New Investigation?

I, like a lot of folks, have questions about who perpetrated the events of 9/11.
Unlike many, however, I have yet to find anything that would convince me one way or another. There are enough holes and ambiguities on both sides to keep me wondering, and I jump on no bandwagon on faith, or belief, alone.

That being said, I hear many folks demanding a "new investigation". While I'm all for getting to the bottom of the issue and nailing down the truth, whether it be that 9/11 was indeed the work of extremest terrorists alone or that members of the governmental/military/industrial machinery had a hand in it, I have to wonder:

If a new investigation was put into motion, what, exactly, would it investigate?

Obviously, the physical evidence, which would be the most important thing to examine, is long gone. Cleaned up, shipped out, and destroyed. Dead end there.

It seems pretty obvious to me, by now, that examining video footage of the tragedy is going to get us nowhere. Folks have been arguing over the footage for close to ten years now, and the only thing that is generally agreed upon is that the buildings did, indeed, come down and thousands died needlessly. I don't see this changing, ever.

Looking for eyewitness accounts seems to be a lost cause, as for every eyewitness story you can dig up, you can also find one who contradicts him.

Expert testimony is similar. For every expert who can demonstrate a theory on how/why the buildings came down, there's one who can demonstrate otherwise. At any rate, all the experts can come up with is a best guess scenario. No-one was there taking readings and collecting data at the time.

Even the tried and true "follow the money" theory can only show who profited. Someone making a ton of money off the tragedy does not automatically indicate that he was responsible for it.

So, what's left? What could an investigative body actually examine that could prove who the guilty parties were? Absolutely? With no "connect the dots" scenarios, as the dots are not numbered and everyone can come up with a different picture. With no "leaps of faith".

I can't think of anything, myself. I believe that the actual 100% unshakable truth will never be known, as sad as that is. I don't like it, but I don't see a way around it. I don't mean to sound defeatist, or discourage people from searching for the truth, I just don't know where to look anymore.

Feel free to flame away. Call me a truther. Call me a disinformation agent. Say I'm ignorant for not seeing the "obvious" in whatever video or website has convinced you one way or another. Just try, in the process, to mention what there is for a new investigation to investigate that could make a difference.

I agree 1000000000000039856932847659328465932847659432876%

The first 6 investigations didn't prove anything. Neither will the next 6.

The assertion that all the evidence was sent away is incorrect. The material that had been sent away was the material that offered no clues as to what caused the collapse, which is 80% of the structure. The materials from the location of the impact and vicinity are still in an unused hanger in JFK even now. Likewise, NIST still has the samples taken from the steel when it was still out at Fresh Kills, which they used for their report. Plus, it only happened nine years ago and all the material witnesses from Bush to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the woman whose cats were dismembered by Mohammed Atta are still around.

I certainly believe that a fresh investigation will turn up new information we didn't know before. Still, it's unlikely that any further investigations will change the fact that the 9/11 attack was the result of a group of clever Islamic fundamentalists.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The assertion that all the evidence was sent away is incorrect. The material that had been sent away was the material that offered no clues as to what caused the collapse, which is 80% of the structure. The materials from the location of the impact and vicinity are still in an unused hanger in JFK even now.

This, I did not know. So at least there's that to look at. I'm not sure how they could have told one area of rubble from another, but I'm not schooled in that area, either.

Plus, it only happened nine years ago and all the material witnesses from Bush to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the woman whose cats were dismembered by Mohammed Atta are still around.

Not that asking them would yield any new information. And even if it did, could we believe any of it?

I certainly believe that a fresh investigation will turn up new information we didn't know before.

Unfortunately, I don't.

Still, it's unlikely that any further investigations will change the fact that the 9/11 attack was the result of a group of clever Islamic fundamentalists.

I see you have your belifs in order. I am not so sure as to the "facts".
Not to say you're wrong, just that I am yet unconvinced either way.


Thanks for the responses, though, y'all.

Originally posted by subject x
Not that asking them would yield any new information. And even if it did, could we believe any of it?

The question isn't whether we can believe any of it, but whether it can be corroborated with other information. If, for example, Mohammed Atta left all sorts of clues behind that shows he was the ring leader, and if, for example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed can confirm that Mohammen Atta was the ring leader, then we have corroboration that both Mohammen Atta and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were involved, and that almost certainly means Al Qaida and Bin Laden was involved. That shoots down a number of these conspiracy claims right there.

Unfortunately, I don't.

They will almost certainly be able to turn up new information becuase time has passed and more sources of information are available. For one thing, we have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in custody now, and when/if we ever grab Bin Laden he can share information we wouldn't have known. The Pentagon is reluctantly coming forward and admitting there were a lot more foul ups on their end than they acknowledged. Plus, Bush isn't president anymore so there isn't any more executive priviledge.

I'm goign by the model of the sinking of the Titanic. We know it was an iceberg that sank the thing but subsequent visits to the wreck is giving us more and more details we didn't know before. For one thing, it's appearing to be the case that it was less the fault of the iceberg and more the fault of the poor quality of steel they had back then. What if there were equally serious problems in NY building codes that make such skyscrapers hidden death traps?

I see you have your belifs in order. I am not so sure as to the "facts". Not to say you're wrong, just that I am yet unconvinced either way.

I suppose I can admit I have a predesignated outlook, but it's based upon corroboration from other sources, namely, any gov't that can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans will have slipped on a lot more banana peels and stumbled into more walls during 9/11 than they're admitting to. There's a cover up all right- a cover up of the sheer incompetence in being able to prevent the attack.

"then we have corroboration that both Mohammen Atta and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were involved, and that almost certainly means Al Qaida and Bin Laden was involved. That shoots down a number of these conspiracy claims right there."

Even if this was the case, how are we to know who Al Qaida or Bin Laden represent? Instead of jumping to premature conclusions (no matter how obvious they may seem), indefinitely detaining people and using torture, I prefer the legal concept of due process.

"What if there were equally serious problems in NY building codes that make such skyscrapers hidden death traps?"

If so, these so called "hidden death traps" faired pretty well for a number of decades until 19 diminutive cave dwelling, box cutter wielding fanatics came around.

"I suppose I can admit I have a predesignated outlook, but it's based upon corroboration from other sources, namely, any gov't that can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans will have slipped on a lot more banana peels and stumbled into more walls during 9/11 than they're admitting to."

What does intentionally allowing New Orleans to sink because of its racial and economic makeup and having the competence to pull off 9/11 have to do with each other? If anything, both these incidents exemplify the Government's lack of regard for their own people in order to meet an agenda.

"There's a cover up all right- a cover up of the sheer incompetence in being able to prevent the attack."

So the cover up is about what everybody with a functioning brain already knows; the Government screwed up in not protecting its people? Why would such common knowledge need to be covered up? Nobody in Government was raked over the coals as a result of 9/11.

The investigation should investigate the cover up, which included the destruction of evidence, stonewalling, refusal of Government higher ups to openly testify and the alleged insurance fraud, among many other aspects of 9/11.

The cover up had nothing to do with Government employees protecting their incompetent rear ends and everything to do with allegedly obstructing justice and shielding the real perps from prosecution, be it for 9/11 and/or for other crimes.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

"The material that had been sent away was the material that offered no clues as to what caused the collapse, which is 80% of the structure."

The above statement is just one example of how this cover up was enacted: by using lies and half-truths. When three buildings collapse due to criminal activity and cause massive casualties and property damage, all of the evidence is collected and analyzed. The evidence was shipped off so rapidly, that there was no way it all could have been properly analyzed.

How can these insurance carriers pay out billions in claims without even analyzing ALL of the material evidence? How can the 9/11 Commission and NIST come to any definitive conclusions without analyzing ALL of the material evidence. How can the FBI and other law enforcement agencies bring forth a criminal case without analyzing ALL of the material evidence. They cannot.

And even if all the evidence was properly analyzed, it should still have been retained permanently, just in case additional information comes to light in the future and the evidence needs to be re-examined. Tampering and discarding of evidence is a criminal offense, regardless of what information can be or has been retrieved from that evidence.

