Investigation w\ subpoena power

[ozeco41]

I Think that so far in this thread we have missed to most important factor:

What do "they" want investigated. "They" have never defined what it is other than vague inferences of "everything". An investigation needs terms of reference which define at least what is to be investigated and how the investigation is to be conducted.

The events of 9/11 fall easily into two distinct and separable groupings, viz:

1. Group 1. The Technical claims of which the main ones are "Demolition at WTC"; "It wasn't that plane at the Pentagon" and "Shanksville was a shoot down". All other technical issues which have been raised are related to these three either as sub-sets or supporting factors - e.g "thermXte" and ""micro spheres" and "Larry said xyz" are all supporting elements of claims for demolition at the WTC.
2. Group 2. All the claims about "inside job"; political nonfeasance, misfeasance and malfeasance. Broadly stated claims which fall into the socio-political domain.

The distinction is important because all the technical claims have been rebutted to a standard equal to or better than a formal inquiry could achieve.. BUT the truth movement in general has never put reasoned claims or debated much in the socio-political domain without attaching those claims to technical matters.

Note the introductory power-point presentations of the "big guns" Gage, Jones for examples. Their intro shows building collapses then shows WTC collapses and claims WTC "looks like demolition" It doesn't but let that pass. The point I make here is that having demonstrated similarity to demolition they immediately leap to "inside job". No evidence, no support.

Even if there was demolition (there wasn't - I'm putting up a moot point.) the explosives know not and care not who bought them, who placed them or who pushed the big red button. All those technical issues which have been raised to date are dead set untrue. Sure losers in the political arena. So why take a political claim such as "inside job" and hang round its neck the albatross of a sure fire loser such as demolition at WTC? Naive politics at best without even considering the honesty of the truther claimants.

So this "new investigation", what is it to investigate? "They" have never said and most times when pressed "they" seem to want WTC collapses investigated; "that plane into the Pentagon" investigated. the "Shanksville Shoot-down" investigated. To what end? No one has ever made a prima facie case that there is anything to investigate.

The rigours of a formal inquiry reguire specification of what is to be inquired into. It is a rigorous para-legal process. The garbage that Gage, Jones, et al get away with before their doting gullible audiences will not cut the mustard in any formal para-legal process such as a proper investigation.

So what are they seeking in this "new investigation"?

 

[DGM]

So what are they seeking in this "new investigation"?

Duh..........One that gives them the answers they want.

 

[The Platypus]

They say investigation, they mean inquisition...

 

[ozeco41]

Duh..........One that gives them the answers they want.

They say investigation, they mean inquisition...

I know - but I thought the thread warranted a serious answer. And the key point of "what' was missing.

 

[DGM]

I know - but I thought the thread warranted a serious answer. And the key point of "what' was missing.

That ship sailed about 6 years ago. I doubt any "truther" would ever touch this subject.

 

[plague311]

That ship sailed about 6 years ago. I doubt any "truther" would ever touch this subject.

Which is pure irony, in and of itself, considering they bring it up all the time.

 

[ozeco41]

That ship sailed about 6 years ago. I doubt any "truther" would ever touch this subject.

The demographic group we see here is only part of trutherdom/trolldom. Others "out there" may have been and could still be serious about the political aspects of 9/11. I don't know - I only learn from forums and only this forum in recent months.

And we have no serious truthers left here. The evidence is overwhelming that the ones still posting here (including a couple of newbies) are more into trolling than serious 9/11 discussion.

All that aside, including your valid observation that the ship sailed 6 years ago, the key question remains "What do they want investigated?" And, if they include the technical the exercise is pointless because the technical is all answered.


...unless they come up with something new....and currently we see them well into recycling.

 

[ozeco41]

Which is pure irony, in and of itself, considering they bring it up all the time.

Only as a chanted mantra - their brains not connected to the meaning of the words.

 

[The Platypus]

I know - but I thought the thread warranted a serious answer. And the key point of "what' was missing.

It does warrant a serious answer, which they refuse to even attempt for the obvious reasons we all see.

 

[DGM]

Others "out there" may have been and could still be serious about the political aspects of 9/11. I don't know - I only learn from forums and only this forum in recent months.

I think It's a safe bet, If they want a "new investigation" it's because they are only hoping it might turn up something to support what they "know" is the "truth", if not, they'll want another investigation.

 

[cjnewson88]

IIRC, The 9/11 Commission had subpoena power, and used it.

