9/11 Review
REVIEWED

Web Site:
 Home Page
 Search
 Site Navigation
 Sign Up
 Submit
 Translate
 What's New
 About

Top Topics:

 FrontPage
      AnthraxAttacks
           Thompson,Paul
           WhatsNext
      Building7Collapse
           Guardian
           MuslimsSuspendPhysics
      OngoingCoverup
           AirForceStanddown
           CoverupByWhiteHouse
           Flight77BlackBoxes
           Flights
           InsideJob
           InsiderTrading
           PentagonAttackCctvVideo
           PriorKnowledge
      OsamaBinAsset
           BinLaden
           BinLadenConfession
           ExperiencedSkeptics
           HijackersAliveAndWell
           HijackersPatsies
           SpringmanInterview
      PentagonAttack
           911Encyclopedia
           Flight77
           Flight77Sites
           PentagonAttackDamage
           PentagonAttackDebris
           PentagonAttackFire
           PentagonAttackLegend
           PentagonPlaneRotor
      Sept11WebSites
           Meyssan,Thierry
           Mirrors
           Sept11Physics
           Sept11Researchers
           Sept11Videos
           TrustedWebSites
      TrustedNewsSites
      TwinTowers

 More topics...

Essays:
 BogusWarOnTerrorism
 TruthLiesLegendof911
 MARIANIComplaint

Viewpoints:
 WhatDoWeDo
 WhatsNext

Mirrors:
 thewebfairy.com
 nerdcities.com/guardian
 serendipity.li
 geocities.com/killtown
 elitewatch.netfirms.com

 
  911ReviewFaq

1 Q: What is 911review.org

911review.org was set up by a group of academics and former academics living in Canada, that have been on the forefront of 9/11 research. The site was started on Sept. 11 of this year. In creating the site, we hope it will provide a succinct summary of the current research and conclusions, that can be used as a point of reference for people in the media or decision makers.

Yes, just trust 911Review.org -- it will tell you what you need to know about the 9/11 event. It will decide what sites to filter out. It will use shoddy analysis to try to subtly persuade you that the idea of 9/11 was an inside job is bogus while pretending to vigorously champion the idea with images that combine Bush and bin Laden and a vocabulary expanded to include BushLadin, OsamaBinAsset, OsamaBinPatsy, and HijackersPatsies.

The site summarizes the most important aspects of the current research, and cascades down through summaries to more detailed reviews. The Reviews all the links they refer to have been [/search.html full-text indexed] to provide an excellent 9/11 research tool.

2 Q: Who Are The People Working With You

Trust Us, We're Your Friends

Initially the 9/11 movement started out as skeptics questioning the official story that you heard in the media, and asking a lot of very tough Unanswered Questions. But in the last year, the scientists and researchers have been able to answer with certainty many of these questions, so the focus is shifting from Demanding an Inquiry, to publishing the results of our own findings, to the highest level of academic excellence.

And because the War on Freedom is affecting other countries like Canada, Britain, Germany, Australia and France, there are a lot of concerned people who want to get at the truth about what really happened on 9/11. So on 911review.org, we do not limit ourselves to just the events of 9/11 itself, but also on the reasons behind 9/11 -- not just War for Oil, but also, the War on Freedom.

The War on Freedom may have been the main goal of 9/11: Patriot Act magically appeared just days after the massacre, and was passed without even being read by a Congress Under Attack - by coincidence, the Democratic Senators who were opposing the rapid passage of the Patriot Act were amongst the targets of the AnthraxAttacks.

3 Q: What Do You Do On 911review.org

3.1 Summarize the Research

911review.org summarizes the current research that is often spread across dozens of websites and discussion forums, and represents the consensus of a group of 9/11 scientists and researchers.

What is that group, and what is the process to determine consensus? Did this entire panel of scientists sign off on the consensus that the jet that hit the South Tower was carrying a "20m. long cylinder that opens just before impact.", or on the idea that Depleted Uranium fueled a superfire at the Pentagon?

911Review.org's claim that it somehow speaks for the '9/11 movement' is a theme of that runs throughout the site. If the reader accepts this claim, he or she is more likely to associate the weak and specious analysis on 911Review.org with all questioning the official story.

We don't think that there will ever be an thorough independent investigation into 9/11 by the US government. 3000 people were murdered on 9/11, yet both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took extraordinary steps to limit any investigation into the events (see CoverupByWhiteHouse). The so-called 9/11 'independent' commission, the formal investigation into the tragedy, is made up largely of members from [WWW]legal firms that represent the airline industry.

As we say on 911review.org, we're think any inquiry by the United Sates government into what Really Happened on 9/11 would just be like another Warren Commission: dead witnesses, magic bullets that defy the laws of physics, and the report orchestrated by the FBI and CIA.

3.2 Analyze the Reports

On 911review.org, we analyze the official reports from Congress like the House Science subcommittee, and a government agencies like FEMA, and cooperating industry groups like ASCE.

Actually 911Review.org doesn't do anything as original as analyzing government reports; rather it points to the work of Guardian, who is not part of 911Review.org, and refers to some other work, also not by 911Review.org, without even linking to it.

In a lot of cases these reports are a travesty: see

Of course, one of the reasons that they can get away with such junk is that all of the steel from the Twin Towers was immediately shipped overseas before the "investigations" were carried out.

Actually FEMA's "investigation" was going on while the removal of the steel was underway. Their final report, The World Trade Center Building Performance Study just happened to be published around the time the scrubbing of the site was complete: May of 2002, making the report's calls for "further investigation and analysis" unactionable.

In the case of the report into the collapse of WTC Building 7, it's a [WWW]total joke.

... Building 7 photos

would be nice.

3.3 Archive the Documents

On 911review.org, we collect and store for safekeeping all the documents we can find related to 9/11. Right now we have 50,000 web documents stored and full-text indexed, with thousands of images, and hundreds of video clips, all available to everyone on the Internet.

Where is all of this stuff? 911Review.org stores thousands of images and hundreds of video clips all available to everyone on the Internet? Too bad they don't publish the locations of these elusive archives. In contrast 9-11 Research and plaguepuppy.net don't brag about archives of questionable existence -- they publish real archives, and pay for the bandwidth to serve them.

We started the archive for the site a year before we went on-line, and just as well: many of the incriminating documents and photos over the last year were pulled from the government sites, and are sometimes only available from our archive.

Also, the 9/11 web sites are often summarily taken off the net without notice by their hosting companies, and we provide Mirrors to make sure the material was available. It has become the number one site for 9/11 research on the Internet today.

Try typing a Google search using the query 9/11.

3.4 Monitor the Media

An important role of 911review.org is to dissect some of the more flagrant media distortions and lies. We monitor the media to correct some of their lies, but quite frankly, we have come to the opinion that the corporate media is beyond redemption.

This is another claim for which one will be hard-pressed to find any supporting evidence. If the McMedia page represents the extent of 911Review.org's media monitoring, I think I'll look elsewhere for my media monitoring needs.

The "alternative media" or "left media" has been at least as thorough in its denial that there are problems with the official story. The "left gate-keepers" phenomenon is documented by another site not mentioned by 911Review.org, LeftGateKeepers.com.

But what we do do, is analyze some of the most flagrant ones, to show how these stories are produced. For example:

Witnesses to the Crash at the Pentagon

The analysis of the witnesses to the crash at the Pentagon is a good example. This analysis of all of the news media reports on what people said they saw has been done by Gerard Holmgren, one of the researchers that collaborates with 911review.org, and is a very detailed review and runs 50 pages in length (see Flight77Witnesses) His conclusion:

    The collective impression of the eyewitness reports at the Pentagon is one of a scripted event.

DoD Photos of the Crash at the Pentagon

What should bother everybody who wants to have confidence in the FBI is that they were on scene at the site of the Pentagon attack within minutes, and confiscated 2 videos from a gas station-convenience store across the street, and from the Sheraton Hotel, which also had a surveillance camera on the area in question. We think both of these videos could show what really hit the Pentagon, but they being withheld by the FBI. At this point we are certain that it wasn't a Boeing.

The DoD, after denying for almost a year that there were any photos from the surveillance camera that everyone could see was aimed right at the spot where the Pentagon was hit, finally came out and gave the corporate media five frames of what the camera supposedly captured.

So according to 911Review.org, March, 2002 is almost a year after September, 2001.

And even though the Pentagon itself denied releasing the pictures officially, all the corporate media, including the BBC, ran with a story claiming that the photos showed American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. But in fact, the pictures show nothing like a Boeing 757:

Just so you know, even empty a Boeing 757 weighs 100 tonnes and has an about 40 yard wingspan and a tail that stands 15 yards high. And the media claims there's a Boeing in there; do you see one?

There's something in there that sorta maybe kinda looks like a tail, but when you do an analysis of the terrain at the Pentagon, you realize that anything attached to that "tail" would have had to flown through an embankment to get there!

[terrain image]

Here's what a Boeing 757 drawn to scale at the Pentagon would look like:

There's actually much more to this story - perhaps we'll be able to show you the image analysis of these photos in a future program. We work with image and video analysis experts. There are some astonishing things if you look closely at the images and videos.

This implies that 911Review.org works with the creator of this image, SilentButDeadly, whom it doesn't credit, when those image and video analysis experts are actually WebFairy, any questioning of whose theories will likely elicit a volley of insults.

News Blackout

The other thing with the North American corporate media is what they leave out. I'll give you just one example: Michael Meacher is a veteran Member of British Parliament having been elected to consecutive terms for more than 30 years. He was Minister of State for the Environment and Privy Counsellor in the Cabinet of Tony Blair.

This September we wrote an influential article in the British press entitled:

in which he demonstrates that the 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination. His conclusion is that:

    The "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project.

This caused a furor in England, and was widely reported in the European press, but has been entirely shut out of the North American press. No one touched it.

On 911review.org we have a copy of the article with hyperlinks back to the original sources. In preparing his article, Meacher used the work of Eric Hufschmidt, one of the researchers that collaborates with 911review.org, author of the book PainfullQuestions.

One would think that if 911Review.org collaborates with Eric Hufschmid, it could at least spell his name, and that of his book, correctly. I guess it's too much to ask of 911Review.org to give the URL of his site.

3.5 In-Depth Research In The Art of Deception

911review.org works with the new media outlets like INN Report to provide the in-depth research only scientists and researchers can provide.

More and more people are getting their news from the Internet. After the non-stop bombardment of lies and disinformation at the height of the Iraq war, people are beginning to understand that the conventional corporate media cannot be trusted.

There was a recent media study done of the level of misinformation [WWW]amongst watchers of the major US TV channels. The study polled over 3,000 people on their perceptions about international support for the Iraq War, ties of Saddam Husein to the events of 9/11, and the Discovery of WMD's in Iraq.

Then they asked what was their main source of their news information:

  • Fox
  • CBS
  • ABC
  • NBC
  • CNN
  • Print media
  • NPR/PBS

If you watched Fox news, you got an astounding 80% of the people answering at least one question wrongly. And amongst those who answered all 3 questions wrongly, their support for the invasion of Iraq was 86%; amongst those who answered all questions correctly, the support was 23%.

We hope on their next study that they will add the category of Internet news to their list of sources: we're confident that the people who get their news from the Internet will be amongst the best informed and the least misinformed. You can find the link to this study by clicking link "Box of Lies" that you'll find on on the homepage of http://911review.org.

3.6 Coordination

Click on the Meetup.Com icon in the sidebar of 911review.org and sign-up for the 9/11 meetings that are being held near you; if there isn't one in in your city; start one.

4 Q:Where Do You Get Your Artwork From?

When we started 911review.org, we had a lot of technical analysis and scientific conclusions, but very little graphics, so the site was a bit monotonous. But there is a tremendous amount of what we call PoliticalArt that have some great cartoonists and graphical artists. So we did a review of some of the best PoliticalArt, and picked the web pages that their statements went best with.

Some people think we have it in for Bush, or the current ruling Bush/Cheney/ Rumseld junta, but that isn't so; we'd be happy to lampoon most of the other candidates too! But the best material at the moment is focused on Bush (or Shrub as he is known to the cartoonists.)

5 Q: Is 911review.org Politically Active?

A: No, we don't support any particular politician or party. We don't believe there is the possibility of regime change without fundamental changes to the regime itself. Elections, especially in a two-party system, are more what Michael Chosodovsky has termed regime rotation. There is no regime change.

In fact quite the opposite: the Police State regime has been strengthened enormously by the Patriot Act ( and the coming Patriot Act II, which all Americans should be concerned about), but it was put in place under Clinton starting with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, an American legislation that was passed as a reaction to the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.

But this isn't a problem only in America. Australia has some of the most repressive and unjust legislation enacted in the wake of 9/11. So does Britain, another partner in the invasion of Iraq. And in Britain, we have seen the anti-terrorist legislation directed against anti-war demonstrators or peace activists people opposing the big-brother-in-the-sky Echelon spy system, which Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Britain spy on their own citizens for the NSA.

We're very worried about the tendency to say "Anybody but Bush". Not only could it get worse, but idea of it leaves the current "regime's" legislation in place, which could be the whole reason for 9/11.

6 Q: What Can People Do To Help

6.0 A: Not Much if They Believe 911Review.org

I would be surprised if anyone who takes 911Review.org seriously will not feel demoralized. The next attack is coming, and you might as well not try to stop it by exposing 9/11/01 because the evidence isn't very strong. 911Review.org even muddles the simple case of Building 7's collapse by giving incorrect details, and presenting and then failing to refute the idea that fuel tank explosions could have leveled the building.

First of all, turn off the Talking Heads. The only way they'll start paying any attention is if they find that fewer and fewer people are consuming their advertising; every hour of their programming that you consume makes them money.

One of the rays of hope this last year has been that the TV watching in America is down 20% from last year. More and more people are turning to the Internet to find reliable news, and sites like 911review.org are where they are going.

6.1 Get Informed

You're not going to get any reliable information from the major networks. But there has been a huge technical revolution in the last 2 years called RSS (Rich-text Syndication). Up until now, the stories from reporters around the world would only be available to news organizations that received the "wires" from agencies like AP, UPI, Reuters etc.

But now, not only are these news wires available to everyone who has RSS software, but so are the many sites that are creating their own syndicated contents - over 10,000 at last count. So web sites like globalreepress.com and yellowtimes.org can make use of the wire information sources, then add their own commentary and analysis and generate their own news "wire". For the first time in history, all groups of people running websites with RSS software can provide the same information services that was previously available only from the news agencies, and we feel the web sites are doing a much better job.

6.2 Get Active

Make a lot of noise. Be noisy about the Patriot Act, be noisy about them taking away your civil rights, be noisy about what they have done to the image of America throughout the world. Don't take No for an answer.

And get active on the deep issues: campaign financing, the lack of investigation into the corporate boondoggles, the lack of oversight of the security state which Congress cannot investigate, because to get onto the Committees, you have to go to them for a security clearance, and Senators won't investigate anyway because it's the companies that provide the campaign contributions.

Using the Internet, we are creating a better news medium than the current corporate media, but these sites need your support, in the form of donations, subscriptions and fund-raisers.

6.3 Conclusion

    "We know where this train is going, and we're prepared to get in its way.

In other words, the only thing to do is to lay down on the tracks and hope that the train stops. Don't mention getting to the root of the problem by exposing the Big Lie. That might give people hope.


French.
Or try one of these actions: LocalSiteMap, of this page (last modified 2004-01-22 20:37:36)