[Moderated]the new 9/11 investigation

Pardalis

Banned
P
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
25,817
A follow-up on these unanswered threads about the main 9/11 truth issue.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=126
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111364
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66514
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108319
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102457
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90312
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87512
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87106
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63825

OK twoofers, cut the BS. The new investigation, who, what, when and how?

Go

(Everything else will be considered a derail.)
 
Last edited:
Simple: an independent investigation with no conflicts of interest, that has proper funding and full subpeona power to make anyone testify under oath.
 
Gee. You know, any investigation under those terms would be run by the government.

You're *****
Edited by chillzero: 
Please remember to mask profanity properly in public sections, if you must use it at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pardalis said:
OK, like who?



Define "proper funding"



How will the people running the new investigation be able to get such a subpœna?
Click to expand...

1) David Ray Griffin, Rob Balsamo, and Richard Gage.

2) OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAND

3) They'll stalk and harass the people they want to testify until those people submit.
 
I'd also like to know WHAT they would be "investigating". Should we investigate any crazy theory that any moonbat on the Internet thinks up? Should we investigate the possibility of no-plane and space beams and flyovers and Bigfoot? Or does theauthor's personal theory get special privileges for being "less crazy"?


ETA: Dangit, why do I always forget that "privilege" doesn't contain a D?
 
Last edited:
theauthor said:
Simple: an independent investigation with no conflicts of interest, that has proper funding and full subpeona power to make anyone testify under oath.
Click to expand...
1) Define "independent."

2) Define "conflict of interest."

3) Why do you think being forced to testify under oath will make someone automatically tell the truth? Is an oath like Wonder Woman's golden lasso? What would stop the person from lying? As long as they have little fear of their lie being uncovered, being under oath is irrelevant to whether a lie will be told or not. If someone was involved in a capital crime, do you think they'd just offer up the truth without so much as a squeak of protest?
 
Corsair 115 said:
3) Why do you think being forced to testify under oath will make someone automatically tell the truth?
Click to expand...
Corsair, no one ever lies under oath! Cheney might get charged with perjury unless he admits he masterminded 9/11!
 
People, people! You left out Dr. Judy's new hurricaine theory. Any REAL new investigation can't leave that out.
 
WildCat said:
Corsair, no one ever lies under oath! Cheney might get charged with perjury unless he admits he masterminded 9/11!
Click to expand...
The sticking point there, of course, is you have to prove the person committed perjury.

It should be noted a person under oath has another out, one used by both Ronald Reagan and Alberto Gonzalez: the "I don't remember" statement. How would being under oath get around that defence?
 
Maybe Bush and Cheney could answer why they didn"t listen to Massoud? Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated by al-Qaeda agents on September 9, 2001. That is two days before 9/11. Massoud said many times that Osama Bin Laden is evil. Still the USA didn"t do anything? Massoud hated Mullah Omar and the Taliban.
 
Corsair 115 said:
The sticking point there, of course, is you have to prove the person committed perjury.

It should be noted a person under oath has another out, one used by both Ronald Reagan and Alberto Gonzalez: the "I don't remember" statement. How would being under oath get around that defence?
Click to expand...


Interestingly, my immunity proposal addresses this problem and many others, making a new investigation infinitely more politically viable and far more likely to succeed at uncovering the full truth.

And yet, so far no Truther has spoken up in support of the idea, or for that matter, responded to it in any way at all.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
Interestingly, my immunity proposal addresses this problem and many others, making a new investigation infinitely more politically viable and far more likely to succeed at uncovering the full truth.

And yet, so far no Truther has spoken up in support of the idea, or for that matter, responded to it in any way at all.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

That continues to be a great idea. The conspiracy liars like to say that people were involved with the destruction of the WTC (wiring the buildings, etc.) but didn't understand the big picture of what they were really doing.

If given immunity (even though they did nothing wrong) these people would be able to fill in all the missing pieces of the plot.

Also, how about cash payments to whistleblowers who saw something suspicious? Works well in crimestoppers campaigns.
 
Here is my question. What happens if an independent investigation doesn't find anything, and in fact backs up the Commission Report?

Or is this new investigation going to be free of all Constitutional restrictions, and merely be a repeat of the Salem Witch trails?
 
fullflavormenthol said:
Here is my question. What happens if an independent investigation doesn't find anything, and in fact backs up the Commission Report?
Click to expand...

The Truthers will scream "COVER UP! THEY ARE IN ON IT!DISINFO!" etc,and then demand still another Indepedent Investigation.

Or is this new investigation going to be free of all Constitutional restrictions, and merely be a repeat of the Salem Witch trails?
Click to expand...

More like the Commitee of Public Safety under Robespierre during the French Revolution, I think.
 
theauthor said:
Simple: an independent investigation with no conflicts of interest, that has proper funding and full subpeona power to make anyone testify under oath.
Click to expand...

OK, pretend that you are the lawyer presenting the case for an inside job. Give us your case/hypothesis.
 
tj15 said:
OK, pretend that you are the lawyer presenting the case for an inside job. Give us your case/hypothesis.
Click to expand...

A while back some truther made a youtube video (what else?) of what a 9/11 trial would look like. It was hilarious! Pity I can't find it now - does anybody remember this?
 
This has been explained, over and over and over again..

Just to name a few of the reasons - they didn't explain how WTC1/2 could fall at free-fall speed, they didn't explain how steel beams could be laterally ejected 100+ yards with enough force to lodge themselves into the sides of nearby buildings, and they didn't explain the source of those "squibs" that were visible during the collapse.

I think it's fantastic that you guys have unproven theories to explain all of that, but nobody is interested in your unproven theories. We want a proper investigation that considers all of the evidence, including (but not limited to) the evidence I have listed above. That's it.
 
You know what's funny? Not once have I ever seen a debunker say, "Fine - go ahead and do another investigation. Consider all of the new evidence, everything you've mentioned -- they will still arrive at the same conclusion."

You oppose a new investigation as if your entire argument depends on it.. heh.
 
deep44 said:
This has been explained, over and over and over again..

Just to name a few of the reasons - they didn't explain how WTC1/2 could fall at free-fall speed, they didn't explain how steel beams could be laterally ejected 100+ yards with enough force to lodge themselves into the sides of nearby buildings, and they didn't explain the source of those "squibs" that were visible during the collapse.

I think it's fantastic that you guys have unproven theories to explain all of that, but nobody is interested in your unproven theories. We want a proper investigation that considers all of the evidence, including (but not limited to) the evidence I have listed above. That's it.
Click to expand...
And what happens when the results end up backing what is already known and accepted? What happens when the experts refute your claims? Are you willing to let it rest? Or will you need an infinite number of investigations until you get your desired result? Are you after the truth, even if that truth is the "official story"?
 
deep44 said:
You know what's funny? Not once have I ever seen a debunker say, "Fine - go ahead and do another investigation. Consider all of the new evidence, everything you've mentioned -- they will still arrive at the same conclusion."

You oppose a new investigation as if your entire argument depends on it.. heh.
Click to expand...

Ok I agree with you, for the sake of moving this thread along.

WHO should do it?
 
Last edited:
deep44 said:
This has been explained, over and over and over again..

Just to name a few of the reasons - they didn't explain how WTC1/2 could fall at free-fall speed, they didn't explain how steel beams could be laterally ejected 100+ yards with enough force to lodge themselves into the sides of nearby buildings, and they didn't explain the source of those "squibs" that were visible during the collapse.

I think it's fantastic that you guys have unproven theories to explain all of that, but nobody is interested in your unproven theories. We want a proper investigation that considers all of the evidence, including (but not limited to) the evidence I have listed above. That's it.
Click to expand...

You do realise the towers didn't collapse at freefall speed and that there small ejection of air and office debris that you describe as "squibs" could not cause steel beams to be ejected laterally 100+ yards?

Why would your lack of understanding and contradictions warrant a brand new criminal investigation?

 
stateofgrace said:
Ok I agree with you, for the sake of moving this thread along.

WHO should do it?
Click to expand...


I don't care - any organization that is able to gain access to all of the evidence. Right now, that excludes civilians.
 
deep44 said:
You know what's funny? Not once have I ever seen a debunker say, "Fine - go ahead and do another investigation. Consider all of the new evidence, everything you've mentioned -- they will still arrive at the same conclusion.".
Click to expand...

What a load of bollocks! I couldn't care less if there's another investigation. But don't expect everyone else to do all the work for you.
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
You do realise the towers didn't collapse at freefall speed and that there small ejection of air and office debris that you describe as "squibs" could not cause steel beams to be ejected laterally 100+ yards?
Click to expand...


1. According to my timing of the collapse, they collapsed at free-fall speed. If it makes you feel better, let's say they collapsed at free-fall speed (+/- 1 sec).

2. Steel beams were ejected laterally 100+ yards, and that has nothing to do with squibs.

3. With regard to the squibs, like I said, I'm not interested in your unproven theories.
 
deep44 said:
I don't care - any organization that is able to gain access to all of the evidence. Right now, that excludes civilians.
Click to expand...


I think that’s rather part of the problem. Which such organisations did you have in mind?
 
deep44 said:
I don't care - any organization that is able to gain access to all of the evidence. Right now, that excludes civilians.
Click to expand...
So basically by your standards there can never be a new investigation, and as such your entire mission of one of complete self defeat.
 
deep44 said:
I don't care - any organization that is able to gain access to all of the evidence. Right now, that excludes civilians.
Click to expand...

You don't care? As long as they conclude what you have already concluded?

You don't care sunbeam because you want it to be all true. You don't care because you could not care less about the truth. You could not care less that real investigators that are far more able and far more qualified have done a far superior job than you and you fringe group could ever do.

Stop being so pathetic, stop buying into the garage you are fed from this ridiculous fringe group and start to care. Care that you are promoting absolute garbage about this dreadful terrorist attack, Start to care that you are doing absolutely nothing about the genuine problems this planet has other than making them worse by buying into absolute rubbish promoted a fringe group.

Wake up, start caring and start seeing that you do not need to buy into absolute rubbish, promoted by insignificant nobodies, to have an opinion.

Base your opinions on fact, logic and evidence rather than bunk. When you do so, you will have the right to declare you care.

Or be as you are an uncaring, indifferent individual who could not care less.

When you start to care, really care, you may have a voice, until then, you are voiceless, opinion less because you base your entire world view on garbage promoted by nobodies who sell you a dream, your dream.
 
Last edited:
qarnos said:
What a load of bollocks! I couldn't care less if there's another investigation. But don't expect everyone else to do it for you.
Click to expand...


My point exactly. You claim to have no problem with a new investigation, as long as it isn't carried out by any of the organizations that are actually capable of doing it properly (i.e., getting full access to all of the evidence).

You're really going out on a limb, there.
 
deep44 said:
1. According to my timing of the collapse, they collapsed at free-fall speed. If it makes you feel better, let's say they collapsed at free-fall speed (+/- 1 sec).
Click to expand...
And?
2. Steel beams were ejected laterally 100+ yards, and that has nothing to do with squibs.
Click to expand...
And?
3. With regard to the squibs, like I said, I'm not interested in your unproven theories.
Click to expand...
What unproven theories?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom