How would a new investigation work?

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

How would a new investigation work?; What questions would you ask? To whom?
Topic Started: Jan 31 2008, 02:17 PM (533 Views)
maccy	Jan 31 2008, 02:17 PM Post #1
Posts: 6 Group: BANNED! Member #249 Joined: 01/31/08	Hi all, some of you may know me from the JREF forum (same username) and from the previous version of this board (not that I posted much). For those that don't, I'm skeptical of the various claims made by members of the "Truth Movement". I don't imagine that I'll post here very much and I'm not especially interested in getting involved in arguments with people here. However, I still think that the movement has been quite vague about what a new investigation would achieve. Back in September, I started a thread about this on the JREF forum: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92411 It didn't get any replies there so I'm going to post it here as well. This is my OP (with a few corrections): Quote: I suppose this is a variation on the "What sort of an investigation should be carried out?" question; but, for the sake of an intellectual exercise I'm proposing that we forget about a lot of the practical obstacles to a new investigation. In other words, you don't have to worry about funding or your legal right to call and cross-examine witnesses. Quote: Imagine that you are in charge of a new investigation. You can call any witness you like, ask for expert testimony from anybody you want, examine all the physical evidence and records that you like. All questioning would be under oath. There are some limitations: 1. All witness have the same constitutional rights as they would in a courtroom (including those provided by the Fifth Amendment). 2. You have no special powers to tell if a witness is lying or not. 3. There is nothing currently kept secret that would instantly and explicitly prove an inside job (for example, an unreleased Pentagon video tape; or some memo that tells the whole story and has been suppressed). For the purposes of this exercise, we have to assume that anything obvious has been kept completely secret and shared only between a small number of conspirators. As soon as orders are passed to a large number of people (NIST, NORAD, the FDNY, field officers of the CIA and FBI, etc) they would have to be constructed in such a way as to not make those people suspicious that they were participating in a terrorist attack against their own people (or in covering it up). The same must apply to any information they are made privy to. We have to assume that the number of people who really knew what was happening was small enough to ensure that nobody spilled the beans and that they all had a very good reason for conspiring. 4. You are trying to build a case which will become the basis for a prosecution. Therefore, you can expect all your witnesses to be cross-examined and all your expert testimony to be challenged by other experts. The case that you build will have to convince a jury in the face of the best defence lawyers that money can buy. I don't want to get too far into imagining an actual trial here, but imagine that you would have to use this investigation to produce a report to a prosecutor that would convince them it was worth going to trial. So, what witnesses do you call? What questions would you ask? What would ask your investigators and experts to look at? After all that, what do you imagine your case for the prosecution would look like? So, does anybody fancy having a go at imagining how an investigation would proceed? Edit: added a rather critical "not". Edited by maccy, Jan 31 2008, 02:23 PM.
Posts: 6 Group: BANNED! Member #249 Joined: 01/31/08


William Rea	Jan 31 2008, 02:26 PM Post #2
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08	maccy Jan 31 2008, 02:17 PM Hi all, some of you may ...snipped for brevity... investigation would proceed? The reason you probably recieved no answers at JREF is because your question is poorly framed. Edited by William Rea, Jan 31 2008, 02:27 PM.
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08


maccy	Jan 31 2008, 02:28 PM Post #3
Posts: 6 Group: BANNED! Member #249 Joined: 01/31/08	William Rea Jan 31 2008, 02:26 PM maccy Jan 31 2008, 02:17 PM Hi all, some of you may ...snipped for brevity... investigation would proceed? The reason you probably recieved no answers at JREF is because your question is poorly framed. In what way? How would you improve it?
Posts: 6 Group: BANNED! Member #249 Joined: 01/31/08


William Rea	Jan 31 2008, 02:36 PM Post #4
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08	maccy Jan 31 2008, 02:28 PM William Rea Jan 31 2008, 02:26 PM maccy Jan 31 2008, 02:17 PM Hi all, some of you may ...snipped for brevity... investigation would proceed? The reason you probably recieved no answers at JREF is because your question is poorly framed. In what way? How would you improve it? I'd like you to try and analyse it for yourself before I tear it apart, that would be far more beneficial for you in the long run.
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08


maccy	Jan 31 2008, 02:40 PM Post #5
Posts: 6 Group: BANNED! Member #249 Joined: 01/31/08	William Rea Jan 31 2008, 02:36 PM I'd like you to try and analyse it for yourself before I tear it apart, that would be far more beneficial for you in the long run. I don't see any problems with it. So feel free to tear it apart all you want... I won't be replying to you again unless you post something substantial. I'm not bothered if you don't want to tell me what you think is wrong with it, but I'm not going to play guessing games with you.
Posts: 6 Group: BANNED! Member #249 Joined: 01/31/08


William Rea	Jan 31 2008, 06:46 PM Post #6
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08	maccy Jan 31 2008, 02:40 PM William Rea Jan 31 2008, 02:36 PM I'd like you to try and analyse it for yourself before I tear it apart, that would be far more beneficial for you in the long run. I don't see any problems with it. So feel free to tear it apart all you want... I won't be replying to you again unless you post something substantial. I'm not bothered if you don't want to tell me what you think is wrong with it, but I'm not going to play guessing games with you. Quite frankly, if you are unable to discern what is wrong with it then you aren't worth corresponding with anyway.
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08


blarney fife	Jan 31 2008, 06:57 PM Post #7
Posts: 202 Group: Members Member #15 Joined: 01/14/08	I think the best way to proceed is to appoint a special prosecutor / grand jury, with all the investigative and subpoena powers granted therein. I suppose an investigation would necessarily need to proceed by asking the same questions those skeptical of the "official" version have been asking for the last 6 plus years. If the experts are allowed to avoid scrutiny by hiding behind the 'fifth', or refuse to answer due to reasons of 'national security' it would prove to be an exercise in futility. Could an impartial enough grand jury be seated to determine whether there was grounds for criminal prosecution if it was warranted? Would the grand jury have the expertise to determine who was indictable? Would those prosecutions be allowed to proceed without political interference? It would be interesting to have the depositions necessary to eliminate the wiggle room the debates on the internet have produced.
Posts: 202 Group: Members Member #15 Joined: 01/14/08


Stundie	Jan 31 2008, 07:16 PM Post #8
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	Hi Maccy, Your conditions for an investigation is very poor and makes no sense. For example...... Why would you or anyone else do this......."4. You are trying to build a case which will become the basis for a prosecution." Surely you would investigate 1st and see if there is a need for prosecution?? You do not build a case for the basis of prosecution 1st, thats what dodgy prosecutors do, you know the ones who usually convict innocent black men based on the flimsiest evidence. Or am I missing something that JREF Logic never taught me?? Cheers Stundie p.s. If you REALLY do not understand what a new investigation would achieve, then think of it as closure for the 9/11 victims families and friends and very small price to pay to make sure there was no coverup/conspiracy.
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


maccy	Jan 31 2008, 07:21 PM Post #9
Posts: 6 Group: BANNED! Member #249 Joined: 01/31/08	blarney fife Jan 31 2008, 06:57 PM I think the best way to proceed is to appoint a special prosecutor / grand jury, with all the investigative and subpoena powers granted therein. I suppose an investigation would necessarily need to proceed by asking the same questions those skeptical of the "official" version have been asking for the last 6 plus years. If the experts are allowed to avoid scrutiny by hiding behind the 'fifth', or refuse to answer due to reasons of 'national security' it would prove to be an exercise in futility. Could an impartial enough grand jury be seated to determine whether there was grounds for criminal prosecution if it was warranted? Would the grand jury have the expertise to determine who was indictable? Would those prosecutions be allowed to proceed without political interference? It would be interesting to have the depositions necessary to eliminate the wiggle room the debates on the internet have produced. In my theoretical investigation, National Security wouldn't be an issue. However, the Fifth Amendment is part of the constitution, so you can't do away with that. To modify my original question slightly, what do you think the most important questions would be? And who would you ask them of? How would you expect to get an answer that would help you build a case? but we have to assume that if the perpetrators are well enough organised to have kept the whole plot secret so far that there aren't official records of it, just waiting to be uncovered.
Posts: 6 Group: BANNED! Member #249 Joined: 01/31/08


maccy	Jan 31 2008, 07:35 PM Post #10
Posts: 6 Group: BANNED! Member #249 Joined: 01/31/08	Stundie Jan 31 2008, 07:16 PM Hi Maccy, Your conditions for an investigation is very poor and makes no sense. For example...... Why would you or anyone else do this......."4. You are trying to build a case which will become the basis for a prosecution." Surely you would investigate 1st and see if there is a need for prosecution?? You do not build a case for the basis of prosecution 1st, thats what dodgy prosecutors do, you know the ones who usually convict innocent black men based on the flimsiest evidence. Or am I missing something that JREF Logic never taught me?? Cheers Stundie p.s. If you REALLY do not understand what a new investigation would achieve, then think of it as closure for the 9/11 victims families and friends and very small price to pay to make sure there was no coverup/conspiracy. I was taking as my starting point the idea of a police investigation, which leads to a DA building a case, which could then lead to a Grand Jury or straight to a trial. In other words the investigators are taking on the role of prosecutors - it doesn't mean that guilt is assumed in advance. There is a defence team to put the other side of the argument. The "Truth" part of the "Truth Movement" has always seemed to me to stand for the idea that a criminal act has been concealed - the slogan "9/11 was an inside job" is a clear indicator of this. This is an accusation, so it seems entirely appropriate that an investigation would test the accusation by attempting to prove that it is true. The people accused would, of course, have full rights under the law and representation by lawyers. If you prefer though, you can forget about the idea of trying to prosecute people and just answer this: What are the most important questions to ask? And who would you ask them of? Or alternatively (or additionally): What studies need to be carried out? Who would you ask to carry them out?
Posts: 6 Group: BANNED! Member #249 Joined: 01/31/08


blarney fife	Jan 31 2008, 08:08 PM Post #11
Posts: 202 Group: Members Member #15 Joined: 01/14/08	maccy Jan 31 2008, 07:21 PM In my theoretical investigation, National Security wouldn't be an issue. However, the Fifth Amendment is part of the constitution, so you can't do away with that. To modify my original question slightly, what do you think the most important questions would be? And who would you ask them of? How would you expect to get an answer that would help you build a case? but we have to assume that if the perpetrators are well enough organised to have kept the whole plot secret so far that there aren't official records of it, just waiting to be uncovered. I am assuming, for the sake of this discussion, we are talking about protection from self incrimination. I propose that we throw that out and grant immunity, compelling the witnesses to testify. For my money, the truth is more important than prosecution at this point in time. I don't believe there is a "most important" question. In any investigation, one thing leads to another. The investigation (I presume) would have to begin with studying the myriad points that have been brought forth on forums like this and JREF and the thousands of others on the web, print and visual media, eyewitnesses, etc.. The task would, without question, be herculean in scope...like putting together a million piece jigsaw puzzle that's all one color. It is an interesting proposition, albeit one without any easy answers.
Posts: 202 Group: Members Member #15 Joined: 01/14/08


Headspin	Jan 31 2008, 08:23 PM Post #12
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Don't they always say "follow the money" the stock trades which yielded $15 billion profits have a paper trail, why am i not allowed to know about that trail? the $100,000 wire transfer to Atta from ISI chief Mahmood The missing pentagon trillions.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Stundie	Jan 31 2008, 09:01 PM Post #13
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	maccy I was taking as my starting point the idea of a police investigation, which leads to a DA building a case, which could then lead to a Grand Jury or straight to a trial. In other words the investigators are taking on the role of prosecutors - it doesn't mean that guilt is assumed in advance. There is a defence team to put the other side of the argument. This is where your idea for how an investigation would work would fail. A police investigation only leads to a DA building a case if there is sufficient evidence, an investigation into 9/11 I hope would not take on the role of prosecutors. I would prefer an investigation to establish the facts, not to build a case to prosecute. It seems like you are asking us to build a case which proves the official story wrong and prosecutes all wrong doers! maccy The "Truth" part of the "Truth Movement" has always seemed to me to stand for the idea that a criminal act has been concealed - the slogan "9/11 was an inside job" is a clear indicator of this. The cover up and whitewash of an investigation conceals the truth, the slogan, as you put it is what some shout but not all. There are plenty of people who are not convinced 9/11 is an inside job but support a proper investigation. maccy This is an accusation, so it seems entirely appropriate that an investigation would test the accusation by attempting to prove that it is true. The people accused would, of course, have full rights under the law and representation by lawyers. It is an accusation, but it does not mean the truth movement know who exactly are involved. The government is made up of thousands of people and this is why a full open investigation is needed before any prosecutions could begin. maccy If you prefer though, you can forget about the idea of trying to prosecute people and just answer this: I think we should forget the idea.....because I prefer the innocent until proven guilty approach. maccy What are the most important questions to ask? And who would you ask them of? I can't speak for the whole group, but me personally, I would love to get Cheney on the stand and Bush too. I'd ask Cheney why in a 16th Sept 2001 interview did he say that just after 9am, the Secret Service men grabbed him, took him to the PEOC because they were monitoring AA77 and it looked like it was heading towards the WH if as the commission states, that nobody was aware of AA77 hijacking until 9:24am? Why was no fighter jets scrambled to the threat to the WH? Considering he had communications with the Pentagon, why did he not warn them of a plane heading towards them? Why does the 9/11 commission state that he heard of the Pentagon attack while on the phone to Bush in the corridor to the PEOC, when he admits in his interview 5 days after the attacks that he was already in the PEOC? What was the threat to Air Force One he says he received and why didn't scramble any fighters to protect the president. As for Bush, I would ask what did he mean when he says he saw the 1st plane hit the towers? Why did he not apologise to the kids and take control of the situation instead of sitting in the class doing nothing while the country was under attack? When did he give the shoot down order? What was the warnings he received back in August before he went on holiday? I'm sure I would have loads, loads more, but these are few questions to start with... maccy Or alternatively (or additionally): What studies need to be carried out? Who would you ask to carry them out? Why not just release ALL the footage from the Pentagon attack? Any studies would be carried out by non government, independent investigators and I would ask anyone who is honest, as long as they are not affiliated to the JREF Forum. lol
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


defaultdotxbe	Jan 31 2008, 11:02 PM Post #14
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08	blarney fife Jan 31 2008, 08:08 PM I am assuming, for the sake of this discussion, we are talking about protection from self incrimination. I propose that we throw that out and grant immunity, compelling the witnesses to testify. For my money, the truth is more important than prosecution at this point in time. a grant of immunity would help to get testimony, however the 5th amendment does also guarantee an unconditional right to silence, so if anyone still refuses to testify (for example if they personally feel its in the interest of national security) then you still cant force them Quote: the stock trades which yielded $15 billion profits have a paper trail, why am i not allowed to know about that trail? it was investigated and found not to be connected to the attacks, as such no charges were filed, so the party in question reatins his/her right to privacy, thats why you arent allowed to know
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08


