Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.
Reading and Navigating Blogs
Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.
Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.
For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.
All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.
Creating Blog Posts
If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.
You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.
Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.
The simple reason why I presume that the official story is probably true is that it seems to me by far the most credible one. I've explained why in earlier posts, and also why the whole matter is very far from high priority for me.
Since there is such a flood of letters about this matter, mostly to me personally, perhaps it is worth adding something that I've left out because I do not want to become embroiled in what seem to me pointless discussions, diverting energy from matters that seem to me far more important.
One of these is to focus attention on the Bush administration's ongoing contributions to enhancing the risk of terrorism, including very serious terrorist attacks against the US. Even if the cyberspace and other conclusions about 9/11 were credible they would not begin to compare with Bush administration actions that are hardly controversial and that have or threaten far more hideous effects. In comparison with these clear cases, for which evidence is overwhelming from the most respectable mainstream sources, the involvement of the Bush administration in 9/11, if it could be supported, would amount to very little. To take an obvious example, consider the invasion of Iraq.
Quite apart from the massive crimes against Iraqis, the invasion was undertaken with the expectation, since amply confirmed, that it would increase the threat of jihadist terror of the kind that the Reaganites organized in the 1980s, as well as proliferation. Former defense secretaries (including McNamara) and prominent strategic analysts estimate the likelihood of nuclear terror in the US at about 50% in the next decade: alongside that, and its likely aftermath, 9/11 would pale into insignificance. And that's the least of it. The policies of aggressive militarism and "transformation of the military" are, as predicted, driving potential rivals to react in ways that greatly enhance the risk of possibly terminal nuclear war, maybe by accident, maybe by leaking of WMD technology to terrorists, maybe in other ways.
All of these matters are well-established, rarely discussed, and vastly more significant that any possible Bush administration involvement in 9/11.
…I might perhaps add that this whole matter reminds of a DOD document on declassification a few years ago. It suggests that "interesting declassified material" such as information about the JFK assassination could be released and even posted on the internet as a "diversion,"
which might "reduce the unrestrained public appetite for `secrets' by providing good faith distraction material." The idea, according to the
(outstanding) British intelligence analyst who published the document, is that if investigators are absorbed with the grassy knoll they won't probe into serious areas where they are unwelcome.