A new investigation for 9/11. Why?

[twinstead]

Whatever happens with NYCcan the National and International debate on 9/11 will go into full swing with a vengeance. All eyes will turn to watch. If they try to continue the coverup it will stand out like a sore thumb.

So even if the investigation becomes coopted the Movement for Truth will make giant strides forward.

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/07/ex-fbi-agent-why-i-support-a-new-911-investigation/

Dude. Get over yourself. The last thing you folks need is for "all eyes" to turn to watch. What will stand out like a sore thumb is that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Foolmewunz]

This may break Deep's heart, but sorry.... This thing will never pass through the City Council.

They have a self-funding provision - to come from private donations. With no evidence that they have the funds, they'll have serious problems getting it through the council. Very serious problems. Interestingly, the last version said it would need two million a year. I guess knowing that they can't raise the money, they figured why not quintuple it.

Further, there are veterans of this discussion here who will recall that they couldn't get their 30,000 signatures in time for last year's deadline (after failing to meet the previous year's deadline). This brings up two obvious questions:

How'd they get the additional 22,000 signatures in about 8 months when they couldn't get 30,000 in over two years?

Who's verifying the signatures? The little statement on the form is supposed to suffice? (And it's witnessed, too. Mighty impressive.) Some of the original signatures are from 2006/7. I know one, for a fact, who's deceased (because it was my activist sister* and we had a big fight about it - and she passed away last month).


*And, by the way, the tenor of our fight was that she thought it was a good idea to look into the fact that the city was horribly unprepared and that the EMS, NYPD, NYFD had very poor inter-agency communications. She had no idea they were "inside job" truthers. Like Patriots for 911 Truth, they don't quite come out and say that they're looking for an investigation into a government conspiracy to murder 3000 people.

 

[T.A.M.]

If they have a "self-funding" provision, they will likely have to show (A) their projected budget, (B) the sources of funding that will be secured, and (C) the projected income from said sources.

Not gonna happen.

TAM

 

[deep]

This may break Deep's heart, but sorry.... This thing will never pass through the City Council.

They have a self-funding provision - to come from private donations. With no evidence that they have the funds, they'll have serious problems getting it through the council. Very serious problems. Interestingly, the last version said it would need two million a year. I guess knowing that they can't raise the money, they figured why not quintuple it.

If City Council rejects it, they can present more signatures to override them. The specifics are provided earlier in this thread.

Who's verifying the signatures? The little statement on the form is supposed to suffice? (And it's witnessed, too. Mighty impressive.) Some of the original signatures are from 2006/7. I know one, for a fact, who's deceased (because it was my activist sister* and we had a big fight about it - and she passed away last month).

They had to pay $75,000 to have the signatures verified, and I believe that's going on right now. Again, that was covered earlier in the thread.

Given their current structure/approach, I'm not at all surprised that they were able to collect so many signatures. See this Zogby poll from 2004, a portion of which included only NYC residents:

http://www.zogby.com/search/readnews.cfm?ID=855

At least back then, just under 50% believed that the US Government "knew about the attacks in advance ...". If you're aware of a more recent poll of only NYC residents, please share it.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If City Council rejects it, they can present more signatures to override them. The specifics are provided earlier in this thread.

But how would that change the fact the organizers wouldn't be able to secure $10m annually?

 

[Foolmewunz]

If City Council rejects it, they can present more signatures to override them. The specifics are provided earlier in this thread.





They had to pay $75,000 to have the signatures verified, and I believe that's going on right now. Again, that was covered earlier in the thread.

Given their current structure/approach, I'm not at all surprised that they were able to collect so many signatures. See this Zogby poll from 2004, a portion of which included only NYC residents:

http://www.zogby.com/search/readnews.cfm?ID=855

At least back then, just under 50% believed that the US Government "knew about the attacks in advance ...". If you're aware of a more recent poll of only NYC residents, please share it.

If the City Council rejects it because their funding is not there, then it will not get to the additional (what is it 30,000 more) signatures, because they'll have to change their entire petition to exclude the self-financing and that would negate every signature on there, since everyone who signed believes they signed a petition for a self-financed (no outlay to taxpayers of NYC) commission.

I was not questioning that you could find X people who might be willing to sign a petition. I was questioning how this organization got their act together and got the requisite number of signatures when they'd had great difficulties in the past. Not accusing them of anything, actually. I was curious as to whether they had some new organization tactics, new canvassers, etc.....

 

[Justin39640]

Whatever happens with NYCcan the National and International debate on 9/11 will go into full swing with a vengeance. All eyes will turn to watch. If they try to continue the coverup it will stand out like a sore thumb.

So even if the investigation becomes coopted the Movement for Truth will make giant strides forward.

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/07/ex-fbi-agent-why-i-support-a-new-911-investigation/

again bill
the people behind this bill think TERRORISTS FLEW PLANES INTO BUILDINGS
NOT EXPLOSIVES

your link does nothing to help you

The official dissembling and excuse-making about the true causes and prior mistakes that gave rise to and allowed the terrorist attacks to happen, almost immediately ushered in the Bush-Cheney Administration’s egregious and lawless, post 9-11 “war on terror” agenda which bore no connection to the original causes and no connection to the goal of reducing terrorism and making the world safer. When I got a chance, about 8 ½ months after 9-11 to tell what I knew, I did so and my disclosures led to further investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General and figured in the 9-11 Commission Report.

But it was way too late for this emerging bit of truth that has continued to leak out in dribs and drabs to have any impact. The laws themselves, especially the criminal procedure ones rooted in the Constitution that I had spent my career teaching to law enforcement, have largely gone up in smoke. Having seen the cost of remaining silent, I publicly warned, a few months after my first memo, against launching the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. But false agendas had already filled the vacuum created by lack of truth. And we are still dealing with the disastrous consequences of these unjustified, pre-emptive wars.

Let me therefore simply repeat the request I made to the Senate Judiciary Committee in June 2002: “Foremost, we owe it to the public, especially the victims of terrorism, to be completely honest. I can only imagine what these crime and terrorism victims continue to go through. They deserve nothing but the complete, unfettered truth.”

 

[deep]

If the City Council rejects it because their funding is not there, then it will not get to the additional (what is it 30,000 more) signatures, because they'll have to change their entire petition to exclude the self-financing and that would negate every signature on there, since everyone who signed believes they signed a petition for a self-financed (no outlay to taxpayers of NYC) commission.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim, like an example where this has happened in the past? In other words, how do you know this to be true?

This is from their petition:

"In addition, pledges of specific contributions from wealthy private individuals are being obtained with payment subject to enactment of the Initiative by the voters of New York City."​

That seems to suggest that the funding does not need to be in place until it passes.

 

[deep]

But how would that change the fact the organizers wouldn't be able to secure $10m annually?

This is what happens when you believe that everyone who disagrees with you on a particular subject is insane, stupid, unemployed, poor, or whatever else.

How can you prove what they can or cannot secure annually? Because the number of unique page-views on 9/11 blogger is decreasing? Because there were only 100 people at some random parade? Because the anonymous people you interact with on YouTube say ridiculous things?

Is that "critical thinking"?

If you came up with a conservative average salary for all of the professionals who publicly support 9/11 truth, multiplied it out, and then added in the salaries of very wealthy supporters like Charlie Sheen, David Lynch, and Rosie O'Donnell (to name a few) - you would quickly realize that it's actually very possible for them to acquire the funding.

 

[Justin39640]

This is what happens when you believe that everyone who disagrees with you on a particular subject is insane, stupid, unemployed, poor, or whatever else.

How can you prove what they can or cannot secure annually? Because the number of unique page-views on 9/11 blogger is decreasing? Because there were only 100 people at some random parade? Because the anonymous people you interact with on YouTube say ridiculous things?

Is that "critical thinking"?

If you came up with a conservative average salary for all of the professionals who publicly support 9/11 truth, multiplied it out, and then added in the salaries of very wealthy supporters like Charlie Sheen, David Lynch, and Rosie O'Donnell (to name a few) - you would quickly realize that it's actually very possible for them to acquire the funding.

thats what happens when the truth movement latched onto the victims families questions like the misplaced leach from "stand by me"

muddy waters = no dough

 

[T.A.M.]

This is what happens when you believe that everyone who disagrees with you on a particular subject is insane, stupid, unemployed, poor, or whatever else.

How can you prove what they can or cannot secure annually? Because the number of unique page-views on 9/11 blogger is decreasing? Because there were only 100 people at some random parade? Because the anonymous people you interact with on YouTube say ridiculous things?

Is that "critical thinking"?

If you came up with a conservative average salary for all of the professionals who publicly support 9/11 truth, multiplied it out, and then added in the salaries of very wealthy supporters like Charlie Sheen, David Lynch, and Rosie O'Donnell (to name a few) - you would quickly realize that it's actually very possible for them to acquire the funding.

oih....

1. The 9/11 truth movement, as an active movement is in decline. Yes, you can assess how the ACTIVE movement is doing by looking at indices such as website visits, attendance at events, etc... What does this say about people who believe they were not told the entire truth about 9/11 (a much larger and for the most part unrelated group), well who knows. What I can tell you is that world wide it appears only an average of 15% of the population believe the USG carried out 9/11, and a MUCH HIGHER percent of people believe it was Al-Qaeda.

2. If acquiring such funding is so easy, then WHY THE ****, has the truth movement done SFA in regards to furthering their cause. As an activist group they are the most APATHETIC, POORLY ORGANIZED, BACKWARD group I have ever seen.

As for thinking everyone who disagrees is insane or stupid, well no not really, it just seems that those are the only ones that the JREF CT subforum seems to recruit from the TM.

TAM

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How can you prove what they can or cannot secure annually? Because the number of unique page-views on 9/11 blogger is decreasing? Because there were only 100 people at some random parade? Because the anonymous people you interact with on YouTube say ridiculous things?

Is that "critical thinking"?

You put the phrase "critical thinking" in scare quotes, so I assume you're referring to truther's tortured definition. So, no... it's certainly not "critical thinking".

It is, however, critical thinking^WP:

Critical thinking is purposeful and reflective judgment about what to believe or what to do in response to observations, experience, verbal or written expressions, or arguments.

As you can see, basing my judgment above on the very things you mentioned is, in fact, critical thinking. Until such time that the organizers of this petition can produce a sound plan to secure $10,000,000 per year, the most logical conclusion given the available evidence is that they can't do it.

If you came up with a conservative average salary for all of the professionals who publicly support 9/11 truth, multiplied it out, and then added in the salaries of very wealthy supporters like Charlie Sheen, David Lynch, and Rosie O'Donnell (to name a few) - you would quickly realize that it's actually very possible for them to acquire the funding.

What an utterly idiotic statement. You expect these people to give up their entire annual salary for any number of years? Do you even realize that salary is before taxes?

Go away until you've actually put some thought into this. You're not doing your side any justice by spewing such nonsense.

 

[LashL]

NYCCan will have subpoena powers. That means they can put people on the stand under oath.

You realize that the petition is only to adopt a local NYC law, right? What makes you think that any subpoena power that can be granted pursuant to a NYC local law would have any force or effect upon anyone located anywhere other than in NYC?

 

[Justin39640]

delete

 

[Foolmewunz]

Do you have any evidence to support this claim, like an example where this has happened in the past? In other words, how do you know this to be true?

This is from their petition:

"In addition, pledges of specific contributions from wealthy private individuals are being obtained with payment subject to enactment of the Initiative by the voters of New York City."​

That seems to suggest that the funding does not need to be in place until it passes.

That's just the wording of the petition. You can put anything you want in a petition. It's a form you get from the city and you can put in four pages of "marshmallow, marshmallow, marshmallow, marshmallow". It doesn't mean that what's in the petition is backed by code.

And, no, of course I have no evidence of a NYC statute to this effect because there's never been a referendum for a self-funded subpoena-empowered investigatory body. It's never been done before. But I don't think they're going to get approval for the wording unless they show that they actually have the ability to finance it. That's they way the City Council and City Government work.

You can't get approval for a community-funded garden on an empty lot unless you show you have an organization in place and actually have the initial funds (or equivalent in free goods/labor) already committed.

 

[T.A.M.]

If they are looking for a subpoena empowered commission/investigation, then you can simply end the conversation before it starts. You have to provide SOME SERIOUS evidence against someone or some group, if you expect any judge, or institution, to grant you subpoena power. The 9/11 commission itself railed over getting subpoena power, not only due to how difficult it would be, but the political fall out that would result.

subpoena ability on this suggested new commission is a non-starter, EOS.

TAM

 

[deep]

What an utterly idiotic statement. You expect these people to give up their entire annual salary for any number of years? Do you even realize that salary is before taxes?

Go away until you've actually put some thought into this. You're not doing your side any justice by spewing such nonsense.

You represented your initial claim as a "fact". I was merely demonstrating that it is very possible for them to raise enough money. Nowhere did I suggest that it was their "entire" salary, or anything even close to that.

 

[deep]

And, no, of course I have no evidence of a NYC statute to this effect because there's never been a referendum for a self-funded subpoena-empowered investigatory body. It's never been done before. But I don't think they're going to get approval for the wording unless they show that they actually have the ability to finance it. That's they way the City Council and City Government work.

As long as you're giving me your opinion, that's fine. From what I understand - to get on the ballot, all you need is a plan to raise the money. If/when it passes, then you must deliver the funding in order to move forward.

I'm not a lawyer, though, so that is just my opinion based on what I've read.

You can't get approval for a community-funded garden on an empty lot unless you show you have an organization in place and actually have the initial funds (or equivalent in free goods/labor) already committed.

Wait, what..? Are you suggesting that these rules will apply to NYCCAN, or are you just sharing some random information?

 

[deep]

If they are looking for a subpoena empowered commission/investigation, then you can simply end the conversation before it starts. You have to provide SOME SERIOUS evidence against someone or some group, if you expect any judge, or institution, to grant you subpoena power.

As I understand- if the referendum passes, it will modify the city charter of NYC. As a matter of local law, they will have subpoena power.

Are you referring to individual subpoenas being rejected? How do you know this?

 

[jhunter1163]

You realize that the petition is only to adopt a local NYC law, right? What makes you think that any subpoena power that can be granted pursuant to a NYC local law would have any force or effect upon anyone located anywhere other than in NYC?

Any truther want to take a shot at answering this question?

(God, I hope so. Legaltainment would surely ensue.)