9/11 Truth News Included in Facebook’s New Political Censorship


Facebook has apparently implemented a new political censorship regimen, under the rubric of fighting spam. Either that, or their spam filter is in drastic need of overhaul.

On Monday, August 15, 9/11 Truth News contributor Jon Gold received a message from facebook informing him that his ability to post content to any page other than his own had been disabled. When attempting to add supplemental information to Naomi Wolf's posting of Jason Leopold's Richard Clarke article, Gold was informed by a pop up message:

Thinking this was perhaps an error, Gold logged out and then back into facebook.

When he again tried to post a comment, he received another warning.

Jon Gold wasn't alone in having his posting privileges disabled.

The Addicting Info blog reported:

On Sun. Aug. 14, liberal page administrators and bloggers in my network started spreading the word that they had been blocked from posting ANY content on ANY other wall for 15 days. No prior warning was given.

The offenders are charged with posting links to news/opinion articles – such as this liberal’s guide to Republican talking points – a small number of times to LIKE-MINDED pages with which they regularly interact. (Some reported making posts to as few as 4 other pages before being suspended – for 15 days – with no warning!) I’ve also been alerted that Facebook has revoked some administrator’s posting privileges for sharing links to their liberal Facebook page on the walls of other liberal pages.

Ray Nowosielski, director of the film 9/11 Press For Truth and owner of the site secrecykills.com, reported receiving this message from a friend: "I've been trying to post the link for your page "Secrecy Kills" on some 9/11 related pages, and Facebook just blocked me," adding that he was warned with the same messages as those received by others.

Jon Gold: "I haven't changed my posting practices. Sure, I post a lot of information, but I'm never told not to by anyone whose wall I've posted on. I'd also like to point out that George Tenet lied to the 9/11 Commission."


Please like

this article on Facebook.

Ugh... what am I saying. I never liked Facebook, because as an IT guy, I understand what it is. And what I don't understand is why people would freely participate in this cesspit of censorship and surveillance. But, I know Jon Gold and YT have nothing but the best of intentions, so I strongly disapprove of what Facebook have done here, although I also know this is exactly what they're all about. Like Youtube.

So....They're taking this "limited hangout" show pretty far, aren't they? Maybe there's something to Fenton, Schopmeyer and Duffy & Nowosielski's research after all.

facebook sucks

It really, truly does.

I managed to steer clear of it up until about a year ago, and then got sucked in.

Several of my friends have quit it successfully though, so there is hope...

Julian Assange: Facebook Is 'Appalling Spy Machine' (VIDEO)

Julian Assange: Facebook Is 'Appalling Spy Machine' (VIDEO)

In an interview with Russia Today (RT), Julian Assange called Facebook the "most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented."

He told RT's Laura Emmett,

"Here we have the world's most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their locations, their communications with each other, their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to U.S. intelligence."

It's not new ground for the Wikileaks founder. In March, Assange told Cambridge University students that the Internet is "the greatest spying machine the world has ever seen."

During the Russia Today interview, Assange explained that Facebook, Google and Yahoo all provide automated interfaces for the U.S. intelligence (starts around 2:00 in the video below). "When they add their friends to Facebook," Assange said, "they are doing free work for United States intelligence agencies."


I know Assange is right. In fact, he's being mild.

I can't help but think,

I can't help but think, though, that anyone who's actually worth spying on, is not going to be posting their real name, address and links to their real friends and activities, terrorist or otherwise.

I don't mean to make light of the surveillance that does take place, but, really, if they're spying on 9/11 truthers, they evidently need to find some real work to do. ;)

That said, I have never had a FB account..

Show "Is There A Vast Conspiracy?" by Aidan Monaghan

9/11 Truth News is one of the

9/11 Truth News is one of the only grounded sites left online that stands up for 9/11 Justice. This is one of the few sites I can actually send my critical and intelligent friends. I'm embarrassed by almost every other 9/11 justice affiliated page and frankly, I also fear any rational thoughtful person reading some of the conspiracy theories you are continually asserting Aidan.


If you go and judge for yourself. You will appreciate a website will to verify and present the highest quality information. Oh and wait, they'll even correct it if you point out an error!?

Whoever heard of such a thing?? (sarcasm)

Show "What Is Your View Of 9/11 Blogger?" by Aidan Monaghan
Show "As For "9/11 Truth News" ..." by Aidan Monaghan

What a pathetic joke

Especially coming from a guy who continues to give his endorsement to some of the most vile, disruptive and anti-scientific conspiracy porn garbage (CIT) to ever see the light of the day. Of course you have nothing nice to say about a site that does its best to present credible, verified information to the public and remain free of conspiracy theories. Your pathetic "LIHOP" "limited hangout" mantras are so worn out they had already become the butt of jokes years ago:

Other, more radical conspiracy theorists characterized Mr. Cheney's confession of orchestrating 9/11 on behalf of a group of moneyed imperialists and Bush administration business cronies as "a limited hangout" - a partial revelation of apparently damaging information, in reality designed to cover up the role of yet darker and more powerful forces behind the scenes.

"Cheney is just another LIHOP gatekeeper. This is a cover-up," said Frederico Head. As the spokesperson of DestroyAllGatekeepers.net, Mr. Head leads a fast-moving nationwide campaign devoted to exposing all other 9/11 conspiracy sites as CIA fronts.

A thumbs down from Aidan Monaghan is a sure sign that 9/11 Truth News is on the right track.


Show "Just For The Record" by Aidan Monaghan

Whatever Monaghan

You keep twiddling about with your theories.

We'll keep reaching out to the public in a credible manner.

Show "Your Credible Conspiracies" by Aidan Monaghan

YAWN... and good luck to you buddy

You'll need it.

Show "A Credible Approach?" by Aidan Monaghan

The confusion is coming from you Monaghan

By the way, it looks like the Clarke-Tenet story (that you've been trying to shout down for the last week) has gotten David Swanson, of all people, to start to talk more realistically about 9/11. Legitimate advocates for 9/11 justice who are familiar with Swanson will understand what a breakthrough this is for the cause and celebrate it.


Apart from the fact that YT supports CD research, and that I'm convinced 911truthnews would report on credible CD research, there is no shortage of CD reporting about 9/11, wouldn't you say?

Also, are you of the opinion that the further away from the official story, the truer something is? Shouldn't that mean that a missile hit the Pentagon, flight 93 never took off, the flights 'allegedly' hitting the WTC were holograms and the buildings were destroyed with mini nukes? After all these theories satisfy your demands: they are completely at odds with the "official story".

Oh, not scientifically supported? Okay, then what scientifically supports CIT's malarkey? (A theory you endorse, which means you think Lloyd England the innocent cabbie is an 'accomplice') Witness testimony? Cite me a scientific paper expounding the unparalleled accuracy of witness testimony. What scientifically supports DRG's voice morphing boondoggle? Cite me your peer reviewed, published scientific analysis of the Betty Ong/Cee Cee Lyles audio. And we already know what happened to AA 77's FDR, don't we?

911truthnews is very scientific: it refrains from promoting pseudo-/anti-scientific, anti-journalistic, anti-historiographic rubbish, such as no hijacker theory, and it slants towards research not given the time of day elsewhere, because it is constantly derided as 'limited hangout' by the paranoids and the popcorn truthers.

To be clear...

We have plenty of CD content

Often scooping other sites.

For instance, I haven't seen this one here yet: Remember Building 7 10th Anniversary TV Ad If people are feeling deprived of news about the buildings, I recommend they check our tags for "WTC" and "WTC 7". Just click the TOPICS link at the top of every page. By the way, today is the one year anniversary of the launch of the site. Happy Birthday to us!

Happy 1 year. Please keep it

Happy 1 year.

Please keep it going for another and further.

Thanks man

Much appreciated!

Witness testimony

If you asked witnesses in New York City where exactly the plane flew half a mile before impact, you'd get some wildly inaccurate stories. You'd easily be able to find hundreds of witnesses who are way off, ignoring the other 40% who also got it way off, but in the opposite direction. The remaining 20% might get the flight path right, who knows, I'm being very optimistic. To base an elaborate theory of conspiracy and quixotic physical evidence fakery on a biased selection of witnesses is sheer insanity, especially in lieu of any positive evidence (verification). You whine about science a lot, and loudly, as if you have any credentials to lecture the rest of us on the scientific method. Good, I'll throw down the gauntlet. Cite me a scientific paper in a credible, peer reviewed journal which lauds the 'accuracy' of witness testimony.

Meanwhile, if you promote NoC + impact, (which is a well-known in-between phase for folks who are slowly coming to terms with the fact that the whole CIT circus is a con, although some may never recover, ask Chris Sarns) I suggest you take it up with CIT, because they emphatically reject it. Their theory is flyover. You know, because you endorsed their work.

"Just because the TV and prominent officials say otherwise does not make it so."

No, it is so, because people lightyears ahead of you in Pentagon research have shown you it is so, over, and over, and over. If it weren't for these people, you'd probably be promoting that nonsense right now, but you wouldn't get it past editorial review at 911truthnews, which is what makes the site reliable. They're not scared of conspiracy, they're just better researchers than you are.

I'll leave it at that.

Aidan Monaghan's comments are a huge disappointment

Aidan, regarding your retarded comment "not very much for the 9/11 researcher or activist to "hold on to" so to speak." Don't be such a fool. Why does a 9/11 news site have to be for activists? There is a whole wide array of information about 9/11 to be looked at besides what is mostly talked about in this struggling, conspiracy-porn-driven movement. Maybe this website is for other people. Why would you have a problem with that? I used to respect you and all the work you put into the FOIA angle, which BTW often leads to dead ends but is important nonetheless.

Your childish complaining about a website because you have no influence over it is disappointing, although not at all shocking. It would be helpful for you to stop peddling this LIHOP hoax which is used to hide credible evidence, and quite frankly you are supposedly too smart (according to your "fans") to fall for that kind of stuff.

But mainly, if you want to do a better with an activist news site, then go ahead and build one and post to it all day long. It's a lot of work. That website is built by people that actually hit the streets and do boots-on-the-ground activism. You have a right to criticize it from your arm chair, I guess. But you are only discrediting your own work by being so close-minded.

Your comments are a good example why I often think this movement won't deliver "the truth" to anyone, it's going to have to go mainstream and out of the ghetto created by comments like yours. Let's hope this cause can still go mainstream, and 911truthnews.com does an excellent job of facilitating that.

So, snap out of it and be helpful for a change and try supporting other people.

The topic of this thread

is facebook's political censorship of 9/11 Truth News.

Please feel free to contact someone directly if you want to address issues outside of the thread topic, or you can submit a new blog on the topic you wish to discuss.

Thanks for your understanding and adherence to the site rules and guidelines.

Many thanks for all your work on behalf of 9/11 truth.

kdub, AM, YT and SC

Please do not bring old arguments into this thread, as that is in direct violation of the site rules and guidelines.

The topic of this thread is facebook's political censorship of 9/11 Truth News.

The topic is not the particular merits of individual 9/11 truth sites, the Pentagon, etc.

If you want to continue this rhetorical food fight, PLEASE take it somewhere else.


Jon Gold

and Peace of the Action were already spied on. This is fact. Friends of Jon just leveled heavy accusations at a former CIA director. Are you naive? (No offense)

If you knew the true extent of the spy grid around you, you and Aidan wouldn't be saying such silly things. This is all separate from whether or not this specific incident was targeted or not. I tend to assume error or coincidence, not intentionality.

P.S. Here's another example. You may need some basic programming and networking knowledge to follow this case study.

When you think of facebook

Try to visualize this:

Yes, this is an actual visual representation of Facebook's database. Now ask yourself what an intelligence agency would do with that information, if they had access to it. Problem is: they have access to it.

So do we

it's like a sword, two sides to cut.

Like a sword


Has anyone looked into FB's policies on this?

I had them block me from posting in the past when I was posting about Green Party gubernatorial candidate Laura Wells' (who was arrested for attempting to just ATTEND the governor debate) on the various news sites FB pages (and the specific page for the debate itself) which were ignoring her.

My sense was that specific orgs complained that they were being spammed. And FB seems robotic enough that humans are not necessarily at the other end of a spam complaint, mainly just stats probably and an equation. But you never know. The censorship of Ron Paul from the Rethug straw poll coverage was pretty amazing (reported on the Daily Show, worth watching).


From Jon Gold: "On Monday, it was reported that I received a ban on Facebook.  The warning said that my "ability to post on Page walls has been suspended for 15 days."  However, I'm noticing that I can post on anyone's wall, and comment on any post.  I just can't comment on anything on 911TruthNews.com's FB page.  See below:

Unfortunately, I don't know who to contact at Facebook to try and remedy this situation."