER gun. But they didn't examine me. Why not?
Gorvett told me that the fire department records indicate that police officer Wesley Schultz, who was logged on the scene at 20:07:18, had told the fire department medics that their services were not needed. This is the same officer who came to my cell in the middle of the night to tell me that because I had been TASERed the medics would have to examine me. Concerned about my sore elbow, I waited for the medics for several hours – but they never came. As a result, my fractured elbow was not looked at until one day later when I went to the local hospital clinic.
While Schultz told me that the medics had been called to examine me because of being TASERed, Gorvett searched the log for the night of August 15, 2006, and found that there had been no calls from the police department to have the fire department medics assist or examine any detainee during the time I was incarcerated. (He actually found no calls from the police station between 20:01 and 01:42 the next morning.)
This evidence from the fire department indicates that the police had a very different agenda than simply responding to a non-emergency 911 call. The Hoffman Estates police can be reached by phone at (847) 882-1818.
As a result of this police attack, I was charged with resisting arrest and aggravated assault. I was attacked by people associated with American Free Press immediately after the police assault. Fighting these baseless charges has cost me a great deal of money and energy. I am convinced that this attack was orchestrated by people in the government who are opposed to my research and writings about 9/11 and other subjects. Not a single media outlet in the United States has discussed this brutal and unjustified police attack on an independent American journalist.
Where is the free press in America? After the assault, American Free Press fired me and has punished me by withholding the money they collected in my name for my legal defense. They also refuse to reimburse my business expenses incurred during the summer of 2006. Why did they turn against me so quickly?
It is only thanks to generous supporters that I am able to challenge this abuse of power by the police. People who want to support me in the struggle against police brutality and malicious prosecution are welcome to donate to my legal defense fund at:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Bollyn-Legal-fund.html
I am currently in the process of changing legal counsel and will appear in court on April 7 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 107 at the Cook County Circuit Court in Rolling Meadows to have attorney Paul P. Moreschi take over my case from Jack Smeeton.
Smeeton, who had withheld the evidence contained in the police report and transmission log from me, said, "They came. It's a fact." He clearly sided with the police and totally ignored the details and significance of this evidence that the police conspired against me. This material came into his possession only because I had filed FOIA requests for it before he was even retained as my legal counsel.
Smeeton completely disregarded Helje's testimony and said that I have no case. He was strongly opposed to a jury trial and urged me to accept a plea bargain in which I would accept guilt for resisting arrest.
When we first met Jack Smeeton at the court, he said he was English. Helje, a scholar of English language and literature, said that I was related to the family of Anne Boleyn, the second wife of Henry VIII. Smeeton said that he is related to Mark Smeaton, the court musician who, under torture, provided false testimony against Anne Boleyn in 1536.
See: http://tudorhistory.org/boleyn/
As a result of Mark Smeeton's false testimony, Anne Boleyn and five men lost their heads.
The evidence indicates that the Hoffman Estates police had a very different agenda with Christopher Bollyn than simply responding to his non-emergency 911 call about a suspicious vehicle.
The Hoffman Estates police can be reached by phone at (847) 882-1818.
Posted By: ChristopherBollyn
EVIDENCE EMERGES OF POLICE CONSPIRACY
TO ASSAULT & TASER BOLLYN
3 Minutes Before Arriving on Scene Police Reported "Fight in Progress"
By Christopher Bollyn
March 6, 2007
Hoffman Estates, Illinois – Two emergency vehicles from the Hoffman Estates Fire Department were at the Bollyn residence at 20:03:57 – only one second after the arrival of the heavily-armed tactical unit of three men wearing body armor, who assaulted and TASERed me in my front yard on August 15, 2006.
To help establish the facts, I called the chief of the fire department to ask why the medics had not examined me after I had been assaulted and TASERed.
Deputy Chief Robert Gorvett, a local resident who grew up in Hoffman Estates, promptly returned the call and investigated the fire department/police transmissions and communications which preceded the assault.
In the assault, my right elbow was fractured and my body was subjected to 50,000 volts from a TASER gun placed directly over my lower back.
