FREE TAPATALK APP

eeyore1954 · 22nd May 2008, 04:21 AM

I am all for an independent investigation. Let the truth movement finance it. Why haven’t they started yet if they have the convictions they claim they have?

First they should pay for independent verification of the facts that cause them to believe it.

As any good truther can tell you it is obvious that the towers fell too fast and too straight to not have been CD’ed .So why doesn’t Dr Jones , Dr griffin et al hire several top unbiased independent scientists in the appropriate fields to see if the collapse should have been arrested if they determine it wouldn’t have been then they could see if how long the collaspe should have taken once it started .

It would also be good to have this same group see how the laws of physics (mainly conservation of momentum) were violated. For an extra fee I am sure they would be willing to give an opinion on why WTC 7 fell relatively straight down. Aside from the facts that skyscrapers are generally tall and thin , gravity usually pulls straight down , building are not designed to hold together once they start to lean ,etc.

Hand over samples of the smoking gun dust that contains traces of thermite , thermate or graphite or whatever it was to independent labs to determine the contents and then pay to have experts (metallurgists?) give an opinion on the results and Dr Jones theory.

At the same time the truth seekers from PFT could pay to have the black box data analyzed by people who actually do it for a living and see if they find any thing to suggest it was either faked or the plane could not have followed the path claimed..

I am sure there are others. interviwer first responders , etc

Once these are done and come back proving that their claims are correct then they could take the next step in the investigation.

Of course I think we all know the truth movement as a whole is not really interested in putting their money where their mouths are. In fact many of them would not like to do it because it is their gravy train. Not a road to riches mind you but I am sure several of them make a modest living off of it.

Of course I think we all know what would happen if they actually had their claims analyzed .

SatansMaleVoiceChoir · 22nd May 2008, 04:29 AM

Problem is, there IS no 'Truth Movement' per se, and no unified theory of 'The Truth'. Any investigation funded by truthers would tear itself apart as they tried to pull it in different directions to support their own delusions, or the 'Delusion of the Day'.

Edmund Standing · 22nd May 2008, 05:23 AM

Why isn't Alex Jones putting up money for this instead of begging his listeners for donations that will allow him to get some new TV show?

Presumably because he couldn't give a [rule 10] about getting another investigation. After all, so long as there isn't one, he can keep up his 'NWO cover-up' line.

DC · 22nd May 2008, 05:31 AM

oh some 100 -200 million Dollars are a huge problem for the JREFers....

but noone seems to be upset about goverments waste of tacdollars, or that some of theyr money is unaccounted for etc. billions of theyr money is spend on things they not exactly know about, but the money for a new investigation is such a huge problem for them.

the whole world is spending the money today already from the next 5 generations, they dont care.
but a little bit more for an investigation, that is not aceptable.....

SatansMaleVoiceChoir · 22nd May 2008, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

oh some 100 -200 million Dollars are a huge problem for the JREFers....

but noone seems to be upset about goverments waste of tacdollars, or that some of theyr money is unaccounted for etc. billions of theyr money is spend on things they not exactly know about, but the money for a new investigation is such a huge problem for them.

the whole world is spending the money today already from the next 5 generations, they dont care.but a little bit more for an investigation, that is not aceptable.....

So let's spunk some MORE away on an investigation into something that has already BEEN satisfactorily investigated, in order to appease a deluded minority who can't even AGREE on what should be investigated? Is that right?

DC · 22nd May 2008, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir

So let's spunk some MORE away on an investigation into something that has already BEEN satisfactorily investigated, in order to appease a deluded minority who can't even AGREE on what should be investigated? Is that right?

satisfactorily

polls do contradict that extremly. just cause it is for you doesnt mean it is for others.

and yeah exatly here we start taking care about wasting money, the investigations into an event that has changed the world.

its a very weak excuse to not spend the money needed for an investigation...

Thunder · 22nd May 2008, 05:45 AM

there isnt gonna be a 2nd investigation. the only investigation that should take place would look into Alex Jones' and Dylan Avery's finances.

zorro99 · 22nd May 2008, 05:52 AM

Truthers have not provided a compelling reason for another investigation.

SatansMaleVoiceChoir · 22nd May 2008, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

satisfactorily

polls do contradict that extremly. just cause it is for you doesnt mean it is for others.
and yeah exatly here we start taking care about wasting money, the investigations into an event that has changed the world.

its a very weak excuse to not spend the money needed for an investigation...

I don't think they do.. a poll - which I believe was conducted on a 'Truth' site (IIRC) showed that most participants believed the offcial version of events. Where are all these unsatisfied people? Or do you refer to the handful of delusional jokers that make up LCF, PFT etc?

For someone who seems to be so worried (and wrong) about how the American Government accounts for and spends its' money, you seem to have no problem wasting it on duplicating an investigation.

Björn Toulouse · 22nd May 2008, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

oh some 100 -200 million Dollars are a huge problem for the JREFers....

but noone seems to be upset about goverments waste of tacdollars, or that some of theyr money is unaccounted for etc. billions of theyr money is spend on things they not exactly know about, but the money for a new investigation is such a huge problem for them.

the whole world is spending the money today already from the next 5 generations, they dont care.
but a little bit more for an investigation, that is not aceptable.....

Who said that?

CptColumbo · 22nd May 2008, 05:58 AM

"Indepenent"-Is that something to do with flags or false-flags?

MarkyX · 22nd May 2008, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

satisfactorily

polls do contradict that extremly. just cause it is for you doesnt mean it is for others.

Yeah, less than 5% who can't even agree if planes were used or the victim phone calls were faked.

1337m4n · 22nd May 2008, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

oh some 100 -200 million Dollars are a huge problem for the JREFers....

but noone seems to be upset about goverments waste of tacdollars, or that some of theyr money is unaccounted for etc. billions of theyr money is spend on things they not exactly know about, but the money for a new investigation is such a huge problem for them.

the whole world is spending the money today already from the next 5 generations, they dont care.
but a little bit more for an investigation, that is not aceptable.....

Hey, I'm all for streamlining government and cutting back on useless spending.

The problem is that this would just be another instance of said "useless spending".

Not to mention it would tie up resources currently being used for existing anti-terror investigations.

Clippy · 22nd May 2008, 06:54 AM

Which would you rather see: investigations into whether the Patriots cheated in a SuperBowl or some baseball player did steroids, or a new investigation that publicly interviewed Cheney and Bush separately and under oath? You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people?

CHF · 22nd May 2008, 07:07 AM

I've been calling for the TM to conduct a new invetsigation for ages now.

They claim to have the evidence, the witnesses, the whistleblowers and the experts. Meanwhile, Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'donnell have the money. What else do they need in order to put together their own report to combat the "official story?"

Oh right, there's that nagging problem of each twoofer having his own theory, which would bog down any invetsigation in an endless battle over who's "disinfo."

So instead they whine about how no one will do their work for them.

CptColumbo · 22nd May 2008, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by Clippy

Which would you rather see: investigations into whether the Patriots cheated in a SuperBowl or some baseball player did steroids, or a new investigation that publicly interviewed Cheney and Bush separately and under oath? You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people?

Do you think they would suddenly break down and confess if it was "under oath?" Why would someone killed 3000 people, and accused others of doing it on national TV (to the public), suddenly get an attack of conscience and confess before a senate commitee?

There is no evidence that their story would change, so it would be a waste of time and money.

1337m4n · 22nd May 2008, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Clippy

Which would you rather see: investigations into whether the Patriots cheated in a SuperBowl or some baseball player did steroids, or a new investigation that publicly interviewed Cheney and Bush separately and under oath? You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people?

A tiny cabal of teenagers who spend all of their time in their parents' basement is not "a broader range of people".

Your retarded question also assumes that by having a pointless new 9/11 investigation, somehow that will cancel out the money wasted on Super Bowl investigations.

Disbelief · 22nd May 2008, 08:39 AM

I too think that they should do something along the suggested lines. I proposed this in the moderated thread:

Quote:

Here's an idea (someone may have already suggested this) for the TM. Instead of going for a full blown investigation, why not gather the donations and hire a few different structural engineering firms in a few different countries. Now, they have access to all of the relevant data to determine if collapse progression would be arrested or if global collapse was inevitable. Now, if these firms come back with hard data showing that the collapse would be arrested, then the TM can work on getting this information published and peer reviewed. Instead of clamoring for a full blown new investigation, why not try taking it one step at a time?

So CTists, how about using this as a good starting point?

Jonnyclueless · 22nd May 2008, 08:50 AM

OK Clippy. SO ya get Bush under oath just like they did to Clinton, and you ask him if he was behind 9/11. He then says "No". Then what?

SpitfireIX · 22nd May 2008, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Clippy

Which would you rather see: investigations into whether the Patriots cheated in a SuperBowl or some baseball player did steroids, or a new investigation that publicly interviewed Cheney and Bush separately and under oath? You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people?

I've explained this a couple of times in the past.

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

The September 11 Commission was created by Congress. Whether you like it or not, Congress cannot compel the President or Vice President to testify under oath. Possibly you will say that Bush and Cheney should have done so voluntarily, if they had nothing to hide. This is identical to saying that the accused in a criminal trial shouldn't receive a lack of adverse inference from a decision not to testify. If the jury is allowed to infer that the lack of testimony is indicitive of guilt, then the right not to be compelled to testify becomes meaningless.

Any new investigation with subpoena power will likewise have to be authorized by Congress, so again, that investigation will be unable to compel Bush and Cheney to testify under oath. So I'd respectfully suggest you stop grousing about it, unless you're planning to start a campaign to have the US Constitution amended.

CptColumbo · 22nd May 2008, 09:22 AM

I'm not an expert on law, but isn't it hard for Congress to compel anyone to incriminate themselves under the 5th amendment? They may hold them in Contempt of Congress, but that is rarely used anymore.

DC · 22nd May 2008, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

OK Clippy. SO ya get Bush under oath just like they did to Clinton, and you ask him if he was behind 9/11. He then says "No". Then what?

waterboarding?

Clippy · 22nd May 2008, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

OK Clippy. SO ya get Bush under oath just like they did to Clinton, and you ask him if he was behind 9/11. He then says "No". Then what?

Slick Willy is just what his name says. George Bush is a cretin. Just look at him trying to answer why he and Cheney were testifying together. It's a joke. The guy would crack under examination.

Clippy · 22nd May 2008, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

waterboarding?

Let's give KSM the water bucket

applecorped · 22nd May 2008, 09:30 AM

What kind of examination? Prostate?

Dave Rogers · 22nd May 2008, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Clippy

You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people?

I'd like to chip in with a note of support here. Those of us who wouldn't have to pay for this investigation would, I'm sure, find it a rich source of entertainment. Not necessarily for the reasons Clippy would like, but entertaining nonetheless.

Dave

Clippy · 22nd May 2008, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

Do you think they would suddenly break down and confess if it was "under oath?" Why would someone killed 3000 people, and accused others of doing it on national TV (to the public), suddenly get an attack of conscience and confess before a senate commitee?

There is no evidence that their story would change, so it would be a waste of time and money.

I'd at least like to see Cheney address the inconsistencies as to his whereabouts on the morning of.

And you don't think this guy would spill any beans?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

At the very least it would be high comedy.

DC · 22nd May 2008, 09:45 AM

why would someone want to prevent to be under oath ?

Clippy · 22nd May 2008, 09:45 AM

And for the record, I'm against waterboarding anyone.

DC · 22nd May 2008, 09:47 AM

i would only waterboard waterboarders.

Sword_Of_Truth · 22nd May 2008, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Clippy

Which would you rather see: investigations into whether the Patriots cheated in a SuperBowl or some baseball player did steroids, or a new investigation that publicly interviewed Cheney and Bush separately and under oath? You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people?

Tthat's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. I would reject such an investigation and hope that it gets aborted before it gets off the ground.

The last thing I would want is to see the militarys commander-in-chief forced into giving up critical intelligence during a time of war.

Under your demented idea of an investigation, you would have had Churchill give up ENIGMA.

More proof that troofers just can't live in the real world.

CptColumbo · 22nd May 2008, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Clippy

I'd at least like to see Cheney address the inconsistencies as to his whereabouts on the morning of.

And you don't think this guy would spill any beans?

No.

Why would he?

I'm unsure what "inconsistencies" you are writing about. If you mean Minetta's testimony, then it would Minetta's recollections that don't jive with the know evidence, and the Vice President's testimony that is supported by the evidence.

DC · 22nd May 2008, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Tthat's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. I would reject such an investigation and hope that it gets aborted before it gets off the ground.

The last thing I would want is to see the militarys commander-in-chief forced into giving up critical intelligence during a time of war.

Under your demented idea of an investigation, you would have had Churchill give up ENIGMA.

More proof that troofers just can't live in the real world.

times of war for the next 100 years when the MIC and other warmongers get their will.....

SpitfireIX · 22nd May 2008, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

I'm not an expert on law, but isn't it hard for Congress to compel anyone to incriminate themselves under the 5th amendment? They may hold them in Contempt of Congress, but that is rarely used anymore.

Yes, but in a non-judicial proceeding a person can't merely decline to take the stand, as the defendant in a criminal trial can. Witnesses testifying before Congress may decline to answer certain questions, however, by invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. (See the Iran-Contra^WP hearings for some famous examples of this.) Note that Congress may still compel a witness to answer such questions if a federal judge agrees to grant him or her limited immunity, in which case the witness's testimony cannot be used as evidence against him or her in a criminal prosecution.

Myriad · 22nd May 2008, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

i would only waterboard waterboarders.

Just curious -- after you waterboarded all the waterboarders, would you waterboard yourself?

Respectfully,
Myriad

DC · 22nd May 2008, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Myriad

Just curious -- after you waterboarded all the waterboarders, would you waterboard yourself?

Respectfully,
Myriad

aah good point.
ok no waterboarding then

Blender Head · 22nd May 2008, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Clippy

Which would you rather see: investigations into whether the Patriots cheated in a SuperBowl or some baseball player did steroids, or a new investigation that publicly interviewed Cheney and Bush separately and under oath? You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people?

I'm not sure about that, Spygate was pretty damn entertaining until Walsh turned out to have nothing of significance.

SpitfireIX · 22nd May 2008, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

why would someone want to prevent to be under oath ?

Are you asking why Congress can't compel the President and Vice President to testify under oath, or are you asking why they wouldn't agree to do it voluntarily if they don't have anything to hide?

Jonnyclueless · 22nd May 2008, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

why would someone want to prevent to be under oath ?

The fact that you don't know says quite a lot. There are very good reasons for this and we learned this in a big way when Clinton was in office as to exactly why.

Blender Head · 22nd May 2008, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

Are you asking why Congress can't compel the President and Vice President to testify under oath, or are you asking why they wouldn't agree to do it voluntarily if they don't have anything to hide?

I'm guessing the latter.

22nd May 2008, 04:21 AM	#1
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,181	I am all for an Indepenent Investigation I am all for an independent investigation. Let the truth movement finance it. Why haven’t they started yet if they have the convictions they claim they have? First they should pay for independent verification of the facts that cause them to believe it. As any good truther can tell you it is obvious that the towers fell too fast and too straight to not have been CD’ed .So why doesn’t Dr Jones , Dr griffin et al hire several top unbiased independent scientists in the appropriate fields to see if the collapse should have been arrested if they determine it wouldn’t have been then they could see if how long the collaspe should have taken once it started . It would also be good to have this same group see how the laws of physics (mainly conservation of momentum) were violated. For an extra fee I am sure they would be willing to give an opinion on why WTC 7 fell relatively straight down. Aside from the facts that skyscrapers are generally tall and thin , gravity usually pulls straight down , building are not designed to hold together once they start to lean ,etc. Hand over samples of the smoking gun dust that contains traces of thermite , thermate or graphite or whatever it was to independent labs to determine the contents and then pay to have experts (metallurgists?) give an opinion on the results and Dr Jones theory. At the same time the truth seekers from PFT could pay to have the black box data analyzed by people who actually do it for a living and see if they find any thing to suggest it was either faked or the plane could not have followed the path claimed.. I am sure there are others. interviwer first responders , etc Once these are done and come back proving that their claims are correct then they could take the next step in the investigation. Of course I think we all know the truth movement as a whole is not really interested in putting their money where their mouths are. In fact many of them would not like to do it because it is their gravy train. Not a road to riches mind you but I am sure several of them make a modest living off of it. Of course I think we all know what would happen if they actually had their claims analyzed .
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,181

22nd May 2008, 05:23 AM	#3
Edmund Standing Thinker Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: UK Posts: 188	Why isn't Alex Jones putting up money for this instead of begging his listeners for donations that will allow him to get some new TV show? Presumably because he couldn't give a [rule 10] about getting another investigation. After all, so long as there isn't one, he can keep up his 'NWO cover-up' line.
	__________________ 'Remember that some of us are not crazy' - genghis6199 'What I've realised is, for the last year I have been talking to Government agents ... I've been licking envelopes and giving them my DNA' - genghis6199

22nd May 2008, 05:31 AM	#4
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	oh some 100 -200 million Dollars are a huge problem for the JREFers.... but noone seems to be upset about goverments waste of tacdollars, or that some of theyr money is unaccounted for etc. billions of theyr money is spend on things they not exactly know about, but the money for a new investigation is such a huge problem for them. the whole world is spending the money today already from the next 5 generations, they dont care. but a little bit more for an investigation, that is not aceptable.....
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

22nd May 2008, 05:43 AM	#6
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir So let's spunk some MORE away on an investigation into something that has already BEEN satisfactorily investigated, in order to appease a deluded minority who can't even AGREE on what should be investigated? Is that right? satisfactorily polls do contradict that extremly. just cause it is for you doesnt mean it is for others. and yeah exatly here we start taking care about wasting money, the investigations into an event that has changed the world. its a very weak excuse to not spend the money needed for an investigation...
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

22nd May 2008, 05:52 AM	#8
zorro99 Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Africa Posts: 282	Truthers have not provided a compelling reason for another investigation.
	__________________ There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact.

22nd May 2008, 04:29 AM	#2
SatansMaleVoiceChoir Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,317	Problem is, there IS no 'Truth Movement' per se, and no unified theory of 'The Truth'. Any investigation funded by truthers would tear itself apart as they tried to pull it in different directions to support their own delusions, or the 'Delusion of the Day'.

22nd May 2008, 05:38 AM	#5
SatansMaleVoiceChoir Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,317	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney oh some 100 -200 million Dollars are a huge problem for the JREFers.... but noone seems to be upset about goverments waste of tacdollars, or that some of theyr money is unaccounted for etc. billions of theyr money is spend on things they not exactly know about, but the money for a new investigation is such a huge problem for them. the whole world is spending the money today already from the next 5 generations, they dont care.but a little bit more for an investigation, that is not aceptable..... So let's spunk some MORE away on an investigation into something that has already BEEN satisfactorily investigated, in order to appease a deluded minority who can't even AGREE on what should be investigated? Is that right?

22nd May 2008, 05:45 AM	#7
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	there isnt gonna be a 2nd investigation. the only investigation that should take place would look into Alex Jones' and Dylan Avery's finances.

