Thursday, July 14, 2016

Proof "Project Censored" and are limited-hangouts

We all know that PROJECT CENSORED advertises itself as an important medium for exposing stories that have been suppressed by the mainstream media. It was therefore stunning to me when, in the wake of the suppression of NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015), I belatedly learned that news of the book's banning by had not made it to their notice.

This was huge news in the conspiracy research community, where I would make dozens of interviews and where many articles would be published about this extraordinary event. During my lifetime, the case that seemed to me to come the closest was the suppression of "The Pentagon Papers", which revealed the evolution of our involvement in the quagmire known as Viet Nam. Here is a sampler of some of the articles that were published about it: 

And there were many more, where it becomes increasingly difficult to believe that PROJECT CENSORED could have missed the news that something rather stunning had taken place. I have already assumed that an organization dedicated to exposing censorship would be paying attention to what is going on, especially in relation to research on controversial subjects such as this:

"Nationwide media blackout on amazon ban of NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK",  

"Windows on the World" (UK), 

"Nationwide Media Blackout on Amazon's ban of NOBODY DIED AT SANDY  HOOK",

"Five most important books of 2015 that have been vilified, attacked or outright censored", 

"Removed article on SANDY HOOK BOOK BAN has been found" 

So when I discovered that PROJECT CENSORED had not so much as extended an "honorable mention" to the suppression of NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015), I wrote to Peter Phillips to make an inquiry about it. His response was about as excited as a yawn: 

I have since been informed by someone who knows him that Peter accepts the official account of Sandy Hook, which may provide a partial explanation. But whether or not you agree with the contents of a book that has been banned, its occurrence is so unusual and striking that I find it impossible to avoid the inference that they ignored it because that is their role. Were PROJECT CENSORED on the job, they would have been all over this. 

They instead appear to be a "limited hangout" conducted to create the impression that they are functioning as an intellectual watchdog, when something closer to the opposite is true. The same appears to be the case with Alex Jones', which initially published about the ban but then removed--and eventually even scrubbed--their archives of any trace.

After 1 month of strong sales, Amazon suddenly banned the new book, Nobody Died At Sandy Hook. The book was pulled from, then deleted from customers’ Kindles.

After Amazon pulled the book, Alex Jones’ InfoWars noticed – and published this article exposing Amazon’s book ban. Here’s a screenshot of the article:

To draw attention to their article, InfoWars tweeted a link:

But within hours after that article was published, InfoWars suddenly deleted it from the Web. The InfoWars article simply vanished – without explanation.
This left onlookers wondering who removed the InfoWars article – and why.
Fortunately, some web services save copies of material. Thus, the deleted InfoWars article was recovered – in its entirety [Editor's note: but I don't have it so I am substituting one of many interviews I have given about all of this] – from a copy stored by Google Cache.

As folks reacted to this curious censorship (by Amazon; then by InfoWars), the Google Cache copy of the InfoWars article was suddenly deleted as well – replaced with this“404 Error” message.

[Editor's note: Barry Soetoro, Esq., has highlighted what has to be the reason took down their article in such haste, which is that photo credit was given to the CONNECTICUT STATE POLICE:

      So, we have:
  1. Amazon banning Nobody Died at Sandy Hook while continuing to sell 19 other Sandy Hook books.
  2. InfoWars writing and publishing an article about Amazon’s banning of that book.
  3. InfoWars suddenly deleting their own article the same day it was published.
  4. InfoWars (or some other party) asking Google Cache to remove all traces of the deleted InfoWars article by scrubbing the cached version from Google servers.
All that effort makes no sense – unless the government is hiding something. Why ban the book to begin with? Why delete the InfoWar’s article about the book ban? Further, why scrub the article from even the cache, so that there is no longer even a trace of the article on the Web?
The State Police Photo
Was InfoWars ordered to delete their article because it includes this picture credited to the Connecticut State Police – showing police preparations at Sandy Hook Elementary School BEFORE the alleged massacre happened?

Look at that photo: that’s not how folks behave at a “school massacre” where 27 people lay dead in pools of blood. Why is CT Chief Medical Examiner Wayne Carver casually lounging outside the school, while 20 kids presumably lay inside, freshly murdered? Why is everyone relaxed like they’re enjoying a break on a movie set?

Indeed, some believe the CT State Police photograph was taken during preparations – before any windows were broken – the day before the hoax “went live.”
That same photo — and more — is in the banned book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
InfoWars nobly trumpets that “there’s a war on for our mind” but InfoWars is fighting that war on our behalf. So why, then, has InfoWars joined the nationwide blackout on Amazon’s banning of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook?
Even the FBI agrees that nobody died at Sandy Hook – since the FBI’s own crime report shows “ZERO” murders in Newtown CT during 2012:

Why Censor The Book?
If Nobody Died at Sandy Hook is “nonsense,” why doesn’t the Regime simply ignore it? Why get the book removed from Amazon (and Barnes & Noble); get an article about the censorship taken down from InfoWars; and then SCRUB the already-removed InfoWars article from Google cache?
The answer is clear: Nobody Died at Sandy Hook is “over the target,” and that’s why it must be taken down. Sandy Hook, the “biggest school shooting in US history,” was a carefully planned hoax to steal your guns, take your freedom, and terrorize your children.
Eric Holder even announced his plan to subvert the US Constitution on CSPAN (video) – by “Brainwashing people” against guns.
The Sandy Hook “shooting” hoax is that treason, foisted on unsuspecting Americans.
To overcome this Amazon/InfoWars censorship, the banned book has been made available as a free PDF: Nobody Died At Sandy Hook.
If you haven’t seen a documentary on the Sandy Hook hoax that repeatedly was taken down from YouTube, watch it now: We Need To Talk About Sandy Hook.
Also see these interviews with James Fetzer (co-editor of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook):
[VIDEO] Amazon & Infowars Censor Sandy Hook BOOK!

Barry Soetoro, Esq is the pen-name of a syndicated columnist focused on Fake Shootings and State Terror. Recently, Barry explored the Newtown CT “massacre” and the background of “Barack Hussein Obama.” [Editor's note: Where I have done what I can to make this complete, missing some key parts.]
For all the posts FOTM has published on the Sandy Hook hoax, click here.
To read/download the banned book in PDF format, click here: NobodyDiedAtSandyHook.
If you want a hard copy (sure to be a collector’s item!), Fetzer found an alternative printer/distributor for Nobody Died at Sandy Hook — Moon Rock Books. Click here. Check it out and let others know. The pdf will remain available to the public for free.

The Internet Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, helps brainwash Millions of Minds

Dave Gahary 

 Wikipedia censors material they deem ‘extremely controversial’
By Dave Gahary
The demise of the ubiquitous door-to-door encyclopedia salesman and the subsequent rise of the electronic version of the books has brought with it unintended consequences for those wishing to learn the truth on a variety of extremely important topics, information that should be common knowledge to the masses.
In a series of damning emails exchanged with this writer, the predominant Internet-based encyclopedia Wikipedia admitted they subjectively censor material they deem to be controversial, in reference to the September 11, 2001 attacks, although their censoring is not limited to 9/11.
The reason this admission is so significant is due primarily to Wikipedia’s reach. According to its entry of itself:
“It is the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet, ranking seventh globally among all websites…having an estimated 365 million readers worldwide.”
Alexa, the online company that ranks websites according to their traffic, lists Wikipedia as the sixth most popular website in the world, in its “top 500 sites on the web.” Only Google, Facebook, YouTube, Yahoo! And rank higher.
Launched on January 15, 2001, the name “is a portmanteau of wiki, from the Hawaiian word meaning ‘fast’ or  ‘quick’ and encyclopedia,” the free website is edited collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and contains “30 million articles in 287 languages,” where “almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone having access to the site.” While this is true, what is not mentioned is that the edits to sensitive entries will be removed.
The censorship came to light after this writer attempted to edit the Wikipedia entry forLarry A. Silverstein, who “in 1980 won a bid…to construct 7 World Trade Center [WTC7],” and also won the bid when the WTC was put up for lease in 2000. “Silverstein…signed the lease on July 24, 2001,” just a month-and-a-half before the attacks that precipitated America’s current police state.
As the Web Editor for AMERICAN FREE PRESS, part of this writer’s duties is to post select articles from the newspaper on the AFP website. When selected for the website, all articles must be accompanied by Internet source links, in order to enhance the quality of the information provided there. It was during this process of placing an article by AFP writer John Friend on Silverstein’s unsuccessful bid “to recover billions of dollars from two airlines whose planes were used in the…attacks,” even after he “already received $4.55 billion in an insurance settlement.”
While examining the Wikipedia entry for Silverstein, it was noted that the ‘September 11 attacks’ section made no mention of the Jewish real estate mogul’s reference on a PBS documentary to initiate a controlled demolition on WTC7, which this writer found odd, and a fact quite necessary to gaining a fuller understanding of who was behind the attacks.

In an interview for the PBS documentary “America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero,” Silverstein explained that after consulting with the New York City fire department commander regarding WTC Building 7, which was not attacked on 9-11, they made the decision to “pull it”—a term which implied they decided to take down the building using controlled demolitions.

After adding the paragraph from John’s article to Silverstein’s Wikipedia entry, it was deleted almost immediately by a fellow editor. It was placed back up and remained there for approximately half the day, then removed again. 

The editing and reediting went on several more times, until an email was received from a higher-up at Wikipedia in the form a “Final Warning.” It stated:
                                This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy                                 by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you may be blocked from                                   editing without further notice.
This writer replied as follows:
I don’t understand. This is a PBS documentary where he says this. I’m not saying it, he is.
The entry was reedited by adding the paragraph.

Almost immediately, an email titled “Blocked” arrived. It stated:
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 3 days as a result of your disruptive edits.
Seven hours later another email by another senior editor was received which stated:
Frankly…I would have blocked indefinitely. I instruct you not to edit the Larry Silverstein article or mention him again in editing any page.
A few exchanges followed and an email was sent directly to Wikipedia on August 5, 2012, stating:
I had a terrible experience while attempting a minor edit & wish to discuss this with the appropriate authority. What should I do?
An email as received from one Kevin Rutherford, stating:
What seems to be the issue is that what you added was viewed as contentious and uncited. Unfortunately, you used a video, which is hard to verify to those who don’t have access to it, and controlled demolitions of anything on 9/11 is something that is extremely controversial, and Wikipedia considers that a fringetheory. Is there any way that you can get a transcript of it and use that, because otherwise I really cannot help you (I’m not an administrator), other than to advise you.
Contained in the body of the email was a disclaimer which stated:
All mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed
An email to Rutherford was sent that asked:
How are you determining that this topic is “extremely controversial” and is there anything in writing that details why “Wikipedia considers that a fringe theory”?

The email also stated that:
If you watch 25 seconds of this video, there can be no other conclusion than to what brought that building down                       
Rutherford sent a few more emails providing a few Wikipedia sites to gain some info on this writer’s queries, but failed to provide any concrete answers to the questions.
Although Silverstein admitted on camera that he ordered WTC7 demolished, this “minor edit,” while completely accurate, was removed after it was posted and reposted several times, and resulted in this writer being warned and then blocked from editing the online encyclopedia.
This one little bit of factual information, so vital to understanding this seminal event in American history, remains shrouded from the easy glance of the millions of eyes who trust Wikipedia.
The lesson to be learned from the above is clear: Although the Internet can be a wonderful resource for information, it is also rife with censorship in topics that threaten the powers-that-be.

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, is the host of AFP’s ‘Underground Interview’ series.
Editor's note: My own experiences with Wikipedia include its gutting my entry after I had participated in a conference, "Academic Freedom: Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust", which I was able to document in "James Henry Fetzer - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia BUSTED!"