What Dep. Fire Chief Gorvett told me indicates that the police had provided false information to the central 911 dispatch – saying there was a "fight in progress" – which resulted in the dispatcher calling in fire department emergency vehicles. The 911 dispatch had heard this false police report and contacted the fire department at 20:01:06 – nearly three minutes before the undercover tactical unit had even arrived at my house.
The police log indicates that the undercover tactical unit only arrived on the scene at 20:03:56, only one second before the fire department, although an Officer Joseph Kruschel was logged in as being on the scene at 20:03:28.
Kruschel, however, evidently remained out of sight in order to allow the three-man tactical team to approach the Bollyn family first. This action indicates that there was a plan to provoke a confrontation. The three-man tactical unit was led by an officer named Michael Barber who had worked with the Department of Homeland Security in Katrina-ravaged New Orleans.
Barber was also the officer who TASERed me in front of my wife and 8-year-old daughter while I was handcuffed and forcibly restrained by two men who pinned me to the ground. Another officer named Timothy J. Stoy, a former jail guard at Cook County Jail, restrained me for the duration of the assault by kneeling with his full body weight (ca. 200 lbs.) on the temple of my head as Barber TASERed me. This tactic is employed to paralyze the victim by putting intense pressure on the nerve center on the side of the head.
My wife said that my face had turned purple and that my eyes were bulging out of my head and that I appeared to have great difficulty breathing. Shocked by the brutal assault, my wife Helje tried to photograph the assault but was told by the third unidentified man, who we later discovered was Officer Darin Felgenhauer, that if she dared to take any photos she would be arrested as well.
Helje, who grew up in Soviet-occupied Estonia and who traveled widely in the Soviet Union, says that she never experienced such police brutality anywhere, although she was politically active and married to a well-known Estonian rock singer and political dissident against the Soviet occupation of Estonia. She and her former husband, Urmas Alender, who perished in the 1994 sinking of Estonia, had been monitored by the notorious KGB for years.
Gorvett looked into the fire department log and found that the first fire department vehicle was on the scene at 20:03:57 – exactly one second after the undercover police tactical unit arrived. This corroborates Helje's testimony that the fire department was on the scene before I was TASERed. Indeed, the fire department was on the scene before any contact was made between the police and my family.
Two days later, we asked Chief of Police Clint Herdegen to explain why so many police and the fire department had been called to the scene. He said the fire department medics are called when somebody has been TASERed.
So why were they on the scene before I was TASERed? And why were 11 police officers on the scene of a non-emergency 911 call? Anybody would wonder about such an overwhelming response to a simple call to the police concerning a suspicious vehicle in the neighborhood.
The police tactical unit that marched up my driveway was completely unwilling to identify themselves or explain their purpose at my home. The unidentified men appeared eager for a confrontation and within a minute of their arrival, they had assaulted and TASERed me. I had committed no crime and there had been no arrest, warnings, or orders given prior to the assault. Furthermore, I was completely unable to resist the attack by the three men in any way during the assault.
Twenty-nine seconds after arriving at my house, at 20:04:26, the fire department emergency crew notified dispatch that they were back in service, although they did not leave the scene. They gave the "back in service" notification before the tactical unit had assaulted and TASERed me – something they must have witnessed.
The medics' failure to examine me indicates that the fire department's policy is inadequate in regard to TASER victims. Gorvett told me that the department does not even have policy guidelines relating to medical treatment of TASER victims.
I told Chief Gorvett that many healthy people have died shortly after being TASERed and asked why the medics had not checked my health after I had been TASERed in front of professional medics, while I had been forcibly restrained. According to Chief Herdegen, the use of the TASER is why the fire department had been called to the scene in the first place.
Had the medics checked my condition they would have seen that I was not drunk or on drugs, as the fabricated police report alleges, and would have seen that my elbow was injured. They may have even noticed the superficial wounds caused by the TASER gun. But they didn't examine me. Why not?
Gorvett told me that the fire department records indicate that police officer Wesley Schultz, who was logged on the scene at 20:07:18, had told the fire department medics that their services were not needed. This is the same officer who came to my cell in the middle of the night to tell me that because I had been TASERed the medics would have to examine me. Concerned about my sore elbow, I waited for the medics for several hours – but they never came. As a result, my fractured elbow was not looked at until one day later when I went to the local hospital clinic.
While Schultz told me that the medics had been called to examine me because of being TASERed, Gorvett searched the log for the night of August 15, 2006, and found that there had been no calls from the police department to have the fire department medics assist or examine any detainee during the time I was incarcerated. (He actually found no calls from the police station between 20:01 and 01:42 the next morning.)
This evidence from the fire department indicates that the police had a very different agenda than simply responding to a non-emergency 911 call. The Hoffman Estates police can be reached by phone at (847) 882-1818.
As a result of this police attack, I was charged with resisting arrest and aggravated assault. I was attacked by people associated with American Free Press immediately after the police assault. Fighting these baseless charges has cost me a great deal of money and energy. I am convinced that this attack was orchestrated by people in the government who are opposed to my research and writings about 9/11 and other subjects. Not a single media outlet in the United States has discussed this brutal and unjustified police attack on an independent American journalist.
Where is the free press in America? After the assault, American Free Press fired me and has punished me by withholding the money they collected in my name for my legal defense. They also refuse to reimburse my business expenses incurred during the summer of 2006. Why did they turn against me so quickly?
It is only thanks to generous supporters that I am able to challenge this abuse of power by the police. People who want to support me in the struggle against police brutality and malicious prosecution are welcome to donate to my legal defense fund at:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Bollyn-Legal-fund.html
I am currently in the process of changing legal counsel and will appear in court on April 7 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 107 at the Cook County Circuit Court in Rolling Meadows to have attorney Paul P. Moreschi take over my case from Jack Smeeton.
Smeeton, who had withheld the evidence contained in the police report and transmission log from me, said, "They came. It's a fact." He clearly sided with the police and totally ignored the details and significance of this evidence that the police conspired against me. This material came into his possession only because I had filed FOIA requests for it before he was even retained as my legal counsel.
Smeeton completely disregarded Helje's testimony and said that I have no case. He was strongly opposed to a jury trial and urged me to accept a plea bargain in which I would accept guilt for resisting arrest.
When we first met Jack Smeeton at the court, he said he was English. Helje, a scholar of English language and literature, said that I was related to the family of Anne Boleyn, the second wife of Henry VIII. Smeeton said that he is related to Mark Smeaton, the court musician who, under torture, provided false testimony against Anne Boleyn in 1536.
See: http://tudorhistory.org/boleyn/
As a result of Mark Smeeton's false testimony, Anne Boleyn and five men lost their heads.
The evidence indicates that the Hoffman Estates police had a very different agenda with Christopher Bollyn than simply responding to his non-emergency 911 call about a suspicious vehicle.
The Hoffman Estates police can be reached by phone at (847) 882-1818.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Richard Porter, the head of news at BBC World issued this explanation of the BBC World video:
1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.
2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.
3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.
4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "
Below are some selected comments made in reply to Mr Porter's explanation:
How deservedly ironic that the BBC gets exposed for what it really is (a propaganda bureau that attempts to indoctrinate Britain and the world with a false reality) so soon after the airing of the appalling hit piece (9/11 conspiracy files) last Sunday night. Please show some respect for the BBC and the license fee paying public by answering a simple question. How did the BBC know that Building 7 was going to collapse 20 minutes before it actually did when prior to 9/11 no steel-structured building had ever collapsed due to fire?
I'm not a conspiracy nut. But this footage of your reports of WTC7 collapsing a full 20 minutes prior and repeatedly discussing it's collapse is highly suspicious.
If you were talking about a building that never did collapse, well then you'd just look incompetent. But as we all know, building 7 did, in a feat that suspended all laws of physics and logic, collapse spontaneously due to fires on floors 7 & 12.
You can't possibly expect us to believe this. Let's look at all the pieces here.
1. BBC reports for 20 solid minutes that WTC7 has collapsed when even in the live shot it stands as sturdy as the day it was built.
2. The idea that WTC7 would collapse spontaneously due to minor fires and minimal damage to the north face is laughable and an insult to intelligence. But it did, approximately 5 minutes AFTER BBC's report....or at least 5 minutes after Jane Standley's live shot was disconnected.
3. BBC loses all of it's 9/11 footage so this cannot be reviewed or explained. My nephew still has all his VHS tapes from that day. He recorded almost every news station for 24 hours straight. He's 19 now. He was 13 when it happened. So, a 13 year old can be more responsible with his VHS tapes than one of the largest news organizations?
