YouTube and Screen Shots of Weitzman's Presentation to Homeland Security Subcommittee

Managed to take a few screen shots from:

Simon Wiesenthal Center presents 9/11 sites alongside radical Jihadist sites to House Hearing on "Terrorism and the Internet"

EDIT: Revised title and inserted video. -rep.

bldg7.jpg35.13 KB
911truth.jpg40.78 KB
ktoown.jpg37.55 KB
jihad.jpg45.96 KB
badguy.jpg36.71 KB

Pleas include screen shot part about

Herblay FRANCE

Bonjour ,

Thank you so much for the screen shots. Efficient work.

Please revise again your entry to include a screen shot of the video where we see

Yours John

In the midst of the filth and garbage

I noticed that too. What is this ? Disinformation?
911 was an inside job, the war on terror is bogus

They want to censor the internet, and apply 1955, and be member of the thought police.

Good point. Ommitted by accident: you say?

ae911truth screen difficult to see, lawyers oppose HR 1955

I made a new post, with screen shots of the ae911truth screen in the presentation. It hasn't gone up yet on this site. The ae911truth screen isn't very clear in the video. Watch the video and see for yourselves. It is the second slide of the Power Point presentation.

Let's keep the heat on HR 1955. It ain't over yet!
Dear Friends,

Please call the US Senate (202) 224-3121 to lobby for rejection of the next version of Harman's home-grown terrorism bill. Read Brad Parker's action alert below, followed by the National Lawyers' Guild analysis of this attempt to crush dissent. If Harman and the others who support this Internet-surveillance legislation really want to know how to stop terrorism, perhaps they should scrap the Orwellian Big Brother commission, and advocate, instead, for a new foreign policy, one based on diplomacy and respect rather than occupation and privatization. All the best, Marcy

From Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles VP Brad Parker ...

H.R. 1955 and S. 1959

If you believe that America is a democracy and should not be turned
into a police state, then you must rise up and STOP:

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of
2007 (H.R. 1955) and its companion bill in the Senate – S. 1959

These bills will be the final triumph of fear over reason as the
Federal government takes away any rights of free speech and association
we may have left under the guise of preemptive National Security.

Contact Harry Reid and Senators Boxer & Feinstein:
United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121

Demand a NO vote on S. 1959 !!!

D - Dennis Kucinich and R - Dana Rohrabacher voted NO in the House
along with only four other members. This is not a partisan issue it is
a civil liberties issue. Call Jane Harman – (202) 225-8220 in DC and
(310) 643-3636 in L.A. and tell her what you think about her outrageous
attempt to undermine our Civil Rights!!!!

Contacts: *Marjorie Cohn, NLG president,; 619-374-6923
*Eileen Kaufman & Tayyab Mahmud, SALT co-presidents, , (631)761-7125; , (206) 398-4148

On October 23, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 by a vote of 404-6. The bill will be referred out of committee this week and will then go to the Senate floor. The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers strongly oppose this legislation because it will likely lead to the criminalization of beliefs, dissent and protest, and invite more draconian surveillance of Internet communications.

This bill would establish a Commission to study and report on "facts and causes" of "violent radicalism" and "extremist belief systems." It defines "violent radicalism" as "adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change." The term "extremist belief system" is not defined; it could refer to liberalism, nationalism, socialism, anarchism, communism, etc.

"Ideologically based violence" is defined in the bill as the "use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs." Thus, "force" and "violence" are used interchangeably. If a group of people blocked the doorway of a corporation that manufactured weapons, or blocked a sidewalk during an anti-war demonstration, it might constitute the use of "force" to promote "political beliefs."

The bill charges that the Internet "has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens." This provision could be used to conduct more intrusive surveillance of our Internet communications without warrants.

This legislation does not criminalize conduct, but may well lead to criminalizing ideas or beliefs in violation of the First Amendment. By targeting the Internet, it may result in increased surveillance of Internet communications in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers strongly urge the Senate to refuse to pass the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.

Founded in 1937 as an alternative to the American Bar Association, which did not admit people of color, the National Lawyers Guild is the oldest and largest public interest/human rights bar organization in the United States. Its headquarters are in New York and it has chapters in every state.

The Society of American Law Teachers (SALT) is a community of progressive law
teachers working for justice, diversity and academic excellence. SALT is the
largest membership organization of law faculty and legal education
professionals in the United States.

All this talk of charts..

reminds me of the chart from the "Who Killed John O'Neill" film


Let's dominate.

911blogger now classified as "Hate & Violence" by Net Nanny

It appears that the efforts of the wiesenthalers are bearing fruit. I use Net Nanny (now "Content Watch") at home, primarily to keep my kids from stumbling across porn. As a side-effect, occasionally Net Nanny also blocks other objectionable material, such as so-called "Hate" sites. Well, I've been visiting for years with Net Nanny enabled and it was never blocked. However, Sunday (25. Nov 2007) was the first day that this site was blocked because it is now classified under Net Nanny's category called "Hate and Violence".

WTF ????

We are seeing censorship in action, albeit a very lame and feeble attempt. Maybe Net Nanny and the SWC should start a new category called "Truth" and start blocking that.

Somebody is voting down your entry

I can't imagine why. You were only sharing your experience with Net censorship. I voted it up to "0". But it seems like someone is trying to disrupt this thread.

Probably some weasel-thalen

Probably some weasel-thalen troll.

Does anyone else have Net Nanny

or a similar filter installed? I think this development is significant but I'd rather not have to install it myself to confirm.

BTW, I'd much rather have my daughter stumble across some random porn than let a third party play thought police, but that's partially because I know she's not online seeking it.

Net Nanny contact info

Net Nanny takes feedback at

"They" are fighting back because We are making a difference

Some "idiot" probably just reported this site, and perhaps others, as "bad sites".

I looked at the Net Nanny website, and I couldn't see where they provide a list of "blocked sites".

The best thing you can do as a customer is send an e-mail to them and complain.

Stage 3 with 4 on the horizon:

First they ignore you,

  then they laugh at you,

    then they fight you,

      then you win.

    — Mahatma Gandhi (Describing the stages of a winning strategy of nonviolent activism.)

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

It doesn't matter what people are saying, as long as they are talking about you. — Denny Crane

Bring back the 80's! — Nuke the Gay Iranian Whales!

A message to Net Nanny

Here's the text of a letter I just sent to Net Nanny


I was just told that was recently blocked by Net Nanny. It was placed in the "Hate and Violence" category.

Is this true? If so, I am very concerned that you are being used by people of evil intent. is a meeting place for people interested in independent, free inquiry into one of the worst crimes in human history. There are a lot of good citizens there making an effort to do respectable analysis. It isn't free of weirdos, but neither is our Congress, or the Executive Branch.

The day Net Nanny has decided that is in the "Hate and Violence" category is the day I have lost all respect, and more, for Net Nanny. Please tell me you didn't do this. If you did, please turn it around, and apologize to the website.

Yours very truly,

Net Nanny's response

Net Nanny wrote back and told me that their filter is 'dynamic,' and responds to new material that may have appeared somewhere. They didn't say whether or not a decision had been made on 911blogger per se. You may want to see if Net Nanny is still blocking it, or if the block as gone away.

Don't people realize

that outlawing all forms of resistance, making it all but impossible to resist the will of the government, is just inviting government abuse? Why do people want a government that is invincible? In the history of human civilization, has there ever been a benevolent empire, or a benevolent dictatorship? No, I venture there has never been.

The slideshow makes even less sense when you consider he is including so-called insurgents in Iraq. Um, so, America wages an imperial war of aggression against a non-aggressive state, and yet the people in that state who resist are terrorists and should not be allowed to have websites? WTF?

