About Fishy 9/11
The view from Sunnyside, Queens
September 11, 2001
Why another 9/11 Web site? When I first started looking into this 9/11 stuff, I was quickly overwhelmed: loads of information, much of it shouted, sarcastic debunkers, angry rebuttals, wah! Overload! If it wasn't such an important story, I'd have just said the hell with it. But as a New Yorker who watched those towers fall, I can't seem to get it out of my head. Since I'm a Web site guy, I decided just to collect what evidence I could, organize it in some sensible way, and create the sort of site that I would want to use, where you can go through methodically, know what you've seen and haven't seen, find new stuff easily, and also get a sense from other people what they think of it all. It is certainly not the most comprehensive nor the most authoritative 9/11 site in the world, but I hope that, in its overall design and user-friendliness, it might help make these issues more accessible to more people and in that way add more than extra noise to the 9/11 landscape.
Bear in mind: I have tried to be as brief as possible while doing some justice to the topics. Everything done in one or two paragraphs here has been done extensively at great length and in far greater detail elsewhere. So don't take what you see here as the best defense of anything or the best explanation. Think of it more as an attempt at a brief summary, hopefully intriguing enough to get you to do further research. The Web is great but books are better. There's too much information to read on a computer screen all at once. Sit down with a good book in a receptive mood. I can recommend The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin as an excellent starting point. If the sarcastic "Debunking 9/11" crowd start to get to you, try Griffin's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking." That's your advanced homework. But do check out the debunkers. Give them an open mind too. Weigh it out for yourself.
Features
The site is really designed for the logged-in user, although it remains fully searchable and navigable for any visitor. By logging in you activate additional functionality: you can participate in discussions, rate how suspicious a piece of evidence is, and see summaries with quick links to any new evidence or comments you haven't seen yet. The suspiciousness rating is a four-star system:
| Key | Meaning |
|---|---|
 | Not very suspicious |
| Somewhat suspicious |
| Rather suspicious |
| Extremely suspicious |
Sources
I've basically relied on three books, a couple of DVDs, a lecture or two, and a bunch of Web sites.
Web sites: Pilots for 9/11 Truth is the place to go for professional pilots' views on whether the alleged hijackers could have done what they are supposed to have done, and for analysis of flight data recorder information; 911truth.org is a good general starting point; 911research.wtc7.net has good technical articles; and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is good for building collapse stuff.
DVDs: Pandora's Black Box Part II: The Flight of American 77, from the Pilots for 9/11 Truth, has loads of good stuff about the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon. It contains detailed analysis of the flight data recorder, and of the two separate and different flight path animations provided by the NTSB and the official 9/11 Commission, respectively. The Truth Is In Your Hands is another one I picked up, a good overview that contains some of the best visual evidence I've seen for bombs at the WTC. Then there's 9/11 Blueprint for Truth: The Architecture of Destruction from Richard Gage, professional architect and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which has Mr. Gage's multimedia presentation at the University of Manitoba, a strongly persuasive case that the collapses of the twin towers and Building 7 were controlled demolitions.
Books: The main book I have relied on is David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor, which is a model of calmly reasoned, well-balanced analysis. It's the only source I've run across that bothers to turn around and question the hard-to-swallow aspects of the government-complicity theory with as much rigor as it questions the official story. Every place you see 'Griffin' cited alone, it means this book, the updated second edition with the special new Afterword. Later, I read his Debunking 9/11 Debunking, which is a great place to go for highly detailed analysis of the latest official stories and the people who think they are debunking the government complicity theories. Again, it is calmly and soundly reasoned and very well researched. When relying on this book, I cite it by name with Griffin in parentheses. When I've cited 'Marrs', that's Jim Marrs' book The Terror Conspiracy. Mr. Marrs goes a few places I wouldn't go (e.g., his section on psychic evidence), but even so this is a useful and fairly comprehensive repository of mostly well-documented facts, plus some instructive historical background.