We need an independent investigation!

[Btodd]

No, I'm not serious. This is the favorite mantra of many Truthers that I encounter, who are wise enough to know not to speculate on any specifics, but instead keep repeating things like 'the government investigated itself, that's not an independent investigation'. They won't bother to tell me what specific problems they have with any particular piece of info, just that 'the government didn't follow the proper procedures of an investigation, so we need a new one'.

In turn, I try to get them to address any specific areas in which they think I'm accepting the government's word for things, because many aspects are able to be confirmed by outside sources. I like pointing out that aside from their posturing that they are adhering to some matter of strict investigative principle, what they really want is a 'new verdict'. It is an obvious game played in order to stay on the attack, and avoid defending, but are there better answers to this charade?

Their main focus is usually the 9/11 Commission report, and that it was appointed by the government, so it was hardly 'independent'.....but they don't want to lay out any particular aspect that comes ONLY from said report (because they don't really want an answer, just plausible deniability).

Another favorite is the comment that was made about 'funding being irrelevant'. This is used to imply that they didn't investigate the matter fully, which I still think is a petty game.

 

[Gravy]

Congratulations! You've started the 1,000th thread about this subject! Here's your pony:




When you run into these characters, just remind them of the time when top truthers convened in a "citizens' grand jury" and couldn't convince themselves that 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[Thunder]

No, I'm not serious. This is the favorite mantra of many Truthers that I encounter, who are wise enough to know not to speculate on any specifics, but instead keep repeating things like 'the government investigated itself, that's not an independent investigation'. They won't bother to tell me what specific problems they have with any particular piece of info, just that 'the government didn't follow the proper procedures of an investigation, so we need a new one'.

In turn, I try to get them to address any specific areas in which they think I'm accepting the government's word for things, because many aspects are able to be confirmed by outside sources. I like pointing out that aside from their posturing that they are adhering to some matter of strict investigative principle, what they really want is a 'new verdict'. It is an obvious game played in order to stay on the attack, and avoid defending, but are there better answers to this charade?

Their main focus is usually the 9/11 Commission report, and that it was appointed by the government, so it was hardly 'independent'.....but they don't want to lay out any particular aspect that comes ONLY from said report (because they don't really want an answer, just plausible deniability).

Another favorite is the comment that was made about 'funding being irrelevant'. This is used to imply that they didn't investigate the matter fully, which I still think is a petty game.

"Independent" = run by truthers, paid for by the taxpayers, researched, investigated, and decided by truthers. And of course if by some crazy chance it supports the "OT", they have to start over again.

 

[Btodd]

Thanks Gravy, I was hoping for some useless sarcasm. I appreciate your work, but this place is annoying in that regard sometimes. I'm not a Truther in disguise, so no need for the knee-jerk reaction, thanks.

 

[Thunder]

Thanks Gravy, I was hoping for some useless sarcasm. I appreciate your work, but this place is annoying in that regard sometimes. I'm not a Truther in disguise, so no need for the knee-jerk reaction, thanks.

I think Gravy is just a little dissalusioned with the whole thing.

 

[Btodd]

I think Gravy is just a little dissalusioned with the whole thing.

I understand that, but he's approaching Pomeroo syndrome. I hope we won't get sidetracked....as I said, I'm not posing in any way. This place seems to have it's own conspiratorial bent at times.

 

[Gravy]

I understand that, but he's approaching Pomeroo syndrome. I hope we won't get sidetracked....as I said, I'm not posing in any way. This place seems to have it's own conspiratorial bent at times.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm accusing you of being a truther. I'm not.

 

[DGM]

Does this thread actually have a reason for being?

 

[Architect]

I think we do need an independent investigation, run by expert architects from a neutral third party state like the UK who are beyond the reach of the NWO and have experience in tall buildings design*. Nothing to do with cashflow in a recession or anything, you understand.....


* and have read hair. And design buildings in Manchester. And play rugby.**

** Hey, it's a big recession, okay?

 

[Btodd]

You seem to be under the impression that I'm accusing you of being a truther. I'm not.

Good. I do hope somebody comes along and actually addresses my post with more than sarcasm, however. As I said, I appreciate your work. Thanks.

 

[Gravy]

Good. I do hope somebody comes along and actually addresses my post with more than sarcasm, however. As I said, I appreciate your work. Thanks.

I suggested one possible answer.

ETA: you'll find many other suggestions in these threads:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Arandi.org+%22new+investigation%22
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Arandi.org+%22independent+investigation%22

 

[Btodd]

The Truthers I'm referencing are strictly LIHOP's. They don't debate any of the particulars of the 4 events, but seem to imply (without having the guts to come out and say it) that there could have been foreknowledge, but the lack of an 'independent investigation' keeps us from exploring this possibility.

I don't find it even remotely convincing, as I said.....but other than the answers I've given, I like to check with others for better answers. There may be something I'm unaware of that is better than my own responses.


ETA: Just noticed your links, Mark. I'll check them now, thank you.

 

[T.A.M.]

I can't speak for Gravy, but I suspect his main discontent, as it is with many of us, is that this topic, like many others, has been beaten worse than a dead horse. We have created a "General Discussion" thread in an attempt to eliminate some of the "well done over" threads.

Another good approach is to take a key word you need info on, and do a google search with that key word and "JREF" in the search (as I find the JREF search function useless).

I am sure others here will attempt to answer your questions.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

No, I'm not serious. This is the favorite mantra of many Truthers that I encounter, who are wise enough to know not to speculate on any specifics, but instead keep repeating things like 'the government investigated itself, that's not an independent investigation'. They won't bother to tell me what specific problems they have with any particular piece of info, just that 'the government didn't follow the proper procedures of an investigation, so we need a new one'.

Don't fall for this line. It is merely their cute little way of JAQing off (Just Asking Questions). They do this so to the average newcomer they don't appear to be rambling idiots, or paranoid Govt haters. You let them ride this a little, and before long they start spewing truther canards out of every orifice.

In turn, I try to get them to address any specific areas in which they think I'm accepting the government's word for things, because many aspects are able to be confirmed by outside sources. I like pointing out that aside from their posturing that they are adhering to some matter of strict investigative principle, what they really want is a 'new verdict'. It is an obvious game played in order to stay on the attack, and avoid defending, but are there better answers to this charade?

Don't bother, unless you have an audience of lurkers you need to convince. Anything you provide for them in terms of evidence they will call "faked" or "planted", so there is no way for you to win. If you know there are many lurkers about, undecided, then go with it, as drawing the "planted/faked" cry out of them will make them look silly.

Their main focus is usually the 9/11 Commission report, and that it was appointed by the government, so it was hardly 'independent'.....but they don't want to lay out any particular aspect that comes ONLY from said report (because they don't really want an answer, just plausible deniability).

Another favorite is the comment that was made about 'funding being irrelevant'. This is used to imply that they didn't investigate the matter fully, which I still think is a petty game.

Yes, they claim that Zelikow was some evil overlord that should have been named Zerg (see Toy Story?). This is despite the fact that there were both republicans and democrats on the commission. Then they will pull out the lame "Kean and Hamilton themselves said the commission was a failure" which is not only a cherry picked misquote, but is simply not true.

As for the funding, I agree that in terms of WHO carried out the attacks, and WHY, the funding sources are of little concern.

However, I would like more detail on the issue, simply to see if the truth of who was helping aid Al-Qaeda at the time of the attacks can be gleaned.

TAM

 

[Btodd]

Thanks, T.A.M.

Don't worry, I'm not 'falling for' anything. It's not hard to see through this game, and I love to point out that it's the same game played by other fringe beliefs (Intelligent Design is a perfect example), where they expect to throw out a bunch of criticisms against the main theory (or 'anomalies') and expect their un-evidenced ideas to be left standing as the default answer.

I often refer to Joe Nickell's way of putting it, as 'mystery mongering' or 'anomaly hunting'. That's exactly what it is; keep your opponent on the defensive and never offer anything that can be shot down. I think this is how many fringe beliefs operate, because it's the only way they can.

But I do still try to give an answer that might be able to turn them around, even if that seems highly unlikely. I think it's far too easy to simply get frustrated with them and start the name-calling and ridicule, even if it is often deserved.

 

[Btodd]

I can't speak for Gravy, but I suspect his main discontent, as it is with many of us, is that this topic, like many others, has been beaten worse than a dead horse. We have created a "General Discussion" thread in an attempt to eliminate some of the "well done over" threads.

Another good approach is to take a key word you need info on, and do a google search with that key word and "JREF" in the search (as I find the JREF search function useless).

I am sure others here will attempt to answer your questions.

TAM

Not to start a big hubbub about it, but there are a few things about this I don't find to be the trouble it's made out to be.

1. It takes longer to search through threads to find the answer than to ask the question, and the other threads usually have a slightly different angle than the specific way I might be asking.

2. It's not as if I'm taking away from valuable threads about 9/11 conspiracies, since it's pretty much ALL been covered at this point.

3. If people are so easily irritated by answering the same questions over and over, then there's no reason for them to be here at all. There are almost NEVER any new questions, yet I've seen the same complaint by many of the same people....who are still here, ready to complain again.

