![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm aware that most rational people have apparently decided that the events of 9/11 are more or less as described in the government accounts and popular media.
This baffles me greatly, having spent a fair amount of time studying the available evidence. Even if you don't buy the alternative explanations, to say that the official story is essentially accurate and complete is overlooking some very serious contradictions -- and there is a great deal of evidence that it is not only wrong, but systematically and deliberately wrong.
A rational examination of the situation seems in order, then.
I started to make this one long post, but I'm realizing now that it might be more readable (and ensuing conversation less tangled) in several parts. So we'll start with the official story, and then look at the various positions on the accuracy of that story. I'll add links here as each part is posted.
Although the popular stance is largely based on the official story, my understanding is that the official story leaves a lot of gaps which have been "filled in" by the media and the public without any real evidence, and that there may even be some contradictions between popular and official views.
This baffles me greatly, having spent a fair amount of time studying the available evidence. Even if you don't buy the alternative explanations, to say that the official story is essentially accurate and complete is overlooking some very serious contradictions -- and there is a great deal of evidence that it is not only wrong, but systematically and deliberately wrong.
A rational examination of the situation seems in order, then.
I started to make this one long post, but I'm realizing now that it might be more readable (and ensuing conversation less tangled) in several parts. So we'll start with the official story, and then look at the various positions on the accuracy of that story. I'll add links here as each part is posted.
- Part 1: The Official Story
- Part 2: A Range of Positions
- Part 3: An Inside Job
- Part 4: WTC1, 2, & 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition
Terminology
I'll use "official" to mean what has been stated in a government-sanctioned report (e.g. the 9/11 Commission, the NIST study, possibly other documents), "popular" to mean what most people seem to believe and/or what is generally claimed in the popular media, and "contrarian" to mean any position disagreeing with both of those stances.Although the popular stance is largely based on the official story, my understanding is that the official story leaves a lot of gaps which have been "filled in" by the media and the public without any real evidence, and that there may even be some contradictions between popular and official views.
no subject
ping!
Re: ping!