How would i cite the 9/11 Commission Report?
Each style of citation addresses this differently and varies widely on what details are important and expected in your citation. Neither citation method is "better" than the other; the citation method you use is determined by what type of paper you are writing. As a quick and dirty breakdown, APA is used for scientific papers and MLA for humanities. I would recommend asking your instructor what citation method is expected. For additional information on citation, I would really recommend checking out http://owl.english.purdue.edu/ .
How would you cite the 9/11 Commission report?
for bibliography cite the government agency first then the title of the report then year i.e.: US DOJ - DEA "To Speak Against: The Drug War" 2003 for in paper citation i'm not sure if APA allows for foot notes cause thats always a good way to go, but you could say: according to the [agency that released the report] "..." p.s. trying to prove that 9/11 is a lost cause, if the government has no problem killing 5000+ people why would they have a problem killing the people coming up with the conspiracies
The 9/11 Commission Report, Fact ? Fiction ? Obtuse obstruction ?
I call it the 9/11Conmission report, or the 9/11 Omission report. Even the authors are now saying that they were not provided with all the information. It is obviously just a cover story for the government conspiracy. There are many other questions, besides those on the video, which actually lead to a logical theory that there were no plans, and hence no hijackers. How else could 7 of the so-called hijackers still be alive. How could 8 black boxes and 16 huge endgines just disappear. How could hijackers board the planes unnoticed, and without appearing on a passenger list etc.etc. The 9/11 commission rteport is obviously fiction. For a logical explanation of what really happened, see below. Detailed research notes are available on links
What are some findings by the 9/11 Commission Report that are said to be false or disputed?
Sorry, but all I can contribute to this question is, ‘who cares?’.The whole Commission is a farce, it was, for all intents and purposes, written up before it even began. It was never intended to be any kind of investigation into the events surrounding 9/11, it was only sold as such.Don’t waste any time on it, it’s not credible, and was crafted by insiders to misdirect and deceive.
What is your review of The 9/11 Commission Report?
As Winston Smith correctly points out, nothing but a whitewash.One of the commissioners, Thomas Kean, said that the Commission was “setup to fail”.But if it’s a review of the 9/11 Commission you want, no one does it better than James Corbett:Consider carefully the last, roughly, 2 1/2 mins, and Zelikow’s obsessions with managing and creating myths.Edit: Oh, and if you’re interested in the equally corrupted NIST report, see here:Richard Leger's answer to Does the fact that the WTC buildings came down at a free-fall speed into their footprints indicate the use of explosives?
Considering so many unanswered questions, will President Obama ever reopen 9/11 investigation?
It's not likely, given his philosophy of looking forward, not back. At this point the Democrats are just as deep into the coverup of 9/11 as the Republicans are.President Obama has a record of abject cowardice. He refused to investigate crimes to which members of the Bush administration have publicly admitted, he caved in to the Generals to indulge a pointless escalation in Afghhanistan, and he wouldn't even try to fulfill his promise to close the Guantanamo facility.Reportedly, when friends chided him about his failure to pursue a more progressive agenda, his response was the say "Don’t you remember what happened to Dr. King?”Don't expect anything from Obama.