You see this is the thing I don't get. Why do some people feel if you don't believe that 9/11 was a inside job then some how you must believe 100% of the official story and the 9/11 report. My guess is you can't find more then a handful of people who believe the report is 100% right. The 9/11 report was and is today very much about politics don't kid yourself and to thinking it is anything more then politics and I think most people know that.
O.K. Good. Its politics. . Maybe so. . I suppose there could be a conspiracy among some persons, for political reasons, to falsely discredit the Report, if that is what you are suggesting. . It's happened in the past, so sure, its possible.
1) However, One Commission Chairman is Republican. . One Chairman is a Democrat. . Both are retracting their support for the study (see the 2nd video I provided). . Both, joined by other Commissioners say that Administration Officials and Military officers lied to them during the hearings. . And now they are not sure what really happened. . They are joined by Commission Legal Counsel John Farmer who backs them all up. . Do you have any evidence that this is merely political? Can you tell us what party is at fault? . You see, with Commissioners from both parties withdrawing support for their findings, which party, and what politics do we point to in support of your theory?
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september112009/911_truth_9-11-09.php
2) Lets just pretend that we all agree here that the turmoil among the Commissioners is merely political, nothing more (your theory). . If so, when did this hand picked bi-partisan group of Commissioners get so political that we suddenly can't trust them? . They wrote the report that posters here are trying to defend. . At what point did the Commissioners start letting politics govern their opinions and actions. . Did it begin when they were writing the Report that posters are defending, or did they spin out of control after report completion? Which part of what these suddenly "highly partisan politcal operatives" have told us can we trust? Which part should we reject? . You say they cannot be trusted? O.K. That's possible. . But were they being untruthful then or now? It does not seem to me like we can defend the integrity of their judgement with regards to their initial Report, and then suddenly declare them to be political hacks when they update their findings.
You see Gonzo, I'm not alleging that there was an inside job. . I'm not alleging anything .. I don't know what happened. . And I'll concede, just for the sake of argument here, that these Commissioners make statements based upon political considerations, not facts. . O.K.? But if I accept your theory, doesn't that take me right back to Square 1? Who can I trust, and what really happened on 911?
I don't think many Americans like the idea of accepting any story other than the "Official Story" since it largely exonerates the American people and their government officials of intentional wrongdoing. . I certainly wanted to accept the story. . My question though is - how do I defend a Report that's own authors say they were wrong, and we should now question everything? How do I defend a Report that's authors (using your theory if I understand it correctly), were reliable when they wrote the Report, but cannot be trusted now?