 

[triforcharity]

It's like "wanting you cake and eating it too".

What good is a ******* cake if you can't eat the goddamn thing?

 

[332nd]

My thought on this is that if they got what they claim to want its the biggest win for a CT ever no matter the outcome. I would even go as far to say that if the investigation turned out the same as what we have now it would be the best thing that could happen in their eyes because it would be 100% proof that they were right all along!

I mean they presented their evidence with all the power, subpoenas, & oaths they could put people under & nothing happened. Thus proving this thing goes deeper than anyone thought.

 

[Macgyver1968]

What good is a ******* cake if you can't eat the goddamn thing?

Tri -1 Mac- 0

 

[Jango]

So I have seen this brought up forever. It has been hinted to Troofers to start a thread, but they don't seem to want to. I am starting it for them with some very simple questions:

1) Who would be holding the investigation and providing the powers behind the subpoena?

2) If the "criminals" troofers claim did this, had no issue with killing thousands, why would they tell the truth under oath? Fear of the God?

3) Please state the most damming evidence that would be brought up in this trial.

I'll start there, and see where it goes.

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.

2. The naturally incentive is to protect themselves, so that's where something like a lie detector could be introduced.

3. This is contextual given what could potentially be found in information currently classified or attained through interrogation.

 

[DGM]

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.

Is there such a person (let alone a group)?

2. The naturally incentive is to protect themselves, so that's where something like a lie detector could be introduced.

It would be useless in convincing anyone that already believes the investigation is rigged. If they don't get the information the want, the machine was rigged.

3. This is contextual given what could potentially be found in information currently classified or attained through interrogation.

Sounds like the makings for a witch hunt.

 

[grandmastershek]

Is there such a person (let alone a group)?

Not really. For truthers it would have to be people who already agree with the specific pet theory.

Sounds like the makings for a witch hunt.

Pretty much, least of all lie detectors are unreliable and easily duped

 

[JayUtah]

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.

Can you name some specific human beings you believe would fit your criteria?

2. The naturally incentive is to protect themselves, so that's where something like a lie detector could be introduced.

There is no such thing as a "lie detector," and if you mean to refer to a polygraph then that evidence is scientifically unreliable and legally inadmissible. If you're going to invoke the force of law (because that's the only way subpoena power arises) to compel the giving of testimony, why would you not also follow the legal rules of evidence?

3. This is contextual given what could potentially be found in information currently classified or attained through interrogation.

If you don't know what that is, then how do you know the investigations already conducted have not produced the best picture of evidence we can likely have?

 

[JayUtah]

Not really. For truthers it would have to be people who already agree with the specific pet theory.

That's the thing -- I highly doubt there would be any person or group that is so universally above reproach as to be able to conduct an investigation that both Truthers and their critics could endorse as conclusive. When most people say they want a fair trial, what they really want is a favorable trial. Hence I'm betting what the Truthers are getting at is that they want one of their number endowed with "subpoena power" to supposedly break through government stonewalling.

Additionally, I'm still trying to figure out where "subpoena power" fits in. It seems most Truthers believe the government is hiding incriminating facts. So the investigation would be ostensibly aimed at indicting the government. Subpoena power exists only under the umbrella of government, because only government can exercise the poena portion of it and penalize disobedience by means of loss of liberty or property. Anything else would be a violation of the constitutional rights of the would-be witnesses.

So it seems what is wanted is an extra-judicial witch hunt. Or else you have the comical situation where the government is charged with enforcing subpoena power over people who are guarding the government's secrets.

Pretty much, least of all lie detectors are unreliable and easily duped

I can dupe a polygraph about half the time.

 

[Oystein]

...Subpoena power exists only under the umbrella of government, because only government can exercise the poena portion of it and penalize disobedience by means of loss of liberty or property. Anything else would be a violation of the constitutional rights of the would-be witnesses.

So it seems what is wanted is an extra-judicial witch hunt. Or else you have the comical situation where the government is charged with enforcing subpoena power over people who are guarding the government's secrets.
...

This assumes (and perhaps it is correct in the rough reality) that ultimately the government and its secret services are not subject to judicial control, i.e. not subject to the law of the land.

If a court of law, perhaps the supreme court, orders poenae against government representatives, would it have to seek and beg for government support to carry them out, or wouldn't there be branches of the government (police...) with actual power to move against other branches of the government if so ordered by highest court orders?