skip to main |
skip to sidebar
[ setting fire to straw men since 2005 ]
ABOUT
- skeptosis
- Brooklyn, New York, United States
- while you're working on your NCAA brackets, i'm still thinking about 9/11.
SKEPTOSIS ON THE WEB
The "Official Story" and its defenders
"Outrageous Conspiracy Theories" and their proponents
ARCHIVE
GUIDELINES
This blog is open to comments, and all comments which are submitted will be allowed, with the following exceptions:
1. Comments containing gratuitous profanity or hate speech will not be tolerated.
2. Comments not related to the post in which they appear will be deleted.
3. Comments which contain unsubstantiated assertions of fact will be deleted. (e.g., simply saying "that's been de-bunked", without providing a link to the source of the alleged "de-bunking", will invalidate your comment, and your comment will be deleted. Additionally, if the source to which you link does not conform to guidelines 4 and 5, your comment will be deleted.)
4. Comments which contain links to re-interpretations of the official public record, rather than the record itself, will be deleted. (e.g., a linked quote from FEMA Report 403 is fine - a linked quote from a review of the FEMA Report on 911myths.com or huffingtonpost.com will be deleted.)
5. Comments that are merely copied and pasted from other blogs, websites, or editorials will be considered spam, and deleted. There are ample facts in the public record from which to draw your own conclusions, in your own words. Merely parroting the summary conclusions of 'pundits' or 'truthseekers' will result in the deletion of your comment.
-
There are enough sites out there nursing theories best described as 'pet projects' - pods, missiles, holograms, etc. This site is not intended to promote or dispute those theories, but is instead devoted EXCLUSIVELY to an examination of the facts contained in the public record.
If you have arrived at this page seeking point-by-point refutations of 'Loose Change', you're in the wrong place. Similarly, if you have arrived here seeking point-by-point refutations of Popular Mechanics' 2004 article regarding 'the myths of 9/11', you're in the wrong place.
Both sides of this debate have set up a plethora of 'straw man' issues, such that the debate is polluted by their inclusion, and the energies of researchers are squandered in vain attempts to prove (or disprove) a myriad of half-truths.
By eliminating these seemingly purposeful distractions and instead concentrating on established facts, it is hoped that this site will help to refocus the debate on the real issues: what really happened on 9/11, how did it happen, and what can be done to prevent another 9/11 from occuring?
1. Comments containing gratuitous profanity or hate speech will not be tolerated.
2. Comments not related to the post in which they appear will be deleted.
3. Comments which contain unsubstantiated assertions of fact will be deleted. (e.g., simply saying "that's been de-bunked", without providing a link to the source of the alleged "de-bunking", will invalidate your comment, and your comment will be deleted. Additionally, if the source to which you link does not conform to guidelines 4 and 5, your comment will be deleted.)
4. Comments which contain links to re-interpretations of the official public record, rather than the record itself, will be deleted. (e.g., a linked quote from FEMA Report 403 is fine - a linked quote from a review of the FEMA Report on 911myths.com or huffingtonpost.com will be deleted.)
5. Comments that are merely copied and pasted from other blogs, websites, or editorials will be considered spam, and deleted. There are ample facts in the public record from which to draw your own conclusions, in your own words. Merely parroting the summary conclusions of 'pundits' or 'truthseekers' will result in the deletion of your comment.
-
There are enough sites out there nursing theories best described as 'pet projects' - pods, missiles, holograms, etc. This site is not intended to promote or dispute those theories, but is instead devoted EXCLUSIVELY to an examination of the facts contained in the public record.
If you have arrived at this page seeking point-by-point refutations of 'Loose Change', you're in the wrong place. Similarly, if you have arrived here seeking point-by-point refutations of Popular Mechanics' 2004 article regarding 'the myths of 9/11', you're in the wrong place.
Both sides of this debate have set up a plethora of 'straw man' issues, such that the debate is polluted by their inclusion, and the energies of researchers are squandered in vain attempts to prove (or disprove) a myriad of half-truths.
By eliminating these seemingly purposeful distractions and instead concentrating on established facts, it is hoped that this site will help to refocus the debate on the real issues: what really happened on 9/11, how did it happen, and what can be done to prevent another 9/11 from occuring?
CLUSTR