YouTube Making Some 9/11 Content Harder to Find

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Jan 26, 2019.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok so I conducted a YouTube experiment. I searched YouTube using "9/11 truth" as my search criteria. Several videos did show up and I clicked on one of them. Then I hit the YouTube home key and not one single 9/11 video was recommended. I tried it again, got the same list of videos and clicked on a different 9/11 video this time. Then I hit the YouTube home key and got the same result, NO 9/11 videos recommended. If that isn't blatant censorship I don't know what is.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
    Eleuthera likes this.
  2. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Beats me. Stubbornness in the face of extreme bias I suppose. Please automatically assume that I don't give a rat's ass about what anything "seems" to you.

    Actually, it was only slightly incorrect. When it is INTENTENDED for that objective should be added. I shall continue to ignore all corrections or claims from you in this matter.

    That is to be decided by a grand jury!

    Please don't start your rather pathetic personal insinuations about my nationality! The above never denied.

    I have no idea why you typed that, maybe you are under the illusion I denied such.

    It's apparent that you have profound difficulty understanding simple statements.

    Meh! A petition is not a courtroom proceeding! Perhaps you're not familiar with US law yourself. Let's see how it goes shall we? Maybe once a LEGAL process occurs, you can start talking about the evidence being incriminating!
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Deep sigh! I just typed "elephant". I watched one. Then hit the home key. I did this 3 times. No elephant videos recommended.

    You don't know what is. NEXT!
     
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I refer you back to the comment about your appalling inability to read and understand simple statements.

    "Evidence becomes incriminating when the use of it leads to a conviction (or INTENTENDED for that objective) or it is used to bring state or federal proceedings."

    There, hopefully a fool-proof amendment. My original statement with the bit I left out that makes it 100% correct.

    It is only a PETITION to do that.


    A petition.

    IF the petition is successful!

    Ergo you don't know what censorship is. You should have tried a lot of things.
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks, if only you had made yourself clear in the first place. In any case you seem to have missed part 2 of that sentence. A grand jury proceeding IS a federal proceeding (in this case).

    It is now a GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION. However a petition for a grand jury investigation IS a federal proceeding (in this case). The petition was accepted according to law and the incriminating evidence has been filed with the petition.



    Yes, most (if not all) legal proceedings begin with a petition. Even a civil or criminal complaint is a petition of sorts.

    That's incorrect. If the grand jury did not have any incriminating evidence to review and make a determination with there would be no reason for the grand jury in the first place.

    "Trying" anything has nothing to do with knowing what censorship is or isn't. Ad hom much?
     
  6. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Your problem not mine.

    I'm quoting you at your word. You said If that wasn't censorship then you don't know what is.

    It wasn't and you don't. Which is kinda way more closer to the OP than your self inflicted thread diversion. YouTube is not censoring anything, just making its recommendations better for its own financial objectives. If it keeps conspiracy nonsense away from the more gullible in society, it can't be a bad thing.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you post so that readers can't understand what it is you're trying to convey, it is your problem as you are confusing readers. You eventually clarified yourself so no problem.

    Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable. The author, Daisuke Wakabayashi of the article I first posted knows as I do it's blatant censorship. That you don't recognize censorship for what it is or you're just plain in denial is your personal issue.

    The above statement indicates you're fully aware it's censorship and trying to deny it at the same time. But you have convinced yourself it isn't so I'm ok with that.
     
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You are an individual and not a spokesperson for other readers. My post was clear enough. There have been other examples where you actually just ignored it when corrected.

    Just a careful read of the article and other references was enough. It's you who needs the telling, but sadly no amount will suffice.

    Elephants! You seem to think it acceptable to have completely off topic recommendations made to people.

    The above statements indicates an awful ability to comprehend meaning and a natural bias towards labelling opposition. Being comfortable in having crap taken off my recommendation list and the implications for others doesn't suggest I'm "fully aware" of something YOU have convinced YOURSELF of!
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah it was so clear you had to correct it, TWICE. Again, I'm ok with your belief that it's not censorship, even after you contradicted yourself. The author knows it's censorship, I know it's censorship and even you showed you know it's censorship (exclusively for "conspiracy nonsense" as the article's author and YouTube stated) but keep denying it. That's ok though, your beliefs are not a problem for me, they are just part of this discussion.
     
  10. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Incorrect. One clarification was made for my own purpose and then you failed again to understand - so simplified for you.

    There seem to be an ever increasing number of words you have trouble with. Nowhere have I contradicted myself. What you continue to do is to post your poorly understood spin on things.

    Your dire need to put words and spin on both the author and myself is a problem you should look at.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not interested Beta, nothing worth responding to. The topic of this thread is "YouTube Making Some 9/11 Content Harder to Find" and I agree wholeheartedly with the author's article and sentiments that it's censorship of 9/11 content because it is clearly what the YouTube official blog claims in the first place. You disagree with the author and YouTube, no problem, again, I don't care.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'm not letting this go. Link please to the official investigation announcement and grand jury successful petition. So far all you have is a petition being relayed to a grand jury. Should I remind you, or educate you, that this is a basic right of any group or citizen to do this, written in law?

