caring about truth

[xmasdale]

This website http://911myths.com/index.html raises many serious questions which the 911 truth movement must come to terms with if we are genuinely interested in uncovering the truth, as opposed to proving that our prejudices are correct.

Noel

[brian]

We cannot hope to uncover the truth of what happened on September 11, our only rational objective is to try and bring about the circumstances in which that truth can be uncovered or approximated to.

Point taken that in doing so we cannot afford to be disseminating factually incorrect material but after a brief look at that site I see nothing that would indicate prejudice on the part of most posting here. Can you point out what you consider any of the serious questions it raises?

[xmasdale]

[paul wright]

Well, Noel. Yes it needs time to pick them apart and somebody who can be arsed to do it. I know you want to take a break
Personally I've only taken in one point fully from this site and that although the fires in WTC7 are rather small, a picture unpublished by our side shows a hell of a lot of smoke emanating from the building
This demonstrates not a major conflagration, but rather that burning office-type synthetic materials will produce a lot of smoke
Point one

[ian neal]

[quote="xmasdale] Mind you, I think the authors of this website are in support of the notion that 911 is an inside job, but ...[/quote]

I doubt that, but time will tell

[peter_84]

After looking through it, the website in question appears to contradict just about every conspiracy theory that exists.

But there is no information about who the people behind the site are, and the website doesn't seemed to have been around before (if you check web archives)

It conveniently answers all of our questions, but doesn't seem terribly legitimate!

[andrewwatson]

I looked through the site pretty thoroughly a couple of nights ago. I promises more than it delivers. Most of its objections are unconvincingly argued and it relies heavily on a few sources for verification. It conveniently ignores much of the evidence and is highly selective in its quotes.
While the idea of sharpening the debate is a good one, this site seems to have an agenda - and it's not about objective truth.

[Ally]

Trying to whitewash Silverstein's WTC7 comments are a good marker of what kind of slimy shills put that web site together.

In their own words....

[Sinclair]

For what it's worth, my 2p:

The website 911myths.com has sprung up fairly recently. I have seen it referenced by numerous commentators on blogs/forums etc. as a link to dipelling the ''conspiracy theories' surrounding the collapse of WTC7 !

If NIST cannot yet produce a report to explain the collapse of WTC7, why the funk should we believe what 911myths.com say? Upon cursory inspection, the site appears to present selective critiques of some 911 Truth hypothesis. The site is like a large-scale "WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PASSENGERS ON THE PLANES?" question - Just becasue we haven't got the answer to that question doesn't mean that the postulation that it was an inside job is WRONG!

911 was the perfect crime by 'them' because to question it suggests disloyalty & craziness. When I mention my beliefs to someone new that 911 was perpetrated by rogue (aren't they all rogue?) elements within the US Government, the suggestion that the US (cabal) would murder over 3000 of their own citizens is met with incredulity - this aspect is the most difficult for people to swallow. However, as we should all know, Operation Northwoods spelt out the lengths to which 'they' would go to to achieve their twisted aims & this is worth quoting in every discussion.

The fact that such sites are springing up is evidence, I believe, of a progression in the dissemination 911 truth.

Have a listen to the MP3 Audios by Webster Tarpley posted here (I cannot recommend these enough!). There is an interesting discssion (in Segment 3) of (911) Truth Gatekeepers.

[xmasdale]

Whatever the motivation of the folk behind this site, they have put in the public domain arguments which will satisfy many people that we are barking up the wrong tree, or are barking mad.

We are going to have to deal with these arguments and that will require careful analysis of what they are saying and the production of rebuttal arguments from us. I don't see how we can avoid painstakingly going through their arguments to refute them.

I'm not volunteering because I'm an organiser rather than a researcher and I have to take a month off now to concentrate on other matters. We have researchers far better suited to this task than me.

Noel