posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Kester
Originally posted by pteridine
What evidence do you think should be analyzed and for what? You cannot analyze everything for everything or you will never complete the first
analysis. How will you determine when you are finished analyzing?
Everything cannot be analysed for everything but the first analysis can be completed. Its a joke to say there are not sufficient resources for the job
and then put into place everything that has been done in the name of 9/11. The resources are there. They are being used to suppress the people of
America and the world instead of being used to find out what happened on that day. There will always be some disagreement over when an investigation
should be concluded. The readers can judge for themselves whether the posters who concentrate on evidence are right in saying the official
investigation is 'a half-baked farce' as the editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering magazine described it.
The physical evidence should be treated as evidence, not merely looked through for evidence. The nature of the debris is an indicator of the means of
destruction. The nit-pickers will immediately jump in and say I want every speck put under a microscope and subjected to numerous tests. This absurd
nit -picking indicates a lack of willingness to offer a sound case. If the debunkers have a sound case to offer why can't they do so?
Demands for reinvestigation are common. The sticking points are:
1. Who would do a reinvestigation?
2. What would be reinvestigated and what would be seen after 10 years?
3. Who would pay for a renvestigation and how in depth would it be?
4. What are the limitations of the investigators?
5. When will it be considered complete?
Everyone who calls for such has their own ideas. Some want reinvestigation until their pet theory is supported, which means eternal investigation. As
it stands, there are no grounds for reinvestigation. No new evidence has been brought to light and no one has confessed to a plot. There is no
compelling reason to expend the resources for such, especially when the scope and limitations cannot be agreed on.
Maybe the the editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering magazine should begin by explaining why the official investigation was 'a half-baked farce' and
define what should be done and what the limits are. Better yet, he should start a Reinvestigation Fund that all interested parties could donate to and
reinvestigate until the cash ran out. I can see many such plans, each with an agenda, let by a person of good intentions.
See what you can do with the five points above. Start a thread with your premises and see how many would support your version. Write to a congressman
and see if you get a reply.
I predict that we are done with official 911 investigations.