New Investigation - What Do We Have to Lose?

[Neily]

Can anyone give me a good reason why we should not have a fully independent investigation into 9/11?

I sit here and watch as we spend billions/trillions on bailouts and war and the only argument that I see against supporting a new investigation is that it is a waste of money. A new investigation would be a drop in the bucket in comparison.

For those of you who believe the official 9/11 commission report, why are you so adamantly against a new investigation? Some of you so feverishly oppose it, I can't help but wonder what your motivations are. What do you really have to lose?

(And, don't tell me that it hurts the families to keep re-hashing 9/11 unless you have taken an all-inclusive family poll and can provide facts showing the majority of 9/11 victim's families do not want an independent investigation)

[noise]

1. Three reasons why we shouldn't have another investigation

1. Philip Zelikow had no conflicts of interests.

2. Lee Hamilton has a solid reputation for going wherever the evidence leads.

3. Testimony attained by way of torture is 100% reliable.

[KDLarsen]

2. Because it won't be independent anyway?

You're still going to be talking to people from NIST, FAA, USAF, USANG, FBI etc etc.

What new testimony will be an independent group of people be able to extract?

And why should we believe, that the cries for a 'new, even more independent investigation' will lessen, when a new investigation comes to the exact same conclusion as the 9/11 Commision and the NIST reports?

[reinvestigate911]

11. "comes to the exact same conclusion as the 9/11 Commision and the NIST reports"

surely you can't be so stupid as to think that http://www.nyccan.org/Whistleblower_Endorses_NYCCAN.php">the omitted testimonies and new testimony obtained by subpoena could possibly lead to the "exact same conclusion" as reached by http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzrv-e37Es8">the botched 9/11 commission... or can you?

[KDLarsen]

18. Again

What is the magic thing about a subpeona, that automatically will make people tell "the truth"?

And I'm not going to dignify that youtube video with a response. "The 9/11 Commission was set up to fail" remark has been explained to the self-proclaimed truthers on so many occasions, that I've lost count.

[reinvestigate911]

33. again?

again, indeed...

http://www.nyccan.org/Whistleblower_Endorses_NYCCAN.php">people told the truth but why wasn't this testimony included in the commission's report?

maybe you like to think that you're smart, but even a smart ass can't ignore http://truth11.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/able-danger-and-dia-had-advanced-knowledge-of-911/">the evidence of foreknowledge.

ps: how funny that you can't refrain from putting the words 'the truth' in quotes.

[SDuderstadt]

34. Oh, Jesus...

Able Danger. You do realize that "Able Danger" was pushed by the GOP, most notably Curt Weldon, in an attempt to blame Clinton for 9/11, right? Please.

[reinvestigate911]

36. how absolutely idiotic

let me get this straight. are you claiming that because '"Able Danger" was pushed by the GOP', the evidence of foreknowledge is... is "oh, jesus..."?

aside from your amazing reasoning skills being on holiday due to your fake partisan outrage, what the fuck is the point of your silly obfuscation?

come on, dude, even you can do better than that. can't you?
nevermind... i get the sense that you can't, hence your silly post.

[SDuderstadt]

38. Dude...

you know Able Danger is a red herring, right? I watched Col. Anthony Shaffer when he was interviewed on CNN and he stumbled all the way through the interview and and could not answer basic questions without referring to his notes. Upon the conclusion of the interview, my reaction was "there was no there, there".

Why did the 9/11 Commission reject the claims regarding Able Danger? Did you read what they had to say?

Some reasons why the Able Danger claim did not add up:

Atta did not arrive until June 2000. In early 2000, Atta was still living in Germany and had not yet obtained a U.S. visa.<16>
Atta did not live in Brooklyn.<16>
Atta did not go by the name "Mohamed Atta" until he arrived in the U.S. in June 2000. Previously, in Germany he went by a different name (Mohamed el-Amir). His full name is Mohamed Mohamed el-Amir Awad el-Sayed Atta.

On September 1, 2005, the Pentagon said it found three more people that recalled seeing Atta's name or picture on an intelligence briefing slide. However, investigators at the Pentagon also had reviewed thousands of documents and electronic files from the Able Danger counterterrorism unit, but did not find the chart or evidence that the chart had existed.<17>

In mid-September, former Army major, Erik Kleinsmith testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said in prepared testimony that "he was forced to destroy all the data, charts and other analytical materials he had in mid-2000."<18> Data harvesting will collect a great deal of information about people, not just Al Qaeda members but a lot of Americans. The military is not supposed to collect information about Americans, so the data was then purged.<19> This purging of data followed standard procedures, for handing this type of information.<9>

Pentagon investigators did find two other diagrams: "One from 1999 included the name and photograph of Mohammed Atef -- not Atta -- a well-known al Qaeda lieutenant. Another included the photo of a convicted terrorist named Eyad Ismoil, an Egyptian who bears a resemblance to Atta -- and who, unlike Atta, was part of the Brooklyn cell tied to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing."<13>

Philpott later recanted his recollection, telling investigators that he was "convinced that Atta was not on the chart that we had." He said he believes others, including Shaffer, were "relying on my recollection 100 percent." The Inspector General's report suggested that Philpott "may have exaggerated knowing Atta's identity because he supported using Able Danger's techniques to fight terrorism."<20>

The Senate Intelligence Committee also looked into the claim that Able Danger identified Mohamed Atta before 9/11, with a 16-month investigation. The committee concluded that those assertions are unfounded.<21>

John Lehman, a former commission member who was Navy secretary in the Reagan administration, said:

“ To believe the conspiracy theory that people are pushing on Able Danger, you have to believe that all of us, conservative Republicans and Democrats on the 9/11 commission, are in league with the Defense Department and the secretary of defense and the National Security Agency in a vast right- and left-wing conspiracy to cover this up. It is absurd to think that within our vast bureaucratic system, the conspirators were able to make disappear every piece of paper that ever existed on this.<15>

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Able_Danger

Whether you know it or not, you are essentially repeating GOP propaganda. Had enough, dude, or do you want some more?

[KDLarsen]

41. Thanks SDuderstadt

I've been trying to get my head around the whole Able Danger business today, and your post pretty much summed up why it just doesn't feel right.

[SDuderstadt]

42. No problem...

glad to be of help.

[Neily]

43. Threaten removal of security clearances...

and see what you would do if you were in his shoes... Would you recant?

[SDuderstadt]

44. Dude...

do you have ANY evidence at all of that?

[Neily]

45. Did you watch the hearings?

apparently not... I will find you the link to the hearings on video where they make it very clear that security clearances were threatened if able danger members testified. Shaffer's was revoked. But, of course his was revoked for something "completely unrelated"...

[SDuderstadt]

46. Please do..

my prediction is you won't.

[SDuderstadt]

47. Still waiting...

Neily.

[Neily]

48. Some of us work...

give me 1 hour...

[SDuderstadt]

49. More than one hour has...

already passed. I'll bet after 24 hrs you still won't have anything or, at least, it won't remotely show what you claim it does.

[Neily]

51. Wow... give me a break

It takes awhile to do actual research and not just bash people instead...

[Neily]

50. Here Ya Go...

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer's testimony - regarding his security clearance being pulled for a phone bill, a medal, and a travel reimbursement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJvABLaMUT8


Curt Weldon presentation regarding Able Danger - (1 hour 21 minute video)

go to approx 33:00 minute mark to see the Mohammed Atta Chart

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2935749342274691865#


Curt Weldon - House Speech and Interview with Lou Dobbs - discussing Able Danger and Shaffer's clearance being taken away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlLKu8VtfIc


Curt Weldon - Orion Scientific Systems charts - Orion Scientific Systems claimed only 2 charts were ever produced for "Able Danger". Curt Weldon shows 6+ charts for "Able Danger" made by Orion Scientific Systems. (see 1:40 minute mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pObod47rTs4


Curt Weldon - Same video with testimony from Weldon at Senate Judiciary hearing on "Able Danger" (9/21/05) regarding people not being able to testify due to threats of security clearances being revoked. (see 2:14 minutes mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pObod47rTs4


And Before you re-direct this argument and switch it to Curt Weldon's career/investigation regarding his "lucrative lobbying and consulting contracts" which they initiated immediately after he started advocating for "Able Danger"... Do you think it was related to his position on "Able Danger" -- of course not, right?

[SDuderstadt]

52. Jesus, dude....

Need I remind you of the issue @ hand? Hint: It wasn't Shaffer. It was Philpott who recanted his recollection. So, why are you presenting something about Shaffer?

Philpott later recanted his recollection, telling investigators that he was "convinced that Atta was not on the chart that we had." He said he believes others, including Shaffer, were "relying on my recollection 100 percent." The Inspector General's report suggested that Philpott "may have exaggerated knowing Atta's identity because he supported using Able Danger's techniques to fight terrorism."<20>

More importantly, I still don't understand why you're spreading RW propaganda from Curt Weldon. Dude, the guy wanted to go to Iraq so HE could find the WMD. Don't you think that's just a tad wacko? Or, is your fervor to prove that "9/11 was an inside job" so strong that you really don't care who you align yourself with? As I've said countless times before, you can believe this crap if you want, but don't expect the rest of us to. I'm with the 9/11 Commission staff on this one, dude.

Hidden weapons of mass destruction
Dave Gaubatz, a former Air Force special investigator who was as a civilian employee in Iraq in 2003, says that while in Iraq, he acquired what he considered reliable information about WMD caches in four locations that had gas and chemical weapons that were recently produced. He could not get U.S. military officials to look into the matter, so he eventually contacted Weldon and Representative Peter Hoekstra, head of the House Intelligence Committee, to share his information and to try to get them to pressure the Defense Department and intelligence agencies to do the WMD searches in four locales.

Instead, Gaubatz said, Weldon discussed a Hoekstra-Weldon trip to Iraq, under the guise of visiting the troops, that would detour to one of the locales. Once there, Gaubatz said, the congressmen planned to persuade the U.S. military commander to lend them the equipment and men to go digging for the cache. He said that Weldon made it clear he didn't want word leaked to the Pentagon, to intelligence officials, or to Democratic congressmen.

Gaubatz said that "They even worked out how it would go. If there was nothing there, nothing would be said. If the site had been , nothing would be said. But, if it was still there, they would bring the press corps out." After a May 4, 2006 meeting, according to Gaubatz, he called a reporter at the Washington Times, who called Weldon's office to get confirmation. That inquiry, Gaubatz said, scuttled the project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Weldon

[Neily]

53. You didn't address my argument...

Phillpott... actually I never mentioned him. If you recall correctly, I merely said that you would recant too if your security clearances (i.e. entire career) were threatened.

Sure... "The Senate Intelligence Committee found that "the employee who created the charts with the photographs of al-Qaeda associates was emphatic that no charts produced by the defense contractor included the name or photograph of Mohamed Atta, or any of the other 9/11 hijackers, prior to the 9/11 attacks." Similar charts were produced after 9/11 by the same employee, which did include information about Mohamed Atta and the other hijackers" (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Able_Danger) of course they have an answer for everything... Of course everyone is so sympathetic they lie and try to derail the biggest criminal investigation in the history of the world.

And of course "In March 2006, Weldon began to back track on his claim, saying now "he's not sure the chart had a picture of Atta, as he has sometimes maintained, and that he has been relying on the memory of an intelligence analyst who helped produce it." (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Able_Danger) of course Weldon recanted after the FBI raided his daughter and he was now under investigation...

Not to mention, Shaffer would willingly put his career on the line to tell a big lie just to get "Able Danger" back up and running..."Colonel Shaffer said he assumed that by speaking out publicly this week about Able Danger, he might effectively be ending his military career and limiting his ability to participate in intelligence work in the government. "I'm proud of my operational record and I love what I do," he said. "But there comes a time - and I believe the time for me is now -- to stand for something, to stand for what is right." (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/politics/16cnd-intel.html?ei=5090&en=fc1cfb447a0bfcc9&ex=1281844800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all)

But, if you really wanna go down the road of Phillpott... here we go... "He was quoted by Fox News in August 2005 as stating I have briefed the Department of the Army, the Special Operations Command and the office of (Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence) Dr. Cambone as well as the 9/11 Commission. My story has remained consistent." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Phillpott).. hmmm...

And... "the team leader, Navy Capt. Scott Philpott, civilian analyst James Smith and other members of the team had been denied permission to testify." (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2005/sep/20/20050920-111050-2046r ) Good enough reason to recant if that was me...

And in 2006... according to History Commons... Phillpott joined other "Able Danger" members in closed testimony which we don't have access to since the testimony was taken in closed session... and the article is no longer available online (McClatchy News Service, 2/15/2006). However, we could easily request the archived records from McClatchy/SacBee if necessary.

But then... of course... 5 years after 9/11, Phillpott recants...(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092101831.html) "The report concludes that Philpott may have exaggerated knowing Atta's identity because he supported using Able Danger's techniques to fight terrorism. It shows that while Shaffer has consistently asserted that he believes he saw Atta's photograph, Philpott recanted his initial recollection."... First of all they state he may have "exaggerated" knowing Atta's identity. Either you know it or you don't. Either he came up prior to 9/11 or he didn't. But, of course he was merely lying because he thought "Able Danger" was so good. He was willing to put his credibility/career/clearances on the line to lie and try to get "Able Danger" back up and running. And, in addition, this article has some pretty big gaps in his statement. Specifically, "convinced that Atta was not on . . . the chart that we had. He said he believes others, including Shaffer, were "relying on my recollection . . . 100 percent." I wonder what is between the elipses...

Not that this matters... but for those trying to discredit Shaffer, he is still working for the military. If he was such a liar/cheat then why would he still be working there and why would he have been given a promotion?

And for those who want to say "Able Danger" was merely an experiment and not a "working" model within the military. How convenient it is for the military to say that, in retrospect. Sounds to me like "Able Danger" was a program put in place to see exactly what could be obtained from data mining regarding their own ongoing "terrorist" operations. And, once it was learned that they can easily discover what is going on, it was shut down.

[SDuderstadt]

54. Dude...

if you want to believe this RW crap, by all means, go ahead.

[Neily]

55. RW? Right Wing?

I am not right wing... and this is not right wing crap! These are legitimate questions. Is that the best you can do to rebut the fact that "able Danger" is a topic that should be explored more?

[SDuderstadt]

56. I didn't say YOU were RW, dude...

Do you deny that Weldon was/is RW GOP?
Where was he speaking? Hint: the Heritage Foundation is a RW think tank, dude.
One of your "sources" is the Washington Times. Do you deny that the WT is extreme RW?
Weldon's book, "Countdown to Terror" was published by Regnery Publishing. If you don't know who Alfred Regnery is, I suggest you look him up.

Dude, I am sure you're sincere, but you are spreading RW propaganda. Duh.

[Neily]

57. This isn't a RW/LW issue...

So don't deflect. Maybe the Able Danger sources/info were primarily reported in and by RW media and reps, but there are many examples of LW and non-partisan sources reporting similar concerns regarding various aspects of a potential cover-up about 9/11.

In addition, since the "Able Danger" program was a military operation and it has been pretty clear throughout history that high level military personnel tend to be RW, does it surprise you it came from a RW rep and RW Media?

So, please I challenge you to debate the questions/issues/reports and not deflect the forum into a RW/LW paradigm. They are all shady... The left is the right and the right is the left nowadays.

P.S. I don't spread propaganda... I merely investigate the truth no matter which direction it leads. I don't care if it takes me into a RW rabbit hole or a LW dungeon. I am open to reading and dissecting all "documented" information (except the blatantly insane... like energy rays brought the towers down, aliens, no-plane, etc...)

[SDuderstadt]

58. Great...knock yourself out, dude...

while you're at it, look around for some other discredited theories and resurrect those too. Let us know when you find one of these:

[Neily]

60. Discredited by who?

I don't think there are many definitively discredited theories out there... Everything I read always has a slant, an ulterior motive, or a RW/LW paradigm flair. I read through the entire debunking site a couple of years back and he does not have sound arguments to the point where the theories can be definitively discredited. Like with the example above... He simply latches onto a story that says the "Able Danger" participant was so selfishly motivated to resurrect the program that he lied and risked it all to do so. How convenient...

I guess coming from a forensic perspective means I need solid factual information... not opinions, political slants, or diatribes. And, I think that is the reason so many people are still holding on to the idea that there is more here than meets the eye.

My only position on all of this is that they have not plugged the holes in the dam and some of those holes are gaping. And, when the media or government starts trying to discredit people or a theory based merely upon a "illegal" expenses charged by a military worker not exceeding $250, or they begin a "criminal investigation" into someone during an election and still haven't charged them with a crime 3 years later, or they redistrict a vocal representatives district to affect an electoral outcome, or they don't let a congressman in the debates because of his views (Didn't vote for Ron Paul, but they did hinder him in many ways despite the campaign advances he had made) I begin wondering what their real motivations are.

[SDuderstadt]

61. Like I said before, dude...

knock yourself out. Let us know how it all turns out.

[Neily]

62. will do... lol n/t

[rschop]

30. There will never be another investigation of 9/11.

While they will never be another investigation of 9/11, any new investigation could quickly resolve all of the inconsistencies between the prior 9/11 reports on 9/11.

An example of just one inconsistency;

Why did the CIA and FBI HQ hide the photograph of Khallad Bin Attash taken at the al Kuala Lumpur planning meeting in January 2000, planning the Cole bombing with Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, when it was this very photograph that clearly connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing that took place at that meeting?

Had these investigators known about this photograph they could have prevented the attacks on 9/11.

[rschop]

65. The first investigation of 9/11 by the 9/11 Commission was a sham

The fact that the photograph of Khallad Bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting, planning the Cole bombing with Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi was hidden from the FBI Cole bombing investigators in a massive criminal conspiracy by the FBI HQ and CIA was never explained by the 9/11 Commission, rendering the entire 9/11 Commission investigation and report a complete fraud on the American people.

[Ohio Joe]

3. Who would truthers trust to do it?

That is a serious question. Everyone that does not buy into the tinfoil is assumed to be a part of the conspiracy... even you make that insinuation for DU'ers that see no point in a new investigation. Many truthers even think that one way or another President Obama is now in on it. The instant someone was named, there would be segments of truthers that would call bullshit on it right away, before it even began and new CT's would crop up right away. So... Who do you pick to do it that would make everyone happy?

[Neily]

4. The key isn't Who...

You are right that there will always be people who cry fowl about who is selected for the investigation...

The key is the questions that get asked and answered. There were many important questions that were completely overlooked or unasked during the official investigation.

[KDLarsen]

6. Yet for most of those questions

The answers are already out there. And depending on whose questions you are looking at, some of them aren't even relevant to the leadup to 9/11. Hell, some of them aren't even questions.

[reinvestigate911]

12. "some of them aren't even relevant to the leadup to 9/11"

the Family Steering Committee's response to the 9/11 Commission Report:

"While we believe that our concerns were acknowledged, we had also hoped that more of our questions and those of the American public would be fully addressed during the public hearings, or at the very least, discussed in the prepared staff statements... Yet today, many of our collective questions remain unanswered."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Family_Steering_Committee
their questions: http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

eta: family steering committee's comments

[KDLarsen]

13. Highly relevant questions

Dubya:
39. What type of federal rescue measures are in place in the event of an attack on our nation, in terms of personnel and equipment?

Cheney:
11. Please provide the names of anyone else who received Cipro in advance of the anthrax attacks.

FBI Director Mueller:
1. Please explain how the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam, both on Flight 11, survived the inferno to be found on the street near the World Trade Center
5. Why wasn’t Atta’s luggage put on Flight 11? Two bags were found at Login Airport.

And that's just a quick run through, I'm tired and can't really be bothered to going through every single questionaire.

[reinvestigate911]

15. cherrypick much? n/t

[KDLarsen]

17. No, just tired

I could go through every damn questionaire and find answers to those questions, but I know it would all be for naught as the self-proclaimed 'truthers' would just ignore it.

[reinvestigate911]

29. tired, but not too tired to engage those silly, self-proclaimed 'truthers', eh?

thanks for wasting my time...
...and thanks too, for conceeding my point.

[KDLarsen]

31. Exactly

Had it not been around midnight, I might have gone through each list of questions, but those were some examples I knew was there.

[Neily]

59. Not a fair assessment...

The web page that was referred to above is disorganized and does not encompass the relevant questions regarding 9/11. I read through it last night and had to ask myself wtf are they looking to answer. I don't think many of those questions are insightful, educated or even relevant. However, there are some basic questions that the commission did not even address that may help to shed some light on this issue and/or put some things to rest.

1. Why haven't the videos from the pentagon impact been released (not just a few frames showing no object discernible to the human eye)? (I am not a no-planer, but this is a very relevant question nonetheless) I assume their response would be either 1) We do not want to traumatize the 9/11 victim's families and/or 2) it is a national security issue. Either answer is B.S.

2. How did the passports/i.d cards survive? What else survived from all of the crashes that is not linked directly to the hijackers, but maybe the passengers. I have seen one i.d. card from a survivor total from all 4 crashes, yet we have several forms of i.d. from the terrorists. Where are the remains of flight 93 and boy does that red bandana seem pretty intact... I saw a news clip a few weeks ago with a reporter interviewing a rep from the Iron Mountain, the underground private storage bunker and he told her that the wreckage from flight 93 was stored there. Why haven't we seen it? Why hasn't it been reconstructed like all previous airline crashes?

3. OBL is the alleged culprit. Yet, the FBI wanted page doesn't even list him for 9/11. GWB said he wanted him "dead or alive" yet after the wars began he started to back off the OBL rhetoric. And, ultimately, GWB, his staff and other military personnel began to downplay OBL to the point they admitted they stopped focusing on him. (If you need the links to the videos of them doing a 180 on this I will find it tomorrow...)

I could go on with very relevant questions, but it is late here. Maybe another day.

[Ohio Joe]

7. Well...

I know nothing about what you believe about 9/11, so allow me to address truthers in general.

I think it very much matters who. In order to satisfy say... a good amount of truthers, the assumption has to be that State and federal government is in on it, the FAA, NIST, the NYC police and fire departments as well as any other institution that accepts money from the government. So... Any involvement... any testimoney... any evidence given by any of the above would automatically be dismissed as tainted if not out right faked. And to believe any investigation could occur without their very direct involvement is a fantasy, it could not and would not happen.

None of this even addresses the fact that much, if not all of the same already existing evidence would remain and the bulk of truthers either ignore for reasons that.... I simply cannot fathom. They ignore scientific realities and hard evidence and instead cling to non-sense and out right lies promoted by bad you-tube videos.

To be frank, I think people like the NYC CAN (I think thats their name, I'll look it up if you don't know who I mean) know full well that what they are trying to do is never going to happen. I think they know full well what they are attempting does not follow the rules for getting on the ballot nor does it allow for any type of real investigation. It is nothing more then a ploy to have something to point to and claim that truthers are being suppressed. It lets them keep making a living off the gullible.

Bleh... When truthers decide to discard the fantasies about CD, nukes, lasers from space, no planes and the rest of the bullshit, I'll be the first one to sign onto an investigation into the real crimes bushco committed with their use of the tragedy to further their insane political goals.

[Theobald]

5. Why do you keep making shit up?

Who is 'adamantly' against a new investigation?

Words have meanings and you obviously don't know what the meaning of adamant.

Adamant - adjective 1. utterly unyielding in attitude or opinion in spite of all appeals, urgings, etc.

Again who is adamantly opposed to a new investigation?

I am against a new investigation becasue it will waste money, come to the same basic conclusion, and the people who believe there were mini nukes, death rays from space, nano-thermite paint, and or controlled demolition won't believe the results anyway. That is why I am against a new investigation, but I am certainly not adamantly against a new investigation. If the government decided to do a new, completely impartial (pull names out of a hat?) investigation tomorrow, I would say that it is stupid waste of time and money, but I wouldn't care too much and I wouldn't adamantly oppose it and I don't think many other people would adamantly oppose it eiter.

BTW who is on your fully independent investigation committee?

[Subdivisions]

8. $2 Trillion. That's the amount of taxpayer money wasted to prop up

Wall Street and the banksters. Please point to your posts decrying this waste of money. How much was spent on the 9/11 Commission? Thanks.

[SDuderstadt]

9. "banksters"

I'll be blunt. I don't think you remotely understand monetary policy, central banking or economics, dude. It's really embarrassing.

[whatchamacallit]

14. Unbelievable

I'll tell you what's embarrassing, your insane and undeserved ego! You say this same shit to people no matter what the topic (science, logic, mathematics, economics, macrame...). Though you have no idea what their education or professional background is, all someone has to do to be called an idiot is say something you disagree with. Apparently you are the smartest man in the world. Really man wtf? Clue: a truly smart person wouldn't go there.

[SDuderstadt]

16. Dude...

can you show me where I EVER called him (or anyone else, for that matter) an idiot? Of course, you can't. You might want to confine yourself to topics you actually understand. Weren't you working on the piledriver question? How's that going?

[whatchamacallit]

19. There it is

As we've never discussed it, you have no idea what I know about economics, yet you have the crazy balls to tell me "confine yourself to topics you actually understand". This is truly baffling. Is it, in the simple calculus of your mind, the fact that I'm a truther, and therefore know nothing about anything? You really ought to think a little before you type. BTW the pile driver is a theory that requires specific conditions to be present for the math to validate it. Those conditions are not confirmed but assumed. I don't have to disprove the math because it was formulated on fiction. Get it Einstein?

[SDuderstadt]

20. Run away again, dude...

you always do. You don't have the math to back up your goofy claim, so you try to change the subject.

BTW, whoever said I was talking about economics with respect to you? The fact that you're a "truther" demonstrates you know very little about reasoning, dude. You might want to confine yourself to points I actually make, dude.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Talking about yourself....

again?

You sound like you're coming apart, dude. Maybe you should take a break.

[whatchamacallit]

23. I often do take breaks from the dungeon

I actually have a life. How 'bout you, Mr. Dude?

[SDuderstadt]

24. Yeah, I have a life, too...

when you're not here biting at my ankle, dude. When's your next "break"?

[whatchamacallit]

25. I can't stoop low enough to reach your ankle

dude.

[SDuderstadt]

26. Dude...

do you come here to debate topics or just preoccupy yourself with my every move? This obsession of yours is frankly getting troubling. Maybe you need a timeout.

[whatchamacallit]

28. Ha, so let me get this straight

When you randomly show up and respond to one of my posts (with your typical insults), it's good natured debate, but when I comment on one of your posts it's abusive stalking. Ah... Love that victim card. Very tricky. The truth is you hate getting called on your shit, so you're going to pretend I have a problem in hopes of making me go away. I will, not because of your canard, but because you're a lost cause. See you soon under one of my posts when your desire to insult gets the best of you. Later dude.


P.S. if you respond to this you destroy your victim game.

[SDuderstadt]

32. I don't want you to go away....

dude.

I want you to answer the question you keep running away from.

Besides, your entertainment value is far too high.

BTW, you might want to check just precisely which one of us "randomly show up and respond to ...posts", dude. You might be surprised. Also, while you're at it, can you please point to where I ever accused you of stalking me? Your little trick of reframing what I've actually said or done, then feigning outrage at your own red herring isn't working too well for you.

[Ghost in the Machine]

37. "Bankstas"

[Theobald]

10. English Comprehension isn't your strong suit.

You have failed to address any of my points in the post; is there a reason for that?

I did not talk about the wall street bailout, nor did I compare or contrast the wall street bail out with the 9/11 investigation. So why you brought it up is beyond me.

A specific question was asked and I gave a clear, concise, and well reasoned answer. You may not agree with it, but pontificating about the wasted money on the wall street bailout is irrelevant to whether or not spending money on a new 9/11 investigation is wasteful or not.

What is quite clear is that you are arguing because we wasted so much money on the wall street bailout, I shouldn't mind us wasting money on a redundant 9/11 investigation.

[Neily]

35. "Adamantly" was used appropriately...

Adv. 1. adamantly - inflexibly; unshakably.

It may not describe you, but that's besides the point. If it doesn't apply to you, ignore it.

P.S. what did I make up? Are you referring to the use of the words "adamantly opposed?" You are really digging...

[rschop]

27. There will never be another investigation of 9/11 because!!

There will never be another investigation of 9/11 because if a new investigation were ever carried out, hundreds of people in Washington DC would end up in prison for years for having intentionally allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11.

Many of these people are at very high levels of the US government, so they have a great interest in making sure this is never re-investigated.

Since even an investigation of the lower level people who intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place could ultimately point to these higher level managers who were involved, these managers, who now think that they are safe, still have a great interest in making sure this is never re-investigated.

But while this will never be re-investigated, we now have the whole story on who was involved and why they intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place. See www.eventson911.com for further details on all of this.

[Realityhack]

39. What do we have to GAIN? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

40. Great question....

if the "truthers" (most not all) did not even bother to actually read the 9/11 Commission Report, NIST Report, ASCE BPAT, etc. and, more importantly, don't show much ability to analyze said reports or evaluate the available evidence, why should we believe they would be satisifed with a new investigation? They can't even get the facts about the investigations to date right.

[Neily]

63. Prevention is a good enough reason... n/t

[Neily]

64. NYC CAN Petition Status...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/City-Calls-Arguments-for-N-by-Press-Release-090930-371.html

If anyone has any more recent information, please advise. However, from this op-ed, it appears that their petition may get fair consideration.

Latest from the NYC CAN website 3 days ago: http://nyccan.org/Still_Awaiting_Decision_On_Petitions_Legality.php