How would an honest investigation deal with evidence be set-up?
I see these guys have a bit of an answer already.[quote=“NYC CAN”]Q: How will this new investigation proceed?
This investigation will be non-partisan and independent of government control. A panel of Commissioners will conduct hearings to evaluate evidence provided by teams of researchers. These teams will compile evidence on every possible category of investigation. They will question witnesses, experts, and issue subpoenas when necessary. The scientists, legal counsel, researchers and investigators who make up the commission will follow the trail of evidence wherever it may lead. Finally, the Commission will publish one or more reports, and will have the ability based on its findings to seek indictments and to work with prosecutorial agencies towards achieving justice for the events of 9/11. [/quote]
Doesn’t sound fair enough?[quote]Q: Will the new Commission have a bias or pre-determined conclusion about the events of September 11?
The investigation will commence from a starting point of zero assumption or bias about the events of September 11. The investigation will be fact-driven and will use only the most rigorous legal standards for establishing the truth about those tragic events.
Q: What results will come out of this new investigation?
The Commission will publish one or more reports to inform the public of its findings, and it will have the ability based on its findings to seek indictments and to work with prosecutorial agencies towards achieving justice for the events of 9/11.[/quote]
ScottSummers, one post, finally dedicated to just your input.
I think you just meant to ask…
Where are the protesters for you to believe in?
Why do so many NYC voters distrust the official story?
Why would any New Yorkers want the truth?
What you really mean is you’ve no clue, and cleaving to a neighbor such as sandman leaves you where you are.[quote]
I understand your position of not having a position.
I do not however know why you fail to explain what circle of intellectuals offer insults instead of evidence.
…
Your whole ScottSummers-retards-911.info idea helped me realize whats behind the insults. And if there aren’t really hundreds of thousands of American citizens [strike]public officials[/strike] questioning the official story, you’re safe from having to question your understanding of what happened. That’s just fine with me, hope you live well and prosper.
[/quote]
ScottSummers, your adamant desire to discredit ANY thought that a new investigation of 9/11 is warranted, and the official story sufficiently explains the truth has inspired the following.
And to wrap up such contribution(s) with a smile…[quote=“to ScottSummers, I”][b]If you think the official 9/11 story produced by the US government is sincerely true, don’t you already have satisfaction for what what has occurred since that day? Why continue attempts to lambaste truth-seekers? Because if the truth stands in favor of the official story, you wouldn’t be needing to avoid evidence and resort to venomous attacks.
But, if the truth negates the official story, you’re actually cementing a sad reflection of yourself to anyone you hope to positively influence now or ever since you’ve archived your name. And again, you do have such a right.[/b][/quote][quote]Those were fierce days. Fierce emotions. Fierce words. Maybe to [color=red]ScottSummers[/color], this really is ridiculous. Maybe to the unattached or just cognitively underdeveloped here [color=red]spitting insults, they are actually spitting towards the memories of the 9/11 victims, and the victims of the invasions, and the innocents who will have to endure DU radiation for generations to come[/color]. THE ONLY hope for an honest inquiry of the horrific demise of so many souls, on 9/11, because of 9/11, will come from the American people waking up and asking tough questions.[/quote]
[quote=“to ScottSummers, I”]Don’t tell me because an American interrogator can get away with sticking a broom handle up a detainees’ rectum to incite a confession there’s obviously truth to the Bush-Cheney story of 9/11? Ya gotta have better than that. Dig deep and wide, find what anchors you to the official story, and lets have it.[/quote][quote=“to ScottSummers, I”]“Come again?” Vice President Cheney (who confirmed that some (yet to be made public) orders still stood as the pentagon attack plane was flying 30, 20, 10 miles into the open air space of the pentagon) was even in 2008 possibly trying to stage a fake terror attack to blame Iran and incite a third invasion?
