Evidence, lack of evidence, and what to do now

Item: Jim Fetzer, Steve Jones, etc. Jim's blog of a few days ago went on and on about the evidence, what shows what, etc.:

Comment: I do not believe that there is any viable material evidence from the WTC and that there most likely never will be. Analyses of the dust are interesting, but not definitive. There will never be strong evidence from any of the steel or other rubble because 1) most of it has been destroyed, 2) what is left is not representative, and 3) there has been no credible chain of custody, so we will never be able to make definitive statements based on this kind of evidence.

Item: Flight 93 crash site, the Pentagon:

Comment: Much the same as above. There never will be good physical evidence from these locations because if it has not been destroyed it has been tampered with.

Item: Phone calls from the planes:

Comment: There MAY be some evidence here if we can find the phone records. But these, too, could easily be tampered with.

Item: Atta's luggage, the passport.

Comment: Ditto.

Item: What evidence do we have?

Comment: Photos, videos, eye-witness reports, basic laws of science, the time-line, contradictions in statements given by participants, evidence of cover-up. This all comprises a strong body of very telling evidence, but it is not sufficient to legally nail down the who, what, when, where, why, how of the day.

Item: Then what do we do now?

Comment: The only way we will ever find the truth is through a Congressional investigation where statements are taken under oath and where people will be required to appear and speak to the record. Such an investigation, if conducted honestly, would quickly be able to focus on contradictory testimony, and would almost certainly produce a massive amount of new information and new leads.

Conclusion: Therefore, I believe, the best course of action is to aim for a new Congressional investigation. This means that we will either need to elect real representatives to Congress or force the reps we have to do their jobs as they swore to do.
This also means that most of what people are doing now--spreading the word, discussing the events, even looking for evidence--is time well-spent. It is also fine for people like Jones and Fetzer to argue about what the physical evidence shows or does not show, but this area of research will probably not lead anywhere without further testimony from people who were directly involved in the events of 9/11. Only Congress will be able to get that testimony. So, to me, it looks like our main goal should be to force Congress to do something.

Congress will do nothing

Most of congress is co-opted by a bunch of globalist scum and no investigation of any substance will ever come out of it from them. I am sorry but that is my opinion at this juncture in our history. I think this is all going to take more than "new investigations". I hope I am wrong.

Fetzer has no business discussing anyhting with Jones. Fetzer is not a scientist. His degree is in Philosophy (of science) (just in case you werent aware of that). And having listened to his shows with the web fairy for the past two days it seems he is on the brink of officially becoming a no-planer.
He has scheduled Killtown for may 22.

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Then what do you propose? We

Then what do you propose?
We have no evidence strong enough to indict and no deep-throats.
We have a strong circumstantial case with no official backers.
This blog has not been popular or received many comments. It's not well composed, but the ideas are sound as far as I can tell.
Only Congress will have the power to subpoena and take testimony under oath.
Where else can we take it?
What can Jones or anyone else do without evidence?
As of today, there are strong indications of what happened at the WTC, but nothing more. And no one is going to find any evidence except through sworn testimony or maybe the luck of having a deep-throat appear.
If you will notice, in the dispute between Jones and Fetzer, they both agree on one thing--the other guy can't prove what he says. And this is something we can probably all agree on.
Face it, it is very unlikely that we are going to find anymore strong material evidence. We have all the evidence we need right now to press for a new Congressional investigation.
If we do not do that, what are we going to do?
Part of any battle is understanding who and where you are and who you are up against.
We have strong circumstantial and material evidence, but little chance of getting enough to nail the case legally. The only place we can get more is through sworn testimony.

I agree with your

premise at the ideological level, but what I am saying is the game is rigged.
Believe me, I am on your side but I unfortunately have no hope left for the Congress.

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

I don't trust them either,

I don't trust them either, but what else can we do?
I do not see any other viable course of action.
A deep-throat would be very good. New material evidence is unlikely.
The best we can hope for is sworn testimony.
If you or anyone else has a better idea, please let me know.
Also, we might be able to get Congress to do something. And once a new investigation was started, they would not find it so easy to control as last time.

Bullshit alert.

"We have no evidence strong enough to indict"

Oh, really.

