Those calling for an independent 9/11 investigation: how should this be conducted

[firecoins]

The UN can't do the investigation. The US gov't funds it in part. So the outcome is tainted if Bush is found to be not apart of the guilty parties.

 

[Pardalis]

Maybe the truthers want Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to fund the new investigation...

 

[Killtown]

So does anybody NOT support another investigation into the WORST ATTACKS IN AMERICA'S HISTORY?

Is everybody confident that there was NO COVER-UP in any way, shape, or form, even if was a cover-up of incompetence?

How many investigations did the Pearl Harbor attacks have?

 

[John Blonn]

So does anybody NOT support another investigation into the WORST ATTACKS IN AMERICA'S HISTORY?

Is everybody confident that there was NO COVER-UP in any way, shape, or form, even if was a cover-up of incompetence?

How many investigations did the Pearl Harbor attacks have?

That's a non-answer to the OP's question. What would said investigation look like, Killtown?

 

[Gravy]

So does anybody NOT support another investigation into the WORST ATTACKS IN AMERICA'S HISTORY?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: go right ahead. Knock yourself out. What's stopping you?

Can't fit some sleuthing into your busy schedule of harassing Val McClatchey and posting inanities on internet message boards?

 

[jon]

So does anybody NOT support another investigation into the WORST ATTACKS IN AMERICA'S HISTORY?

Is everybody confident that there was NO COVER-UP in any way, shape, or form, even if was a cover-up of incompetence?

How many investigations did the Pearl Harbor attacks have?

yes, not only does that not answer my original question, your question is not one which can be answered unless you make clear what is meant by an 'independent investigation'. So, would you like to answer the original question?

 

[Killtown]

That's a non-answer to the OP's question. What would said investigation look like, Killtown?

Look like? I'd suspect a bunch of people sitting behind a table as the question other people sitting behind on opposite table.

 

[Skibum]

Look like? I'd suspect a bunch of people sitting behind a table as the question other people sitting behind on opposite table.

And just who would those people be?

*the ones doing the questioning (to preempt you next obvious answer)

 

[Killtown]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: go right ahead. Knock yourself out. What's stopping you?

Can't fit some sleuthing into your busy schedule of harassing Val McClatchey and posting inanities on internet message boards?

So Gravy, would YOU support another 9/11 investigation? Are you TOTALLY SATISFIED with the last one and only one? Do you believe there was 100% no cover-up in the attacks by our gov't, even for incompetence?

 

[Killtown]

yes, not only does that not answer my original question, your question is not one which can be answered unless you make clear what is meant by an 'independent investigation'. So, would you like to answer the original question?

If you don't know what an "independent investigation" is, then you are not smart enough to be on one.

 

[Killtown]

And just who would those people be?

*the ones doing the questioning (to preempt you next obvious answer)

Independent people. Geez, it's not rocket science ya know.

 

[DavidJames]

Independent people.

Name 3 people and why you would choose them.

 

[Skibum]

Independent people. Geez, it's not rocket science ya know.

Name a few independant people you would accept running this investigation.

 

[dirtywick]

Independent people. Geez, it's not rocket science ya know.

You make answering a question look so difficult.

There are thousands of independant people who verified the data and came up with the same conclusions. The NIST FAQ page says they used "125 leading experts from the private sector and academia" alone to pour over and verify the large amount of data they had.

Apparently that's not good enough. That's why people ask what is good enough, and the best answer you can provide is that jon shouldn't be a part of it.

You're right, it's not rocket science. Getting a straight answer out of you makes rocket science look easy.

 

[jon]

killtown- have you looked into how other 'independent' investigations have worked? They can work in a number of different ways -- for example, the bloody Sunday enquiry is very different from the Hutton enquiry. Inquiries are also not easy to set up, and there are very likely to be controversies about who is suitable to sit on such an enquiry (no one with any expertise will be entirely 'independent'), what questions they can address, what powers they can have etc.

A lot of these questions were raised (sometimes with good reason) around the 911 commission. For there to be any point whatsoever in having another enquiry, this needs to improve on previous investigations; those calling for another enquiry therefore need to go into some detail as to how it will do so. I'm waiting.

Finally, as Gravy has said, what is stopping you from carrying out your enquiry now? Others (James Rideway, for example, or the Der Spiegal editorial team) have carried out interesting independent investigations of the events of September 11 off their own backs. You may feel that we need a new enquiry which has some kind of official or government sanction or powers; in which case, again, you need to go into more detail about what exactly you mean by an independent enquiry.

 

[firecoins]

Is everybody confident that there was NO COVER-UP in any way, shape, or form, even if was a cover-up of incompetence?

Of course incometance was covered up. It was done both parties, 2 different presidents, many gov't organizations who compete for turf; the FAA vs the State Dept vs the CIA vs the FBI vs the NYPD vs the FDNY & PAPD. The incompetance is everywhere. Its the lack of conspiracy thats the problem. I don't think another investigations is going to bring anythig but more political infighting.

Examples:
FAA in bed with airline lobyists through out the 90's doing everything to oppose increased airline security demanded by the Clinton White House and Newt Gingrach's Congress.

The CIA, FBI, State Dept and the FAA not sharing info on terror suspects coming in and out of the country in the 90's with each other.

 

[Killtown]

Of course incometance was covered up.

And isn't that a crime? Shouldn't people be demoted, fired, or go to jail for that?

 

[firecoins]

And isn't that a crime? Shouldn't people be demoted, fired, or go to jail for that?

Sandy Berger, the national security advisor for Clinton, pled guilty to removing documents from the National Archieve in preparation for his testimony to the 9/11 commission. He got a sweetheart deal from the Bush White House. I suspect because Berger, while covering up for the Clinton administration also had the goods on the Bush administration.

 

[dirtywick]

And isn't that a crime? Shouldn't people be demoted, fired, or go to jail for that?

I wouldn't call imcompetence a crime, lest the Burger King fry cook that forgot my barbeque sauce be sent to jail.

 

[Skibum]

I wouldn't call imcompetence a crime, lest the Burger King fry cook that forgot my barbeque sauce be sent to jail.

That was Killtown, so I imagine he probably agrees.