Question for truthers: what should a new investigation look like?

[ozeco41]

1) What would you consider to be an unbiased investigation?
A criminal investigation with the power to subpeona witnesses, held in a court room and televised to the entire world. 9/11 Truth vs. 9/11 Debunkers. With a full spectrum review of all relevant evidence. The Jury would be the entire world audience watching on TV.

2) Who should carry it out? Give me names.
The investigation or the trial? There's not much left to investigate because Rudy Giuliani had all the evidence destroyed in violation of Federal Crime Scene Laws. There should have been a standard fire/arson investigation done following NFPA Protocol, but it's a little late for that now...

3) Who should fund it? (Tax payers? Government? Private companies? UN?)
Tax payers do fund the Government so that's a bit rhetorical...
I think the Central Bankers who own the Federal Reserve should have to fund it with their private bank accounts but that'll never happen either.

4) Who should testify?
Bush and Cheney for one... To avoid the game of charades they played last time...
Karl Rove still hasn't gone to court, so I don't know how much I can say for the word "Justice" in America right now...

5) Which experts should be called to offer analysis? Names please.
Of course experts from both sides. Give them both a fair shot and let the entire world be the jury to the evidence presented...

6) Should anyone be banned from testifying? If so, who and why?
No... and they should all be under oath, unlike Bush and Cheney.

7) At the end of it all, who would you trust to pass final judgment on the evidence?
Like I said, do a live TV Trial with a full spectrum of evidence (not like these history channel specials which ignore all the hard core conspiracies and evidence like molten steel and the thermite) Lay it ALL out on the table, show the debate to the world on LIVE TV and let the people of the world be the Jury.

What I would like to see come before the "How we do it" procedural stuff is "What is it we want investigated"

So lets see what it is that the "truther side would wish to be investigated.

THEN we can ask them "What is wrong with what has been done?"

..and several more steps before we need to look at procedure.

So ACGravity - what would be (say) the top three issues you are concerned need a new investigation?

 

[Pardalis]

Oh! I know! We'll have an elimination contest, like American Idol. The bestest of the best theories will all assemble, and they'll present their evidence in front of a live audience, with three judges. One will be foreign, and be really mean. One will be a really overly-nice one, and the other will be from an ethnic group to give it a proper balance.
The next night, if they don't get enough support from the callers, they'll be lined up and summarily executed!
Any ideas for names? Judges?

American Idol and CSI, this is what the young generation thinks the justice system should look like.

 

[tsig]

1) What would you consider to be an unbiased investigation?
A criminal investigation with the power to subpeona witnesses, held in a court room and televised to the entire world. 9/11 Truth vs. 9/11 Debunkers. With a full spectrum review of all relevant evidence. The Jury would be the entire world audience watching on TV.

2) Who should carry it out? Give me names.
The investigation or the trial? There's not much left to investigate because Rudy Giuliani had all the evidence destroyed in violation of Federal Crime Scene Laws. There should have been a standard fire/arson investigation done following NFPA Protocol, but it's a little late for that now...

3) Who should fund it? (Tax payers? Government? Private companies? UN?)
Tax payers do fund the Government so that's a bit rhetorical...
I think the Central Bankers who own the Federal Reserve should have to fund it with their private bank accounts but that'll never happen either.

4) Who should testify?
Bush and Cheney for one... To avoid the game of charades they played last time...
Karl Rove still hasn't gone to court, so I don't know how much I can say for the word "Justice" in America right now...

5) Which experts should be called to offer analysis? Names please.
Of course experts from both sides. Give them both a fair shot and let the entire world be the jury to the evidence presented...

6) Should anyone be banned from testifying? If so, who and why?
No... and they should all be under oath, unlike Bush and Cheney.

7) At the end of it all, who would you trust to pass final judgment on the evidence?
Like I said, do a live TV Trial with a full spectrum of evidence (not like these history channel specials which ignore all the hard core conspiracies and evidence like molten steel and the thermite) Lay it ALL out on the table, show the debate to the world on LIVE TV and let the people of the world be the Jury.

I believe I'll stick with my own judgment that planes + 19 pissed off Muslims + fire did it.

 

[Pardalis]

let the people of the world be the Jury.

This is a frightening thought, isn't it?

A world wide mob decides.

 

[ozeco41]

1) What would you consider to be an unbiased investigation?
A criminal investigation with the power to subpeona witnesses, held in a court room and televised to the entire world. 9/11 Truth vs. 9/11 Debunkers. With a full spectrum review of all relevant evidence. The Jury would be the entire world audience watching on TV......

Is your objective to prevent any possible criminal action against those who appear as witnesses? To give immunity to prosecution by compromising the rights of the potentially accused?

... 2) Who should carry it out? Give me names.
The investigation or the trial? There's not much left to investigate because Rudy Giuliani had all the evidence destroyed in violation of Federal Crime Scene Laws. There should have been a standard fire/arson investigation done following NFPA Protocol, but it's a little late for that now...

why investigate if there is nothing to investigate? Plus statements such as this would prejudice the right to a fair trial if "published" in an inappropriate forum.

 

[nicepants]

let the people of the world be the Jury.

Would you also let the people of the world decide whether this is even necessary? If so, I think you already have your answer...NO.

Edit: I'm assuming that the verdict would be determined by the majority opinion.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Ridiculous insinuation. Here is the list of the 12 perpetrators of 9/11:


http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/#plotters

Nice try. I'm not giving your crappy lie-filled blog any hits.

And Meacher WAS a cabinet minister but what do you know about the rest of the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Meacher

Despite Blair's hostility, Meacher gained a reputation for being a politician who was on top of a complex brief[4] and was one of the longest serving minsters in the Labour government, from 1997-2003.

Yes, he was a cabinet minister, but he isn't now and wasn't at the time he made his dumb comment about 9/11.

 

[beachnut]

I believe I'll stick with my own judgment that planes + 19 pissed off Muslims + fire did it.

Did these kool-aid drinking 911Truth followers miss the many investigations and studies? Are they researched challenged and knowledge challenged?

I agree with your assessment and plot too complex for 911Truth.
Kill pilots, fly planes into buildings.

What the heck can 911Truth want now? 7 years and ACGravity missed the boat.

 

[Gaspode]

Some posts moved to AAH.

Keep it civil and on-topic from now on please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

1) What would you consider to be an unbiased investigation?
A criminal investigation with the power to subpeona witnesses, held in a court room and televised to the entire world. 9/11 Truth vs. 9/11 Debunkers. With a full spectrum review of all relevant evidence. The Jury would be the entire world audience watching on TV.

...the hell? He asks about an unbiased investigation and you jump right to a televised criminal trial?

ETA: The obvious question then is, "Who is the prosecution and who is the defense?"

2) Who should carry it out? Give me names.
The investigation or the trial? There's not much left to investigate because Rudy Giuliani had all the evidence destroyed in violation of Federal Crime Scene Laws. There should have been a standard fire/arson investigation done following NFPA Protocol, but it's a little late for that now...

If you truly believe this, then I wonder what evidence you think truthers could bring forth in even your televised trial that would stand against the years-long, well-funded studies of numerous organizations.

Or are you suggesting that, since you believe there is no more evidence for 9/11, that we move right to a public, televised trial?

3) Who should fund it? (Tax payers? Government? Private companies? UN?)
Tax payers do fund the Government so that's a bit rhetorical...
I think the Central Bankers who own the Federal Reserve should have to fund it with their private bank accounts but that'll never happen either.

What's the relevance? Is there any reason you feel they should fund the trial (since you seem to have concluded in #2 that no investigation is even possible), other than them just having a lot of money? Maybe Bill Gates or Warren Buffet should fund the trial?

4) Who should testify?
Bush and Cheney for one... To avoid the game of charades they played last time...

Errr... charades? I don't think that's the game you meant to use.

5) Which experts should be called to offer analysis? Names please.
Of course experts from both sides. Give them both a fair shot and let the entire world be the jury to the evidence presented...

Ahh... You wish then for the truth about 9/11 to be decided by a popularity vote?

7) At the end of it all, who would you trust to pass final judgment on the evidence?
Like I said, do a live TV Trial with a full spectrum of evidence (not like these history channel specials which ignore all the hard core conspiracies and evidence like molten steel and the thermite) Lay it ALL out on the table, show the debate to the world on LIVE TV and let the people of the world be the Jury.

All of it? You do realize that much of the "evidence" truthers put forth is mutually exclusive, don't you? What purpose would that serve other than make a mockery of the system and utterly confuse everyone?

 

[TexasJack]

Oh! I know! We'll have an elimination contest, like American Idol. The bestest of the best theories will all assemble, and they'll present their evidence in front of a live audience, with three judges. One will be foreign, and be really mean. One will be a really overly-nice one, and the other will be from an ethnic group to give it a proper balance.
The next night, if they don't get enough support from the callers, they'll be lined up and summarily executed!
Any ideas for names? Judges?

I think OBL and KSM would make great judges...oh wait, they wouldn't, because they have already admitted to the crime. I think we should leave it truthers if they should be on the panel.