It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.
Have to agree with you, by not mentioning that building it is not telling a full story.
Its called the 9/11 commission report, so surely it must report what actually happened in full on that day.
These reports and the like are what will be remembered throughout history. Once governments get censorship over the internet, (you cant deny they are not trying to) who knows what content future generations will be allowed to read and view or not to as maybe the case.
History has a funny way of changing itself over time, its not the people taking part that write it, its the people in charge.
"Our mandate was sweeping. The law directed us to investigate “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2000,” including those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission.”
Originally posted by theability
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
Choose whatever word you might, nevertheless: Facts are omitted and avoided, downright denied, that is the issue!
Originally posted by theability
I have presented a very logical debate
Well, you've presented a fallacious argument. I tried to help you see the error. But by all means feel free to carry on. Full speed ahead.
I have presented a very logical debate, in which you wish to continue to see otherwise.
We disagree.
If you have something to bring to the table to discuss with the thread at hand please do so, otherwise,
I disagree with you, good day!
Just another pathetic truther lie......
“Our mandate was sweeping. The law directed us to investigate “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001,” including those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission.”
Originally posted by theability
Now the fact is, no matter what you believe the building, WTC 7 came down at 5:21:10 PM
Originally posted by theability
reply to post by GoodOlDave
All right, if you're going to go that route, then may I ask why do you conspiracy people care more about empty buildings than you do human life?
AS I stated this thread is about facts of 9/11.
We know that WTC 7 fell, as did WTC 1 and WTC 2.
Now out of three building that day, the 9/11 Commission Forgets 33.339% of the facts that day about buildings that fell.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...and you still didn't answer the question- all right, the commission report didn't mention WTC 7. So what?
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
This guy thinks he can shoehorn in WTC7 based on the word "facts" in the preface. He considers this a "logical debate" but refuses to discuss the obvious fallacy when presented to him. This person is clearly incapable of critical thinking skills.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If the report was titled "Report on terrorist attacks upon the United States (and list of everything that was damaged during the attack)" he would have had a point.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Agreed. But the fact that this guy believes he has a great point and has presented a "logical debate" on such a basis still makes me question his ability to think critically and objectively. This has to be up there with some of the worst of the 911 conspiracy arguments.