It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by pteridine
oh, sorry. i was answering the actual question posted as the title of the thread, and not the specifics of the OP. i was not shrinking and the compartmentalizing down to the limited microscopic view of the elephant.
maybe i should start my own thread with the boundary conditions being, "in the real world". does elephant skin under a microscope look like an elephant?
Originally posted by pteridine
1. What aspect of the 911 events should be investigated first and why?
This could lead to more investigation if something were found but failure to find any evidence of conspiracy may mean the end of all further reinvestigation, so careful consideration must be given to your choice.
2. What evidence of the above event might still be available and what should be examined?
It has been 8 years so some evidence is long gone or its fate is unknown. As an example, if you think that the possibility of a shootdown is most likely and you believe that pursuit aircraft only had guns available, would you suggest looking for 20mm holes in the aircraft engines or checking the inventory lists of expended ammunition?
3. Who should do such an investigation and how would they be appointed?
This will be tough to determine because those who are biased either way going in may cause the entire process to bog down in conflict if evenly dispersed or force a predetermined answer if one sided. Would a random selection of the top emeritus scientists and engineers do the job? Emeritus profs have nothing to worry about but their own integrities. Members of truth groups and those professors still receiving funding from the Federal government could be off limits.
4. How should the reports be made public?
Should the draft individual reports be published on the web before consensus meeting and final report? Should there be a televised presentation? What should the report-out look like?
4. As was asked in a previous post, could you live with the answer regardless of what it was if the investgation were carried out as you suggested? This applies to people on both sides of the issue.