Media Blacklists BBC Fiasco; Google, Digg Censor 9/11 Truth

News 24 'timestamp' video disappears from Google Video, despite the fact it's under 30 seconds in length and clearly constitutes fair use, Digg lets small minority of morons decide its content

 

Thursday, March 1, 2007 (DIGG IT)

 

 

The crowned kings of censorship Google have "pulled" the News 24 "timestamp" video that shows the BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened. Meanwhile, the establishment media continues to ignore the WTC 7 farce as a whole, including the inconceivable notion that BBC World have mysteriously lost all their 9/11 footage.

 

Despite the fact that the clip is under 30 seconds in length and clearly constitutes fair use, Google yanked the video last night after it was prominently featured in our article yesterday. We have replaced the video with a You Tube composite of both the "Jane Standley" footage and the News 24 clip, but for how long this stays active remains to be seen.

 

Google and the BBC have a cozy relationship and are currently at an advanced stage of talks to content share on Google Video. This could explain why the original "Standley" footage was yanked by Google within hours of it becoming popular on the Internet on Monday afternoon.

 

It seems that the BBC are extremely incompetent when it comes to looking after their own archived tapes, but remarkably proficient about getting any embarrassing material scrubbed off the Internet, with the eager aid of "don't be evil" Google, they compose a formidable tag team of censorship.

 

 

Recall that Google

bizarrely wiped a leading mainstream news website from their search engine altogether last year simply because Space War carried articles mildly critical of Google's beloved Communist Chinese paymasters, for whom Yahoo have also shopped numerous dissidents who have ended up in China's re-education labor camps.

 

 

It was also Google Video that were caught on numerous occasions

re-setting viewing figures for Alex Jones' Terror Storm and other 9/11 truth films, to prevent them entering the higher echelons of the charts and going viral.

 

Should all this really surprise us when it was CIA seed money that got Google off the ground in the first place? Just how many calls did Google's CIA liaison Dr. Rick Steinheiser make from his Office of Research and Development this week?

 

Meanwhile, a programmer claims to have hacked Digg and found evidence of a deliberate campaign to censor controversial news stories and those relating to 9/11 truth.

 

The Information Liberation website concludes that there are "Tons of obvious shills burying our recent explosive WTC 7 articles as well as many other articles of extreme significance. It's shocking to read the list and see how much significant, documented, and extremely popular content is being buried for obvious ideological reasons. This is completely undemocratic abuse of the Digg system and is proof positive the Bury feature is being abused to suppress content by vindictive Anti-Diggers."

 

 

The buried list contains the original Building 7 story that was posted at Prison Planet.com on Monday afternoon. It's reason for burial is given as "inaccurate," despite the fact that we have proven its factual basis in triplicate and the BBC has also tacitly admitted their "error."

 

Digg's Bury feature is supposed to be used to bury "stories with bad links, off-topic content, or duplicate entries" in order to remove "spam out of the system." Unfortunately, as many have experienced, the Bury feature is frequently used to suppress content based off ideology. Please encourage Digg to either fix it (perhaps make it similar to Reddit's down voting) or remove it all together.

Email Digg here

and request they please fix the Bury feature.

Whether you choose to believe that it's solely the work of moronic debunkers or a deliberate Digg policy to censor 9/11 truth, the fact remains that their supposed "democratic" system is nothing of the sort. Even if an article gets 2000 diggs, just a fraction of that number in burials relegates it to the memory hole. Digg should be more honest about the fact that the content of their website is determined at the behest of a small minority of semi-retarded Playstation addicted teenagers rather than the popular interest of the online community as a whole.

We have uncovered further evidence of Digg censorship and it will feature on the website later tonight.

 

48 hours after the BBC issued its pathetic rebuttal to startling footage that shows their correspondent Jane Standley live on 9/11 reporting the collapse of Building 7 as it mockingly stands behind her, and the inconceivable excuse that the BBC has lost its 9/11 tapes, no establishment media has picked up on the story, not even to dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory."

 

This represents both the stubborn refusal of the dinosaur press to accept the increasing trend that the Internet sets the news agenda, and also an appalling media culture that highlights the most inconsequential claptrap and gives it undeserved prominence.

 

 

Kudos goes to Wonkette for covering the Building 7 story, but almost every other so-called "progressive" website has been mute. Crooks and Liars, one of the biggest liberal blogs on the web, today spotlights a story about lesbian koala bears.

 

 

 

On

Tuesday night they led with a gossip puff piece about Mitt Romney's hair. How can these gatekeepers claim to represent "alternative media" when they stuff this kind of crap down our throats on a daily basis, while ignoring massive stories like the WTC 7 fiasco?

 

 

We invited BBC World head of news Richard Porter to appear on The Alex Jones Show and clarify for us exactly how the BBC managed to lose its footage, which by the BBC's own regulations has to be archived three times over, from the single most important event in history since World War 2.

 

Porter refused to do the interview.

Should this belong in your "11th September was a set-up to enrage an illegal war on Saddam" thread?

Should this belong in your "11th September was a set-up to enrage an illegal war on Saddam" thread?

 

Two Points

 

1. The condescending tone that is subtle yet quantifiably present in your words is not appreciated.

 

2. Yes, this post possibly could exist in my 9/11 thread but after some deliberation I thought due to the fact that the article addresses; censorship issues on various sites; links between the CIA and Google; the supposed loss of important BBC 9/11 archives and dissidents in China's re-education labor camps, that it could go on the main news page.

 

This is important.

 

I'm always good at keeping things tidy.