    "Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney’s action or recommendation."

    The evidence has been filed. If the Grand Jury session move for an investigation, then they deem the evidence incriminating. I await your links with no bias and genuine interest. If there is an investigation and they find no accountability or nefarious objectives, is this where you concede? Or is this your position regardless and you label the GJ a cover up?
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok.

    https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11...-berman-will-comply-with-18-usc-section-3332/

    Incorrect, see above link to letter from the US Attorney.

    Non sequitur. You don't need to remind me or educate me about anything, I have many years of experience with a federal civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C. § 1983) that I personally filed against the county and the state as a sui juris (pro se) plaintiff as well as other legal actions I've been involved in. I'm not an attorney but I have never lost a case as a sui juris plaintiff or defendant. I'm far from an expert but I'm quite familiar with how the legal system works in the US. I have filed many legal briefs in the past, including a motion for sanction of an attorney for violating the FRCP (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) lol.

    You quoted 18 U.S.C. § 3332. This is the first part that you left out:

    It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district. Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3332

    Correct and the US Attorney will (or has) present(ed) the incriminating evidence (i.e. the exhibits) filed with the petition to the empaneled grand jury.

    That's incorrect. The evidence filed with the petition (a legal action upon official filing) IS incriminating evidence by definition (see dictionary definitions at post #19) and the highlighted portion I quoted from YOUR own post in the first sentence at post #30. Again, without incriminating evidence there can be no petition for a grand jury investigation into a CRIMINAL case and/or if filed it would likely be rejected by the US Attorney for failure to show cause of action. The empaneled jury will investigate, there is no "IF". It could take up to 18 months(?) for the grand jury to determine what course of legal action should take place next.

    I don't need to "concede" anything, see all the above responses. Again, there is no "if", there is now an ongoing grand jury investigation which is not public.

    I don't have a position with respect to the petition, the grand jury, the respective federal (grand jury) laws and/or English language definitions, they are what they are. The legal process in this case began with a petition for a grand jury investigation into a criminal case (the destruction of 3 buildings on 9/11 resulting in the death of nearly 3,000 people), complete with attached exhibits (i.e. incriminating evidence). It was accepted by the US Attorney as required by US law (see letter) and a special grand jury has been empaneled.

    And I haven't "labeled". anything, that's called a red herring on your part.

    You're welcome.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2019
  14. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Grand Jury proceeding to hear evidence, then it decides whether to indict. In other words, it looks at the evidence and decides whether or not it is incriminating!


    You don't know what a non sequitur is. That wasn't one and I am not interested in your legal exploits.


    Not intentionally. But it just confirms what I said. They will look into whether or not an offence is committed and act accordingly.

    Incorrect. The Grand Jury determines if the evidence is incriminating. The attorney is compelled by law to present the petition.

    Circular logic. The evidence can be any number of things. The purpose of the GJ is to determine if the evidence warrants an indictment, ergo whether it is incriminating for the said offense.

    I asked you what you would do if they found no nefarious activity!

    Don't play damn word games! I asked you if you would accept their decision or maintain your claims regardless.

    FFS read properly will you!

    IF the Grand Jury find no offense committed and no evidence warranting an indictment, will you THEN label the GJ a cover up?
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2019
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You claim to have "no bias and genuine interest" but it's obvious to me from the tone and content of your posts that your claim is far from the truth. Furthermore, it's impossible to have a discussion with a poster who refuses to accept standard, universally accepted English language and legal definitions and insists on inventing your own personal definitions.

    I'll try to simplify it for you if that's possible.

    A petition was filed for a grand jury investigation into a crime. The crime committed was the deliberate destruction of 3 towers on 9/11 via controlled demolition which resulted in the death of about 3,000 people and massive destruction of property. Evidence in the form of exhibits was filed with the petition. The exhibits include incriminating evidence of explosions and molten steel (physical and eyewitness testimony). Without that incriminating evidence there is no evidence that the aforementioned crime was committed and there can't be a valid petition for a grand jury investigation of said crime. That is to say it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to claim a building was control demolished without explosions.

    To simplify it down to its basic elements (there's a lot more to this of course):

    The alleged crime = controlled demolition
    The incriminating evidence = explosions

    Grand juries review all the evidence, including the incriminating evidence filed and determine the next course of action. This can be anywhere from dismissal to further investigation to indictments or just about anything they determine which is appropriate for a grand jury to determine. Grand juries have an awful lot of leeway.

    If you refuse to accept definitions, there's no point in any further discussion with you. I no longer wish to argue with you what is incriminating evidence and what is not. I accept the English language and legal definitions, you don't so there is no point to this.

    You asked:

    Without knowing how on earth the grand jury could possibly conclude no offense was committed there is nothing I can "label". The problem with an indictment is that it has to be an indictment of a person (none have been named thus far). I have no way of knowing where this is going and who might be the subject of an indictment. The grand jury might just decide based on the evidence that controlled demolitions did indeed take place but a criminal investigation is required to determine who all the perpetrators responsible were. And based on the outcome of such an investigation which may or may not reveal who the perpetrators were, indictments (hopefully arrests) will be handed out to the accused perpetrators.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2019
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    <Off-topic>

    No need.

    Totally wrong. I quoted the section for petitioning a federal grand jury(and again below). Your underlined words substituted for "so called" makes this more accurate.

    "We have received and reviewed The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc.’s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions” (emphasis added). (The U.S. Attorney’s letter is attached. It is also available at https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/7-nov-2018-u-s-attorney-geoffrey-berman-will-comply-with-18-usc-section-3332/)

    The U.S. Attorney’s letter does not spell out the steps that will be taken to comply, but 18 U.S.C. § 3332 is clear as to what these steps must be. This law states: “[a]ny such [United States] attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the [Special] grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney’s action or recommendation.” This law also states that “(a) It shall be the duty of each such [special] grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district.”


    Again incorrect. They review the submitted evidence and determine if there is any deemed to be incriminating, such that an indictment can be imposed.

    Nice straw man. I don't deny the definitions!! I deny your insistence of using them in an invalid way.

    You completely dodged the question.

    WILL YOU ACCEPT THEIR FINDINGS? OR WILL YOU MAINTAIN YOUR STANCE THAT THE US GOVERNMENT CARRIED OUT THESE ATTACKS ETC?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 30, 2019
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    • Insulting or personally attacking other posters (Rule 2)
    <Mod Edit>

    While denying the definition of incriminating evidence at every opportunity and inventing your own personal take. Read what you quoted about no point.

    You mean I didn't answer it as you would have wanted me to, not to mention you changed your question significantly. It was initially about a grand jury coverup, now it changed to the US government carrying out the 9/11 attacks (see below quotes from your own posts) neither of which were ever my "stance" in the first place.

    <Rule 2> The grand jury will do what the grand jury will do and so will the petitioners no matter what you (or I) post in this forum.

    I'm far from optimistic the grand jury will do the right thing, but I am hopeful. The good news is that many of the parties who will be testifying will be publicly revealing the details of their respective testimonies. And that will help serve to educate/expose the public to many issues that the US government and the MSM have been covering up since 9/11.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 30, 2019
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I reiterate - I am fully aware of the definition for incriminating evidence and not once have I denied said meaning. I deny your application of it!

    Just by way of example: The petition contains evidence that explosives were used. This is not incriminating evidence it is evidence that needs to be looked at. Even cursory examination will show it to be horseshit.

    So whilst it pleases you to label your petition as being one loaded with "incriminating evidence", fundamentally, that is what is being determined by the Grand Jury. IF they decide to proceed with indictments, etc. that will be the point when such a label is correct.

    No, I mean and still mean that you failed to answer a simple question. Here's the problem:

    If you say you will accept their findings and they throw out these claims, then you pretty much have nowhere to go.

    If you refuse to accept their findings in such a case, then that just makes you look a little on the fixated side!

    Once again will you accept their findings?
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ironically this thread is about censorship. So much for that.

    And as such any "discussion" with respect to the 9/11 grand jury investigation belongs in the proper thread (see link below), not this one. And so it will take place there, at least on my part.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/9-11-the-legal-initiative.500060/

    Anything personal will be ignored (perhaps other than to point it out). Any discussion with anyone who cannot accept plain English and/or standard legal definitions for the appropriate discussion will not take place, as pointed out.

    The only relationship between the 9/11 grand jury investigation and this thread is the fact that it's being censored by the MSM. Only 2 minor publications (one in the US and one in the UK) have printed the story.
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The irony is that you were the one who took it "off topic"!

    You keep making the same erroneous claim. I accept fully the English and standard legal definition of incriminating evidence! Should I bold it to enable you to comprehend for the 3rd time why your claim is bullshit?

    I dispute YOUR interpretation of what is incriminating evidence. The Grand Jury determines whether any offence has been committed by reviewing evidence submitted via the petition. If it establishes this as you hope, the evidence by nature is deemed incriminating and the federal indictment process is initiated.

    No matter what expertise you think you have, your failure to understand this simple process is woeful.

    The only real difference is the same bogus claim is being made. It is a simple petition that by law MUST be submitted. The 911 "truthers" may be jumping for joy at actually achieving something, but in reality they've initiated probably another total waste of US tax payers money.
     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hey Bobby, is this true? There is an empaneled grand jury for their petition?

    Reading the document linked below, the committee sounds like they have no clue of the status of the Grand Jury.
    https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/12-march-2019-supplement-cover-letter/
    petition1.PNG
    So the committee lied when they said there was an empaneled Grand Jury back on November 7th? Or was that just a "mistake"?
    https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/2018/12/24/sea-change-9-11-grand-jury-empaneled/
     

Share This Page