4. The archive footage is mysteriously pulled off of YouTube and Google video repeatedly and without provocation or explanation.
5. BBC's response is, 'there is no conspiracy. it was a mistake.'
Grant us logical thinkers at least one thing. This is highly suspicious. The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed.
Oh, and the ez-out phrases like 'it appears' and 'we're receiving reports that..' were not used throughout this footage.
Especially when the anchor starts talking about the (lack of) body count since there was so much time to evacuate since the collapse of WTC 1-2.
The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed. I do not necessarily think the BBC is a witting participant in some 9/11 conspiracy, but it's definitely looking like you were a pawn. Revealing who/where the BBC received the information that WTC7 had collapsed would be a good start in clearing your name.
To report that a building had collapsed before it had done so would be an odd sort of error, wouldn't it? A bit like reporting that the Lord Mayor's trousers had fallen down before they did so.
Let's say for a second that you messed up and reported a building going down that didn't - why the exact one that DID? What are the odds? Why not by mistake report a building going down that DIDN'T actually go down?
You lose footage of one of the most important days in modern history... ;)
(Good job! That way no one can "prove" anything that day...)
Out of all the surrounding buildings that suffered massive damage - WTC 3,4,5,6 - and assorted others that suffered minor damage (amoung them, WTC 7 - Salomon Brothers Building), BBC - by merely a mistake and in confusion - picked exactly the right one that was going to fall -.... ;)
(Good job! Hey, BBC is incompetent - they lose tapes AND they claim buildings fall that haven't - but what LUCK! They hit the lottery! What a 'lucky guess', huh?)
BBC should go to Vegas, with those odds - you'd be rich.
BBC is not part of the conspiracy - but you are just a bunch of pathetic dupes.
You capture the biggest smoking gun in history ... and your response is ..... to call yourselves incompetent and go play 'blind/deaf/dumb monkey' on your public.
Good job, Guys!!
"If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that."
Uh, it WASN'T an error... That's the point. You keep harping on about what a chaotic day it was. Then why didn't the anchor say something like, "We're getting some unconfirmed reports of some other building apparently collapsing... We'll have to check up on this... etc." No, he had (23 minutes before hand) the name of the building, the correct # of floors in the building (47), the explanation of the collapse (weakened by other collapses), and he was reporting that the building was apparently empty. You even had graphics made up for the scrolling info at the bottom of the screen. That is some pretty precise reporting for a day of chaos when everyone was "...trying to make sense of what they were seeing... and what was being told by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services."
And there lies the key (perhaps). No doubt the info was just being fed to the anchor and reporter off the wires as the news would cross... So, which agency fed that bit about WTC7 collapsing? AP? Reuters? VOA? We'll probably never know, but you got the information from some source more than 23 minutes before it happened (had to be longer than 23 minutes, because there must have been some delay from the time the story came over the wires and the time the anchor actually got the news out on the air).
Do I think the BBC is "...part of a conspiracy"? No... but you were played perfectly by some entity, IMO.
With respect, the response to this issue is unacceptable. At the very least you are minimizing your error and trivializing the life’s lost or the potential of life’s that could have been saved.
In the most important final 7 minutes and 15 seconds of the said segment the words "apparently", "it's reported" or "we're hearing" ARE NOT USED in context of building 7.
The words used are those have definite and past tense.
"Now more on the latest building collapse in New York,...the Solomon Brothers Building collapse... and indeed it has"
"What can you tell us about the Salomon Building and it's collapse?"
"When it collapsed"
Ticker –“The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed.”
Who is responsible for the newsroom in desk and floor prompters being used by the news presenter?
Who is responsible for the news report on the bottom screen news ticker?
Who is responsible as the newsroom floor source for giving these people information?
What is the complete list of editors and journalists responsible for this program on said day?
The words in your statement #4 of footage being lost may very well redefine irresponsible. The BBC Media Management policy clearly states TWO broadcast standard copies be retained one on a separate site as a master.
As follows.
Ref No.
