[Merged]Debunkers: what would it take to get you to support a new 9/11 investigation?

[1337m4n]

It's time to show them how to answer direct questions.

See, a whole bunch of "challenge"-type threads have been made for Truthers, each consisting of an EASY and DIRECT question. Thus far, every Truther (with the single exception of The Photon) has failed completely and utterly at every single one.

In this thread we show them how it's done.

Debunkers: what would it take to get you to support a new 9/11 investigation?

[realitybites]

A Klondike bar.

[Unsecured Coins]

I would accept actual evidence pointing to any number of the "wrh" scenarios. Star wars ray? Show me the weapon. Thermite evidence? Hook me up. bombs? why not? Just show me something to run with.

[realitybites]

In all seriousness.

I can't say that I oppose a new investigation. I just don't see the point in it. It will reach the same conclusion and then the truthers will be calling for a new, new investigation.

So on and so forth.

[DRBUZZ0]

considering how thoroughly it's been examined and considering the greater context... either some verifiable and very solid evidence that did not have any other reasonable explanation or perhaps a lot of evidence built up.

Solid tests: Thermite documented by laboratory tests, videos of apparent simultaneous point explosions, engineering calculations showing the steel would have ample strength.

The problem is that the very premise has been so ridiculous and coupled with a complete lack of evidence it's almost inconceivable to me that there would ever be a point where all the existing documentation was disproven.

But yeah, if there was compelling enough evidence. Nothing has come even semi-sorta-kinda close though

[slyjoe]

A whole boatload of folks with first hand knowledge of how it occurred coming forward. Not one, not a couple, but BOATLOADS. Because that's what it would have taken to pull it off AND keep it covered up.

Seriously though, I have a hard time imagining what could come about at this point regarding the actual, physical events of 9/11 itself. Evidence would be a good start, which is something none of the truthers ever seem to have.

HOW we got there might be a different story about incompetence in our government. Interesting question though - I'm sure others will have more time to weigh in.

[DRBUZZ0]

Originally Posted by realitybites

In all seriousness.

I can't say that I oppose a new investigation. I just don't see the point in it. It will reach the same conclusion and then the truthers will be calling for a new, new investigation.

So on and so forth.

I'd oppose any new taxpayer funded investigation. At least any of any scale or expense. That's just a waste.

[1337m4n]

My answer to the question is simple: I will support a new investigation, with the provision that if the investigation comes to the same conclusion as before, the Truth Movement has to foot the bill. Every penny of it. Taxpayers should not have their hard-earned money taken from them to fund the paranoia of a handful of kids on the Internet.

ETA: Also, the investigation will be structured as before. None of this "let's put Truthers on the panel!" Double jeopardy is unconstitutional for a reason. The ONLY difference will be the inclusion of the evidence presented by the Truth Movement.

[beachnut]

benjamin, bags of


there are more important things to do than placating idiots to prove they are idiots

[Wildy]

Although the "Truthers" seem to want such an investigation don't they? They want a totally independent body that's paid for by the taxpayer with basically unlimited powers.

[gumboot]

Given that I'm not an American, and therefore wouldn't be paying for a new investigation, go for it.

It's a waste of time though because their conclusions will essentially be the same regardless of who conducts it.

[Unsecured Coins]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Given that I'm not an American, and therefore wouldn't be paying for a new investigation, go for it.

It's a waste of time though because their conclusions will essentially be the same regardless of who conducts it.

liar! you know you get paid in endoubleuros like the rest of us!!

[defaultdotxbe]

a real reason to think the first one wasnt sufficient


and "because they didnt blame the government" isnt a real reason

[SezMe]

Every passenger from Flt93 appearing on Nightline.

Beware, gumboot, paying for the next investigation will involve the first ever worldwide tax. Actually, Saudi Arabia ought to pay for 15/19ths of it.

[Sizzler]

If Jones' thermite chips come back positive for thermite, will that be enough?

[DarkMagician]

Originally Posted by slyjoe

A whole boatload of folks with first hand knowledge of how it occurred coming forward. Not one, not a couple, but BOATLOADS. Because that's what it would have taken to pull it off AND keep it covered up.

