To all Readers of 911blogger,
Avaaz has still not responded to my message to them about removing my petition about Building 7. I wrote to them last Thursday, as soon as I realized they had taken it down. I also mailed them a letter in the U.S. mail that went out Saturday or today.
They have falsely told other Avaaz members that I did so.
They have removed the petition from my account too so that it says that I have not created any petitions.
Will you help me?
Please write to Avaaz and ask them to reinstate my petition.
You could write a 2 line message; copy and paste the following:
"Please reinstate the petition about World Trade Center Building 7 that was at
Here's the web page to use to write to them.
The following comment from former Director of National Intelligence (and current VP of defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton) Michael McConnell is quoted in a recent article+at+Wired.com:
"We need to develop an early-warning system to monitor cyberspace, identify intrusions and locate the source of attacks with a trail of evidence that can support diplomatic, military and legal options — and we must be able to do this in milliseconds. More specifically, we need to re-engineer the Internet to make attribution, geo-location, intelligence analysis and impact assessment — who did it, from where, why and what was the result — more manageable. The technologies are already available from public and private sources and can be further developed if we have the will to build them into our systems and to work with our allies and trading partners so they will do the same."
One man action, flyer distribution "911 forbidden debate in France" in front of the France2 TV buildings center PARIS;
I thank everyone for their advice on a camescope
and since six months I have one and have been practicing. At last I am going to Internet Report from France. This is my second try on YouTube and there are lots of improvements to make and techniques to
and the first was
[ I want to strongly encourage everyone who can make it to this to attend, I would go in a flash if I had the money to fly in from the west coast and attend]
PdF Conference 2009, June 29 -30
The Personal Democracy Forum is the world's largest and best known conference on the intersection of technology and politics. For the sixth year, more than 1,000 top opinion makers, political practitioners, technologists and journalists will come together to network, exchange ideas, and explore how technology and the Internet are changing politics, democracy, and society.
* * * * * * * *
Speakers include everyone from Mayor Michael Bloomberg to Craig Newmark to Rachel Sklar (Fmr. HuffPo) to Frank RIch (NYTimes) to Ana Marie Cox (Air America) to Baratunde Thurston (The Onion). The speakers list is quite extensive, please check it out.
Before legislation becomes law in France, it must pass the muster of the Conseil Constitutionnel: a group of jurists who determine whether each new law is consistent with the principles and rules of France's constitution.
For the passage of Sarkozy's unpopular "three strikes" HADOPI legislation, the approval of the Conseil was the final hurdle to cross. If the council had approved the law, rightsholders in France would have been able to cast French citizens off the Internet with no judicial oversight, simply by alleging to the new HADOPI administrative body that they were repeat copyright infringers. These citizens would then have their names added to a national Internet blacklist for up to a year, and ISPs would be subject to financial penalties if they gave these exiles access to the Internet.
Defeating YouTube Censorship
Simple steps any internet user can take to reduce GooTube’s stranglehold on information
The Corbett Report
26 February, 2009
When YouTube burst onto the scene in February 2005, it wasn't long before this simple concept revolutionized the way people connect to each other and the way they define "the media." As Vancouver 9/11 Truth activist Michael Hey told The Corbett Report in a recent interview: "I shudder to think where we would be right now if we didn't have YouTube, or if we didn't have the various video hosting services that we have," he said. "Think of the example of Montebello in 2007 where there were agents provocateurs who were outed by citizen journalists."
Former Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke told a leading Stanford law professor that there was going to be an "i-9/11", in other words, an electronic terrorist act, and an "i-Patriot Act" to crack down on freedoms on the Internet under the guise of protecting against such threats:
There’s going to be an i-9/11 event. Which doesn’t necessarily mean an Al Qaeda attack, it means an event where the instability or the insecurity of the internet becomes manifest during a malicious event which then inspires the government into a response. You’ve got to remember that after 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed.
news.ReOpen911.info by Spotless Mind
Translated by DJDaveMark
December 1st, 2008
The administrators at Change.org have deleted the idea for a new investigation into 9/11.
They declared that a new investigation into the attacks – which gave the Bush Administration the power to spy on it's own citizens, to torture, to launch two preventative wars based on lies and more generally to trample all over the Constitution – was "outside the scope" of the site's stated mission and therefore didn't meet their criteria for "specific policy solutions". It doesn't matter how many people want to know the Truth about 9/11, they refuse to have the idea promoted and discussed on their site.
Because of this censorship, the Change.org site has shown that it isn't a "social platform" but, rather, just another gatekeeper of 9/11 Truth.
When the idea was pulled, it was by far the most popular, comfortably occupying the top spot, totaling at least 660 votes (twice the amount of the next best rated idea) only 48 hours after being submitted. On a side note, the other proposed ideas had a 3 week head start, and the 9/11 Truth idea was only just warming up.
Why (pretend to) ask the citizens for ideas then simply delete the most popular? It seems like all of this is more of a joke than a wishful expression for democracy…
Here is the e-mail received by everyone who voted (and to whom we thank for voting):
Has the world changed? In 1941, FDR and top military brass knew weeks in advance of an impending Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor, but commanders at Pearl were not informed. In the 1960s, there was the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where by way of US propaganda, it was said that the North Vietnamese bombed a US ship, which as we came to find did not really happen. In 1933, Hitler became Chancellor of Germany following those who died in the Reichstag fire, and in 1939, led in staging a Polish attack against Germany, launching the Germans into their first aggression, later to be collectively known as World War II. In 2001, inside elements of the US, Israel and Great Britain created a false flag attack against the United States, as conducted by modern-day “sand Poles”. Through all of this, the one major distinction that appears to me is that of the emerging network of networks; the decentralized and uncontrolled internet.
