New York City activist

January 23, 2008

New York City 9/11 Ballot Initiative: Any objections, please voice them NOW!

Filed under: 9/11,9/11 Truth,Les Jamieson,New York City — Diane @ 5:36 am

There has been some controversy about the New York City 9/11 Ballot Initiative in various 9/11 Truth forums. See, for example, the discussion about it in this thread in the Truth Action forum and in 911blogger threads linked there. Some people are concerned about who the named commissioners are, for example.

The petition for the New York City 9/11 Ballot Initiative is now being re-written, and it will be starting over very soon. That being the case, NOW is the time to voice your objections, if any.

I just ask that people try to keep it civil. A new and independent investigation of 9/11 is, after all, the stated goal of most of the 9/11 Truth movement. And, right now, New York 9/11 Truth and others who support the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative are, as far as I am aware, the only poeple who are working directly on that goal at the present time. (Anyone who knows otherwise, please correct me.)

Advertisements

4 Comments »

  1. Hi Diane,

    Just out of curiosity, what do you think the goals of a new investigation would be and who would lead it? Specifically, what would they do differently from NIST on the structural engineering side, and what body of people would be doing the leg work?

    Comment by newtonsbit — January 29, 2008 @ 2:27 am | Reply

  2. First off, while it would be desirable for the new investigation to include a scientific panel, what we need, primarily, is a panel similar to what the 9/11 Commission was supposed to be, i.e. an independent investigation of primarily the non-technical side of things.

    The 9/11 Commission failed to be truly independent because it was headed by Philip Zelikow, who had close ties to the Bush administration, including a close friendship with Condoleeza Rice. This, along with other ties to the Bush administration on the part of others on the Commission, rendered the 9/11 Commission unqualified to make a truly objective investigation of even the possibility of incompetence or negligence, let alone anything worse, on the part of high officials in the Bush administration.

    As for NIST, my main beef is simply that it, being directly a part of the executive branch of the federal government (i.e. a part of the Department of Commerce), similarly has a conflict of interest regarding the possibility of any findings that might in any way reflect badly on the Bush administration. In addition, NIST may have had other kinds of conflicts of interest too (about which even at least one person on your side, Frank Greening, has complained, in this post and this post on JREF).

    I am not yet prepared to critique the specifics of NIST’s methodology.

    I don’t yet have a stand on exactly who should lead the investigation, except that (1) the commissioners should be people free of conflicts of interest, and (2) this issue needs to be discussed a lot more widely than it now is.

    Comment by Diane — January 29, 2008 @ 3:45 pm | Reply

  3. Hi Diane,

    I’ve started a couple of threads about how an investigation might proceed, one at the JREF forum and one at the Loose Change Forum.

    This is, essentially, the OP of those threads:

    I suppose this is a variation on the “What sort of an investigation should be carried out?” question; but, for the sake of an intellectual exercise I’m proposing that we forget about a lot of the practical obstacles to a new investigation.

    In other words, you don’t have to worry about funding or your legal right to call and cross-examine witnesses.

    Imagine that you are in charge of a new investigation. You can call any witness you like, ask for expert testimony from anybody you want, examine all the physical evidence and records that you like. All questioning would be under oath.

    There are some limitations:

    1. All witness have the same constitutional rights as they would in a courtroom (including those provided by the Fifth Amendment).

    2. You have no special powers to tell if a witness is lying or not.

    3. There is nothing currently kept secret that would instantly and explicitly prove an inside job (for example, an unreleased Pentagon video tape; or some memo that tells the whole story and has been suppressed). For the purposes of this exercise, we have to assume that anything obvious has been kept completely secret and shared only between a small number of conspirators. As soon as orders are passed to a large number of people (NIST, NORAD, the FDNY, field officers of the CIA and FBI, etc) they would have to be constructed in such a way as to not make those people suspicious that they were participating in a terrorist attack against their own people (or in covering it up). The same must apply to any information they are made privy to. We have to assume that the number of people who really knew what was happening was small enough to ensure that nobody spilled the beans and that they all had a very good reason for conspiring.

    4. You are trying to build a case which will become the basis for a prosecution. Therefore, you can expect all your witnesses to be cross-examined and all your expert testimony to be challenged by other experts. The case that you build will have to convince a jury in the face of the best defence lawyers that money can buy. I don’t want to get too far into imagining an actual trial here, but imagine that you would have to use this investigation to produce a report to a prosecutor that would convince them it was worth going to trial.

    So, what witnesses do you call? What questions would you ask? What would ask your investigators and experts to look at?

    After all that, what do you imagine your case for the prosecution would look like?

    ————————–

    I’d be interested in seeing your thoughts on this some time. Also, if you think this is an interesting subject for discussion, feel free to post my OP on any forums you participate in.

    ————————–

    [Comment edited by blog author Diane to HTML-ize and otherwise prettify links.]

    Comment by maccy69 — January 31, 2008 @ 7:56 pm | Reply

  4. The above is a good and thoughtful question, requiring a detailed answer, which I will post at some point in the (hopefully not too distant) future.

    P.S.: I’ve posted a reply here in the thread on the Loose Change board.

    Comment by Diane — February 1, 2008 @ 2:22 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: