... in such little space?
"revision of history" implies some core concept or conclusion has been changed by the discovery of new information. In the case of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the exact opposite is true.
Not one single 9/11CT "theory" has borne the slightest fruit. Not one has proven to be valid.
OTOH, the conclusions put forward by NIST in their report have now undergone 5 years of examination by the engineering community & have been accepted. To be clear, I am talking about all technical "what happened, why did they collapse" aspects.
NIST made a bunch of regulatory recommendations, related to the design of new buildings. Some of these have been accepted & implemented, mostly related to issues of "better adherence of insulation, widely separated & better protected stairwells, and more attention to "progressive failure modes & analysis". That is, ways to help the building stand longer & get the people out.
Others were controversial, some accepted and many (I believe correctly) rejected by the structural engineering community as too costly, with too little return. These were issues related to "making buildings more survivable to airplane impact" & retrofitting older structures. These were rejected principally because, while it is entirely feasible to make buildings "more robust" (at tremendous cost), it is impossible to design (or retrofit) any modern high rise "to be able to withstand a plane impact" of the 9/11 type. This correct statement should be eye-opening to those who still labor under the delusion that the WTC towers were "designed to withstand a plane impact". That's a (fascinating, from an engineering POV) urban myth.
Not one code change for "thermite detection" or "inspection for secretly planted explosives" has been brought forward. Well, has not survived the "laughed out of the room at first suggestion" test, at least.
And many, many changes have been made in the airline industry to enormously strengthen the "keep terrorists off of the plane" & especially "out of the cockpit" procedures.
ALL of the above (last 7 years of engineering) history in multiple disciplines confirms NIST's conclusions.
And verifies that "revision of history", in its big picture in this case, is not only unnecessary, but incorrect.
As far as the revision that Truthers are looking for ("OBL innocent, Bush/Cheney et al guilty"
, keep dreaming.
___
What "luminaries" have put forth the silly, silly theory that you claim?
True, academic "revision of history" happens all the time. And most of it shows that earlier academic historians did an excellent job with the info that they had. Most of it fills in some blanks, broadens perspectives & ends up strengthening & supporting previous conclusions.
"Revisionist history", the kind that turns previous big picture 180° (again, the type Truthers are looking for, here) is to the 99th percentile, a bad joke. And is the polar opposite of the very word "history". (Examples "America had foreknowledge of, or pushed Japan into, Pearl harbor attack", "Eisenhower's 7 million murdered German POWs", & "US's foreknowledge of 9/11 attacks & stand down of defenses" .
Yup, that stuff is "for lunatics". And politically driven ideologues. And Angry Young Men. And DVD selling shysters.
BTW, "the US gov't does not lie" is not part of any real history. That's also an ideologue's delusion.
And the US Gov't wrote not one word of NIST's conclusions. The NIST report is not "Da Gubbamint's" (or even "The Government's) story. It is the considered conclusions of over 200 professional, accomplished engineers.
Conclusions which, the US government, in a all-too-rare demonstration of good judgment & common sense, accepted.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read