So your peer-reviewed papers are....where?
Just to be clear, "peer" doesn't mean "other CTists".
So your peer-reviewed papers are....where?
Being from the UK, you will know what a UK Public Inquiry is.
Something similar would do nicely.
Malcom Kirkman admitted as such in his "175 did NOT hit the south tower" thread; his post pretty much explicitly said the only "correct" conclusion was what he had already decided. Too lazy to find the exact post, though.If the British do such a great job why still all the woo regarding Princess Diana's death? The British spent over 3 million pounds producing an 11,000 page report that boils down to "no seatbelts" yet folks are still yelling murder.
What the conspiracy liars are really saying is, "We want a new investigation that PROOVES that 9/11 was <insert your own personal insanity here>."
Too lazy to find the exact post, though.
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.
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.
Excellent! In that case, I suggest you quit trying to prove anything. The NWO are beyond any form of harm : you cannot ever, ever do anything to damage their organisation.
Just sit back and relax. Your fantasy opponent is invincible.
If the British do such a great job why still all the woo regarding Princess Diana's death? The British spent over 3 million pounds producing an 11,000 page report that boils down to "no seatbelts" yet folks are still yelling murder.
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.
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.
Just to be clear, "peer" doesn't mean "other CTists".
Many CTers don't understand that sending something to the "Journal of 911 Studies" is not equivalent to peer-review.
Woo + Woo != Science
I disagree. Woo + Woo = cocktail. From JREF wiki:
Woo Woo is also the name of a cocktail; 1 oz. Peach Schnapps, 1 oz. Vodka, Splash of Cranberry Juice.
That sounds propitious to getting drunk...
I get the feeling from the way TS phrases his use of the word "media" that he often forgets there are media outlets in countries outside the U.S.Please provide proof that the entire worldwide media, including al jezerra, the BBC and the CBC are controlled by the masterminds behind 9/11.
So your peer-reviewed papers are....where?
You didnt read the posts. Read them again. Transparaency and accountability is what is necessary- this can be achieved with members of the government. It would exclude the likes of Zelikow, Kean and (prior) Kissinger, from any involvement.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?