For 2 or 3 years, Adam Dwyer’s “Irrefutable” video has been on my Vimeo channel/account and it picked up a fair few views. On 03 Sept 2019, it was deleted with no warning. Writing to the “legal” email address produced the automatic/empty response below. On 13th Sept 2019, my “9/11 Key Evidence” video was also randomly deleted – having been on there for about 9 or 10 years. Perhaps they are just purging the “free accounts” (I hadn’t used their “paid for” service). Perhaps the next one to be deleted will be Dr Judy Wood’s 9/11 BEM presentation – which has had over 109,000 views in 6 years. Heck, not even YouTube have / has deleted the “Irrefutable” videos (nor the BEM 2012 one)…
I am just glad I decided to keep the DVD duplication going!
(Below, you can read my message to them and their response, and my follow up response.)
Further notes at the bottom!
Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, it appears you have not actually studied the videos and checked the evidence therein – which is what was asked of you. You have therefore not done your job properly. You have lost trust and reduced safety (what an Orwellian situation you are therefore in) – because you have helped to protect criminals who committed atrocities on 9/11. Also, you did not respond to the points I requested, asking where the video(s) broke the guidelines. This is definitely in “bad form” – and, essentially, reveals your position as one which isn’t morally defensible.
Your role in the protection of criminals has been duly noted – along with the role of many others who are doing the bidding of “special interest” groups who have committed crimes and influenced others to help keep the truth covered up.
Your role as a censor, even more draconian than those at YouTube for example, has also been noted – and already reacted to by people who have seen what you have done.
Thanks to David for sending me these notes about Vimeo’s dodgy policy and uncensored videos!
Looking more deeply into the Vimeo censorship of “Irrefutable,” I found that their Policy, under section 5.2 Content Restrictions, states that a Vimeo user “may not submit”: “Claims that mass tragedies are hoaxes or false flag operations.” vimeo.com/terms
This policy denies Constitutional rights.
Free speech or censorship? Social media litigation is a hot legal battleground by David L. Hudson, Jr. 4-1-19
As I’m sure you know, there are many, many Vimeo postings claiming many kinds of false flag operations, including 9/11, and they are still online, in full violation of Vimeo policy.
To cite a few examples:
Dwain Deets’ postings of “9/11 Truth Movement” videos are still very much online vimeo.com/user842412… , a video called ‘9/11 Truth in 9 Minutes” posted by Karl Pavloff is still online vimeo.com/user228956… , a video posted by micheloff on “Boston Tea Party for 9/11 Truth” vimeo.com/30397714 , Ole Freeman’s “9/11 Truth vs Mainstream Media” vimeo.com/3783607 Newsbud’s posting of a trailer for “FALSE FLAG WARS – The Gulf of Tonkin” remains posted on Vimeo vimeo.com/ondemand/1… , Badal’s posting on Vimeo “History of False Flags of India” vimeo.com/117127170 , “Prof Fetzer on the El Paso and Dayton False Flags” posted in August, 2019 vimeo.com/355745245 etc., etc.
What is clear is that Vimeo would have to censor and deny hundreds and hundreds of videos if they were to enforce their policy that all videos that “claim false flag operations” are not permitted, and they do not censor them. Therefore, it appears obvious that Vimeo is being SELECTIVE in what videos they CHOOSE to censor, what videos they choose to enforce their unconstitutional 5.2 Restrictions Policy upon.
Mmmm. I wonder why? Maybe for the same reason Wikipedia is selective about who they will, and will not, allow a Wikipedia page?
Many Judy Wood videos remain posted on Vimeo.