4. If a thread asks a question that irritates someone, it's usually implicit in the thread title (like mine). So don't open it, and just move on.

And I'm not just referencing Mark, either. I see it a lot here, since I lurk most of the time. It's a real turn-off. It's almost as if there's a contest to see who can put out a smartass answer the quickest, so people can slap each other on the back for another 'good burn'. There are times and places for that, especially if someone is consistently playing games, but I am not.

Just some friendly advice from an outsider, take it as you will.

 

[eromitlab]

Then they will pull out the lame "Kean and Hamilton themselves said the commission was a failure" which is not only a cherry picked misquote, but is simply not true.

If you ever encounter Alex Floum (author of the georgewashington blog @ blogspot, posts on social news sites a lot, "responsible truther"), that's his favourite club to pull out of the truther bag. The other day, when he was flogging one of the new appeals to authority (medical professionals or politicians, can't remember which ATM and it's really not important, as both new sites are equally worthless to the 9/11 debate), I called him on the uselessness of the appeal to authority and his reply was that the 9/11 Commission doesn't believe its own findings, so why do I. His cite for that explosive claim? The main page of 911summary, which prominently features the Kean/Hamilton "set up to fail" quote among other quote mines. In other encounters with him, that's what he pulls out thinking it invalidates the entire report... and since the Commission report is the official government story, it invalidates that as well.
I find this sort of truther just as irritating as the more stereotypical angry young man truther yelling into a bullhorn... you can see how they're being dishonest and disingenuous with their quote mines, misinterpretations and other tricks, but they hide it behind a veneer of responsibility, JAQing off and "smart people question 9/11, so we need a new investigation to appease them", and an arrogant sneer directed at the more stereotypical truthers for the harm they do to what they're trying to do.

To answer the OP... I would scratch the surface and ask the truther what they think the particulars of the New Investigation™ should be. Which independent entity would form it, who would run it, who would sit on it, what powers would they have, what could they do with their findings, et cetera. Few truthers have an answer for that, so it either forces them to admit that it should be run by truthers and serve as official validation for their fantasies or, more likely, move the goalposts and dodge the question. Truthers find it so easy to spit out their talking points and pre-packaged one-liners and seem (at least on the very surface) to know what they're talking about. But if a truther is forced to go deeper than the talking points, it quickly becomes apparent that they have no idea what they're talking about. Every attempt I've ever seen at a truther narrative has been terrible, every attempt to define the particulars of a New Investigation™ has shown that a glorified kangaroo court is what's warranted, every attempt to certify their dismissal of contradictory evidence and views as a disinfo op has failed.

 

[beachnut]

Thanks Gravy, I was hoping for some useless sarcasm. I appreciate your work, but this place is annoying in that regard sometimes. I'm not a Truther in disguise, so no need for the knee-jerk reaction, thanks.

Why comment then? You came to post your complaint and now you have your excuse for telling everyone they are not being nice enough to combat ignorance and delusions.

Instead of clarifying your OP, you spend time criticizing those here. You share the trait of not being interested in what you asked for as much you are interested in attacking those who may give you your homework done for you cause you come unprepared to discuss your topic, but prepared to give advice.

... I'm a 'debunker' because ...

You are a debunker, practice your patience and check out those 1700 hits Gravy gave you.

 

[Btodd]

Why comment then? You came to post your complaint and now you have your excuse for telling everyone they are not being nice enough to combat ignorance and delusions.

Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about? I came to ask a question, as the OP indicates. I did not post anything 'ignorant or delusional', so take a deep breath.

Instead of clarifying your OP, you spend time criticizing those here. You share the trait of not being interested in what you asked for as much you are interested in attacking those who may give you your homework done for you cause you come unprepared to discuss your topic, but prepared to give advice.

Not being interested in what I asked? You reading minds now?

Aww, I struck a nerve. I'm not surprised you got irritated about it, since you're one of the worst practitioners. I gave you some helpful criticism about how the board is perceived outside of the inner circle here. You don't have to like it, sweetie.

You are a debunker, practice your patience and check out those 1700 hits Gravy gave you.

Nice manufactured quote that you created for me.

 

[Btodd]

To answer the OP... I would scratch the surface and ask the truther what they think the particulars of the New Investigation™ should be. Which independent entity would form it, who would run it, who would sit on it, what powers would they have, what could they do with their findings, et cetera. Few truthers have an answer for that, so it either forces them to admit that it should be run by truthers and serve as official validation for their fantasies or, more likely, move the goalposts and dodge the question.

Thanks, I think this is good advice, and Gravy's links made some of these points, too. Very useful.