It's an advert, not news.

Let's not go into what constitutes news again

For years IMC UK has had a sensible policy of hiding crap like this along with less well known conspiracy rubbish that was being trolled onto the newswire. Remember the chem-trails stuff that used to appear every five minutes? So what has changed? This is supposed to be a grassroots newswire. There are dozens of websites dedicated to conspiracy theorys so why are IMC UK moderators allowing this shite to be posted here as well?

An answer please.

Or this comment going to be hidden along with others that dare to contradict the likes of Shayler?

Firstly, why did I have to use a back door to enable myself to make a comment on this item? There were no links to do so, so I had to resort to a hack! But I know for a fact that IMCers have resorted to such tactics themselves - but that's another story.

Secondly, we seem to have regressed to the bad old days of a couple of years ago when 9/11 posts were automatically hidden. Back then it was down to stark prejudice - there doesn't seem to be any evidence to prove otherwise now. Stu doesn't mention any issues from the film he just says 'For years IMC UK has had a sensible policy of hiding crap like this...' without reference to what, if anything, of the 'crap' he objects. It's very doubtful that he has watched the film. In fact did anybody at Indymedia watch it before it was hidden? Is theree something glaringly obvious within the film which proves it to be 'crap'? I'm sure the producers would love to hear from you so that they can investigate it and, if necessary, rectify it.

And Stu ices the cake by saying that, 'There are dozens of websites dedicated to conspiracy theorys so why are IMC UK moderators allowing this shite to be posted here as well?' As if the makers of this film think of themselves as 'conspiracy theorists'. You know, Stu, as well as I do that the term 'conspiracy theorist' is an epithet and that you, for whatever reason, simply seek to discredit this story by labelling it so. Would you say that anybody who believed that Blair and Bush colluded to deceive the British and American people into believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a conspiracy theorist? Huh?

My best guess is that people who are too stubborn to look at the evidence are either anxious that it might be compelling or that they have had their view of the 9/11 truth movement tarnished by hologram/cgi theorists - who are generally not welcomed within the movement.

And what of all the darlings of the anti-war movement who have twigged the 9/11 fraud? Such as Cindy Sheehan? The once STW march leading David Shayler. And most recently, since talking to William Rodriguez, George Galloway?

The post consisted of a link - no context or information. It relates to a BBc programme aired 4 months ago. As it happens, I watched it, and there is nothing in it that heasn't been said here many times before. Refutations of the BBC programme were posted immediately after it was aired and remain on the newswire.

The newswire isn't here for context free links - put some context in - explain what the link is and why it is news and it is less likely to end up being hidden as non-news.

And if you're unhappy with moderation decisions there is a forum to express your unhappiness. No need for a backdoor whatsoever.....


 https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/editorial.html