Test Page


unsorted stuff that may need to be added, removed from left side of main page:

911 Memorial Sites:

911 Inquiry Sites:
Journal of 9/11 Studies
History Commons
International Center for 911 Studies
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
911 Working Group
9/11 Summary
History Commons Groups
Patriots Question 9/11
Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission
Scientists for 911 Truth

911 Regional Sites:

The 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Indiana
Connecticut 9/11 Truth
Monadnock 911 Truth Alliance
We Are Change NY
We Are Change Atlanta
Santa Barbara 9/11 Truth
Northern Califorina 911 Truth

news sites:
Washington's Blog
The Brad Blog
Project Censored
Freedoms Phoenix
Richard Stallman
Better Bad News
The Real News.com
The Daily Dirt
Dandelion Salad
Public Policy News and Research
Mark Crispin Miller
American's Journey
The Raw Story
The Daily Paul
Media Roots
The Identity Project


Solving the Mystery of WTC 7


The Pentagon

A dozen questions about Flight 77 and the Pentagon
New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon.
The Repeatedly Delayed Responses of the Pentagon Command Center


Whistle Blowers: Someone would have talked!

Daniel Ellsberg: “Secrets ... Can Be Kept Reliably ... For Decades … Even Though They Are Known to THOUSANDS of Insiders"
People Could Have Planted Bombs In the World Trade Center Without Anyone Noticing
High-Level American Officials Admit that the United States Uses False Flag Terror
Sibel Edmonds - BradBlog -
Barry Jennings - YouTube
William Rodriquez


The 9/11 Commission

9/11 Commissioners
Family Steering Committee [PDF]
Jersey Girls
Max Cleland
Henry Kissinger - CNN
Norman Mineta
Condoleeza Rice/Philip Zelikow



Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup (2011)
9/11: Press For Truth
9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out
The Power of Nightmares - YouTube
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
Fabled Enemies
Zero: Investigation into 9/11
Elephant in the room
Who Killed John O'Neill?
New American Century
A Noble Lie: Oklahoma City 1995


FAQ: Other Sites



Overview: Compilations

The Facts Speak for Themselves
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
Psychologists Speak Out
History Commons
International Center for 9/11 Studies

Miscellaneous Questions

What about the spire.. Did it turn into dust?
Video: Debunking the "Spire turned to Dust" myths (0:12-0:17)
"What's up with the burnt cars?"
Were the WTC Buildings built very well to begin with?


Where can I do more or volunteer

Take Action: Volunteer with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Join and Form a Local WeAreChange Group
On the Eleventh of Every Month - A Call to Action
Spread the News. Be the Media. - Send an Email
Contribute. Submit News. Get Involved.






General questions

  1. Someone would have talked!
  2. http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-25/daniel-ellsberg-secrets-can-be-kep...



  3. Why investigate 9/11?

(better questions below in comments)

"What's up with the burnt cars?"



Flight UA 93


General 9/11 research errors

  1. Did Dick Cheney claim on a show with Tony Snow that Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11?
  2. No. Here's what Dick Cheney said to Tony Snow, causing confusion: (emphasis ours)

    Dick Cheney: That's correct. We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden [sic] was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming. But there -- that's a separate proposition from the question of whether or not there was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi government, Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaeda organization.

    However, Dick Cheney obviously misspoke and substituted Osama Bin Laden where we had wanted to say: Saddam Hussein. This becomes quite clear from the audio, but if you're unconvinced, this dialogue takes place minutes later, in which Tony Snow clears up the misunderstanding:

    Tony Snow: Okay. A couple of things, I think a couple of minutes ago -- I want to make sure -- you said Osama bin Laden wasn't involved in 9/11 planning. You meant Saddam Hussein, correct? That Saddam Hussein was not involved in September 11th?

    Dick Cheney: Correct. Yes, sir.

    Tony Snow: Okay.

    Dick Cheney: Thanks for straightening that out. I didn't realize I'd done that. (Laughter.)

    Tony Snow: Yes. Well, otherwise we'd have a whole lot more stories to deal with.

    Dick Cheney: Oh, yes. All right. Well, I appreciate it.

    Source: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/03/2006032...

Future location of the 911Blogger.com 911FAQ.

Currently this page, and the tab that links to it are not visible to regular users or passing visitors.

It's titled "Test Page" temporarily.

If you can see the "911faq" tab, and view this page, then your account is set to "FAQ Editor".

We need your help to make this happen.

The general idea is for this FAQ to be an introduction to 9/11, which links to the best and most effective information. A way to get new people up to speed while avoiding many of the pitfalls that pepper the 9/11 research landscape.

Socially, we need to make this issue uplifting and empowering rather than dark and scary.

Click "Edit" at the top of this page to start. We can leave this note at the top (feel free to change) until we get closer to a releasable page. A number of technical improvements are in the works, this page will eventually be a mediawiki backed page that looks like the current drupal site. (we have a dev on it)

Comments are enabled below, click Edit above to add content.

When we decide to "go live" the comments below will not be on the 911FAQ page or viewable to anyone but "FAQ Editors" so feel free to be frank/blunt/ect.

Also, although only the moderators can see it at the moment (working on that) this page has a change history.

(a bit long, maybe Jon can condense it for a faq... but http://911blogger.com/node/17949 is a obvious important introductory resource... pointing out that you dont need to "believe" anything to question 09/11/01) -jak


People like movies.

What are the best introductions?

My discovery of the 9/11 crimes started with http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmaresDVD

Yes, they do like movies

I wonder if the 9/11: the Myth and the Reality film is on YouTube of Google video?

It is, I guess I need to see if it is the latest version.

That would be one video to include for those very new to 9/11 truth.

years ago I uploaded

I think we should decide how we want to structure the FAQs

Perhaps start with the most basic FAQ's?

e.g. What is 9/11 truth? What is the 9/11 truth movement? What is a false flag?

I'm grateful that you created this page for us to discuss the FAQ page, as well as the FAQ page itself, a very good and long overdue idea/tool for the site.



Yes, this is a good idea.

One thing is to take a look at other FAQs also and cull from those. Jim H doesn't have a great one, but some of the Q&As are interesting --


There's a definite need to address the extremely basic yet common fallacies, like how the Bush Admin would have been too incompetent, how it would have taken an army of insiders, etc.

Pentagon Section

Q. Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?

A. Yes. A large collection of information has amassed regarding the Pentagon attack on 09/11/01. This evidence overwhelmingly supports the widely accepted story that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. [insert jimd3100 flyunder here]

+ notes about FOIA requests

I am terrible at writing... very boring.... I couldn't be witty with an instruction manual. So please folks dont rely one me to go up to the top (click edit) and start laying this out...

Pentagon FAQ: Did American Airlines (AAL) Flight 77 hit the Pent

Pentagon FAQ

Q – Did American Airlines (AAL) Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

A – There is no evidence that AAL 77 did not hit the Pentagon. There is evidence that it did, in addition to other evidence that an AAL 757 hit the Pentagon.

Evidence that AAL Flight 77 hit the Pentagon:

Evidence that an AAL 757 hit the Pentagon:

Claims that AAL 77 did not hit the Pentagon are based on misinformation, misinterpretation of evidence, and speculation. See this page addressing some of the most common erroneous claims: Pentagon Attack Errors – 911Review.com

Claims that AAL 77 did not hit the Pentagon have been promoted by numerous books, films and websites. These claims have been highly controversial, divisive and disruptive within the 9/11 Truth Movement. These claims have also been used by the mainstream media to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement, and, by association, anyone who questions 9/11. While activists may be dissatisfied with the amount of evidence released regarding events at the Pentagon, there is no evidence demonstrating that AAL did not hit the Pentagon.

add to Pentagon FAQ: history of the 'didn't hit' claims

(thx Vic)




"In part the dead give-away was how the level of personal attacks skyrocketed on Jim as soon as he rejected no-plane/didn't hit --"


Why investigate 911?

a few random links on this...

You mentioned Iraq. Afghanistan/Pakistan is not Iraq. The reason we are in this area, not withstanding it's immense difficulties, is because the people in this area attacked our country on September 11th 2001, and have stated flatly they intend to do it again.
-Richard Holbrooke Foreign Affairs hearing 05/05/2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uRBm4rlDXY

Terrorist by Association The Justice Department targets nonviolent solidarity activists.: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/12/20-4

Obama: When are we going to get out of Afghanistan Spare Us "BUSHISM" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnNdFv7LdZE

Cheney speech reportedly refers to 9/11 25 times: http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/21/cheney-speech-reportedly-refers-t...

Slashdot Aug 24th 2008 - NIST Releases Report On WTC 7 Collapse: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/24/1616249

53% Say 9/11 'Most Important Event of the Decade': http://911blogger.com/node/22204

I support Barrack Obama in the war, I supported Bush in the war, until we squashed those people because I don't like what they did to us on 9/11. -Obama Supporter 05/13/2009 @ the ASU Commencement http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7e8PF6loL0

Blogetery Shutdown Due To al-Qaeda Info (as always with /. the comments are the most important part of the story): http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1724810

What America Has Lost: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/04/zakaria-why-america-overreacted-to-9-...

Just 25 Americans Died As A Result Of Terrorism Last Year — Less Than Traffic Accidents, The Flu, Or Dog Bites: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/10/25-americans-terrorism-traffic/

BlackBerry encryption 'too secure': National security vs. consumer privacy: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/blackberry-encryption-too-secure-n...

Because some of our rep's are fucking idiots: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/gohmert-theres-a-diabolical-3...

Judge Rules CIA Can Withhold Info about Illegal Methods:

Tor Developer Detained At US Border, Pressed On Wikileaks: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/08/01/1751212/Tor-Developer-Detained-At...

Zodiac actor placed on terror list for opposing oil drilling method: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/zodiac-actor-terror-list-drilling-met...

US government ‘creating vast domestic snooping machine’: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/govt-creating-vast-domestic-snooping-...

Exclusive: DoJ veteran sees ‘dangerous precedent’ in letting Bush officials walk: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/justice-dept-veteran-obama-sets-dange...

Please in this section

include an explanation 9/11 blogger/911 truth abbreviations and acronyms, perhaps this should be it's own section in and of itself. Link to Jon Gold's facts speak for themselves?

There used to be an edit button

But there isn't anymore. Otherwise I would gladly add some essential Pentagon FAQ things.


looking into that... will have fixed today.....



CIT Witness Testimony Invalid

I was just having a conversation with Justin Keogh and he suggested I post my comments here. I have a critique of CIT that I think is significant, but no way do I want to get into a shouting match with them. I hereby put this out for anyone who can incorporate it into a coherent refutation.

CIT's eyewitnesses get credited with being valid eyewittness. What needs to be pointed out is that their testimony is contaminated and therefore has no scientific validity. The Asch Conformity Experiments from the 1950s show that when a witness knows what others before them have said, their testimony will tend to be modified to go along with the others. With that in mind, listen to Ranke's telephone interview of Albert Hemphill. I have a link on 911speakout.org (Pentagon tab, then go down near the bottom) to Jeff Hill's phone interviews. Go there and look at the Albert Hemphill interviews. Ranke has a hard time getting what he wants out of him, so he starts telling him what "everyone else" has been saying. He does this over and over again, and Hemphill backs off of his position and tends to go along with the north path business. His only statements that should be taken as valid are what he said before Ranke started feeding him outside information.

I haven't gone back over all the other interviews to compare (I don't have the time or energy for this right now), but I think there are probably other examples.

Of course

David, there are lots of things like that going on.

For example, when Hemphill mentions the light poles hit, Ranke talks over him fast, trying to bury that tidbit. When Hemphill elaborates, Ranke tries to minimize the significance of this by telling Hemphill: "Oh so you didn't see a light pole flying, but only a flash", and so on and so forth.

There is lots more.


Think of the most ham-fisted basic questions a person might need to have answered to get them going on the idea that there is something wrong about what we were told on 9/11, but without all of the dark and sinister implications being put front and center. The scary stuff is...scary... and I think it scares people away before they can evaluate all of the evidence in a rational way. For example these are straight forward questions for which the official answers are inadequate, and which can be answered without claiming that WE KNOW THE GOVERNMENT DID EVERYTHING:

-What is wrong with the official explanation of the collapse of WTC7?
-What is wrong with the official timeline of the hi-jackings?
-Why are first responders becoming sick?
-How do buildings collapse?
-What do the victims family members think of the official account?
-What are standard operating procedures with respect to responding to (fill in the blank)
-How can I contact my political representative to ask questions?

That's just for starters. Notice that on the list here there is no reference to scary "deep politics" or anything that might freak a person out.

That's something for us to remember, the power of 911 truth to freak people out. This is why I avoid the whole tactic of getting people prepared for martial law or some shit like that.

But just between the polite company here let me say we all know that it's a scary world out there, but if we give in to that dark vision we are in effect helping to promote it. Just a few thoughts. Thx for letting me post here!

Thanks Snowcrash

For starting to edit this. I wish it was mediawiki so we didnt need to use html... but whatever. Lets make it work. Other random errors... there is that fox5 replay of wtc7 which seems live and is not.. and then there is the WTC1 spire that does not turn to dust:

and then there is the incorrect molten metal quote:

many more... I'll keep adding as I think of them.