Unpopular opinion: the 'official story' on the 2001 anthrax attacks is more solid than the 9/11 Commission Report
I spent a good six months last year digging into both, reading the FBI's Amerithrax case file and the full 9/11 report. The anthrax investigation, for all its early missteps, actually followed a clear, evidence-based trail to a single suspect with the means and the specific lab strain. The physical evidence, like the unique spore prep, was pretty damning. The 9/11 report, by contrast, leaves huge gaps, like the total failure to explain how the defense systems were bypassed that morning. It relies way too much on 'this is what we think happened' without the hard science to back it all up. One is a flawed but finished puzzle, the other feels like a picture with half the pieces missing. Has anyone else gone deep on comparing these two major post-9/11 events and come to a different take?