Internet attacks on 9/11 Truth intensify
Cloned YouTube accounts just latest move toward limiting political speech on internet
The Corbett Report
21 September, 2008
Internet censorship is once again in the news after legendary YouTube user Nuffrespect posted a new video detailing the latest online attack on 9/11 Truth: a user who is creating clones of respected user accounts and truth movement leaders in order to smear 9/11 Truth by posting racist comments. These have already led to the deletion of several well-known accounts in what has been revealed as a coordinated effort to eliminate 9/11 Truth from YouTube.
This is in addition to the news that YouTube deleted a number of videos and accounts last week at the behest of Senator Joe Lieberman.
digg_url = 'http://digg.com/educational/9_11_Deep_State_Violence_and_the_Hope_of_Internet_Politics';
( Note: This piece by Scott has been updated to include footnotes at globalresearch.ca )
Global Research, June 11, 2008
The Deep State and 9/11
The unthinkable – that elements inside the state would conspire with criminals to kill innocent civilians – has become not only thinkable but commonplace in the last century. A seminal example was in French Algeria, where dissident elements of the French armed forces, resisting General de Gaulle’s plans for Algerian independence, organized as the Secret Army Organization and bombed civilians indiscriminately, with targets including hospitals and schools. Critics like Alexander Litvinenko, who was subsequently murdered in London in November 2006, have charged that the 1999 bombings of apartment buildings around Moscow, attributed to Chechen separatists, were in fact the work of the Russian secret service (FSB).
Similar attacks in Turkey have given rise to the notion there of an extra-legal "deep state" – a combination of forces, ranging from former members of the CIA-organized Gladio organization, to "a vast matrix of security and intelligence officials, ultranationalist members of the Turkish underworld and renegade former members of the [Kurdish separatist] PKK." The deep state, financed in part by Turkey’s substantial heroin traffic, has been accused of killing thousands of civilians, in incidents such as the lethal bomb attack in November 2005 on a bookshop in Semdinli. This attack, initially attributed to the Kurdish separatist PKK, turned out to have been committed by members of Turkey's paramilitary police intelligence service, together with a former PKK member turned informer. On April 23, 2008, the former Interior Minister Mehmet Agar was ordered to stand trial for his role in this dirty war during the 1990s.
BlogTalkRadio Censoring 9/11 Truth
Internet social broadcasting service cracking down on anyone daring to question the government
by James Corbett
10 May, 2008
BlogTalkRadio is an internet-based social broadcaster that allows users to set up and host their own radio talk-show with nothing more than a phone and an internet connection...as long as they don't question the government.
As Brian McLain found out, daring to bring up questions about the government's official 9/11 fairy tale will not be tolerated by the thought police at BlogTalkRadio. Until recently, he was host of 'The Angry Scotsman' program hosted on the BlogTalkRadio site. His program was quickly cancelled, however, and his archive of previous episodes purged from the Web after the BTR censors found out about his plan to host an episode dedicated to questioning the official 9/11 story.
Was this for your info, 911veritas?
The FBI has withdrawn a secret administrative order seeking the name, address and online activity of a patron of the Internet Archive after the San Francisco-based digital library filed suit to block the action.
It is one of only three known instances in which the FBI has backed off from such a data demand, known as a "national security letter," or NSL, which is not subject to judicial approval and whose recipient is barred from disclosing the order's existence.
NSLs are served on phone companies, Internet service providers and other electronic communications service providers, but because of the gag order provision, the public has little way to know about them. Their use soared after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, when Congress relaxed the standard for their issuance. FBI officials now issue about 50,000 such orders a year.
Be careful how you access those links of naked "collapsing" WTC babies
Just imagine if one day in the near future the FBI comes to your enterprise with warrants that allow them to seize and remove any computer-related equipment, utility bills, telephone bills, any addressed correspondence sent through the U.S. mail, video gear, camera equipment, checkbooks, bank statements and credit card statements. The first question you’d ask is, “Who has done what?”
You’re going to be presume your CEO has been involved in some outrageous stock manipulation, or maybe your CFO has been cooking the books. But no, the agent in charge says: “Someone here clicked on a Web link and we’re going to find out who did it.”
Read the latest WhitePaper - Compliance, Protection, Recovery: A Layered Approach to Laptop Security
Please visit opednews.com for the live html links in the pasted article- also, the Google Alerts referred to in the below article have been pasted in the comments over there.
"Information wants to be free" vs. "Don't be evil". When you search online and use search "Alerts", do you want to get the info you want, or do you want the info you receive to be only what Google (and their partners in business and government) want you to know about? If you have concerns about Google's record on search quality/censorship, privacy, human rights, collaboration with people who may pose a serious threat to US sovereignty and security or anything else, read this article and please comment.
This article is a continuation of the "Open Letter to the People & Google" article:
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
Fourteen Points: World Trade Center Destruction Media Visibility Week
Open Letter to the People & Google