reply to post by Titan Uranus
Lets take the Official Story and put it in terms of bigfoot. If I wrote a report that was thousands of pages long, had DNA samples, photographs,
scat, and eye-witness testimony that Bigfoot was real. And it was highly conclusive, but I knew it would be unpopular. AND it was my job to turn in
the report to superiors that were not going to like my findings. AND I knew those superiors would not read the report in its entirety, and even if
they did read it they probably wouldn't understand all the details. I could leave all the facts and proof that Bigfoot was real, yet I could write a
single page conclusion that our data was inconclusive and Bigfoot likely did not exist.
Problem solved. Superiors happy. Data still intact and factual for anyone wanting to know the truth for themselves. And I get to keep my career.
That is what we have here. We have a very long, very detailed, very scientific report that proves the towers did not come down as a result of heat
and impact. Then we have a short, vague, politically correct conclusion that was drawn up to satisfy their handlers and make for good public
If Hooper and others want to believe the Official Story, that is fine, but they should read it in its entirety instead of letting some politician
paraphrase it for them. If they read the "real" Official Report, they would be truthers.