Web Ring for 9/11 Skeptics Unveiled

A new web ring connectiong web sites owned by individuals who question the official story of the attacks against the Pentagon and World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 has just been launched.

Sites in the ring include those bearing evidence calling the official
story into question as well as any and all other sites whose owners wish to make a public display of solidarity with other questioners of the official narrative of the attacks.

Commercial sites, personal pages, blogs and others are welcome in this effort to display the staggering numbers of 9/11 skeptics and doubters.

Those wishing to join or tour the sites of the ring may do so by using a banner code found on the home page at http://www.xmail.net/nineelevenisalie/.

Joining is as simple as clicking the "join" tab on the bank, registering your web site and installing a purely HTML banner code on your home page.

Questions or comments about the ring or the site may be directed via e-mail to "nineelevenisalie ATSYMBOL xmail PERIOD net".

Well Done - Congratulations

A welcome addition to a show of solidarity.
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you


I think that to get a higher rating you'll have to rescind your policy of including any site that questions the official 9/11 narrative and pledge to exclude "known" purveyors of disinfo. Who has the authority to determine what, besides the official explanation, is disinfo? Beats me, but you'd better pick an authority and shun all others with extreme prejudice or suffer further low ratings. Disinfo needs to be weeded out like a cancer! It will weaken our master theory! Don't worry about the fact that who is or is not a purveyor of disinfo will never be provable. Focus on the witch hunt! That's the ticket to a stronger, healthier movement!

Speaking of which - I wish

Speaking of which - I wish the new management would reevaluate the links on the left side of 911blogger. Moderating comments is very intrusive, since the gloves are off, no excuse for not filtering out the questionable sites.


That was sarcasm, if anyone was wondering...

Authority on 9/11

All skeptics accept that the 9/11 official story IS disinformation. That is a fact. The same tactics that make the official story misleading are used to create other misleading explanations for what happened. If you accept the official story to be false, why is it wrong to question alternative explanations if you are concerned about the truth regarding 9/11?

I don't believe in creating an authority to label what is and what is not disinformation. Everyone has to think for themselves. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss why certain theories are problematic or false. If we can examine the issues in a civil and rational manner, then people can examine the evidence and explanations for that evidence and come to their own conclusions. No spoon feeding or "authority" is required to do this, and I strongly object to labeling things as disinfo/false/diversionary without constructive arguments to demonstrate this position. An opinion does not make something true—show us the argument for that opinion.

Proving the official story false is all that required and unsustainable speculations are only a distraction that shifts the focus away from why the official story is false. We don't need to know exactly what happened to prove the official story is false (especially if we can't PROVE what happened). Sticking to the best evidence that can't be refuted will convince the hard-core skeptics who demand compelling evidence--speculations will not. What is considered a “smoking gun” to one person, could simply be unproven “speculation” to someone who has a “30% open mind”.

Not everyone is going to agree about the truth about 9/11, and that's just the way it is. The idea of an authority telling us the truth about 9/11 simply will never happen. Educate yourself; don’t depend on the “reliable sources”.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."


"If you accept the official story to be false, why is it wrong to question alternative explanations if you are concerned about the truth regarding 9/11"

Of course it is fine and necessary to question alternative explanations. But discussing alternative explanations and their degrees of probability is different than labeling them as disinformation (and by implication their exponents as disinfo agents)

Criticisms should be limited to facts, and should never devolve into name-calling. The reason is as I stated above and elsewhere: unless you have a paystub from an agency to prove someone is an agent, all you have is an allegation, which is essentially an ad-hominem. All that can lead to is infighting, and that is exactly what COINTELPRO programs want!

Limit critiques to theories, evidence, etc, and forget trying to figure out who might be an agent. It's a waste of time and plays into the hands of those who would like to see the movement divided. Don't even use the term disinfo. Your opinion about someone's true agenda may be correct, but absent hard proof it can't do anything but be a distraction from the work of research and activism.

And on re-re-reading...

I find that my last reply to you was mostly redundant to your post.

The only part of yours that I have any issue with is this:

"I strongly object to labeling things as disinfo/false/diversionary without constructive arguments to demonstrate this position."

I think that those labels are unnecessary no matter how much a case against a particular theory etc. has been made, and the language carries baggage that is what sows the seeds of division.

The only language necessary is language that does not carry baggage, such as "unlikely, low probability, unsupported by the evidence," etc.

Otherwise I agree with your post entirely and would vote it a 10 if I could ;)

By the way, it's for these reasons that I had no strong objections to the Comments being moderated, because I read the original intent of moderation as being to put an end to ad-hominem attacks, which I think is a good thing. As long as moderation is limited to that, I think it's a very good thing and I thank the people who put their time and energy into keeping 911blogger a place for civil discussion.