The public discourse in the War on Terror is so wildly out of control at this point, I'm not sure how anything but 9/11 Truth will restore sanity.


what I was trying to say in my first comment about this garbage

And don't forget, many so called Jihadi sites are in fact false flag sites, just like the false Bin Laden videos. The point is to raise fear and create ghost enemies to shut down all dissent.

Besides, the people have the right to hear news from embedded reporters from both sides, not just from the side of the invading and occupying army, be it in Somall, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on. The so called 9/11 wars. But this seems somewhat off topic here if it were not for HR 1955, the so called thought crime law. And the Zionists who are testifying shall be principal in charge as contracted Thought Crime Police. To jail people they dont like, and blackout the net as they have done to MSM.

But why has this post excluded screen shots of AE? It is evidence of deciet. It should be there for all to see, and perhaps litigate in court for defamation.

Only 9/11 Truth will restore sanity. Well said simuvac.

Burden of Proof ae911truth is disinfo

In the vid when showing ae911truth's site, SWC titled the site as disinfo and conspiracy invoking, perhaps this is a juncture where the "burden of proof" rest on Mark W. to ... PROVE ... ae911 is disinfo and conspiratorial.

This would be an excellent legal venue to litigate.

More screen shots on another post, including

Weitzman knew what he was doing. The shots of the AE911truth site aren't as visible. ae4.jpg is probably the best one.

Weitzman refered to conspiracy theories as "outside job" illusions. Obviously, he had heard the phrase "inside job" and twisted it. He refered to "outside job" theories that the government did 9/11. A transcript of the Youtube video of the presentation would be good to have.

Whats with the hangmans noose

on the top left of 11truth.jpg

Sure thats not a real Truth site?


Noose =

I think a lawsuit is a very good idea to uncover and expose important truths. If nothing else, it will help spread the word.
Many hands make light work!
RRREMA=research, realize, react, educate, motivate, activate
"It's been said, and I think it's accurate, that my husband was obsessed by terrorism in general and al-Qaida in particular." (Hillary

Show "Sorry" by lesage

It's a film cover

The noose illustration is depicting the choke on the people by the resource/power elite not the truth seeking serfs.


Click the DVDs section in the top left.

Scroll to the section titled: "Peak Oil & Post Carbon DVDs" and take a look around.

* A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash, produced and directed by award-winning European journalists and filmmakers Basil Gelpke and Ray McCormack, tells the story of how our civilization’s addiction to oil puts it on a collision course with geology. Compelling, intelligent, and highly entertaining, the film visits with the world’s top experts and comes to a startling, but logical conclusion – our industrial society, built on cheap and readily available oil, must be completely re-imagined and overhauled.
* The film includes in-depth, thought-provoking interviews with Colin Campbell, Matt Simmons, Roscoe Bartlett, David Goodstein, Matt Savinar, Terry Lynn Karl, Fadhil Chalabi, Robert Ebel and many others. Shot on location at oil fields in Azerbaijan, Venezuela, the Middle East and Texas, with original music by Daniel Schnyder and Philip Glass, the film provides not only questions, but possible solutions to the most perplexing and important economic, environmental and public policy issue of our time.
* Run time: 90 minutes
Many hands make light work!
RRREMA=research, realize, react, educate, motivate, activate
"It's been said, and I think it's accurate, that my husband was obsessed by terrorism in general and al-Qaida in particular." (Hillary

Here's my take

I keep hoping someone will make a clip

Of the offending section.

I would if I could.

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

It doesn't matter what people are saying, as long as they are talking about you. — Denny Crane

Bring back the 80's! — Nuke the Gay Iranian Whales!

EO 13438, Terror Lists, And Asset Seizures

Emptywheel blogs on the "legal"ramifications of Bush's EO 13438 and how it can play out in real world scenarios where people are framed as "terrorists".

Mark Weitzman replies

We should ask for an official apology from the SWC. Be POLITE but firm. Here is my exchange with Mark Weitzman:

Sent: Wed 11/28/2007 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: Your Presentation in Congress


Do you believe that is a terrorist website?

Richard Gage, the founder of, is an outstanding architect and US citizen. Do your defamations of him and his website represent the official opinions of the Simon Wiesenthal Center?

If not, it would be wise to make an immediate PUBLIC apology, and notify Rep. Jane Harman of your retraction.

Kevin O

-------------------- His reply -------------------------------
Dear Kevin O,

Over the past few days I have received a number of emails regarding my testimony to the House Committee on Homeland Security. Much of those emails appear to have been based on misapprehensions of my testimony. My testimony was about “the Internet as a tool for violent radicalization”, and not about 9/11. My reference to 9/11 consisted of 1 sentence out of 6 pages of testimony, and in that sentence (with 2 out of 38 accompanying PowerPoint slides) I referenced “how 9/11 is viewed in some eyes, including those who applauded it as well as some conspiracy sites.” I then continue by illustrating the types of conspiracy theories often found online, such as those based upon of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the infamous antisemitic text, or that generally blame the US government in a pernicious manner (i.e. for intentionally spreading the AIDS virus), or that have the “entire Western World engaged in a conspiracy against Islam” Nowhere in there is there any mention of 9/11! In this regard our only concern with 9/11 is when the inquiries slide into incubators for hate (i.e. “This fake Hamas soldier wearing a "Star of David" is as much a Zionist as the 9-11 terrorists Chertoff covers for. Chertoff is the son of a terrorist himself. Don't let him off the hook!”).

Finally, in my recommendations, I never urged any type of censorship. In fact, I specifically state that (#5) that any steps taken in regard to the Internet must be done legally, and over the course of a decade in dealing with this issue I have consistently stressed that the First Amendment must be maintained in the virtual as well as the real world. I have even argued that in conferences in Europe when attempts were being made to impose international controls on the Internet, saying, as I did last year in Berlin that we should “avoid getting bogged down in a useless debate on the First Amendment” because we (in the US) are not going to erase it, nor should we.

Please feel free to share this with any interested parties.


Mark Weitzman

He avoided your central question

The fact is that he used as a visual example of a terrorist website. It's very explicit in the video. Sure, he doesn't reference by name in his comments, only vaguely alluding to "conspiracy sites," but that doesn't change the obvious implication of his visual presentation.

Your question was specific. His answer was not.

I had a somewhat strange experience

calling my congressman today. I was directed to my congressman's Washington office where a nice girl answered the phone. I asked directly how my congressman had voted on H.R. 1955, and after some time she came back on the line, first verifying that it was the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2007 that I was talking about. After clarifying that it was, she then told me that the bill only had 14 co-sponsors, that my congressman was not one of them, and that the bill hadn't yet been voted on by Congress. I explained that according to my information, the House had already passed it and it was on its way to the Senate for final approval (if I'm wrong about this, someone please let me know). She then put me on hold to double-check her information. When she came back on the line, she said again that H.R. 1955 had NOT been voted on yet by Congress and that if I needed more information about it, I could go to the Library of Congress website, type in the appropriate keywords, and be able to find out all I needed about the bill. She then asked me for my name and address and whether or not I was for H.R. 1955. I got somewhat nervous at this point, and declined to give my name, number, and/or address, saying only that no, I was not for the bill. As she was probably curious about my refusal to give my contact info, she clarified that such information is always taken down when people call inquiring about a bill. In a more friendly and less defensive tone, I said if she read the bill herself she would likely understand why I preferred to remain anonymous. She seemed to understand (she was polite throughout), told me that providing name and contact information is voluntary, and gave me one last lead where I could take my questions: 202-226-2616, the number to some Homeland Security office.

Yes, it was voted on and passed.

The plot thickens

He voted "aye" as did the other congressman from a nearby district.

I'll call tomorrow to ask why I was misinformed.


EDIT: 11/30/2007

I called.

This time another polite individual, a young man, answered. I was nice throughout the course of the conversation, but with a more confident tone of voice than yesterday. For example, I started by giving my name, Eloy Gonzalez II, saying that I didn't the day before.

Basically, I first provided a quick run down of my previous request and asked why I was misinformed about the way my congressman, Ruben Hinojosa, voted for the H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (which was essentially in the affirmative, or rather "aye").

The young man said he didn't know who I spoke to the day before but that he would look into who she was. Not wanting to get bogged down in the pursuit of who "she" was exactly, I simply asked if I could have the email address of the congressman so that I could send him a letter.

But, after telling the young man that I was the one who asked the congressman a 9/11 question ("Are you in favor of a new 9/11 investigation") at last year's Congressional Candidate debate, I felt that I really couldn't hold back my opinion on the issue in question, and I told him flat out what I think about the H.R. 1955 bill.

I said that I was personally offended as a 9/11 truth activist by the infusion of 9/11 truth symbolism into Mr. Weitzman's presentation, which not only caused it on the whole to be horrifically inaccurate and misleading, but was actually manipulating of Congress. I explained that although there is likely some kind of Jihadists online threat in one shape or another, 9/11 truth has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it. I then particularly brought up the slide wherein was grouped in with all the other alleged terrorism promotional websites, and said that the very fact that the congressman voted in favor of H.R. 1955 is proof positive that he did not effectively conduct a background check on any of the examples of websites given, because if he HAD, he would have discovered rather quickly that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is a peaceful organization and not in any way inclined towards violence. In short, I made it clear that voting for this piece of legislation was irresponsible, poorly thought-out (well, maybe not, right?), and defamatory towards peaceful 9/11 truth activists.

I wanted to say that the reason was likely included in the PowerPoint presentation was to make people disinclined to join what Homeland Security is now labeling as a website promoting home-grown terrorism (which speaks volumes about their concern about 9/11 truth, IMHO). I also wanted to elaborate further on the manipulation of Congress factor, particularly to point out that since many members of Congress have been, to their chagrin, confronted by 9/11 truth activists, they were more likely -- perhaps for the majority on a subconscious level -- to vote in favor of H.R. 1955 as they had a stake in the benefits it would provide many of them (namely, to silence we pesky 9/11 truthers! so that Congress can avoid the topic of 9/11 truth once and for all). Unfortunately, I did not smoothly think of these things at the time. Hindsight is 20/20.

I did, however, make a few more points that no doubt were a bit helpful but I just can't remember it all right now. But, after getting the email address I requested, I made it clear that I would not be sending any hate mail to Congressman Ruben Hinojosa. Just a nice and particularly informative letter explaining my position on 9/11 truth. :)

Can conflation be used as invisible/ghost cointelpro?

Can conflation be used as invisible/ghost cointelpro/provacateur?

The Constitution has been conflated with terrorism by the JTT and both the JTT and SWC has been briefed by:

Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch
(search the page for 'Simon' and 'joint')

"His articles on Islam and other topics have appeared in the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News, Canada's National Post, Middle East Quarterly, FrontPage, WorldNet Daily, Insight in the News, Human Events, National Review Online, and many other journals. He has led seminars on Islam and jihad for United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, a Department of Homeland Security task force, and branches of the Joint Terrorism Task Force."

Update, more conflation:
Federal official calls marijuana growers dangerous terrorists
Many hands make light work!
RRREMA=research, realize, react, educate, motivate, activate
"It's been said, and I think it's accurate, that my husband was obsessed by terrorism in general and al-Qaida in particular." (Hillary

Those scummy bastards!

"This video has been removed due to terms of use violation."

Here's one that has the above and more:

The person who sees absolutes and exhibits certitude, where a thoughtful person sees nuanced shades of meaning
and exhibits open-minded objectivity, should be questioned as to agenda and state of mind.