Why don't we just start our own 911 investigation?

I'm wondering why the 911 Truth Movement is waiting for the Government to allow a new investigation, when we have the internet as a new powerful tool to do our own 'open-source' WIKI-style investigation?

"Open Source", from Wikipedia:

The open source model of operation and decision making allows concurrent input of different agendas, approaches and priorities, and differs from the more closed, centralized models of development.[1] The principles and practices are commonly applied to the peer production development of source code for software that is made available for public collaboration. The result of this peer-based collaboration is usually released as open-source software, however open source methods are increasingly being applied in other fields of endeavor, such as biotechnology.

We could establish an online platform where we could democratically vote for certain people to become moderators, (skeptics and 'Truthers' alike) who'd become overseers to annihilate any foul play...

We could give every member 1 vote for every piece of evidence or speculation presented, so that the points of interests that are most popular rise to the top? Everyone would be welcome to join so eventually the information 'risen to the top' would be those points of interest that both skeptics and truthers agree on it's importance.

People from all walks of life with all kinds of specialties could handle different tasks; Cyber Security, writing articles, research, translations, etc etc

Information would be added to certain parts of the platform only if truly researched and confirmed to be correct info.
False information would be emitted as soon as mods are notified and convinced of it's falseness.

The ideas of this nature go on and on, but in essence my question is this:

IF WE CAN HAVE A FREE GLOBAL ENCYCLOPEDIA (wiki) FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, WHY DON'T WE DO THE SAME WITH A 911 INVESTIGATION / ACCUMULATION OF EVIDENCE?

Within no time, the best pieces of evidence would float right to the top, for all to see.
Once confronted with hard evidence that skeptics & truthers BOTH AGREE ON,
the proper authorities could be approached to finally help us seal this case, by aiding in getting certain suspects subpoenaed.

If anything, we could create a secure outlet of evidence for generations to come.
Surely there are hackers out there who'd help defend the platform from outside attacks.

I myself have no idea if this is feasible, but after 7 years of Truth movement, there still seems to be no noticeable enthusiasm by the current administration to re-investigate, and the same old back-and-forth squabbling between skeptics and truthers.

Please, please refrain from discussing the general 911 topics here; there are other threads for that discussion. Again, please, no kerosene temperatures, clips of WT7, NIST graphs or animations of holographic planes in this thread here. Instead, I'd like to use this thread to explore the potential of internet 'open source' collaboration when it comes to a 911 investigation 'by the People, for the People'...
A Wiki-style cyber Court House to present evidence, rate it, flag it, test it, and perhaps ultimately force subpoena's in Real Life.

What do you guys think?

Citizen investigation of 9/11 has been going on since 2001. The investigation has been amazingly fruitful. Of course it's not surprising how far common sense and logic can take you when the lie being sold is so preposterous and the motives behind it so transparent.

The CIT guys have even gone to the extent of doing extensive witness interviews on the ground near the scene of the crime. Re-doing all of this sort of thing, already done on ATS or in so many videos and books is not what is needed.

We need to transition to the next level. Counterintuitively, that next level is not the courts and the police departments. They have already flunked out of this course. The only lever of power still available to the people is political power. Somehow 9/11 has to be forced onto the political agenda.

Unfortunately, at that level the politicians are already up to their asses in alligators. George Bush managed to handcuff America to a millstone in Iraq and then walk away. And then there are America's pressing financial and economic issues. Of course, these things are all tied to 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

(Donald Trump is right about Iraq. Declare victory, get out and stand back while they have their civil war and then do the best deal you can with the winner.)

If the American people can regain political control of the police and justice systems, then they can start to do a real police investigation and slowly, one by one, starting with the most vulnerable ones, Silverstein, Giuliani, Cheney, Whitman, Meyers, the FBI investigation chicanes, and so on, round the MFers up.

If it ever starts to happen, it ain't going to be pretty. Bottom line, the next steps are political ones. People have to get cracking on their politicians. Remind them whose the boss.


[edit on 19-7-2009 by ipsedixit]

It's a great idea.How are you gonna exclude those paid per post trolls pushing the Holey Story?And if you are able to do that,where are you going to find actual proponents of that point of view who REALLY have faith in the Story and yet have critical thinking skills?Seems like a self negating mental construct based on what has been the norm here for years.A good litmus test would be to see if the person can admit the possibility of being wrong.I can and do alla time.

reply to post by ipsedixit


We wouldn't have to re-interview witnesses or re-render the videos/documentaries; the info could be submitted for archiving, but it would have to be a collaboration between believers and truthers, and I guess that'd be the hardest part.
However, what reasons could 'the believers' have against a free open-source platform for the presentation and accumulation of evidence and theories?

