Why don't you man up and just answer the question Bob? ... show us the inaccuracies in the report and not just play the out of context youtube soundbites ... stop with the short skirts ... your confirmation bias is on full display ...
e The "official" reports proves nothing...it is a document "set up to fail" as the commission was, admitted by it's own members....Show anything that is correct in the report...it is all based on the government's "official" version of events which are not in touch with the evidence and reality
No you have been asked repeatedly to quote one specific passage which you claim is false and show evidence it is a lie. You have fearfully run away from that and it proves you have never read it and know nothing of it and until you do so your claim is a lie. It is perfectly in touch with evidence unlike what you have posted. you cannot and will not provide a shred of evidence to challenge it
I think you need to grow a pair and quit licking up the US government's diarrhea you're fed daily. If you really haven't figured out the scam by now despite the mountain of evidence I've posted in this section of the forum, you know what they say about a pile of bricks. Sorry, I'm not here to try to convince you of anything, you bought it, eat up and bon appetit. Regardless, I really don't believe even you are that utterly lost in space. In fact, you admitted this is your hobby, didn't you?
Refusing to address both sides of the issue is not growing a pair an being brave. You have never questioned the government or anyone else you only hate hate hate and assume what ever BS you see on you tube is real.
like thats hard to do? they fraudulently substituted modelled collapse data for the actual data and contoured the linear regression to give unskilled posers the idea the collapse was much slower than freefall. No I wont dig it out, the above statement gives you all the information you need, if you are qualified to be here you already know what I am referring to and can take your best shot at on point rebuttal.
It DID collapse slower than free fall and no one manipulated anything except those uneducated trolls you love who lied about free fall speed
No need need to lie, it collapsed at freefall, so stop with the lies already, high school math and understanding is all that is needed to understand what freefall is or how its calculated, you can do that right?
It is you lying it is long proven it did not collapse at free fall you got destroyed with that claim long ago and are now hoping everyone forgot
The offical report proves a lot and is supported by evidence. There is no such admission by the members as you claim. I asked you first to quote a specific part which is false and you ran in fear from doing so.
It's non-controversial, NIST and just about everyone in a position to know agree. Only anonymous trolls pretend slower or over g or that it's insignificant anyway because 8 stories were a tiny part of the "collapse", pick your troll. It doesn't matter if it wasn't free fall anyway (WTC1 & WTC2 at approx 2/3 free fall) by itself, there was also nearly uniform acceleration and symmetry in all 3 allegedly plane/damage/fire induced "collapses". Just another of the thousands of very convenient coincidences that all happened in one day.
There are many examples of false statements by the commission, and one is that UA93 crashed in that Pennsylvania field. It did not, and all the witness statements and photographic evidence show that. Ditto 77 at the pentagon.
Besides false statements, there is not one thing in the 9/11 Commission Report that's supported by forensic evidence since no forensic investigation was ever conducted by the 9/11 Commission. And worse, much of the report is supported by disclaimed (as to its reliability) 3rd party torture testimony which would be rejected by any legitimate court and certainly by any legitimate investigation. Beyond that, all attempts at examining evidence and eyewitness claims that were not in line with the pre-conceived official conspiracy story was either blocked or suppressed by the Bush administration and by the 9/11 Commission itself via either Philip Zelikow or other members of the Commission. To say the report is a worthless piece of garbage is to be kind, the 9/11 Commission "investigation" and resulting "report" was a criminal act by all involved. 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3): US Code - Section 1001: Statements or entries generally (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/47/1001 The above describes the 9/11 Commission and their report just perfectly.
That is not a direct quote. And it is a false hood. All the evidence proves UA93 crashed in that field and no witnesses or evidence contradicts that fact. Neither you nor anyone else has ever been able to produce any evidence or witness to the contrary. The same is true for the pentagon and flight 77 you were crushed and debunked years ago trying claim it did not hit the Pentago
All lies. You cannot quote one false statement and they did in fact conduct such an investigation the evidence proves you wrong
lol.....Soupnazi quote anything from the "9/11 commission report" and it is false...even though you are in denial you have to admit that if you are honest? The jury is out on that...
Go ahead and quote a specific passage which is false and show evidence that it is. Until you do you are merely posting ignorant fiction
Start watching this video at the 2:19:30 time mark. September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL) Start watching the above video at the 1:55:25 time mark.
Still no quotes from the Commission Report revealing any major inaccuracies. I guess that means it’s still 100% correct.
That sort of guessing, tortured thinking, is all one has when attempting to defend a bright and shining lie.
It's not a "guess", it's 3rd grade logic he believes has merit. It's not "tortured thinking" either, it's tortured logic he believes might fly (I'm not even sure he believes that either). He knows the reality, no one is that utterly lost. The 9/11 Commission Report doesn't stand on its own merit and has no merit, that's even according to the 9/11 Commission (see the many quotes listed in this thread) and the report itself via its disclaimer and other bankrupt, illogical claims. Examples: “Our aim has not been to assign individual blame. Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned.“ - Preface, Page XVI This is a blatant oxymoron. How on earth can an investigation "provide the fullest possible account" and fail to research in depth who is to blame? "... the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance." 5.4 A MONEY TRAIL?, Page 172 The idea that determining the funding for any crime, especially 9/11, has "little practical significance" goes against all universally accepted criminal investigation protocol. See this: http://www.consensus911.org/point-g-2/ Then there's this DISCLAIMER section from Page 146 that begins with: "Detainee Interrogation Reports Chapter 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have first hand knowledge of the 9/11 plot." There is NO evidence (certainly none provided in the 9/11 Commission Report) that any of these "detainees" were captured al Qaeda members or that any "had first hand knowledge of the 9/11 plot". This is even contradicted by the FACT that at least one of the detainees that allegedly provided a good deal of the information used in the 9/11 Commission Report was later determined to have had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/24/us/abu-zubaydah-torture-guantanamo-bay.html?_r=0 The DISCLAIMER continues with: "Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses---sworn enemies of the United States---is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but has no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting." In other words, the 9/11 Commission had NO ACCESS and the information they used was 3rd party relayed documents and they had NO CONTROL. The legitimacy of the information used was obviously being questioned. Regardless they admitted: "We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al Qaeda members in our report." So they had no access, no control and no proof, and at least one detainee contradicted the above but despite, they made blanket claims and included unverified/unsupported information in the report. http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf