9/11 Wiki Project

[JimBenArm]

i was comparing different points of view on sept 911, thats what 911myths has to do with it. Plus, why spend so much time "debunking" ideas that are based on so little evidence. Why not just give us real answers and stop trying to prove people wrong that really don't know the whole issue in the first place. Arn't we suppose to be searching for the truth in all of this instead of showing others where they are wrong? I have yet to hear toto even consider typing anything about the complete 911 timeline....yet he is the "bruce lee" of 911 info! lol, more like bruce the flee.

Proving you wrong is giving you the real answer. If you say unicorns are purple, and we show you unicorns don't exist, hasn't that given you the real answer? Proving conclusions wrong is how you find the truth. Or is there some other problem you have with being proven wrong?

 

[MikeW]

i was comparing different points of view on sept 911, thats what 911myths has to do with it. Plus, why spend so much time "debunking" ideas that are based on so little evidence. Why not just give us real answers and stop trying to prove people wrong that really don't know the whole issue in the first place.

I (911myths being my site) try to do both, actually. Which is why I've filed a bunch of FOIA applications; it's why I spent time communicating with Terry McDermott to get the copies of 9/11 passenger lists he'd obtained from the FBI; it's why I've emailed people like Leslie Robertson to try and find out the truth behind his supposed "molten steel" quote; it's why I emailed Ben Chertoff if he was related to Michael; it's why I kept emailing and calling people until I discovered a photo of Waleed A Alshehri that showed he wasn't the hijacker Waleed M Alshehri after all; it's why I've spent a considerable amount of time tracing video clips, including others that shed light on the "hijackers still alive" story; it's why I've just emailed a US lawyer for advice on something that could prove to be my most important discovery yet (though don't hold your breath, success will be months away if it happens at all). I'm sorry if that doesn't live up to your high standards, but as I'm in the UK and can't do any investigating "on the ground", I don't think it's too bad a record, really.

 

[Unfit4Command]

I (911myths being my site) try to do both, actually. Which is why I've filed a bunch of FOIA applications; it's why I spent time communicating with Terry McDermott to get the copies of 9/11 passenger lists he'd obtained from the FBI; it's why I've emailed people like Leslie Robertson to try and find out the truth behind his supposed "molten steel" quote; it's why I emailed Ben Chertoff if he was related to Michael; it's why I kept emailing and calling people until I discovered a photo of Waleed A Alshehri that showed he wasn't the hijacker Waleed M Alshehri after all; it's why I've spent a considerable amount of time tracing video clips, including others that shed light on the "hijackers still alive" story; it's why I've just emailed a US lawyer for advice on something that could prove to be my most important discovery yet (though don't hold your breath, success will be months away if it happens at all). I'm sorry if that doesn't live up to your high standards, but as I'm in the UK and can't do any investigating "on the ground", I don't think it's too bad a record, really.

You need to learn how to do some real research. Watch "Loose Change" and you'll learn the truth.

Actually, keep up the good work with 911myths, great site, I use it all the time.

 

[israelside]

Proving you wrong is giving you the real answer. If you say unicorns are purple, and we show you unicorns don't exist, hasn't that given you the real answer? Proving conclusions wrong is how you find the truth. Or is there some other problem you have with being proven wrong?

for one thing Jim, you can't prove unicorns exist nor don't exist, there always could be unicorns on another planet ...bottom line is, you cant say...you simply dont have enuf evidence...now back to my point, the 911 stuff...i was saying why "debunk" folks with theories when often times their theories are based on little evidence (not overwhelming)....if you just tell your views and give us all the facts (as much as you can) then we can make up our minds about the issue! period! We don't find answers by telling people they are wrong, why find real answers by facts we can prove!

proving conclusions wrong is how you "CUT DOWN" the possibilities of solutions! it doesn't mean because A is wrong B is right, it means A is NOT RIGHT!

i have no problem being "proven" wrong...but 911 is a deep subject and atleast the 911myths site doesn't close to do justice being the cure all on every topic about 911, or being the "unfallable truth" of information about 911...and i'm not saying they meant it to be, i'm saying we need to keep asking questions and look at issues from all angles (i need to aswell)!

 

[israelside]

its like this....if a meteor fell from the sky and Joe saw the event and saw its aftermath, but Jill only saw the aftermath, and John only heard about the event from russia (didn't see the aftermath).

Well, proving John wrong for believing that a meteor hit is what these "debunkers" are doing...trying to trash some view that doesn't even need to be talked about.

We need to just talk with everyone especially Joe and have a eye witness account of the events, then report that! I do give you credit MikeW for investigating 911 from far away and searching for truth in cases like "Joe" who saw things from first hand. I respect your efforts, and hope to find solid CONCLUSIONS to your findings, not just "another angle" or "another side" to the story! true, we may never know what truely happend on 911 from God's point of view (untill we get to heaven)...but atleast we can try!

 

[beachnut]

i was comparing different points of view on sept 911, thats what 911myths has to do with it. Plus, why spend so much time "debunking" ideas that are based on so little evidence. Why not just give us real answers and stop trying to prove people wrong that really don't know the whole issue in the first place. Arn't we suppose to be searching for the truth in all of this instead of showing others where they are wrong? I have yet to hear toto even consider typing anything about the complete 911 timeline....yet he is the "bruce lee" of 911 info! lol, more like bruce the flee.

What is the list of answers you need, and do you have questions to go with the answers you want?

Yes Virginia you can prove something did not happen. The Beam Weapon did not bring down the WTC. I can prove it with some energy calculation. But why are some dolts believing the beam weapon people?

As for being a person who was watching 9/11 unfold, and being in the military; I have to ask you what the heck are you talking about? What part of the truth of 9/11 are you missing?

 

[JimBenArm]

for one thing Jim, you can't prove unicorns exist nor don't exist, there always could be unicorns on another planet ...bottom line is, you cant say...you simply dont have enuf evidence...now back to my point, the 911 stuff...i was saying why "debunk" folks with theories when often times their theories are based on little evidence (not overwhelming)....if you just tell your views and give us all the facts (as much as you can) then we can make up our minds about the issue! period! We don't find answers by telling people they are wrong, why find real answers by facts we can prove!

proving conclusions wrong is how you "CUT DOWN" the possibilities of solutions! it doesn't mean because A is wrong B is right, it means A is NOT RIGHT!

i have no problem being "proven" wrong...but 911 is a deep subject and atleast the 911myths site doesn't close to do justice being the cure all on every topic about 911, or being the "unfallable truth" of information about 911...and i'm not saying they meant it to be, i'm saying we need to keep asking questions and look at issues from all angles (i need to aswell)!

Congratulations on completely missing my point. Not surprised.
So, I shouldn't "cut down" the possibilities of solutions, when those solutions are based on falsehoods? I should accept faulty thinking, bad physics, make-believe weapon systems, just so I can keep an open mind? Sorry, that's just silly. If it's wrong, it's wrong, and it needs to be shown as such. I didn't say it would prove anything else correct, that's you misrepresenting my position. However, when someone comes in screaming about missiles taking out the Pentagon, or lasers dustifying the towers, darn right I'm showing them to be wrong, because to do otherwise is to give their lunacies more respect than they deserve.
So, if you believe something, and it's based on provably false data, what does that say about your belief? Hmm?

 

[gumboot]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the Complete 911 timeline??

Because it's terrible.

-Gumboot

 

[FactCheck]

CNN definitely qualifies as a "reliable source" and is acceptable. Try adding it again. You should be able to edit the article without creating an account or logging in, but I strongly advise registering an account (if you haven't yet) to make edits. It masks you IP address which can contain private information, and allows you to build a track record of good edits and gain trust of other editors.

