Have any of you seen this 9/11 Myths Site?

[TNOE]

http://www.911myths.com/index.html

[greyl]

1. Excellent intro, eh?

The web is full of sites covering various conspiracy theories. Many seem well-researched, and appear to have plenty of detailed documentation to prove their claims. But are they really true?

We don’t know, but one good way to start is by checking a few claims for yourself. We tried that with a number of 9/11 sites, with surprising results. Many of the “facts” we read were distorted, or simply wrong. Quotes were routinely taken out of context. Relevant information was often ignored. And much of this could be discovered with a minimum of online research.

Whatever you believe about 9/11, the spreading of false claims helps no-one, and we’d like to play a small part in revealing some of them. We’re not about debunking entire conspiracies, then, but will use this site to zoom in on what we think are the more dubious stories, revealing the misquotes, the distortions, the inaccuracies that are so common online.

But does this make us an authority? No. If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less.

http://www.911myths.com/index.html

[MervinFerd]

2. One of the best.

We should use this thread to collect the very best debunking sites.

I'd add a list, but -I- am busy. :)

[mirandapriestly]

3. It's a propaganda site

full of straw men and ad hominem arguments. Look up the facts on 9-11 for yourself and you can see that all these sites do is knock down non-issues that were designed to be knocked down while not dealing with the real issues.
Do a search on this forum and you will see it has been debunked.
(Unfortunately, a lot of 9-11 "truth" sites are also propaganda setting up false scenarios, but can't people see for themselves? Do they have to have these sites tell them what to think?)

[Taxloss]

4. So, which site has the definitive Truth?

In your opinion, that is.

[MervinFerd]

5. Miranda blocked me. Chicken.

But, the necessary question: Miranda, could you, please, (pretty please) actually --refute-- the claims of that site.

Instead of just calling them names.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. I prefer miranda being a chicken

to her being an obnoxious prick, know what I mean Mervin?

Isn't that site run by Republicans?

That should be refutation enough in this day and age.

Next!

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Thanks, then, for that refutation of "9/11 Mysteries".

And Morgan Reynold's no plane nonsense.

Next!

[greyl]

8. No, JQC, not run by repubs.

Empty allegations are... empty.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. Oh, are they Democrats?

[greyl]

10. Are you?

Look, baseless accusations don't mean anything.
You can ad hom against the sites all you want, without offering evidence or reasoned argument, your opinions won't be compelling.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. Yes, I am a registered Democrat and a precinct commiteeman.

You didn't answer my question about that site.

Instead you answered with a question, which I answered.

Are you under the assumption that you non-answer was compelling?

Are the people who run that site Democrats?

Thanks.

[greyl]

12. That was a rhetorical question, JQC.

Btw, you've posted some falsehood.

Your question was "Isn't that site run by Republicans?"
To which I replied, "No, JQC, not run by repubs".

[John Q. Citizen]

14. Don't tell me they are Libertarians! No! Or maybe Constitutionalists?

Well, what are they, since you seem to know a lot more about them than I do.

Thanks.

[greyl]

15. I'd rather not be baited by your illogical posts in this thread.

In your first post you said: "Isn't that site run by Republicans?"
Not an honest question, really - it was an accusation.
It was a baseless accusation, as proven by your repeated questions. A bullshit red herring.

Why don't you ask the guy who is responsible for the site yourself, if you're genuinely interested?

[salvorhardin]

18. Should it matter if they're Democrats or Republicans or little green men from outer space?

Facts are facts and do not change. At least that's what truthers always claim when I point out their latest little factoid is straight off a neo-nazi website.

[KJF]

16. He's English

So he's not a Republican or Democrat.

Maybe one or two of the contributors are Republicans, don't know. btw, he doesn't believe there wasn't a conspiracy, he just believes there wasn't a big conspiracy, hence the focus on "big MIHOP" and "big LIHOP".

[greyl]

19. Yes, he's a Lefty in the UK. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

22. Thanks for the skinny, KJF. n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

28. So I guess that means you have no refutation to the site?

Isn't that site run by Republicans?

That should be refutation enough in this day and age.

Next!

Shall we withdraw the "Next!" and go back?

[salvorhardin]

17. I'm on miranda's block list now too

Here and I thought we were getting along so well.

[greyl]

20. A very fine group to be a part of. :) nt

[SidDithers]

21. Me too...

:hi:

Sid

[John Q. Citizen]

23. I guess you were wrong? n/t

[G Hawes]

24. She doesn't want any dissent in her

BS looneytunes threads, that's all. Don't take it personally :)

[John Q. Citizen]

13. They apparently need those kinds of sites because they are

incapable of articulating arguments for themselves.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=135091&mesg_id=135091

[G Hawes]

25. Yes, it's a great site.

It doesn't claim to have all the answers, doesn't pretend to have expertise that it doesn't have, and it has proven that it actively seeks out information and legitimate research rather than being agenda-driven like CTist sites. It presents the questions fairly and presents the evidence fairly, and it says when it is offering opinion or simply offering a logical view on things based on the available evidence.

All around, one of the best, in my opinion.

[TNOE]

26. Really?

I had hoped someone had taken this site and refuted their myths with actual evidence. Guess not.

[greyl]

27. Any theories on why? ;) nt

[greyl]

30. I say, any theories on why? nt

[dailykoff]

29. The usual nonsense.

On the demolitions, for example, which are among the more conspicuous smoking guns, 91myths "debunks" the "myth" that the WTC collapses could not have occurred except as a result of demolition by pretending the NIST's utterly bogus "progressive collapse" theory holds water:

The phenomenon isn’t the sole preserve of terrorist attacks in the US, then. Real engineers have had real concerns about progressive collapse for a very long time.

http://www.911myths.com/html/progressive_collapse.html

This they support by reference to the 1987 L'Ambiance Plaza accident in which the partially constructed frame of a sixteen-story apartment building bearing no relation to the design or construction of WTC 1, 2, or 7 collapsed as a result of poorly engineered and highly dangerous construction techniques.

Also included is a list of concrete-framed low- and mid-rises, mostly residential, that have partially collapsed for one reason or another but bear no structural resemblance to the WTC.

So the impression the site dishonestly tries to make is that progressive collapse is a reaonsable theory because buildings like the WTC can collapse without demolition. In fact, no steel-frame highrise has ever toppled for any reason other than an earthquake, and none has ever completely collapsed for any reason other than demolition.

[bushatbooker]

31. Great Coincidence Theory site!

:bounce: