• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Unanswered Questions And The New Investigation

Dr Adequate

Banned
D
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
17,766
Okay, here's a question for truthers. Suppose you have your new investigation. Suppose you yourself were given powers to subpoena witnesses, order the production of documents, look at the physical evidence, and so forth, within the normal limits of such inquiries.

Now, remember that if you ask GWB: "Were you behind 9/11?", then he will say "no" even if he was. Same if you ask Silverstein: "Did you blow up WTC7?", or order Rumsfeld to produce his Secret MIHOP Planning Diary. In general, we may assume that if there was a conspiracy, the conspirators will lie and cover it up. It's that sneaky way they have.

So, that being understood, which unanswered questions would you want to ask which people, which unscrutinized documents would you order to be produced, and which unexamined physical evidence would you like to examine, to determine whether 9/11 was MIHOP, al Qaeda, or al Qaeda plus LIHOP? (Note that if the new investigation doesn't resolve this issue for you, it's all a bit of a waste of time and money. What you need are questions that would expose the conspiracy if there was one.)

Thanking you in advance for your suggestions.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Okay, here's a question for truthers. Suppose you have your new investigation. Suppose you yourself were given powers to subpoena witnesses, order the production of documents, look at the physical evidence, and so forth, within the normal limits of such inquiries.

Now, remember that if you ask GWB: "Were you behind 9/11?", then he will say "no" even if he was. Same if you ask Silverstein: "Did you blow up WTC7?", or order Rumsfeld to produce his Secret MIHOP Planning Diary. In general, we may assume that if there was a conspiracy, the conspirators will lie and cover it up. It's that sneaky way they have.

So, that being understood, which unanswered questions would you want to ask which people, which unscrutinized documents would you order to be produced, and which unexamined physical evidence would you like to examine, to determine whether 9/11 was MIHOP, al Qaeda, or al Qaeda plus LIHOP? (Note that if the new investigation doesn't resolve this issue for you, it's all a bit of a waste of time and money. What you need are questions that would expose the conspiracy if there was one.)

Thanking you in advance for your suggestions.
Click to expand...



Ah, but you don't seem to realize that if Dubya were subpoenaed by a fantasist, why, he'd just have to tell the truth. Really--he'd have to. The same goes for Silverstein, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the thousands of physicists, structural engineers, metallurgists, seismologists, fire-safety specialists, demolition professionals, air traffic controllers, pilots, avionics techs, forensic examiners, emergency medical workers, police, firefighters, camera crews, reporters, editors, airline companies, government workers, military personnel, etc., who have managed not to leak anything for over six years.

It is fair to state that an investigation tasked with producing a conclusion that flies in the face of reality can only be conducted by agenda-driven, low-IQ ignoramuses.
 
Well, Pomeroo, it's amazing what you can drag out of someone with a little waterboarding!
 
I have a feeling the new investigation would sound something like what you hear at 1:30 of this clip.



If chewbacca lives on Endor then 9/11 was an inside job!
 
Last edited:
Apollo20 said:
Well, Pomeroo, it's amazing what you can drag out of someone with a little waterboarding!
Click to expand...

Yeah. Lock someone up in Gitmo and subject him to the CIA´s investigative specialists for 10 or 20 or 50 years, and he´ll confess to having murdered the Dead Sea.
 
Even if they could convict the evildoers, all Bush and Cheney have to do is this:

1. Bush pardons Cheney.
2. Bush resigns.
3. Cheney becomes president and pardons Bush.
4. Cheney makes Bush his Vice President.
5. Cheney resigns, and Bush becomes President.
6. Bush makes Cheney his Vice-President.

All this could be done before Congress could even agree on who would cater the impeachment proceedings.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Even if they could convict the evildoers, all Bush and Cheney have to do is this:

1. Bush pardons Cheney.
2. Bush resigns.
3. Cheney becomes president and pardons Bush.
4. Cheney makes Bush his Vice President.
5. Cheney resigns, and Bush becomes President.
6. Bush makes Cheney his Vice-President.

All this could be done before Congress could even agree on who would cater the impeachment proceedings.
Click to expand...


Won't work. The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionWP provides that the new VP has to be confirmed by Congress. Further, Congress could still impeach and remove President Cheney, even if he'd been pardoned by Bush, as "cases of impeachment" are expressly excluded from the President's power to pardon. Not to mention that Congress could just trump up some new charge that wasn't covered by the pardon if necessary.

ETA: Note also that they would require the cooperation of at least one federal judge to swear Cheney in before Congress could arrange a hasty impeachment and trial, though possibly this person could be duped ("President Bush is resigning due to the impending revelation of an earth-shaking scandal, and he wishes for his successor to be immediately sworn in upon his resignation; please come to the White House immediately and tell no one of this.") At least the two of them (and presumably their accomplices) would be off the hook, though the damage to their political cause would be enormous.
 
Last edited:
aggle-rithm said:
Even if they could convict the evildoers, all Bush and Cheney have to do is this:

1. Bush pardons Cheney.
2. Bush resigns.
3. Cheney becomes president and pardons Bush.
4. Cheney makes Bush his Vice President.
5. Cheney resigns, and Bush becomes President.
6. Bush makes Cheney his Vice-President.

All this could be done before Congress could even agree on who would cater the impeachment proceedings.
Click to expand...
aggle-rithm, your post is just too precious!
 
Apollo20 said:
Well, Pomeroo, it's amazing what you can drag out of someone with a little waterboarding!
Click to expand...


Frank, you do realize that KSM talked about his role in planning the attacks on al Jazeera BEFORE he was captured? There were precisely THREE (3) jihadists who were actually subjected to waterboarding.

I'm a bit confused here. We learned something through the use of this heinous form of torture, which--oddly enough--causes no injuries and doesn't endanger life, that is obviously false. The information the CIA claims to have obtained has been shown to be invalid.

Would you mind sharing with us what that false information was, and who determined that it was invalid?
 
Last edited:
CHF said:
I have a feeling the new investigation would sound something like what you hear at 1:30 of this clip.



If chewbacca lives on Endor then 9/11 was an inside job!
Click to expand...


Here's another excerpt from a possible future investigation:

 
Dr Adequate said:
Okay, here's a question for truthers. Suppose you have your new investigation. Suppose you yourself were given powers to subpoena witnesses, order the production of documents, look at the physical evidence, and so forth, within the normal limits of such inquiries.

Now, remember that if you ask GWB: "Were you behind 9/11?", then he will say "no" even if he was. Same if you ask Silverstein: "Did you blow up WTC7?", or order Rumsfeld to produce his Secret MIHOP Planning Diary. In general, we may assume that if there was a conspiracy, the conspirators will lie and cover it up. It's that sneaky way they have.

So, that being understood, which unanswered questions would you want to ask which people, which unscrutinized documents would you order to be produced, and which unexamined physical evidence would you like to examine, to determine whether 9/11 was MIHOP, al Qaeda, or al Qaeda plus LIHOP? (Note that if the new investigation doesn't resolve this issue for you, it's all a bit of a waste of time and money. What you need are questions that would expose the conspiracy if there was one.)

Thanking you in advance for your suggestions.
Click to expand...

What is a subpoena for? I mean if its useless then what is it for?

Here' a clue...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/26/joint_911_testimony_raises_speculation/

Joint 9/11 testimony raises speculation
By Dana Milbank, Washington Post | April 26, 2004
But analysts said that explanation has not dispelled suspicions that the two men are trying to keep their accounts consistent. ''I've tried to think of a better explanation, and I can't," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar with the American Enterprise Institute. ''There's little doubt if the president had a better explanation, he would have addressed the issue."
 
Last edited:
aggle-rithm said:
Even if they could convict the evildoers, all Bush and Cheney have to do is this:

1. Bush pardons Cheney.
2. Bush resigns.
3. Cheney becomes president and pardons Bush.
4. Cheney makes Bush his Vice President.
5. Cheney resigns, and Bush becomes President.
6. Bush makes Cheney his Vice-President.

All this could be done before Congress could even agree on who would cater the impeachment proceedings.
Click to expand...
can the president issue a pardon if the person hasnt been found guilty (or even charged) yet?
 
LastChild said:
What is a subpoena for? I mean if its useless then what is it for?

Here' a clue...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/26/joint_911_testimony_raises_speculation/

Joint 9/11 testimony raises speculation
By Dana Milbank, Washington Post | April 26, 2004
But analysts said that explanation has not dispelled suspicions that the two men are trying to keep their accounts consistent. ''I've tried to think of a better explanation, and I can't," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar with the American Enterprise Institute. ''There's little doubt if the president had a better explanation, he would have addressed the issue."
Click to expand...



You are incapable of grasping the idea that Democrats wanted to embarrass Bush and Cheney for partisan reasons. If it is possible to show that Bush was asleep at the switch,they don't have to account for their side's indifference to Islamist terrorism. Nobody on the commision has any interest in your insane fantasy. The Republicans want to place the blame on Clinton; the Dems want to ignore eight years of inactivity and blame Bush. Everybody sane understands that al Qaeda declared war on America years ago and brought off the most successful and spectacular in a series of attacks.
 
Last edited:
I think the step that falls down mostly is the re-appointment of Bush as VP. I believe that to become a VP you have to be eligible for President, and since Bush as been voted in twice and thus served two terms, he is no longer eligible for President.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
can the president issue a pardon if the person hasnt been found guilty (or even charged) yet?
Click to expand...


Yes.

(But Bush would still be ineligible to become VP after having served 2 terms as POTUS)

[/derail]
 
Last edited:
The bottom line is that Conspiracy Theorists believe there is credible physical evidence that proves that 9/11 was an inside job. They think a real investigation will uncover this evidence.

What the can't seem to get the head around is the idea that the existing investigations failed to find this evidence because it does not exist.
 
Where are those poignant and inquisitive truthers? Have they no subpoena type questions or inquires to ask?
 
Why bother with the investigation at all, just lynch them, we know they did it right?
 
The claims of conspiracy theorists always confuse me.

1st off, there is an entire global network of people, able to pull off a conspiracy, as complicated as what the truth movement alleges. They pull this off flawlessly.

Truthers also usually claim that the media, elections, etc. etc. are also all run by this same group.

Now, if the group is this powerful, what good does a new investigation do?

eta: But, apparently we need a new, unfettered, completely independent investigation. Who pays for it? They won't say. Who conducts it? They don't say. Who passes judgment? They don't say. How you assure that the new investigators aren't bought off (like Silverstein, and NIST, etc. etc.)? They don't say. Who to subpoena, and on what grounds? They don't say. Specifically why we even need a new investigation. They don't say...but we need one apparently.

It basically goes like this.

Truther: "We need a new investigation."

Sane person : "Why?"

Truther: "I don't know. That's what the investigation is for"
 
Last edited:
gc051360 said:
The claims of conspiracy theorists always confuse me.

1st off, there is an entire global network of people, able to pull off a conspiracy, as complicated as what the truth movement alleges. They pull this off flawlessly.

Truthers also usually claim that the media, elections, etc. etc. are also all run by this same group.

Now, if the group is this powerful, what good does a new investigation do?

eta: But, apparently we need a new, unfettered, completely independent investigation. Who pays for it? They won't say. Who conducts it? They don't say. Who passes judgment? They don't say. How you assure that the new investigators aren't bought off (like Silverstein, and NIST, etc. etc.)? They don't say. Who to subpoena, and on what grounds? They don't say. Specifically why we even need a new investigation. They don't say...but we need one apparently.

It basically goes like this.

Truther: "We need a new investigation."

Sane person : "Why?"

Truther: "I don't know. That's what the investigation is for"
Click to expand...
Because the truthers don't want to have let go of their world view if it goes against them. Their views wouldn't be changed even if we found experts not connected to anyone to investigate; they would still find a reason not to believe in the testimony.

What I think the truthers mean by a "new investigation" is a lynch mob headed by them. In the messianic CT world, a new investigation would leave them in power, leave them saving the world, and make them heroes. None of their call for new investigations are, from my experience, really thought out or planned to be impartial.
 
pomeroo said:
Frank, you do realize that KSM talked about his role in planning the attacks on al Jazeera BEFORE he was captured? There were precisely THREE (3) jihadists who were actually subjected to waterboarding.

I'm a bit confused here. We learned something through the use of this heinous form of torture, which--oddly enough--causes no injuries and doesn't endanger life, that is obviously false. The information the CIA claims to have obtained has been shown to be invalid.

Would you mind sharing with us what that false information was, and who determined that it was invalid?
Click to expand...

i often hear that he confessed on AlJazeera
but never saw it myself. do you have a link to it?
 
Given the threats made by Kevin Barrett, Truth Movement Leader, I suspect "Waterboarding" would be the least of GWB and DC's worries.

TAM:)
 
Maybe this is

Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated by al-Qaeda agents in September 9, 2001. Two days before 9/11? Bush and Cheney didn"t do anything? Why? Allso Bill Clinton didn"t do anything even if there was a civil war in Afghanistan. Civil war in Afghanistan (1996-2001)? Mohammad Najibullah was hanged by the Taliban and Mullah Omar in September 27, 1996. Allso Mullah Omar was Commander of the Faithful of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan during September 27, 1996 – October, 2001. Nobody did anything?
 
SpitfireIX said:
Won't work. The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionWP provides that the new VP has to be confirmed by Congress. Further, Congress could still impeach and remove President Cheney, even if he'd been pardoned by Bush, as "cases of impeachment" are expressly excluded from the President's power to pardon. Not to mention that Congress could just trump up some new charge that wasn't covered by the pardon if necessary.
Click to expand...

Damn those checks and balances! How many innocent fantasies have to perish before someone DOES something!!!
 
LastChild said:
What is a subpoena for? I mean if its useless then what is it for?
Click to expand...
Why are you pretending that I have said that subpoenas are useless?

They are not useless. They compel witnesses to turn up and answer questions.

They do not magically make them tell the truth.

If you understand that, perhaps you could answer the question in the OP. Who would you subpoena and what would you ask them?

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
moon1969 said:
Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated by al-Qaeda agents in September 9, 2001. Two days before 9/11? Bush and Cheney didn"t do anything? Why? Allso Bill Clinton didn"t do anything even if there was a civil war in Afghanistan. Civil war in Afghanistan (1996-2001)? Mohammad Najibullah was hanged by the Taliban and Mullah Omar in September 27, 1996. Allso Mullah Omar was Commander of the Faithful of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan during September 27, 1996 – October, 2001. Nobody did anything?
Click to expand...
Those are rhetorical questions.

What we need are some actual questions that you would put to specific witnesses.

For example, you might wish to ask Bush: "Why didn't you do anything about the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud?" And he might answer: "Because we didn't know it was going to happen and there was nothing we could do about it."

And we wouldn't be an inch nearer to discovering whether 9/11 was a conspiracy, which is the purpose of the new investigation. If you want a general investigation into all possible past failures in American foreign policy regarding jihadists, such as the question about Clinton, then this is a much broader inquiry than I suggested in my OP.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom