www.debunking911.com

[scubadiver]

Is this site just as biased as nineeleven (After all we are sidelining dissenters who also want to ask the hard questions)

What do you think?

comments?

Leaving out information that "proves" the debunkers case, such FBI obstruction of investigation, refusal of White House to allow FBI to investigate Saudi connections etc.

[ian neal]

nineeleven.co.uk biased? 'How very dare you'.

No seriously, what 'we' are saying is that the evidence when taken in totality overwhelmingly supports the need to reopen 9/11. Let the evidence be properly scrutinised by a truly independent and transparent inquiry and let the evidence lead where it may. Given this site's very limited hang out position still concludes the evidence for a conspiracy to use 9/11 to invade Iraq is long, surely such a belief calls into question the independence and legitimacy of the 9/11 commission and therefore the author of the debunking site would presumably support our call for a further comprehensive and truly independent investigation?

Now I personally believe the evidence supports the controlled demolition theory and a MIHOP position. And I know the Kean Inquiry failed to address the anomolous evidence that challenges the fire induced collapse theory in its report and completely ignored WTC7.

However as we all know there are a whole range of theories between (1) accepting controlled demolition and (2) accepting the Kean report and to present 9/11 truth as boiling down to just these 2 positions and failing to acknowledge (let alone addrtess) these other areas, in my view, is biased. So even assuming debunking9/11.com disproves CD (and I don't accept that it does), this does not mean the alternative is to accept the Kean report and dismiss all 'conspiracy theories. So yes IMO this site is biased. But then I would think that wouldn't I

Still I guess if the Kean Commission and NIST were so very confident in their position they would be happy to defend it in a public debate. Their refusal to do so, begs the question why?

BTW I do not see creating a separation between critics corner and the rest of the forum as sidelining

[IronSnot]

I do.

I think you'll find the critics range in views as well. From 'angelic republicans wouldn't do this' to some who would think the American government may have known of these attacks and not done enough to stop them (LIHOP lite?).

Let them back in, and learn to beat them in debate. You might even get a convert or two.

[ian neal]

The creation of a critics corner is an experiment that will be reviewed in the light of experience. No one is banned. All our critics can still post. The policy is that they do so in the critics corner, so that the whole forum is not dominated by debate with them and I agree there is a range of opinion amongst our critics