Are they unwittingly admitting that the "Official True Story" is a lie?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

I have begun to be more and more irritated by the word "official" in the advertising of this travesty Path to 9/11.

But now I am wondering if it isn't a subconscious admission that the "official" story, is in fact a pack of lies. They (the filmakers) obviously KNOW that they made up stuff that didn't happen. Are they saying that any "official" story will be filled with distortions, inaccuracies and downright lies?

Who, where and when said that this bilge is the "official" version of events? It does not adhere to the known written record or the record of the 911 Commission. Where do they get off using this word? Why don't they make the more correct claim that it is the "Disney" version - fantasy combined with cartoon characterzations.

I also read a post from a New Zealander that said there were NO disclaimers!

[peacebird]

1. All I want is for tomorrows news headlines to read "Clinton SUES ABC"

I want to see lawsuits filed by Clinton, Berger, Albright and any other person libelled by this monumental pile of horse-pucky.

[Nite Owl]

2. Me too.

They absolutely must sue.

[Nozebro]

3. One good story deserves another good story. They're both MOVIES.

No need to get uptight. The Bushco 9/11 is a fantasy; likewise "Path to 9/11".

[mrfrapp]

4. It is interesting.

How can something be the "official true story"? Either it's true or it isn't. Branding the "truth" as "official" is tantamount to admitting that truth is decided by fiat and not by facts.

[EFerrari]

5. Yes. They are forcing us to notice the difference between

"official" and true.

Exactly.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. Im starting to wonder if something can be both "official" and "true"

In this case, it is neither.

Is this blatent false advertisement?

[EFerrari]

7. Yes, it is. Except, it's officially true.

:)