Question for truthers: what should a new investigation look like?

CHF

Illuminator
CHF
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
3,871
Just about every truther I've ever met says the same thing: "We just want a new investigation." Yet all of them have refused to explain in detail what they want this investigation to look like. All they say is "I want it to be unbiased."

What I have heard in the way of specifics seems rather contradictory. A Toronto truther yesterday actually called for this new investigation to be carried out by the government of all people! And he then said he wanted that same government tossed out of office. AE911 is another example: they plan to present their list of experts to congress - the very power structure that is supposedly so corrupt.

So I’d like to give truthers the opportunity to explain their demands in detail and to show us what kind of investigation they would trust and not immediately dismiss should it fail to back their claims. I’d hate to think that truthers are just out for a rubber-stamp of approval....

So assuming that the 9/11 commision was a white-wash and the NIST report was a lie...

1) What would you consider to be an unbiased investigation?

2) Who should carry it out? Give me names.

3) Who should fund it? (Tax payers? Government? Private companies? UN?)

4) Who should testify?

5) Which experts should be called to offer analysis? Names please.

6) Should anyone be banned from testifying? If so, who and why?

7) At the end of it all, who would you trust to pass final judgment on the evidence?
 
Since I doubt any troofers will respond, I'll take a guess at what their answers might be:


CHF said:
So assuming that the 9/11 commision was a white-wash and the NIST report was a lie...

1) What would you consider to be an unbiased investigation?
Click to expand...

An international investigation with no links whatsoever to the US government or it's allies or anybody from "the establishment"; eg: scientists.

2) Who should carry it out? Give me names.
Click to expand...

Anybody who knows 9/11 was an inside job. eg: DRG.

3) Who should fund it? (Tax payers? Government? Private companies? UN?)
Click to expand...

Anyone but me.

4) Who should testify?
Click to expand...

GWB, Cheney and William Rodriguez.

5) Which experts should be called to offer analysis? Names please.
Click to expand...

Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, Steven Jones, DRG.

6) Should anyone be banned from testifying? If so, who and why?
Click to expand...

Anybody who supports the OCT, since they are obviously shills.

7) At the end of it all, who would you trust to pass final judgment on the evidence?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter as long as they are not shills. This will be easy to see, since only a shill would find the government not guilty.
 
I would imagine that the only investigation that would be valid is one that confirms their beliefs. Since I doubt all of them believe the same thing, it would be impossible to establish an investigation that would be acceptable to all.

When your beliefs have no basis in evidence, there is no meaningful means for affirming them.
 
I've been reading on 9/11 CTs for over a year now, and I still haven't seen the slightest beginning of an answer to that question from them yet.
 
MWare said:
I would imagine that the only investigation that would be valid is one that confirms their beliefs. Since I doubt all of them believe the same thing, it would be impossible to establish an investigation that would be acceptable to all.
Click to expand...


Ahhh, but the investigation wouldn't have to determine the exact nature of the conspiracy - only that it was an inside job. Who needs to muck around with details?
 
Pardalis said:
I've been reading on 9/11 CTs for over a year now, and I still haven't seen the slightest beginning of an answer to that question from them yet.
Click to expand...

I don't think (coherent) big picture thinking is part of their thought process. I think it is probably part of the pathology that causes that type of thinking in the first place. Inscrutable details are important but big picture planning is not important.

On the other end of the issue, I have looked for and asked for the big picture plan on how they believe the attack day was planned. Just a bullet point format that would hypothetically be part of the planning documents that laid down the logistics. Lead times included.

Never had any takers on that so I did my own, and it turned out to be a very discombobulated plan (go figure).
 
Reality Believer said:
I don't think (coherent) big picture thinking is part of their thought process. I think it is probably part of the pathology that causes that type of thinking in the first place. Inscrutable details are important but big picture planning is not important.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

On the other hand isn't it funny that they themselves claim to see the big picture? The only problem is that their "big picture" pans through centuries, starting with the Free Masons in the Middle Ages and goes all the way into the distant future where somekind of global governement wil take over the world.

A little too broad of a big picture...

But when we ask them the simple question of what exactly happened on that single day, they can't come up with a single working theory. :D
 
I don't know what they think it SHOULD look like, but I'm pretty sure this is what it WOULD look like:

 
mystery-detective.jpg
 
Tho not in response to your specific questions, this has been dealt with at the top of the Conspiracy Facts thread.
 
Conspiracy Facts: A 100% Fact-Free thread!
Lose you mind, or your money back!
 
This subject of the OP does a good job of pointing out the absurdity of having a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction. What happens when the monopolist is involved in the dispute? What then?

The perpetrators of 9/11 are far, far above any jurisdiction. Asking the government to investigate and prosecute itself would be like asking the mafia to investigate themselves.

Investigative journalism? The mainstream media is in on it too, they're just an arm of the government. Listen to any nightly news broadcast, and this fact couldn't be more plain.
 
TruthSeeker,

so if "the perpetrators of 9/11 are far, far above any jurisdiction" then why do truthers call for a new investigation?

Experts, media, government are all unreliable, correct? So who does that leave?

What are you aiming for if an unbiased new investigation is impossible?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
This subject of the OP does a good job of pointing out the absurdity of having a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction. What happens when the monopolist is involved in the dispute? What then?

The perpetrators of 9/11 are far, far above any jurisdiction. Asking the government to investigate and prosecute itself would be like asking the mafia to investigate themselves.

Investigative journalism? The mainstream media is in on it too, they're just an arm of the government. Listen to any nightly news broadcast, and this fact couldn't be more plain.
Click to expand...

That's an answer to the question, "Who should not be involved in the investigation?"

But that wasn't the question that was asked. The question that was asked was, "Who should be involved in the investigation?"
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The perpetrators of 9/11 are far, far above any jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Which perpetrators are those? Name names, please. There is no need to pussyfoot around. Just name names already and the discussion can progress.

TruthSeeker1234 said:
Asking the government to investigate and prosecute itself would be like asking the mafia to investigate themselves.
Click to expand...

No, no. Name names, please. "The government" isn't a monolithic entity. Untold numbers of people who are employed by "the government" have and will continue to be called to account for crimes committed by them as individuals. But you have to start by naming names.

TruthSeeker1234 said:
Investigative journalism? The mainstream media is in on it too, they're just an arm of the government. Listen to any nightly news broadcast, and this fact couldn't be more plain.
Click to expand...

Again, name names, please. Which members of the mainstream media are "in on it"? What are they in on? And how are they an arm of the government?
 
C'mon truthers!

You all want a new investigation, right?

Yet only one of you has stepped up to answer my question and even then TruthSeeker didn't answer it at all.

So step up and explain what kind of investigation you're looking for. I was hoping you'd all relish the opportunity.
 
mjd1982 said:
Tho not in response to your specific questions, this has been dealt with at the top of the Conspiracy Facts thread.
Click to expand...

I see my questions answered no where in that opening post.

Just the usual "we need an independent investigation."
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Investigative journalism? The mainstream media is in on it too, they're just an arm of the government.
Click to expand...
Does that include media outside the United States? Media in, say, Canada or Australia or Japan or Switzerland or Iceland, just to name a few countries. They in on it too?
 
CHF said:
1) What would you consider to be an unbiased investigation?

2) Who should carry it out? Give me names.

3) Who should fund it? (Tax payers? Government? Private companies? UN?)

4) Who should testify?

5) Which experts should be called to offer analysis? Names please.

6) Should anyone be banned from testifying? If so, who and why?

7) At the end of it all, who would you trust to pass final judgment on the evidence?
Click to expand...


Clearly any government-run investigation would be compromised. By the same token, the universities are too subject to pressure via funding. The press are the only thing left, but they tend not to have the expertise.

Perhaps a popular magazine, with considerable knowlege of mechanics, could get together a selection of experts and do a thorough analysis of 911. Nobody could object to that.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
This subject of the OP does a good job of pointing out the absurdity of having a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction. What happens when the monopolist is involved in the dispute? What then?

The perpetrators of 9/11 are far, far above any jurisdiction. Asking the government to investigate and prosecute itself would be like asking the mafia to investigate themselves.

Investigative journalism? The mainstream media is in on it too, they're just an arm of the government. Listen to any nightly news broadcast, and this fact couldn't be more plain.
Click to expand...

So stop annoying us and go start your independent investigation. What are you waiting for? The government? you don't want them involved. You don't want any government funding involved. So, what's the hold up? Go go go! The ball is in your court, not ours, go investigate and end the issue for all of us. Snap to it, hop on the good foot. Mime is money.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Investigative journalism? The mainstream media is in on it too...
Click to expand...

Please provide proof that the entire worldwide media, including al jezerra, the BBC and the CBC are controlled by the masterminds behind 9/11.
 
mjd1982 said:
I didnt mean the OP, I meant the top of the thread, i.e. the 1st few pages.

Here's my address:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84473&page=4

Here's a link to the questioners response

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84473&page=5
Click to expand...

You provided no names of who should investigate 9/11.

As for the investigation being "independent"...

"The committee (possibly a House Select Committee?) would decide this."

"Under the US court system"

So you do trust the government?
 
This all falls under the "if you are going to accuse people of mass murder you damned-well MUST be able to prove it to any competent, unbiased person beyond a shadow of a doubt" rule for me.

You truthers HAVE to find these unbiased, rational, influential folks who could convince us skeptics we are wrong. They could be from anywhere. From any nation.

With evidence SO compelling, why should this be a problem?
 
CHF said:
You provided no names of who should investigate 9/11.

As for the investigation being "independent"...

"The committee (possibly a House Select Committee?) would decide this."

"Under the US court system"

So you do trust the government?
Click to expand...

No, they do not. They only want the government to handle the next investigation to give themselves an 'out' just in case it comes a conclusion that is unacceptable to them. In such a case, it's because the investigation was biased.

They can use this forever, until at least some bone head wants to start some kind of revolution based on his exasperation that all the subsequent investigations pretty much show the official story is the one supported by the most evidence.

It's a woo woo circuit breaker.
 
twinstead said:
You truthers HAVE to find these unbiased, rational, influential folks who could convince us skeptics we are wrong. They could be from anywhere. From any nation.

With evidence SO compelling, why should this be a problem?
Click to expand...

They could do a big part of this "new investigation" any time they want.

All they would have to do is gather their evidence and show it to some experts who have not publicly weighed in on the issue. They could talk to some from Canada, USA, China, Europe, Venezuela - people out of Bush's reach. They could also have a paper or two peer-reviewed in a foreign publication (since the US-based ones are all corrupt).

With qualified experts and peer-review under their belts they could then make a solid case for re-opening the issue in North America.

Yet they don't.
 
'truther' paranoia runs deep enough for them to view anyone who is qualified (properly qualified, you know, like a qualified structural engineer speaking on structural engineering matters, not a software engineer or an electrical engineer speaking on structural engineering matters?) as potentially 'the enemy'.

After all education is only any good if you get it from the internet and 'common sense' trumps expertise.
 
CHF said:
Just about every truther I've ever met says the same thing: "We just want a new investigation." Yet all of them have refused to explain in detail what they want this investigation to look like. All they say is "I want it to be unbiased."

What I have heard in the way of specifics seems rather contradictory. A Toronto truther yesterday actually called for this new investigation to be carried out by the government of all people! And he then said he wanted that same government tossed out of office. AE911 is another example: they plan to present their list of experts to congress - the very power structure that is supposedly so corrupt.

So I’d like to give truthers the opportunity to explain their demands in detail and to show us what kind of investigation they would trust and not immediately dismiss should it fail to back their claims. I’d hate to think that truthers are just out for a rubber-stamp of approval....

So assuming that the 9/11 commision was a white-wash and the NIST report was a lie...

1) What would you consider to be an unbiased investigation?

2) Who should carry it out? Give me names.

3) Who should fund it? (Tax payers? Government? Private companies? UN?)

4) Who should testify?

5) Which experts should be called to offer analysis? Names please.

6) Should anyone be banned from testifying? If so, who and why?

7) At the end of it all, who would you trust to pass final judgment on the evidence?
Click to expand...

Being from the UK, you will know what a UK Public Inquiry is.
Something similar would do nicely.
 
CHF said:
They could do a big part of this "new investigation" any time they want.

All they would have to do is gather their evidence and show it to some experts who have not publicly weighed in on the issue. They could talk to some from Canada, USA, China, Europe, Venezuela - people out of Bush's reach. They could also have a paper or two peer-reviewed in a foreign publication (since the US-based ones are all corrupt).

With qualified experts and peer-review under their belts they could then make a solid case for re-opening the issue in North America.

Yet they don't.
Click to expand...
Oh yes we do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom