It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Investigation

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Please describe a "new investigation".

Who, what, where, how long, how funded, how much power would be invested in the investigators. Maybe even some clue as to the agenda. Would they be invested with subpeona power? Who would provide oversight? Accountability? What circumstances, situations or history would preclude one from being empanelled?




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I starred and flagged this one, because I would really like to see a detailed response to your question. 10 years on, the trail of physical evidence is not just cold but frozen solid. Video footage is limited, and lots of evidence has been destroyed through either malfeance or incompetence.

The truther movement screwed up royally from the get-go declaring the all too tidy collapses of the towers due to plane collisions "impossible" rather than "incredibly improbable." The result for years has been that trusters need only prove the O.S. to be just barely within the realm of physical possibility while truthers need to definitively show otherwise.

The only viable "new investigation" would have to center around the movements beforehand: stock shorting by "key players", screw-ups (or "enabling") of the investigations of the alleged hijackers etc. And, frankly, a decade on all those tracks have been covered beyond recognition.

A new investigation would yield little while distracting people from the far more important consequences of the attacks.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I think " new investigation " has just become a meaningless chant. The fact is that any findings which did not accord with any particular truther's prejudices would immediately be labelled whitewash, lies, disinfo etc.

There is in fact new investigation going on all the time. The " Flight AA 77 on 9/11 : Real FDR Analysis : Frank Legge/ Warren Stutt " thread on here is a case in point. That thread is about important new information teased out of AA 77's FDR. But are truthers interested ? Are they hell. They would rather ramble on about $2.3 trillion going missing the day before 9/11 and similar drivel.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt
 


I still hold that if any of this conspiracy sentiment is genuine, then the first step would be to organize a "private" investigation. Really, just a convention, have everyone come forth and be heard, and produce a record accordingly. This happens all the time in other academic and professional pursuits. Dentist, engineers, chemist, etc. don't wait around for the government to intervene to explore new areas.

I believe the problem is that no one wants to go on record, call for a convention and then have no attendance. That would be the real last nail in the "truth" coffin.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
The biggest problem I see with a "new investigation" is that there are so many different fractions of the "Truth" movement. From no planers to CD, to thermite/explosives to plain old thermate to nano-thermite, to DEW and shape-shifing reptiles etc......

They all claim that they are correct. So, are we going to have one investigation? Or 6 different ones? They cannot all be right.

But, the solution is simple.

Whoever wants to do their own, do it. BUT, you fund it, you conduct it, and you publish any findings. I would gladly look at each and every one.

So, what's the holdup?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Pretty much my sentiments, don't know if I want to look at everything. But it could be interesting.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   


Really, just a convention, have everyone come forth and be heard, and produce a record accordingly.


They would if they really believed their own theories. But none of them have the conviction to do so.

It’s easier for them to type ‘government cover up!’.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


how do you have an investigation 10 years later? I would like to find out about what really happened on that day but i think the truth will only come out if people that were involved start whistleblowing....i think the product of any "new" investigation will be fruitless....

i hope I am wrong,,,



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Please describe a "new investigation".

Who, what, where, how long, how funded, how much power would be invested in the investigators. Maybe even some clue as to the agenda. Would they be invested with subpeona power? Who would provide oversight? Accountability? What circumstances, situations or history would preclude one from being empanelled?


I would like to see an answer to this too...but I doubt you're going to get one. To me, any genuine investigation is goign to be based heavily on the physical evidence as well as the testimony of both eyewitnesses who were there and expert opinions of people in the relevent fields. So far, the trusters who explicitely trust everything Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, et al are shoveling out have developed a cottage industry of manufacturing excuses for why they shouldn't believe anything that refutes their conspiracy claims.

For example, any testimony on crash site forensics will necessarily involve the FAA, any testimony on how NORAD behaved on 9/11 will involve the military, any testimony on security procedures in the WTC will necessarily involve the NYPA, any testimony involving fighting the fires will necessarily involve the NYFD, and any tstimony on what hit the Pentagon will necesaarily involve the eyewitnesses were in the are at the time. All of these groups have at one time or another been accused of actively conspiring to cover up the "real " truth, so just who IS left to conduct an investigation with any credibility?

