If the OCT really wanted to end the controversy, they would support a new investigation

[whatchamacallit]

Don't fear it, embrace it. What do you have to lose? If you were right the woo people will apologize and STFU. If we were right a horrible cancer is cut from the nation's body and we begin the process of healing and rebuilding America. I don't blame you for saying "no way we already won, so F off", but this happened under the most secretive and least accountable administration ever. It's like saying there's no reason to investigate vote fraud in 2000 and 2004.

[SDuderstadt]

1. Two reasons...

First, I think it's a waste of time. Secondly, even if there is an investigation and conclusive results along current lines, the "truth movement" will weep and moan that the investigation was "compromised" or "manipulated" or that information/evidence was withheld by the Obama administration because he has "ties" to Bush (if nothing more than they both show up at the funerals of former Presidents. For the record, I'm not opposed to a new investigation, I just think it's unnecessary.

[whatchamacallit]

2. So you're good with what we got

and what we didn't. The 911 commission was sufficient for you?

[SDuderstadt]

3. The 9/11 Commission is not the only source...

of investigation into 9/11. I would be much more interested in the DOJ investigating the excesses of the Bush administration in their reaction to 9/11. I personally think Bush and Cheney should be vigorously prosecuted for their crimes. Do I think we need another investigation of what NIST has done? No.

[whatchamacallit]

8. NIST took a swing at the towers but

that's only part of the story. I wanna know how it was allowed to happen in the first place. That, unfortunately was (mis)handled by the 911 commission. We still don't know the truth.

[SDuderstadt]

9. I think they provided a lot of answers....

I suspect you might be unhappy because they didn't conclude it was MIHOP or even LIHOP. Am I correct?

[whatchamacallit]

11. No, when have you ever been correct?

I think you are close to being alone among your colleagues in your satisfaction with the commission. 1st please stop with the bullshit pigeonholing in regards to my motives or desires. I just want to know what really happened. I don't care if it's LIHOP, MIHOP, or BYOB. Unlike you, I'm all for looking into it right and letting the chips fall where they may.

[hack89]

5. The 911 Commission was a political whitewash

the NIST report was sufficient for me. Engineering knowledge is not the exclusive purview of the government.

[JuniperLea]

14. That, and his crystal ball is working miracles...

He already knows who will respond to what, and how! Magnificent!

[hack89]

4. I have no problem with a new investigation

it is the only way the truth about the incompetence of the Bush administration will ever come out.

I do think you will be very disappointed with the results, however.

[whatchamacallit]

6. I won't be disappointed to be wrong

I'll be relieved that I can trust the government again.

[SDuderstadt]

7. Are you saying that you don't currently trust....

the Obama Administration?

[whatchamacallit]

10. I do trust it / them

at least as much as you can trust any president's administration. With the looming disaster Obama has to deal with, I won't be surprised if he takes a pass on re-investigating 911. Don't assume that to mean there's nothing there, it could just mean he doesn't have the bandwidth, resources, and support, to do it.

[SDuderstadt]

12. So it could potentially be LIHOP or MIHOP and he....

doesn't want to look into it? Or, as is much more likely, he doesn't believe there's anything there.

[whatchamacallit]

15. I'll go slow

Think of it in the same way as we're told to think about Pelosi and Reid's refusal to impeach Bush; there's plenty of good reason to, but it's not politically expedient and the support among colleagues is insufficient. Neither of us knows what Obama really believes (oh wait you do, you're SDuderstadt and you formally studied logic - lol!), so your opinion is of little use.

[hack89]

16. But now all the NIST scientist and all the others involved in the cover up

will come forward, won't they? Surely the Obama administration will not actively suppress their voices like Bush did?

[whatchamacallit]

17. Quite possibly they will

Give it a little time.

[SDuderstadt]

19. And, when they don't?

Will you be willing to admit you were possibly wrong?

[whatchamacallit]

22. Absolutely

The difference between you and I, and this is significant, is that while I admit I don't have all the answers (the truth may be the OCT), you actually believe you know it all. I doubt that serves you as well as you think...

[SDuderstadt]

25. You have no fucking idea what I believe and....

you certainly are not a mind reader, so I'd take it easy with trying to tell me what my state of mind is. I have never ever claimed to "know it all". Have you ever heard of the term "worthy opponent"? Maybe if you treated us that way, we'd have a more civil debate.

[whatchamacallit]

28. Ha, right (nt)

[jberryhill]

21. What are they waiting for?

Why are those traitors not singing like canaries right now?

[whatchamacallit]

23. What are you waiting for

the second coming?

[jberryhill]

40. I don't have any inside information about 9/11

Sorry bud, but they left me out of the plan completely. That's why I have to work for chump change keeping the lid on the whole thing at DU. If the dam breaks here in the DU 9/11 forum, the whole international conspiracy will fall apart.

Anywho, I was referring to those whistleblowers who were cowed into submission by the threat of job loss in the Bush administration. Why are they keeping silent now?

[SDuderstadt]

18. I didn't say I knew what Obama thinks...

I said it's just as likely that he doesn't think anything is there. Nice strawman. It would actually help you to study Logic sometime. I suspect you go slow all the time.

[whatchamacallit]

27. Help me how?

Frankly, it's hard to follow the educational recommendations of one who so utterly fails to impress. Maybe you and a mirror should get a room.

[SDuderstadt]

35. I really don't care if I...

fail to impress you. You certainly don't seem to be impressed by critical thinking. Bye.

[greyl]

39. "I'll be relieved that I can trust the government again."?

Never, ever, never, never, ever, ever - trust the government. Always seek corroboration and/or your own sound reasoning for anything particular they say.

Individuals, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of earning trust, though it's still not a horrible idea to substantiate things.

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. funny you should mention election fraud

That's another area where respected experts have done extensive research that tends to infirm the alternative accounts. I guess the good news is that they aren't generally vilified by the 'skeptics,' as the contributors to the NIST report are; rather, they're generally ignored.

In both domains, there is perfectly legitimate investigation to be done -- but in both domains, many of the people who call loudest for an investigation don't seem to know how to assess evidence. So it seems unlikely that many of them would ever be satisfied by an honest investigation. I don't say this to oppose legitimate investigation, but it worries me.

[LARED]

20. You're working under a mistaken idea that the "woo people"

will ever apologize and shut up.

To them there will always be something that doesn't add up, or something they don't understand so by default no one can understand. All one needs to do is look around the Internet at the millions of sites devoted to woo.

[whatchamacallit]

24. That's tough shit for them

but not an excuse for not completing the record.

[jberryhill]

26. Why does that rhyme with....

...if Obama wanted to end the controversy, he'd just show his birth certificate.

The fact is that would not end the birther "controversy" any more than it would end the 9/11 inside job "controversy".

[whatchamacallit]

29. Sure man, those are equivalent

:crazy: When y'all pretend there's no real issues, questions, or controversy, surrounding the official version of 911, it's *you* who seem like the nut cases.

[AZCat]

30. I don't think any of us have ever "pretended" that.

It may be unanimous (I don't know because I haven't checked), but the so-called "OCTers" are just as interested in an investigation into the Bush Administration and its connection to September 11th as you are - it's just that we don't agree about the purpose of such an investigation, nor do we probably agree how it should be handled.

[jberryhill]

31. Yup....

...nor do I believe that if it doesn't get the "correct" result will anyone think the controversy is "ended".

[AZCat]

32. I think some people would be satisfied.

But it would be naive to deny there are those out there who will never be satisfied.

[whatchamacallit]

33. Finally someone I respect ;-)

Hey AZ. I think what you're saying is generally true, but we spend so much time fighting about *everything* it's hard to remember it. I for one don't feel the record is complete, and there are a lot of troubling aspects of the official account that don't square with my observations. Sometimes the opposition to looking at any part of the official story is so extreme that, to me, it seems more like fear than reason.

[jberryhill]

34. It's not "opposition" to looking at it...

...but a lot of what gets recycled here has been looked at a number of times, so there is a certain impatience with things like "Silverstein said 'pull it'" arguments for the umpteenth time.

It's like being constantly interrupted while watching a movie by someone who wanders in halfway through and wants to know what's going on.

[whatchamacallit]

37. Ha, that was actually funny. (nt)

[AZCat]

36. The record isn't complete.

The mistake is made when one assumes that it can somehow be completed. Events like those that occurred on September 11th, with their thousands (if not millions) of overlapping, intertwining narratives, will rarely display any sort of coherence. We humans are fallible recording machines, and any story necessarily composed largely of those records will display the same gaps and discontinuities as our individual recollections. The physical evidence, which one would like to rely on as "unbiased", is only seen through the perspectives of those who saw, handled, and ultimately analyzed it.

I read a marvelous essay some years ago about Custer's last stand at Little Bighorn. The author pointed out the disparate narratives told by various groups, and told how a visitor's center planned for the site was being tugged to and fro by these groups in their efforts to get their narrative expressed by the center's exhibits. She made a good point, I felt, in pointing out that the story of the events will likely never be resolved between the groups, and that the visitor's would best be served by providing materials presenting more than one viewpoint and then letting them decide. While I agree with her that resolution is unlikely in these circumstances (disagreement between people whose world views are widely divergent who have good reason not to trust each other and a sketchy historical record), I'm not sure her solution is wholly acceptable. How would we all feel, for example, if neo-Nazis were allowed space within the Holocaust Memorial to express their views on said event, or if Al Queda (assuming for the moment that they exist and are truly as advertised) were given the opportunity to hand out materials at Ground Zero in Manhattan explaining why so many people deserved to die?

Suffice to say I don't think there are good answers to resolving the conflict between the major groups interested in September 11th. I think further investigation would do little to calm the more wild-eyed ones. I think it would be nice to "firm up" the narrative by clarifying some of the more nebulous explanations provided by various members of the Bush Administration (the August 6th PDB would be interesting reading, IMO) but I don't think we will ever reach an accord. There will always be a schism between those who feel in their gut there is still something hidden behind the curtain and those of us who think we have seen enough to satisfy our questions.

[whatchamacallit]

38. Great post man

Thanks.

[noise]

41. I don't agree

We don't know because of government secrecy. The burden is on the torture happy officials to back up their stupid account. They have failed to do so in over seven years.

Some suggest they are hiding incompetence. That doesn't even make sense as the so called official account suggests everyone in US intel is unable to tie their shoes. So one can reasonably conclude that whatever they are hiding is worse than incompetence.

[Realityhack]

43. +1 n/t

[jberryhill]

42. Sincere Question For You

Did the 1970's House Select Committee on Assassinations "end" any significant controversy relative to the JFK assassination?

Yes or no, and if "no", why not?