Firewall
Firstly, I note that your original post has been edited. The part about "commie pinkos" etc has gone. If you removed that yourself then well done.
Here, briefly, is my take on the accident. IMHO it is far too simplistic to say that the crew are guilty of pilot error and that is all there is to it. The questions remain of WHAT, HOW and WHY this accident occurred. If we adopt your methodology then there in no need for an investigation. What a number of us have tried to argue on this forum is that a visual approach, especially at SFO, may not be as simple as it appears.
Factors that may be relevant are: fatigue, mode confusion, inexperience on type, inexperience as trainer, vectors on final, language, CRM/HF aspects etc. There are far more of course which is why the report will take at least a year to be completed.
When you talk about the "facts" are you saying that you, personally, have seen the FDR data? Have you listened to the CVR? If not then how do you justify your position of absolute certainty.
I have flown into SFO enough to know that it can be very challenging ie landing a large jet when being given inappropriate speed/height constraints. The speed one learns to ignore otherwise you will not make your stabilised approach criteria. As far as the vertical profile I prefer taking all the automatics out and switching the FD off as it just gets too messy otherwise. Not an ideal situation I would argue when (a) you are tired and (b) as a long haul pilot you never get that many landings especially as an FO.