Voters say no to new 9/11 investigation - Burlington, Vermont

[greyl]

Published: Wednesday, March 7, 2007
By John Briggs
Free Press Staff Writer

Burlington voters Tuesday rejected a local group's call for a new investigation of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, by a nearly two-to-one ratio.

The vote was 3,150 to 1,817. The ballot question passed 39-17 in Lincoln, proponent Matthew Ennis said. The issue never generated much debate in Burlington.

"I'm very surprised," said Marc Estrin, spokesman for the Burlington group, which gained enough signatures to place the question on the ballot. "I was expecting the opposite direction."

The ballot item would have asked Vermont's congressional delegation to push for a new investigation. Sens. Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders and Rep. Peter Welch made clear in January that they weren't likely to move in that direction.

5 more paragraphs

[LARED]

1. The people have spoken.

They want to move on.

[greyl]

2. Yep. And in other news, they passed a decent school budget.

Burlington school budget passes

Published: Tuesday, March 6, 2007
By John Briggs
Free Press Staff Writer

Voters today gave a solid 56.5 percent yes vote to the Burlington School District’s $41.6 million spending plan for next year. The citywide tally was 2,823 to 2,173.

The budget passed by a wide margin across the city, except in the New North End. Ward 4 voted no, 615-554, and 62.6 percent of voters rejected it in Ward 7, 613-366.

“That’s great,” said School Board Chairman Paul Hale. “We worked really, really hard on this budget. We were very frugal along the way. There’s nothing in this budget that is fat. We’re just trying to provide what the kids need.”
more

Looking at the site marketing this particular drive for a new investigation, I have a damn good idea why they failed.

[TomClash]

3. If you want to "move on" replace your avatar nt

[petgoat]

13. They want the Jersey Girls moved on with 273 of their 300 questions

still unanswered. I bet this effort wasn't funded very well.
Half-assed efforts are a mistake.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[LARED]

50. Your sympathy is noted

But why feel sorry for something that is not true?

[reprehensor]

4. Thank you, Lincoln! - n/t

[The Lone Groover]

5. Greyl, Do you think that's good or bad?

I thought you had some issues with the 911CR.

[AZCat]

6. I think the fundamental problem with a call for a new investigation...

is that nobody seems to want to talk about what that actually means. Who can we trust to sit on the investigation? Where do they get their money? What kind of investigative powers are invested in this body? To whom is the report issued? Etc, etc, etc...

I think these questions are bigger roadblocks than they might seem at first glance. Who can be trusted, for example, is probably going to be answered quite differently by the various groups interested in 9/11 topics.

[The Lone Groover]

8. You weren't worried about these same issues with the first one?

An open public investigation IS required with powers granted to subpoena ANY witness who is then put ON OATH, to be able to view ANY document, with NO time limits - it gets investigated until every stone is overturned and all questions are answered to everybody's satisfaction.

It's that difficult but it's that important!

Either you agree with that or you don't.

The previous investigation was a joke - a Government doing deals with the Commission about who can and can't give evidence, and who can and can't see documents, who can and can't chair the Commission. Pathetic.

[Fainter]

9. What he said!

And parallel to another official investigation I would like to see a citizen's grand jury with the same powers, privileges, and access to the evidence as any new assemblage of experts. No more hacks and fixers, essentially no more politicians. They should not be allowed to investigate themselves.

[Laurier]

69. So, who do you suggest should sit on the investigatory team?

Name names, please. Without such detail and substantive ideas, the suggestion of a "new investigation" is meaningless, frankly.

[AZCat]

16. We aren't talking about the first one.

We are talking about a proposed second investigation - one that hopefully wouldn't repeat the mistakes made by the first one.

And no, I don't agree with you - I think it is impossible to answer questions to everyone's satisfaction (nor do I think it is a good idea to try). Should we be investigating the claims of every nutcase who has a theory about the events of September 11th? I don't think so.

[The Lone Groover]

20. Which claims do you think should be investigated? nt

[AZCat]

23. I certainly don't think beam weapons should be.

Nor do I think any time should be spent looking into possible fakery of the crash site in Shanksville. I'd rule out investigating low yield fusion-only weapons as the cause of the collapses also.

[The Lone Groover]

51. Yeah.. but which ones do you want investigated? nt

[AZCat]

54. So you agree that those can be taken off the investigative table...

without compromising the investigation?

Good, maybe I was wrong - we might be able to reach some agreement.

[The Lone Groover]

55. Do you have a top ten of what needs to be investigated?

I'd be interested to hear. Maybe we do agree.

