Is this 9-11 “debunking” web site a government web site?

Who owns this site?

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

Where is the copyright claim? I cannot find it. Isn’t it standard practice to claim copyright at the bottom of each page.

I cannot find a page about who they are or what their mission is.

Maybe some could check and report back. I have and cannot find anywhere where some one or some group claims ownership of the site. It should be on there somewhere. Nobody puts out a comprehensive site like this without claiming copyright and ownership to the site.

I checked the WhoIs database and it did not reveal any useful information.

Isn’t it important to know who stands behind what we read? Is this a possibly a government disinformation site?

Update:

lol. Joe. Do you seriously think the CIA or FBA is going to use a ".gov" site for a disinformation campaign? That suggestion is just too far over the top, IMO!

Update 2:

I followed LeiLei_7’s advice and found the contact e-mail on an archived version of the site, a Hotmail address with no name. From there, I Google searched that email address and found the person or persons trolling in a number of blogs and forums. Guess what? I even found he/she/them trolling here at Yahoo Answers, see,

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200704...

Update 3:

lol. I find exactly the same text pasted on other internet forums.

That Y.A. user ID no longer exists. I suspect he/she/they may still be trolling here. Recently, I questioned that web site in one of my answers and received a nasty email from another user in response to that. The user angrily blasted me for questioning it and asserted his opinion that it should not matter “who” presents the information. I won’t name that user because the ID is active. He/she/they has a reputation for attempting to scare people by sending nasty emails to 9-11 truth seekers.

18 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I am sure it is - do you remember the well publicised US government propaganda budget running into millions of dollars (well publicised in UK MSM anyway) earmarked for use on the Internet... where do you think it all went? You can get lots of web space for hundreds of millions of dollars and lots of people to write on newsgroups and forums too...

    This site fails to address the key issues and loses the big picture entirely... how coincidental. It's cute map of the WTC site shows WTC 6 between WTC1 and WTC7... oops, how do you explain that one?

    Where are the contextual / overview photos showing the lack of wreckage at the Pentagon site?

    This shows a selective use of data, a focusing on details without context, and it misdirects attention from key facts to... well, what exactly... ?

    Classic propaganda.

    Why does it not address the 911 commission report - a self damning document if ever there was one.

    LOOK at the Pentagon 'evidence'... you have close-up images of scraps of wreckage, you have a couple of overviews - but where are the usual signatures of aircraft wreckage IN CONTEXT? The visuals that DO exist show precious little wreckage, the aircraft having mostly vapourised. Really? Look at the size of those engines - far too small for a commercial airliner... anyone with half a brain can see that.

    You even have images of people carrying handy sized bits of wreckage away... when has ANY of us seen this before - where are the air crash investigators? Where is the 'evidence investigation control' and security? Where is the scorched grass? Why doesn't the scale of the damage remotely compare with what we SAW at WTC?

    I could go on but it's pointless - again it makes me ask WHY... and this doesn't fit the official manufactured picture. You don't need to be a photographer or any kind of specialist to see that the visual evidence IN NO WAY fits the usual format we'd expect from air crashes and in fact it in NO WAY fits with the WTC crashes on the same day.

    The official 911 story is a fraud and this site just shows the lengths to which the US government will try to keep it covered up - laughable frankly.

    The key issues are NOT addressed by this website - reassuring as it may be to anyone who is gullible enough to want to keep believing the official fairy tale... presumably they still believe in Santa Claus too?

    As for the above - if you were putting up a propaganda site would you register it as a .gov site?

    Copyright can be used on any material you write, publish, paint or draw....

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Srinu
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    US Government has appointed some 10,000 people in CentCom to debunk the 9-11 conspiracy theories. The Government is spending more money on cover-up than on the basic investigation. When a terrorist activity happens, the first thing that a Government naturally does is to handover the case to the police, provide them all the support and protect the crime scene. This is what the Government did not do indicating their own involvement. The security chief post and the Attorney General post were given away to dual citizens of Israel - USA. (Since they have started an oil war, they have given oil ministry and airforce chief post also to dual citizens).

    Unfortunately, they are unable to prove that it was done by Muslim Extremists. They are unable to disprove the role of CIA-Mossad in this operation because the evidence is too obvious. They are yet to come out with a plausible theory on the Building 7 even after 7 years.

    What will they do now ? The truth will eventually come out. Nixon felt that truth would never come out but two journalists unravelled the truth. It will happen here also. And when it happens, the present top people in positions of power and their rulers in Tel Aviv will hide where ? Bush has atleast purchased 100,000 acres of land in Paraguay to settle down but not the others.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Erin
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    I am on the fence on the whole "9/11 truth"issue but I did a whois on the site and I can find nothing about about the owner.

    Maybe try going to a 9/11 forum and ask.

    I also wonder how they get the reader emails if there is no contact page. I have wanted to contact the site and ask some questions about other issues they do not cover.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    84% of Americans now question the official story.. 36% know it was an inside job. That probably has something to do with why this website has not been updated in 3 years. It's not working!

    Plus, the truth sites (http://journalof911studies.com and http://ae911truth.org) have made frequent updates with new evidence and the debunking sites can't keep up. They're going to have to do better than Popular Mechanics, that's for sure.

    If it is gov't funded, you'd probably never know. They can just fund it covertly and use a proxy domain registration. (It's only a .gov if it's a public service). I'm sure this happens all the time, considering what we already know about the Pentagon funding news networks... it doesn't matter, the truth will come out. It's already reached critical mass.

    Source(s): Scripps Poll, reality
    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Yeah - if it looks, feels, and smells like one, then it probably is one.

    I agree with Violator. I must be one of the few people who went to this site and read almost the whole thing awhile back. I wanted to know the truth, no matter where it came from, and what I got instead was the strange feeling that I was given a nasty lesson in disinformation by frustration. The sheer volume of text and official-sounding narrative interlaced with insults was enough to discourage anyone from sticking with the material. I barely managed it and found the following:

    Repetition: The same point repeated dozens of times to fill out the text.

    Character assassination: Experts such as professional architects, engineers, and professors who have spoken out against the official report are either "delusional", or "don't know real life".

    False analogy/examples: Images of partially collapsed buildings from demolition jobs gone wrong to "prove" that a demolition does not always collapse a building into its own footprint, and so WTC7 couldn't be a demolition job! - That twisted logic took me awhile to figure out from all the rambling.

    Straw man arguments: Exaggerating the claims of conspiracy theorists or inventing claims to show that conspiracy theorists are "mad".

    Ad hominum arguments: That information, & eye-witness statements which does not come from a "professional" must be wrong because they are dumb. For example, eye-witness statements from FDNY workers about hearing multiple bombs going off is wrong because they are not bomb disposal professionals.

    Threats: Thinly veiled threats about what should be done to conspiracy theorists.

    And, it goes on.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    Hmmmm. For a minute there I thought you were a "conspiracy theorist". Don't get me wrong. I strongly dislike Bush & Cheney. I also think that there is a lot of "fishy coincidences" surrounding 911. That being said, why haven't there been any further investigations into these claims. Is there no one in all of New York, Washington, or PA with the authority to indict all possible suspects, or evidence that this might have been the greatest heist in all of history?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Wish I knew.

    There is an article at "Breakfornews.com" entitled "CIA Fakes", it, among other things, points to and analyses the truth movement and it's dis-info agents in a reasonably straightforward way.

    An excellent audio in that sites audio archives called "The 9/11 Minority report" is worth a listen.

    Unfortunatly, the sites owner is a bit of a know it all and diverges into many areas that make no sense......... like explaining "reality".

    We heartbroken and disillusioned lovers of honesty and decency just have to accept what makes sense where we can find it.

    Source(s): The mind of a truth seeker.
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Great question dude. It's important to know the source. Only cockroaches fear the light. I looked at the site and it's a "piss on them and tell them it's raining," disinfo site.

    Of course he dosn't want to reveal his identity. The shills and liars are getting smarter.

    They have come along way from writing junk science articles in Popular Mechanics. You know the one written by Chertoff's cousin and then, when asked if related to Michael, they lie.

    Didn't see anything about Urban Moving at first glance. Man you know this site stinks of Mossad, and my bet is the sites owner is a 'berg,' or 'witz,' or a 'stein.'

    Good luck in your search. Seek and you shall find.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I wouldn't doubt it is a government disinformation website.

    I looked through what it had to say about building #7 and I watched the video that was supposed to be proof of a 20 story gash in the building... but I didn't see it. Just like the videos that are supposed to prove that no planes hit the towers.. are unconvincing. I was unconvinced by this one.

    Notice how the "debunking sites" fail to show you real pictures of how the buildings were constructed. They don't because they know that if they did... their theories would fall apart. Here's a REAL picture of the towers under construction.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

    You don't have to look far to 'debunk' the 'debunkers'.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • leilei
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    Check out the Internet Archive Wayback Machine to see if you can find any information on the older pages.

    http://www.archive.org/web/web.php

    http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.debunking9...

    **Enter a page other than the main page - it continues to go to "This page cannot be found" after a few seconds.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.