The 9/11 Post 10914


Having complained of people posting off topic, it seems a reasonable solution to give an opportunity for people to discuss the topics I am banning from other threads – of which 9/11 seems the most popular.

I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of – even Blackwater – would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn’t a good idea.

I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.

The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.

I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.

The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.

Precisely what happened at the Pentagon I am less sure. There is not the conclusive film and photographic evidence that there is for New York. I am particularly puzzled by the much more skilled feat of flying that would be required to hit a building virtually at ground level, in an urban area, after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that. But I can think of a number of possible scenarios where the official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.

In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback – the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision. Also blowback in a more general sense that it was spawned in the nasty theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is so close to the US and to the Bush dynasty in particular. As with almost all terrorist activity, I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors.

But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.

(Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted).


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

10,914 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 125 126 127 128 129 130
  • Peter Beswick

    Bring it on!

    Truthers vs The Believers

    Those who want to know the truth vs those who think they know the truth but in reality don’t.

    “When a body is in free-fall, the only force acting upon it is gravity. In controlled demolitions, the various parts of the (ex) building are contacting each other and the ground, which exerts mechanical forces on them – the bits are dashing themselves to pieces against each other and against the ground. There is also air resistance, which increases as air within the distorting internal compartments gets compressed and tries to escape.

    There has to be some other explanation for the acceleration of WTC7’s roof line. The core must have fallen first, and then pulled the shell down after it – whiplash imparting additional downward force.”

    Now a Truther would look at the assumption that a = >g

    A Believer wouldn’t, s/he would just believe what they are told, No interest in verification.

    A Truther (if interested) would look at how the rate of “a” was estimated.

    Was it through video images?

    How many cameras, how many recordings were used in the calculation? Were the cameras calibrated before / after / both? Was the viewing equipment calibrated? If so to what?

    NIST use of video recordings to estimate plane entry speed into WTC 2 (Simplified method used in report assumptions)
    The Simplified Method produced a range of impact speeds of WTC 2 from 492 mph to 628 mph (Difference 136 mph)
    28% margin of error of upper limit over lower limit. (Radar speed tracking data ignored)

    If the term “Truther” is intended as a derogatory smear on people who want to know the truth and it is being made by people who really do not have a clue what they are talking about then pity not reason is an appropriate response.

    • Clark

      I think Chandler and NIST have both used video to plot the descent of WTC7’s roof-line, each from a different video. You may find that TomK at jref forums had a go too. There are probably others if you look. Calibration was by correlating measurement of the image before collapse with known dimensions. But I’m no longer convinced that “acceleration at about g means that all support was removed simultaneously”, because this argument denies inevitable internal forces, explosives or not. I think the distance traversed at high acceleration, about eight storeys, might be significant, but the high acceleration itself maybe isn’t the smoking gun it’s made out to be.

      The symmetry seems far more odd, especially as the collapse began asymmetrically with the east penthouse.

  • John Goss

    You may not know but I have stopped commenting here because of comment deletions by the mods. I did leave a comment to that effect but it got deleted.

    It is a bit like the Norwegian newspaper which dared to print an article questioning the official version of 9/11. In this Orwellian age you cannot question officialdom. There is no free press. They are even trying to gag Russia Today. Then where will we be?

    http://www.ae911truth.org/news/394-news-media-events-norwegian-media-goes-berserk-then-silent-over-articles-by-ae911truth-authors.html

    • Paul Barbara

      @ John Goss November 15, 2017 at 20:03
      We can always use ‘samizdat’ (till they confiscate our photocopiers)!
      By the way, check out my recent Sandy Hook’ links above ( November 16, 2017 at 00:42 ).

      • glenn_nl

        They aren’t your links, Paul – they’re from a fascist known as Alex Jones. Do you like fascists, Paul? If not, why do you quote them, and why are you so happy to believe what they say, and promote their lies?

  • Paul Barbara

    http://www.azquotes.com/author/12501-David_Rockefeller
    ‘We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years……It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.’ David Rockefeller
    (Don’t expect a written record of this – it was supposedly said at a Bilderberg meeting in Baden, Germany in 19991).

    And some people still believe the MSM will ‘tell it as it is’, rather than as the PTB tell them to.

    • glenn_nl

      Dan Bidondi – why, he’s a reporter at Infowars, the propaganda channel of the Nazi-sympathising Alex Jones!

      Paul,. if I liked Nazis as much as you clearly do, I’d go to their channels on youtube and start reading and watching Nazi propaganda myself. I don’t need you to go to these sewers and fish out stuff to plaster around here, on the website of a human rights activist.

      Kindly stop doing so. Stop promoting Nazi propaganda.

      • Nikko

        For a Truther the real question is not whether it is fascist (or any other) propaganda but whether it is true. Those short videos posted by Paul B. raise legitimate questions which are not answered by attacking the messenger.

        I was aware of some problems with the SH narrative but have not looked into it to be able to add. For me the one calling out false flag the loudest is the Boston marathon with a guy soon to stand trial and likely ending up dead.

        • glenn_nl

          Nikko – after a while one becomes tired at being referred to a nazi fantasist’s ravings, and being expected to take far more time and effort than was ever spent by the person (Paul B. here) who quoted the lies in the first place.

          Paul insists the school was closed at the time the massacre took place. How come? Well, it says so in lots of dodgy conspiracy sites. Any proof of that? Of course not, none needed. On the other hand, any credible site (referring to witnesses, officials, police, medics, families etc. etc.) are immediately dismissed because they’re all liars and actors.

          How is one supposed to conduct a “debate” when one side requires nothing but an assertion from highly dubious sources, while at the same time dismisses out of hand every source that should be considered credible.

          How would you do it?

          • Nikko

            Well, if “…one side requires nothing but an assertion from highly dubious sources, while at the same time dismisses out of hand every source that should be considered credible”, then all the other side needs to do is post the credible evidence and people will make their own minds up. Simple!