[AZCat]

56. I'm probably not the right one to be asked that question.

My interest in (and knowledge of) the events in question is to narrow for me to adequately list the necessary areas of investigation. The collapses themselves don't present much of an investigative source, apart from the various engineering communities and their concerns with building safety, and my interests lie primarily in those areas - not the areas where the murky connections or the unexplained missteps are. There are quite a few regular posters here that could better formulate a "top ten" than I - perhaps a thread could be started with this question in mind?

[The Lone Groover]

66. Maybe you should broaden your horizons. nt

[AZCat]

67. Why? n/t

[LARED]

10. You raise an excellent point

Imagine the chaos of trying to include every element of every so called anomaly that various CT'er hold sacred? As soon as the investigative entity dismissed the no-planers or dustificationits as having jumped the shark there would be a hew and cry that there is no investigation.

Personally I would be trilled with an investigation that actually held those responsible for protecting the US accountable. In other words Who was not doing their job? Fire them, demote them, publicly humiliate them if needed. That is how we get a better system. That is how the next responsible person in line makes sure to pay attention to the detail.

[naboo]

11. Agreed, they are essentially investigating themselves

An entire purging is needed.

[AZCat]

17. Exactly. n/t

[petgoat]

12. Who can be trusted? People with solid credentials and a record

of ethical and courageous behavior. People drawn from
backgrounds of science, journalism, the clergy, academia,
law, business, perhaps the military. An honest
investigation will be characterized by lively dissents
in the reports.

[AZCat]

15. Considering how those whom I consider experts...

are poorly received by the "Truth Movement" (and vice-versa) I don't think that it would be very easy to achieve consensus on who should participate.

[The Lone Groover]

21. Who do you consider an expert and in which fields? nt

[AZCat]

24. The members of the NIST investigation...

I consider pretty knowledgeable about their respective fields. Kevin Ryan, on the other hand, I do not consider an expert in the areas of structural engineering or materials engineering.

[The Lone Groover]

31. But NIST are going to be investigated,.. so they can't investigate themselves. nt

[AZCat]

53. Why again is the NIST going to be investigated?

I guess I missed that part.

[The Lone Groover]

57. All communication between NIST and the Government should be examined.

Just so we can see if any undue pressure has been brought to bear.

[AZCat]

58. Pressure? For what purpose?

Why would the government (which, by the way, the NIST is part of - so it is bizarre to claim they are pressured by the government) be pressuring the NIST?

[The Lone Groover]

59. OK.. have it your way...

Why should the Government investigate the Government.

Do turkeys vote for Christmas?

[AZCat]

60. Perhaps I was unclear.

It would help if you explained what part of the government you think was possibly influencing the NIST. I was pointing out that use of the term "government" is ambiguous and broad-reaching enough to incorporate the very body you are claiming might have been "pressured".

[The Lone Groover]

61. The Executive.

And you were just being pedantic.

[AZCat]

62. I frequently am.

You're lucky - imagine what it's like to work with me.


Back OT - any investigation that turns over the rocks that Dick Cheney lives under is fine by me - the more the better (I have a pet theory that he will shrivel up if we force him into the sunshine).

[Laurier]

70. So, who do you suggest should sit on this new investigatory panel?

Name names, please. Without such detail, the suggestion of a "new investigation" is meaningless, frankly.

Edit to fix the subject line

[Contrite]

29. I'd like to know the answer to that as well.

I was the one who posted the Burlington VT information on another thread. Greyl picked it up, apparently to show support for the OCT.

Is there some (good) reason why we should NOT re-investigate 9/11? Even Thomas Kean admitted there are "loose ends" around the NORAD lies.

The Vermont group is asking people to explain why they do not think a new investigation is warranted.

"A new investigation will NOT happen unless we all join together and demand it.

If, after reviewing the facts, you are not convinced that a new investigation is warranted, please write to the administrator of the site to share your thoughts on this. We would appreciate the opportunity to understand your reasoning and compare it with ours."

You can share your reasons here:

[e-mail]

[seemslikeadream]

7. move on

[naboo]

14. A couple of points

it actually got 1,817 votes for, and considering that all corporate media has a moratorium on anything even remotely suspicious about 9-11 (obviously the octers watch a lot of TV). it's pretty good that it got on the ballot and it's a good start, although it wouldn't do any good because the system is so corrupt. I mean, I never hear anything about what is behind the Libby case and what Gonzalez just did, if you think about it those sorts of omissions show how they lie and propagandize. The octers aren't capable of those sort of distinctions though.
I won't even mention the possibility of election fraud.

[The Lone Groover]

22. Did they use electronic voting machines? nt

[CGowen]

18. It won in ward 2 and 71% in ward 3

The question won approval in Wards 2 and 3 -- 71 percent in favor in the latter -- but lost in the city's remaining five wards, with more than 70 percent of voters in Wards 4, 6 and 7 voting no.


It would be interesting to get demographis and other stuff (internet usage)

[Bolo Boffin]

25. CGowen: The Fox News of 9/11 CT

[CGowen]

26. I made a true statement while FOX is lying

Libby was found guilty of obstruction of justice in lying to the grand jury investigating the outing by the White House of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, making a false statement to the FBI about his conversation with NBC News Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert, perjury for lying to the grand jury about his conversation with Russert, and perjury for lying to the grand jury about his conversations with other journalists.


Libby was found not guilty of making a false statement to the FBI about his conversation with Time magazine's Matt Cooper.








Mr. Libby told the FBI and a grand jury that he was given the sensitive information by Mr. Cheney but then forgot about it until being told separately by Tim Russert, an NBC journalist.

Mr. Russert denied telling Mr. Libby anything of the sort. The jury believed Mr. Russert, concluding that Mr. Libby had lied.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070307.LIBBY07/TPStory/TPInternational/America/

[Bolo Boffin]

27. You are both telling a technical truth in an effort to spin an larger truth.

Fox News tactics up and down the line.

[Contrite]

28. Actually, he was only wondering who voted "yes" or "no".

He said he was interested in demographics from the respective wards. How is that spin?

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Actually, he was trying to spin the losing proposition by emphasizing a couple of minor wins. n/t

[Contrite]

35. No, he was responding to the OP, which emphasized the "no" votes.

He was countering by stating that it in fact did win in some wards. He also mentioned the losses, by the way.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Why not emphasize the "no" votes, since the proposition lost?

It seems the "no" votes are the point.

[Contrite]

40. It apparently was, to greyl.

The "yes" votes are just as important to others.

[CGowen]

30. How can you generalize

"found guilty of making a false statement to the fbi on point A and found not guilty of making a false statement to the fbi about point B."

And come up with "found not guilty of making a false statement to the FBI"




Last time I checked logic it was: True and False = False

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Because it's Fox New logic.

It's the same as emphasizing that a proposition won in a single district or two.

[CGowen]

34. Why are you accusing me of being a liar like FOX news?

It's not the same. I'm not lying here.

[greyl]

37. He isn't.

He's saying it's the same spin technique that we get pissed off at when Foxnews uses it.

[CGowen]

39. He says I'm FOX news

and posts a FOX news screen shot with a false statement

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Technically, Fox News wasn't lying.

Technically, neither are you.

[CGowen]

41. really?

WASHINGTON: I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted on Tuesday of lying to a grand jury and to FBI agents investigating the leak of the identity of a CIA operative in the summer of 2003 amid a fierce public dispute over the war in Iraq.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/07/america/web-0307libby.php




making up stuff is ok?

[greyl]

42. "The 11-member jury acquitted Libby on an additional count of making false statements to the FBI"

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/07/america/web-0307libby.php

90 percent of the problems in the world could be solved if literate people read more carefully. /sarc

[CGowen]

45. that's what I posted before one guilty and one not guilty

CHENEY CHIEF OF STAFF 'SCOOTER' LIBBY FOUND GUILTY IN FOUR OF FIVE COUNTS!
Two Counts of Perjury, One Each of Obstruction of Justice, Giving False Statements to the FBI


http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00128.htm



* - Obstruction of Justice: GUILTY
* False statements to FBI investigators (about Russert conversation): GUILTY
* False statement to FBI investigators (about Cooper conversation): NOT GUILTY
* Perjury to the Grand Jury (about Tim Russert conversation): GUILTY
* Perjury to the Grand Jury (about the Matt Cooper conversation): GUILTY


http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/ExWhite_House_adviser_guilty_of_4_0306.html

Explain to me how a statement by Fox News like "Scooter Libby found not guilty of lying to FBI investigators" is true

[Bolo Boffin]

46. You're being deliberately obtuse.

The more you do this wide-eyed act, the more obvious your intent in bringing up the couple of districts was.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Greyl's got it - Fox played up the one acquital and was technically correct.

They did this to minimize the four counts of guilty.

You played up the two districts that voted "yes" in order to minimize the overall "no" vote.

Same thing.

[CGowen]

47. You think you can read my mind,

You say my intentions are the same as FOX NEWS intentions


I say FOX lied because their statement would be only true if
* False statements to FBI investigators (about Russert conversation): GUILTY
* False statement to FBI investigators (about Cooper conversation): NOT GUILTY

both verdicts were not guilty.



To get back to Vermont, my intentions were to find out why in one ward there was a 71% spike and in ward 2 more than 50% but in 4 ,6, 7, there were more than 70 % no votes.

I'm interested because there is such a huge discrepancy geographically.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. Bwa!

I think I can read your words, that's what I think.

[CGowen]

49. Are you 12 or 13?

[Bolo Boffin]

65. I wasn't born yesterday. n/t

[AZCat]

68. Good, because then you'd be ~0.00274 years old...

and nap time might cut into your posting here a bit.

[CGowen]

52. It looks to me as if the town has two centers

the yellow one is ward 3 with 71 % yes,
ward 2 is blue with over 50% yes,
indicate a support for the yes vote in centre one (also polling places are very near to each other)

(green and red )ward 4 and 7 with over 70% no, seem to belong to the other centre of town.



ward 6 is turquoise and belongs to the outskirts of centre one and voted with over 70% no.


ward 5 and 1 voted no, but how many % I don't know.



http://www.burlingtonvotes.org/

I hope it is the right town :eyes:

[mhatrw]

19. Hooray! The OCTers have stormed Burlington, VT!

With their "nothing to see here, folks" rallying cry, they will continue to fight to make this country safe for its never ending War on Terror!

[quicknthedead]

63. Unfortunately, this is currently a Dumbed-Down, Scared America.

The first 9/11 investigation was a complete farce.
The biggest crime of the century and all you get is a farce!

America is afraid, displays cognitive dissonance, could care less, etc.

There is evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and definitely warrants a REAL investigation, but all that goes on is a DUMBED-DOWN AMERICA with the MSM an organ for the government (or rather, the NWO).

This is unfortunate because the perps are getting ready to do the next event, and this one will make 9/11 look like a walk in the park.

God help us all.

[The Lone Groover]

64. Do you remember...

...when America was proud of its investigative journalists?

Do you remember?

What happened?

[Laurier]

71. So, who do you suggest should sit on the new investigatory team?

Name names, please. Without details and substance from those who think another investigation is warranted, the suggestion that a "new investigation" should take place is meaningless, frankly.

[dailykoff]

73. Let Jim Hoffman lead it..

He shows a far better grasp of construction details than the NIST.

And yes, I've waded through that POS snowjob.

[Laurier]

74. Who else should be on the new investigatory team?

Name names, please.

[dailykoff]

75. I'd let Hoffman pick his own team, but I imagine

Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan would be essential. I'd also like to see Griffin on it as he's studied the matter thoroughly and his grasp of technical details is impressive.

For a nontechnical investigation I'd like to see Fetzer head the team.

[Laurier]

76. Yikes.

A non-starter, obviously.

Thanks for playing.

[quicknthedead]

77. Ditto on Jones and Ryan. Fetzer...hmmm...

...I don't think so because of the "directed-energy" position he has taken.

I am not saying this position is true or false (I do not know myself), but I do know it will not be accepted by America (not at this stage of the battle; perhaps later if REAL evidence is produced; at this point THERE IS NONE; it is very sad the way Jim Fetzer has cast a shadow of doubtful credibility over 9/11 Truth because of this).

Truth MUST be based upon hard evidence.

Jones and Ryan are excellent choices though.
Please offer more names.

[dailykoff]

78. The thing about Fetzer

is that he has a lot of credibility as an ex-Marine and current philosophy professor though I think I heard he's now retired. He's also written a lot on related topics and is a very persuasive Dumbya-denouncer (I heard part of an interview with him on Pacifica--impressive).

I guess the Star-Wars thing could be a distraction so that's why I'd put him on the nontechnical stuff like the assassination squads. Personally I don't think microwaves or directed energy weapons are all that far-fetched but my suspicion is that they used thermonuclear devices and I'd like to see that come out.

Other names: Gordon Ross comes to mind, but basicaly anybody who's already part of ST911 would be good I think.

[quicknthedead]

79. About Fetzer...and how about Paul Craig Roberts?

I have only complete respect for Jim Fetzer, as he is a courageous, great American.

I only wish he would stick to the facts, as credibility is crucial in 9/11 truth.

Your thoughts are good, however. Dr. Fetzer is a great researcher.

Gordon Ross is a brilliant, humble man. He is a Scotsman, though, and perhaps only Americans should do this. But I would vote for him any day of the week.

Paul Craig Roberts would be another one to consider.

[dailykoff]

72. Maybe they want to skip the Kabuki and proceed directly to the trial.

In which case I heartily agree with them.