Would a new 9/11 investigation really accomplish anything?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by vicen
I think your friend is 100% correct. If 9/11 was an inside job, something I don't believe, it seems almost impossible that there would ever be any new investigation.


Whereas if it was what they said it was, they should have had no problem with an investigation to begin with (the White House was reluctant, Dick Cheney even claimed we didn't need an investigation because we "already knew" who was responsible). Or even 5 of them in a row.




posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
 


"Those professionals" never commented on all the explosions coming from all 3 buildings to begin with, especially with any evidence for any of the numerous different things you claim must have been causing them. That is blind speculation. Like I said, enough people will agree that this is totally unacceptable.


If those professionals never commented on them then it follows they never speculated on them.

So it look like your job is going to be far harder to convince anyone for the need of another investigation since no evidence of explosives was ever found and the collapses were explained perfectly straigtforwardly without ever having to bring in things for which no evidence existed like explosives and space beams.

So I would say that it leaves you having to convince whomever that your speculation that "explosive" sounds are important and why.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
If those professionals never commented on them then it follows they never speculated on them.


Right. You are the one speculating about what caused them, with no evidence, not "those professionals" who never said anything about them in the first place.

No one looked for explosives or tested for residues at any point during any of the investigations. So for that reason it would make sense that none were found. Yet there were still plenty of explosions in all 3 buildings reported that have still not been explained with any evidence.



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
If those professionals never commented on them then it follows they never speculated on them.


Right. You are the one speculating about what caused them, with no evidence, not "those professionals" who never said anything about them in the first place.


I don't know why I have to repeat this to you but here goes:

"To wit, it matters NOT that I think "explosive sounds" did not come from explosives but came from crashing elevators, fuel ignitions, shifting girders, SOUNDS that none of us ever hear routinely."


No one looked for explosives or tested for residues at any point during any of the investigations.


Incorrect. The City of New York did in October of 2001 precisely to find what the chemical components of the dust were, followed by several other studies by medical research groups. No evidence of explosives was ever found.

So you are still left trying to convince someone of your speculations to get a new investigation. How do you propose to proceed?



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
"To wit, it matters NOT that I think "explosive sounds" did not come from explosives but came from crashing elevators, fuel ignitions, shifting girders, SOUNDS that none of us ever hear routinely."


None of those things are explosions.

You are making assumptions based on your own speculation.

You are starting at the conclusion that there were no explosions and working backwards instead of dealing with the evidence...



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Given that we already know what and where to investigate, if we had a truly independent panel with subpoena power and veteran teams of police and forensic investigators I think yes, a lot of things would change.


My problem with this idea, after really thinking it through, is that I don't think it will be accepted. Not for the reasons that the determined debunkers on this site have given either. But for the reason that once an 'independent' investigation were to be completed it would be way too easy for the powers in charge to simply plaster the 'conspiracy nuts' label on the people who did the investigation. And as usual, the vast majority of people would swallow once again what their masters have to offer as fact because, to put it frankly, life is much easier if you just have to worry about your own.

A second hitch in this plan would be the simple fact that the government doesn't have to release a lot of the 'evidence' due to 'national security'. We are talking a decade of court battles just to try and force them to release the information that they deemed 'classified'.

In the end, the people who really pulled this off (if indeed it were an inside job which I lean more towards than what we were told) will just name call and belittle like they always do to destroy any and all that stand against them.



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

You are starting at the conclusion that there were no explosions and working backwards instead of dealing with the evidence...


No, I'm starting with the fact that there is no evidence for explosives. None of the chemical studies of the dust done from ground zero outwards showed any chemical signature of explosives, and the collpase mechanism did not require explosives or space beams.

So how do you intend to proceed to get another investigation?



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Incorrect. The City of New York did in October of 2001 precisely to find what the chemical components of the dust were


Sorry, no one tested the steel itself for residues.

Funny you should mention the dust though, considering explosive "paint chips" were found there too. Who knows what we would have found on the steel itself!



So you are still left trying to convince someone of your speculations


No, you were the one speculating, remember? By just blindly guessing at the unanswered questions with no evidence whatsoever and pretending that it settled something.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Jezus

You are starting at the conclusion that there were no explosions and working backwards instead of dealing with the evidence...


No, I'm starting with the fact that there is no evidence for explosives.


Exactly, you are starting with a “fact”.

You need to start with the evidence before making conclusions.


Originally posted by jthomas
So how do you intend to proceed to get another investigation?


A new investigation might answer some questions but is ultimately unnecessary.

The “official story” already disproves itself.

The contradictions, anomalies, coincidences, fist-time events, and other phenomenon make the “official story” incomplete at best.