          • Clark

            But it’s not that simple, is it Nikko? If anyone presents any evidence or reasoning that challenges the relentless drive towards disinformation, up jumps a whole chorus of detractors and innuendo-spouters to create an impression that such views are not merely untenable, but tainted.

          • Clark

            Quite clearly, the likes of Paul Barbara are being encouraged in their folly, and others are being encouraged to join him, by people who seem intelligent enough to know better. So I have to ask myself; why?

      • Paul Barbara

        @ glenn_nl November 16, 2017 at 08:24
        Dan Bidondi may be a reporter at Infowars, but this interview took place on Truth Radio Show, not on Alex Jones Infowars.
        I don’t know how your attacks against me are allowed to stand by the Mods; it is you who are upsetting the applecart.
        You accuse me of liking Nazis, on non-existent grounds.
        I would, and do, quote the Devil himself if it demonstrates my point.
        But then, as you believe a school mass shooting occurred, in a school which had been closed for four years, you don’t address the argument, you make baseless charges against me.
        I won’t return the compliment, though I would like to.

        • glenn_nl

          I’m pointing out that your sources are Nazi inspired, and lack any credibility. If you become tainted with the sources you favour and keep quoting, that’s your fault, not mine.

          The below is what one of the parents went through, because miserable conspiracy-theorists consider it sport to deny he ever had a child:

          http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/the-sandy-hook-hoax.html

          Not that this concerns you, eh Paul? Because you _know_ he’s a liar and an actor.

          A good number of the hoax claims are detailed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories#Harassment_by_conspiracy_theorists

          Of course, these are all from “Mainstream media” which is most convenient for you – because you can discount them all! Just like that, pooof—gone. Whereas if I attack your virtually single source because it’s run by a pro-Nazi, pro gun, far right conspiracy fantasist, you cry foul.

          Simply asserting it was “a school which had been closed for four years” doesn’t make it so, no matter how many times you say it. It’s not an argument; rather it’s an empty assertion. In fact, it’s a lie. I did a bit of looking around and see that lie being made in a lot of dodgy sites, which doubtless is good enough for you. There is no evidence that it was actually closed, because it wasn’t.

  • Clark

    YET again – and I’ll keep on saying it until we address it – on this thread, and in this entire field, we have a major problem with communication. The Sandy Hook shooting is just the specific case raised most recently. There is NO POINT discussing specifics, let alone hopping from one specific to another, until the underlying problem is addressed.

    • glenn_nl

      Clark – may I refer you to the point I just made to Nikko.

      How are we supposed to “debate”, when conspiracy buffs consider empty assertions from known fantasists and liars, with a clear far-right agenda , to be “proof” ?

      And with what are we supposed to counter such assertions, when all credible sources are waved away as being part of the MSM?

      This is the basic problem. The likes of Paul, KoWN and so on selectively regard sources as credible (at least for some of the time) if it says what they want to hear.

      • Clark

        Glenn, quite. The method seems to be: read something and decide whether you believe it. Having decided, judge all other sources as reliable if they support it, and government/MSM disinformation if they contradict it.

        Such a positive feedback loop is guaranteed to zoom off to infinity at every opportunity, and the results are clear to see on this thread and multitudes of sites just like it.

        An interesting side effect further confirms the structural nature of the problem. The positive feedback zooms off to infinity, but without regard to direction so long as it is away from the “official story”. Consequently, “multiple shooters” theories are just as acceptable as “faked wounds and crisis actors” theories about precisely the same incident.

        Of course, members of the public notice this and conclude that “conspiracy theorists” must be barking mad, but that just proves that the silly sheeple are doing the bidding of the CIA and/or have an infantile need to trust authority.

  • Clark

    I watched Prof Hulsey’s video presentation and made some notes:

    Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 1-0_rxmrybkv.mp4

    NIST left some components out of their simulation, but I’m not particularly interested in the single initiating failure because if something doesn’t fail one way, it may well fail another. However, I’d like to know NIST’s reason for omitting the components that they did. Someone asked about this in the Q&A session, but Professor Hulsey couldn’t tell them if NIST omitted them from the simulation because they were omitted from the actual building.

    I’m more interested in collapse propagation, and Hulsey says we’re short by a factor of about three on the first floor-hitting-floor impact. Even if the impacted floor did fail and the two fell together onto the one below, at worst it could only approach the claimed failure load for the next floor down, so propagation would require at least two unlikely failures. On the other hand, Hulsey’s failure load is over ten times the weight of a floor, and the actual failure load could have been a lot less than that at the time of collapse, and there’s no way we could know. I’d say that NIST and ARUP’s model(s?) of the start of propagation of progressive collapse look(s) remarkably unlikely, but can’t be entirely ruled out.

    Then at 50:21 we have a slide about Con Edison’s insurance claim. Con Edison’s insurers claimed that WTC7 was of negligent design based on the failure described in the ARUP report. WTC7 Properties opposed their claim with the Weidlinger report which disputed the ARUP report, and proposed a rather different collapse mechanism involving “extraordinarily” high steel temperatures (750 centigrade) between column 79 and column 80 in the 9th and 10th floors. Although this report was never entered into court records, this side eventually won, the negligent design claim being overturned at appeal.

    “The steel temperatures claimed are said to be from a 2010 thermal analysis by a Dr Craig Beyler of Hughes Associates. However, the details of that report are not shown in the Weidlinger report and this thermal analysis has not been made public”.

    At 58:18, we see that UAF have used the properties of ASTM A572 steel, yield 50 ksi, density 490 pcu. The prof says that some A36 steel was also used.

    At about 1:02:00, yes, it would seem more likely for expansion to push column 79 east, away from the 3 dimensional bracing of the core, rather than expansion subtending from the laterally unbraced east wall managing to push column 79 west.

    1:05:10; it seems no one knows what type of aggregate was used for the floor concrete.
    – – – – – – –
    The way Professor Hulsey speaks convinces me that he is very familiar with the various simulations; he has obviously been involved with the work himself, though he doesn’t seem so good at putting it across. But he seems very nervous (he fiddles constantly with the mouse, which picks up most annoyingly on the badly placed microphone), and there seem to be some things he’s not entirely free to talk about.

