911 Damage Control: 911MYTHS.COM

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Your tax dollars at work... on propaganda.

See:
_http://www.911myths.com/html/911_infighting_links.html

Sez:

So you feel we give various 9/11 researchers a hard time? Then maybe it's time to think again. People refer to the "9/11 Truth Movement" as though it was one unified group, but in reality there are several different factions, and no-one attacks them as much as they attack each other (and on more than just 9/11 issues, too):

Incidentally, we’re providing these links because it can be interesting to see what various 9/11 researchers think of each other. We have no idea whether any of the claims made in these articles are true, though, and don’t endorse them in any way.
When you check their "take" on things, you find that it is pretty much apologetics, spin or just plain disinfo. This page is particularly revealing:

_http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html

Most revealing of all is that there is nothing revealed in the domain registration.

Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.

DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Registered through: www.dynonames.com
Domain Name: 911MYTHS.COM
Created on: 13-Jan-05
Expires on: 13-Jan-07
Last Updated on: 01-Dec-05

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration 911MYTHS.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599

Technical Contact:
Private, Registration 911MYTHS.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599

Domain servers in listed order:
NS01.DH2.NET
NS02.DH2.NET


Registry Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
Registry Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Registry Status: clientRenewProhibited
Registry Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registry Status: clientUpdateProhibited


Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

Domain Name: 911MYTHS.COM
Registrar: WILD WEST DOMAINS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.wildwestdomains.com
Referral URL: http://www.wildwestdomains.com
Name Server: NS01.DH2.NET
Name Server: NS02.DH2.NET
Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
Updated Date: 01-dec-2005
Creation Date: 13-jan-2005
Expiration Date: 13-jan-2007
 
Apparently this source has gone to lengths to address every issue that can possibly be addressed regarding suspicions of legitimacy.

In his FAQ _http://www.911myths.com/html/site_faq.html he uses the argument that since other sites are anonymous why not his, and of course he claims giving a name and email address should be credibility enough. Just a private citizen concerned about all the conspiricy misinformation out there. Just an average guy out to set the record straight.

It's actually far more organized than this lone hero of objectivity tries to present as indicated here:

_http://www.911myths.com/html/investigations__more.html

What strikes me as interesting, however, is his arguing the case section:

_http://www.911myths.com/html/arguing_the_case.html

which reminds me of Jesuits being trained to argue biblical doctrine. In fact, it sounds very logical except that it is not describing a search for truth, but how to "arm yourself" with arguments against the "other side". The infowars have truly started. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a contracting of a disinformation strategy corporation here to organize this.

It really sounds like its trying to organize the "sound thinkers" into a unified force. Interesting how this is timed with the 9/11 issue being generally addressed by the MSM now.

Are you tired of hearing the same old 9/11 arguments over and over again on your favourite Internet forums and message boards? Then you might want to use this site as ammunition in your arguments and debates, and I've no problem with that. I'd recommend you consider a point or two before you start, though.

#1, you're probably tired of people automatically believing everything they read on conspiracy sites, then posting it as fact, right? Fair enough, but don't you make the same mistake. Just because I might post an argument that agrees with what you believe, doesn't make me right. Do not read a page on here for the first time, then use it in a forum debate 5 minutes later: Think before you post.

Start by carefully reading what I'm saying (that is, not simply skipping over the arguments to the conclusion). Does my argument hold up, does it all make sense?

Next, look at an opposing site to see if I've covered the key points being made. You might read a page here saying there's no proof a particular hijacker is alive, for instance, and it may look convincing, but am I missing some key piece of evidence you'll find elsewhere? Do a quick Google to see exactly what the conspiracy sites are saying, and make sure I'm addressing whatever points they present.

Finally, do your own research into the topic. At a minimum, that means following the source links I've provided. I often edit quotes to extract just the relevant information, for instance, and while I try to ensure the original meaning of a piece isn't changed, mistakes could be made. Check the full article or whatever I'm referring to: does it still mean what I've said it means?

This may sound like a hassle, but it'll pay off in the long run. If I've made a mistake, or referred to a source link that no longer exists, say, whoever you're debating with will be quick to pick that up, and you'll lose the point. By doing your research first you greatly cut down the chances of being caught out by my error.

#2, you might also be tired of the way some people believe their argument has been proved, conclusively, no point discussing it further, only idiots ever disagree with them. We know exactly what you mean, but again, make sure you don't do the same thing.

In particular, don't oversell what we're saying here. The point of many of these pages isn't that we've completely disproved an idea, just provided more information showing it's less likely than some have claimed.

Let's take the "insider trading" story, for instance. We do not (and cannot) prove definitively that this wasn't based on foreknowledge of 9/11. But on the other hand, we can show that a) the volumes weren't as remarkable as some people claim, and b) there was good reason to be selling the stocks involved.

When you do post links to this kind of page, then, don't tell people it "blows their stupid conspiracy out of the water". Or whatever. That's a claim based on faith, not evidence, and you'll just hear back that "it doesn't prove anything".

Explain that the page just suggests the usual conspiracy explanation might not be necessary, though, and they've no false certainty to attack. Now they're forced to consider the issues, which explanation is more probable, and that's a far more interesting area of debate.

#3, you're probably most tired of the way that anyone who doesn't swallow every 9/11 conspiracy theory is automatically a Government shill/ stooge/ paid disinformation agent/ neocon/ Bushite/ idiot. And we are, too, but you know what? If you spend half your posts calling your opponents "conspiracy nutjobs" and talking about tin foil hats then you're not very much better.

Be polite, then, if you can. Remember the reason that people smear you in this way: they're worried. They have no real answer to your arguments, because if they did, then wouldn't you be hearing those answers now? And so they want to try and invent a reason to say your posts aren't to be trusted, somehow, to stop people listening to you. To provoke an argument, make you look as bad as them.

If this happens to you, the best thing you can do is return to the issues. If they've not answered a particular point, ask them why not? If you want to move to another area, then do that. Don't let the thread degenerate into pointless name-calling, or if it does, at least make sure everyone can see that you're not responsible.
Praise the Lord, and Onward Christian Soldiers! Finally, a rallying flag for the believers!!
 
Eh more creepiness. It was only a matter of time, since all this 9-11 info is on the net and up to this point 90% of it is screaming "Conspiracy!" they had to put something out there for the "believers" of the status quo. I mean, who wants the truth when its scary and agitating?
 
I followed a link from the "United 93" forum to a blog promoting this site. It's pretty disgusting how bad it is. I'll just offer a few examples of the hundreds of blunders found on this trash-bin of a website:

_http://911myths.com/html/omissions____chapter_1.html
The first problem with all this, then, is an "appeal to authority". There is no actual proof in any of these stories that those who appear are the same people named by the FBI, but Griffin seems to be saying that because they are "mainstream news sources" that we should believe them 100%.
Where's the "actual proof" for the "terrorists'" existence on the planes? 911myths seems to be saying that because they are "governement intelligence sources" that we should believe them 100%.

Next they attempt to explain Atta's use of alcohol, strippers, etc. Here's their genius explanation (no, I'm not making it up): Atta is associated with a sect called Al Takfir wal Hijra, run by al Quaeda second-in-command Ayman Al-Zawahiri, whose members are permitted to disregard the injunctions of Islamic law in order to blend into infidel societies. In other words, Takfirs can have sex with loose women, drink alcohol, eat pork and do whatever else they feel is appropriate to advance their mission... Also because the bombers at Madrid seem to have engaged in similar practices, this just proves that radical Muslim terrorists MUST think it's all right to disobey Islamic law.

The rest of their stuff is no better. For example, on the subject of Hani Hanjour, they say that because he was rejected for a license in Saudi Arabia, it doesn't mean he was a bad pilot (ignoring the testimony of his American instructor entirely). Evidence they cite for his remarkable skills: the fact he eventually got his license, the 77 flight maneuvers.

This site is rife with circular reasoning, exclusion of contrary evidence (no mention in their "molten metal" section of the ABC report that fire-fighters claimed temperatures of 2000 degrees a week after the collapse or the video clip of the same statements made 6 weeks after the fact), and all-around wiseacring. Yuck.
 
Back
Top Bottom