This is my first post on this forum.

dommyboysinjapan

Thinker
D
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
143
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?
 
If you want to do a new investigation, please have at it. Just don't use any of my tax dollars.
 
Yeah, the US can have as many new investigations as they like - more knowledge is never bad. However I''ve asked truthers several times what kind of investigation they would accept, and so far I haven't seen any answer (more than it should be "independent". But when asked to define what that means, crickets come and invade the various threads).

But perhaps you could elaborate, what kind of investigation are you looking for, how should it be conducted, funded and last but not least, by who?
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the Forum.

I very much appreciate your opening post. Open, honest, a straightforward sensible question.

Oh that all Truthers were like you.
 
Welcome to the forum, dommyboyisinjapan.

The first step to getting your "new investigation" is to explain what it is you're looking for. So far no truther has been willing to do this.

1) Who should pay for it?

2) Who should testify?

3) Who should pass final judgement?

Remember...you need an investigation that you would trust and accept no matter what its verdict is.
 
A new investigation will find all the same answers that the original did, IMO.

BTW welcome to the forums.
 
I don't know, I haven't read the original, but don't get the sense there's anything huge left to be discovered. I wouldn't support a new one nor be against it, I'd be ambivalent.

I'd be more likely to support sub-reports based on findings of the original, if there are any questions lingering over various smaller topics (such as I dunno, airforce response communications failures or something).

As a general desire I'm pro-declassification in nearly every case, so would support that towards 9/11 or almost any other topic (if that's an issue, dunno).
 
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?
 
I would support it if someone could point out to me something they got wrong. I'm not talking about pointing fingers and finding a "scapegoat". What needs to be re-investigated?
 
We're mostly concerned here with the science of the report more than the politics of it. There have been some calls for additional investigations (Quintiere for example) but none of it changes the scientific conclusions of the report.

If some compelling evidence were to be brought forth by legitimate scientists or scientific organizations in the form of legitimately peer-reviewed papers maybe some of us would considering it. But, investigations like this cost a lot of money, OUR money.

It certainly wouldn't be responsible to spend any of it based on some fringe group's irrational demands.
 
Last edited:
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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.




"...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"

This is only one possible idea. Any thoughts on this poster's idea?
 
Last edited:
CurtC said:
If you want to do a new investigation, please have at it. Just don't use any of my tax dollars.
Click to expand...

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'.
 
The point I think everyone's missing here is that the purpose of the 9-11 Commission, as I understand it, was not to figure out who was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. It was to analyse the background to the attacks, their organisation, and the responses to them. Therefore, if the 9-11 Commission was superseded by a new commission, however constituted, one of the inputs to that commission would be the prior conclusion of the FBI operation PENTTBOM which determined that the attacks were planned, financed and carried out by Al-Qaeda. While a new 9-11 Commission might well choose to find individuals or organisations guilty of negligence, it seems rather far-fetched that it would seek to reopen the criminal investigation into 9-11. Therefore, while it is reasonable, though debatable, to claim that "9/11 was used as a pretext for two wars already", it is a purely conspiracist position to claim that a repeat investigation into 9-11 within the parameters of the 9-11 Commission would in any way invalidate the line of reasoning leading to that pretext.

So I would ask the original poster, in the light of your second post in this thread: Are you in fact calling for a repeat, not of the 9-11 Commission Report, but of FBI Operation PENTTBOM? Because if you're not suggesting that 9-11 was based in a conspiracy within the US Government, your comment about pretexts for war is a non sequitur.

Dave
 
Last edited:
dommyboysinjapan said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm on this forum and I favor a new investigation. The Jersey Girls who helped to create the 9/11 Commission also favor a new investigation. Investigative reporter Peter Lance also favors a new investigation. He wrote this regarding the 9/11 Commission,

"The second half of Cover Up is a painstaking analysis of the 9/11 Commission and it's effective whitewash. I go into great detail with evidence of how the Commission was hopelessly skewed on both the right and the left; how the staff was riddled with conflicts of interest -- almost half of the staff members were alumni of the very intelligence agencies they were asked to judge;... how, in effect, the fix was in on this Commission from day one -- there was an intentional decision to limit the damage across three presidential administrations and eliminate ANY accountability or blame for what I call the biggest intelligence failure since The Trojan Horse."

Some people care about discovering the truth. Other people enjoy injesting and regurgitating government propaganda. Unfortunately, the latter is more common in this forum.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Firstly, since your argument is that the tax dollars of the population as a whole are being spent on a war whose justification you question, what is your pretext for excluding the population as a whole from the investigation?

Secondly (and I realise this question may invalidate the first), what is your criterion for a 9-11 survivor? As far as I can tell you are only ruling out people who died on or before 9-11 and children under the age of seven. Arguably, I'm a 9-11 survivor myself, despite not even being a US citizen or having been in the US at the time.

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

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.

[...]

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
Click to expand...

This is a recipe for a kangaroo court. The Concerned Citizens appoint the rest of the Commission, appoint the Committee and have the majority voting rights. There's no real point involving the government at all.

dommyboysinjapan said:
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.
Click to expand...

The new Commission will therefore be able to compel anyone to tell them exactly what they told the old Commission. Where is this going to get anyone?

dommyboysinjapan said:
This is only one possible idea. Any thoughts on this poster's idea?
Click to expand...

It would make for a hilarious spectator sport, so long as you were on my side of the Atlantic and not yours.

Dave
 
Last edited:
tanabear said:
Some people care about discovering the truth. Other people enjoy injesting and regurgitating government propaganda. Unfortunately, the latter is more common in this forum.
Click to expand...

And yet others on the forum criticise us for not being able to back up our statements from government sources. Odd, that.

Dave
 
(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.

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

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.
 
I'd be extremely surprised if this involved any tax dollars from me. In fact, I'd ask serious questions of the Government.

But that aside, I think that a new inquiry using non-US expert witnesses with a track record on tall buildings work is absolutely fabulous. Now, how many hours at £150 per hour will that be...................[tapping of calculator, followed by placing of order for new Merc]


:rolleyes:
 
I for one am highly confused as to why the citizens in the commission proposed by the poster you quoted would have more weight than anyone else. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. We are a democracy; the majority rules for us. One group of people that vote do not carry more weight than another, separate group of people that vote in our voting system. I would think the majority vote should carry greater weight than one particular group of people whom, I'm guessing, would only have that type of weight because they were quote, the most affected, end quote, by the events of 9/11. Being involved in the tragedy should not, in my opinion, make your perspective carry any greater weight than that of, say, the judicial branch in your hypothetical commission.

As for my opinion of a new commission; I agree with Dave in that I don't think we need one. The Commission served its purpose in pointing out the flaws in our security procedures and recommended fixes which are currently being implemented government-wide. It met it's overall mission goal. What exactly would you want reinvestigated that should override the very logical and reasonable findings of the 9/11 Commission? Or is it just that you don't like Zelikow for some reason? Please give specifics; thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom