NYC Indymedia censors 9/11 truth

[Informed Citizen]

To all,

Recently NYC Indymedia decided to censor any post to their message board at all related to 9/11. This ban applies to event information, links to mainstream articles, and discussion of any evidence related to the issue. Interestingly it appears that this is a local decision, as SF Indymedia has not done the same.

As disturbing as the ban may be, more disturbing are the reasons given to those who have questioned this ban. Reponses have been slanderous, irrational, degrading, and tend to stereotype those investingating the issue as, "...masonic, jewish, illuminati, alien, podcraft, holograms, MK-ULTRA, floridation...(conspiracy theorists)". While I doubt this to be true, they have specified that "everyone" at NYC Indymedia agrees that the 9/11 truth movement is nothing more than immature speculation by, "ignorant people who want to feel smart".

While I agree that there are many in the movement who do not follow the most rational course, it is highly irrational itself to slander a whole group of people who just want to know what happened that day and why. In fairness, I understand that they might want to ban those posts that express some of the more fanciful, or bigotted theories about 9/11. DU does the same, and I respect their decision. This keeps people out of the discussion who might serve to draw further stigma to the 9/11 truth movement. However, this ban should not reasonably be so broad as to exclude an article from the L.A. times, or quotes from family members of 9/11 victims giving testimony at government hearings. Does this sound democratic, or socially responsible to you?

I urge everyone to communicate their feelings about this decision with NYC Indymedia. I suggest being very cordial with them. They seem to be hot under the collar about this issue.

- I.C.

[delver]

1. this is an important issue

we should be able to discuss it openly. i didn't mean to link to that unmentionable website; it was in the quote from the nyc indymedia guy. he actually called it "YOUR website" even though we are not affiliated with it and never even mentioned it.

sorry if the title of my post sounded too harsh or disrespectful, but i think i explained how the people at nyc indymedia had driven me to that level of frustration. they refused to participate in an honest, logical discussion or to address any of my valid points. instead, they consistently responded in a bigoted, ignorant manner.

i feel that the people over at nyc.indymedia.org who are supporting this policy are actually subverting our democratic process. it is quite serious. as a representative of the activist and progressive movements, they should acknowledge the 9/11 Truth movement. the fact that many in this movement do believe that there was high-level US government complicity in 9/11 should not disqualify anything we might have to say or any fact we might point to. and 9/11 Truth has nothing to do with anti-semitism, illuminati, UFOs, New World Order, etc. lumping them all in together is a very sleazy way of discrediting 9/11 Truth and of not dealing with what we are actually saying.

[tives12]

3. Free Republic knows

I posted the following on Free Republic first. It was immediately pulled. They know something in this is true:

It is widely known that 9/11 was the worst attack on American soil. However, many things of this do not add up based on information provided from the media. The government is holding back many things. For example:

Why was FEMA in NYC on September 10th? They claimed to have not been there however Mayor Giuliani told the 9/11 commission that they were there for a September 12th biochemical attack drill. If this was why they were there, why would they deny being there?

How did Mayor Giuliani know that the buildings were going to collapse? No fire had caused a steel framed building to collapse before. However, he was told this within minutes of the planes impact. No historical or scientific evidence backs this claim up.

South Bend Laboratories reported that the fire inside WTC was no hotter than 500 degrees. Even with the jet fuel, people were only reporting fire of 900 degrees. A 1,100 degree fire is necessary to just forge bare steel without any fire protection. 3,000 degree fire is needed to melt bare steel. How would the steel frame of the towers have given in these temperatures when scientific evidence proves otherwise?

Explosions were reported near the 60th floor. The impact of the plane was much higher than that. What would that be from?


I am aware that this is very radical right now and I intend for no disrespect to the victims of this horrible tragedy. I merely fell upon some of this information and thought it should be brought to people's attention so that these questions can be answered. And as I leave, I will leave you with a quote from former Fox News reporter Mark Burnback. He was reporting live and said this of the impact of the plane with the second tower:

It definitely didn't look like a commercial plane. I didn't see any windows on the side. Again, it was not a normal flight that I've ever seen at an airport. It had a blue logo on the front, and it did not look like it belonged in the area.

[Informed Citizen]

5. Good Start

You are on to some of the more interesting evidence which calls into question the official version of 9/11. But, in fact, the items you mention aren't even the primary evidence. Keep looking, and the case against the 'Commission Report' grows overwhelming. By the way, finding out what really happened is the greatest respect we can have for the victims families. This public investigation must not be quelled. Keep skepticism alive, for it is the greatest tool of our citizenship.

- I.C.

[Lithos]

2. In a nutshell

My official opinion is part of the message pinned to the top of this forum.

Taking off my DU mod hat for a minute, while I personally do not grant much credence to the vast majority of 9/11 theories, I do support the right to question what the government does in your name. I think things like the FOIA and a free flow of information from the media is key to an honest democracy.

I do think that there are many, many organizations and individuals who are keen to exploit the environment for their own personal agendas. Some of these agendas are to promote virulent bigotry, some others are to exploit the situation for their own profit, others still who find a receptive audience to push their own equally obscure theories.

As for openness, the major test of acceptability will be if 9/11 theories can survive a test rather similar to the peer-review process used in publishing scientific papers. If you think that all debate should be allowed, let me suggest that any serious discussion of Intelligent Design in a biological study would never be tolerated. There are some things which never are on the table. Such is how 9/11 should be as well.

L-

[Informed Citizen]

8. Exactly!

You have summarized the present goal of the 9/11 truth movement. We want rigorous scientific inquiry into evidence that contradicts or was omitted from the Kean Commission Report.

It may be best to begin your 9/11 skepticims by questioning the comprehensiveness and validity of the Kean Report. No need for questionable hypotheses or unfounded theories. Simply look at how much they didn't include that directly contradicts their findings. It becomes quickly apparent that the report was a whitewash. Many things a being hidden. We may not know what these secrets are for the moment, but they demand a public response. The free flow of information as you say.

Although there are many nutty people who would speak for the 9/11 truth movement, at it most legitimate core, its about the public demanding answers to questions regarding the actions and responsibilities or our leaders. Nothing more. Some questions must be answered by those we elect to represent our interests.

You are also correct that some theories about 9/11 only serve to undermine our basic goals, and therefore should remain below deck, in the speculative realm. They may be interesting, but they don't help promote our actions. And many of them are hateful. These speculations are often used to intentionally distract people from what is imporant, both those critical and receptive to the skeptical view.

There is something to this. Just don't let the crackpots, bigots, and infiltrators distract your attention from the core issues.

- I.C.

[Dancing_Dave]

4. They're STILL doing that???

I've had bad experiences with that NYC Indymedia organization censorship before. They are bigotted against 9/11 truth in a way that the usual New Yorkers you can meet on the streets certainly are NOT. The psychological reasons why it was difficult for New Yorkers to face hidden 9/11 truths right after the event are easy to understand. But most New Yorkers are sophisticated enough to get over that with time. I've found most to be increasingly open minded about the explosive demolition evidence lately.

Some of the other New York state based IMC's DO allow revealing 9/11 testimony and discussion to appear. More power to them!

[Informed Citizen]

7. Exactly

The average New Yorker is more receptive than these guys. I understand that they have to be careful not to associate with hate groups, but the 9/11 truth movement, in its purest form, is nothing more than a call for representation and citizenship. In other words, its very patriotic. These people seem scared of the information. Left wing gate keepers scare me.

- I.C.

[JackieO]

6. San Francisco has two IMCs

It sounds like NYC could use another one.

[Informed Citizen]

9. Good call

Who's running their show? If 49% of New Yorkers believe that the government knew the attacks were coming and failed to act, then how could they claim as they have that the whole group agrees that 9/11 should be banned? This is a scandel.

- I.C.

[Christophera]

10. I've Attended IMC Meeting:The Consencus Can Be Fake, Controlled By A Few.

There are probably 5 to 7 people that deceptively manipulate the group (some probably object loudly, I did) into thinking that everyone agrees.

A typical tactic is a preliminary vote on an proposal that has been stripped of controversial decision by the manipulators supposedly to gain some ground on acceptance by the group towards concencus. The vote is made, then the manipulators claim it included the controversy and that the controversy is settled and everyone accepted the decision.

That was my experience.

Sue them for fraud.