No alternative theory is required to recognize a lack of evidence.



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
Incorrect. The City of New York did in October of 2001 precisely to find what the chemical components of the dust were


Sorry, no one tested the steel itself for residues.


Source for your claim?


Funny you should mention the dust though, considering explosive "paint chips" were found there too. Who knows what we would have found on the steel itself!


So if paint chips from the steel were found in the dust then testing the dust was sufficient to indicate the presence of explosives.


So you are still left trying to convince someone of your speculations


No, you were the one speculating, remember?


What I think is irrelevant to what you have to do. You are speculating that there is a reason why "explosive sounds" have to be investigated, remember? You have no evidence or facts that anyone would consider valid to authorize a new investigation


By just blindly guessing at the unanswered questions with no evidence whatsoever and pretending that it settled something.


That is just you claim based on your speculation without evidence. So you're still at square one.

Now, just how did you say you were going to convince someone that a new investigation is needed?



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas

Exactly, you are starting with a “fact”.

You need to start with the evidence before making conclusions.


I did. The fact is that there is no evidence for explosives



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
Sorry, no one tested the steel itself for residues.


Source for your claim?


NIST stated in one of their two WTC Tower FAQs that they did not test for such residue at all. FEMA similarly reported no such testing. There is no other source for anyone doing such testing either. If you believe someone else did this testing then I would love to see it, but no one else investigated the collapses or looked at any steel at all.


So if paint chips from the steel were found in the dust then testing the dust was sufficient to indicate the presence of explosives.


It was sufficient to find explosive "paint chips," yes. Sufficient to find residues of high explosives on the steel or anything else that was in the buildings? No.


I already have convinced many people that a new investigation is needed. It's not hard to do. When most people learn things like the fact that there were explosions occurring in all 3 buildings and we still have no idea what was causing them, that alone is enough for most people to agree we deserve a more detailed study of that day's events. The question is how long until a proper independent group with lawyers backing subpoena power and the other things I mentioned is initiated. Courts have been throwing these cases out left and right on "states secrets" privileges but now people like FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds are moving along with their cases with teams of lawyers anyway.



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I did. The fact is that there is no evidence for explosives


Explosions that cause major damage, are evidence of explosives.

What you mean to say is there is little other evidence and no conclusive proof of what exactly was causing these explosions, ie no residues or anything like that.

Which is to be expected considering no one looked for those things.



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
Sorry, no one tested the steel itself for residues.


Source for your claim?


NIST stated in one of their two WTC Tower FAQs that they did not test for such residue at all. FEMA similarly reported no such testing. There is no other source for anyone doing such testing either. If you believe someone else did this testing then I would love to see it, but no one else investigated the collapses or looked at any steel at all.


Steven Jones tested two sections of steel beams that remain to this day in hangar 17 at JFK International Airport. That is the source of the claim that he found "traces" of thermite. But those beams showed no signs of thermite's degenerative fingerprints during the eight months of debris removal, and it wouldn't be unusual for signs of thermite to be present after they were cut with acetylene torches. See: www.jod911.com...


So if paint chips from the steel were found in the dust then testing the dust was sufficient to indicate the presence of explosives.


It was sufficient to find explosive "paint chips," yes.


The "explosive paint chip" claim has been debunked pretty well. Perhaps you don't yet know that. It came from "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", The Open Chemical Physics Journal, www.bentham-open.org...

The claim has been challenged here: /c438f3 and here:

forums.randi.org...

And the article was published in a "open" journal, the editor of which resigned because she never approved of, nor saw, the paper, she claims.

It will be interesting after you read the refutations if you still consider it credible.


I already have convinced many people that a new investigation is needed.


You haven't convinced the right people.


It's not hard to do. When most people learn things like the fact that there were explosions occurring in all 3 buildings and we still have no idea what was causing them, that alone is enough for most people to agree we deserve a more detailed study of that day's events.


We've dealt with that claim repeatedly. Because you heard "explosive" sounds doesn't mean there were explosives and since none were found (including the non-explosive red paint chips) it doesn't mean anything to anyone you would need to convince to get another investigation. You solely are making claims based on your own speculation, not on evidence.


The question is how long until a proper independent group with lawyers backing subpoena power and the other things I mentioned is initiated. Courts have been throwing these cases out left and right on "states secrets" privileges but now people like FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds are moving along with their cases with teams of lawyers anyway.


The question is really more fundamental than that since claims are not evidence, speculations are not valid reasons, and inability to refute any of the massive evidence is a game-ender.

And April Gallop just got her lawsuit thrown out of court with prejudice on the basis of making the same kind of contradictory statements that the 9/11 Truth Movement does, and on the basis that "Gallop's claims are factually baseless -- indeed, because they are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional -- they are dismissed."

sites.google.com...



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Steven Jones tested two sections of steel beams


I know this is going to be a shock, but I'm not satisfied with someone looking at only two beams. And I'm not satisfied that Steven Jones had to do it, because none of the organizations charged with the actual investigation of the collapses ever bothered to.


The "explosive paint chip" claim has been debunked pretty well.


I know. Paint doesn't actually explode like the samples Harrit, et al analyzed. So they weren't looking at simple paint.



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
I did. The fact is that there is no evidence for explosives


Explosions that cause major damage, are evidence of explosives.


What explosions? You haven't provided any evidence of explosives, much less demonstrating that any explosives caused any damage in the WTC towers. You need to provide that evidence, not speculations.


What you mean to say is there is little other evidence and no conclusive proof of what exactly was causing these explosions, ie no residues or anything like that.


You still don't realize that the collapses have been explained without the need to introduce "explosives" as a mechanism and that no evidence of explosives has ever been found. Speculating that "explosive" sounds have deep meaning won't get you that new investigation.



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Well, thiers all this talk now, that supopsedly the chinese militray orchestrated 9/11. Since they own well over 80% of the US on paper, thanks to corporations, and have flooded our markets wtih thier toxic toys and cloths, that is someting to DEF consider, before its too late for us.
WE have a right to know!!! How does it feel to the rest of you, chinese immigrant workers are helping build the freedom tower? not american citizens. someths DEF wrong with that. That like hiring communists to build an american courthouse simply because they accpet cheaper pay.
They just want this all forgotten jsut like the JFK assisnation. JFK's files were being pushed farther and farther from public knowledge and release. That gives the accountable ones, and organiztions involved, which IS the case, more power to hide and secrets, and tell us what is good for us, as it has been going on for quite some time.
We have a duty and honor and right to know who was responsable so that the pulbic can say what the punishment should be, not or lying superiors. Pushing JFK's public files back and back is a dead giveaway..their hiding something! and by the time it is made public, i wouldnt be suprised if every word was gone over with black marker. jsut another useless forgotten piece of crucial evidence in the timeline void, as the generations go by. thier attmepting the same thing with 9/11, hoping nad knowing lots of the us, the tax paying public are that easy to forget and/or that stupid., casue msot of us, wont stand up and retalilate for our rights. we should.



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
What explosions?


Like the one that blew out the lobby of WTC1.

No one has ever shown what caused this explosion. There has only been a lot of blind speculation, which is totally unacceptable given the significance of this happening when and where it did.



You still don't realize that the collapses have been explained without the need to introduce "explosives"


Well I keep asking you to back this up but you never can. So I don't think it's me who isn't realizing something.



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
Steven Jones tested two sections of steel beams


I know this is going to be a shock, but I'm not satisfied with someone looking at only two beams. And I'm not satisfied that Steven Jones had to do it, because none of the organizations charged with the actual investigation of the collapses ever bothered to.


Actually, they did, at Fresh Kills. I gave you the link above.


The "explosive paint chip" claim has been debunked pretty well.


I know. Paint doesn't actually explode like the samples Harrit, et al analyzed. So they weren't looking at simple paint.


You missed this, also linked to above:



* The "nanothermite" samples vary by about a factor of 10 in energy content. This nonuniformity proves it is not a "precision engineered" substance of any kind.

* The top end of energy content exceeds the theoretical maximum for thermite by a factor of two, and the observed content of nanothermite by a factor of five. The substance cannot be thermite of any type. Its "contaminants" are, in fact, the dominant species.

* Regardless of what it actually is, there's no evidence it was actually in the WTC to begin with, and considerable evidence against. The sampling strategy is wholly inadequate. A more thorough methodology was applied by Lioy et al., and they found no nanothermite at all. They did, however, find that a large fraction of the dust originated as paint, of numerous types.

* There is absolutely no coherent explanation for why nanothermite would be in the structure in the first place. It offers no advantages, either as an explosive or an igniter, over cheaper, less troublesome, actually available ordinary technologies.

* Absolutely no one has corroborated these findings, and the one person who was given a sample of the dust couldn't even match the visual description claimed by Dr. Jones.

forums.randi.org...


So your efforts to get a new investigation are still going to be particularly tough, IMO.



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas

Exactly, you are starting with a “fact”.

You need to start with the evidence before making conclusions.


I did. The fact is that there is no evidence for explosives



Explosions are evidence for explosives...

Pretending that they don't exist doesn't explain anything...





 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join