22nd May 2008, 05:57 AM	#9
SatansMaleVoiceChoir Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,317	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney satisfactorily polls do contradict that extremly. just cause it is for you doesnt mean it is for others. and yeah exatly here we start taking care about wasting money, the investigations into an event that has changed the world. its a very weak excuse to not spend the money needed for an investigation... I don't think they do.. a poll - which I believe was conducted on a 'Truth' site (IIRC) showed that most participants believed the offcial version of events. Where are all these unsatisfied people? Or do you refer to the handful of delusional jokers that make up LCF, PFT etc? For someone who seems to be so worried (and wrong) about how the American Government accounts for and spends its' money, you seem to have no problem wasting it on duplicating an investigation.

22nd May 2008, 05:58 AM	#10
Björn Toulouse Cavitus Rectum Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: miles from Nowhere Posts: 1,407	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney oh some 100 -200 million Dollars are a huge problem for the JREFers.... but noone seems to be upset about goverments waste of tacdollars, or that some of theyr money is unaccounted for etc. billions of theyr money is spend on things they not exactly know about, but the money for a new investigation is such a huge problem for them. the whole world is spending the money today already from the next 5 generations, they dont care. but a little bit more for an investigation, that is not aceptable..... Who said that?
	__________________ The most complete and happy victory is this: to compel one's enemy to give up his purpose, while suffering no harm oneself. Belisarius

22nd May 2008, 05:58 AM	#11
CptColumbo Just One More Question Join Date: May 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 9,153	"Indepenent"-Is that something to do with flags or false-flags?
	__________________ I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office" The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling

22nd May 2008, 06:07 AM	#12
MarkyX Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,158	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney satisfactorily polls do contradict that extremly. just cause it is for you doesnt mean it is for others. Yeah, less than 5% who can't even agree if planes were used or the victim phone calls were faked.
MarkyX Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,158	__________________ MarkyX's Haunted Bloghouse - Read my boredom Last edited by MarkyX; 22nd May 2008 at 06:08 AM.

22nd May 2008, 06:33 AM	#13
1337m4n Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 3,499	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney oh some 100 -200 million Dollars are a huge problem for the JREFers.... but noone seems to be upset about goverments waste of tacdollars, or that some of theyr money is unaccounted for etc. billions of theyr money is spend on things they not exactly know about, but the money for a new investigation is such a huge problem for them. the whole world is spending the money today already from the next 5 generations, they dont care. but a little bit more for an investigation, that is not aceptable..... Hey, I'm all for streamlining government and cutting back on useless spending. The problem is that this would just be another instance of said "useless spending". Not to mention it would tie up resources currently being used for existing anti-terror investigations.
	__________________ http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2b728514ea.gif "The evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job just keeps not coming in." --pomeroo

22nd May 2008, 06:54 AM	#14
Clippy Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hyperborea Posts: 608	Which would you rather see: investigations into whether the Patriots cheated in a SuperBowl or some baseball player did steroids, or a new investigation that publicly interviewed Cheney and Bush separately and under oath? You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people?

22nd May 2008, 07:07 AM	#15
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,875	I've been calling for the TM to conduct a new invetsigation for ages now. They claim to have the evidence, the witnesses, the whistleblowers and the experts. Meanwhile, Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'donnell have the money. What else do they need in order to put together their own report to combat the "official story?" Oh right, there's that nagging problem of each twoofer having his own theory, which would bog down any invetsigation in an endless battle over who's "disinfo." So instead they whine about how no one will do their work for them.
	Last edited by CHF; 22nd May 2008 at 07:11 AM.

22nd May 2008, 08:28 AM	#16
CptColumbo Just One More Question Join Date: May 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 9,153	Originally Posted by Clippy Which would you rather see: investigations into whether the Patriots cheated in a SuperBowl or some baseball player did steroids, or a new investigation that publicly interviewed Cheney and Bush separately and under oath? You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people? Do you think they would suddenly break down and confess if it was "under oath?" Why would someone killed 3000 people, and accused others of doing it on national TV (to the public), suddenly get an attack of conscience and confess before a senate commitee? There is no evidence that their story would change, so it would be a waste of time and money.
	__________________ I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office" The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling Last edited by CptColumbo; 22nd May 2008 at 08:30 AM.

22nd May 2008, 08:29 AM	#17
1337m4n Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 3,499	Originally Posted by Clippy Which would you rather see: investigations into whether the Patriots cheated in a SuperBowl or some baseball player did steroids, or a new investigation that publicly interviewed Cheney and Bush separately and under oath? You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people? A tiny cabal of teenagers who spend all of their time in their parents' basement is not "a broader range of people". Your retarded question also assumes that by having a pointless new 9/11 investigation, somehow that will cancel out the money wasted on Super Bowl investigations.
	__________________ http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2b728514ea.gif "The evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job just keeps not coming in." --pomeroo Last edited by 1337m4n; 22nd May 2008 at 08:31 AM.

22nd May 2008, 08:39 AM	#18
Disbelief Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,272	I too think that they should do something along the suggested lines. I proposed this in the moderated thread: Quote: Here's an idea (someone may have already suggested this) for the TM. Instead of going for a full blown investigation, why not gather the donations and hire a few different structural engineering firms in a few different countries. Now, they have access to all of the relevant data to determine if collapse progression would be arrested or if global collapse was inevitable. Now, if these firms come back with hard data showing that the collapse would be arrested, then the TM can work on getting this information published and peer reviewed. Instead of clamoring for a full blown new investigation, why not try taking it one step at a time? So CTists, how about using this as a good starting point?
Disbelief Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,272	__________________ Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same? Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman

22nd May 2008, 08:50 AM	#19
Jonnyclueless Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,360	OK Clippy. SO ya get Bush under oath just like they did to Clinton, and you ask him if he was behind 9/11. He then says "No". Then what?

22nd May 2008, 08:59 AM	#20
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,832	Originally Posted by Clippy Which would you rather see: investigations into whether the Patriots cheated in a SuperBowl or some baseball player did steroids, or a new investigation that publicly interviewed Cheney and Bush separately and under oath? You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people? I've explained this a couple of times in the past. Originally Posted by SpitfireIX The September 11 Commission was created by Congress. Whether you like it or not, Congress cannot compel the President or Vice President to testify under oath. Possibly you will say that Bush and Cheney should have done so voluntarily, if they had nothing to hide. This is identical to saying that the accused in a criminal trial shouldn't receive a lack of adverse inference from a decision not to testify. If the jury is allowed to infer that the lack of testimony is indicitive of guilt, then the right not to be compelled to testify becomes meaningless. Any new investigation with subpoena power will likewise have to be authorized by Congress, so again, that investigation will be unable to compel Bush and Cheney to testify under oath. So I'd respectfully suggest you stop grousing about it, unless you're planning to start a campaign to have the US Constitution amended.
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

22nd May 2008, 09:22 AM	#21
CptColumbo Just One More Question Join Date: May 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 9,153	I'm not an expert on law, but isn't it hard for Congress to compel anyone to incriminate themselves under the 5th amendment? They may hold them in Contempt of Congress, but that is rarely used anymore.
	__________________ I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office" The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling Last edited by CptColumbo; 22nd May 2008 at 09:24 AM.

22nd May 2008, 09:28 AM	#22
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless OK Clippy. SO ya get Bush under oath just like they did to Clinton, and you ask him if he was behind 9/11. He then says "No". Then what? waterboarding?
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

22nd May 2008, 09:30 AM	#24
Clippy Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hyperborea Posts: 608	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney waterboarding? Let's give KSM the water bucket

22nd May 2008, 09:30 AM	#25
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,836	What kind of examination? Prostate?

22nd May 2008, 09:38 AM	#26
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,907	Originally Posted by Clippy You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people? I'd like to chip in with a note of support here. Those of us who wouldn't have to pay for this investigation would, I'm sure, find it a rich source of entertainment. Not necessarily for the reasons Clippy would like, but entertaining nonetheless. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

22nd May 2008, 09:45 AM	#28
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	why would someone want to prevent to be under oath ?
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

22nd May 2008, 09:47 AM	#30
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	i would only waterboard waterboarders.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

22nd May 2008, 09:49 AM	#31
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by Clippy Which would you rather see: investigations into whether the Patriots cheated in a SuperBowl or some baseball player did steroids, or a new investigation that publicly interviewed Cheney and Bush separately and under oath? You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people? Tthat's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. I would reject such an investigation and hope that it gets aborted before it gets off the ground. The last thing I would want is to see the militarys commander-in-chief forced into giving up critical intelligence during a time of war. Under your demented idea of an investigation, you would have had Churchill give up ENIGMA. More proof that troofers just can't live in the real world.
	Last edited by Sword_Of_Truth; 22nd May 2008 at 09:51 AM.

22nd May 2008, 09:51 AM	#32
CptColumbo Just One More Question Join Date: May 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 9,153	Originally Posted by Clippy I'd at least like to see Cheney address the inconsistencies as to his whereabouts on the morning of. And you don't think this guy would spill any beans? No. Why would he? I'm unsure what "inconsistencies" you are writing about. If you mean Minetta's testimony, then it would Minetta's recollections that don't jive with the know evidence, and the Vice President's testimony that is supported by the evidence.
	__________________ I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office" The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling

22nd May 2008, 09:54 AM	#33
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth Tthat's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. I would reject such an investigation and hope that it gets aborted before it gets off the ground. The last thing I would want is to see the militarys commander-in-chief forced into giving up critical intelligence during a time of war. Under your demented idea of an investigation, you would have had Churchill give up ENIGMA. More proof that troofers just can't live in the real world. times of war for the next 100 years when the MIC and other warmongers get their will.....
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it Last edited by DC; 22nd May 2008 at 10:14 AM.

22nd May 2008, 10:13 AM	#34
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,832	Originally Posted by CptColumbo I'm not an expert on law, but isn't it hard for Congress to compel anyone to incriminate themselves under the 5th amendment? They may hold them in Contempt of Congress, but that is rarely used anymore. Yes, but in a non-judicial proceeding a person can't merely decline to take the stand, as the defendant in a criminal trial can. Witnesses testifying before Congress may decline to answer certain questions, however, by invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. (See the Iran-Contra^WP hearings for some famous examples of this.) Note that Congress may still compel a witness to answer such questions if a federal judge agrees to grant him or her limited immunity, in which case the witness's testimony cannot be used as evidence against him or her in a criminal prosecution.
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

22nd May 2008, 10:13 AM	#35
Myriad Hyperthetical Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 8,218	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney i would only waterboard waterboarders. Just curious -- after you waterboarded all the waterboarders, would you waterboard yourself? Respectfully, Myriad
	__________________ The cosmos is a vast Loom, with time the warp and space the weft. We are all fruit of the Loom, unaware.

22nd May 2008, 10:21 AM	#36
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by Myriad Just curious -- after you waterboarded all the waterboarders, would you waterboard yourself? Respectfully, Myriad aah good point. ok no waterboarding then
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

22nd May 2008, 10:28 AM	#37
Blender Head Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 682	Originally Posted by Clippy Which would you rather see: investigations into whether the Patriots cheated in a SuperBowl or some baseball player did steroids, or a new investigation that publicly interviewed Cheney and Bush separately and under oath? You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people? I'm not sure about that, Spygate was pretty damn entertaining until Walsh turned out to have nothing of significance.
Blender Head Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 682	__________________ "As you know, Bush never attempted to link Saddam to the 9/11 attacks." -Ron Wieck "The only way for there to be no conspiracy is for nothing to exist." -Travis [DRG] is a follower of Jesus Christ and the Truth, so I will follow St. Griffin as well in this regard. -Galileo

22nd May 2008, 10:34 AM	#38
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,832	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney why would someone want to prevent to be under oath ? Are you asking why Congress can't compel the President and Vice President to testify under oath, or are you asking why they wouldn't agree to do it voluntarily if they don't have anything to hide?
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya