Changes

:::*I think you have the idea; to simply say "the official report found no evidence..." is misleading for possibly two reasons, (a) incompetence of the report investigators; and (b) withheld information.  Either way, the report ''does not'' preclude complicity, as is often how its misquoted.  So we need a simple, straight forward narration of facts, which the Report gives, yet is still not detminative in certain areas.  While it is perhaps the best guide we can use, on the hand, we can not give what still may be accomplices a clean bill of health, based upon the Report.  The Report does not do so, it only says, 'we don't know'.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:::*I think you have the idea; to simply say "the official report found no evidence..." is misleading for possibly two reasons, (a) incompetence of the report investigators; and (b) withheld information.  Either way, the report ''does not'' preclude complicity, as is often how its misquoted.  So we need a simple, straight forward narration of facts, which the Report gives, yet is still not detminative in certain areas.  While it is perhaps the best guide we can use, on the hand, we can not give what still may be accomplices a clean bill of health, based upon the Report.  The Report does not do so, it only says, 'we don't know'.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

::::*Interesting. Are there other instances where the 9/11 commission is widely considered by experts to have been written by incompetents, or it is considered likely that information has been withheld, perhaps due to it being classified? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

::::*Interesting. Are there other instances where the 9/11 commission is widely considered by experts to have been written by incompetents, or it is considered likely that information has been withheld, perhaps due to it being classified? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Wait what ==

== Wait what ==