What exactly is the official word on 911?

Exactly as the topic suggests. From what i understand there was there is more than one report. Also from what I understand there were glaring errors in the 911 commission report and the NIST report. What is 'official'? Link me please. More than one is fine if thats the case. Thanks in advance.

Another question would be who quotes what report how often. I'm looking for any anomalies someone might have documented. For example my best friend frequents a site that monitors BushCo's relative approval rating and terror levels/warnings/activities. The corelation found there is for another thread, I was just wondering if any had been drawn relative to what I'm asking. For examples if one report was more damning than another and it was quoted 500% more by republicans (just an example not an accusation).

Feel free to interject your own thoughts on this also. Im not only interested in what the 'official' report(s) say, but what my esteemed colleagues here at ATS have to say about it.

what do u consider official???

I have heard reports from police, fire, and news people at GZ that they heard explosions,

So what are you referring to as Official??

If you wanna know the official deal, go read the 2 fairy tales called Reports from NIST and FEMA.. Hell might as well throw the 9/11 commission report in there also.

[edit on 8/11/2007 by ThichHeaded]

The only federal report into 9/11 in general was the 9/11 Commission Report. The only two federal reports into the collapses at the WTC were the FEMA 2002 report and the NIST report.

FEMA's was preliminary, and they gave a vague theory and using contradictory explanatory diagrams. For example, one of their diagrams suggested that the trusses deflected the outer columns by expanding, while another suggesting the same by sagging and pulling them inwards in the opposite direction. These diagrams were sequential and the obvious contradiction was treated as if it didn't exist, not surprisingly. They also made suggestions of a pancake-type collapse of the floors, which NIST contradicted.

NIST's report was put out in an attempt to make more sense than FEMA, basically. None of their experimental data supported their major hypothesis, and in fact they didn't even test their main hypothesis, that the floors could sag and therefore deflect perimeter columns enough to start a global collapse.

Originally posted by jprophet420
Another question would be who quotes what report how often.

A lot of people quote official reports simply for references to specific information (ie, how many perimeter columns were knocked out during the impacts, or information on the structures themselves, etc.), or just to show problems with the reports themselves, but otherwise there's nothing of value in them frankly, or at least nothing much worse discussing. The NIST report is some 10,000 pages + or some ridiculous number like that, and most of it is just irrelevant and dumbed-down minutia. Padding, I guess, to make it look more authoritative but to make it harder to get to the meat of what they're really saying.

Originally posted by bsbray11
The NIST report is some 10,000 pages + or some ridiculous number like that, and most of it is just irrelevant and dumbed-down minutia. Padding, I guess, to make it look more authoritative but to make it harder to get to the meat of what they're really saying.

Agreed! Trying to get though it is excuciating. Just like The 911 Commissions Report, full of foofy B.S. maybe to make the casual reader simply give up before realizing what a load of **** it is!

[edit on 8/12/2007 by infinityoreilly]