9/11 is a perfect example of the immense stupidity of individuals, who have no clue as to how their own legal/justice system is "supposed" to operate. If the public does not demand that the letter of the law be followed in such cases, it will not be followed. Really now, what do you expect to happen when you allow the foxes to guard the hen house?

I agree with the OP. If an investigation resulted in nothing originally, what makes you think it will work now? Giuliani had that steel eradicated so quickly. What physical evidence do we have now? What we need is a mass movement where all Americans know that 6 out of the 10 9/11 commission members quit.

I think that Building 7 is the key to unmasking the story to the general public.

There is no doubt 9/11 is the 21st century JFK as far as the cospiracy industry is concerned.
My money is on Saddam Hussein as the instigator, and those so called green pilots were in fact blackmailed Iraqi air force aces, who had their families under arrest and within inches of their lives until the deed was done.
Hussein in the press was reported to have said something big would happen against the USA soon , this was about one year before S11.
All the other theories are hokum, Ok some may have allowed it to happen, to give an excuse to "Go grab the oil" but Hussein was behind it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
There's a cover up all right- a cover up of the sheer incompetence in being able to prevent the attack.

That's really the crux of the biscuit right there, isn't it? Determining whether it was incompetence or something more nefarious. It's seems pretty clear that there were failures in the intelligence and security communities, but whether they were based on incompetence or something else will keep people arguing about it forever.


Thanks for all the responses, y'all. Some interesting views, along with some puzzling opinions about a couple of issues (which would probably bring us way off topic were we to discuss them).

It's possible that a new investigation might just come up with something new, I suppose. Although doing that would, by default, display the incompetence of the original investigation (ie-why didn't they find this then?). Which would lead invariably to "why was the first investigation done in such a shoddy manner?" type questions, which would lead to more speculation as to incompetence/corruption, which would lead to demands for further investigation.

It could go on forever, and still never bring us to an iron-clad "truth". The simple fact of not having all the physical evidence alone is enough to keep the question open indefinitely.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Even if this was the case, how are we to know who Al Qaida or Bin Laden represent? Instead of jumping to premature conclusions (no matter how obvious they may seem), indefinitely detaining people and using torture, I prefer the legal concept of due process.

Again, this is answered by corroboration. If the muslim world is so whackadoodle fanatic in its belief in Islam that they'll even start rioting over cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper, then they're certainly whackadoodle fanatic enough to produce a terrorist group who'd get the idea to launch suicide attacks agfainst the US.

Muslim fanatics have murdered innocent people to advance their agenda in the past. Muslim fanatics have hijacked aircraft in the past. Muslim fanatics have carried out suicide attacks in the past. Muslim fanatics have committed attacks against the WTC previously. It is a failure of imagination to not understand how someone could have gotten the idea to put them all together.

If so, these so called "hidden death traps" faired pretty well for a number of decades until 19 diminutive cave dwelling, box cutter wielding fanatics came around.

This is not sound logic. The Station Nightclub in RI was originally built back in the 40's and entertained patrons pretty well for a number of decades until Whitesnake came around and set the place on fire, killing over 100 people from having inadequant exits. Just becuase the flaw hasn't been discovered for a lengthy amount of time, it doesn't mean the flaw isn't there.

What does intentionally allowing New Orleans to sink because of its racial and economic makeup and having the competence to pull off 9/11 have to do with each other? If anything, both these incidents exemplify the Government's lack of regard for their own people in order to meet an agenda.

This statement is based entirely upon your own abject paranoia and antiestablishment outlook on life, rather than the sound review of the facts. Instead, it only confirms the incompetence of the gov't, as well built, imposing levees were constructed upon soft soil that washed away even under sub-hurricane conditions.

So the cover up is about what everybody with a functioning brain already knows; the Government screwed up in not protecting its people? Why would such common knowledge need to be covered up? Nobody in Government was raked over the coals as a result of 9/11.

That's becuase no person or agency was identified as being the one whose incompetence directly contributed to the success of the attack. If, for example, some dope in the gov't has a warning of an impending attack lying forgotten under a pizza box in his office, that guy is NOT going to admit it to an angry public looking for someone to hang for the crime.