… for proving again a sincere PNAC/Northwoods propensity to use Americans to kill other Americans for the aim of advancing a military agenda under false pretenses. And this upstanding Republican continues to sell to Americans on FOX, CNN, BBC, ABC, MSNBC that enhanced (rectal broomstick) interrogations are morally and catastrophically valuable to protect US national security. Should I pressume you also support his strategy to life, and do I need to label you nasty names for it?[/quote]
[quote=“to ScottSummers, I”]Quite frankly, the ScottSummers-Retards-for-911-Truth.info fits, and I implore you to please persuade away every distraction you can to join in your quest.[/quote]Peace.
[quote]Yes, I agree, making the 9/11 story at best only a theory. Don’t theories and statements of guilt deserve examination, even scrutiny?
…
The 9/11 Commission spends a lot of space and detail to create a case for OBL/KSM/al Qaeda to wanting to attack USA. But only these suspects. Even though the due process of accusing, judging guilt and executing penalties unto death proceeded without any credible evidence to date (9/11/2009), someone eventually asking some new questions has to be a little better prepared than just a hunch.
…
What makes us keep trusting those who
delayed the formal investigation 14 months beyond first retaliation,
narrowly constricted the scope of the investigation,
sabotaged the investigation,
limited the potential suspects,
successfully omitted contrary evidence that distorts from the story,
and successfully used torture confessions as fact.
Establishing Motives are first.
This apparently is why the 9/11 Commission paints a long history of OBL hating America. Have we forgotten President Bush telling America that OBL attacked us because they hates our freedoms?[/quote]
Sorry if I missed your analysis. What page?
What chance would someone say - Kean and Hamilton have serious doubts about detainee evidence they were told by ‘intelligence’ to be credible and trustworthy?
[quote]…the 9/11 Commission in no place comments on questioning President Bush about the evidence he used to justify attacking Afghanistan within a month of 9/11, let alone publishing any of such evidence. In fact Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton in 2006 wrote that the detainees were the ONLY possible source for inside information about the plot, but the 9/11 Commissioners were completed blocked from learning what those detainees actually had to say about 9/11(Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission).
And the confessions of those detainees remains the substitute for solid evidence.
Really has no other hard evidence ever surfaced?[/quote]
HA! HA! HA! That must REALLY sting, eh? So NO truthers will have any part of the proceedings then.
Actually, no, you’ll probably consider that to be a good thing. That way, you won’t have to pay any attention to the inevitable results and will be able to carry on with your tinfoil hat goofiness.
Just as well! Just imagine if you and those truther twats DID have to finally concede that yes, you were talking absolute shite all that time. You really WOULD end up out in the fields discussing “the truth” about crop circles. All that fresh air would surely play havoc with what little brains you have left.
[quote=“j.scholl”]
You left it hanging after after this…
[quote]Yes, I agree, making the 9/11 story at best only a theory. Don’t theories and statements of guilt deserve examination, even scrutiny?
…
The 9/11 Commission spends a lot of space and detail to create a case for OBL/KSM/al Qaeda to wanting to attack USA. But only these suspects. Even though the due process of accusing, judging guilt and executing penalties unto death proceeded without any credible evidence to date (9/11/2009), someone eventually asking some new questions has to be a little better prepared than just a hunch.
…
What makes us keep trusting those who
delayed the formal investigation 14 months beyond first retaliation,
narrowly constricted the scope of the investigation,
sabotaged the investigation,
limited the potential suspects,
successfully omitted contrary evidence that distorts from the story,
and successfully used torture confessions as fact.
Establishing Motives are first.
This apparently is why the 9/11 Commission paints a long history of OBL hating America. Have we forgotten President Bush telling America that OBL attacked us because they hates our freedoms?[/quote]
Sorry if I missed your analysis. What page?[/quote]
To be clear, there is more than one conspiracy theory, heres a quick summary.
It was orchestrated by the government, they planted bombs/thermite/lazer beams.
They knew, but decided to do nothing so they could use it as an excuse to invade Afghanistan/Iraq.
They didn’t know, but used it as an excuse (or falsely used it as an excuse) to invade Afghanistan/Iraq.
