derek_lee•8d agoProlific Poster

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?

3 comments

3 Comments

emma4558d ago

Honestly, that's a really interesting point I hadn't considered. I mostly remember the anthrax stuff for the sheer panic it caused. Getting mail felt scary for years after. You're right that they did pin it on one guy with a solid lab link. The 9/11 report always felt rushed, like they just needed to give some answer to the public. The whole day was so chaotic, maybe they just couldn't ever get a full picture.

ray_sullivan8d ago

Forget the full picture, they just needed a story to tell.

young.ryan8d ago

Yeah, ever feel like some answers just leave you with more questions? I get that same unfinished feeling with the 9/11 report, like they just stopped digging where it got hard. The anthrax thing at least had a paper trail you could follow.