Who are you?



I'm Mike Williams, a software developer and freelance writer from the UK.



Why are you doing this?



It all started on an Internet message board, a couple of years ago. Someone was saying the WTC collapsed through demolition, and quoted the story of Kim White as partial evidence (she reported hearing a second explosion shortly after the other one).

This puzzled me. White said the second explosion occurred when she was on something like the 79th floor, yet she had time to get out. Demolition charges don't normally give you 30 minutes+ to escape, so how could this have anything to do with bringing the building down?



I decided to look into the story further, and headed off to Google. Searching for "Kim

White" pulled up only the same reports, "Kim White" +explosion was no different. So I tried "Kim White" +80 +floor, and found an answer high on the first page. There was the story of Susan A.F., who apparently worked with White, and said of the second "ka-boom": I thought some part of the plane or some part of the building that had been hit by the

plane had exploded and debris was sliding down from the floors above us. I would later learn it was a second airplane diving into the other tower and it was debris from that explosion hitting the windows.

http://www.webscope.com/~larrygc/gra/wtc/sep11wtcdisaster.htm This doesn't prove anything, obviously, but it's an interpretation that made more sense to me. So how many other sites had found it? I checked, and didn't find a single one. There were hundreds (at the time) using White's quote as evidence of bombs in the building, but no-one had done the two minutes research necessary to find an alternative explanation.



Why not? I began to realise that, despite the many claims of "finding the truth", that's not what most people really wanted to do. They thought they knew the truth already, and were simply seeking to prove it. As such they'd collect stories that seem to prove what they already believe, and republish them, without making any checks at all.

So I decided to begin looking into these claims for myself, and began to realise just how big this problem was. I found many stories that were entirely false, others distorted, more that left out important information. Soon I’d amassed a library of rarely heard qualifications to the usual conspiracy claims, more than I’d seen anywhere else, and eventually I decided this needed to be shared with others. And so here it is.



Why spend so much effort on this?



Why do you ask? Oh, I know. It’s the old one where anyone who spends a lot of time promoting a particular 9/11 theory is A Fearless Seeker After Truth (even if their site is packed with “Donate” buttons and invitations for you to “buy the book/ DVD/ video”), but anyone who spends the same amount of time on the other side of the argument is A Government Shill/ Paid Disinformation Agent, right?



Well, believe what you like, but I do this because I enjoy it. It’s an interesting exercise in collecting information online, and sharpens my research skills. Plus I didn’t see anyone else bothering to do the same thing (plenty of sites making these claims, not so many questioning them), so arguably the site is performing a useful function as well. Although that’s really just a side issue: I’m doing this for me, not for anyone else.



Why have you registered 911myths.com in a way that keeps you anonymous?



You have my real name and an email address, so it’s not exactly anonymous. The only extra information you would get if I hadn’t registered 911myths.com by proxy is my home address. And would you happily post your address online, in the middle of a heated and vitriolic 9/11 debate? Neither would I, which is why I chose to protect that.



If you still feel that’s wrong, then perhaps you’d like to consider some of the other sites with registration records that don’t point to someone’s name or home address (and there are plenty more):



911truth.org - registered via proxy

physics911.net - registered via proxy

loosechange911.com - registrant company name only

fromthewilderness.com - registrant company name only

st911.org - private registration



Although of course I’m sure I’ll receive an email very soon explaining why it’s entirely different when these sites do it...



Aren't you missing the big picture, though, by concentrating on these tiny issues?



Ah yes, that's a claim I keep hearing. Usually from people who don't want to admit that I've got a point -- or several points, actually -- and so want to deflect attention away from what I'm saying.



It's also something of a dishonest debating tactic. This seems to be a way of saying "no, please, don't tackle me on the details, let's just keep everything fuzzy and vague

instead".



But you know what? The "big picture" doesn't exist on its own, it's actually made up of individual points. Doesn't it actually matter whether these are true, or false? And if you believe there was a Government conspiracy on 9/11, how will it help your case to use evidence that can be easily disproved?



Let's not pretend that I've somehow cherry-picked only tiny or insignificant issues, either. Claims like "some of the hijackers are alive", "the hijackers weren't on the passenger manifests", "insider trading proves 9/11 foreknowledge", "Willie Brown warned in advance" and so on are major, major stories. And in fact I've generally avoided the more far-out theories (pods, missiles and plane swaps at the WTC, say).



Even the small points are relevant, I think. If nothing else, it shows you not to believe everything you read, but check out the facts for yourself. And yes, I apply that to this site just as much as everyone else, which is why you'll find just as many references and links as I can supply.



You’re very selective in the topics you cover, though



People said that of the Popular Mechanics piece, too. I’ve got something like six or seven times as many issues listed here -- doesn’t that count for something?



But still, there is some truth in that suggestion. What I’m looking to talk about here are 9/11 claims that are either clearly wrong, or sometimes presented in a very misleading way.



The “John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial flights” story, used by people like David Ray Griffin to support the idea of 9/11 foreknowledge, is a good example. How many sites have you seen that point out this claim was removed from Fahrenheit 9/11, when they found he had flown commercial flights after all? This single fact doesn’t disprove foreknowledge, obviously, but it suggests the story isn’t that reliable. That’s exactly the kind of thing I want to include here, little-known information that makes a clear point.



How about a “the WTC collapsed by fire and structural damage alone” page, though? Although I happen to think it did, that fails the criteria in several ways. Like there’s nothing I can say that hasn’t been said before, for instance -- why just do another “me too” page? I’m not an authority on structural engineering, either, or anything else relevant. Why should anyone believe me? And even if I did the research, picked out the best arguments and pictures, put it all together, this will not have the same effect as the Ashcroft/ Fahrenheit 9/11 quote. If documentaries and real structural engineers can’t convince people, there’s no way I’m going to manage it.



So in a sense, you’re right, I am being selective. I’m choosing to recognise my limitations, looking at smaller details, things I can manage. Maximum effect for minimum effort (hey, I never said I wasn’t lazy). This can still be useful, I think, and relate to the bigger picture (it’s interesting to know that Louie Cacchioli now claims he never said “We think there was bombs set in the building”, for instance), but will never be absolutely definitive.



Oh, and please don’t email me to say I don’t stick to this... I know! These are my general guidelines, but I don’t always stick to them, and already I’ve occasionally strayed into areas that rely more on opinion, aren’t entirely clear-cut. I’m hoping the new Articles section will give me somewhere to put that kind of piece, if I really need to do it, though -- we’ll see how it works.



What do you think happened on September 11th? Do you completely accept the official version? If not, why don’t you present your doubts on the site?



I think the attacks were carried out by al Qaeda, and involved the 19 named hijackers.

Could Flight 93 have been shot down? I can’t rule out that completely -- let’s say it has a 10% probability for me -- but I’m far from convinced.



Could the attacks have been assisted “on the day”? The stand-down evidence looks weak to me. I don’t believe it was necessary, or even possible to plant bombs in the WTC.



Could the attacks have been assisted in advance by people within the US? I’m neutral on this. There was plenty of information flying around, so we have two alternatives: a) they didn’t put the pieces together in time, or b) they knew but did nothing about it. I currently see insufficient evidence to form an opinion either way.



So why not mention this on the site? Well, now I have, but there’s really nothing here to justify making it into a topic. As I just said about being selective, ideally I’d like the topics here to a) include some information you don’t often read anywhere else, and b) make a point that’s significant, stands at least a chance of changing someone’s mind. Yet another page on “Rice said we couldn’t imagine this kind of attack but look, they could” really doesn’t cut it, either way.



Does that make me biased? Not really; the same rule means I’m probably not going to do an overall “this is why the WTC collapsed due to fire”, as I said above, or similar points in the other direction. They also wouldn’t be original, and there’s no chance of me making points that are any more significant than anyone else.



Maybe the best way to think of it is like this: I’m not saying this site covers everything, it’s not here to provide a complete overview of 9/11, really it’s not for beginners who don’t know the main claims at all. I’m deliberately addressing individual points, the fine detail if you like, where I think I might have something to say -- and, more or less, that’s all.



Pah! Plainly you're just a shill/ Government stooge/ neo-con/ psyops site.



Yawn. Yes, I've heard that before, usually because it's much easier to smear people than dealing with the points they're making. But hey, if you believe that, then run along now, it's fine with me. There are plenty of other 9/11 sites that will tell you what you want to hear, and never even think of challenging any of your views..

