My old friend just launched Fishy 9/11 and you should check it out:
"Hello! I'm launching a new Web site and I'm sending this email to a select group of good friends to give you a sneak preview, and to ask you to poke around the site, kick the tires, and let me know what you think: http://www.fishy911.org
The site is called Fishy 9/11 and it is about the attacks of September 11, 2001. As you may or may not be aware, the official story about what happened that day is pretty fishy in several important ways, leading to widespread speculation that the US government either allowed the attacks to happen or was actually involved in the planning. There are loads of books and Web sites and DVDs out there and tons of evidence this way and that way, and it's all pretty overwhelming. Fishy 9/11 is my attempt to collect and organize a manageable amount of material, and to make it very user friendly and actually fun to use (if it's OK to use the word 'fun' in this context).
The site is designed for the logged-in user, so I encourage you to register and log in, as this will enable various features that make the site what it is meant to be (e.g., you can vote on how suspicious or unsuspicious each piece of evidence is, add comments, etc.). So do that: vote on the evidence, and add comments! It would be great if you could help get this thing rolling. I'm going to do a wider- scale roll-out in about two weeks, so any criticisms and comments you might have on any aspect of the site within that time frame would be extremely helpful.
The address: http://www.fishy911.org
Feel free to share the link with anybody you like.
thanks!
John"
From Fishy 9/11
Is it really possible that the US government purposely let the September 11 attacks happen, or even participated in the planning? Is the official story about the attacks really all that fishy? Those are the questions this Web site explores, with an open mind and no particular agenda apart from trying to make sense out of what evidence we have. More on what this site is about...
You must log in to rate evidence and participate in discussions. Logging in will also mean the site can direct you to new stuff you haven't seen yet. But if you prefer, you can just go ahead and read stuff. Choose a topic and jump on in.
Summary of Fishy 9/11
So what does it all mean? Was 9/11 an "inside job"?
Yeah. I reckon it probably was. Because aside from the evidence it was, if you try to write it off as government incompetence instead (the only other explanation for everything that went wrong), it turns into a huge coincidence theory, with so many highly improbable coincidences that the whole thing is half a nanometer from impossible.
The strongest evidence for complicity, I think, is two things:
- The World Trade Center collapses
- The lack of fighter jets
I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that the WTC collapses, including Building 7, were controlled demolitions. They exhibited all the signs of controlled demolitions (sudden onset, straight down, free-fall speed, lateral explosive ejections, total destruction, pulverization of concrete, steel cut into nice manageable pieces, chemical signature of demolition incendiaries, etc.) and none of the signs of fire-driven, gravitational collapse (gradual warping, unbalanced toppling along path of least resistance, partial destruction, large recognizable chunks of building left over, etc.). I think they really goofed when they tried to slip Building 7 past us. That was the first real "hey waitaminnit" moment. If I was them, I'd be a little nervous about that one. I mean, how stupid do they think we are? Pretty stupid, apparently. But we're not. Right? Anyway, if those were controlled demolitions (and they were), that just unravels everything else, because they had to be planned in advance, by insiders, and the whole official story is a lie.
And the fighter jets just not appearing? Nuh uh. Totally implausible. The military probably heard from the FAA about multiple hijackings by about 8:30. People quibble about the times, about when the FAA made reports, hey: at the very latest, everybody in the world knew there was a major terrorist attack by 9:03, the moment the second plane hit the South Tower. The Pentagon didn't get hit until about 9:36. It normally takes a fighter 10 or 12 minutes to intercept an off-course plane, and with Andrews AFB ten miles away, they could have had a plane over DC in two minutes or less. But we're expected to believe that given 30 minutes at a minimum, with certain knowledge of multiple hijackings by suicidal terrorists, the US military couldn't get a single fighter in the air to defend the capital? Might be a good idea? Even if they didn't know for sure it was a target? Sort of, you know, just in case? Better safe than sorry? What the heck, it is the capital. Get one plane up there? Just as a silly precaution? I'm sure terrorists would never target anything in the DC area, but no harm in getting a fighter up there on the off chance? "Oops"? It's just not plausible.
Those two things are big. They can't be explained away. Everything else, I have wiggle room on. Was the Pentagon hit by a plane or a missile? I don't know. Was Flight 93 shot down? I don't know. Did we have specific advance actionable intelligence? I don't know. Are we in bed with Al Qaeda? I don't know. Is the official Commission report a deliberate cover-up job? I don't know. What do I know? To a very high degree of probability, the three WTC buildings were controlled demolitions; to a very high degree of probability, the fighter jet failure was no screw-up.
Who, how, and why? I don't know. But those would be very good questions for a real investigation to pursue.
Post new comment