|
No doubt about it, these 25 retired high-ranking military officers have their disagreements with the official reports of Sept 11th. And I suspect disagreements with the official accounts could be found in many - perhaps hundreds - more former and current military officers. No surprise there at all.
But these 25 do not necessarily all find fault with the same issues in the official accounts -- some quibble about the handling of hijacking reports, some about the way the jets were destroyed or what should have remained of them, and so forth. Only a very few seem willing to deny that jetliners crashed into the WTC, or that the towers fell down as a result of the jet crashes, while some others are willing to believe that the jetliners crashed but are suggesting that our govt let them crash, and some are willing to accept that the jetliners crashed because they were flown by suicide hijackers as reported but quibble whether Al-qaeda should be blamed. And so many more combinations and permutations of what could and couldn't have happened.
For the most part, the "debunkers" of the conspiracy theorists have confined themselves to the questions of whether planes were flown into the WTC towers and the WTC towers collapsed as described. The issues of who was behind it and who may have allowed to happen are not within their realm of argument - although frequently within the issues raised by these 25 military officers.
The point I an trying to make is that, despite the commonality of having doubts and disagreements with the official reports, not all these 25 officers actually collide with the people (such as the editors of Popular Mechanics) who have defended the physical facts of the collapse of the WTC buildings.
|