A friend called my 9/11 research 'surface level' and it made me dig deeper

I was talking about the official 9/11 report with a buddy last month, saying I thought it covered everything. He straight up told me, 'Your take is surface level, you're only reading the summary conclusions.' He pushed me to actually read the full 500 page report, not just the news articles about it. So I spent three weeks going through the whole thing, line by line. I found parts about the air defense response that didn't match the simple story we all hear. It wasn't about wild theories, but about the actual details in the document itself. Now I see why people debate the official story, the report has some real gaps. Has anyone else gone from skeptic to questioning after reading the primary source material?

2 comments

2 Comments

eva9081d ago

How many people actually read the full report? Most just repeat what they heard. You did the real work and saw the gaps yourself.

ben2061d ago

Yeah, the "surface level" comment would annoy me enough to read the whole thing too. I mean, nobody wants to be that guy who just repeats the summary. It's wild how the actual details in those big reports can tell a different story than the soundbite version everyone knows. Good on you for actually putting in the time, most people just get mad and don't open the pdf.