Only Controversial Topics!!!

Topics like this remind me of how I have felt about the church my whole life. We put all our effort into fighting over small insignificant differences. Consequently we never band together on the big picture which we all agree on. It makes us ineffective and serves no purpose other than people getting to say I told you so once in a while.

Nobody wants terrorist attacks to continue to be successful except terrorists, of which there are very few. I really am running out of energy.

__________________
Letterboxd

esp when you're basically accusing everyone who is too pc as erasing history? yeah, you need some sources there bub lol

@Captain Steel

__________________
letterboxd

Well, radical leftist groups and the media are synonyms these days!

You can say that again, lol!

For you, anything.

It's not so much a political argument. People remembered the events. Trump exaggerated numbers surrounding incidents that were openly reported on various local news stations and newspapers at the time. But after Trump referred to the incidents, trying to find the documentation of these celebrations became very difficult (when the burying of the info started, I don't know). I know this from my own experience because at the height of the controversy (2015-2016) I went searching and couldn't find documentation I knew I had read, seen and heard. But eventually those who remembered these facts did some digging and brought some of the buried info to the surface.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...=.436cd6dbbd85

This brings up another controversy I've heard talk of on various news talk shows of late - the idea that such companies as Google are taking control of the Internet and filtering the information people are able to retrieve - and since they are driven by a PC agenda, they are now actively engaging in expunging information to fit their narrative of reality. This is speculation and allegation (but no less controversial). If true, it might explain why previously known and documented historical facts & reports sometimes become difficult to find, retrieve or reference - you can't reference facts that have been erased.

As stated days ago, I began this tangent after hearing a radio show that aired in the morning hours of 9/11/17 about how information is being expunged from the internet, from records and from the public consciousness (now if only I could remember the guest's name so I could look up his web site.)

How is a number of people allegedly seen 'thousands'?

I seem to recall thousands of people dancing in the streets when fake bin laden was killed. That was actually documented.

It's not. Since I first brought up the subject, I said that Trump's numbers were wrong and I've said that multiple times now. Even among those who corroborate and confirm the events took place within the U.S., no one corroborates with numbers in the "thousands."

If you watch the last video I posted, many of the people making statements say Trump's numbers were wrong BUT that the events did indeed occur. In NJ, these celebrations even led the FBI to make multiple arrests of Muslims with suspected ties to terrorism. Mayor Rudy Giuliani stated that, based on reports he'd received, the numbers (at various sites he named in NY & NJ) were more like "ten, twelve, thirty, forty."

As already stated, Trump may have been combining memories of global news reports with those of local reports - and on the global level there were reports of people celebrating throughout many countries.

You posted that article to corroborate your claims. See that word there 'allegedly'? Please read before posting.

Everything is alleged. Allegedly a group called Al Qaida carried out the 9/11 attack. Allegedly the WTC towers and building 7 (which was never struck by a plane) fell exactly as buildings do under controlled demolition even though no other skyscrapers ever fell straight down after being hit by planes or being on fire. Allegedly Bin Laden was the 9/11 mastermind. Allegedly the Taliban was hiding him in Afghanistan. Allegedly Seal Team 6 killed him in Pakistan. Allegedly his body as dumped in the ocean for some alleged reason.

Everything is alleged. This is the source of controversy - wherever people can't agree, and there is virtually nothing that everyone agrees with, or that they can't say that a counter view is just an allegation.

You claimed even google is now trying to wipe history because you cannot find what your tinfoil hat is looking for to back up your claims. Dude, maybe chillax with...you know...something mofos like to discuss









and watch a movie. I know this is a novel ideal, but maybe give it a go.

And why on earth do you keep repping posts that dont agree with you. That's really weird. Maybe send more PMs that will be leaked on the forum. That was gold.

I didn't claim that - I said that there have been news talk shows making these allegations (please read before posting).

Next, why do you invoke the tinfoil hat when I provided multiple sources that corroborate exactly what I was saying about the celebrations occurring (and if the celebrations are not what you were referring to, you need to be more clear).

As far as discussing something MoFo's like to discuss - I do that. I'll go to a thread of interest and discuss the topic. Just as if anyone is interested in any topic, they can seek it out. If you don't like this topic why do you keep coming back to this thread? (A rhetorical question as it's been asked dozens of times of people who complain about threads content or simple existence, then keep returning to said threads to bump them, then complain that someone is responding to their replies on a topic they claim they don't like and don't want to see mentioned on the site while at the same time they keep returning to it and keeping it at the top of the public forum.)

I'm repping some posts just for engaging or quoting me and I'm repping some for agreeing - for instance, you didn't seem to catch that we are in complete agreement that Trump's number statements were wrong - as you seemed to want to argue that with me even though I opened the discussion saying that they were wrong (please read before posting.)

Here's something to think about - the Pablo Guzman report. Why does it look like it's recorded with a handheld camera off a TV (and maybe it was done so because someone recorded it from a live TV broadcast onto a tape in 2001 and was now filming their tape). What I'm getting at is, why couldn't that report just be pulled off the internet in good quality without looking like it was recorded off a TV screen? Ah - you (the collective "you") may see what I'm getting at. Maybe it's because that report had been expunged and wasn't retrievable on the Net? (But luckily someone had an old VHS recording from 2001 that they recorded and resurfaced it to show how the Left was trying to suppress history). If anyone can find a direct copy on the Internet (from the news source - CBS News was it? and not recorded off someone's TV with a handheld camera, I'd like to see it). Evidence.

The Internet is often cast as the great democratizer, and Google its noble gate-keeper. There’s no doubt that search engines help us easily navigate the web, but we have to remember that Google is a corporation, not a public service.

Our faith in its wisdom and guidance is based on little more than a carefully planned PR scheme. Behind that curtain, few of us really have any idea what’s going on. That kind of blind trust may be dangerous for content creators and consumers alike, both in terms of what we see and what we get.

In a recent column for U.S. News & World Report, artificial intelligence expert Dr. Robert Epstein detailed 10 different ways Google uses blacklists to censor the Internet. Some of them seem perfectly within reason – noble, even: banning weapons sales through its shopping service, for instance, or blocking payday loan sharks from AdWords.

https://searchenginewatch.com/2016/0...-the-internet/

Very true - while they can ban things everyone deems harmful, they can also ban whatever they like and what suits their agenda. And who knows what that is seeing as they are not publicly scrutinized? Let's not forget Google censors itself in China at the request of the oppressive Chinese government. I actually don't use Google as my primary search engine (or only on rare occasions). I intensely dislike their tracking policy and hate seeing ads turn up related to something I've searched about. Hence, I have as many ad blockers as I can get and no Google as a primary search tool.

Sadly another Train attack in the UK today. Police confirm its terror related. Thankfully it seems no one has died, only 20 or so injured. How can you be in a crowded place in a big city these days without at least having the niggling doubt in the back of your mind, "will this be the day for another attack, will it be me?".

Don't see this ending anytime soon, the headline on the Times a few months back said there are over 20,000 persons of interest in the UK but MI5/Police only have the resources to monitor 3000, that is quite frightening.

Not looking to start any debate here, it's just sad that this seems never ending.

__________________

Yeah, preemptively, and I doubt this really needs to be said, but this thread is not going to become an outlet for any recently closed threads. Just fair warning on that.

So, when you think you remember something, but cannot find evidence for it...you think it's more likely that it was deliberately covered up than that you misremembered?

No. I remembered these events occurring as do most people in the central and northern NJ area - you couldn't live here and not remember them as it was all over local news a few days after the attacks.

Then after Trump's comments, many in the media said it was all a lie (and some surmised that anyone embracing such lies were suffering some kind of mass hypnosis brought on by rampant Islamophobia).
Then others who remembered also started saying, "We know this happened - why have all the articles, TV newscasts, eye-witness reports disappeared from the Internet?"
So, people started digging them up and it turns out people's memories were correct - these events happened, but someone went to a great deal of difficulty to remove the evidence, some of which has been found (such as the Pablo Guzman report which apparently only exists in a form were someone recorded it with a handheld camera off a TV screen - as far as I know, you can't find this report in its original form on its source's website).

I know the following is Howard Stern, but the calls are real and were recorded live. There were many radio call-in shows in the weeks following 9/11 that had calls such as these, I listened to them to and from work everyday, unfortunately, those recordings can't be found.

I suspect the issue is with the phrase "the events." What events, specifically, do you remember?

Who surmised that?

What reason do you have for thinking it was removed as opposed to, say, not posted in the first place, which is what happens with the overwhelming majority of news clips?

That you cannot find a clip from a relatively unpopular cable news show from 16 years ago is not very noteworthy. Sometimes I can't find clips from shows on now, that aired a month ago. Just a few weeks ago I had a lot of trouble finding a clip that had aired two days prior.

This is the Mandela Effect

To keep with the topic of the thread controversially i do remember them as the Berenstain Bears.

Your summation about the information may be correct, I don't know, but I would think that news organizations would be able to retrieve information much better than I. Yet after Trump's comments, news outlets like CNN and MSNBC went on their usual type blitzes by claiming Trump was lying because no evidence existed (yet, as shown: it did).

I can't prove to you that liberal media outlets called Trump a liar and said that people who remember Muslims celebrating the 9/11 attacks were simply lying Islamophobes, because, as you said, the overwhelming number of newscasts are not posted.

Here's a clip from a Rush Limbaugh program where he talks about fact checking (and my intent is not to tout the broadcasters, as I have no love for Stern or Limbaugh), but they are radio shows discussing this controversy:

I asked a couple of very straightforward questions that I don't believe were answered. Here they are again:

1. What events, specifically, do you and "most people in the central and northern NJ area" remember?

2. What reason do you have for thinking news articles or clips were removed, rather than not posted at all?

No evidence existed for what? For the claim that thousands celebrated in New Jersey, or for the claim that anybody celebrated at all? Because the evidence you showed was for the latter, whereas the news outlets seem to have been talking almost exclusively about the former.

Yeah, but in this case you'd only need to find one, yeah? And I made a very similar request about Charlottesville, for which there are presumably very many clips online, and didn't hear back about that, either.

My suspicion here, as you've probably guessed, is that nothing's being suppressed, and that you didn't actually see it. This fits perfectly with the way you describe things, by the way: "some in the media implied...", "people were saying..." It reads like you're describing your general impression of things, not citing specific events. It reads like you're taking your feelings watching the news, and your beliefs about what people in the media might want to say, and confusing them with facts.