Do we as members of the truth community give a damn about anything any more? If the answer is yes, then when are we going to rise up and finally take a stand about certain issues?
Specifically, Jeff Rense and Alex Jones have been caught red-handed yet again engaging in the act of blatant censorship. Here is what transpired:
On March 31, 2006 Doug Thompson, editor of <>Capitol Hill Blue<>, published an article entitled <>9-11 Conspiracy Theories Don’t Pass the Smell Test<>
which was critical of the work done by 9-11 researchers. Upon release, this piece subsequently received at least ten pages of reader feedback, most of which was highly critical of Thompson’s deluded views. Two of the people posting comments were Lisa Guliani and Victor Thorn.
The blowback from Thompson’s article was so incendiary that he actually had to take down the stream due to the high volume of traffic. The following message was the last to appear on his site: “Server shut down due to overload, moving all messages to a new server, should be back up soon.” The reaction to Thompson’s claptrap was so volatile that it prompted Douglas Herman to write an article on April 3, 2006 called <>Disinfo Pro: Death of a Once Great Blogger (original, uncensored version – scroll down to page three)<>
, which shortly thereafter appeared on Jeff Rense’s website.
In its original form (as it was initially published on Rense’s site), this column had 14 paragraphs, and included the following two passages:
—– Even when Lisa Guliana (sic), of WING TV, posted 17 well-researched points disputing, or destroying altogether, Thompson’s conclusions they evoked no response. Not a peep.
—– Respected Internet writer, Victor Thorn agreed: “I’ve long enjoyed your work, but you couldn’t be further from the truth Doug, this is a matter of taking back our country from a cabal of bloodthirsty murderers. I certainly hope you open your eyes to what’s taking place.”
To verify the authenticity of what we’re saying, included below are three more links showing Doug Herman’s article in its ORIGINAL form (one of them posted, ironically, by a Rense columnist himself, Sartre). Also, if you notice, the third link also has a reference to “Rense.com” noting that this is where the ORIGINAL article could be found:
Sartre’s Breaking All the Rules – original, uncensored version
Marco Solo – original, uncensored version
BG Truth Blogspot – original, uncensored version
But then something mysterious happened. A few days later, we noticed that the two sentences referring to Lisa Guliani had been completely deleted from Herman’s article on Jeff Rense’s website. <>Jeff Rense – censored version # 1<>
Of course we were confused, but instead of jumping to conclusions, we very methodically started checking every source to make sure this was indeed a case of <>CENSORSHIP<>.
So, we first contacted Justin Stark (who initially sent us this article) to see if the original had, in fact, contained the passage referring to Lisa Guliani and her 17 points refuting Doug Thompson. Stark found the original and confirmed that, yes, Jeff Rense had <>CENSORED<> Herman’s article <>after it had already been published<>. Stark also made these comments in regard to this highly-suspicious situation:
Your name, and the reference to your work, was indeed removed. Please see attached original. I compared it to what appears on his site today, and the references to you were clearly deleted; or, one could say, “censored.”
That’s enough to piss a body right off; I wonder if it’s intended to (??). Pretty offensive.
To insure accuracy by covering all our bases, we next spoke with the author of the above-mentioned article, Douglas Herman, who told us in no uncertain terms that:
(1) He was <>not<> aware that Rense had censored his article
(2) He had not authorized or given Rense permission to censor his article, and
(3) The article had been censored <>after<> it had already been published
Now, in case anyone isn’t paying attention, let us explain. This is a textbook example of blatant, unadulterated <>CENSORSHIP<>.
Censorship (broader definition, as opposed to the narrower, legalistic definition): The act of changing a message, including the act of deletion between the sender and the receiver without the sender’s consent and knowledge. The cyclical suppression, banning, expurgation, or editing by an individual, institution, or group.
But wait, this story gets even more interesting. After speaking with Doug Herman, we next checked Alex Jones’ websites and found that he had also posted this same article. But guess what. Alex Jones had censored the piece even further! Not only did he run Rense’s altered version with the Guliani section removed, but then Alex Jones further altered the article by deleting the sentences referring to Victor Thorn! Propaganda Matrix – censored version # 2
So now there were THREE different versions of this article floating around the Internet – one which was the original as Doug Herman had written it – then another version censored by Jeff Rense, and a final one further <>CENSORED<> by Alex Jones. And neither Rense nor Jones received permission from the author to alter this work after it had already been published in its original form (by Jeff Rense himself). In all, these two men deleted five sentences from Herman’s article, with no permission whatsoever granted by the author.