    In all, a rather frustrating lecture. Guess I’ll just have to wait for the next one.

  • Node

    I’ve thought of a great way of using up hours of time. I’ll find a special interest forum and whenever I disagree with someone’s opinion, I’ll accuse everybody else in the forum of encouraging that opinion if they don’t speak up in support of me. Then the next time it happens I’ll say the same thing again. And again and again and again. Occasionally I’ll demand that everybody stops talking about their special interest and discusses the mechanics of communication instead, but then I’ll go back to accusing them again. And again.

    Anybody know where I can find a suitable forum?

    • Clark

      Trying to get me to fuck off, perchance? What a surprise.

      Utter hypocrisy, of course. I post idea after idea about 9/11. Just above is my summary of a lecture about WTC7 and various simulations of its collapse. I’ve introduced to this thread the subjects of Richard Blee, SecrecyKills, Senator Bob Graham. I’m the only one to have mentioned the ARUP report and the court case over WTC7’s collapse. I’m the only one to have mentioned the torture of detainees.

      Somehow, none of this is worth engaging with. None of it leads in the direction you want to go, does it? Whereas phantom willies and oddly shaped clouds are just fine, and I should positively crawl to the odd anti-Semites accusing me of mass murder. Yeah, right.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Here’s a question for the clever people who read this thread.

    When we discussed the International Space Station recently, Clark said he could see it from his house. Wikipedia agrees and says it is visible to the naked eye.

    But I don’t see how that could be possible.

    According to Wikipedia the Space Station is roughly 240 ft long and 356 ft wide. A Boeing 747 is around 200 ft by 200 ft, so the Space Station is only marginally bigger than a 747.

    When a 747 flies at its cruising altitude of around 7 miles up, it is so small as to be almost invisible.

    And yet the Space Station maintains an altitude of between 205 and 270 miles. So how is it possible to see something only slightly larger than a 747 at more than 200 miles alway?

    That’s like the distance from London to Paris.

    Secondly, how is it possible to see satellites at night with the naked eye? I know the conventional answer is they reflect the sun’s rays, but when a satellite traverses the night side of the earth, which obviously is turned away from the sun, there would be no sun’s rays to illuminate the satellite, because the earth would shield the satellite.

    Have I missed something obvious?

    • Clark

      Yes, it’s the brightness.

      To be visible, a satellite has to be in sunlight, but (nearly always) it has to be dark at the observer’s location on the surface. So you can see them, usually, in the couple of hours after sunset and in the couple of hours before sunrise.

      If you look at the sighting charts for the ISS, you will see some evening passes that go quite high, but don’t traverse the whole sky. What happens is that the ISS passes into the shadow of Earth, so it just rapidly fades to invisibility. If you can be bothered to get up before sunrise you can watch the converse effect; the ISS appears mid-sky and then continues toward the eastern horizon until lost in the haze.

      • Clark

        I suppose I should expound. Imagine you’re with a friend watching the sunset together. You can see the sun slowly sinking below the horizon. But if you could leave your friend by rising vertically, you could compensate and keep the sun just above the horizon. You’d be directly above the point you left your, but getting higher and higher. Of course, for your friend back at your starting point, the sun would be down and the evening would be getting darker and darker, but you’d still be in sunshine. About 240 miles up the ISS whizzes past you, glinting in the sunset. Down on the surface it’s dark enough for your friend to see the ISS pass over, but even with good binoculars she’ll hardly be able to discern its shape.

        • Clark

          I suppose I should expound further. You can see the star Deneb in the Summer Triangle. It’s about 1600 light years away. I don’t know how big it is, but let’s say it’s a big star like Betelgeuse, which is about 200 million miles in diameter (bigger than Earth’s orbit around Sol!). How big would it look? The ratio of diameter to distance would be:

          200,000,000 to (186,000 x 60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 1600)
          = 200,000,000 to ~9.4×10^15
          = about 1 to 47 million.

          And the ISS? From KoWN’s figures, I’ll take the smaller figure of 240 feet, and the higher altitude of 270 miles, so that’s:

          240 to (3 x 1760 x 270)
          = 240 to ~1,400,000
          = about 1 to 6000

          So a star would appear much, much smaller than the ISS does; we see them because of their brightness rather than their size.

        • Clark

          What I reckon is that the Internet broke the old limitations of publishing. People discovered the distortions in their old corporate media and, veering to the opposite pole, started suspecting everything they though they knew. There were a whole load of weirdos just waiting for them to arrive, and now loads of people are encouraging each other to believe incredibly outrageous things; it’s become a self-amplifying cycle.

          Been there done that, years ago. Escaping from the Jehovah’s Witlesses left me wondering if anything could be trusted. I entertained all the hippy stuff for a while, until someone I can’t even remember lent me The Don Juan Papers, about how Carlos Castaneda just made up his Don Juan books. After that, I thought I’d best learn critical thinking.

          These days I think that human language probably developed as a means of manipulating others. Lies are the rule, not the exception, not a rare deviation from the normality of truth. People mislead each other quite spontaneously, just for the thrill of it.

          • Clark

            Part of the problem of the human condition is that we all use language as part of our thought process… But if language developed primarily to manipulate and deceive, each of us is deceiving ourself, and incapable of knowing it. For instance, we get a feeling and it motivates us to do something, and then the language-thinking part of our mind makes up a reason for it, which we then take to be true.

            Freud described all this (in dense, impenetrable language). The feeling come from the id, and the ego then makes up a plausible excuse. But we are only partly conscious of the operation of our ego; much of its work takes place behind the curtain.

            Suzanne Vega; “and most of the show is concealed from view”

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdglnqelNkQ

          • Ba'al Zevul

            Wasn’t it suggested recently that by the time we are conscious of the feeling, the decision has already been made?
            IOW our conscious thought processes simply rationalise decisions which are beyond our conscious control. Which, if correct, should take us down a peg or two.

          • Clark

            Ba’al, that’s been known for some time; I first encountered it in Penrose’s The Emperor’s New Mind. There has been further research since then which looks somewhat deeper – but I forget.

            Personally I don’t read too much into it. We use our consciousness to learn, including the learning of new responses. Free will is not so much a given as something we develop:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSO9OFJNMBA

          • Phil the ex-frog

            Clark
            “But if language developed primarily to manipulate and deceive”

            That is a big if. That chimps are highly mischevious, manipulative and deceptive if you like, suggests we were too, long before language. Language, contrary to the wild claims of Chomsky, probably developed to improve communication.

          • Phil the ex-frog

            Clark
            “Personally I don’t read too much into it. We use our consciousness to learn”

            I agree. The subconscious seems to contained learned stuff that can remain somewhat hidden fro the conscious. And it seems clear our conscious thoughts, as well as experience, can shape our subconscious. Free will is not sidelined by acknowledging we can turn door handles and kill without conscious consideration,

          • Phil the ex-frog

            Baal
            “our conscious thought processes simply rationalise decisions which are beyond our conscious control”

            I agree. And crowds are subject to such dynamics and rationalisation. eg weapons of mass destruction. Isn’t that sort of what historical materialism shows us.

          • Phil the ex-frog

            Baal
            “our conscious thought processes simply rationalise decisions which are beyond our conscious control”

            I disagree if by simply you mean only. Our conscious does more than rationalise. I don’t think thats what you’re saying but I am here on the 911 thread again trying to avoid something I must do. I am experiencing strong resistance from my subconscious to open my email client.

          • Ba'al Zevul

            Thanks, Phil, That cheered up a gloomy morning. In which the unconscious decision to do some work has not yet formulated itself in my consciousness.

        • KingofWelshNoir

          Yes Ba’al, it’s called Libet’s ‘readiness potential’.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

          The experiment has been repeated many times although there is much dispute about it and many people are reluctant to accept what it seems to mean. I think you can train yourself pretty easily to spot this in normal life when you start moving before the conscious decision occurs.

          Also quite interesting is the work on consciousness by Daniel Dennett who shows that consciousness is an interpretation that lags about half a second behind the ‘real’ world. During that lag there are multiple versions/drafts of it circulating the brain like MS Word documents being revised, until one is agreed on as canonical. This become the version presented to you – whoever or wherever you are. This allows the possibility that the sequence of events can be altered so the readiness potential – as I understand it – could be backdated.

      • Clark

        Ah, the Iridium flares. They are what got me looking at satellites. I was out walking on a clear night when something in the sky caught my eye. I looked up just in time to see a fading point of light.

        A few minutes later I was home and searching the ‘net. I e-mailed N2YO, who told me what I’d seen.

        http://www.n2yo.com/

        • BrianFujisan

          Thats Poetry Clark..Thank you.. I sit out on Crystal nights..with Maybe Hamockmusic on Watching wee satellite’s Pass..the Iridium flares are quite amazing

  • Peter Beswick

    Conspiracy warning

    Did you know personal data can be read from your Identicon / ava-grava(tar)

    Particularly the bespoke picyturey ones but I was surprised that some triangularly / squarey / coloury ones can give up personal data including telephone numbers (believe it or not), apparently due to a lack of salt!

    Just sayin’

    • Clark

      I knew it could reveal the e-mail address I registered with Gravatar.com, but I published that anyway – it’s now defunct. I’m pretty sure I never gave them a ‘phone number.

      • Peter Beswick

        No your info just gives your .plus.com website which has an email address

        I will post the return if you want as it already in the public domain but I don’t want to give the method for obvious reasons.

        I just happened across it after I read somewhere that we were only pixels on here and that got me thinking.

        Brian Fujisan might want to consider an edit of whats associated with his gravatar – 5 websites associated including this one.

        A photographer from Scotland (gravatar details found on this website) gave up his name, email, mobile tel no, address and short Bio

        • Clark

          Are you saying you found my plus.com e-mail address associated with my Gravatar? I haven’t registered that e-mail address with Gravatar. Where does the information come from?

          • Peter Beswick

            Forgot to say the photographer has got links to 7 photos in his gravatar wth all his other personal data plus his Facebook account details

          • Clark

            Sorry, I realise what you mean now. Yes, my contact page is registered with Gravatar to be used as the “Website” link on the image, and my contact page has my plus.com e-mail address, which I want people to be able to see. But the Gravatar account is registered under an old e-mail address; I haven’t given Gravatar my plus.com address.

          • Peter Beswick

            I guess you must have given your website address to someone because the hyperlink associated with your name at the top of each of your comments takes someone clinking on “Clark” to your website. And its your website that has your email address.

            But in the yellow fractelly box thing, that also contains your website address (hidden), not your email address.

        • Clark

          I think I may have included some biographical material with the Gravatar account; nothing private though.

          No don’t post my e-mail address. It’s shown as an image on my contact page because I expect the Javascript methods of hiding e-mail addresses to be broken before spammers bother implementing character recognition.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Newtown School Boss Can’t Recall Sandy Hook At Super Bowl’:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpfpj32UXwk

    ‘SandyHook School Not in Operation During Alleged Masacre’:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXeRPtj-tEU

    ‘The Sandy Hook Massacre…um…I Mean Drill’:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xsBC2zoze4

    The last video shows they do use child actors in drills of mass school shootings. And in the first, there’s obviously nothing strange in athe Headmaster of a school not remebering the Sandy Hook School Choir attending the Superbowl in 2013 (he was not the haedmaster then, but was a school official and at school board meetings meetings.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ glenn_nl November 16, 2017 at 12:52
    ‘…I did a bit of looking around and see that lie being made in a lot of dodgy sites, which doubtless is good enough for you. There is no evidence that it was actually closed, because it wasn’t.’

    • Paul Barbara

      @ glenn_nl November 16, 2017 at 12:52
      Woops, forgot to finish that comment, so I’ll try again:
      ‘…I did a bit of looking around and see that lie being made in a lot of dodgy sites, which doubtless is good enough for you. There is no evidence that it was actually closed, because it wasn’t.’
      I see; you ignore the evidence the school was closed, and just state there is no evidence, yet you provide no ‘evidence’ it was not closed; we’re just supposed to take your word for it.
      So you ridicule the idea it was a hoax to further gun control?
      Well, here’s a LinkedIn article, which shows the lawyer for the Police Department and the school, who was said to have been ‘out of town on important business, was demonstrating for gun control. Because of thiis, Halbig’s FOIA hearing was postponed.

      ‘WOLFGANG HALBIG, Threatened for asking Questions about Sandy Hook’:
      https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wolfgang-halbig-threatened-asking-questions-sandy-hook-watters/
      ‘…Mr. Halbig said Monte Frank, the lawyer for the city and school board was not out of town on urgent business but, riding a bike for gun control. WH wants to file a grievance for having the hearing postponed without his consent. “How is that having higher priority than representing your clients?”

      But of course, gun control has nothing whatsoever to do with the hoax shooting.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Another False Flag Terror ADMISSION: Snipers In the Ukraine “Protests”:
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/11/another-false-flag-terror-admission-maiden-sniper.html

    Many of us have known this for yonks, but it’s good to get confirmation.
    This was also done in Syria and Venezuela, and I believe in Egypt.
    Here’s proof of how hoax terror attacks really do occur:
    ‘Fake Car Bombing in Baghdad, Iraq – 100% Proof of a Staged, Hoax Event’:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8m_ZfRAtuM

        • Peter Beswick

          Absolutely Chilling and according to the author is still still a vibrant industry today.

          http://www.washingtonsblog.com/

          But when a new False Flag is suspected and someone says “this is strange”, “something not right here” and gives the evidence that supports their concerns, there is a significant proportion of the population that will respond (because of their programming) in the most bizarre way. Without reference to any evidence or counter evidence, facts or corroborating factors (either way), the messengers are rounded upon. “Liars, Fascists, Nazis, Anti-Semites, Delusional, Flat Earth, Truthing Bastards”.

          Which often is not helpful to establishing the substance and value of the concerns raised, it does however create a diversion and that is all that is generally needed.

          The programmed sleepers don’t know they are being dicks, in fact because of the rules of chance some of the False Flag concerns turn out to be False, False Fags (which are universally welcomed by the sleeping fraternity). But they are always proved False, False Flags by the inquirers never the distractors. The distractors have never proved a single one False Flag Concern to be False, that is always achieved by genuine Truth Seekers.

          The Five Stages of Realisation and Deprogramming Initiation. (Discovering that Government’s Kill their Own By Design – Paid For By You)

          Denial,
          Anger,
          Bargaining,
          Depression,
          Acceptance

          If these sound a bit like the five stages of grief it is because they are. Realisation that you have been living a lie, in ignorance, that the world around you really is full of evil; that triggers the death of your innocence and the breaking of chains. A rebirth! But its not for everyone, the soft, cuddly “I’m being protected by my benign Masters” is a very comfortable and indeed a very safe option.

  • Clark

    So Facebook have banned some stuff, and people here are calling it “chilling”.

    But we saw an interesting phenomenon on this thread. In the presidential campaign, Trump said he’d release information about 9/11, and suddenly he had a load of supporters on this thread, because they thought he’d confirm demolition theory. People were saying, right here on this thread, that Trump was an honest man, not part of “the Elite”, and that he’d better watch out or he might get assassinated. When he got elected, people said he should be “given a chance”, and there were calls to boycott the UK protest against his visit.

    Then he broke international law and his promise not to escalate matters with Russia by firing cruise missiles at Syria.

    Trump shamelessly took advantage of genuinely fake news throughout his campaign. He exploited so-called conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the Sandy Hook massacre. He endorsed Alex Jones.
    – – – – – –

    Meanwhile, I know that there are a whole bunch of people, again right here on this thread, who would like nothing better than to see a whole bunch of engineers taken out and shot.

    And Facebook is chilling? And I’m told that I’m the problem and I need to question myself more?

    Rationally (Macky take note), I should be far more scared of you lot than of Facebook, where I happen to have been banned too, as it goes.

  • Clark

    I think governmental authorities have huge faults. They do terrible things. They do far worse things to distant countries than they do at home.

    But the consensus on this thread would lead to far, far worse than how the US and UK governments treat those respective populations.

    What I have seen of human nature on this thread chills me far more than Facebook’s silly antics.

    For fuck’s sake, Facebook was never intended as a news venue or serious political platform. It was where you went to Poke people you fancied, and give virtual beer to people. Where your choices in the Relationship field were “Single”, “Married”, “In a relationship” and “It’s complicated”. The only political relevance has is that which has been given to it voluntarily by those foolish enough to do so.

    THIS is a political forum, and there’s a thirst for summary justice, and constant pressure to propagate lies!

    This is fucking crazy.

    • KingofWelshNoir

      Facebook has 2 billion active users. That such a powerful, unaccountable corporation could censor news in this fashion – information that is not disputed and can be found in military training manuals – is deeply disturbing & Orwellian. Not least because you can be sure Google and Amazon will be next. I find it utterly staggering that you can refer to this as a ‘silly antic’.

      • Clark

        Facebook are incompetent; they’ve proven that for years, and I try to persuade people not to use it.

        What happens on this thread is far more Orwellian, the constant bleat of “four legs good, two legs bad”.

        • Clark

          The problem is illustrated right here in your own thinking:

          “Facebook has 2 billion active users”

          No, Arsebook has 2 billion passive useds. They’re passive because among their 2 billion number, they haven’t been able to find one single systems administrator to help them set up their own alternative, and they’re Useds, not users, because the power relationship is the reverse of what they have, with incredible stupidity, assumed.

          Here you have me, who actually has helped to improve and maintain this independent platform, but you’re quite happy to encourage the majority as they treat me like shit.

  • Macky

    “#BREAKING: Abdelbaki Es Satty, the mastermind of the latest terror attack in Barcelona last August 17th, was an informant for the Spanish Secret Services (CNI)”

    From a Spanish Tweet.

  • Clark

    What’s really pissing me off is that nearly everyone here are apologists for the problems on our own side. Fine; criticise the corporate media, criticise Facebook; they have massive faults. But pretending everything is sweetness and light on this side of the curtain is just dishonest.

    There is a major site that has had considerable success at finding an alternative, and it is Wikipedia. But so far as I know, I’m the only one on this thread who has bothered to learn the rules well enough to make changes that might endure at that site.

    • Dave

      Most of us are critical of the problems of our own side, because we want them resolved, because we support our own side, as opposed to the other side, who we get problems from because of the actions of our own side, by people who aren’t really on our side, but another side.

      • Clark

        Ah, the enemy within. Yes. I think the problem progresses down, within each individual, within each of us. Some people can only see the enemy outside of themselves.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Dave November 19, 2017 at 06:33
            I believe we are all under attack both from internal and external demons.
            Difference is, some succumb. It’s easier to resist them if you are aware of them.
            Again, people who don’t believe in God and the Devil will just see any mention of it as twaddle.
            I’ve had considerable personal experience, but here is not the place to go into it.

          • Clark

            I don’t believe in demons; psychology offers better explanation.

            Superficially, demons seem to work as an analogy, but that analogy externalises the problem, and encourages the belief that some people are “possessed”, and therefore others are “pure”. If you can just once evict this “demon”, for the rest of your life all your motivations will be “pure”, ie. perfect. It’s clearly a seductive belief, offering a short cut to virtuousness; lazy It saves us from facing the dark side of our human nature, by pretending that such nature isn’t human.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark November 19, 2017 at 12:03
            You don’t believe in Demons? Fine, I did cover that possibility in my comment.
            But trying to imply this perfection business won’t wash. I don’t believe any of us can completely banish our Demons, but being aware of them helps mitigate their influence.
            I believe essentially they operate through the subconscious, so we get ‘urges’ to like or do things, which we believe are spontaneous, but which have bubbled up from our subconscious.
            But I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe – neither of us is going to be able to prove it either way.
            Yes, I read books by Freud, Jung and others way back in the ’60’s, but I long ago came to the conclusion they are wrong.

          • Clark

            “so we get ‘urges’ to like or do things, which we believe are spontaneous, but which have bubbled up from our subconscious”

            Yes, like the way you so many times hinted that I might be some kind of agent.

        • J

          Yes Clark, you said this:

          “What’s really pissing me off is that nearly everyone here are apologists for the problems on our own side.”

          Followed by:

          “Some people can only see the enemy outside of themselves.”

          What can I add to such clarity? Accusing critics of being apologists and telling them it’s their fault governments keep waging aggressive wars in their name?

          Pardon me for suggesting that if there is anyone who sees the enemy outside themselves it is literally and demonstrably our combined Political, financial, military manufacturing & oil elite, the press, television, cinema and latterly internet elite. They spend all day every day telling us the enemy is outside, located explicitly in North Korea, Africa, Salvador, Guatemala, Cambodia, Vietnam, Chile, Indonesia, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Russia, China… The roundabout goes on & on.

          Who could be behind all of these wars in one form or another? Your saying the best answer is anti-war bloggers?

          • Clark

            How does Google rate sites? One well known part of Google’s page ranking algorithm is that pages that many other pages link to will be ranked more highly.

            So every time a commenter here links to a “Sandy Hook was a Hoax” or “Mossad did Sandy Hook” page, they associate this site with those conspiracy theory sites in Google’s rankings. People searching for, say, torture issues will be offered pages on the conspiracy sites that happen to mention torture. Likewise with Holocaust denial. Overall, this has a tendency to corrupt the anti-war blogsphere with very unpleasant nonsense.

            We shouldn’t blame the Elite that we haven’t been doing our own housework.

          • J

            You brilliantly avoiding the central fallacy of your own argument. I’m kidding, it wasn’t brilliant, just dull and predictable.

          • Clark

            J, sorry, I think we may be at crossed purposes. I’ll clarify what I mean.

            It is a nearly universal tendency to fail to see one’s own faults, or the faults of one’s own side.

            Applied to the “Western” establishment, I mean that the “Western” establishment regards all its war-waging not as aggression, but as necessary responses to external evil.

            In the context of the commenters on this thread, I mean that commenters here see distortion in the mainstream media, but ignore the distortions they amplify and propagate themselves. They see bias against Muslims and Muslim countries in “Western” politics and media, but fail to recognise Judeophobia and anti-Semitism coming from their fellow commenters.

          • Clark

            “…if there is anyone who sees the enemy outside themselves it is literally and demonstrably our combined Political, financial, military manufacturing & oil elite, the press, television, cinema and latterly internet elite. They spend all day every day telling us the enemy is outside, located explicitly in North Korea, Africa, Salvador, Guatemala, Cambodia, Vietnam, Chile, Indonesia, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Russia, China…”

            But is this not you seeing the enemy outside of yourself, in the “combined Political, financial, military manufacturing & oil elite, the press, television, cinema and latterly internet elite”? What are you doing wrong? Nothing, by any chance? Not even afflicted with a sense of purity?

            For my part, I’m heating my home and running my car with oil, buying communications and Internet access from companies performing mass surveillance, buying food from corporate concerns that exploit poorer populations overseas, throwing stuff away to be disposed of in dubious manners, etc. etc. etc. And I’m not where I should be, in the cold in Parliament Square like Brian Haw was. There is a lot more that I could be doing.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Clark November 19, 2017 at 02:02
    Point is, it is not on to make a ‘joke’ of such an atrocity. Although you aren’t exactly doing that, but repeating what you called a ‘joke’ from some MSM source.
    Dunblane was not a ‘Hoax’. It was done to cover up a paedophile ring involving high-level people, which is why the records are sealed for 100 years: ‘Who is really being protected by Dunblane 100-year ban?’:
    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/11901710.Who_is_really_being_protected_by_Dunblane_100_year_ban_/

  • Paul Barbara

    Now Soros and Co. are trying to blame Russia for Brexit!
    ‘Soros and his ‘226 EU friends’ thrust into spotlight by Farage – so who are they?’:
    https://www.rt.com/news/410223-soros-allies-migrants-farage-orban/

    ‘Picking up the anti-Soros torch from Hungarian leader Viktor Orban, UK politician Nigel Farage is seeking to investigate fellow EU MEPs who support the controversial vision of the wealthy financier. But are Orban and Farage’s fears valid?
    UK politician Nigel Farage, the prominent face of Brexit, is now concerned about Europe’s destiny. Addressing the EU Parliament this week, Farage provided some thoughtful ideas as to the source of the claims that Russia had somehow manipulated the Brexit vote, as well as the Trump election.
    “Just last week, the electoral commission, in the UK, launched an investigation to find out whether the ‘Leave’ campaign took offshore money or Russian money,” Farage said.
    “This came about as a result of questions asked in the House of Commons by one Ben Bradshaw, somebody linked to an organization called Open Society……….”

    ‘…..Farage described Soros’s influence in Strasbourg and Brussels as “truly extraordinary.” And that influence looks set to increase dramatically now that Soros has donated the bulk of his wealth – $18 billion – into his Open Society pet project, which campaigns for open borders and supranational structures such as the European Union.

    Farage concluded his short, fiery monologue with a weighty statement: “I fear we could be looking at the biggest level of international, political collusion in history.”

    On the surface, there seems to be some legitimacy to Farage’s claim. According to public sources, Open Society European Policy Institute (OSEPI), the EU policy arm of Open Society Foundations, met with members of the European Commission on 44 separate occasions in 2016. And now that the organization has just been energized with $18 billion, it would seem apparent that that influence is set to increase.

    Moreover, the Soros organizations published a pamphlet providing details on a list of 226 reliable “friends” who serve in the European Parliament. Farage said he would call on the parliament to set up a special committee to investigate the issue.

    Who are Soros’ 226 EU ‘friends’?
    In a 177-page pamphlet published by Open Society, entitled “Reliable Allies in the European Parliament (2014-2019),” 226 EU MEPs are listed and labeled according to their political orientation and views……..’

    Although I certainly don’t agree with Nigel Farage on all issues, his Tweet: ‘George Soros has spent billions in the EU to undermine the nation state. This is where the real international political collusion is.’ is spot on. Screw the NWO/’One World Gulag’!

  • Clark

    Of course gun nuts never buy guns because they like the feeling of holding the power of life and death over other people. No such subconscious urge could possibly contaminate the purity of the gun lobby.

    No, gun nuts only ever buy guns to protect themselves from the government, first and foremost in case that government should ever try to restrict their access to guns or ammo, of course. But as we constantly see, the gun lobby also keep the US government pure from corruption and waging illegal wars; they are incredibly effective at this.

    • Clark

      And this, of course, is why the US government keep calling in Hollywood or Mossad, respectively to fake or perform massacres, because they just can’t get away with enough corruption and illegal warring as things are, under the watchful and armed presence of the gun nuts.

      • Clark

        Amazing. It just makes such perfect, obvious sense now I can see it. How stupid I’ve been! I can understand now why people might think I’m some sort of “agent”.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark November 19, 2017 at 13:24
          ‘..How stupid I’ve been! I …’
          Oddly enough, I agree with that. In fact, I’ll raise a glass!
          It’s all about YOU.
          Sod the MILLIONS who have died over the 9/11 LIE.

          • Clark

            No, Paul. It is about treating people with respect – and that merely includes me. Anyone who challenges bunk on this thread gets subtle abuse from you and the gang. This pervades discussion of 9/11 everywhere; the so-called Truth Movement is riddled with anti-Semitism, which is what has killed discussion of 9/11.

          • Clark

            And Paul, I resent your imputation that I don’t care about the wars (but Mods, please don’t delete Paul’s comment; all the deletions are making it difficult to make any point). I was on the February 2003 protest against the attack on Iraq. I have been on protests against two Israeli assaults upon Gaza; John Goss and Nevermind met me on one of those. I was one of the people whose letters to their MPs helped prevent Cameron’s proposed attack upon the government of Syria. I wrote to my MP to prevent the Conservative Attorney General from protecting the war criminals of the attack on Iraq, including Blair. And I have worked for this site for years, as it has helped to expose Atlantic Bridge and Werritty, and helped Anders Behring Breivik be tried for terrorism rather than being tried as insane.

            I’d really appreciate an apology for that utterly unwarranted attack you made upon me, Paul Barbara.

    • Clark

      The article you linked does not show any curtailment of freedom of speech. The videos of hurtful lies which you defend so valiantly are still on YouTube; they are merely less prominent in search results.

      It is a shame that people would not treat with respect our new found freedom to publish on the Internet. It is irresponsible conspiracy theorists like the majority on this thread that have effectively forced Google, YouTube and Facebook to make such changes. Sites like this one are likely to lose out as a result.

      LIES, Justice Peace? Well done, useful idiots.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark November 19, 2017 at 23:30
        The link she was barred for was a list of acknowledged ‘False Flag’ attacks, so not ‘videos of hurtful lies’ but historical truth.
        I’m now going back to ‘Plan B’.

  • glenn_nl

    Not just children, I’d say….


    ‘Too many children struggle with the nature of online information,’ digital literacy expert Remco Pijpers told NOS broadcaster. ‘We are in the middle of a discussion about fake news…[and] it is important for these children’s future careers that they are able to find and verify information.’

    http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/11/children-not-as-internet-savvy-as-they-think/

    Lyanca ten Donkelaar, team leader at vocational training school AOC Oost, tested her pupils’ digital skills and confirmed the report’s findings. ‘I would tell them to find something on the internet and they would simply put down whatever came up first in Google: in a class about birth control that is a bit worrying,’ NOS quotes her as saying.

    • Clark

      I think it’s natural for children to +struggle+ with the nature of information, but struggling is all part of the fun for kids.

      I think some stop struggling when they “grow up”. Some decision clicks in, and they begin to judge information by very simple criteria, like “does it seem right”.

      The trouble is, a lot of the information-judgement process has become habitual by then, and as such is no longer scrutinised in consciousness. Contradictions with what they already believe have become a nuisance rather than a fascination, the struggle is no longer fun, and a habit of explaining away contradictions and dismissing them develops. And if belief in a widespread enemy has developed, it’s (false) explanatory power is effectively infinite; any contradictory facts can be dismissed as “disinfo by the enemy”.

      In the corporate media and its readers, one “widespread enemy” is currently “Russia”. Others are “terrorists” and “the EU”. On a thread like this it’s “the Elite”, “the MSM” etc.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Poppy Output Hits Record High as US Troop Surge in Afghanistan Completed’:
    https://www.activistpost.com/2017/11/poppy-output-hits-record-high-us-troop-surge-afghanistan-completed.html?
    Gas and oil pipelines and opium were the main reasons Afghanistan was invaded in the first place.

    ‘….As TFTP has previously reported, a former British Territorial Army mechanic, Anthony C Heaford released a report two years ago, and a series of photos, which he says proves that British and American troops are harvesting opium in Afghanistan.

    It is also no secret that Afghanistan opium production has increased by 3,500 percent, from 185 tons in 2001 to 6,400 in 2015, since the US-led invasion….’

    ‘…That supply is having a direct effect in the United States where more Americans died from drug overdoses in 2016 than were killed in the Vietnam War. That number has only continued to increase in 2017, with more than 100 Americans dying every day—meaning that opioids are killing more Americans than car crashes and gun deaths combined.

    When the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, the excuse was to eradicate the Taliban—but in 2017, not only is the Taliban alive and well, the Afghanistan War has become the longest war in U.S. history, and President Trump has admitted that the United States’ strategy for the region does not include an exit anytime soon.

    The Afghanistan War has cost American taxpayers more than $1 trillion over the last 16 years, and it has resulted in more than 31,000 civilian deaths. While the media does not publicize it, and most politicians won’t acknowledge it, the record number of deaths from opioid overdoses in the U.S. is a direct result of the record-high opium cultivation in Afghanistan—where U.S. troops are literally guarding the plants….’

    ‘Anti-Drug Sen. John McCain’s Fundraiser Caught Operating Meth Lab, Dealing Heroin & Cocaine’:
    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/anti-drug-sen-john-mccains-fundraiser-caught-operating-meth-lab-dealing-heroin-cocaine/

    Murderous, hypocritical War Criminal psycho/sociopaths. And the ‘Sheeple’ just don’t want to handle the truth, so bleat on about ‘conspiraloons’. Ignorance is bliss, till the SHTF.

    • Clark

      “Poppy Output Hits Record High”

      It shouldn’t be a surprise, should it? The NATO powers backed Karzai, whose brother-in-law was Dostum, a drug lord. The Western-installed “governments” of Afghanistan and Iraq are among the most corrupt governments ever seen.

      What I want to know is, when are your heroes the US gun enthusiasts going to march on Washington and put a stop to this? Why are we waiting for them to act?

      • glenn_nl

        It really beats me why anyone outside the US is duped by this NRA propaganda. I mean seriously – all these gun deaths have to be tolerated, so that a tyrannical government can be kept at bay? That might (hog-) wash with slack-jawed yokels from the flyover states, but why would anyone believe that BS in a civilised country, where we do not have a gun culture and are far better for it?

        Not wishing to labour the point, but I can easily imagine our more ignorant US correspondents talking this way. But hearing a fellow Brit espouse the same NRA talking-points, and actually taking it seriously, is peculiar to say the least.

  • Macky

    Did an undercover agent incite the Berlin Christmas Market attack?

    “Most of the group members had wanted to leave for Syria to fight on the side of Islamic State (IS). They had not spoken about attacks in Germany. Agent “Murat” had several times said to members of the group: “Come on, you don’t have a passport anyway, do something here, carry out an attack.”

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/26/amri-o26.html

    Manufactoring terror attacks just a CT ?

    • Clark

      Wonderful the way you pretend there’s no difference between the West’s proxy troops running amok in Europe due to the radicalisation encouraged in Western mosques by Western allies Saudi Arabia, and the nonsense “false flag” conspiracy theories where the whole thing is a government plot, with every state employee and every journalist conspiring against their own neighbours.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Samuel L. Jackson takes a surprising position on gun control’:
    http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/12/19/samuel-l-jackson-takes-a-surprising-position-on-gun-control

    ‘“I don’t think it’s about more gun control,” said Samuel L. Jackson, who stars as a conniving house slave in Quentin Tarantino’s upcoming revenge fantasy “Django Unchained.” “I grew up in the South with guns everywhere and we never shot anyone. This [shooting] is about people who aren’t taught the value of life.”

    Parents and role models who emphasize that value, he said, will accomplish more than legislators reducing the number of firearms…’

  • Macky

    Using the “Fake News” pretext, the changes that Youtube & Google have made to their algorithms have nothing to do with an “effort to better promote reputable sources” and everything to do with a general crackdown on dissent and ultimately with creeping fascism in the US. Their search result changes have already dramatically reduced web traffic to reader-supported left wing websites.

    They pretend they want to protect us from “fake news” , but what they really want is to prevent anyone from understanding what they’re up to.

    https://www.rt.com/news/410444-google-alphabet-derank-rt/#

1 125 126 127 128 129 130