A New Enquiry into 9,11 would it work ?

reply to post by hooper


Check out the Firefighters site , many were first responders

They will assure you that a lot of them believed the OS at first.

Knowledge is Power

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by hooper

 

umm


you can't tell the diff?

I linked 3 sites

Sphinx linked 4 searches

Sorry, doing too many things at once and got confused. I am familiar with them. One of them, or possibly two them are probably no-good. They don't cotton to non-believers. Also will monitor the other one for awhile to see how non-believers are treated. One site, which shall go unnamed, like to "out" non-believers by releasing there locations and make veiled threats. I can live without that.

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by hooper

 

Check out the Firefighters site , many were first responders

They will assure you that a lot of them believed the OS at first.

Knowledge is Power

I checked out the firefighters the other day - as far as I could tell none of them were first responders at any of the sites on 9/11.

Originally posted by hooper


Also will monitor the other one for awhile to see how non-believers are treated. One site, which shall go unnamed, like to "out" non-believers by releasing there locations and make veiled threats. I can live without that.

I don't think any of us on ATS condones that sort of of thing ! People can get vociferous we know but this is irreprehensible if true !

reply to post by dereks


OK then.

reply to post by ProRipp


Yes I agree. Even though we sometimes chide one another, I don't believe none of us on either side here on ATS would stoop that low. Thats not acceptable for any reason.

I don't care what side your on I wish no harm to anyone...period! And it should be that way everywhere.



[edit on 3-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by mikelee


Me too,

I dont condone that.

I just like to chat with OS people and shoot down their theories for fun.

I be curious who does that though

Which site, its kinda a HUGE statement

Scholars for truth

Patriots for truth

Fire fighters for truth

reply to post by Sean48


No, no. none of those sites as far as I know. Don't want to mislead anybody.

reply to post by Sean48


I know, I like talking and debating on here but to threaten someone? Thats just stupid. Like the OS



[edit on 3-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by mikelee


Also to make things clear, the threat was not violent. It was along the lines of "according to your IP you work for _____. What would they do if they got a little email telling them what one of their employees is doing at work"?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by mikelee

 

Also to make things clear, the threat was not violent. It was along the lines of "according to your IP you work for _____. What would they do if they got a little email telling them what one of their employees is doing at work"?

Hey, your right it isn't violent. Thats still a threat though. And if someone ended up fired for it it has the very real potential to become violent.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by dereks

 

Oh please Dereks, don't pester me with your petty citations regarding the date. You know its true now as it was then because the OS continues to be unraveled more & more by the day.

That article came out on December 10, 2006. Just fyi regarding your incorrect timeline.

Actually, I think 2006 was the high water mark for trutherdom and that it has been downhill since then.

What aspects of the "OS" have been unravelled 2006-2010 ?

reply to post by Alfie1


Could be I don't keep up with such trends like whose year it is or isn't. I'm concerned with the events on 911 and the fact that the OS does not make sense.

The 911 Commission report was flawed and its been proven a fact over & over, even at the admission of panel members.

What aspects of the "OS" have been unravelled 2006-2010 ?...Where does this question originate at and who implied such a thing? Wasn't me.

Trivial aspects like "the year of the truther or OS'er isn't an issue to me and serves to prove that the topic continues to be swayed off course by spooks & agents (not implying you are) who care less about anything other than their agenda.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by mikelee]

Originally posted by Alfie1


Actually, I think 2006 was the high water mark for trutherdom and that it has been downhill since then.

What aspects of the "OS" have been unravelled 2006-2010 ?

This is an interesting observation, however i think the 'truthers' will somehow disagree ?

I just want to add that i'm glad tthe contri's to this discussion came together to condemn the actions of 'certain' sites as spoke of above ! When i opened this thread it is exactly what i wanted a respectful debate on this enquiry idea ! Thanks too all !

Who commission's this "New Enquiry" is another matter ! IF and it's obviously a big IF the US Gov were involved, complicit or complacent in any way they will not want any further inquiry ! I myself don't think they have been entirely transparent revealing the full story in this terrible event at the very least !

I have stopped short of what the previous poster said regarding the 'history' of false flag operation's 'known' to have been carried out ! Lets remember these operations are not just restricted too the US gov ! The British gov especially during WWII were guilty of such acts ! However in general they were absolutely necassery ! But the public didn't 'know' it at the time !

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by zatara

 

Back here in the real world, there is no possible way to compell every human being on the face of the earth to come forward and repsond with nothing but the full and absolute truth.

Barring that metaphysical impossibility, what else would you like this panel of incorruptibles to do?

After reading your reply to other commenters I have the impresson that you can not or will not look further into 9/11 than what the hijackers did...
I do not know why you do this but...okay....that is how it is.

Originally posted by zatara

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by zatara

 

Back here in the real world, there is no possible way to compell every human being on the face of the earth to come forward and repsond with nothing but the full and absolute truth.

Barring that metaphysical impossibility, what else would you like this panel of incorruptibles to do?

After reading your reply to other commenters I have the impresson that you can not or will not look further into 9/11 than what the hijackers did...
I do not know why you do this but...okay....that is how it is.

Besides "what the hijackers did" what else is there? I guess we should make and attempt to formulate foreign policy accordingly and re-examine or security measures.

I've asked a miriad of practical questions regarding the new inquiry or investigation - how it would be funded - who would be inpaneled - who would disallowed - what authority would that panel have - from where would the authority originate - what would be the mission of the panel - all to no avail. Doesn't anybody have any practical approach to this question? Don't you think there should standards and approved methodologies for the investigation?

reply to post by hooper

hooper mate i know you asked such questions and i told you that this idea was at emryonic stage we are just trying to ascertain first if people would welcome a new enqiry ? The why's and wherefore and what powers etc etc etc would be decided later but i am sure nothing would get in the way ! Decisions could be made as and when they were needed ! This is a hypothetical idea at the moment that we are discussing no ?


Okay okay for an idea of what you think should happen if a panel was elected. What powers would you accept them being given ? What perameters would you 'set' for the inquiry to work within ? I ask you this because i respect your views in this discussion as i would anyones idea on this ! What would be theyre 'mandate' and what powers would be given to them ?



[edit on 093131p://01America/Chicago04 by ProRipp]

[edit on 093131p://01America/Chicago04 by ProRipp]

[edit on 093131p://01America/Chicago04 by ProRipp]

reply to post by ProRipp


Before the concept of power and authority is even considered first there must be grounds.

These would best be acheived by convening a group of like minded people and have a hearing following basic parlimentary procedures. Let all those who do not believe in the "OS" come forth and say their piece and submit there work. Record the proceedings, select a commitee to sit down and produce a full report of the findings together with any new factual evidence. Make sure only the committee's formal findings are published to represent the findings of the hearing in whole.

Where there are questions - organize the questions and lay out specific avenues of inquiry that must be followed to address the questions. Make sure the information is knowable and don't ask for a fishing expedition.

The first time a person calls for Dick Cheyney to be waterboarded then the whole thing goes up in smoke.

If questions are actually thinly veiled accusations then the process is nullified.

Submit your formal findings to an elected representative and be prepared to rigoursly defend your findings. "Shill", "disinfo agent" and "sheeple" will do your efforts no good. Accept that at this point the burden to prove the "OS" wrong is on you and not the other way around.

Be prepared to accept and admit that you (the collective you) may be wrong.

In response to the question asked in the OP, I'd have to answer no, for a variety of reasons.

First, I can't see that such an investigation would be practicable. If anyone as anything to hide - and I believe that some people do - they won't accede the kind of powers such an authority would require. Even if there aren't people wanting to keep aspects of 9/11 covered up it strikes me that the US has never really been keen on allowing outside agencies to tell it or its citizens what to do. The chance of an authority with the legal powers you posit is zero.

Second, the "Truth Movement" as it is loosely termed is too disparate, marginalised and in many cases just too plain wacky to mount a campaign that might result in any kind of investigation. Not everyone under the TM umbrella is an idiot by any means, but I'm afraid many are. They are unlikely to be taken seriously enough to gain the momentum of public opinion required to get an investigation of this scale off the ground.

Third, and relatedly, there is no great groundswell of public feeling demanding such an enquiry, and nor is there likely to be. I appreciate that the TM must feel vibrant and dynamic from the inside. It may even feel that it is expanding. But this is an atmosphere common to internet cliques and millenarian groups alike, and the TM has the flavour of both. In reality its importance is diminishing - and I say this not to annoy people who disagree with me, or even to suggest that that's a good thing, but because it seems objectively true.

The problem really, as far as I see it, is that American citizens probably have been lied to about 9/11, but in a much more mundane way than you might think. In essence I don't dislike the TM for asking questions - on the contrary it's a healthy habit - but it aggravates me that so many in it ask the wrong ones. It's a scandal that security services were so competitive, poorly informed and badly run before 9/11. If you began your pursuit of another investigation predicated on that basis I'd be right behind you, but instead you focus on an unachievable goal and pointless diversions perpetrated by charlatans and cranks.

From my experience I find the Truth Movement to be, on the whole, full of good intentioned people who wish their suspicions were wrong...

Nobody wants to believe their own government could be so evil and corrupt.
This is a very bitter pill to swallow...

Reading this thread, the truthers have a good point...there are too many ridiculous aspects to the Official Story for it to be taken seriously, and, as mentioned, this was confirmed by the actual members of the Commission.

All the above sound rational so far??

I see a lot of the use of the words "whacky" or crazy or looney, as well as a new name rearing its head more frequently...."cult"....

Cult??

I have researched this topic in an unbias manner.I am not American...I have no alterior motives...I have looked at both sides of the story....my conclusion??

Clearly the Official Story is a lie.
There are sooooo many things that defy logic that happened on that day that anyone, having researched, and without some reason for bias, would, in 99% of cases, agree....
...it just doesnt make sense.

This makes me a Cult Member?
Like the Manson Family?
Like Jim Jones?
Waco?

Hilarious!!



Some here will resort to anything ....
Some get nasty, others call you names, others use sarcasm.

This is to be expected.....

But it doesnt change the fact, regardless of the bluster and big words,that the body of evidence in support of a new investigation far outweighs the small number of Truths that support the OS.