Seriously though, I have a hard time imagining what could come about at this point regarding the actual, physical events of 9/11 itself. Evidence would be a good start, which is something none of the truthers ever seem to have.

HOW we got there might be a different story about incompetence in our government. Interesting question though - I'm sure others will have more time to weigh in.

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

considering how thoroughly it's been examined and considering the greater context... either some verifiable and very solid evidence that did not have any other reasonable explanation or perhaps a lot of evidence built up.

Solid tests: Thermite documented by laboratory tests, videos of apparent simultaneous point explosions, engineering calculations showing the steel would have ample strength.

The problem is that the very premise has been so ridiculous and coupled with a complete lack of evidence it's almost inconceivable to me that there would ever be a point where all the existing documentation was disproven.

But yeah, if there was compelling enough evidence. Nothing has come even semi-sorta-kinda close though

Y'know, if I'd gotten here earlier, I would've probably made a long post, but it's getting late, so I'm going to just say I agree with these two.

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by Sizzler

If Jones' thermite chips come back positive for thermite, will that be enough?

Could you document thermite chips any other place in the world wide web? Or the world? Or the universe?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Sizzler

If Jones' thermite chips come back positive for thermite, will that be enough?

You mean Jones who made up thermite 4 years after 9/11 due to some political bias fetish? Jones latest stuff on chips is moronic tripe. He has a new smoking gun all the time. Do some research and learn why Jones' ideas are moronic junk that can only fool people lacking knowledge on 9/11.

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by Sizzler

If Jones' thermite chips come back positive for thermite, will that be enough?

That's funnier than the notion that people here have a problem with the idea of another investigation. that's not the problem. The problem is in claiming that the independent investigation which was completely successful was not enough. You want another? Go start one, no one is stopping you. Otherwise it's just an excuse to whine and expect the people whom you accuse of falsifying the investigation to give you another. Great logic there.

[Sizzler]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

That's funnier than the notion that people here have a problem with the idea of another investigation. that's not the problem. The problem is in claiming that the independent investigation which was completely successful was not enough. You want another? Go start one, no one is stopping you. Otherwise it's just an excuse to whine and expect the people whom you accuse of falsifying the investigation to give you another. Great logic there.

Do you need a hug?

Relax mister, a simple yes or no would be enough, after all, it was a question.

[Sizzler]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Could you document thermite chips any other place in the world wide web? Or the world? Or the universe?

Great question!

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Sizzler

Great question!

Poor Jones. Thermite chips; latest smoking gun. If you like his chips, you missed his cinderblock fall. What a dolt idea; thermite.

How many pounds do you need Jones? Yes, of thermite? A simple calculation a kid could do to show it is stupid. Have you calculated the amount of thermite to cut steel. How do you cut columns with a gravity driven thermite event? Hello? No, there were no thermite cutter devices, invented after 9/11, found in the WTC debris to cut hundreds of columns. I wonder why? Jones is making it up! See, it is simple to ask questions, and answer them. try it

[Chuck Guiteau]

Originally Posted by Sizzler

If Jones' thermite chips come back positive for thermite, will that be enough?

!.If thermite could be proven to the exclusion of any other possible source. Just like any other type of evidence in a court of law.
2. If a demonstrable means of utilizing thermite for that specific purpose could be established. Just like any other type of evidence in a court of law.
3. If a reliable chain of evidence had been maintained. Just like any other evidence in a court of law.

Balls in your court Sizzler.

[PhantomWolf]

I'm all for another investigation, as long as it uses real experts and the truthers pay for it.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

Debunkers: what would it take to get you to support a new 9/11 investigation?

Hmmm.... let me think.... how about... NOTHING!?

There was an investigation and THE TRUTHERS LOST!

When things don't go their way, grown-ups deal with it and move on. The rest of the country, and the world, can't be expected to bear the burden of bending over backwards in a futile attempt to satisfy the childish whims of a pitifully small band of hateful paranoiacs who will never be satisfied.

I was one of these self-centered asshats once... and I've learned to deal with the fact that Bill Clinton was not the ring leader of an Arkansas coccaine smuggling operation, that he did not have 75% of his friends killed off and he was not guilty of deliberately bungling the Waco Raid in orsder to get security gaurds who knew too much killed.

Get over yourselves and grow the hell up, tinfoilers.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

My answer to the question is simple: I will support a new investigation, with the provision that if the investigation comes to the same conclusion as before, the Truth Movement has to foot the bill.

Er, no. You're talking about disrupting thousands of peoples' lives, interfering with an untold number of existing anti-terror investigations, and you're putting the potential financial burden on a group that has absolutely no ability to pay.

You'll need a better reason than that crackpot paranoiacs think it's a swell idea..

[Hokulele]

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but haven't there already been several investigations into the events of Sept. 11?

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

Debunkers: what would it take to get you to support a new 9/11 investigation?

I would need to see, at least, believable evidence that the generally accepted science behind the WTC collapse was either fabricated or erroneously incompetent. Quite alot of work ahead for twoofers; big claims require equally big proof.

[Undesired Walrus]

A source on the ISI 'connection'.

[The Doc]

I would not support a new investigation into 9/11.
As Gravy has stated, it would be a considerable waste of resources, manpower and would likely result in hindering other investigations.
Nothing that was in/wasn't in the old investigation warrants a new investigation.
That being said, I support the NIST WTC7 investigation.

[Dave Rogers]

Let's see: How about letting the first set of investigations actually finish and see what they say?

I suspect there are one or two things that could do with a little more investigation; at the very least the Mohammed Atta wire transfers, and the possibility of ISI agents having been complicit in 9-11, could do with looking into - assuming, and this is a very large and unwarranted assumption, that someone isn't already doing this. By the nature of these things, though, I don't expect ever to hear of the results.

But a complete new investigation into everything, of the sort the truthers want? Well, some plausible evidence of anything wrong with our present understanding of events would be a minimum requirement. At the moment, none exists.

Dave

[Furi]

how about the promise that even if it disagrees with their particular CT, all the Twoofers will just let go ... and go and do something productive, like reading up on apollo as actual fact, getting rid of your magneto-crystals, and diluting your dose of chemtrail toxins by drinking some dihdrogen monoxide to and getting your chakras knocked the wrong way by drink fueled evolutionary based monkey sex.

in fact I'll shorten Truthers, regardless of gender or orientation. go get laid.

[padragan]

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

It's time to show them how to answer direct questions.

See, a whole bunch of "challenge"-type threads have been made for Truthers, each consisting of an EASY and DIRECT question. Thus far, every Truther (with the single exception of The Photon) has failed completely and utterly at every single one.

In this thread we show them how it's done.

Debunkers: what would it take to get you to support a new 9/11 investigation?

Well, every single time twoofers demand a new investigation the discussion goes like this:

- We demand a new investigation!
- What was wrong with the last one?
- It was not free and unpartional
- Could you please be a bit more specific? What part of it were biased? And what criteria would you use to prevent people saying the same thing about the next investigation?
- Ehh, gotta go, mum said I'll be late for dinner...

So, in order for me to support a new investiogation I would first need to see clear proof that the current investigation were biased and did not do what it was supposed to do (for instance, documented bribes to key people in the investigation from the Bush camp or leaked instructions on how to obfuscate certain things). So far I haven't seen ANY evidence that points in that direction. An alternative would be to see proof that the current investigation were not competent, and that the job done were of low quality. I've not seen anything pointing in that direction either.

If any of the above were presented I would support a new investigation, but before that I would want to see a plan to prevent the same thing happening again. That is, I'd need to see a gurantee that the new investigation would do a better job.

It's very simple, I'll adjust my opinion to the current level of evidence. So far I've seen NOTHING from the twoofers.

[DGM]

I wasn't aware that the investigations were over. When did this happen?

[Brainache]

I'm not a debunker, but I'd support a new investigation if it meant bringing about world peace and an end to poverty. If it could save the environment and stop the exploitation of the weak by the strong. If it could heal the sick and bring joy to all mankind....

So um, maybe we need something else instead to get all those things.

Just sayin'.

[Swing Dangler]

A independent commission should not have the following issues: Source for material here.

* The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

* The co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

* Chairman Thomas Kean says that the CIA intentionally impeded the 9/11 Commission's investigation and says “I’m upset that [the government] didn’t tell us the truth.”

* Co-chair Hamilton says of the CIA's cover up and destruction of tapes of interrogation of people allegedly connected with 9/11:

"Did they obstruct our inquiry? The answer is clearly yes," says Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, in the wake of reports the CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of two al-Qaida suspects. "Whether that amounts to a crime, others will have to judge," adds Hamilton.

* Hamilton also says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

Many of the other 9/11 Commissioners don't buy it:

* 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . .

* 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

* Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

And many other key players in generating the Report don't believe it:

* One of the primary architects of the 9/11 Commission Report, Ernest May, said in May 2005, "We never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources."

* And the high-level attorney who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

They don't believe it. Why do you?

Perhaps an investigation that didn't have the points above should be funded with access to all documents and people on the record as well as the power to subpoena.

[MarkyX]

Physical evidence.

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

A independent commission should not have the following issues: Source for material here.

* The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

* The co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

* Chairman Thomas Kean says that the CIA intentionally impeded the 9/11 Commission's investigation and says “I’m upset that [the government] didn’t tell us the truth.”

* Co-chair Hamilton says of the CIA's cover up and destruction of tapes of interrogation of people allegedly connected with 9/11:

"Did they obstruct our inquiry? The answer is clearly yes," says Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, in the wake of reports the CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of two al-Qaida suspects. "Whether that amounts to a crime, others will have to judge," adds Hamilton.

* Hamilton also says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

Many of the other 9/11 Commissioners don't buy it:

* 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . .

* 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

* Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

And many other key players in generating the Report don't believe it:

* One of the primary architects of the 9/11 Commission Report, Ernest May, said in May 2005, "We never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources."

* And the high-level attorney who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

They don't believe it. Why do you?

Perhaps an investigation that didn't have the points above should be funded with access to all documents and people on the record as well as the power to subpoena.

We rationalists get the idea that the purpose of the 9/11 Commission was to establish an accurate timeline and answer questions raised by families of victims. You imagine that the commission was looking into the possibility that a gigantic, mathematically-impossible conspiracy actually perpetrated the attacks proved to have been carried out by jihadist terrorists. You are mistaken, as usual.

The commission's goal was to prevent future attacks, not humor low-IQ paranoiacs. Kean and Hamilton complain about the obstacles to discovering why intelligence-gathering agencies failed to cooperate efficiently with one another. They are not interested in your imaginary conspiracy.

[JimBenArm]

The first thing that's got to happen is that we have to have someone demand a new investigation who isn't a raving lunatic. Sorry, but if you believe in chemtrails, JFK conspiracies, the moon landing was a fake, you are automatically disqualified. Likewise, if you think the planes were faked in any manner whatsoever, that space-based weapons or mini-nukes were used, you are likewise disqualified. The first mention of MILDEC, or slander against the firefighters (and I get to decide what that is, not you), immediate disqualification.
Now, since I have eliminated every single twoofer in the world, why do we need a new investigation?

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

A independent commission should not have the following issues: Source for material here.

* The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission,

False.

Quote:

* The co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

False.

Quote:

* Chairman Thomas Kean says that the CIA intentionally impeded the 9/11 Commission's investigation and says “I’m upset that [the government] didn’t tell us the truth.”

* Co-chair Hamilton says of the CIA's cover up and destruction of tapes of interrogation of people allegedly connected with 9/11:

"Did they obstruct our inquiry? The answer is clearly yes," says Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, in the wake of reports the CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of two al-Qaida suspects. "Whether that amounts to a crime, others will have to judge," adds Hamilton.

These three points are about the same issue: the CIA gave the Commission summaries and transcripts of detainee interviews, but not videotapes of those interviews, although the Commission had requested all information relating to them.

Quote:

* Hamilton also says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right",

Name a major investigation that "got everything right." Then name anything significant that the 9/11 Commission got wrong.

You won't.

Quote:

that the Commission was set up to fail,

They say the Commission succeeded. See the small difference there, Swing Dangler?

Quote:

that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

The many investigations that preceded the Commission's inquiry were the "first draft." Of course people should keep asking questions about 9/11: has anyone, anywhere said different?

When will you learn that dishonesty is not the best policy, Swing Dangler? Why does the "truth" movement have to lie to support its claims?

Well?