This is my first post on this forum.

"The People's Commission will now take a popular vote to set the value of Pi to a convenient 3.0"
 
kookbreaker said:
Seriously. This looks like someone's first attempt at a 'Powuh 2 the Peepuhl' monkey court masquerading as a 'Comission'.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I do find it laughable that they want a new investigation to be conducted by random civilians with no expertise or experience whatsoever in running investigations or in politics, and who automatically have a profound bias on account of being directly emotionally involved in 9/11.

Ridiculous.

I am with others. No new investigation should be conducted until it can be demonstrated that the findings of the previous ones were flawed. Conflicts of interest in Commission members are totally irrelevant if they came to accurate conclusions.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
NEW 9/11 COMMISSION
It would be comprised of thirty-six people in four groups (nine in each group):
Fom the federal government:
(1) Congress
Click to expand...
Congress already has several committees with relevant portfolios; the House Intelligence Committee, for example. These committees have already conducted their own investigations and reviews. If you don't trust the work Congress has already done, why would you call upon them to do any more work?

(2) Judiciary
Click to expand...
There are only nine members of the Judiciary. You want them all to serve on this commission? I'm sorry, but being a Supreme Court Justice is already a full-time job.

What's more, these nine members of the Judiciary are already at our disposal, for any investigation we care to undertake. The moment their judicial expertise and authority is required, we can bring the results of our investigation before them for consideration. We don't need to appoint them to a new Commission; they're already here.

(3) Executive
Click to expand...
The Executive includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Why do we need to staff a Commission with career politicians when we have a world-class investigative agency already on the case?


(4) Concerned Citizens- comprised from the following: 9/11 surviving family members, 9/11 first responders in health crisis, actual 9/11 survivors. All concerned citizens from these groups (organization and group membership must first take place) would decide by group election initial nine members for (4) Concerned Citizens.
Click to expand...
I've got a better idea. How about if all the citizens get a say in this Commission of yours? We'll start by... let's see... I know! We'll agree upon a general Constitution, that will define all the other roles and responsibilities of Commission members. We like democracy, so we'll require that most Commission members be elected officials, with new elections on a regular basis. There will also be a system of checks and balances. Once that is in place, and we've elected our Commissioners, they can get to work on investigating this and any other matter of national interest. They will also have the power to bring malefactors to justice in our name.

Oh, and before I forget, our Constitution will guarantee free speech, so that the press can report openly on the activities of our Commissioners. And of course we can always elect new Commissioners if we so desire.

How does that sound?
 
gumboot said:
I am with others. No new investigation should be conducted until it can be demonstrated that the findings of the previous ones were flawed. Conflicts of interest in Commission members are totally irrelevant if they came to accurate conclusions.
Click to expand...

Yeah. For our new Japanese poster I'll point this out to you.


On Sunday the 30 of January 1972, British Paratroopers opened fire on a civil rights march in Belfast, Northern Ireland. They killed nationalist 13 civilians, in what is widely regarded as the lightening rod that glanvinised popular support for the IRA among the nationalist and catholic communities.

The tribunal in the aftermath of the masscre was led of Justice Widgery of the British Crown. The findings of his investigation have been scathingly examined by historians.

For example Widgery accepted claims from British soldiers that they had been fired upon from the crowd. This was in face of strenous denials by civilians, including priests and journalists. More importantly no forensic evidence (ie spent shell casings, firearms, gunpowder, or bomb residue) was found at the scene.

Well thats not strictly true. Two improvised explosive devices were found in the jacket pockets of one of the dead were found by a RUC officer, several hours after he was pronounced dead. However the doctor who prounced him dead, empathically denies that the bombs were on the body when he examined the young boy.


Secondly the witness statements given by soldiers on the day of Bloody sunday, often differs radically from the statements they gave in court. This evidence was surpressed during the original tribunal. Nevertheless the evidence given by numerous soldiers at the tribunal was riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, omissions and obvious falsehoods, to such an extent that it is difficult not to suspect an element of bias in Lord Widgery's strongly expressed faith in their testimony.



As part of the NI peace process, the events of Bloody sunday and the failures of the original investigation are being examined.

The truth movement haven't come up with a single flawed conclusion of the 911 comission. Perhaps if they could just highlight a single example of an erronous conclusion that the 911 comission came to*


*aside from pancake collapse, it wasn't a group of engineers for crying out loud.
 
T.A.M. said:
I almost spit out my coke when I saw that the 9 concerned citizens (out of 36 members on the committee) get 55% voting share.

What insane template is this based on?
Click to expand...

Well you see, by 'concerned citizens' he obviously means troofers. So now it makes complete sense as to why he thinks these 'concerned citizens' should get 55% of the voting share.
 
I propose we leave any new investigation to the only group that could not be biased in any way, the next primitive stone age tribe discovered living in a previously unexplored jungle region.
 
Despite all the blather about how the New Commission would supposedly conduct its votes, I'm more curious about exactly what (besides its own membership, and whom to subpoena) it would be voting on.

Would a vote decide whether or not there is sufficient potential energy in the twin towers to destroy those towers in a progressive collapse?

Would a vote decide which side of the Citgo station Flight 77 flew in on?

Would a vote decide whether "pull it" is demolition industry slang for demolishing a building with explosives?

dommyboysinjapan said:
The goal of the New 9/11 Investigation would be to identify, apprehend, and bring to justice those charged in the commission of crimes regarding the events of September 11th, 2001.
Click to expand...


Are there a lot of people who have been charged in the commission of 9/11 crimes, who haven't been identified, apprehended, and brought to justice? (How were they charged, if they haven't even been identified?) If so, isn't that the FBI's problem to deal with? Or is this all-important mission statement just carelessly worded?

More to the point, who cares what it's goal is? If you want public support for this, how about telling us what (apart from subpoenaing people, keeping the public informed, and spending 30 million a year) it would actually be mandated to do? Assuming that the goal is something a little more sensible than capturing people who have already been charged with crimes, how will the New Commission accomplish this?

In any case, though I'm no lawyer, I strongly suspect that this plan is so riddled with unconstitutional provisions that the only way it's going to happen is if you first invade and conquer the U.S. Please let me know if that's your plan, so I can buy some guns.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
The goal of the New 9/11 Investigation would be to identify, apprehend, and bring to justice those charged in the commission of crimes regarding the events of September 11th, 2001.
Click to expand...


And here the (rather stupid) plan dissolves into dust. I'll assume the comment about identifying and apprehended people charged is a mistake, since you can't charge someone until after you've identified and apprehended them...

But there's a minor spanner in the works here which is that no government commission has the authority to conduct a criminal investigation or to bring criminal charges against anyone in any court. That's not how the system works.

Only law enforcement agencies have the authority to conduct a criminal investigation, collect admissible evidence, and bring criminal charges to a court, and only a court has the authority to hear those charges, determine guilt, and issue a sentence.

It would be utterly and unquestionably unconstitutional for such a commission to declare guilt and issue punishment.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
I would just like to know if there are any people on this forum who would support a new investigation into the events of 9/11. My main complaint about the 9/11 Commission is that it was directed by Philip Zelikow who was practically a member of the Bush administration. This seems to be such an obvious conflict of interest that I am surprised that there wasnt more objections to this raised by other politicians, lawyers, and the media. I know that some of the victim's family members were vehemently opposed to him directing the Commission.

I am not asking if you buy into all the conspiracy theories but is there anyone on this forum that thought that the 911 Commission lacked neccesary impartiality and/or credibility for other reasons?
Click to expand...

Are you aware of any other investigations that were not associated to the 9/11 commission? Were you satisfied with their results?
Were you satisfied with the scrutiny the commission received and the further scrutiny of their final report?
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
The goal of the New 9/11 Investigation would be to identify, apprehend, and bring to justice those charged in the commission of crimes regarding the events of September 11th, 2001.
Click to expand...

This has already been done. The FBI had 7,000 agents figuring it out and come to a conclusion. One person has already been tried and convicted and is rotting in the same jail as the guy that had the inital thought. Six others, including the main planner, and the go between for the planners and hijackers are in US Custody, have been indited and are are awaiting their day in court.

What more do you want?
 
Viper Daimao said:
Who's gonna be able to understand him when he says the towers were brought down by a beumb?
Click to expand...

Presumably he will have an assistant to interpret what he says.

David_Ray_Griffin.jpg
 
Last edited:
1337m4n said:
Why do conspiracy idiots think that not participating in their 9/11 hallucinations equates to supporting every aspect of the War on Terror?

Why do conspiracy idiots make up numbers?

Why can't conspiracy idiots grasp the fact that it is possible to oppose Bush and the war WITHOUT believing in magic and fairy tales?

Why do conspiracy idiots think that the fact that we are spending a lot of money justifies spending even more money?
Click to expand...

What magic and fairy tales does the 9/11 Truth Movement believe in? I believe that explosive charges can destroy steel-frame high-rises. Would you consider that belief akin to magic and fairy tales?
 
no, the fairy tale part, is that despite having no proof, you and your truther mates have concocted an infinitely elaborate, contrived, nonsensical plot of how the evil gubmint had the buildings rigged to come down with those explosives on 9/11

Get it?

TAM:)
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
The following quote is not my idea but the idea of another poster on a different forum. I liked his idea so I will repost it:

"FUNDING
$30 million dollars initially provided by the federal government (more if necessary, subject to government approval)

NEW 9/11 COMMISSION
It would be comprised of thirty-six people in four groups (nine in each group):
Fom the federal government:
(1) Congress
(2) Judiciary
(3) Executive
and,
(4) Concerned Citizens- comprised from the following: 9/11 surviving family members, 9/11 first responders in health crisis, actual 9/11 survivors. All concerned citizens from these groups (organization and group membership must first take place) would decide by group election initial nine members for (4) Concerned Citizens.

<snip>

This is only one possible idea. Any thoughts on this poster's idea?
Click to expand...
Various questions occur to me, but let's start with this one.

Suppose you have your new investigation. Suppose you yourself were given powers to subpoena witnesses, order the production of documents, look at the physical evidence, and so forth, within the normal limits of such inquiries.

Now, remember that if you ask GWB: "Were you behind 9/11?", then he will say "no" even if he was. Same if you ask Silverstein: "Did you blow up WTC7?", or order Rumsfeld to produce his Secret MIHOP Planning Diary. In general, we may assume that if there was a conspiracy, the conspirators will lie and cover it up. It's that sneaky way they have.

So, that being understood, which unanswered questions would you want to ask which people, which unscrutinized documents would you order to be produced, and which unexamined physical evidence would you like to examine, to determine whether 9/11 was MIHOP, al Qaeda, or al Qaeda plus LIHOP? (Note that if the new investigation doesn't resolve this issue for you, it's all a bit of a waste of time and money. What you need are questions that would expose the conspiracy if there was one.)

Thanking you in advance for your suggestions.
 
tanabear said:
What magic and fairy tales does the 9/11 Truth Movement believe in? I believe that explosive charges can destroy steel-frame high-rises. Would you consider that belief akin to magic and fairy tales?
Click to expand...
I notice you conveniently leave out the part where said explosive charges can be snuck into busy high rise buildings and topple them because the airplanes we all saw do it is just too darn simple.

You know, because then the easy answer is "yes, it very much akin to magic and fairy tales." :p
 
Dr Adequate said:
Various questions occur to me, but let's start with this one.

Suppose you have your new investigation. Suppose you yourself were given powers to subpoena witnesses, order the production of documents, look at the physical evidence, and so forth, within the normal limits of such inquiries.

Now, remember that if you ask GWB: "Were you behind 9/11?", then he will say "no" even if he was. Same if you ask Silverstein: "Did you blow up WTC7?", or order Rumsfeld to produce his Secret MIHOP Planning Diary. In general, we may assume that if there was a conspiracy, the conspirators will lie and cover it up. It's that sneaky way they have.

So, that being understood, which unanswered questions would you want to ask which people, which unscrutinized documents would you order to be produced, and which unexamined physical evidence would you like to examine, to determine whether 9/11 was MIHOP, al Qaeda, or al Qaeda plus LIHOP? (Note that if the new investigation doesn't resolve this issue for you, it's all a bit of a waste of time and money. What you need are questions that would expose the conspiracy if there was one.)

Thanking you in advance for your suggestions.
Click to expand...

Simple answer. The truth movement, as part of its fantasy, envisions something along the lines of "A few good men", with their guys being the young cracker Tom Cruise, who will antagonize and irritate the more senior Jack Nicholson into admitting "he did it".

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
tanabear said:
What magic and fairy tales does the 9/11 Truth Movement believe in? I believe that explosive charges can destroy steel-frame high-rises. Would you consider that belief akin to magic and fairy tales?
Click to expand...
No, that's something that normal people also believe.

It's the things that only Truthers believe in that are akin to magic and fairy tales.

Do you understand now, or do I have to use shorter words?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom