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

[CHF]

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?

 

[qarnos]

Since I doubt any troofers will respond, I'll take a guess at what their answers might be:

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?

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.

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

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

Anyone but me.

4) Who should testify?

GWB, Cheney and William Rodriguez.

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

Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, Steven Jones, DRG.

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

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?

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.

 

[MWare]

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.

 

[Pardalis]

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.

 

[qarnos]

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.

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?

 

[DGM]

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

A youtube video!

 

[Pardalis]

A youtube video!

The Twoofer wet dream.

 

[Reality Believer]

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.

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).

 

[Pardalis]

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.

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.

 

[negativ]

I don't know what they think it SHOULD look like, but I'm pretty sure this is what it WOULD look like:

 

[Gravy]

 

[mjd1982]

Tho not in response to your specific questions, this has been dealt with at the top of the Conspiracy Facts thread.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

thank you for your twin pennies

 

[Alareth]

That's the mislabled thread with no actual facts correct?

 

[JimBenArm]

Conspiracy Facts: A 100% Fact-Free thread!
Lose you mind, or your money back!

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

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.

 

[CHF]

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?

 

[Mobyseven]

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.

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?"

 

[LashL]

The perpetrators of 9/11 are far, far above any jurisdiction.

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

Asking the government to investigate and prosecute itself would be like asking the mafia to investigate themselves.

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.

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.

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?

 

[Alareth]

What's a territorial monopolist?