Support 911Blogger


www.911faq.org is live!

So this is my first blog entry and it's only fitting that I advertise my first web site: www.911faq.org

I've spent a long time researching and putting together the site. I learnt a lot about information and how the one piece of evidence can be argued both for and against a particular theory. I think my factual evidence is generally correct, but I'm not so sure about the calculations I did. I've tried getting some people to read through it from various 9/11 sites, without luck. It's also failing to show up in search engines, even though I've had a "page holder" on the domain for a few weeks.

Really I'd like some people to have a look and perhaps leave a comment or two. I'm interested in any mistakes or disagreements people have and hope that we can work together to get to the truth, whatever it is.

The main focus of the site is to avoid long drawn out rants, as other places are more suitable, like here! It's generally a site to get the quick facts from official sources, with some analysis thrown in for good measure. I try to leave it up to the reader to make his/her mind up also, so the bulk of the site avoids trying to prove conspiracy theories.

So what's my official stance on 9/11, I hear you ask. Well it's probably somewhere inbetween "It was all the U.S Government's fault" and "It was all the terrorist's fault". I can only hope that more evidence is released to prove or disprove theories, because at the moment there is a surprising lack of evidence to support any theory, let alone the official one.

I must say though that from my own experience investigating 9/11, most "conspiracy nuts" are far more articulate and helpful in explaining the evidence. For example many conspiracy sites show a lot of references and good arguments. The skeptics oddly don't seem to make as many sites, but write a short page from their company web site and don't actually provide any evidence. I think evidence is far more important than any expert's opinion, as the evidence will never change. Perhaps the one thing I really hate about skeptic essays is that they often ask more questions than they answer, whilst dismissing evidence that doesn't fit the official theory (like the FEMA Appendix C evidence).

The liquified steel from FEMA's report is perhaps something that slipped through the report's editor. The report has the feel (at least to me) that it was written and then large sections were edited to fit more with the "there was nothing strange with the collapse" idea.

I also write on my web site what I think will be NIST's theory on WTC 7. Have a look it's right at the end of the "Closing Words" section. I think it's pretty obvious what they will come up with.

Finally, I don't intend to prove or disprove anything. In fact all I wanted to do was make the official story make sense to myself. I couldn't overlook certain aspects, and perhaps the most worrying thing is the cell phone calls. Although it might not look worrying, I find the personal feel of the calls to be without question. However, the evidence seems to show that the calls at that altitude could not have been made. I just find the impersonation conspiracy to be so scarey that I hope it's not true.

Well this is the end of my first 9/11 blog post. I intend it to be the first of many.

will give it a look

I will definitely be reading your site in entirety.

Thanks

I appreciate it :]

Great site!

I'm enjoying it - I like the no nonsense "feel" and presentation.
IMO the absence of more evidence is itself evidence, of at least a coverup.

Thanks

I'm glad someone appreciates it! And I agree, about the lack of evidence. It's very suspicious

US MAYBE PLANNING ATTACK WORSE THEN 9/11

First Go here for this 2 minute Clip:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1222445722544874066&q=alex+jone...

He predicted 9/11!!

Now is is saying a 90% Change ten of thousands if not 100's of thousands will die within 60 days from another govt sponsered terror attack..

Go hear:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2024198565295094630&q=alex+jones...

UNLESS WE CAN EXPOSE THEM ALL THE WAY, THEY MAY CARRY OUT ANOTHER ATTACK!

I think you should flesh it

I think you should flesh it out a bit. War games and Able Danger could have seperate entries, for instance.

Also, I think you should address the fallacies of 911myths and PM, which are numerous. Someone's gotta "debunk the debunkers"; Jim Hoffman did an excellent job with PM, but 911myths has largely gone unchallenged, even though it's filled with B.S.

Just a suggestion.

Maybe...

I found it difficult to get much hard evidence on the war games aspect, so I only put down what I could find. If there's more out there from official sources then I could put it in.

However, I intend to add more sections, but it really depends on a lot of what "experts" say. As I said in the web site, I don't really see my opinion as being as useful scientifically as a prof who has been working for 20 years.

Thanks for the critiscm though. It's helping me decide what to add next.

Is it just me?

Or has GoogleVideo been completely unusable for about a week or so now?

either so many are using it that they have run out of bandwidth or maybe their bandwidth is purposely being snipped but I cant get a single video on Google to play for more than a few minutes

Well

It's been working OK for me. Perhaps your isp has throttled the site?

Had a quick look

I really like the idea and I can see that what is done is done reasonably well, but my main problem is with what is not done - basically, it's just a physical evidence website. There's no Moussaoui, no Phoenix memo, no mention the NSA was listening to the hijackers' calls, no Malaysia meeting, no surveillance of the Hamburg cell, no Cambone minutes, etc. If the non-physical evidence was in as well, then it would be better. Sorry to "give you more work", but I think this is the direction you need to go in.

Also, one minor point. You say Hani had "considerable" experience on a Boeing 737 simulator. If you look at this document: http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution...
(see the invoice on page 23) you will see that he had 21 hours on the simulator. Why not put in the actual figure - "considerable" could mean anything, 21 hours is more definite. I know this sounds a little odd; it's just one of my bugbears.

Updated Page

Thanks for the Hani Hanjour simulator info. I've edited the site and uploaded a screenshot from the document.

I'm not sure why but the site seems to be going slow. Anyway, if you can get it to load you can see the edit.

I know the web site lacks a lot of the more interesting stuff, but I intend to expand it. Currently it's just the hard evidence that I can find. I will probably do a few other sections separately so that it's not confusing for the average person :]

Anyway, thanks again for the info.

That's fast

I'm impressed. It loaded fine.

from site: Who owned the WTC

from site:
Who owned the WTC Complex?

Silverstein Properties Inc, headed by Larry A. Silverstein who is President and CEO.

Silverstein owned WTC7, and leased the entire complex, I don't know if the ownership still remained with the NYNJ Port Authority but I suspect it was...

Yeah

Silverstein bought a lease. I'll make an edit, thanks