An interesting site: 911myths

Here is an interesting site.

www.911myths.com...

The author points out many of the same things that I have been pointing out here, as well as a few other items.

It's worth a read.

That is interesting, thanks. I'll review it in depth as I have time.

One thing I noticed was that there's no "About Us" or "Who We Are" or anything like that on the site, which is generally one of the first things I look for. Not that you can always trust that, either, but I'm generally curious as to who, at least, site authors claim to be.

Just sayin'.

Much like the Flight 93 movie, it's all crap. The 10% to 15% who are still on the fence may be swayed, not me . Thanks though!

Originally posted by yeahright
That is interesting, thanks. I'll review it in depth as I have time.

One thing I noticed was that there's no "About Us" or "Who We Are" or anything like that on the site, which is generally one of the first things I look for. Not that you can always trust that, either, but I'm generally curious as to who, at least, site authors claim to be.

Just sayin'.

It's there, Its just a little buried

www.911myths.com...

Originally posted by HowardRoark

It's there, Its just a little buried

www.911myths.com...

Guess I should've looked harder. Thanks.

WHO AM I?
I'm Mike Williams, a software developer and freelance writer from the UK.

You want people to take what he says when he has no more merrit than what you think some of us have Howard?
Fun read, but doesnt change my mind in the least.

Sites like this are bound to pop up. It looks like all they've done is taken all the "deunkery" crap from forums like this and posted it on a website.

Good job? They even link to the Greening papers as if they still hold water.

they constantly claim "we are no experts and really dont know what this means but....blah blah blah, *government sourced crap.*" really if i wanted to read that i could have just read the review from FEMA and NIST.

check this out, research i did, my own idea. A shot at proving demolition in a unique way not approached before.
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Howie, Had to give a poorly debunking site a rebunked and expert laiden site.....www.physics911.net...

These aren't rookies at a stink tank , they are experts who are putting their careers and lives on the line. When people come forward and put themselves and their families at risk it requires you take heed.

I would question the classification of these people as “experts”

None of them is an expert in the relevant fields that they seem to be discussing.

Steve Jones comes close, but even he is not an engineer.

In any case, the points raised by the site that I linked to are still valid.

I liked this bit, it's so true and better then I could ever have put in words about how I feel:

Why do you ask? Oh, I know. It’s the old one where anyone who spends a lot of time promoting a particular 9/11 theory is A Fearless Seeker After Truth (even if their site is packed with “Donate” buttons and invitations for you to “buy the book/ DVD/ video”), but anyone who spends the same amount of time on the other side of the argument is A Government Shill/ Paid Disinformation Agent, right?

Well, believe what you like, but I do this because I enjoy it. It’s ain interesting exercise in collecting information online, and sharpens my research skills. Plus I don’t see anyone else bothering to do the same thing, so arguably the site is performing a useful function as well (although that’s really just a side issue: I’m doing this for me, not for anyone else).

[...............]

Pah! Plainly you're just a shill/ Government stooge/ neo-con/ psyops site.

Yawn. Yes, I've heard that before, usually because it's much easier to smear people than dealing with the points they're making. But hey, if you believe that, then run along now, it's fine with me. There are plenty of other 9/11 sites that will tell you what you want to hear, and never even think of challenging any of your views..
www.911myths.com...

It's all about seperating the wheat from the chaff.

[edit on 14-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Here is an interesting site.

www.911myths.com...

The author points out many of the same things that I have been pointing out here, as well as a few other items.

It's worth a read.

Yeah, that's my favorite coincidence theorist site.

Well, believe what you like, but I do this because I enjoy it. It’s ain interesting exercise in collecting information online, and sharpens my research skills. Plus I don’t see anyone else bothering to do the same thing,

Well that just puts this whole site to waste now doesnt it! I wonder what you would call all this on ATS we see daily

I think he's more a site with the information laid out in a similar fashion as '911research' for instance rather than a 'discussion' where information detrimental toa conspiracy theory is quickly swamped over and swept under the carpet never to be seen again.
The evil nasty disinformationist government man.. How disgusting...


[edit on 15-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

Assume for the sake of argument that everything on the site is 100% factual - which I have no real reason to doubt, in my view.

I find it fascinating, if one takes at face value all that is said there and looks upon it as a compilation of factual or highly likely to be factual information, that the conspiracy theories which are the least effectively debunked therein are those involving NORAD, PNAC, Pentagon foreknowledge, and Flight 93 - all of which can tangibly be linked to the military in one way or another, or to the proponents of military modernization and transformation.

I'm by no means - on any level - drawing any conclusions or implying anything in particular by this. I just find it an interesting confluence of (at least seemingly) unprovable - yet not fully disprovable - theories, in lieu of everything else that they appear to have at least fairly solid arguments of "debunkation" (as I call it) for. Those few particular theories, to my mind at least, are primarily debunked there via interpretive slant with respect to what one can or should infer from things, rather than contradictory or factually incorrect information, whereas all of the others are backed up fairly well by contradictory statements, more complete quotes than some might be aware of, physical evidence that can't be interpreted in more than a very few ways, etc.


[edit on 15-4-2006 by AceWombat04]

You dont need anything but the fact that those building fell in there own footprint, everything else is just frosting. At no time would an Incident Commander have 343 firefighters inside a building they thought might collapse. That whole building is one giant heat sink, you cannot heat 47 steel collumns to the point of failure like that, no frickin way.

Someone murdered 343 firefighters that day and I want justice at the end of a fire-service axe! We NEVER EVER do search and rescue operations in an unsafe building that is about to collapse!

You want an experts opinion, and not a software specialist? I AM search and rescue and my job is to know what it takes to collapse a structure, you see I work on the inside while its fully involved. That building had plenty of ventilation, thats key in getting rid of heat and super-heated gases, with proper ventilation heat will not build. It was a STEEL structure you will not in any stretch of the imagination collapse that structure when the whole building constantly draws the heat away and spreads it out.

We put water on a fire, not for dowsing, not for smothering, its a heat sink. Just like those buildings.

I need to stop posting on the 9/11 board before I get fired.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by LoneGunMan]

Al-qeada killed the firefighters. They were not prepared to fight that fire. Since 93 there were attempts at better planning and equipment, especially for communication. Look into some of the info on the radios and not being able to keep in contact each other properly. Pick up and read the book "102 minutes" and it explains alot about it.
Those men died that day attempting to save as many people as they could, and they did it unselfishly and with pride.


The investigation that is needed is into the levels of toxicity that those men were exposed to and what after effects are still present in them.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by esdad71]

yes i recommend these firefighters get a numerous amount of test like X rays, chest function tests, and in particular aluminum tests.(dont ask ill prove why in the coming days)

LoneGunMan: this may sound somewhat corny, but I just wanted to say thank-you for doing what you do. It's a job I would never possess courage enough to perform. I don't take you, doctors, or any of the other people we have become accustomed to having around to save our necks, for granted. It is much appreciated.