Investigation w\ subpoena power

[Jango]

And do they contain paradigm-shifting truths about 9/11?

Just more evidence.

What reasons were given for the denials?

Two of the norms -- Couldn't Find It or We're Not Willing To Share It. Not too surprising: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-cites-security-more-censor-deny-records-0

Really? You don't know? You're doing FOIA requests, something few Americans even know how to do, much less would even contemplate doing unless they felt fairly passionately about something. And you're going onto online forums deliberately confronting people you think will oppose your point of view.

It's not my responsibility to personally update everyone's framework. It's not even possible to have an audience of 7,000,000,000+ people. And I call hyperbole to the charge of 'deliberately confronting people'. I'm hardly the one being aggressive here.

Clearly you believe you are the one responsible to do this. You are the "investigator" alluded to in this thread. Now justify that.

Responsible for my own framework, absolutely; everyone else's, eh, nope, sorry.

Of course, The rest of your answer is reasonable but irrelevant. The point is that there exists no person with a character so impeccable that he can command respect and trust from people so ideologically opposed to each other as Truthers and their critics. Hence the notion that we should have an "independent" investigation of 9/11 is a non-starter for the reason you've just given, and with which I agree.

You're preaching to the choir, man:

From my first post in this thread:

1. No one who could escape accusations of being biased or a stooge or whatever other labels get tossed around to discredit a person's character.

#35 -- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10392213&postcount=35

Bias, or rather, the notion of impartiality, is one of those curious personal traits that depends almost entirely on the judgment of others. A person is impartial only if everyone concerned with the matter at hand considers him impartial with respect to it.

Impartiality exists in both individuals and in groups, but yes, self-declared pleas of being impartial are useless in the public sphere as it is the views of the people within the public sphere of whether or not someone is or isn't impartial, yes, that is correct.

 

[jaydeehess]

Here's my Committee:

George W. Bush -- Chairman
Dick Cheney -- Vice Chairman
Donald Rumsfeld
Condoleezza Rice
Stephen Hadley
Michael Hayden
Kenneth Minihan
George Tenet
David Addington
Scooter Libby
Karl Rove
Andrew Card
Ari Fleischer
Paul Wolfowitz
John Ashcroft
Alberto Gonzalez

They'd be a good investigative team for 9/11, don't you think so?

You want career polititicians and bureaucrats? Not scientific or engineering experts?
I suggested Jay Utah. Even though he bows out I don't know of a stated political ideology associated with him. Would it not behhove you to search for such persons?

So, care to revise your list to include serious suggestions?

Then again if there exists no one who satisfies the "independent" stipulation why is it even being proposed? Because it sounds good?

 

[Jango]

You want career polititicians and bureaucrats? Not scientific or engineering experts?
I suggested Jay Utah. Even though he bows out I don't know of a stated political ideology associated with him. Would it not behhove you to search for such persons?

So, care to revise your list to include serious suggestions?

Then again if there exists no one who satisfies the "independent" stipulation why is it even being proposed? Because it sounds good?

Why can't the people at the top of the U.S. Government on 9/11 be a serious suggestion for investigators? Is their credibility in question?

 

[jaydeehess]

Why can't the people at the top of the U.S. Government on 9/11 be a serious suggestion for investigators? Is their credibility in question?

I for one would consider R.Cheney quite biased and unsuitable to serve on such a committee. I would consider GW Bush to be biased and unsuited to be on the committee. I would consider D.Rumsfeld to be incompetent to sit on this committee.

You suggested them. Do you consider them unbiased and suitable for this committee?

No technical training in your list either. No requirement for aviation experts , structural experts? This committee only going to investigate security agencies and political issues?

 

[JayUtah]

Just more evidence.

So no earth-shattering revelations, then. Got it.

Two of the norms -- Couldn't Find It or We're Not Willing To Share It.

And what conclusions did you draw from those answers, and why?

It's not my responsibility to personally update everyone's framework.

You're arguing scale; I'm arguing qualitative factors. You are on a crusade. Just because it happens to have practical size limitations doesn't change what it is.

I'm hardly the one being aggressive here.

...says the guy who resurrected a half dozen long-dead threads in order to try to make his point.

You're preaching to the choir, man

No I'm not. I'm preaching to the guy sitting in the congregation waving his hands and saying, "Listen to me!"

...yes, self-declared pleas of being impartial are useless in the public sphere...

Agreed. Convince us that we should consider you impartial. Conversely, own your bias.

 

[JayUtah]

Why can't the people at the top of the U.S. Government on 9/11 be a serious suggestion for investigators? Is their credibility in question?

Their credibility is in question. They're career politicians, and I have previously indicated that I don't consider politicians especially trustworthy investigators. That's why I asked why you wanted Rand Paul to do the job.

But more importantly, their qualifications are in question. I also indicated earlier that the evidence in question requires subject-matter expertise to understand and interpret. Few if any of these people have those qualifications.

But most importantly, did you list those people because that's who you think we'd identify as who originally investigated 9/11? Or because you'd think we're just government shills who would accept that list simply on principle? That's why I asked you to be serious.

 

[George 152]

If that helps any: I consider you biased

Yup. He's got this thing about using facts, accuracy and the old bogeyman of evidence

 

[fezzic]

Why can't the people at the top of the U.S. Government on 9/11 be a serious suggestion for investigators? Is their credibility in question?

You answered your own question (even with a question).

Ever hear of the phrase, "the appearance of a conflict of interest"? Since most all 9/11 CTs presume a internal government conspiracy in arranging/executing/not countering the attack, the first thought, anyone passingly familiar with the issue would have, about the people on you supposedly serious list is

The only way those people might even be considered would be if there was absolutely no reason to think they had anything to do with the events and that would be a laughable assumption if only because of... "the appearance of a conflict of interest".

 

[JayUtah]

Again, the problem is that everyone -- depending on your point of view -- has "the appearance of a conflict of interest." Hence when conspiracy theorists call for an "independent" investigation, we naturally want to know what the investigator is supposed to be independent from. Jango made the surprising choice of someone within government, believing that the called-for investigation was meant to be "internal." But he backed away from that candidate and the requirement -- probably a legitimate misunderstanding.

If you manage to penetrate the run-around and rhetoric from others, what you get usually is the suggestion that "independent" means "not part of the government" (yet somehow publicly funded). And that leads shortly into the suggestion that one of the existing conspiracy theorists should be the "independent" investigator, since they've allegedly already done so much to uncover the Truth. So when you finally get an actionable answer, it amounts to endowing some conspiracy author with "subpoena power" so he can act with the power and authority of government without any of the common restrictions or limitations on such power.

Leaving aside what we said above -- that such a thing cannot and therefore will not happen in the United States -- we have to consider also the corollary: that the "only" reason conspiracy theorists can't make headway now is because they lack the power to compel the release of allegedly smoking-gun evidence being closely guarded by the evil government. In other words, "The reason we can't prove our point is because of a massive government cover-up."

That's the same lame excuse we get from the UFO claimants, the Moon hoax theorists, and the Kennedy conspiracy theorists. Every conspiracy theorist is stymied for years (or decades, in some cases) by the alleged government concealment of "key evidence" that would blow the lid off the case if disclosed -- but they have to make do with what little evidence the can scrape together with your donations. When the same trick works over and over to fleece the gullible, then you realize there is a conspiracy industry.