Before continuing, we would like to make a few things perfectly clear as to avoid any confusion. First, we have no problem whatsoever with a publisher and/or editor altering an article <>prior to publication<> if they confer with the author and apprise them of these changes. That’s called <>editing<>, and it’s been taking place in newsrooms around the world for centuries.
But if someone alters an article <>after it had already been published<> without informing the author, and without their permission, then it becomes outright <>CENSORSHIP.
Also, we need it to be made very clear that:
– The United States Federal government has never censored our work
– George W. Bush has never censored our work
– The CIA has never censored our work
– The FBI has never censored our work
– The NSA has never censored our work
But Jeff Rense and Alex Jones have now censored Douglas Herman’s material, and that of others, on numerous occasions, and we have verifiable proof of it happening not only in this instance, but also in the past:
Alex Jones = Big Brother
Alex Jones: Overt Censorship
Alex Jones: Censorship SNEAK
Censorship Reign of Terror
Jeff Rense Shows His True Color: Yellow
Now take a moment and ponder this point. The government has never censored us, but Rense and Jones – supposedly bedrocks and upstanding members of the alternative media – engage in CENSORSHIP on a continual basis.
At this point, if you don’t see a problem with this dismal state of affairs – and if you readily accept the CENSORSHIP perpetrated by these two men – then we are here to say without any hesitation:
You are not a patriot, nor should you ever consider yourself a “truth seeker,” because what Jeff Rense and Alex Jones are doing is the gravest slap in the face that our alternative media could ever experience.
In other words, if you’re not screaming bloody murder and enraged beyond words about these guys spitting on one of our most cherished rights as Americans, then you don’t deserve to be called patriots, or even Americans for that matter. Isn’t this type of behavior – flagrant <>CENSORSHIP<> – precisely what we’ve been fighting against in regard to the government, mainstream media, and Big Brother? Yet Jeff Rense and Alex Jones have been engaging in systematic, habitual, ongoing, in-your-face <>CENSORSHIP<> for years; and the worst part is — they don’t care that they’re doing it.
Do you get it? These guys have such little regard for you – and for the concept of non-censorship – that they don’t give a damn what you think (not to mention their lack of respect for the author being censored). Doesn’t this sound exactly like the arrogant attitudes of those in the Oval Office, the <>New York Times<>, CBS, or every neo-cons’ favorite publication, <>The Weekly Standard?<> Jones and Rense have become mirror-images of our enemies! And this isn’t the first time (by a long-shot) that they’ve been caught red-handed in the act of overt <>CENSORSHIP<>.
Right now, Jeff Rense and Alex Jones are the two biggest censors (by far) in the alternative media. There’s no one else that even comes close to them in relation to their egregious behavior. What they’re essentially saying via their actions is: If we don’t like the people mentioned in an article, or the subject matter/concepts, we’re going to <>CENSOR<> it out. On top of that, we’re not going to tell the author what we’ve done, or even get their permission to do so.
Their deliberate <>CENSORSHIP<> has now been proven in this article right before your very eyes with links to every single piece of data (i.e. there’s no denying that they are blatant <>CENSORS<>). If you can accept this hideous notion, then regrettably you can turn a blind eye to any crime or misdemeanor. If that’s the case, not only should you be absolutely ashamed of yourself, but your position in life is so pitiful and pathetic that you literally might as well roll over and die, because all your convictions – and all your fight – have completely disappeared. How can we ever aspire to be anything more than the government and mainstream media if we refuse to set the bar higher than they do? Can’t you see what’s happening? If we accept this type of <>CENSORSHIP<> by Jeff Rense and Alex Jones, it drags the entire movement into the same sewer as the controlled establishment press. Is that what you want?
In late March, 2006, CNN stopped the scheduled appearance of Ed Asner on Showbiz Tonight (he was to speak about Charlie Sheen & 9-11). Naturally, Alex Jones went ballistic over this censorship. But then only a few weeks later, he’s engaging in the exact same type of <>CENSORSHIP<>.
How much longer are “patriots” going to be apologists for these censors? Because, once you embrace blatant censorship, isn’t it safe to say that you’ve also accepted the New World Order’s tactics, for one of their primary tenets is the advancement of <>CENSORSHIP<> (i.e. flushing information down the Memory Hole). Plus, don’t such actions strike at the very heart of what a free press is supposed to represent, especially in the alternative media? But as we’ve seen, Jeff Rense and Alex Jones censor material very easily (and very frequently), as if it were second nature to them, and as if they’d been doing it for a very long time with <>absolutely no consequences<>.
Please tell us: does <>anything<> matter any more?
Question: Why would Alex Jones, self-proclaimed “grandfather” of the 9-11 Truth Movement, or Jeff Rense feel it necessary to censor content from Doug Herman’s article, especially when the material omitted was not about them in any way and involved posts made that substantiate and bolster arguments and research that shreds the governments lies about 9-11?
Question: Why do Alex Jones and Jeff Rense feel they have the right to alter, delete and censor content from an author’s work after publication and without the author’s consent or knowledge?
Question: Don’t Alex Jones and Jeff Rense want people to see that others are standing up for 9-11 truth?
Question: Why didn’t Alex Jones and Jeff Rense respect the author, Doug Herman, and consult with him if they had issues with this article, prior to slicing and dicing it behind his back?
Question: What incentive do other authors have in submitting writings to either Alex Jones or Jeff Rense when there is a strong likelihood that such reports may be subjected to their sneaky censorship practices? If they have issues regarding a piece that they cannot resolve with an author (or refuse to even try), then why run it in the first place?
Question: How many other authors have been censored by Rense and Jones? Are we seeing a continuing pattern here?
<>17 Points Brought Out by Lisa Guliani Which Refuted Doug Thompson’s arguments (originally cited in Douglas Herman’s article before the reference was removed by Jeff Rense)<>
1. No steel reinforced structure has ever totally colapsed due to fire in history. EVER.
2. Assymetrical damage does not lead to symmetrical collapse. The fires did not burn uniformly, heat was not accumulating, it was ventilating. This is evidenced by all the broken windows.
3. The fires did not burn long enough nor hot enough to either weaken or melt the steel. Plasticity and elasticity are not strong arguments for the collapse of the buildings.
4. It takes 2,795 degrees F to melt steel. Hydrocarbon fires burn at a maximum temp of 1517 degrees F. Jet fuel burns at approximately 1800 degrees F. The fires were going out within minutes after the big fireballs we all saw. This is evidenced by the thick plumes of black smoke emanating from the buildings. Black smoke is indicative of an oxygen-starved fire, a suffocating fire, a fire that is going OUT.
5. The buildings fell in virtual free-fall time, defying Isaac Newton’s 1st Law of Motion and Galileo’s Law of Falling Bodies. Are you prepared to soundly refute the laws of physics, Doug?
6. The government has brought forth no solid proof of any of its allegations regarding 9-11. There is nothing proving that 19 Arab cave-dwellers outwitted a multi-trillion dollar air defense sytem on 9-11.
7. The FBI has contradicted itself regarding flight 77. First they said it was vaporized, and subsequently, they said they had reconstructed nearly all of the plane.
8. FEMA has contradicted the FBI regarding Flight 77. Who shall we believe, Doug?
9. Gravity makes objects fall straight down. On 9-11, steel and debris were ejected horizontally with force at great distances. Please explain how a gravity collapse can eject steel and debris with force HORIZONTALLY.
10. The pulverized concrete on 9-11 is indicative of use of a much greater energy source. Try pulverizing a chunk of concrete, Doug. Go ahead. Use a jackhammer. Drop it from a great height. Let me know how you make out.
11. Why don’t you investigate the power-down at the WTC on the weekend prior to 9-11, Doug?
12. How is it possible that building 7 fell into its own footprint in exactly the same manner as WTC I and II when it was not hit by a plane?
13. How is it possible that the 110 floors of either tower did not provide tremendous amounts of resistance and slow the falls, when this was an enormous amount of mass and should have slowed the collapses?
14. Check out <>9-11 on Trial<>. Our book lays out the case for WTC controlled demolition using NO conspiracy theory.
15. Check out our book <>Phantom Flight 93: The Shanksville Flight 93 Hoax<>.
16. Why don’t you ask the FBI why they are suppressing videotapes that were siezed from the Citgo Gas Station, the Sheraton Hotel, the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, and the Pentagon’s own surveillance cameras?
17. Can you explain why the exterior aluminum casing of the WTC towers did NOT melt when it has a lower melting threshhold than steel? How can the steel melt when the aluminum did not?
Ask yourself: Why would Jeff Rense deliberately delete a reference to the above points, all of which are essential elements of 9-11 truth?