What if people stopped updating the individual sites and collaborate with others in an effort to create a massive online showcase of all scenarios and evidence?

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Psynarchist]

reply to post by Psynarchist


Well, first you would have to be willing to accept the evidence and not summarily dismiss it because it either doesnt agree with your ideas or it came from a government agency........as, so far, the "truth" movement refuses to do.

By default, a large amount of the evidence would originate with the government and therefore would not be accepted...so another investigation would be yet another waste of time and money.

I already created wiki.911db.org... in an attempt to start this, but I have very little motivation and every time I try and get involved in a good discussion it degrades.

If you want to make use of this site, please feel free, i will grant people the power to moderate pages, and will try and contribute a dissenting view.

If you're worried about submitting your details to me, use fake ones. I have no interest in betraying anyone's privacy, and I am bound by law not to.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Well, first you would have to be willing to accept the evidence and not summarily dismiss it because it either doesnt agree with your ideas or it came from a government agency........as, so far, the "truth" movement refuses to do.

We all have a right to believe in what we want to, just because we don’t believe in your conspiracy theories doesn’t make yours right.
You are not the leading expert of what the truth movement believes in or what they will except for evidences. So stop insulting everyone and stop assuming you know what people think. We already know the 911 investigation was stonewalled by the Bush administration that info has already been in every leading Newspaper and every leading News station where have you been. The American people know little to nothing about what really happened on 911. We all know the government has cover-up most of the truth, that has already been proven.

So yeah, we want a real investigation and we don’t want any politicians doing it either.
I would like Judicial watch to do it. If it turns out that, the OS is true then I would accept it.
However, I know it won’t be, because sciences has already proved it impossible.

Speaking of whether to accept a government spokes person or not,let's include a lie detector verification section.This way anyone who lies can be dismissed from giving more,er 'fertilizer'Also people/posters who are unable to answer questions directly put to them or who troll get axed.Would be quick,but then who would remain after page one?

reply to post by impressme

However, I know it won’t be, because sciences has already proved it impossible.

And thank you for once again proving my point. No matter how many scientists, engineers and architects that would tell you it happened just like the OS says...you wouldnt accept it because you have a philosophy professor, ONE physics professor and a water lab engineer telling you it DIDNT happen that way.

we have ... We are Change is Lobbying Congress for a New Investigation.... that danish study where 9 top level scientist all reached the same conclusion independantly ... Nano Thermite ... 30 tonnes to be precise was used to bring down the towers. evidence included Unexploded Thermite chips in dust. Free Fall = known science Demolition and if demolition that is mass murder with police refusing to investigate because its their boss that did it. so we the people being of sound mind and body demand Justice be done. enough is enough ... wheres is the line... it has been crossed long ago...

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

And we have our own lying eyes.BTW free fall means no air resistance too.And WTC 7 wasn't in the Officious sounding cover up.

Originally posted by Psynarchist
What do you guys think?

It wouldn't work, for the obvious reason every disciussion gets bogged down here even now- the debate invariably gets caught up not in discussion of any particular scenario, but over what evidence is considered credible. You can see right away that information from the 9/11 commission report is universally refuted by the truthers as "a pack of lies" despite the fact not a single truther can elaborate exactly how it's a pack of lies, while information posted by a bunch of college kids making an internet flick in their dorm room despite the glaring falsehoods it includes (which even they themselves admit to) is "unimpeachable research". You see even now how witnesses who say things contrary to what the truthers want to hear (I.E. that Taxi driver by the Pentagon and that woman who took the photo of the smoke from the Shanksville crash) just HAVE to be secret disinformation agents.

I won't even mention the outright crackpot ideas like "no planes", "nukes in the basement" and "energy beams from outer space" which, despite their being crackpot, still have their fanatical proponents that argue for them with the same zeal of a religious cult member. Such people are still going to believe what they want to believe regardless of what you tell them, so if your investigation contradicts what they want to hear, they're going to dismiss it out of hand.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by impressme

 

However, I know it won’t be, because sciences has already proved it impossible.

And thank you for once again proving my point. No matter how many scientists, engineers and architects that would tell you it happened just like the OS says...you wouldnt accept it because you have a philosophy professor, ONE physics professor and a water lab engineer telling you it DIDNT happen that way.

You need to focus on a new forum my friend because your slams are obvious.

ONE philosophy professor and ONE physics professor and a water labe engineer? LOL ROFLMAO!

You are so obvious that my sides hurt from laughing. You see why people don't listen to you don't you? Because you do EXACTLY what you claim the truth movement does. You belittle the information that is brought forth and try to lessen what is presented.

There are MANY MANY more than just one of each of the professions above supporting the truth movement and saying that it didn't happen the way we have been told it did. MANY more. Yet you will sit here and try to say it is only 3 total. ROFLMAO some more.

Thanks for the laugh my friend. I really needed it.

As for the OP. This has happened. It keeps getting forestalled by the court systems. That is the reason it hasn't gone anywhere although the 'skeptics' would like to say that it hasn't even started. They like to throw the question out "Why haven't you taken it to court if you believe in it so much?" When in fact it has but the system is set up to protect the government on this one.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Truther's don't simply state that the report is full of a pack of lies without stating what they mean. At least true truthers. Ones that really have done their homework.

It's not so much that it is a pack of lies but that they CHOSE to leave out many valid interviews and data and decided to have it written up like a suspense novel to sensationalize and evoke emotion to cloud judgment. That is what many of the big arguments against that document are about.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You see even now how witnesses who say things contrary to what the truthers want to hear (I.E. that Taxi driver by the Pentagon and that woman who took the photo of the smoke from the Shanksville crash) just HAVE to be secret disinformation agents.

Have you seen the CIT interview of this guy? If you haven't then you should. Pay close attention to the man when he feels he isn't being recorded and then how he talks when he knows he is. If you have seen it then you are doing what many skeptics accuse truthers of doing which is ignoring what is right in front of your face so that it fits YOUR version of events.

My initial reaction to the title of this post was "That's a great idea"

As soon as I started reading the replies to this post I realized that it wouldn't work.

To conduct an investigation, you need to be open minded from the start, look at the evidence and let the evidence point to a conclusion.

So much of what is discussed here on ATS, starts with a conclusion and then tries to find the evidence to back up that position. That is not an investigation.

A great example of this is the discussions about thermite/thermate or nanothermite/nanothermate.

Evidence from dust samples collected at the site was analyzed and the conclusion was that this is a form of thermite. But when I read through the articles, there is little to no discussion could other things present during the collapse have also led to the same particles in the dust samples. A scientific analysis would have discussed all of the possible mechanisms that could have resulted in the particles discovered. If there are reasons that some of the possible mechanisms should be excluded from discussion then that should be presented as well. To my understanding that wasn't done.

You also need to be able to discuss evidence like that without the discussion degenerating into name calling ( which seems to happen frequently here on ATS).

So I have to give the post a star for a great idea, but I think that it would be a great deal of work to create something that would work.

The other thing that would be great about something like this, is you could define certain areas of the investigation and highlight arguments pro and con. If a theory is proven false it should clearly state that.

If evidence is shown to be partial or incomplete that should also be clearly shown.

Originally posted by dariousg
It's not so much that it is a pack of lies but that they CHOSE to leave out many valid interviews and data and decided to have it written up like a suspense novel to sensationalize and evoke emotion to cloud judgment. That is what many of the big arguments against that document are about.

All right, fair enough, but do those ommissions truly impact the credibility of the material that actually is in the report?

So far, the only documented ommissions I've seen are the ones listed by David Ray Griffin, which are either things which the 9/11 commission wasn't set up to discuss (I.E. the physical mechanics of the collapse), unprovable statements (I.E. Bin Laden's kidney issues) or things which didn't even matter (I.E. why Bush stayed at the elementary school as long as he did), none of which contradict any of the material presented in the 9/11 commission report (I.E. NYPD helicopter pilots reporting the steel beams in the WTC were glowing red from the fires and appeared as if they were about to collapse, which they did 1/2 hour later)

Thus, are the ommissions of an intentional coverup, or are they simply things that naturally should have been covered in the report, but weren'tt?

Originally posted by dariousg

Have you seen the CIT interview of this guy? If you haven't then you should. Pay close attention to the man when he feels he isn't being recorded and then how he talks when he knows he is. If you have seen it then you are doing what many skeptics accuse truthers of doing which is ignoring what is right in front of your face so that it fits YOUR version of events.

Please, if you're going to say something then please say it without using innuendo. Are you accusing the taxi driver of being some sort of planted disinformation agent?

reply to post by Wildbob77


Yes indeed. Unfortunately, I'm no expert as to the extent of 'open source' functionality, but it might have potential:

Ohloh, a company that tracks the open source industry, lists roughly 250,000 people working on an amazing 275,000 projects. That's almost the size of General Motors' workforce. That is an awful lot of people working for free, even if they're not full-time. Imagine if all the employees of GM weren't paid yet continued to produce automobiles! So far, the biggest efforts are open source projects, and the largest of them, such as Apache, manage several hundred contributors—about the size of a village. One study estimates that 60,000 man-years of work have poured into last year's release of Fedora Linux 9, so we have proof that self-assembly and the dynamics of sharing can govern a project on the scale of a decentralized town or village.

From: The New Socialism: Globall Collectivism is coming Online