blarney fife	Jan 31 2008, 11:28 PM Post #15
Posts: 202 Group: Members Member #15 Joined: 01/14/08	defaultdotxbe Jan 31 2008, 11:02 PM blarney fife Jan 31 2008, 08:08 PM I am assuming, for the sake of this discussion, we are talking about protection from self incrimination. I propose that we throw that out and grant immunity, compelling the witnesses to testify. For my money, the truth is more important than prosecution at this point in time. a grant of immunity would help to get testimony, however the 5th amendment does also guarantee an unconditional right to silence, so if anyone still refuses to testify (for example if they personally feel its in the interest of national security) then you still cant force them Well, I've learned more about the 5th tonight than I knew even existed. I've been trying to find if a person is granted immunity and refused to testify, if he could be held in contempt. I haven't found anything that specifically calls for it, but it these two quotes may suggest it's possible. From wiki: Grants of immunity If the government gives an individual immunity, then that individual may be compelled to testify. Immunity may be "transactional immunity" or "use immunity"; in the former, the witness is immune from prosecution for offenses related to the testimony; in the latter, the witness may be prosecuted, but his testimony may not be used against him. The Supreme Court has held [citation needed] that the government need only grant use immunity to compel testimony. The use immunity, however, must extend not only to the testimony made by the witness, but also to all evidence derived therefrom. This scenario most commonly arises in cases related to organized crime. And this from lectlaw.com: CONTEMPT OF COURT - Any willful disobedience to, or disregard of, a court order or any misconduct in the presence of a court; action that interferes with a judge's ability to administer justice or that insults the dignity of the court; punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. There are both civil and criminal contempts; the distinction is often unclear. Perhaps you could ask one of the attorneys at JREF.
Posts: 202 Group: Members Member #15 Joined: 01/14/08


Headspin	Feb 1 2008, 04:44 AM Post #16
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	defaultdotxbe Jan 31 2008, 11:02 PM Quote: the stock trades which yielded $15 billion profits have a paper trail, why am i not allowed to know about that trail? it was investigated and found not to be connected to the attacks, as such no charges were filed, so the party in question reatins his/her right to privacy, thats why you arent allowed to know who investigated and what is the evidence or proof the trades were not connected to the attacks? why do i have to give up my rights to privacy in the post 911 world, but these traders do not?
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Diane	Feb 1 2008, 05:48 AM Post #17
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08	If I were in charge of an investigation.... First thing I'd do is subpoena Sibel Edmonds and all those other whistleblowers who approached the Jersey Girls and asked them to ask the 9/11 Commission to bring them in to testify, but who were ignored. Then I would pursue any leads from there. Next thing I'd do is follow what's known of possible money trails. By the way, about those put options: If I recall correctly, the 9/11 Commission said it found "no conceivable connection to Al Qaeda." I'd subpoena those people anyway and try to find out what *other* relevant connections they might have, e.g. to U.S. government officials or to people connected with management of the WTC buildings. Then I would pursue any leads from there. Next thing I would do is inteview everyone in NORAD/NEADS and the FAA who was involved in trying to get the planes intercepted, to try to determine exactly what went wrong there. I would also interview people involved in war game exercises that involved simulation of events similar to what happened on 9/11. I would inquire into the details of the simulated response. What rules were followed in the war games? Were those same rules followed on 9/11, and, if not, why not? Another thing I would do is research the past history of military intercepts of civilian aircraft, to help determine a reasonable baseline of air defense performance. I would find out who was responsible for various decisions that impaired air defense performance, such as the decision NOT to have scramble-ready planes at Andrews Air Force Base, of all places. I would interview various high officials (e.g. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mineta) and various people who were with them on 9/11, in an attempt to determine their whereabouts at various specific times on 9/11, about which we now have conflicting information. I would interview these people separately rather than together, and I would require them to testify under oath. I would interview the high officials themselves relatively late in the course of the investigation, in the hope of avoiding a need to grant them immunity. As for the WTC buildings, I would question everyone involved in building management, maintenance, and security, to determine what kinds of work were done in the buildings in the months leading up to 9/11, and by whom. I would then pursue any leads from there. I would also, if possible, question everyone who worked in the CIA and SEC offices in WTC 7. Edited by Diane, Feb 1 2008, 06:18 AM.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08


defaultdotxbe	Feb 1 2008, 07:47 AM Post #18
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08	Headspin Feb 1 2008, 04:44 AM defaultdotxbe Jan 31 2008, 11:02 PM Quote: the stock trades which yielded $15 billion profits have a paper trail, why am i not allowed to know about that trail? it was investigated and found not to be connected to the attacks, as such no charges were filed, so the party in question reatins his/her right to privacy, thats why you arent allowed to know who investigated and what is the evidence or proof the trades were not connected to the attacks? why do i have to give up my rights to privacy in the post 911 world, but these traders do not? in america you have to prove they were connected, not that they were, it was investigated by the 9/11 commission which foudn no evidence it was connected to the attacks if blarney's special prosecutor did the same thing, and also said it wasnt connected, would you accept that, or demand that a third investigation "follow the money" as for privacy, have your banking and investment records been made public on the internet? if not why should this individuals?
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08


