Quote:
Originally Posted by kerowo
I don't care about the commission report, I trust Nova.
This raises a question of what sources are out there claiming to have put together the pieces. We were attacked. Initially there was no investigation and the potential investigation was compromised in many ways. This much has, hopefully, been firmly established.
So then we get the 9/11 commission, which is crap. Filling the void of explanation are various sources, most of who are crackpots. Then we get NIST on building 7. kerowo mentions Nova. Maybe we should try to establish what the official sources are and what the unofficial but trustworthy sources supplemental sources are. The government lost my trust. Other groups are cut off from the evidence, so how can I trust them draw higher level valid conclusions?
I think the logical approach is to not trust any source on this. Take the basic facts that are established and try to piece together a range of what could have happened while not ever being too confident. The problem with the commission report is the commission report. The problem with anything else is the lack of access to evidence. Trying to piece together what actually happened should be a very tenuous process as things stand.
The best outcome would be a new investigation by the U.N. of the attacks to be paralleled by an internal investigation aimed at exposing the criminal negligence of those in power at the time.