This is my first post on this forum.

[Architect]

I'm not sure any of us will live long enough for this part to ever be decided. After reading this (whole) proposal I think he's succeeded in setting up a bureaucracy from hell, nothing would ever get done.

Peut-etre il est francais?

 

[CHF]

"FUNDING
$30 million dollars initially provided by the federal government (more if necessary, subject to government approval)

But one of the truther complaints about the first investigation is that the government paid for it, which rendered it hopelessly biased.

(4) Concerned Citizens- comprised from the following: 9/11 surviving family members, 9/11 first responders in health crisis, actual 9/11 survivors. All concerned citizens from these groups (organization and group membership must first take place) would decide by group election initial nine members for (4) Concerned Citizens.

Why do they have to be sick for their voice to be heard?

9/11 family members and "survivors" (which I suppose could mean anyone in southern Manhatten that day)....that adds up to tens of thousands of people. And what makes them better judges than the rest of us?

This is only one possible idea. Any thoughts on this poster's idea?

Who would be called to testify at this investigation? Give me some names.

 

[SDC]

Please, go ahead, organize your own investigation. Bertrand Russell did something like that, I think, over the Vietnam war, back in the '60s. No one is stopping you. If it is worth doing, then you should sacrifice your time and energy. Do it.

If you are really in Japan, you should perhaps approach Toyota.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Wow, there have been a lot of quick replies. Thank you all for your comments and your welcomes. A couple of posters have asked for more details about such a hypothetical investigation. These are good questions. The following quote is not my idea but the idea of another poster on a different forum. I liked his idea so I will repost it:

"FUNDING
$30 million dollars initially provided by the federal government (more if necessary, subject to government approval)

NEW 9/11 COMMISSION
It would be comprised of thirty-six people in four groups (nine in each group):
Fom the federal government:
(1) Congress
(2) Judiciary
(3) Executive
and,
(4) Concerned Citizens- comprised from the following: 9/11 surviving family members, 9/11 first responders in health crisis, actual 9/11 survivors. All concerned citizens from these groups (organization and group membership must first take place) would decide by group election initial nine members for (4) Concerned Citizens.

A) Uhm. Why would they be able to discern who's good? Seriously, stop and think.

Just like you wouldn't want me nomnating who I think would be good to investigate who stole my <x>, you do not want people with an emotional interest nomnating investigators. You might want to keep them fully in the loop, which is something I fully agree with.

The initial nine members of (4) Concerned Citizens would choose the twenty-seven members for the other three groups.

B) Really bad idea. For the same reasons above, because you then run into the same things people accuse the government of. I mean, LOGOS told me to say no.

The Commission would be guided and led by an Action Committee comprised of twelve people from the four groups (three from each group). The nine members of (4) Concerned Citizens group would choose all members of the Action Committee.

.... See b)

Commission members can each employ three assistants to aid them in their duties. In addition, Action Committee members can each employ two additional assistants to add to their original complement of three.

Commission members may decide from time to time (subject to Action Committee approval) to have representatives placed in their stead, acting with their full authority.

Each group on the Action Committee would have percentage voting rights of:
15% = (1) Congress
15% = (2) Judiciary
15% = (3) Executive
55% = (4) Concerned Citizens

C) Uh huh. Why again? Seriously, I'd hire a team of lawyers instead, but I don't have the real time to detail an alternative plan right now.

Voting in the Action Committee would be done by each person in each group having a YEA-NAY vote, with votes subject to each groups voting rights percentage.
-snip-
Action item passes.

Simple democratic voting works better.

Members in all four groups can be rotated in and out from time to time subject to voting approval by the Action Committee, and the (4) Concerned Citizens group can remove and replace any members in any of the four groups by at least a simple two-thirds majority vote.

It should be a bit more, but I've detailed the problems inherent already.

The goal of the New 9/11 Investigation would be to identify, apprehend, and bring to justice those charged in the commission of crimes regarding the events of September 11th, 2001.

Regarding subpoena power of the New 9/11 Commission, only Executive Privilege personally exercised by the President of the United States (for himself only) will be honored. All others would be subject to the subpoena power. This means everyone else, including up to the Vice-President of the United States.

This makes sense, but this is basically saying it'd be another branch of the Executive Branch without the actual power to force the miltary to do what it wants.

Lastly, the American people should be kept up-to-date and fully informed on the progress of the Commission.

The time for the New Investigation is now; it is long past-due.

Another hoped-for result to the above being done would be an opportunity to restore faith in American government...something also in need of and long past-due.

There's a "within reason" missing here.

 

[AZCat]

Each group on the Action Committee would have percentage voting rights of:
15% = (1) Congress
15% = (2) Judiciary
15% = (3) Executive
55% = (4) Concerned Citizens

Voting in the Action Committee would be done by each person in each group having a YEA-NAY vote, with votes subject to each groups voting rights percentage.

Example, vote tally and resulting decision:
15% = (1) Congress
1 YEA ... 2 NAY.......YEA 05.00% NAY 10.00%

15% = (2) Judiciary
0 YEA ... 3 NAY.......YEA 0.00% NAY 15.00%

15% = (3) Executive
0 YEA ... 3 NAY.......YEA 00.00% NAY 15.00%

55% = (4) Concerned Citizens
3 YEA ... 0 NAY.......YEA 55.00% NAY 00.00%

FINAL TALLY:
4 YEA ... 8 NAY.......
YEA 60.00% NAY 40.00%
Action item passes.

This is poorly thought out. One group should never be able to dictate policy to the exclusion of the rest. Why even have the other three groups in this scenario? They are irrelevant.

 

[kookbreaker]

This is poorly thought out. One group should never be able to dictate policy to the exclusion of the rest. Why even have the other three groups in this scenario? They are irrelevant.

Seriously. This looks like someone's first attempt at a 'Powuh 2 the Peepuhl' monkey court masquerading as a 'Comission'.

 

[Drudgewire]

Oh my God, quotes at the end of long twoofer posts are like my biggest pet peeve around here.

"...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Abraham Lincoln
Gettysburg, 1863

"... and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:32"

"The ugly and the stupid have the best of it in this world. They can sit at their ease and gape at the play. If they know nothing of victory, they are at least spared the knowledge of defeat."
-Oscar Wilde

 

[pomeroo]

I would just like to know if there are any people on this forum who would support a new investigation into the events of 9/11. My main complaint about the 9/11 Commission is that it was directed by Philip Zelikow who was practically a member of the Bush administration. This seems to be such an obvious conflict of interest that I am surprised that there wasnt more objections to this raised by other politicians, lawyers, and the media. I know that some of the victim's family members were vehemently opposed to him directing the Commission.

I am not asking if you buy into all the conspiracy theories but is there anyone on this forum that thought that the 911 Commission lacked neccesary impartiality and/or credibility for other reasons?

As a fantasist, you reject reason and evidence. You must therefore exclude all serious researchers--physicists, metallurgists, seismologists, structural engineers, avionics techs, forensic examiners, demolition experts, fire safety specialists--from your "investigation." The scare quotes are intended to show that you have no interest in discovering anything; rather, you want to set up a kangaroo court to deliver a preconceived verdict. What you want to assemble is a lynch mob. For this purpose, the usual charlatans, cranks, America-haters, dotty Marxist academics, crackpot talk show hosts, and deranged internet denizens will do just fine. But, remember, if you allow any real scientists or engineers to slip by your screening procedures, you will just replicate the findings of the real investigation.

 

[GStan]

CurtC,

Why wouldnt you want your tax dollars to pay for a new investigation? 9/11 was used as a pretext for two wars already and military spending accounts for almost half of your tax dollars as it is. Are you that confident in the ruling of an investigation that had a major conflict of interest? Perhaps you are. Fair enough.

Would you feel the same way if you had lost a loved one in the tragedy or would your priorities shift from finances to having your questions and concerns dealt with in a more complete and candid manner?

DommyBoy,
Welcome to the forums. Perhaps this is dense, but could you please define for me what the major conflict of interest was that has plagued the existing investigation? Be as specific as possible. Thanks.

 

[Pookster]

I would just like to know if there are any people on this forum who would support a new investigation into the events of 9/11. My main complaint about the 9/11 Commission is that it was directed by Philip Zelikow who was practically a member of the Bush administration. This seems to be such an obvious conflict of interest that I am surprised that there wasnt more objections to this raised by other politicians, lawyers, and the media. I know that some of the victim's family members were vehemently opposed to him directing the Commission.

I am not asking if you buy into all the conspiracy theories but is there anyone on this forum that thought that the 911 Commission lacked neccesary impartiality and/or credibility for other reasons?

I see no compelling reason for a new 9/11 Commission. People can complain about the first process all they want, but if the road gets you to a logical conclusion based on the evidence presented, it doesn't really matter how bumpy the road was to get there. Based on what was presented, the basic findings of the Commission are reasonable based on its intent. Claiming "conflict of interest" and such as the need for a new investigation is not compelling ... outside of showing that a different Commission composition could've easily reached a different substantive conclusion. This hasn't been shown. There will always be unanswered questions, no matter how many different Commissions there may be.

 

[johnny karate]

dommysboyinjapan, welcome to the forums.

As an American citizen, my feeling on a new investigation is this: If the people will it, then so be it. We live in a democratic society, and majority rules.

So all you or anyone else in support of a new investigation has to do is start a petition (there may actually be one already, I don't know), get at least 51% of the 300 million citizens of the U.S. to sign it and then use that petition as a bludgeon to force a new investigation.

One thing I can tell you for sure is that just asking for a new investigation is never going to make one happen. You have to take action. Good luck.

ETA: As an aside, I wanted to comment on this:

Would you feel the same way if you had lost a loved one in the tragedy or would your priorities shift from finances to having your questions and concerns dealt with in a more complete and candid manner?

Out of thousands of family members, only two or maybe three dozen have ever expressed any desire for further investigations. Your phrasing above would make it seem otherwise. In the spirit of honesty and fairness, and out of respect to those that lost loved ones on 9/11, I request that you be more careful in your wording in future posts.

 

[Stellafane]

...Some people care about discovering the truth. Other people enjoy injesting and regurgitating government propaganda...

And then there's people who avoid the truth like the plague, because it would completely evaporate the diseased little 9/11 fantasy they so desperately cling to, in a pathetic attempt to provide a shred of meaning and significance to their otherwise bleak lives. Such people form the core of the 9/11 CT movement.

Tanabear, are you ever going to learn that things don't become true just because you say them? That in 9/11 we're dealing with something that really happened, and thus anyone who expects to be taken seriously must bring to the table real facts and evidence, rather than an embarassingly juvenile attitude that its owner seems to mistake as wit? That you can't simply go around making smug pronouncements and criticisms as if they actually mean something, when they carry no more weight than arguing about who's cooler, Ironman or Wolverine? I suppose some might be attracted to a life untroubled by reality and logic, where you can just pull stuff out of your backside and fantasize that this crap means you're a somebody. Myself, I'll take the real world, warts and all.

As for a new investigation, frankly I think the whole idea borders on silliness. The results of the existing investigation are available for all to see and verify on their own. It reflects the collective research and investigation of a multitude of experts. Who the hell cares who oversaw it? The work of the experts is what matters, and it's already there for the public to review. There may be exceptions, but it appears to me that the call for a new investigation is just another way for CTists to try to inject themselves into the equation and make themselves feel important. They probably won't accept any investigation that doesn't support their twisted conclusions anyway. And any investigation that included the likes of Griffin and Jones would be a farce; those idiots couldn't investigate their way out of a paper bag.

 

[fuelair]

I would just like to know if there are any people on this forum who would support a new investigation into the events of 9/11. I am not asking if you buy into all the conspiracy theories but is there anyone on this forum that thought that the 911 Commission lacked neccesary impartiality and/or credibility for other reasons?

Yes, we have both regular troofer posters and part-time troofer posters posting here. Doesn't change reality. Have at it, ask your implicatory questions and point out you were "just asking" when they are shot down as has happened VERY many times before. We've seen it, it's boring, bunches of the old hard-core troofers have headed to new pastures, life passes, if you find real evidence (courtroom type, not guesses or lies or unchecked sources) talk to law enforcement. Have fun!!

 

[CptColumbo]

I would just like to know if there are any people on this forum who would support a new investigation into the events of 9/11.

Why not wait until the old one is done before calling for a new one?

If the findings of a "new" investigation are the same as the old one will you be satisfied?

My main complaint about the 9/11 Commission is that it was directed by Philip Zelikow who was practically a member of the Bush administration.

Boldning mine.

How seperated from the Bush Administration does a person have to be?

This seems to be such an obvious conflict of interest that I am surprised that there wasnt more objections to this raised by other politicians, lawyers, and the media.

Why is it a conflict of interest if they are? Unless you are already assuming that the Bush Administration is responsible, which is a poor way to start an investigation.

I know that some of the victim's family members were vehemently opposed to him directing the Commission.

What qualifies one as a "victim's family members?" How close a relationship does there have to be to qualify? What is the actual percentage? What is their objection, were they all for the same reason?

I am not asking if you buy into all the conspiracy theories but is there anyone on this forum that thought that the 911 Commission lacked neccesary impartiality and/or credibility for other reasons?

If one takes into account all the CT and/or alternate theories involving 9/11, no one would fit into your definition of impartial.

 

[timhau]

I would just like to know if there are any people on this forum who would support a new investigation into the events of 9/11. My main complaint about the 9/11 Commission is that it was directed by Philip Zelikow who was practically a member of the Bush administration. This seems to be such an obvious conflict of interest

Why exactly is that a conflict of interest?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

(4) Concerned Citizens- comprised from the following: 9/11 surviving family members, 9/11 first responders in health crisis, actual 9/11 survivors. All concerned citizens from these groups (organization and group membership must first take place) would decide by group election initial nine members for (4) Concerned Citizens.

can we just call these guys The Party?

 

[beachnut]

42 percent of your taxes go to the war that was never justified since we could never find the uranium we said we could. Besides that being a fact what would a few measly extra dollars mean. I just don't understand why you would be so worried about your tax dollars if you are willing to spend them on a war the administration knew would turn out like this as Cheney so gracefully described back in 92'.

lucky you missed Vietnam, with your math all the tax dollars went there

But the fact is, what does a war have to do with wanting an investigation into 9/11. Anti-war people need to get some knowledge to figure out 9/11 and stick to anti-war stuff and speak up before the war, not safely after.

9/11 is the topic, how did you miss that?

 

[boloboffin]

This Concerned Citizens Council (the CCC, I'll call them) -- do you have any names of people that could serve as these grand poobahs of the new investigation?

 

[DC]

only 30 million?

 

[DGM]

9/11 first responders in health crisis

Why "in health crisis"? Would this give them better insight into what happened? You propose an "impartial" investigation and suggest this list of obviously not impartial "Concerned Citizens". Don't you see the hypocrisy in that?