9/11 conspiracies debunked!

[spooked911]

Here's a good site for all the official story believers:
http://www.911myths.com/index.html

I have to say there is some good info there, and tells us conspiracy theorists areas to avoid. :)

[janedoe]

1. They even say that the "9/11 Commission Report" is wrong.

I think they only implied it was wrong, but that is the meaning they were trying to convey.

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

They also say those seismic charts don't show the spike of energy release that folks say is there. It's interesting that they even posted the charts and forgot to "white out" the earthquake magnitudes of 2.3 and 2.1 for the two collapses.

http://www.911myths.com/html/seismic_record.html

Hint: the fact that the peak amplitude of each "spike" is recorded on the chart is a good indication there were big energy spikes. :-)

Why do the "handlers" of that site feel the need to lie?

[spooked911]

3. Yes, that part is clearly disinfo.

Mostly I brought this site up as another demonstration of the forces we have to deal with to get at the truth.

[spooked911]

2. I just found that site and didn't really look it over very thoroughly

First, it seems as though they have gone through a lot of trouble to set up this site. Why? Just because they are annoyed at conspiracy theories?

Second, it seems they are selective and perhaps misleading in how they present arguments.

Third, the important thing is that this site by no means debunks the idea that 9/11 was "an inside job".

[hack89]

4. Pot meet kettle

"they are selective and perhaps misleading in how they present arguments"

[spooked911]

8. We all do it, I'm sure. But at least I am not an apologist for a criminal

regime.

[hack89]

9. But neither am I...

my only concern is that the waters are not so muddied that the criminals go free for the crimes they actually committed.

[spooked911]

10. which crimes are those then?

[hack89]

11. Crimes of negligence and incompetence

that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to live and plan in this country undetected. There were sufficient warnings to stop the attacks.

[spooked911]

12. Okay. So, what are you doing about this, then?

It doesn't seem like anyone in Washington is too interested in pursuing Bush's crimes of negligence and incompetence in 9/11.

If you think you have a way to get some justice for even this, I'd be happy to hear about it.

Seriously.

[LARED]

13. Justice for negligence and incompetence

is accomplished in the voting booth.

[spooked911]

18. Justice for CRIMES is accomplished in the voting booth?

That seems silly. First of all, there clearly was no justice in 2004. And Bush can't run again, so there won't be "justice" in 2008. Second, presidential elections are about many things, but are generally not about prosecuting people for crimes. Moreover, there is every reason for both parties to avoid discussing 9/11, as they are both complicit in the 9/11 cover-up.

[LARED]

19. Well if there were crimes I would agree

That why I left it out of my comment. For all the chest thumping about criminal action by the Bush administration, I've yet to see anything that warrants removal of a president (even one as horrible as Bush) via the legal system. Doing that without merit is quite unwise in my view for the country. Trying to pretend there was material evidence to implicate Bush just degrades our political systems.

In the voting booth, America has a clear opportunity to kick out Republicans (and incompetent, ignorant politicians of all strips) at every election. We should do that.

[pauldp]

27. Have you read the GAO report on electronic voting machines?

http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-05-956

[HamdenRice]

31. What? No crimes?

Specifically authorizing torture at the cabinet level?

Establishing secret CIA prisons for torture and detention without trial and without complying with international law on POWs?

Extraordinary rendition to countries that torture with the intent to abet torture?

Subverting due process by asserting the president's right to declare any person, even a US citizen, an enemy combatant who can be detained indefinitely without trial?

International aggression, in invading a foreign country based on purposefully distorted intelligence regarding non-existent threats?

[LARED]

32. You have a point, but

the comment was directed at supposed crimes of negligence and incompetence in the 9/11 attacks.

[petgoat]

34. negligence and incompetence

Investigations were shut down or ignored (Rowley, Williams, Wright).

The people who shut them down were promoted.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=maltbie&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=+Go+

Reports that Osame met with CIA agent Larry Mitchell in Dubai were
ignored.

Bush fought every investigation into 9/11 tooth and nail. The
Congressional Inquiry was hamstrung by FBI harrassment. Every member of
the 9/11 Commission had conflicts of interest, and much of the material
necessary to make a proper study was never released to the Commisson.

Warnings from 11 foreign countries were ignored. Vladimir Putin
warned of suicide pilots training for missions in the US. The Mossad
warned of 19 terrorists in the US planning something big. They named
names, and the four names that have been released are all alleged 9/11
hijackers.


Balls were definitely dropped, and the Bush adminsitration has
interceded to make sure that we'll never know who dropped them.

Yes, there's plenty of reason to remove Bush.

[philb]

24. But we clearly don't have democratic elections in the U.S.- so where does

that leave us.
Its pretty clear that neither our current president or some of the Congressmen won their position based on the intent of the voters.

It was documented by Media that Gore would have won by thousands in Florida given a fair election and vote count;
and also documented that Kerry won Ohio and the national total in a fair vote count; likewise for many races

http://www.flcv.com/ohiosum.html
http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html

[philb]

23. I agree. But why do you think just negligence is involved?

http://www.flcv.com/warnings.html

[philb]

22. A reasonable concern; so what do you think actually happened?

[janedoe]

5. "They" are getting scared.

I haven't looked through that site, either. I just went to my favorite topics to see what they had and just looked at the particular items I linked to, above. So, out of the two samples I picked, both efforts to debunk were bogus/fraudulent.

You noted, "it seems they are selective and perhaps misleading in how they present arguments."

Yep. Why do the "handlers" of that site feel the need to lie?

Look how fast Jones was "silenced." If they thought Jones had a bogus argument, why didn't they simply sit back and watch him make a fool of himself? Why did "they" feel the need to intervene and "tell you" your opinion? The Jones article came out on Friday, and the Tucker show got him on Monday (i.e. the next business day). "They" couldn't afford any time to let Jones be heard; folks might start thinking.

I suspect that there are a bunch of sites that have recently sprung up, ready to answer any questions that folks began asking after the Tucker show (or any other nudge folks have been given to begin asking questions).

[hack89]

6. An serious question..

just how many people today mentioned the Tucker show to you? I work in an office of 150 people, all educated professionals, and not a single one said a word about it. I hosted a large (40 people) 50th birthday party for a good friend of mind two days ago and again no one ever mentioned 9/11. I live in a very democratic state and I just don't see this looming awareness you think is soon coming. One thing I think you fail to take into account is how few people get their information from the internet, especially blogs and message boards. I am very aware of the issue and I can't recall the last time I heard someone discuss 9/11 in any way - all anyone wants to talk about is the war.

[spooked911]

7. I think it is still something people are afraid to talk about-- especially

in a group situation.* And liberals are perhaps even more afraid of being labeled a CTer than rightwingers.

I don't think there is a big break-through imminent. But on the other hand, the media is clearly pushing back and gatekeeping 9/11 topics. There is simply no denying this. How many times has David Ray Griffin been mentioned by the mainstream mdeia, despite that his books are best-sellers? I'm not talking about local newspapers where he speaks. I'm talking about big papers, big news channels. How many times have you seen the WTC7 collapse on the news, even though it is incredibly dramatic and amazing?

*Note-- two to three years ago, people were afraid to criticize Bush in public as well-- and see where we've come.

[Rich Hunt]

14. if that ain't the truth n/t

[pauldp]

28. When was the last time you heard people talk about electronic voting?

Yet there is the new GAO report that clearly shows a system was in place in 2004 that would have allowed the election to be stolen unnoticed. Yet where is the media? Where is the outrage? This should be one of the biggest stories of the decade. I brought this topic of electronic voting up at a party recently and a few people were aware of it and thought it was of great concern but there was this odd reticence to discuss it, as if it was too scary to go there. Too scary to think we may have already lost our democracy. I think the same is true of 911.

[SittingBull]

30. Make it happen!

you can not expect that someone else speaks first in this climate of fear!

[Tim Howells]

15. Right!

This is great. I had a quick look at the site. It is
very good - very slick. I glanced at the stand-down section.
It sounds very reasonable, but the hidden key is that they
start out by accepting one of the 911 commissions versions
of the response timeline, which is a pack of lies (See
Ommissions and Distortions by Griffin).

But this is great! Before now "they" had avoided all
argument and debate, declaring the whole subject completely
off limits. THAT'S NOT WORKING ANY MORE!! LET'S GO GET
STONED!!!

Tim Howells


PS - Glaring lack of any "about" info on the site. We could
all guess who is doing this, but can anyone actually track
it down?

[ROH]

26. Click 'Investigations and More' then click 'Who is behind this site?'

The information is that the website is run by Mike Williams, email address: [e-mail]

[Kevin Fenton]

16. Bag of crap

I might disagree with the main sites like 911research and 911review on most of the issues, but I would at least admit they're honest. I don't think 911myths is honest. For a start, there's no record in the Wayback machine, which always makes me suspicious. When did it appear?

This is a link to their article about whether Abdul Aziz Al Omari is still alive:
http://www.911myths.com/html/abdulaziz_al_omari_still_alive.html
They claim it's just a case of mistaken identity, i.e. there were two Abdul Aziz Al Omaris who were both Saudis and had the same date of birth (although they susprisingly fail to mention the electrical engineer coincidentally had the same date of birth as the hijacker, I wonder why?). This is just stupid. Given that Al Qaeda is known for passport forgery, why not just admit that the real Abdulaziz Al-Omari's passport was stolen and used by the hijacker?

[spooked911]

17. I agree completely. The site is very disingenuous as it claims to have

no agenda, but is clearly rather biased.

[Ferry Fey]

20. No links to it yet

I just did the Google Advanced Search to see how many other sites linked to its front page, and the only one given was an internal link.
Google cache says it captured the cached info on November 19. So it must have been put up really recently.

[LARED]

21. Try this

http://www.dnsstuff.com/

[Ferry Fey]

25. okey doke -- proxy domain holding

I guess they're kinda shy.

Whois sez:

Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Registered through: www.dynonames.com
Domain Name: 911MYTHS.COM
Created on: 13-Jan-05
Expires on: 13-Jan-07
Last Updated on: 01-Mar-05

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration [e-mail]
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
[phone]
Technical Contact:
Private, Registration [e-mail]
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
[phone]

Domain servers in listed order:
NS149.EDNS1.COM
NS150.EDNS1.COM


The previous information has been obtained either directly from the registrant or a registrar of the domain name other than Network Solutions. Network Solutions, therefore, does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.

Show underlying registry data for this record



Current Registrar: WILD WEST DOMAINS, INC.
IP Address: 67.15.60.76 (ARIN & RIPE IP search)
IP Location: US(UNITED STATES)
Record Type: Domain Name
Server Type: Apache
Lock Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
Web Site Status: Active
DMOZ no listings
Y! Directory: see listings
Web Site Title: 911Myths
Secure: No
E-commerce: No
Traffic Ranking: Not available
Data as of: 21-Oct-2005

[StrafingMoose]

29. I just read their section

about the hijackers' possible training on secure military bases.

He skips over Hopsicker's "admission" by a Pentagon official about the training (the admission isn't confirming the story, but it still doesn't help them "I do not have the authority to tell you who (which terrorists) attended which schools") and the site takes the FBI hijackers list for unquestionable evidence.

FBI fumbled, stumbled, stiffled their own investigations prior/after 9/11, pleaded failure and incompetence after 9/11, why should we beleive their list then? After all, where all these passports came from?

And here's another quote:

So even Michael Moore (not exactly a friend of Bush, or Ashcroft) accepts there's probably nothing here? Then unless more information appears, this story really doesn't look like it's going anywhere

Suuuure. Moore's whitewash is yet again unquestionable...

[Bushwick Bill]

33. Omissions From That Site

No mention of Sibel Edmonds or Indira Singh. If Sibel can't blow the doors off of the official story, why can't she talk?

That site also doesn't acknowledge that two firefighters insist they found 3 of the 4 WTC black boxes.