[Merged]Debunkers: what would it take to get you to support a new 9/11 investigation?

As a taxpaying American, I'd support a new investigation under the following conditions:

1. The investigation's objective is to further improve preparedness against threats to American civilians and military forces. It is encouraged to find fault and lay blame where appropriate, but not for punitive purposes, only for the purpose of identifying areas where performance and reliability of intelligence communication, interpretation and decision-making can be improved, especially in the increasingly complex interface between the military and the civilian government.

2. In furtherance of #1, blanket immunity from criminal prosecution is offered to all witnesses and subjects of the investigation, for any wrongdoing revealed by the investigation. (And from civil prosecution too, though most probably already have such immunity under U.S. law.) Yes, immunity. That, not subpoenas and threats of perjury prosecution, is what loosens lips, in the unlikely event that any of their actions or decisions were indeed criminal.

3. The investigators must have full access to the highest levels of classified information, and must be able to be trusted with such information. This means, sorry, no "international" oversight and no public oversight of the investigation.

Note that though this is not its intent, such an investigation also stands the highest chance of revealing any LIHOP or MIHOP conspiracy that might have occurred (though there is no evidence to expect such a possibility).

But point #2 will separate the concerned patriots from the spanking-fetishists, and I suspect that most Truthers therefore will not support any investigation that I would support.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
Given that I'm not an American, and therefore wouldn't be paying for a new investigation, go for it.

It's a waste of time though because their conclusions will essentially be the same regardless of who conducts it.
Click to expand...

You're not an American so you think you would not pay for it? HA! Do you really think there are different sovereign countries in the world? All our tax dollars go to the same place, regardless of where anyone lives: The big slush fund of the Jewish, alien, Illuminati, black magic practicing, mutant free masons who are right now plotting how they will use the collective world tax revenue in their secret hideout located millions of miles beneath area 51, in the center of the hollow, concave, flat geo-centric earth!

</troofer mode>
 
Okay, Gravy got me. But one of the points of this thread is: You see how easy it is to answer a simple, direct question?

But when Truthers are asked an even easier question, we get answers like this:

We would need an investigation that's not an inside job to find that out.
Click to expand...

????
 
JimBenArm said:
The first thing that's got to happen is that we have to have someone demand a new investigation who isn't a raving lunatic. Sorry, but if you believe in chemtrails, JFK conspiracies, the moon landing was a fake, you are automatically disqualified. Likewise, if you think the planes were faked in any manner whatsoever, that space-based weapons or mini-nukes were used, you are likewise disqualified. The first mention of MILDEC, or slander against the firefighters (and I get to decide what that is, not you), immediate disqualification.
Now, since I have eliminated every single twoofer in the world, why do we need a new investigation?
Click to expand...

I like this answer.
 
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
I would need to see, at least, believable evidence that the generally accepted science behind the WTC collapse was either fabricated or erroneously incompetent. Quite alot of work ahead for twoofers; big claims require equally big proof.
Click to expand...


Beaten to it. But let me expand on this point:

To justify a new investigation, broad, major elements of the NIST study, the 9/11 Commision's report, the FEMA report, etc. have to be proven to be wrong not merely on individual points but be demonstrated as wrong at a fundamental level. Errors that fall short of criticizing the fundament can be addressed in addenda or other sorts of supplemental reports, or if needed, further studies (as opposed to new, "start-from-the-beginning" ones). You don't need a new investigation at those points, and yes, that is an important distinction: It realizes that research builds on earlier research and corrects errors along the way.

Implicit in agitation for a new investigation is the notion that a paradigm shift is necessary to properly understand the truth. To be blunt, current challenges do not demonstrate any such instrinsic fault. Take for example Dr. James Quintiere: He lists some very legitimate criticisms of the NIST report, but note that many of them request further study or corrections, not a complete overturning of the paradigm that fire plus impact damage led to the WTC collapses. To expand and illustrate the broader concept, he makes a criticism of the NIST report that Dr. Greening has here: Namely, that the NIST assertion of fireproofing being stripped off by the jets impacts is unsupported. That's a very important critique, and definitely impacts a central point of the NIST study, but is it so fundamental that it overturns the entire fires+impact damage scenario?

Issues that don't address the fundament are not sufficient cause for a new investigation, in my mind.
 
1337m4n said:
It's time to show them how to answer direct questions.

See, a whole bunch of "challenge"-type threads have been made for Truthers, each consisting of an EASY and DIRECT question. Thus far, every Truther (with the single exception of The Photon) has failed completely and utterly at every single one.

In this thread we show them how it's done.

Debunkers: what would it take to get you to support a new 9/11 investigation?
Click to expand...

The discovery that all of the laws of physics, chemistry, and materials science are absolutely incorrect.
 
Gravy said:
False.
Click to expand...
Source?
False.
Click to expand...
Source?
These three points are about the same issue: the CIA gave the Commission summaries and transcripts of detainee interviews, but not videotapes of those interviews, although the Commission had requested all information relating to them.
Click to expand...
What you have is the destruction of primary source evidence versus hearsay evidence. I'm sure you can understand the difference. Your also leaving out a portion of the story. The lies about the tapes and audio itself. Very clever of you to do so. You getting skilled in the ways of omission, young Jedi.

Name a major investigation that "got everything right."
Click to expand...
I haven't studied it but did the shuttle investigations get anything wrong? And please elaborate how all major investigations relate to the 9/11 investigation in the first place?

How about the strawman report you are referring to?

Then name anything significant that the 9/11 Commission got wrong.
Click to expand...
:lolsign: Ahh so the error is completely open to your interpretation of its significance to the events leading up to 9/11, the day of 9/11, and the events that are directly related to 9/11. Excellent. Please define "significant" based upon the experience and educational background of a tour guide? Where as those who do have the necessary experience and educational background apparently do find significant errors in the report. See these folks, or these folks, or these folks.

See below
You won't.
Click to expand...
Your Wrong- (I won't list omissions as errors for the sake of your worldview. )
1.The Report's Notes state: "the interior core of the [Twin Towers] was a hollow steel shaft, in which the elevators and stairwells were grouped."

2. The Report states that the "South Tower collapsed in ten seconds," when it actually took about 15 seconds.

3.The Report states: "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." (The Report repeats the assertion three times.) Yet media reports, such as the USA Today article entitled "NORAD had drills of jets as weapons" describe pre-9/11 NORAD drills involving hijacked jetliners crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

4. The Report states: "The protocols did not contemplate an intercept. They assumed the fighter escort would be discreet, 'vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft,' where it could perform its mission to monitor the aircraft's flight path." Yet the order referenced by the footnote for this statement (Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations), states:
7-2-1. FACILITY NOTIFICATION
The FAA hijack coordinator will advise the appropriate center/control tower of the identification of the military unit and location tasked to provide the hijack escort. The center/control tower shall coordinate with the designated NORAD SOCC/ROCC/military unit advising of the hijack aircraft's location, direction of flight, altitude, type aircraft and recommended flight plan to intercept the hijack aircraft. The center/control tower shall file the coordinated flight plan.

5. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary. Thanks to Cheapshot for proving this one wrong.

6.The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane. And to think the only thing Soviet bombers had to do was to turn off their transponders!

7. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference.

8. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles.

9.The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad. This of course contrary to NORAD's mission statement and proven incorrect in the NORAD Tapes thread on this site.

10. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary along with Cheap Shots comments and actions on that day.

I could go on but you get the point. ;)

The many investigations that preceded the Commission's inquiry were the "first draft."
Click to expand...
Speaking of dishonesty, Chairman Kean described the report itself as the first draft, not the investigations that preceded it.
Hamilton: I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history.Source CBCSunday.
Why the dishonesty, Mark? Why would you subtley change the definition of "first draft" in relation to the context in which it was used by the Co-Chairman? Tsk, tsk.

Of course people should keep asking questions about 9/11: has anyone, anywhere said different?
Click to expand...
See JREF Conspiracy Theory Threads. JAQing off I think is the inappropriate term your fellows have used.
When will you learn that dishonesty is not the best policy, Swing Dangler?
Click to expand...
You may want to revise that question, Mark. And ask yourself, why do I, Mark Roberts, need to stoop to being dishonest (see above example) and why do I need to accuse Swing Dangler of dishonesty time and time again without a shred of proof to back up the claim?
Why does the "truth" movement have to lie to support its claims?
Click to expand...
Some do lie, some make mistakes, some make mistakes and change them, some make mistakes and do not change them. Much like the authors of the official story wouldn't you agree?
Perhaps you should ask the authors of the official story the same question. Remember even you stated people should keep asking questions about 9/11. Perhaps you should belly up and take your own advice. It is our country, correct? Officials who lie and make mistakes should be held accountable for their actions, correct?
Click to expand...
 
Swing Dangler said:
Source?
Click to expand...
Show me where they say that. Do it.

Source?
Click to expand...
Show me where they say that. Do it.

What you have is the destruction of primary source evidence versus hearsay evidence. I'm sure you can understand the difference. Your also leaving out a portion of the story. The lies about the tapes and audio itself. Very clever of you to do so. You getting skilled in the ways of omission, young Jedi.
Click to expand...
Wow, even when I agree with you I'm wrong. That's interesting.

I haven't studied it but did the shuttle investigations get anything wrong? And please elaborate how all major investigations relate to the 9/11 investigation in the first place?

How about the strawman report you are referring to?
Click to expand...
Do you understand what getting everything right means? That means everything. In a massive, sprawling investigation involving thousands of people and millions of pieces of evidence, no mistakes.


:lolsign: Ahh so the error is completely open to your interpretation of its significance to the events leading up to 9/11, the day of 9/11, and the events that are directly related to 9/11. Excellent. Please define "significant" based upon the experience and educational background of a tour guide? Where as those who do have the necessary experience and educational background apparently do find significant errors in the report. See these folks, or these folks, or these folks.
Click to expand...
Is this really difficult for you people to understand? Are any of the Commission's major conclusions wrong? I always hear what a pack of lies the 9/11 Commission report is, but no one can show me evidence that the attacks didn't happen as the report states, for the reasons it states.

If you can do so, then proceed. You will be the first.

Go.
 
Last edited:
Swing Dangler said:
Speaking of dishonesty, Chairman Kean described the report itself as the first draft, not the investigations that preceded it.
Click to expand...
And I am correcting him. In what way is that dishonest, Swing Dangler?
 
Gravy said:
Show me where they say that. Do it.

Show me where they say that. Do it.
Click to expand...
The Kean Commission itself intervened in June 2004. In a staff statement delivered at its final set of hearings ("Improvising a Homeland Defense"), the Commission outlined a chronology that completely ditched the timeline that NORAD had upheld for two years. It also effectively placed almost all of the blame for delayed air defense response on the FAA.

Gens. Arnold and Myers, who testified to the Commission that same morning, were not held to account for having presented an entirely wrong timeline a year earlier. Instead, they simply thanked the Kean Commission for clearing up the confusion. In return, one commissioner made a point of telling the generals they were not to blame; after all, it was all the FAA's fault!-Senator Dayton's Comments.
You can read more analysis here: Washington Post.

Wow, even when I agree with you I'm wrong. That's interesting.
Click to expand...
Hell hath frozen over!

Do you understand what getting everything right means? That means everything. In a massive, sprawling investigation involving thousands of people and millions of pieces of evidence, no mistakes.
Click to expand...
Yep. Were the NASA investigations 100% correct?

Is this really difficult for you people to understand? Are any of the Commission's major conclusions wrong? I always hear what a pack of lies the 9/11 Commission report is, but no one can show me evidence that the attacks didn't happen as the report states, for the reasons it states.
Click to expand...
It is hard to kick a field goal when the posts get moved. I won't address the omissions.
Your original request:
Then name anything significant that the 9/11 Commission got wrong.
Click to expand...
Which is it? My definition of significant? Your definition? Or is now the major conclusions? If enough of the significants or insignificant are shown to be wrong or omitted, then the conclusion is suspect of course.
If you can do so, then proceed. You will be the first.
Click to expand...

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
The muscle hijackers 'picked by bin Ladin':
Satam al Suqami, Wail and Waleed al Shehri (two brothers) Both Alive, Abdul Aziz al Omari Alive, Fayez Banihammad (from the UAE), Ahmed al Ghamdi, Hamza al Ghamdi, Mohand al Shehri Alive, Saeed al Ghamdi Alive, Ahmad al Haznawi, Ahmed al Nami Alive, Majed Moqed, and Salem al Hazmi Alive (the brother of Nawaf al Hazmi).
How can the 9/11 Commission be taken seriously when they refer to alive 'hijackers'?
In September 2002, [FBI Director Robert Mueller] told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers."

So one major conclusion is shown to be wrong. The actual number is now in question. The actual identity of the 19 or less is now in question. Is that a conclusion for you?
They say the Commission succeeded. See the small difference there, Swing Dangler?
Click to expand...
Mark, reading comprehension. The Commissioners, Hamilton in particular, stated they succeeded in telling a story. A story as we all know can be either fiction or non-fiction. It is true they did succeeded in publishing a 'story' we can now conclude the story was not 100% non-fiction and hence we can apply Hamilton and Keans own comments to the investigation. See the difference, Mark? ;)



Gravy
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Speaking of dishonesty, Chairman Kean described the report itself as the first draft, not the investigations that preceded it.
And I am correcting him. In what way is that dishonest, Swing Dangler?
Click to expand...
:big: I'm taking that as sarcasm. Either that or you will have to remove the -5 Credibility Armor from your roleplay character.
Click to expand...
 
As has been pointed out before, truthers don't want truth, they want something that legitimizes their conspiracy theories, and they'll keep demanding a "new investigation" until one does.

I don't see any logical reason to waste tax money on this. If the truth movement has the means to fund it, carry on.
 
1337m4n said:
Debunkers: what would it take to get you to support a new 9/11 investigation?
Click to expand...

Well for starters, I'd like an outline of how this new investigation would run - ie. who funds it, who testifies, who writes the final report?

I've asked twoofers this several times and am still waiting for an answer.
 
What would it take JREFers?

Hello JREFers,

What would it take to convince you that a new investigation is warranted? In other words, what kind of evidence would you need to see in order to support a new investigation?

I think it is important to make a distinction between direct evidence of a conspiracy and direct evidence of who was involved. IMO, it is only necessary for the former to exist to warrant a new investigation.

So lets concentrate on direct evidence of a conspiracy in this thread. What would you, logical JREFers, need to see?

Here are some examples:

Conclusive evidence of explosive or incendiary use in collapse.

Mathematical model that passes the scrutiny of peer review which demonstrates that collapse would arrest itself, or, never even initiate.

Whistle blowers who reveal key (please be specific) pieces of information.

Etc, Etc.
 
One or more legitimate "whitleblowers" with verifiable evidence to present to scrutiny would probably do it, even considering how ridiculously vast the conspiracy would have to be.

You guys haven't managed that in the past 6.5 years, I don't expect it to happen; but the one thing that seperates skeptics from woo-peddlers is their ability to adjust their position based on new evidence.
 
Sizzler, do you realize that you're pissing on your own feet, here?

Since there is no conclusive evidence of planted explosives (or any evidence at all)- especially where there should be evidence... aren't you able to take a step back and admit that your position is entirely irrational?

You are asking your opponent to provide you with the criteria for falsification- and then giving examples which are not only reasonable, but false... proving that you're wrong.

That was not your best move.
 
Minadin said:
One or more legitimate "whitleblowers" with verifiable evidence to present to scrutiny would probably do it, even considering how ridiculously vast the conspiracy would have to be.

You guys haven't managed that in the past 6.5 years, I don't expect it to happen; but the one thing that seperates skeptics from woo-peddlers is their ability to adjust their position based on new evidence.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

What kind of specific information would be needed from a whistleblower?

And, is his or her own word enough? Or, should they have other evidence?
 
Sizzler said:
Hello JREFers,

What would it take to convince you that a new investigation is warranted? In other words, what kind of evidence would you need to see in order to support a new investigation?

I think it is important to make a distinction between direct evidence of a conspiracy and direct evidence of who was involved. IMO, it is only necessary for the former to exist to warrant a new investigation.

So lets concentrate on direct evidence of a conspiracy in this thread. What would you, logical JREFers, need to see?

Here are some examples:

Conclusive evidence of explosive or incendiary use in collapse.

Mathematical model that passes the scrutiny of peer review which demonstrates that collapse would arrest itself, or, never even initiate.

Whistle blowers who reveal key (please be specific) pieces of information.

Etc, Etc.
Click to expand...


Two things:

1) Verifiable evidence that the findings of the existing investigations are wrong - specifically that they fabricated evidence and drew false conclusions from accurate evidence.

2) Verifiable evidence in conflict with the conclusions of existing investigations that the existing investigations failed to address.

Without these two things I see no reason to waste time and effort in reinvestigating a thoroughly investigated event.

ETA. I should clarify here that I am looking for substantially more than a couple of eye witness accounts that contradict; in any event of scale there will always be evidence (particular eye witness testimony) that appears to contradict other evidence. The more widespread and complex the event, the greater the anomalies - and the 9/11 attacks were both widespread and complex. I am looking for a substantial body of evidence in conflict. The significance of evidence varies of course, so a substantial body of evidence could be fairly small if those particular pieces of evidence were themselves undeniable and substantial.

(For example, the bowing of the exterior columns at the WTC is an undeniable fact supported by multiple pieces of primary evidence and is (I think) the single most damning fact against the towers being demolished with explosives - a similar single fact of that magnitude of significance that refuted the official account would be useful).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom