Regarding the 9/11 Commission Report, it does have one very clear and considerable benefit over your mere subjective opinion: it presents a reasonable scenario and comes filled with a considerable amount of supporting information, and it cites supporting documentation that substantiates the account outlined within the report. That accounting and the supporting evidence can be examined. Because the document is published, it can even be refuted IF new and substantial evidence can be presented that will counter what is contained within it. To that end, it presents a far superior accounting of the events of leading up to an including that day than any other claim or conjecture out there. In fact, it is the only such comprehensive document. No conspiracy claim has come anywhere close to being as comprehensive as this report.
It's also worth noting Kamux that you have stated here on this thread that you have not read the report, do not know what is contained within it, and are incapable of refuting any portion of it. You simply repudiate it because you operate solely on the basis of your unsupported beliefs and imagination, and not on the basis of reason.
Seriously Kamuix, why don't you go back and do that rather than having someone else do your homework? Too much effort for you? Why don't you pretend to show what you're talking about and start presenting some real evidence to support your claim of a government conspiracy? You've had over ten years to come up with something. Time to present it, or finally admit that you have zero.Seriously ceaz40 go back through this thread and read some of the arguments me and Griss had going back and fourth at each other and analyze them and you'll see that you cannot have a discussion with him and that his mind is completely closed. He'll write big sentences and paragraphs with good grammar and spelling as kind of a cover to make himself appear as if he knows what he's talking about, but when you take a closer look you'll quickly see that all he does is manipulate the entire discussion.
In short Kamoox, verifiable means accurate or justifiable. Just because you don't know what that word means doesn't get you off the hook. The fact that you are either so confused or so incapable of producing anything remotely sufficient for supporting your baseless conspiracy claims is your problem, not mine. It's you making a claim, so it's your responsibility to support it. Verifiable evidence, as explained to you so many times before, has nothing to do with government. Your vague usage of "mainstream" only further points to your confusions regarding the meanings of words. To you "mainstream" is suspect, but you fail to explain why. Your only likely justification is that it serves as a counterpoint to your wild array of unjustified and unsupported "non-mainstream" conspiracy beliefs. As for your worries about "official" documents, it has been pointed out to you over and over that you can refute any document or account only if you have the verifiable evidence that can support such a refutation. You don't. As noted, you have not bothered to read 9/11 Commission Report, you cannot refute the account contained within that document and you don't have any evidence with which to do so. Moreover, you have failed to present any remotely comprehensible, verifiable accounting for what you believe took place, the conspirators, and you certainly have not offered anything that could begin to even support such claims.So If you don't show "verifiable evidence" then there's no way Grissle will take it into consideration. But wait.. If it's not "Official" or "Mainstream" or a "Government Document" then to Grissle it's not "verifiable evidence". Do you see what i'm saying? In other words he beleives everything the corporate media tells him and he'll go to any length to try and make anyone else who questions their government look stupid even if he has to manipulate like theres no tomorrow.
In short, you offer nothing to manipulate.