Innacuracies of the 9/11 Commission Report

Discussion in '9/11' started by happy fun dude, Aug 6, 2011.

  1. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whether caused by lying or stupidity, possibly both, some things provable as lies, I'll list just some of the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) about this report.

    We won't get into lack of substantiation, heresay, crucial ommissions of contradictory evidence, conflicts of interest, being lied to by basically the whole government, being puppetted by the government, or any of the massive plethora of reasons why the report is invalid and dubious.

    Just things they did say, but that are completely wrong.

    1) The government never considered planes being used as weapons before 9/11

    2) The FBI didn't have enough counterterrorism funding, they were underfunded and impotent so couldn't stop the plot.

    3) The alleged "wall" between agencies which prevented intelligence sharing.

    4) The military wasn't notified of flight 93 being hijacked until after it crashed, also got the time of crash wrong

    5) Bush's SS detail didn't know about the threat

    6) Not enough fighter coverage and the fighters they lauched were the only ones available for that distance.

    7) Cheney didn't arrive at the presidential emergency operations center until 9:58

    8) Claiming there is a long and time consuming chain of command to get intercepts when really there's not.

    9) When flight 77 went dark, nobody was informed of a possible hijacking, Indianapolis ATC just figured it must have crashed! What a whopper!

    10) No specific warnings were received about an impending attack by the government.

    11) Claims that certain hijackers were not flagged or on a watch list or being surveilled at all, or such suspicion under-represented, and so were allowed in the country and in some cases into flight school, even Ziad Samir Jarrah, Hani Hanjour and Mohammed Atta.

    I might post some more lies later.. There's more than enough reason to know their story is fundamentally flawed.. That the major points are flat wrong.

    The fundamental meat of the narrative presented is that the U.S. government was basically clueless about an upcoming attack, were caught completely by surprise, there was too much beuracracy and insane procedures in place to stop a timely reaction to it, that the hijackers flew under the radar and were plotting unbenownst to the authorities, and the investigations didn't unfoil the plot because they weren't sharing information in the intelligence community between agencies. This long chain of incompetence and a flawed system in place, that is the crux of the 9/11 commission's explanation about the failures about what happened (what they were charged by congress to do) is, as you can see, demonstratably false.
     
  2. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can you reference each of these points in the report itself, or should we just take your word for it?
     
  3. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, and here I thought you'd be familiar with the official dogma and what it says.

    I've not got all day, so tell me the one you're MOST skeptical of and I'll show you where they said it.
     
  4. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why don't you just start with number one? You claim:

    Show me where that is stated in the 9/11 Commission Report.
     
  5. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    HappyFD? Point number one?
     
  6. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here it is, referenced claim #98 in 1. "We Have Some Planes"

    "Exercise planners also assumed that the aircraft would originate from outside the United States, allowing time to identify the target and scramble interceptors. The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States-and using them as guided missiles-was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11."

    This is of course completely false. NORAD were indeed planning exercizes of domestic aircraft used as weapons.
     
  7. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting. The paragraph before that states:

    So they did consider "planes being used as weapons", just not hijacked commercial domestic aircraft.

    Also, in chapter 11

    So where is the lie?
     
  8. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I admit that is not a lie..

    The quote I posted was the lie.
     
  9. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can you show evidence that NORAD planned the use of domestic aircraft as weapons before 9/11?
     
  10. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course not.. I don't think NORAD would have ever planned to use domestic aircraft as weapons. They planned readiness exercizes on how to respond to such a thing.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm
     
  11. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're off to a poor start....gee what a shock?:omg:

    The 9/11 Commission report remains 100% on the major points of 9/11. And you remain 100% silly in your lame assed attempts to paint it any other way.

    He he he
     
  12. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My mistake, I left out one word. Let's try that again:

    Can you show evidence that NORAD planned for the use of domestic aircraft as weapons before 9/11?

    In your link, the USA Today article agrees with what I posted from the 9/11 Commission report:

    So this is not evidence of a lie in the report.
     
  13. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So if the source mentioned any plans of exercizes about hijacked domestic aircraft by NORAD, then would you be satisfied that this is proof the report was incorrect about that?
     
  14. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The article mentions one exception, written in July 2001.

    Just stated in the report. Are you trying to prove maliciousness based solely on semantics?
     
  15. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So there you go... July 2001 was before 9/11 2001.

    There's the evidence you wanted.

    Who said anything about maliciousness? I'm simply demonstrating how the commission report narrative is incorrect.
     
  16. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What's wrong?? Can't refute any of the mistakes?

    Too bad.
     
  17. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Reread your own OP. If all you're going to offer is semantic arguments, there's nothing really to discuss.
     
  18. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Don't care to...such as debating what time the VP made it to a room? Seriously...10 years later and this is what you're focusing on?

    I think you're closing in on the culprits there Columbo!

    The major points are all 100% correct in the 9/11 Commission Report and you still fail to quote any major inaccuracies.

    You can't,
    You won't.
     
  19. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What she's trying to do is get us to say the report is flawed and on some minor details he may be right. But on the major facts of the attacks; the Commission Report is 100% correct and bullet proof. She can't go there because she knows it.
     
  20. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh look candycorn tries to call me a she to hurt my feelings! Just like you can expect from a child!

    Why don't you ask the families of 9/11 victims, the ones who asked the questions at the hearings and pushed for the investigation in the first place, what the major issues are. What THEY want to know in order to have closure.

    Was one of the questions they demanded answers to about how the planes crashed, and the name of the guy flying it? Nope.. They wanted to know about who could plan such an attack and why their government was unable to protect their loved ones.. You need to do some research about your commission and what they were charged to do and what the questions were that they were posed as you're completely clueless here.
     
  21. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nothing in the op says anything about "malice"..

    Now as far as offering arguments is concerned, I have done, and proven the report is incorrect. I'm awaiting any possible rebuttals here. I've just proven the report was wrong in NORAD never recognized such a threat like that.
     
  22. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Very humorous. The semantic comedian strikes again.

    Now that you've 'proven' it ... what are your plans?
     
  23. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well seeing my long list of errors showing the commission report is fundamentally flawed and their main story about the attack being a "surprise" has been completely disproven, I think I'll visit some other threads, then it's off to Disneyland!
     
  24. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We are all quite familiar with your long list of errors. It keeps getting longer.

    You might want to send some 'love' to the "One" event. (Before the copyright infringement lawsuit, that is.)

    </fun with semantics>
     
  25. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh.. What's wrong? Can't stand behind your 9/11 commission report and defend it?? Must resort to pulling quotes out of context to make personal attacks?

    Next time, use the elipses.... It's just a few periods to let people know that there was surrounding context.. What you did is what's called a misquote, and is highly disingenious.

    I clearly said the REPORT had the errors.

    Which you CAN'T refute.

    I NEVER figured you to be so disingenious and resort to such intellectual dishonesty as misquotes out of context like that.
     

Share This Page