Download C-SPAN 9/11 LA American Scholars Conference Video

[Eikon]

This is a direct download link to the full conference that I recorded off of C-SPAN for those who missed the original airing.

http://www.eiksoft.com/cspan911.avi (1hr 45mins - 175MB)

The video is in DivX format with MP3 audio.

Enjoy! :toast:

[RedSock]

1. THANKS!!! (n/t)

[readmoreoften]

2. Is this what was shown on C-span today? /nt

[michael_1166]

3. Thank you for the video!

Why is it not possible to recommend this thread (or any other thread) in the September 11 forum?

I just checked, it is possible to recommend threads in the other "Topic Forums". So why not here? Is this another case of DU censorship?

[helderheid]

5. good questions....

Love ya mods, but hate this about DU.

[mirandapriestly]

6. Yes.eom

[salvorhardin]

7. It's not censorship

DU is a privately owned message board. You can easily get your own message board or blog or website and post on this topic to your heart's content, and you won't even have to pay anything.
http://www.blogger.com
http://www.proboards.com
http://geocities.yahoo.com

[michael_1166]

10. So it's not censorship when it's privately owned?

Interesting viewpoint.
That's like saying it's not censorship when a privately owned newspaper issues a mandatory guideline for journalists not to be critical of the Bush administration. You can do that, as a privately owned newspaper, but it's still censorship.

Anyway, the point that angers me (and probably a lot of other people too) is this: DU presents itself as a melting pot, home base and meeting place for liberals of all sorts. Yet, behind the scenes it doesn't stay true to liberal core values of openness, supporting the free sharing of information and respecting other people's viewpoints. DU purports to support these values, unless people try to share information not being supported by the owners of DU.

Interestingly, what these sensitive subjects are exactly remains quite unclear. This tacit and inexplicable policy has caused a lot of frustration here. One must be blind not to see it.

An open, honest and simple "No free speech allowed!" during the registration process would make things clear from the beginning. Instead, DU acts like a party host who first openly invites the whole town to the festivities and then kicks everyone back onto the street who shows up wearing sneakers, at arbitrary times while the party is running.

"Sneakers not allowed here! Didn't you know???" No.

[salvorhardin]

11. I think you will find that complaints such as yours...

...are best taken up with the site's owners. In any case, they are spelled out fairly clearly in the rules.

Restrictions on Linking to Other Websites

Do not post messages that give publicity to websites that have little purpose other than to smear, disrupt, or complain about Democratic Underground. Currently there are only three websites that fall into this category. Their addresses are not listed here because we do not wish to give them publicity. They are easily identified by their bizarre obsession with Democratic Underground.

Do not quote or link to bigoted websites, or websites that republish content from bigoted websites. While many of these websites are easily identifiable, some are less obvious at first glance. Please be aware that even some anti-Bush websites also include bigoted content and are therefore not welcome here.

Do not quote or link to "conspiracy theory" websites, except in our September 11 forum, which is the only forum on Democratic Underground where we permit members to debate highly speculative conspiracy theories. A reasonable person should be able to identify a conspiracy theory website without much difficulty.

Members are permitted to link to highly partisan conservative websites, provided that they are doing so in the proper context.

If you would like to know if a particular website is restricted, please contact an administrator.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

And no, it is not censorship when a privately owned website disallows certain forms of speech. Moving away from DU for a moment, let's take my website as an example. I construct (it's a never ending process), run and pay for Neural Gourmet. Do I not have a right to determine what forms of speech I deem acceptable at my website? Why should I allow something I consider offensive to be posted on my site when I'm the one who is fronting the financial and legal risks for that speech?

Or on another front, is it censorship when DU bans right wing trolls? There are a certain group of well known right wing trolls who claim exactly that.

[michael_1166]

12. Deeming something as acceptable or not

is the definition of censorship. From the Oxford dictionary:
censor - to remove the parts of a book, film/movie, etc. that are considered offensive, immoral or politically dangerous

What's going on here in the September 11 forum is the "politically dangerous" part of that definition.

I know the DU rules, they're a fine example of an inscrutable text saying nothing definite and leaving everything open to interpretation.

[Sven77]

4. there are torrents at conspiracy central

if you want the video just google, im sure its around.

[Eikon]

8. * Removed * the video is everywhere now

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x102611

[Sven77]

9. more links here

links from http://www.911blogger.com

911podcasts.com - 270MB WMV

911podcasts.com - 526MB AVI (4 parts)

911truthseekers.org - 256MB AVI torrent