I have to defend Archive.org here, because they seem to only remove things in response external legal pressure. They removed some Tracy Twyman books I uploaded last year, and at first I thought it was censorship, then I learnt her widow was suing any website hosting her books. Someone probably legally pressured them to remove Fetzer's website, most likely the Sandy hook "parents" legal team. The archive people seem to be fairly apolitical librarian types, data hoarders. Their archive of 9/11 unedited and consecutively arranged news feeds from the days after 9/11 is an impressive weapon against the official narrative - the fact they created it indicate they are truth seekers, unbelievers in the official story.
EDIT: also Fetzer's controversial book, "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook" is still hosted there:
What you say is true and it's not necessarily condemnation of archive.org, but then again, thinking critically and conspiratorially, there's no way of ascertaining how compromised they are now or ever will be. For all we know, they are silently wiping away the most sensitive records when they feel they can get away with it. (There are other reports of this.) We can wave our hands around all we like, but the issue still exists.
And again, while I'm sure you're correct about "external legal pressure", who among us was aware of the principle that "external legal pressure" could seek to extinguish knowledge from the face of the Earth? The old Fetzer article I was looking for had nothing at all to do with Sandy Hook or any other legal issue. How could it possibly be subject to any legal injunction not just on Fetzer, but on a completely separate legal entity?
So we see clearly the real problem: Can we see somewhere defined the limits to the existence of information through "external legal pressure"? I was completely unaware that such a mechanism existed, or could exist, or would be tolerated. But the main strength of most of "Their" techniques lies in lack of awareness, and so here I sought to bring it to mind.
Well I wouldn't endorse the removal as legitimate, just that it was probably done under legal duress. The Sandy Hook crowd probably sought a blanket removal of his website regardless of other content. That upload of book was only 2022, so maybe they will end up removing it too as part of that. Who knows. They sought money from Remington, and got it, despite how insane that was.
I have to defend Archive.org here, because they seem to only remove things in response external legal pressure. They removed some Tracy Twyman books I uploaded last year, and at first I thought it was censorship, then I learnt her widow was suing any website hosting her books. Someone probably legally pressured them to remove Fetzer's website, most likely the Sandy hook "parents" legal team. The archive people seem to be fairly apolitical librarian types, data hoarders. Their archive of 9/11 unedited and consecutively arranged news feeds from the days after 9/11 is an impressive weapon against the official narrative - the fact they created it indicate they are truth seekers, unbelievers in the official story.
EDIT: also Fetzer's controversial book, "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook" is still hosted there:
https://archive.org/details/nobody-died-at-sandy-hook
What you say is true and it's not necessarily condemnation of archive.org, but then again, thinking critically and conspiratorially, there's no way of ascertaining how compromised they are now or ever will be. For all we know, they are silently wiping away the most sensitive records when they feel they can get away with it. (There are other reports of this.) We can wave our hands around all we like, but the issue still exists.
And again, while I'm sure you're correct about "external legal pressure", who among us was aware of the principle that "external legal pressure" could seek to extinguish knowledge from the face of the Earth? The old Fetzer article I was looking for had nothing at all to do with Sandy Hook or any other legal issue. How could it possibly be subject to any legal injunction not just on Fetzer, but on a completely separate legal entity?
So we see clearly the real problem: Can we see somewhere defined the limits to the existence of information through "external legal pressure"? I was completely unaware that such a mechanism existed, or could exist, or would be tolerated. But the main strength of most of "Their" techniques lies in lack of awareness, and so here I sought to bring it to mind.
Well I wouldn't endorse the removal as legitimate, just that it was probably done under legal duress. The Sandy Hook crowd probably sought a blanket removal of his website regardless of other content. That upload of book was only 2022, so maybe they will end up removing it too as part of that. Who knows. They sought money from Remington, and got it, despite how insane that was.