My problem is someone edits it out every time I edit it. I have edited it more than a few times and each time someone removes it. Their must be a way to challenge the people who remove it.

I am a member already so that isn't the issue. It's just that I don't have time to become a wiki expert just because someone edits one quote out. I was hoping someone who knew the system could pick this up. If not, WR's wiki entry is not representing the true facts.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I'd like to point out that there's already a SkepticWiki ([swiki]Main Page[/swiki]), founded and mostly edited by JREFers.

Here's the section on Conspiracy Theories. As you can see, some of the articles still need writing (the ones with red links) and the article on 9/11 is (a) not very long (b) probably not up-to-date with the latest lunacy (c) just one article. 9/11 needs a whole bunch of articles, there's so much woo surrounding it.

The problem is that so far no dedicated conspiracy debunker --- not one! --- has registered yet.

I should add that I recently checked, and a lot of our articles come up in the top 10 Google hits --- sometimes as the top Google hit. Adding to the SkepticWiki ensures that people will actually read what you have to say.

Registration is by request, so there are no vandals.

Our Glorious Leader is fowlsound, I'll link him to this thread.

 

[Totovader]

I'd like to point out that there's already a SkepticWiki ([swiki]Main Page[/swiki]), founded and mostly edited by JREFers.

Here's the section on Conspiracy Theories. As you can see, some of the articles still need writing (the ones with red links) and the article on 9/11 is (a) not very long (b) probably not up-to-date with the latest lunacy (c) just one article. 9/11 needs a whole bunch of articles, there's so much woo surrounding it.

The probalem is that so far no dedicated conspiracy debunker --- not one! --- has registered yet.

I should add that I recently checked, and a lot of our articles come up in the top 10 Google hits --- sometimes as the top Google hit. Adding to the SkepticWiki ensures that people will actually read what you have to say.

Registration is by request, so there are no vandals.

Our Glorious Leader is fowlsound, I'll link him to this thread.

So we have essentially 2 wiki's already in place which deal directly with- or have a specific section for- claims of 9/11 conspiracists.

That may be the route some people want to go. I'm just still a little up in the air of whether I want to participate in gathering information to directly address the claims, or gather as much information as possible in order to be more on the offense. I want to be able to have a resource which contains the historical record- not just the hand-picked (for lack of a better word) pieces of history that specifically address the most popular conspiracy theories at any given time. By it's nature it would- but I think that the websites that already exist really do a good job of that.

Although there is something to be said for collecting the research that specifically attacks conspiracy theories... I wouldn't have half the information I do without these websites.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Well, we have articles on science, such as, say [swiki]Second Law of Thermodynamics[/swiki] or [swiki]Genetic Drift[/swiki], which are chiefly concerned with informing and educating, rather than debunking.

Or the article [swiki]Intermediate Forms Between Classes[/swiki], which incidentally refutes creationist claims by supplying a lot of real information about the fossil record.

Information on what actually happened on 9/11 would fall under that category. It depends, really, on how far you wanted to go. A page on the forensic report of each identified victim would be going too far.

---

I've PM'd fowlsound, let's see what he has to say.

 

[Totovader]

Well, we have articles on science, such as, say [swiki]Second Law of Thermodynamics[/swiki] or [swiki]Genetic Drift[/swiki], which are chiefly concerned with informing and educating, rather than debunking.

Or the article [swiki]Intermediate Forms Between Classes[/swiki], which incidentally refutes creationist claims by supplying a lot of real information about the fossil record.

Information on what actually happened on 9/11 would fall under that category. It depends, really, on how far you wanted to go. A page on the forensic report of each identified victim would be going too far.

---

I've PM'd fowlsound, let's see what he has to say.

That's true- and the fact that the skeptic wiki not only shows up under Google searches quite easily- but has the benefit of being called the skeptic wiki (conspiracists often confuse this claim- and individuals looking for "skepticism of the official story" might actually stumble upon the facts...).

I would be willing to start adding my research to this- but I would like it to be extensive. No- forensic reports of each victim would be a little too far, but definitely pages on some of the survivors or quotes or passenger information wouldn't be too much, would it?

In just a quick perusal I've already seen some information I would like to add to, separate to a new category, and make more clear. I'm sure that getting the ball rolling on this will allow other researchers to add some of their information as well.

Come on guys! Who's with me!

 

[FactCheck]

I think I already have such a tool. If the idea is to compile facts then I have over 200 sites with thousands of pages worth of it in my 9/11 POWER Debunker.

9/11 POWER Debunker Give it a spin.

If you would like me to add anything to this please let me know.

 

[Totovader]

I think I already have such a tool. If the idea is to compile facts then I have over 200 sites with thousands of pages worth of it in my 9/11 POWER Debunker.

9/11 POWER Debunker Give it a spin.

If you would like me to add anything to this please let me know.

I use that thing at least once a week- it's a great source to get around the Googlebombs of conspiracy sites and get to some of the more technical data as well.

Thank you for that- by the way.

 

[Ducky]

I'm going to invite you all to bring your efforts to the skepticwiki for a couple of reasons:

1) I'd love to have you all contribute to the project.
2) I already have the project in place, and with nothing on the radar about 9/11, which has its advantages to fencesitters.
3) There is no worry for vandals, since joining and account status is at my discretion, all you gents would have to do is email me for an account (check the skepticwiki's front page for the address.)
4) the wiki itself has nightly backups as well as replication across to my development server here, meaning we have full backups and replicatability, something most websites don't usually have.
5) I am always working to improve the wiki, and am very interested in your contributions not only to 9/11 myths, but to the rest of the topics as well.

Please consider combining your efforts to the skepticwiki, as it would consolidate all the information to one place, and be easily accessible.

Email me or PM me if you would like an account.

-Ducky

 

[israelside]

Jesus help us all

Congratulations on completely missing my point. Not surprised.
So, I shouldn't "cut down" the possibilities of solutions, when those solutions are based on falsehoods? I should accept faulty thinking, bad physics, make-believe weapon systems, just so I can keep an open mind? Sorry, that's just silly. If it's wrong, it's wrong, and it needs to be shown as such. I didn't say it would prove anything else correct, that's you misrepresenting my position. However, when someone comes in screaming about missiles taking out the Pentagon, or lasers dustifying the towers, darn right I'm showing them to be wrong, because to do otherwise is to give their lunacies more respect than they deserve.
So, if you believe something, and it's based on provably false data, what does that say about your belief? Hmm?

The things i believe are not based on ANY PROVABLE false data bub haha...for one thing you don't even know me and don't know what i belive in do you? At least to a great degree....you are running in circles, you cut down possibilites when they are provably false, thats the process a scientist goes through. So is believing that the ISI / CIA connections with 911 as well as the John O'Neil story being related to a cover up from some govt portion is that so wild to believe?? You can't prove that wrong, nor can we say it is 100% correct! Who is the one making up their mind now? Maby you don't have all the issues straight in your head?? See, just cuz the twin towers might not have been taken down with CD's doesn't mean the govt was not complacent in the attacks.

 

[israelside]

Because it's terrible.

-Gumboot

have you even looked at the timeline? it cover articles from mainstream media regarding 911, why ignore 50 mainstream articles talking about operation diamondback but believe 1 book by so called "unbiased" whitewashing politicians called the 911 commission? or ignore 50 articles talking about cia / isi / taliban connections with drugs, naroctics illegal trading and complacent actions? WHY IGNORE ALL THIS???? you are a fool if you ignore this in trade for fox news or some big media outlet who is owned by multinational corporations trying to make a buck off the idiots who love tragedy and murder and violence in the world?? Why cover the virginia shooting for a week? why not cover the 50 iraqi's killed a day for more time and interview their family? you know why? b/c the media knows what people want to see, and what they need to feed them inorder for them to continue to want to watch...an evil mindset for scaming people and making them slaves for the NWO power brokers and global bankers! Please respond on this!

 

[T.A.M.]

have you even looked at the timeline? it cover articles from mainstream media regarding 911, why ignore 50 mainstream articles talking about operation diamondback but believe 1 book by so called "unbiased" whitewashing politicians called the 911 commission? or ignore 50 articles talking about cia / isi / taliban connections with drugs, naroctics illegal trading and complacent actions? WHY IGNORE ALL THIS???? you are a fool if you ignore this in trade for fox news or some big media outlet who is owned by multinational corporations trying to make a buck off the idiots who love tragedy and murder and violence in the world?? Why cover the virginia shooting for a week? why not cover the 50 iraqi's killed a day for more time and interview their family? you know why? b/c the media knows what people want to see, and what they need to feed them inorder for them to continue to want to watch...an evil mindset for scaming people and making them slaves for the NWO power brokers and global bankers! Please respond on this!

Your paragraph is the most concentrated piece of assumptions and generalizations I have ever seen.

1. We Don't just use one source, or one book.
2. Most here don't watch fox news, doubtful that gumboot down under does either.
3. We don't IGNORE anything, just dismiss it if it is from some smalltown, completely BIASED author with an agenda, or atleast I do.
4. Prove the commission was biased or whitewashed. If you cannot, admit it is just your uneducated, biased opinion.
5. I am a card carrying member of the NWO, and I am going to get you when the lights are out...I am the boogy man. Scared yet?

I am sorry, but your paragraph is so opinionated, without fact, it actually resembles mucus, its that close to spued ignorance.

TAM

 

[israelside]

Your paragraph is the most concentrated piece of assumptions and generalizations I have ever seen.

1. We Don't just use one source, or one book.
2. Most here don't watch fox news, doubtful that gumboot down under does either.
3. We don't IGNORE anything, just dismiss it if it is from some smalltown, completely BIASED author with an agenda, or atleast I do.
4. Prove the commission was biased or whitewashed. If you cannot, admit it is just your uneducated, biased opinion.
5. I am a card carrying member of the NWO, and I am going to get you when the lights are out...I am the boogy man. Scared yet?

I am sorry, but your paragraph is so opinionated, without fact, it actually resembles mucus, its that close to spued ignorance.

TAM

First off, I don't know any of you personally so i dont know what you have or have not studied however...if you do not mention overwhelming information from articles and news reports about an issue you either 1. ignore this info in turn for your own assumptions or 2. have not seen it. I said IF you have ignored this, i didnt claim he/you or anyone IN particular has, but obviously alot of people have somewhere. now on to your points

1. again i didnt say you did JUST used 1 source, but do you trust the writers of the book given their history and the obvious bias going into it?

2. bull, alot of folks watch fox news or cnn etc...i am speaking in general terms. again i don't know you or anyone here or their life history in research

3. why do you say "we" as if you speak for everyone standing for the "official story" or "true story" lol, really? doubt you really do know alot about 911.

4. the comission ignore serious details about 911 including

wtc 7, isi connections with hijackers, core columns in the wtc towers, they only had 2 people that saw crucial classified documents from the whitehouse etc...they also didn't mention bombs in the basement of the towers, which gonzalez talks about, it was filled with reps and dems, no unbiased independent investigators that could search with "highly specialized degrees" in these fields. if they had unfettered access to classified documents (un political folks atleast) then we could trust their judgement! Now, did you know any of this? be honest....have you seen "who killed john o'neil" or "911 press for truth"?

my paragraph is full of fact, truth but some opinion you are right on that...and the things i am not right on, i wish we could work together to reach the truth!! why don't you talk about anything here and bring new informative things to this forum if you hold so many truths?? maby you just need to shut your mouth and listen to something i am saying instead of telliing people how much they are wrong, and giving nothing!