GTMO and 911 Content on C-VINE is Being “Rated” by NEWSGUARDTECH ~ Will We Survive? Watch the Process

C-VINE is opening the doors wide so the public can see the steps taken in the NewsGuard “Rating” process. They have stated about the importance of total transparency, and we are doing our part.  You decide if it’s fair and impartial.

~~~ Linda Forsythe

From: Valerie Pavilonis <valerie.pavilonis@newsguardtech.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 1:32 PM
To: Linda Forsythe <linda@cvinenetwork.com>
Subject: Re: Request for comment from NewsGuard

Hi Ms. Forsythe,

Qualified Organizations

You may deduct a charitable contribution made to, or for the use of, any of the following organizations that otherwise are qualified under section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code:

1. A state or United States possession (or political subdivision thereof), or the United States or the District of Columbia, if made exclusively for public purposes;
2. A community chest, corporation, trust, fund, or foundation, organized or created in the United States or its possessions, or under the laws of the United States, any state, the District of Columbia or any possession of the United States, and organized and operated exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, scientific, or literary purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.
3. A church, synagogue, or other religious organization;
4. A war veterans’ organization or its post, auxiliary, trust, or foundation organized in the United States or its possessions;
5. A nonprofit volunteer fire company;
6. A civil defense organization created under federal, state, or local law (this includes unreimbursed expenses of civil defense volunteers that are directly connected with and solely attributable to their volunteer services);
7. A domestic fraternal society, operating under the lodge system, but only if the contribution is to be used exclusively for charitable purposes;
8. A nonprofit cemetery company if the funds are irrevocably dedicated to the perpetual care of the cemetery as a whole and not a particular lot or mausoleum crypt.

Please review the original e-mails and dialogues sent if you require additional information.

2. Why did C-VINE decide to re-focus its content on 9/11?

C-VINE RESPONSE: The very day we decided to refocus to 911 was decided when the KSM et al Judge in GTMO announced the decision to negotiate a Plea Deal for the pre-trials in Closed Sessions without transparency. These negotiations  will potentially will go on for years considering they still need to replace the Learned Defense Attorney Cheryl Bormann. Also, are you aware the KSM et al 911 proceedings are STILL in the PRE-TRIAL phase after 21 years? It has never made it to Tribunal, even though a date was set by presiding Judge Shane Cohen at the time for January 11, 2021.

The Closed/Classified sessions do not allow any coverage from reporters.  Including Carol Rosenberg from the New York Times who has been covering these for the last 20 years. She isn’t happy either.

C-VINE has sent volunteers (which usually included myself) to Ft. Meade since January 2019 in order to watch via CCTV all the KSM et al proceedings from GTMO and report on them unofficially as citizen journalists. The OMC is very aware of who we are. I continue to keep in touch on an almost weekly basis with the Officer in charge of Media at the OMC to be kept up to speed on all open source updates and court transcripts.

C-VINE RESPONSE: Maybe you could offer a suggestion here because on further review when we revamped the website, the word we were asked to use was/is not accurate. The word “Editors” implies an official paid position. There have never been any. No one has ever been paid. There is although a revolving door of volunteers who spell check, or help with layout. Author attribution of original content is always provided. If someone conducts an interview, that name is also provided. Volunteers who do nothing more than post an article, provide sweat equity, or spell check. Those are not technically editors and that is who was up there before.  It is similar to what our volunteers do in Social Media Groups. No one owns C-VINE and is run by We the People.

4. I’ve also found that several articles do not name an author and are instead attributed to volunteer journalists, or no one. Can you comment on why C-VINE.com doesn’t seem to always disclose information about content creators?

See answer to #3. Historically C-VINE started out with volunteer licensed investigators/licensed detectives/police officers/lawyers who fact check news articles posted elsewhere from different news agencies, and would only repost those found to be factual. Author attribution to news stories from other places is attached. Only occasionally… original content from one of us was posted and even then author attribution was posted. People everywhere seriously questioned what news was truthful so volunteers began to step up. It evolved into a proverbial echo chamber of news from elsewhere, except in rare circumstances. We will no longer do that. Hence our new 911 roundtable focus and GTMO updates.

5.) I see that some of the articles we at NewsGuard have noted in the past have been taken down. Still, I found some newer articles on C-VINE.com that I wanted to ask you about:

– For example, a November 2022 article was titled “Commentary ~ 9/11 Saudi Arabian hijacker Hani Hanjour, piloted American Airlines 77 into the Pentagon, but was Denied Rental of a Single Engine Cessna 1 Month Before b/c of Flight Incompetence,” and stated “I personally find it very silly, albeit sad, that we have to continually play this childish game wherein we pretend that the official 9/11 narrative is accurate when we all know that it is grossly flawed and that 9/11 was an inside job in which the US government was complicit.” It then proceeded to note reported issues with one of the hijackers’ flying abilities.

However, multiple reports have indicated that 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Qaeda, and though it’s true that some people overseeing Hanjour’s flight training were concerned about his abilities, there is still no evidence that 9/11 was a government plot. Can you comment on this article?

C-VINE RESPONSE: As noted in your question, the first word in the title is “COMMENTARY” which is in reference to an e-mail that was widely distributed by the CEO of 911pilots.org to an array of world-wide government leaders, agencies and learned 911 individuals. His e-mail was published on our website with permission and used for our round table discussion and commentary for opinions. The attributed statement you ask about was made by the email author. Any arguments you may have, need to be addressed to him. Did you watch the video?

NewsGuard Question ~ A January 2023 article on C-VINE also states “Researcher Kevin Ryan. Richard then took the deep dive into the third WTC high-rise ‘collapse’ on 9/11—Building 7. Hint: this happens after witnesses hear explosions. Mind you, no plane hit the building—yet it descends straight down symmetrically at free-fall acceleration into it’s own footprint—in the exact manner of a classic controlled demolition. Official US agencies find the evidence of incendiary thermite—but this information is then repressed from public awareness.”

It’s true that no plane hit Building 7. But reports indicate that Building 7 did fall as a result of fire, and a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation found that it was unlikely that the required amounts of thermite could have been brought into the building without arousing suspicion. Can you comment on this article?

C-VINE RESPONSE: Again… this was a round table discussion. Opinion and dialogue.  C-VINE is aware of the NIST Report.  That is precisely what we were discussing. We interviewed a representative of AE911TRUTH.ORG who was providing the Forensic Analysis and sanctioned study from Professor Leroy Hulsey and his team from the accredited University of Alaska/Fairbanks. 3,600 verified credentialed Architects and Engineers have also signed a petition, because of vehement disagreement of the NIST Report and agree with Professor Hulsey’s analysis.

Valerie, do you disagree that our US Constitution allows us to question the government, it’s agencies and reports, have discussions or debate and express our opinions publicly? Just curious on NewGuards stand.

– We also asked you previously about a 2020 article regarding Kamala Harris’ citizenship. I’m not sure what article that was, but I found a similar article titled “Why It Should Matter that Kamala Harris Is Not a Natural Born Citizen,” that stated “What we see is that when there is an obvious case of ineligibility and the media’s chosen candidate is a Democrat, such as Barack Obama (father was a British subject, a Kenyan national, on a student visa and was never a naturalized citizen) or Kamala Harris (mother and father both born abroad; one naturalized citizen at the time of birth), the media freak out, attack, and smear Republicans.  Instead of acknowledging they are not natural born citizens or seeking to resolve the issue in a court of law, they choose to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.”

You commented before on the Kamala Harris issue, but I wanted to ask you about this article specifically, which mentions both Harris and Obama. Both were born in the United States, Harris in Oakland, California and Obama in Hawaii, and anyone born in the US is considered a natural-born citizen. Can you comment on this article?

C-VINE RESPONSE: I will gladly remove this report that was from another outside source, but posted at the time on our website as an article of interest. We provided no commentary. As mentioned at the beginning, our focus is on all things 911 and we are continuing to revamp the website.

Thanks for your time, and please let me know if you have any questions.