I've asked the trusters that very question I don't know how many times, and I have yet to get an answer.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Yes, to me the only thing that has been even remotely consistent in and amongst all these competing "theories" is a call for a new investigation. Yet for some reason I can never get anyone to describe to me in any detail exactly what that new investigation would actually look like.

Personally, I think there are two possible explanations; the first is rather simple - no one actually knows. The other is a little more complicated. I think there may be some who fear if they go "on record" as describing the actual nuts and bolts of the investigation and there should actually be a new investigation that comports to the described and the results are no conspiracy - then where do they go? What do you actually do when you realize your fantasy and its not what you've pictured?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
How about qualified people who lay out the work they conduct. For starters the 911 comission report and the NIST report could render their work public for a peer review, which they did NOT do. And as for whom to do it, qualified people, architects, engineers, chemists or experts that can test for explosives and seen as somebody threw nukes into the mix maybe a radiologist, so it can be determined if even the suspicion of nuclear material having been involved can be taken into consideration.

I do not see any reason to bar anyone. Somehow the 911 deniers feel if somebody has a suspicion that disqualifies him. What counts is the work that is being delivered. There are systems in place to minimize fraud, systems that have not been applied, when the 9/11 comission report has been compiled or the NIST report. If the samples and science behind it is rendered public step by step, it will speak for itself, at least in academic circles. Those who have not the relevant background will have to trust the judgement of the scientific community, but why would they ALL conspire.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
For starters the 911 comission report


Why would the 9/11 CR be "peer-reviewed"? It's a political report on the events that lead up to September 11th. How COULD you peer-review that?


Originally posted by Cassius666

and the NIST report could render their work public for a peer review, which they did NOT do.


So, 10,000 pages open to anyone and everyone to review, and you don't think someone who is qualified (Engineers, architects, etc) has reviewed it?

I can post you more than two dozen peer-reviewed papers that appeared in reputable, peer-reviewed journals that support the NIST report. (I say reputable because Bentham and JONES are not reputable, or peer-reviewed)

Can you show me ONE from any of the "engineers" over at AE911T showing NIST wrong?

No, you cannot, as it hasn't been done.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
So, 10,000 pages open to anyone and everyone to review, and you don't think someone who is qualified (Engineers, architects, etc) has reviewed it?


Not nearly the same as a peer review. NIST could just pick and choose what criticisms to ignore. They neglected to consider anything other than their truss failure hypothesis, which never made it beyond a hypothesis and has no evidence to back it.


I can post you more than two dozen peer-reviewed papers that appeared in reputable, peer-reviewed journals that support the NIST report.


And none of them would actually compensate for NIST's report. The best of these (ie Bazant) are still flawed with assumptions and contradictions with hard data.


Can you show me ONE from any of the "engineers" over at AE911T showing NIST wrong?

No, you cannot, as it hasn't been done.


Sounds like your mind is already made up, but NIST didn't prove anything to begin with.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Not so much a " new investigation " but a real, proper investigation.
Cos that one they had wasn`t real.
Well....Wasn`t normal .
Certainly didn`t convince a lot of people.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I asked a similar survey question a while back. I put limits on it for each poster; something like "you can investigate only one aspect, that would be the thing that you think has the best chance of proving a conspiracy" but got few who actually responded. I got some "investigate everything' comments but those are worthless. I also asked who would conduct the investigation, who would report it....etc. I didn't expect agreement but did expect some responses that showed thought.
I should have asked it in a simpler fashion; something like "what individual event of 911 best suggests conspiracy to you" and then provided a list to choose from. Live and learn.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I do like the approach indicated by Cassius666 best. Open the whole lot up to peer review and let the science sift through it and debate it to sort out the facts from the fiction. This is what has been going on in the Internet over the past 10 years and a solid case against the official story has formed. There are still a lot of unanswered questions, but a more realistic suspect list has been made. I would also like to see some UN oversight to the investigation to limit the conflicts of interest that impeded the first 9/11 commission. There are a lot of serious ongoing problems in America at the moment while reality is a dirty word. An imaginary house with imaginary food is not as good as the real thing.
edit on 19-1-2011 by kwakakev because: removed 'and'



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
The biggest problem I see with a "new investigation" is that there are so many different fractions of the "Truth" movement. From no planers to CD, to thermite/explosives to plain old thermate to nano-thermite, to DEW and shape-shifing reptiles etc......