The first thread was pretty much devoted to theory 1 and the vast amount of evidence does not substantiate this claim. I don’t believe any new investigation is warranted based on these claims whatsoever.
The second one, is more plausible, would involve just a few people (unlike the first one, that has everyone and their dog in on it). However, as Tempo Gain pointed out on more than a few occasions, this was a horrendous act, one he believes too dastardly for the office of the POTUS to be involved in.
The third, that they were a bunch of incompetent nincompoops in handling the event doesn’t take much of a stretch of the imagination, then limiting the scope of the investigation or manipulating the facts, might be done in a way not to have the whole issue on Bushs doorstep and likely ruin any chances of re-election.
Hence, my opinion is option 3 is most likely, a slight chance of 2, and absolutely 0% chance of 1.
If the aim of an investigation is to find out exactly when and what the Bush administration knew, and how much real evidence they had to initiate wars and bring about new laws like the Patriot Act. This might be interesting, but can’t see it happening.
Oh, and just so we’re clear, this IS the petition that has already expired twice. Right? Right? Tee hee! Roll on November! Let the chips fall as they may, eh, agent Scholl? God, man, you people make it SO easy! No WONDER the world sees you as it sees you. You leave VERY little room for conjecture!
I don’t know if I should feel flattered or not. I’m getting so much attention, but look where it’s coming from. 911 Truth, let’s have a look at what that really means. You wonder why no one shows up at 911 Truth demonstrations?
But that’s not even close to the edge of where 911 Truth will go. There are even people, maybe even Mr. Scholl here, who will tell you that this man did not die. He is not even a real person.
I’ve got all kinds of examples of 911 Truthers calling firemen names, laughing at victims, calling the family members of victims liars and accusing them of murdering their family. It goes on and on. I’m sure that Scholl-baby is not like these parasites on society, oh no. But there’s so much of it in the 911 Truth movment. As much as Scholl is not part of this name calling, it’s because he hasn’t thought through what a controlled demolition and the whole ‘cover up’ thing really means.
Scholl baby, you wonder why no one shows up at 911 Truth demos? It’s because the people who show up are disgusting pieces of puke. If you talked with them face-to-face, you’d want to wash your hands afterward.
ScottSummers, I will watch the video in the near future. I will not put words in Dylan Avery’s mouth or take away what he actually says. I do appreciate you telling me you have read or seen or heard other people demanding a new investigation into 9/11, who deny that people lost their lives in the attacks. I too find it disgusting, as with holocaust deniers. Even the covering up of genocide, assassinations, plundering, false propaganda, war crimes, torture, and any criminal activity by government representatives is atrocious. But these people you refer to do not represent the justification for a new investigation into the 9/11 attacks. Not in my eyes. And thankfully not in the eyes of most Americans who are asking questions (sorry I spend zero time considering demonstration participation graphs).
Sandman: You leave VERY little room for conjecture!
Would you consider offering a guesstimation of the number (or even percentage) of cited evidence footnotes in the 9/11 Commission Report rooted on intelligence gleaned from secret detainee interrogations?
[quote=“ScottSummers”]I’m sure that Scholl-baby is not like these parasites on society, oh no.[/quote]Stop.[quote=“ScottSummers”]As much as Scholl is not part of this name calling, it’s because he hasn’t thought through what a controlled demolition and the whole ‘cover up’ thing really means.[/quote]Corruption… If anything other than the ‘official story’ is found to have influenced, impacted or greased over the methods taken to cause 9/11.
You know, I don’t believe you. If you have thought through the implications of what a conspiracy for controlled demolition means, and you still believe it, then you’re on Dylan’s side. And that’s the end of that.
So tell me, do you believe Edna Citron is a fake? If you don’t, that makes you in the minority of these 911 Truth groups. And while we’re at it, what else was faked? Phone calls on United 93? Come on…let us know. Come on Baby, you wanna talk, then tell me all that you think was ‘faked’ on September 11, 2001.
And then tell me why no one shows up for your rallies.
Any fireworks going on?
So what if you don’t trust me.
Sorry I don’t know who Edna Citron is.
You’re asking me what else was faked?
Sincerity to report the truth by appointing Kissinger as the investigation director.
Any argument?
Rallies argument again. Reminds me of the republican stop-the-recount photo op.
See you’re chicken. You want to talk to me about evidence, but then when I ask you a direct question, you won’t answer. You just drown the board in endless posts - post after post after post. No hard questions for our friend Scholl. He’s the only one who gets to ask questions.
Google her. Check out some of my links. They lead to some of the most trafficked 911 Truth forums on the Net.
I’m talked with dozens, maybe hundreds of Truthers on the Net. You’re the only one who keeps telling me you don’t believe in fake stuff. You’re just hiding the real stuff, so you don’t come off like a looney bin, right? Kind of the Johos who come to my door on Sunday? Keep the wierd stuff hidden until they got in church? Come on and tell me what you think about the phone calls from United 93.
I’m straight on this one; I want to see how nutty you can be.
I’m sure I’ll regret jumping into this thread, and I admit I haven’t spent hours and hours investigating all of the various issues, but here’s a question:
If the metal in the building was 1600 degrees, or however hot it was to melt steel, and other people were trapped above the point of entry due to the heat, how could this Edna Cintron have been standing there waving in the hole where the plane went into the building?
[quote=“rousseau”]I’m sure I’ll regret jumping into this thread, and I admit I haven’t spent hours and hours investigating all of the various issues, but here’s a question:
If the metal in the building was 1600 degrees, or however hot it was to melt steel, and other people were trapped above the point of entry due to the heat, how could this Edna Cintron have been standing there waving in the hole where the plane went into the building?
Just curious.[/quote]
Theres two points here, the first being, planes DID hit the WTC buildings, and she IS in fact standing there, miraculous as it seems. There WAS a big explosion and many structural supports were completely or partially destroyed by the impact of the plane. So, pretty amazing, and tragic also.
Second, is the idea steel melted. This seems only to be a false strawman argument made by the truthers. In the last thread (which if you didnt wish to wade through 40 odd pages and all the links is completely understandable) I presented a paper, ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE . I wouldnt say its definitive, but is pretty much along the lines of the official story, and the claim is, due to the damage sustained from the impact of the planes alone, even without the fires, this can reasonably said to have caused the collapse of the two WTC buildings.
j.scholl will perhaps contend this doesnt explain WTC7, but this is a secondary event. If all evidence points to a collapse due to impact from planes, its a lot harder to imply WTC7 was controlled demolition, no matter what it looks like.
Time to wake up Agent Scholl. Rise and shine, no matter what your time zone. You’re not the only one to have questions about 911 that need answering. In fact, my long-time Internet friend Fortigun seems to have handled your big quiry about the engines of american 77. Now it’s my turn to “just ask questions” and I got some more of them for you.
So who’s Mark Bingham? Don’t pretend you don’t know. He’s one of those heros on United 93 that went to fight the terrorists. Before he was murdered, he phoned his mother with one of the seatback phones his plane was equippied with. But there was no plane that crashed in Shakesville, was there. Then who made that phone call? You’ll tell us that it was faked won’t you Truther.
There were dozens of phone calls made on that plane. You’ll go telling me they were all faked. Don’t go telling me you have no idea. You’ve had 8 years to think about this one. Tell me, even if it’s just speculation, were those phone calls faked? Is Mark Bingham just another one of those government sock puppets? You don’t have to tell us everything you think is faked. Just leave it up to me to ask the appropriate questions.
And sure, I’ll be straight about what I want. After all, it’s you who’ve demanded to talk to me over and over and over again. I want to see how looney you can really be. So tell me, on September 11, 2001, what was it that an army of agents was running around arranging? Come on, just tell me Truther.
PS. The term Truther was originally coined as a self-descriptive term by groups that advocate 911 conspiracies. It was their term. Websites on this matter that I frequent tell me this group no longer likes the term. This group has failed to suggest another less offensive term. In it’s place, I suggest, and will henceforth use, the term pro-Inside Jobber - or ‘Jobber’ for short.
