Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
First draft of history.
A 9/11 Commissioner's words, not mine.
So *********** what? Yes, part of the aim of the 9/11 Commission was to find out what happened and why, and in that sense to write a 'first draft of history'; subsequent drafts would be compiled, as one might expect, by historians studying the events and adding their own commentaries.
Or are you referring to the NIST investigation into the WTC destruction that was a PROVED FRAUD? Fraud, Oystein! That doesn't bother you when NIST screws with their computer model to make their desired scenario work, and even then it doesn't match with the photographic evidence, etc.?
We know that the aim of the NIST investigations was to determine likely failure modes of the buildings that could then be engineered out in future construction. They did so, and their results are widely accepted by competent structural engineers (as opposed to incompetent armchair critics). Since your claim of fraud is untrue, does that therefore make you a proven liar?
Unsatisfactory also in the sense that there are so many anomalies with the WTC that they never bothered explaining, like the foreknowledge of WTC 7.
They also never explained why the video recorder often misses the first minute of the program, the toast always falls butter side down, or the second cup of coffee never tastes quite as good as the first. In fact, they didn't explain anything irrelevant to the failure modes of the building. Oh, the horror.
One wonders whether the inability of 9/11 truthers to understand that, when two skyscrapers have just collapsed and a third has been burning unchecked for several hours, someone with a functioning brain cell might think it likely that the third will collapse, is wilful or simply innate stupidity, but there isn't really a third option.
Dave
($145 for Newsbud members).