Policy Area / Policy Statement
01
Components to be Retained
01-01
The following components to be retained:-
Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master
One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material
http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_information/archive_policies/media_management_policy
_overview.htm#top
If the footage had continued, we'd all have been able to watch WTC 7 collapse right on your program.
Good thing you lost the feed five minutes before THAT happened in front of all your viewers.
What in the world would you have said if that had happened?
What is going on here?
I'd like a little truth please.
I never actually thought I would live to see the day that things would surpass even Orwell, Huxley, Wells, Jack London, Sinclair Lewis, Zamyatin, Ayne Rand, on and on...but, the virtual reality that the "media" create for us now is truly more unfathomable than even those great minds warned us of.
Contrary to the dismissive tone of the "explanation", whether or not the building was known to be about to fall goes to essential point of culpability for 9/11, foreknowledge.
Those who are in the dock and being cross-examined are not allowed to wave their hands and create a plausible explanation. It's gone too far for that. There is a disastrous war built on false evidence, and that falsification process may have begun much sooner than is generally now understood.
In ordinary life, a witness who lies about one thing will be assumed to lie about everything. And we aren't talking about private matters, but about the essential role of a government to defend its country. This issue is about credibility of news sources during a terror attack, in which a rush to judgment resulted shortly in an invasion of a sovereign nation, and the BBC know it.
Thousands upon thousands of lives have been lost thus far, and there are doubtless more to come.
1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.
2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.
3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.
4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "
Below are some selected comments made in reply to Mr Porter's explanation:
How deservedly ironic that the BBC gets exposed for what it really is (a propaganda bureau that attempts to indoctrinate Britain and the world with a false reality) so soon after the airing of the appalling hit piece (9/11 conspiracy files) last Sunday night. Please show some respect for the BBC and the license fee paying public by answering a simple question. How did the BBC know that Building 7 was going to collapse 20 minutes before it actually did when prior to 9/11 no steel-structured building had ever collapsed due to fire?
I'm not a conspiracy nut. But this footage of your reports of WTC7 collapsing a full 20 minutes prior and repeatedly discussing it's collapse is highly suspicious.
If you were talking about a building that never did collapse, well then you'd just look incompetent. But as we all know, building 7 did, in a feat that suspended all laws of physics and logic, collapse spontaneously due to fires on floors 7 & 12.
You can't possibly expect us to believe this. Let's look at all the pieces here.
1. BBC reports for 20 solid minutes that WTC7 has collapsed when even in the live shot it stands as sturdy as the day it was built.
2. The idea that WTC7 would collapse spontaneously due to minor fires and minimal damage to the north face is laughable and an insult to intelligence. But it did, approximately 5 minutes AFTER BBC's report....or at least 5 minutes after Jane Standley's live shot was disconnected.
3. BBC loses all of it's 9/11 footage so this cannot be reviewed or explained. My nephew still has all his VHS tapes from that day. He recorded almost every news station for 24 hours straight. He's 19 now. He was 13 when it happened. So, a 13 year old can be more responsible with his VHS tapes than one of the largest news organizations?
4. The archive footage is mysteriously pulled off of YouTube and Google video repeatedly and without provocation or explanation.
5. BBC's response is, 'there is no conspiracy. it was a mistake.'
Grant us logical thinkers at least one thing. This is highly suspicious. The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed.
Oh, and the ez-out phrases like 'it appears' and 'we're receiving reports that..' were not used throughout this footage.
Especially when the anchor starts talking about the (lack of) body count since there was so much time to evacuate since the collapse of WTC 1-2.
The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed. I do not necessarily think the BBC is a witting participant in some 9/11 conspiracy, but it's definitely looking like you were a pawn. Revealing who/where the BBC received the information that WTC7 had collapsed would be a good start in clearing your name.
To report that a building had collapsed before it had done so would be an odd sort of error, wouldn't it? A bit like reporting that the Lord Mayor's trousers had fallen down before they did so.
Let's say for a second that you messed up and reported a building going down that didn't - why the exact one that DID? What are the odds? Why not by mistake report a building going down that DIDN'T actually go down?
You lose footage of one of the most important days in modern history... ;)
(Good job! That way no one can "prove" anything that day...)
Out of all the surrounding buildings that suffered massive damage - WTC 3,4,5,6 - and assorted others that suffered minor damage (amoung them, WTC 7 - Salomon Brothers Building), BBC - by merely a mistake and in confusion - picked exactly the right one that was going to fall -.... ;)
(Good job! Hey, BBC is incompetent - they lose tapes AND they claim buildings fall that haven't - but what LUCK! They hit the lottery! What a 'lucky guess', huh?)
BBC should go to Vegas, with those odds - you'd be rich.
BBC is not part of the conspiracy - but you are just a bunch of pathetic dupes.
You capture the biggest smoking gun in history ... and your response is ..... to call yourselves incompetent and go play 'blind/deaf/dumb monkey' on your public.
Good job, Guys!!
"If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that."
Uh, it WASN'T an error... That's the point. You keep harping on about what a chaotic day it was. Then why didn't the anchor say something like, "We're getting some unconfirmed reports of some other building apparently collapsing... We'll have to check up on this... etc." No, he had (23 minutes before hand) the name of the building, the correct # of floors in the building (47), the explanation of the collapse (weakened by other collapses), and he was reporting that the building was apparently empty. You even had graphics made up for the scrolling info at the bottom of the screen. That is some pretty precise reporting for a day of chaos when everyone was "...trying to make sense of what they were seeing... and what was being told by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services."
And there lies the key (perhaps). No doubt the info was just being fed to the anchor and reporter off the wires as the news would cross... So, which agency fed that bit about WTC7 collapsing? AP? Reuters? VOA? We'll probably never know, but you got the information from some source more than 23 minutes before it happened (had to be longer than 23 minutes, because there must have been some delay from the time the story came over the wires and the time the anchor actually got the news out on the air).
Do I think the BBC is "...part of a conspiracy"? No... but you were played perfectly by some entity, IMO.
With respect, the response to this issue is unacceptable. At the very least you are minimizing your error and trivializing the life’s lost or the potential of life’s that could have been saved.
In the most important final 7 minutes and 15 seconds of the said segment the words "apparently", "it's reported" or "we're hearing" ARE NOT USED in context of building 7.
The words used are those have definite and past tense.
"Now more on the latest building collapse in New York,...the Solomon Brothers Building collapse... and indeed it has"
"What can you tell us about the Salomon Building and it's collapse?"
"When it collapsed"
Ticker –“The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed.”
Who is responsible for the newsroom in desk and floor prompters being used by the news presenter?
Who is responsible for the news report on the bottom screen news ticker?
Who is responsible as the newsroom floor source for giving these people information?
What is the complete list of editors and journalists responsible for this program on said day?
The words in your statement #4 of footage being lost may very well redefine irresponsible. The BBC Media Management policy clearly states TWO broadcast standard copies be retained one on a separate site as a master.
As follows.
Ref No.
Policy Area / Policy Statement
01
Components to be Retained
01-01
The following components to be retained:-
Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master
One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material
http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_information/archive_policies/media_management_policy
_overview.htm#top
If the footage had continued, we'd all have been able to watch WTC 7 collapse right on your program.
Good thing you lost the feed five minutes before THAT happened in front of all your viewers.
What in the world would you have said if that had happened?
What is going on here?
I'd like a little truth please.
I never actually thought I would live to see the day that things would surpass even Orwell, Huxley, Wells, Jack London, Sinclair Lewis, Zamyatin, Ayne Rand, on and on...but, the virtual reality that the "media" create for us now is truly more unfathomable than even those great minds warned us of.
Contrary to the dismissive tone of the "explanation", whether or not the building was known to be about to fall goes to essential point of culpability for 9/11, foreknowledge.
Those who are in the dock and being cross-examined are not allowed to wave their hands and create a plausible explanation. It's gone too far for that. There is a disastrous war built on false evidence, and that falsification process may have begun much sooner than is generally now understood.
In ordinary life, a witness who lies about one thing will be assumed to lie about everything. And we aren't talking about private matters, but about the essential role of a government to defend its country. This issue is about credibility of news sources during a terror attack, in which a rush to judgment resulted shortly in an invasion of a sovereign nation, and the BBC know it.
Thousands upon thousands of lives have been lost thus far, and there are doubtless more to come.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
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
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, March 1, 2007
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.
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
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, March 1, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