Stundie	Feb 1 2008, 08:54 AM Post #19
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	defaultdotxbe Feb 1 2008, 07:47 AM Headspin Feb 1 2008, 04:44 AM defaultdotxbe Jan 31 2008, 11:02 PM Quote: the stock trades which yielded $15 billion profits have a paper trail, why am i not allowed to know about that trail? it was investigated and found not to be connected to the attacks, as such no charges were filed, so the party in question reatins his/her right to privacy, thats why you arent allowed to know who investigated and what is the evidence or proof the trades were not connected to the attacks? why do i have to give up my rights to privacy in the post 911 world, but these traders do not? in america you have to prove they were connected, not that they were, it was investigated by the 9/11 commission which foudn no evidence it was connected to the attacks if blarney's special prosecutor did the same thing, and also said it wasnt connected, would you accept that, or demand that a third investigation "follow the money" as for privacy, have your banking and investment records been made public on the internet? if not why should this individuals? Default, I thought we had been through this before over at SLC Forum. I thought all they did was prove that they had no links to Al-Qaeda? That is not a full investigation if that is all you are determined to find out? How do we know if head any links to Mossad, or the CIA or any other intel agency?? The 911 commission bases there conclusion on the FBI and SEC (Who lost loads of investigation files on dodgy/insider trading deals in the WTC7 collapse) and draw the following conclusions. * Al-Qaeda were soley responsible for the attacks. (Even though there is plenty of evidence they were not alone) * This person did not have any links to Al-Qaeda. (How do we not know if had links to any other organisation?) * Seeing as it was Al-Qaeda, no one could have had any forewarning about the attacks. (What about any other organisations?) Yet listen to what these money experts have to say and news articles.... Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Business News, speaking of the trading on Morgan Stanley and other companies, said “This would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence.” Source - [ABC News, 9/20/2001] In the afternoon before the attack, “alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the US stock options market.” It has been documented that the CIA, the Mossad, and many other intelligence agencies monitor stock trading in real time using highly advanced programs such as Promis. Both the FBI and the Justice Department have confirmed the use of such programs for US intelligence gathering through at least this summer. This would confirm that the CIA should have had additional advance warning of imminent attacks against American and United Airlines planes. Source - [CBS News, 9/19/2001] Mayo Shattuck III resigns, effective immediately, as head of the Alex Brown unit of Deutsche Bank. No reason is given. Some speculate later that this could have to do with the role of Deutsche Bank in the pre-9/11 purchases of put options on the stock of companies most affected by 9/11. Incidently, Deutsche Bank is also one of the four banks most used by the bin Laden family. Source - [New York Times, 9/15/2001; Wall Street Journal, 9/27/2001] $2.5 million in put options on American Airlines and United Airlines are reported unclaimed. This is likely the result of the suspension in trading on the New York Stock Exchange after the attacks which gave the SEC time to be waiting if the owners showed up to redeem their put options placed the week before the 9/11 attacks. Source - [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/29/2001] I suppose we shall put the "Put Options" in with the other coincidences of 9/11??
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


Headspin	Feb 1 2008, 09:12 AM Post #20
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	defaultdotxbe Feb 1 2008, 07:47 AM in america you have to prove they were connected, not that they were, it was investigated by the 9/11 commission which foudn no evidence it was connected to the attacks I have to prove there is a connection before i can see the evidence of a possible connection? looks like a chicken and egg type deal to me. the suspicious trades are evidence, you want to have evidence of evidence? what's with all the paradoxes? "9/11 commission which foudn no evidence it was connected to the attacks" - this is not what they said - they said there was "no connection to al-quaeda". you (and they) have the cart before the horse. you have started with the assumption that it was arab terrorist group that did it before looking at the evidence. what was that you said about 'proof'? Edited by Headspin, Feb 1 2008, 09:13 AM.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


defaultdotxbe	Feb 1 2008, 11:43 AM Post #21
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08	Quote: I have to prove there is a connection before i can see the evidence of a possible connection? looks like a chicken and egg type deal to me. the suspicious trades are evidence, you want to have evidence of evidence? what's with all the paradoxes? the investigators (in this case the 9/11 commission) had access, and it was their job to determine whether charges should be filed, they determined charges were not to be filed you, as a member of the general public, do not have the rights to see the evidence, i, also as a member of the general public, also do not EDIT: and speaking of putting the cart before the horse, have a look at dianes suggestion fo interviewing everyone who worked in the CIA office at WTC7 why just the CIA employees? why not everyone who worked there? the CIA only becomes significant when you presume their guilt it seems any investigation planned on your end would be just as biased as you feel the 9/11 commission was Edited by defaultdotxbe, Feb 1 2008, 11:50 AM.
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08


defaultdotxbe	Feb 1 2008, 12:03 PM Post #22
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08	also, to address the assumption of al-qaeda's involvement, we have multiple videotaped admissions of guilt from osama bin laden, the tapes also show other ranking members of al-qaeda and yes, i am aware of the standard truth movement talking points on the subject, so lets talk about them first, the denials of involvement. there 2 sources: 1: la figaro (french newspaper) 2: statement read on al-jazeera addressing 1, la figaro did not interview bin laden directly, they sent questions to the taliban government of afghanistan, the taliban then forwarded the questions to bin laden, bin laden sent his answers to the taliban, and the taliban forwarded them to la figaro, we have no proof the answers came from bin laden, or that the questions were even sent to him addressing 2, its again a text only statement read by an al-jazeera announcer, i do not know the source of the text, so again we lack confirmation the admissions on the other hand, are video, showing not only bin laden but multiple members of al-qaeda, we also have martyrdom videos from some of the hijackers, again, we dont have a verified chain of custody, but at least in this case you xcan look at the video and verify it is in fact osama bin laden (and others) so on to the truth movement talking points on those videos, which are basically that they are all fake well heres the deal, if you think they are fake the burden again falls on you to prove so conclusively, in my opinion (and the opinions of many others) you have failed to do so
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08


Diane	Feb 1 2008, 01:09 PM Post #23
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08	defaultdotxbe Feb 1 2008, 11:43 AM EDIT: and speaking of putting the cart before the horse, have a look at dianes suggestion fo interviewing everyone who worked in the CIA office at WTC7 why just the CIA employees? why not everyone who worked there? the CIA only becomes significant when you presume their guilt Remember, I suggested that a real investigation should *first* interview the whistleblowers who asked to be questioned by the 9/11 Commission but were ignored. It should also, as another preliminary step, reopen the put options and other money trails issues. The above would likely lead to some good questions to ask the CIA and SEC about, in addition to their observations about goings-on in WTC 7. Questioning other people who worked in WTC 7 would be a good idea too.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08


defaultdotxbe	Feb 1 2008, 01:24 PM Post #24
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08	Diane Feb 1 2008, 01:09 PM The above would likely lead to some good questions to ask the CIA and SEC about, in addition to their observations about goings-on in WTC 7. again, why would they have any special insight? most of them would just be office workers same as anyone else in the towers who you really want to ask about their observations leading up to and on 9/11 woul dbe the PAPD, since they were responsible for security in the WTC complex (although im not sure if this included WTC7 since it was privately owned)
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08


Headspin	Feb 1 2008, 01:26 PM Post #25
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	defaultdotxbe Feb 1 2008, 11:43 AM the investigators (in this case the 9/11 commission) had access, and it was their job to determine whether charges should be filed, they determined charges were not to be filed Quote: you, as a member of the general public, do not have the rights to see the evidence, i, also as a member of the general public, also do not you're making it up as you go along.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2