We also want to take the opportunity to thank those of you who have donated some of your hard-earned cash. It means a great deal to us.
Many people have been expressing a wish to support our work here. We have been a little reluctant to jump on the funding bandwagon, because we didn’t see ourselves as anything but a small group of people giving themselves a forum for expressing their own thoughts. But we have to admit OffG has grown beyond that original remit and now has a readership and output that does require a lot of hours and dedication. In addition we are fast outgrowing our original WordPress home and are planning to move to our own webspace, which will bring with it increased costs of hosting and maintenance. We figure the time may be right to listen to our readers. So, if any of you would like to send us some pennies in support of what we are doing, you can visit our new “support us” page. Your assistance would be very much appreciated at this time and would certainly help us in keeping this project moving forward.
by Catte The 9/11 series here has proved interesting in a number of ways. The scientific contributions have been thought-provoking, as has the BTL discussion, the level of which remains(with a few exceptions), consistently high. One thing it has made even more clear than it was before is the chasm between real skepticism and pseudoskepticism. Real skepticism is solidly sourced in analysis, probabilities and data. Pseudoskepticism is sourced in prejudice, a priori claims of certitude and arguments from authority. Real skepticism embraces debate, is concerned with ongoing research and avoids certitude. Pseudoskepticism has no interest in debate, eschews research, and wears certitude like a badge of office. Real skepticism has no need of ad hom. Pseudoskepticism uses ad hom as its one and only weapon. It’s easy to mistake one for the other, particularly in areas of specialty where we, as laypeople, have limited knowledge. If a scientist claims he has found thermite residue in the WTC dust, how easily do non-scientists evaluate that claim? And if websites emerge full of voices mocking the claim …
Due to the amount of support and attention our 9/11 fifteen years on section on has been getting we’re going to keep it running until at least the end of this week. So, please keep sending us material to firstname.lastname@example.org, and try to mark them “9/11” if you can, for clarity.
Fifteen years ago the idea of large scale false flags or government deceptions seemed absurd to all of us. But the unraveling of so many official narratives in recent years; the lies over WMDs, the lies over Ghouta, the lies over Libya and Ukraine, the repeat evidence for wholesale manipulation, if not fabrication, of events to promote war, means we don’t feel able to simply take the events of 9/11 on trust any more
OffG is hoping to field a series of articles in the run-up to the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy, looking at the questions and controversies that still persist. We’re after a wide spectrum of perspectives and opinion from the mainstream to the so-called “conspiratorial”. Scientific papers, personal commentary and political analysis are all welcome. It can be your own personal work or recommendations of other material. Send to us at email@example.com before Sep 10 2016. Looking forward to hearing from you.
One year ago today five (as we then were) longtime Guardian readers who were being repeatedly censored in and banished from the ironically titled “Comment is Free” sections, got together to create an outlet where they could express themselves freely.