If there were to be a reinvestigation of 911, who would do it and what evidence would they investiga

There are continuing calls for reinvestigation of 911 but specifics are lacking on the boards. I am asking questions on this thread to determine opinions on who should investigate and what should be investigated. Anyone can provide input and I'll roll-up the inputs at some point and post for a consensus vote. I'll only consider posts that follow these guidelines.
Assume that not everything everywhere would be reinvestigated but that the first step would be one key examination that could lead to even more investigation, should something be found. There should be a compelling reason for the reinvestigation in your mind. The investigation does not have to be physical in that looking for dynamite may be less productive than looking at e-mail records of the intel agencies involved. The questions, in order, are:

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.

It would be done by the same people who already did it. And the "official" report would be another lie to back up the first "official" lie.

Omg I just S+F`d a pt thread, but credit where credits due .

1). Firstly the supposed plane debris, there are many pieces of plane parts that do not appear to match up, there is a piece in particular found on the Pentagon lawn with AA colours on it there is a curve clearly seen, so it can only come from certain letters, also the blatantly obvious very small part of a turbine found, also the engine found at WTC the one ejected as WTC2 the South Tower by all accounts was one used by a 737.

There should be a more open commission with the 503 first responders to give testimony and WTC7 must also be included this time, all the Adjudicator`s should be none government related, an independent assessment agency to replace NIST for the official report, mmmm could go on forever here.

2). I`m not sure how much would be found, this will always be a problem though, inventory lists of expended ammunition always.

3). As this involves America and America is a part of NATO of which NATO is at war in regard of, I think there should be none government related people from all the NATO Countries involved one way or another this should absolutely minimize a biased either way enquiry.

4). Reports should be filed the same way as any public enquiry, and made public months before to correct or add anything that is wrong or missed out.

4). Yes I could live with it, this is why I gave you an S+F, it clearly shows imo that you know why most who oppose the OS reasons are - a fair trial.

Great thread

reply to post by 2009disclosure


Would that be your choice? Why would you want the same people to do it and what would be the first thing they investigated?

reply to post by Seventh

I will use your post as an example so that others get the idea. Perhaps I didn't explain the boundary conditions very well so you are invited to repost.
#2 showed the question and an example of something you could do. I picked out the shootdown theory at random as an example. You could look for physical evidence or look for administrative evidence if you thought that no physical evidence was available or had been lost.
You selected Pentagon plane debris as your first investigation. For #2, you should state what you would investigate for evidence. Part photos, actual parts, first responder interviews, inventories, serial numbers, etc.
You should select the thing that has the best chance of showing a conspiracy, in your mind, and the best pathway for investigation.

the investigation should be done on multiple fronts.
trusting it to one small group is impossible to trust.
known truth movement and NIST scientists must agree on any evidence as admissible or inadmissible.
all NIST's files must be made public, and i'm talking posted on the world wide web.
all "secret" 911 files must be released. ie. pentagon videos, bush/cheney secret testimony.
it is secrecy that allows conspiracies to succeed.
i would say set up five or six panels of experts made of equal parts truthers/debunkers. they should each do separate studies with identical data, and then their results should be merged to find a consensus truth. the final report must be released to the public with ALL data available for public peer review.

the important thing is transparency. the process would need to be totally transparent.

that's how i'd try and make it.

There needs to be a public panel composed of many citizens, or the ability for citizens to pose questions to the investigating body to answer. There needs to be a mandate for this, that a question needs to be answered, even a follow up question after the answer is provided.

reply to post by billybob


The boundary conditions are such that you can only investigate one aspect of 911. Seventh thinks the best chance is the Pentagon plane. You have to select the one that you think will provide the most evidence for a conspiracy and describe how you would do it. You are invited to read the directions again and repost.

reply to post by pteridine


Ooops sorry, not the 1st mistake I have made today . I will try again.

2). I would strongly base the retrial on the Pentagon because I think it has more photographic and unreleased evidence that can still be of use, the towers would take a lot more work as the main part of evidence there involves heavy forensics and pyrotechnic analysis on items no longer available, so yes imho the Pentagon is the strong point.


[edit on 6-9-2009 by Seventh]

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 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?

The goal of the post is to assess the points that people think are the aspects that present the best chance for finding actual evidence of conspiracy. It is easy to say "investigate everything" but some things are better investigated than others and I suspect that most have an opinion on this. You are invited to repost if you wish to participate.

The points I personally would like to see investigated:

1-the testimony from Able Danger in the Comm Report suggests that they had some clues as to the identity of some of the 9/11 terrorists, and were prohibited by law from giving the details to the FBI. Those members have publically stated their frustration about this. Jamie Gorelick was in some way instrumental in setting up this infamous intelligence "wall" between agencies. The CR speaks of the intel failures, and IIRC, blames this "wall" as part of the problem.

Why was she on the Commission then? IMHO, she was there to steer the Comm away from this line of inquiry. She should have been a witness, and not been on the commission in any way, state, or from.

2- What docs did Sandy Berger smuggle out in his underwear/socks (that he said he forgot about).

How damning were these docs to the Clinton admin? Did they clearly point to utter incompetence on his part to protect the country? Was he too worried about poll results and how foreign countries felt about the US, rather than take out the organization that was responsible for the USS Cole, 2 African embassies, etc?

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.

A tough one, for certain, as there are three major issues that I feel are key in pointing out that something other than what is accepted was afoot. But if we were to start somewhere, I would suggest looking into the Department of Defense and finding out why damn near our whole working Air Force was off playing wargames that were the same scenario that took place in reality. It would involve who gave the orders, why, and digging deep into the pentagon itself.

Naturally, though, it would not be a proper investigation if only one aspect was studied, and the merits of that study were used to determine continuation. There are several things that are not immediately connected, or compartmentalized, and thus, there are different things requiring different methods and class of investigation.

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?

There might still be people around who knew exactly who was involved. There might also be alot of classified paperwork still around, provided it wasn't destroyed.

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.

Naturally, I agree here. It would not be done by the government, since that would be like asking the mafia to investigate illicit gambling. Truther movement or associates of the truth movement are also barred. People who work for companies or institutions that receive large amounts of government money are also out. The investigation, ideally, should be done by a group of independent experts from various companies and institutions, as well as foreigners from countries that are neither hostile nor allied to the U.S. The investigative committee should be generally sequestered from the public and the government, except when contact is required for interviews or gathering information/studying evidence.

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?

It should all be released at the end of the investigation, from drafts and opening notes to the end, all at once, to avoid stirring up public opinion or provoking interference with the investigation before conclusions have been reached. Both internet and television to distribute, but especially TV, as more people are likely to watch TV.

The reports should document everything that occurred during the investigation, including discarded theories or possibilities that were later deemed unlikely or untrue. Every interview, every scientific test, every note, question, ect. should be documented. basically, a record of everything should exist.

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.

Yes, I would. I would have accepted the 9/11 commission report had there not been evidence that the whole thing was an absolute white wash, and that the investigation was not conducted in a thorough, believable manner.

But if a proper investigation were done, and they ended up reaching a conclusion that there was no active conspiracy on the part of our government, then I would accept it, yes.

And feel some relief, as well.