Innacuracies of the 9/11 Commission Report

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

  1. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm fine deciding on my own what the major points are....they are:

    19 men from the Middle East hijacked
    4 planes and crashed them into
    3 buildings and
    1 field in Pennsylvania

    Those are the major points.
    The 9/11 Commission Report is 100% correct on the major points.

    Always has been,
    Always will be.

    But keep playing the hand about the time the VP arrived at a room; the public really seems to care:bored:

    Any word yet on the book you said claimed GWB posed for pictures outside of the elementary school? No? Okay....carry on.
     
  2. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How can they be "100% correct" about something if they got the timeline wrong?

    100% correct means perfectly accurate, there is NO margin of error even by a single minute.

    You've been proven a liar that it's 100% correct about YOUR list of "major points".

    Any word yet about the 9/11 commission report printed by the government you claim exists? Nope... Didn't think so. Liar.
     
  3. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Major points, right on the major points....chinchilla. Get back in your cage.

    Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
     
  4. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Must be.. I read "100% correct" to mean it doesn't have even the slightest mistake.

    That IS what "100%" means, last I checked.
     
  5. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think you've disproven "their main story about the attack being a 'surprise.'" at all. You have not shown that the claimed unknown aspects of the attack constituted their "main story." You have not shown that the claimed unknown aspects of the attack were indeed known. You've drawn an inference based logical fallacy. To plan to counter an attack method is not the same as the possession of foreknowledge of a specific attack.

    I may have considered a plan to defend my family from a home invader. That doesn't mean I know who is going to invade my home, when they are going to invade my home, and how they are going to invade my home.
     
  6. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pertinent passage in bold for the learning disabled.
     
  7. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course I have and the commission report, in their introduction where they summarize their work themselves, makes it perfectly clear for you:

    "The nation was unprepared".

    "The 9/11 attack was driven by Usama Bin Ladin."

    "On 9/11, the defense of U.S. air space depended on close interaction between two federal agencies: the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). Existing protocols on 9/11 were unsuited in every respect for an attack in which hijacked planes were used as weapons. What ensued was a hurried attempt to improvise a defense by civilians who had never handled a hijacked aircraft that attempted to disappear, and by a military unprepared for the transformation of commercial aircraft into weapons of mass destruction."

    Here's exactly their "main story" as THEY describe for you.

    What ELSE is the main idea of their narrative? That they were prepared and capable of handling the attack but decided not to for some reason? Something that more closely resembles reality?

    They knew more than they needed to. They knew that terrorists were going to flight school in the United States.

    They chose to NOT do something about it..

    Now you round the guys up and ask them the details about the attack. Or just leave it like they did do.

    There are multiple plans to defend your home that you don't even need to know who wants to break in.. You can get a big mean dog.. The dog won't discriminate.. He'll bite anybody that comes in.. Get an alarm system maybe. Or a gun.. Then you can ask them who they are and what they are up to before deciding whether or not to shoot them.

    The only one making a fallacy here is you... You don't HAVE TO know EVERYTHING about the attack to the letter or else you can't stop it.. You just need to follow your leads to get to the guys plotting it. Once you've got them in custody, it doesn't so much matter when the attacks are set for.
     
  8. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes pertinent parts in bold. You were SHOWN the INNACURACY contained in their narrative about that plane crash in Pensylvania that YOU say is a major point,.
     

Share This Page