999... I suppose I 'could' follow links to determine the owner of that site, but that is not how I decide about facts.

Is the question a subtle remark indicating that YOU know?

Rather than worry about who owns the site, I prefer to look at the volume of evidence presented...by this and the many other sites in the links they provide (One of the best reports I remember was the Popular Mechanics article. I doubt that they have any hidden agenda).

All in all, I find after reading many, many analyses of the incident...and especially Bdlg 7.... that all the 'suspicious' sounds, pics, interviews, videos and guesses have been answered, explained, debunked and cleared up by reviewing building plans, timelines, other pics, videos, interviews...etc... by qualified experts with no stake in the outcome.

Finally, I rely on my own powers of reason to evaluate the claims and their answers AS claims & answers.
What I find is that most conspiracy claims are only credible **internally** - that is, using their own premises and assertions to support and defend their own conclusions (commonly called 'circular reasoning' or begging the question. When one area is contradicted, they step sideways and 'refer' to another, as if daring one to stick pins in all points at once. They simply do not directly answer the debunkers on major points.
(It would take more than I am able to type right now to document all the connections and breaks in logic I find.)


further, deponent sayeth not