Would anyone here be "UNHAPPY" if another investigation was begun?

[Bonobo]

Simple question. Let's see a show of hands.

If you would be unhappy or unpleased about another investigation, please tell us why.

P.S. This is NOT the same question as "Is another investigation warranted?"

[SDuderstadt]

1. I would...

a waste of time, money and resources when we have far more pressing problems.

[Bonobo]

2. Same if it was 1 million dollars or 10 billion dollars?

Even if it would ease the pain of those who feel the emotional pain of not believing that the truth came out?

Even if the majority of the victims that day wanted it?

Even if it was paid for by private resources?

[SDuderstadt]

6. ESPECIALLY if it was paid for by private resources!

How would you establish accountability?

[Bonobo]

7. True. nt

[spooked911]

77. wow, just wow

that's so pathetic, words cannot describe.

[SDuderstadt]

78. Unintentional irony from the guy who claims...

there were "no-planes" and the Towers were "nuked".

[spooked911]

80. so what?

at least I recognize the problems with the OCT-- and I've done my best to construct a scenario for what really happened. Make fun of me all you like; it's still amazingly lame to claim a new investigation is a waste of time.

[SDuderstadt]

81. Dude...

You're a "no-planer". I rest my case.

[spooked911]

82. Yawn

you're getting really boring

[SDuderstadt]

83. Brilliant, Spooked....

as your "movement" collapses, you're reduced to pointless contentless bullshit.

[Ohio Joe]

3. I don't really care

I do think it would be a waste of time though as I don't see that it would turn up anything new. In addition, it would not satisfy any part of the truth movement because no one picked to head it up would be acceptable. There is no way the government is going to choose an outsider due to national security reasons and anyone inside would be declared "part of it" before they even began. I see little point to it.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. How many would be happy if a new investigation came to the same conclusions?

Most of the people calling for a new investigation are doing so because they aren't happy with the answers all of the other ones have produced. I see no reason to think they'd be happy with the conclusions of a new investigation, and so I don't support a new investigation to satisfy their questions, since they would never be satisfied.

[Bonobo]

5. I agree that some would not, but surely some would. As to the numbers, who knows.

But it would not be "zero" as you suggest.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Well, now you're ascribing positions to me in order to scold me.

I've had about as much of your concern as I care to, Bonobo.

[Bonobo]

12. I haven't any idea what that means or why you feel scolded.

I think I have had enough of your odd fragility as well.

[whatchamacallit]

8. Maybe you'd have a point if there had been one worth a pinch of shit

The "been there, done that" meme doesn't hold up considering the government initially did all it could to avoid uncovering the truth. Even if the ultimate conclusions remained unchanged, we already know from revelations since, there's a ton of vital, actionable, information the Bushies have withheld or buried to cover their lying asses. A new investigation would be worthy just for that alone.

[SDuderstadt]

10. I'm willing to bet you haven't even read the 9/11 Commission Report....

weren't you the one who claimed the Commission members were all selected by some "steering committee"?

[lovepg]

14. Gee is that the report putting forth the PANCAKE collapse???? Gee how could we question them?? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

17. No, pancaking as collapse initition was ruled out by NIST.

Please do your homework.

[lovepg]

18. I am talking about the 911 commision.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. The NIST report was concerning how the building fell down. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

16. So what are you saying

that the commission was the end-all be-all? That it answered all questions, including those it didn't bother to look into? (which is pretty much everything but the intelligence wall between the fbi and cia). It was an epic fail, and you are transparent.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Have you read the Report or not?

I see you still keep evading the simple question I posed. Why don't you just quit dodging and weaving and say, "No, I have not read the report"? What's so hard about that?

[whatchamacallit]

38. No, I have not read the report (cover to cover)

But I have read excerpts, summaries, and critiques. Apparently you have, and now you're an expert... Did it tackle and answer all the pertinent questions surrounding America's most catastrophic "security failure"? Is it the definitive, exhaustive, unassailable, final word you seem to be insinuating it is? The question in the OP is "why not support another inquiry?". Is your answer read the 9/11 commission report, really?

[SDuderstadt]

39. No, dude...

it's a strating point. How do you know the critiques you read were correct? Did you bother to fact-check any of them? Can you to point to anywhere where I have ever said that the 9/11 Commission Report was perfect?

But, if we're going to discuss it intelligently, how can we do so when you haven't even read the damn thing and you're almost totally relying upon other people to tell you what it says. They've corroded your mind so much that when I try to counter one of the false impressions you have, you lash out at me like I'm some sort of enemy of the state or something. It's truly comical to watch.

[whatchamacallit]

41. Well dude

if you admit the commission is "not all that", why do you drop it out of your pant-leg every time someone suggests we have another investigation?

[SDuderstadt]

42. I said it wasn't ''perfect'' and I rather doubt that...

any investigation would be. And I have said before that I don't believe another investigation to mollify people like yourself who adopt goofy theories without a lick of proof is needed simply because you''re not happy with the outcome. Why can't the ''truth movement'' attract and recruit some people with clout? My guess would be they're put off by the goofy theories and wild charges that issue from this group.

[lovepg]

44. Why are you not demanding proof from the government that they are withholding??

Like the Hilton pentagon video or the photos of building seven that are rumored to show all the damage the towers did and all the fires?
Why are you not demanding the government make key players testify under oath? Release all the documents in their possession that are relevant?
Just think it could clear this whole thing up and you could stop having to spend all this time on here telling us how stupid we are for not believing the faulty reports.
You do just want to get at the truth right? So join us in getting this done and PROVE yourself right in your contentions.
THAT Is what your after?

[SDuderstadt]

45. Dude...would you please prove that the government is...

"withholding critical evidence" other than that necessary for judicial proceedings or for understandable national security reasons? I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the "truth movement's" claim that they can't prove their case because the goernment is thwarting them, anymore than I believe the FBI was "confiscating" videos for any other than investigative purposes, rather than to keep the citizenry from knowing the truth.

Your complaint makes about as much sense as those who claim all independently shot video of the Twin Towers was confiscated and altered.

P.S. I forgot for a moment that I'm not wasting any more time on your nonsense, dude. Don't let this response lead you to believe that I've changed my mind or anything. BTW, rather than yammer on and on here, wouldn't your time be better spent at your local "9/11 truth center" licking envelopes or something?

[lovepg]

47. Well i never made the claim you said makes no sense....So back to the isssue...

The employees at the Hilton are quoted as saying they were watching the video of the pentagon being hit when it was confiscated.
If this video is being withheld it could clear up lots of questions but your government (remember the same liars who brought you Iraq and many other bald faced lies)
is not releasing it.
And its you who are not proving your claim buddy boy. You show me junk science from guys at MIT that do not even take into account that half the second plane went out the side of the Towers yet somehow created more damage than the north tower plane. You got NIST computer simulations that cannot be proven with the physical evidence evidence because it was destroyed.
Your only hope of being proven right IS ANOTHER investigation.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. There is no video from the Hilton. There was a video from the Doubletree.

The Doubletree only shows the explosion. A view of the plane is blocked by the interstate.

You have never seen a video from the Hilton. You have never heard directly from any of the Hilton's employees. You have heard a story on the Internet. This is your standard of evidence, and yet you gleefully dismiss studies from MIT and NIST.

Your only hope of being proven right is a reexamination of your life.

[SDuderstadt]

49. I figured he was talking about the Doubletree...

why should we take someone who can't even get basic facts straight seriously? If he still yammers on about it, here's the link to the Doubletree video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ

[lovepg]

51. You figured wrong ... SURPRISE!!!! nt

[lovepg]

50. Have YOU talked to the HILTON employees?? Since that is now the standard?

Of course not.Since there is at least" Internet" evidence that this tape exists at this point it is more evidence than you have offered up to prove your point.
Which seems to be mainly if it existed the government would have released it. Which excuse me if I am not impressed by that little piece of "logic".
Being That the government has not been so good about releasing important bits of information about all kinds of things.
I gleefully dismiss faulty scientific studies that cannot be proven. Further evidence of which is your avoidance of answering my questions on those matters.

[Bolo Boffin]

53. Wow.

Look, on this, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You stick to anecdotal hearsay off the Internet and I'll stick to scientifically valid studies from the experts.

[lovepg]

54. What validation by whom and under what circumstances?

Does NIST prove your Hilton point?? NO.
You claimed the tape does not exist and failed to prove your claim.
So by your standard of proof which is the published conclusions of a study without the raw data included.
The raw data needed to prove its own conclusion. How are your standards any better?
Verifiable provable data is the bedrock of scientific study. Any study that refuses to release ALL the data required to reach its conclusion is suspect.

[Ohio Joe]

72. Hows this?

OK, I'm reading this sub-thread and I've never heard of these video's being discussed so... I went looking. First, I can find nothing anywhere regarding any Hilton, it does in fact appear to be the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington. The video tapes were obtained through a FOIA request. The only place I could find the whole thing is here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html#lawsuits

Both video tapes can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=JudicialWatch&view=videos&query=9%2F11

The video tapes show pretty much nothing. Now... If there is indeed something from a Hilton hotel, please find it and give a link because I can find nothing.

[Bolo Boffin]

73. It was something Loose Change claimed.

They may or may not have quoted an actual news article. However, the only video from a hotel to come from the rather specific FOIA was the Doubletree one.

[Ohio Joe]

74. That was all I found but...

Doing searches for "9/11 Hilton video" did give me some links to stuff about Paris I had always wanted to see... now I just have to wait till I get me new PC :D yeah, yeah, I'm a perv, heh

[lovepg]

79. My Bad it was the Sheraton. I always confuse those two for some reason. nt

[rj5690]

9. I wouldn't care really

[noise]

13. It's telling

when people are quite content with a blatant cover up. Yet they get indignant when people dare to point this out. All objections are labeled "conspiracy theory." All problems with the 9/11 Commission are simply overlooked. The torture is overlooked. The Bush insider as executive director is overlooked. The Lee Hamilton professional fixer is overlooked. The Saudi/US business links are overlooked.

I'd settle for declassification of all 9/11 related documents. This could be done in 24 hours. I know many people worry that such wide ranging declassification may harm national security. Oddly the same people tend to overlook the harm caused by excessive, abusive use of national security classification procedures. The intelligence agencies have had over five years to review 9/11 documents for declassification. Where are the documents?

[lovepg]

15. Agreed a new investigation is needed. How to do it needs some working out. nt

[greyl]

20. Truthers say they want a new investigation after being forced to face the fact

that they have no evidence.
I can't say whether I'd be happy or pleased with a new one, because I'd want to know a lot more details about it first.

[noise]

21. Truther is a pejorative term

I think the whole issue of a new investigation is moot because we will know everything on September 8th when Farmer's book is released.

[greyl]

22. It can be. It certainly isn't "twoofer", because there's no 9/11 Twoof Movement.

Now that we've dealt with that one word in the post, ...

[peacefulrevolution]

23. hell yes

this time we have the chimp and darth dickie testify UNDER OATH

by them fucking selves!

[greyl]

24. I wouldn't expect their testimony to be true. Why do you? nt

[whatchamacallit]

26. Of course not

but under oath they could be questioned beyond the original restricted scope, and their testimony could be impeached. A little pressure and who knows... they might turn on each other and start singing like birds. Something the OCT apparently would hate to see.

[greyl]

28. Go for it then, what are you waiting for?

Of course, there's that huge issue to overcome of not having any evidence for the CTs you espouse here.

[whatchamacallit]

29. Evidence greyl, is exactly why there needs to be a real inquiry.

You want evidence, don't stand in the way of getting it.

[greyl]

32. I said go for it. What are you waiting for?

Good luck convincing people. You'll need it, since you have absolutely no evidence. Ever wonder how you convinced yourself?
Investigate it.

[whatchamacallit]

34. Unlike you

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, failed to convince me. Enjoy your "evidence".

[greyl]

35. Incorrect.

I used to believe, albeit softly, that a proper missile hit the Pentagon and that WTC I & II were demolitions.
Contrary to your statement, my feelings about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al, and the media, actually contributed to me believing those conspiracy theories for a short while.
It wasn't anything I heard from them that changed my mind, it was the evidence. Physical evidence, scientific evidence, historical evidence, and eyewitness evidence.
They suffered from the same lack of evidence for WMDs that you are for your CTs.

[whatchamacallit]

40. Right...

Much of your "evidence" was provided by the bush administration, their agencies, and functionaries. Some of the same people who provided the WMD evidence you cite.

[SDuderstadt]

43. And much (and probably most) of it wasn't...

which is why you're not getting anywhere.

[lovepg]

46. You mean like the computer simulations NIST uses to show their idea of how the TOWERS went down?

They basically asked the computer how many core columns would the planes have to have taken out to achieve the collapse of the Towers.
Now thats science huh. They have no proof that this is correct. Why ? Because the physical evidence was destroyed.
Sure you have science behind you sure you do. LOL!

[greyl]

52. No, not at all. Those came well after, and I haven't seen them. nt

[lovepg]

55. Of course you have not seen them they refuse to release the data. nt

[greyl]

56. Right. They're irrelevant to my opinion.

Seems like you shouldn't form an opinion about them since you haven't seen the data.

[lovepg]

57. They are the bedrock of NISTS case for the collapse of the towers.

seems like you should not form your opinion before seeing important evidence such as this.

[greyl]

61. Your case had no bedrock at all, just politically motivated magical thinking.

In addition to evidence being important to how I feel about the physical events of 9/11, there is logic.
Based on logic alone, your CTs just do not hold up. They exceed unlikelihood, and achieve spectacular preposterousness.

[lovepg]

68. Silly silly Greyl.....

very silly...

[lovepg]

70. I have no case? Thats right. Your the one with the case called the official tail.

And you cannot answer a basic question about your tail. Such as how many columns the planes took out. Nist cannot answer that. All they have is the number from their trumped up simulations.
I suspect you realize of course this a weak point in your fantasy and have resorted to the traditional dodge, Sad I expected more from you really.

[eomer]

36. A Perry Mason moment with Bush or Cheney? I don't think so.

They would squirm and obfuscate and change their stories a hundred times but would never, ever break down and tell the actual truth.

[peacefulrevolution]

25. of course, obviously i mean yes, lets have a re-do

start w/ hey, dumbasss coke head dry drunk semi retarded mother fucker, why did you stay in that school(a publicly announced well ahead appearance)for 45 minutes.

and dr. evil, what exactly did you mean by, "of course the orders still stand"?

[peacefulrevolution]

27. ding-ding! whatchamacallit wins!

of course when they are not allowed to snuggle real close to each other, holding hands and playing footsie under the table....and are forced to explain every action(non action) and every decision in SEPERATE ROOMS(omg! WHAT A CONCEPT)...well, we all know chimpy would just piss himself...probably just admit he did whatever dick said..........dick said stay the fuck outta my way and keep your retarded ass in that sarasota classroom....i just listened to me some goat stories, yes sir, that was what muh cuntry needed at that time...some reeeal good goat story listenin.....mmhmm

[whatchamacallit]

31. Lol! (nt)

[lovepg]

30. Hey we are just internet peoples asking questions about the faulty investigation..

The government has already done. You guys have the official reports to defend that fail to answer critical questions.
You ask for proof from us but the government had a directive and investigative powers we of course do not have.
Why you fail to demand with equal fervor that the government release video tapes photos and other evidence in its possession that would easily clear up some of these issues is perplexing.
If any one should have the full burden of proof it should be the government body charged with finding out the truth. You should encourage as a citizen the kind of scrutiny this forum is encouraging.
This investigation destroyed evidence, has withheld evidence, and allowed key players to testify without being under oath.
Your active skeptical and questioning minds seem to accept this at face value while demanding PROOF for the smallest of claims from a "truther"
You claim weariness at having to explain your side but are here extremely often to do just that. Interesting....

[whatchamacallit]

33. Bullshit!

If we have no evidence (untrue) it's because there was no real fucking investigation to begin with. OCTers don't want a new investigation because they're scared shitless of what we're likely to find. Goodbye smug superiority. Goodbye myopic world view. Hello rabbit hole.

[defendandprotect]

58. An honest investigation would be interesting -- truth hearings would be even more interesting . .. !

[greyl]

59. It sure isn't coming from the 9/11 Truth Industry. nt

[SDuderstadt]

60. Yeah, isn't that ironic? n/t

[defendandprotect]

62. Which "9/11 Truth Industry" are you talking about ???

The 9/11 Commission?

or was that a poorly aimed attempt at an insult to those who don't believe

that aluminum planes slice thru steel buildings?

[greyl]

63. The one for which you volunteer your time. nt

[defendandprotect]

65. Do you have some fear of saying that you believe aluminum planes silce thru steel?

You seem to be volunteering your time to read a lot of my posts --

If you were supplying anything but snide, meaningless comments, I might

say I'm flattered!

:eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

66. I'd love to see D&P go on the record as to what she thinks the planes....

SHOULD have done since she believes they cannot "slice through steel".

So, tell us, D&P. Should they have just bounced off the buildings?

[greyl]

67. Water and light can cut through steel, fyi.

If a new 9/11 investigation were undertaken, those in your small cheering section would only serve to fuck up public consensus.
If you had evidence, you'd be talking about it.

[SDuderstadt]

64. Take a basic physics class, D&P and....

quit wasting everyone's time here.

Again, I ask...is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it? I sincerely beg you to quit embarrassing DU with your bullshit.

[greyl]

69. Maybe D&P took those Superman stories a little too seriously, not realizing

that they weren't meant to be scientifically accurate.

[SDuderstadt]

71. Quite possibly...n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

75. Cheney would be unhappy

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.