I’m sure it’ll be fine, although I think I prefer Peg-boy. After all, he’s been proven a complete dolt so many times now, one more daft name won’t make any difference.
Is this a Jobber thing, by the way? This inability to see what’s right there in front of their faces?
Agent Scholl, you appear completely unable to fathom the extent to which you’ve been exposed, debunked and comprehensively out-argued and out-maneuvered by the only people interested in engaging you – Scott, Tempo, Mick – yet you seriously expect us to nonetheless believe that you have the mental acuity to be taken seriously? Just because you know how to cut and paste from some crackpot website? Are you REALLY THAT much of a dummy? And your latest about these poor people in their final moments is way past dumb schmuckery and sailing into the territory of odious, poisonous bile. You Jobbies are looking more and more like filthy scum.
[quote=“Mick”]I presented a paper, ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE . I wouldnt say its definitive, but is pretty much along the lines of the official story.[/quote]Intrigued again to pursue this thought, put forth by ‘F. R. Greening’ as an alternate theory on the WTC 1 and 2 collapses.
Mick, is this the same ‘F. R. Greening’ who wrote to NIST about the then-upcoming FINAL WTC 7 report?[quote=“F. R. Greening”]I would therefore ask NIST to explain how and why all lateral supports acting on column 79, from more than 30 upper floors, were simply ripped out or otherwise detached from their very secure connections in only 0.2 seconds?
…
NIST’s knowledge of the fires in WTC 7 is therefore based on images of the exterior faces of the buildings. Unfortunately however, as acknowledged by NIST, most of the burning of combustible materials at the WTC on 9/11 took place beyond the views available through exterior windows well inside the buildings.
…
I believe there are many problems with the material presented in NIST’s Draft WTC 7 Report; most of these problems stem from the fuel loading assumed by NIST but I would add that NIST’s collapse hypothesis is not physically realistic and is not well supported by observations of the behavior of Building 7 during its collapse. I certainly believe that an alternative collapse initiation and propagation hypothesis is called for; an hypothesis that more accurately reflects the reality of what happened to WTC 7 on September 11th 2001,
Dr. F. R. Greening
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada[/quote]
Maybe if you read it might say something else, but it doesn’t appear that this ‘F. R. Greening’ gives much credibility to NIST’s WTC 7 fire-heat-column 79 collapse theory.
Here’s what the 9/11 Commission Report says about the WTC 7 collapse[quote] . n . o . t . h . i . n . g . [/quote]Not much to comment on, accept there is nothing worthwhile to the official story about a third skyscraper in NYC which housed the NYC Mayor abandoned OEM center, Secret Services headquarters, CIA headquarters, the SEC who was already investigating Enron along with 1000s of other cases, and banks and insurance companies.
Here’s what NIST says online about WYC 7 collapse.[quote=“NIST online factsheet on WTC7”]How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building. … According to the report’s probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.[/quote]One trigger from heat, caused simultaneous almost perfectly simultaneous almost free fall speed collapse of 30 floors above the fires. On what hypothesis? again? According to the report’s probable collapse sequence.[quote=“NIST online factsheet on WTC7”]The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building’s east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line - involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.[/quote]That’s it, the NIST story of how WTC 7 collapsed (9 sec WTC 7 collapse video).[quote=“NIST online factsheet on WTC7”]What is progressive collapse?
Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from structural element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. The failure of WTC 7 was an example of a fire-induced progressive collapse. … separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.[/quote][quote=“NIST’s lead investigation ends with fires alone”]“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down. … Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said.[/quote]Only building fire?
Heat = simultaneous steel connection thermal expansion trigger?
The lead investigator for NIST’s investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center skyscrapers, Mr. Shyam Sunder, described free fall as:
“freefall time would be an object that has no structure conforms below it.”
] Some have analyzed this to mean NIST admits WTC7 fell at FREE FALL SPEED?
