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.