They all claim that they are correct. So, are we going to have one investigation? Or 6 different ones? They cannot all be right.

But, the solution is simple.

Whoever wants to do their own, do it. BUT, you fund it, you conduct it, and you publish any findings. I would gladly look at each and every one.

So, what's the holdup?


Couldn't agree with you more, Fire Marshall Bill. The solution IS simple: release ALL the video from the Pentagon and surrounding areas. That would satisfy all concerned. Does one eat crow with mint sauce?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not nearly the same as a peer review. NIST could just pick and choose what criticisms to ignore. They neglected to consider anything other than their truss failure hypothesis, which never made it beyond a hypothesis and has no evidence to back it.


Really?

No evidence?

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

Effect of fire on composite long span truss floor systems
Graeme Flint, Asif Usmani, Susan Lamont, Jose Torero and Barbara Lane,
"Journal of Constructional Steel Research", Volume 62, Issue 4, April 2006, Pages 303-315

Structural Response of Tall Buildings to Multiple Floor Fires, Graeme Flint, Asif Usmani, Susan Lamont, Barbara Lane, and Jose Torero, "Journal of Structural Engineering", Volume 133, Issue 12, December 2007, Pages 1719-1732

Heres one I have a direct link to.
fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk...

THE BEHAVIOUR OF LIGHTWEIGHT COMPOSITE FLOOR
TRUSSES IN FIRE
S.K. Choi, I.W. Burgess -- Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, University of Sheffield,
R.J. Plank -- School of Architecture, University of Sheffield

That is 6 different papers that confirm the effects of fire on steel composite trusses. All note thermal expansion as a primary cause of collapse.

Go read them.


Originally posted by bsbray11

And none of them would actually compensate for NIST's report. The best of these (ie Bazant) are still flawed with assumptions and contradictions with hard data.


So, have you written a discussion to Dr. Bazant? Has ANYONE from the TM done so?

Only one. One guy, Heiwa did, and was made a fool of by Dr. Bazant.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Sounds like your mind is already made up, but NIST didn't prove anything to begin with.


Do you have another, more complete account/theory that matches the known facts and events of the day?

If you do, I would gladly look at it. Make sure to list any assumptions, and show your math.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by gr82m8okdok
Couldn't agree with you more, Fire Marshall Bill. The solution IS simple: release ALL the video from the Pentagon and surrounding areas. That would satisfy all concerned. Does one eat crow with mint sauce?


First off, I have no idea who this "Fire Marshall Bill" is. Maybe you can clarify? Thanks.

Secondly, you're welcome to contact the businesses surrounding the Pentagon and ask for their footage. it's theirs, not the DoD's. The DoD has no legal basis to release private property.

As far as the Pentagon footage is concerned, here are a few reasons you wont get it.

1- The building is highly controlled. There is a reason for that. You know, national security and all. If footage is realease, it can be used to determine the location and capabilities of the cameras. This is bad.

2- It is my understanding that not every camera is recorded. Some are. Some are not. You have proof they are all recorded? Please show it.

There is a reason some things are classified. Did you know that a submarines grocery bill is classified? Why is that? We all know submariners have to eat at some point, right? You release their food bill, and you can extrapolate how long they will be on patrol. This is HIGHLY classified. Even the paint manufacturer for the floor paint is classified. Strange eh?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
There appears to be a lot of call for "peer review".

For all those demanding peer review some simple questions:

What does peer review mean to you?

When is it applicable?

How do you determine peerage?

What are the results of a proper peer review?




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join