You from Popular Mechanics?

We have tons of evidence. What we don't have is the political will in congress or the justice (sic) department to indict, or even to investigate. Blatant perjury and dereliction of duty does not rise to their political standard.

We've got plenty of evidence. You need to be educated about it.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

OK, in a sense we do, but it

OK, in a sense we do, but it is not happening and will not happen as matters now stand.

One point I am making is that the most constructive goal for this movement is to get a new Congressional hearing.
Absent that, we will spend a lot of time and emotion on matters that will not get very far. If you can find a prosecutor who will take the case, that would be great, but it is highly unlikely--that is what is meant by "no evidence strong enough to indict" in this context. As matters stand now, we will need a deep-throat or a video of people planting explosives before any prosecutor will take this case to court.

A second point is that it is very unlikely that new material evidence (steel, physical evidence of explosives, etc.) will ever be found, and that even if it is it will not come with a reliable chain of custody.

A movement without a clear goal is a movement that weakens itself. If you can propose a better goal than new Congressional investigations, please let me know what it is.

We have strong evidence that the official story is not supported by the facts, but we do not have evidence strong enough to get a prosecutor to indict anyone. THEREFORE, we must have a new Congressional investigation where testimony can be taken under oath. I do not see any other way to get to the bottom of the matter.

Also, cut the Pop Mech crap and the "bs alert." That is beneath the tone of this forum or other items I have posted. If you have a point to make, just make it without the insults. It wastes time and emotion. We are on the same side, so why use that sort of language?

Make a proposal instead.

Run for Congress

Make a 9/11 investigation your main platform. You don't have to win to have an effect. I hope to see 9/11 truth candidates throughout the country until this is resolved.

We CAN prove their lies .

Ultimately, this is politics.
We don't NEED to prove the whole case so it holds up in court and I think it's naive to believe that anybody actually involved will ever be charged and convicted in a court of law for this.
The democrats have no interest in a trial that would expose
the full story as that would eradicate any trust in Government, so it just ain't going to happen.
What a politician can NOT afford is to get caught telling lies
and we CAN prove that both Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, the 911 Omission as well as the Pentagon brass are telling lies, lies and damned lies .
This is also why they are slowly conditioning people to accept the demolition of WTC7. It is obvious for anybody with half a brain that WTC7 didn't just collapse on it's own.
Just look at how Kerry claimed that WTC7 was news to him yet he had an explanation for it's "collapse" : "they blew it up"(I know, he didn't use the word but that WAS what he said). I can't prove it but I'm convinced Kerry gave a prepared
answer on that question.Clearly he must have known that he could get asked about it at some point?
It will end up with something along the line " we didn't want all the secrets in that building to fall into enemy-hands so we blew them up... we lied about it because we don't want people to know that important government-buildings are pre-rigged with explosives and we knew "conspiracy-theorists" would be all over us if we told the truth"

The falsity of the 9/11

The falsity of the 9/11 Commission Report has been well-documented.
And there is much "proof" about the roles of many of the players. But more needs to happen.
It is very unlikely that any more legally usable physical evidence (WTC steel, evidence of demolition, etc.) will ever be discovered.
This leaves us with two principal areas of advancing the inquiry--a deep-throat or a real investigation.
I do believe that it will be tough to get Congress to authorize another investigation, but I do not believe that this is impossible.
The House Select Committee on Assassination was convened in 1978--fifteen years after JFK was shot.
Do we want to wait that long?
The point I am trying to make here is that it is important that we objectively assess where we are now and where we can reasonably expect to take the movement.
I am not sure why this particular subject has gotten voted down so much and/or why it is not being seriously discussed elsewhere.
Do people dislike the idea that we will probably never find new material evidence? Does just mentioning the name of Fetzer turn everyone off? Are people just high on the emotion of the movement?
One more time: We have to have long-term goals. The most reasonable goal that will produce real effects is getting a new investigation authorized so that testimony can be taken under oath.
If we wait another fifteen years, no one will "remember" anymore what happened, so 9/11 will just become more water under the bridge.

In a multi-party system, this might stand a chance

...if there was a "third" party looking to gain power. But the system is in practice one of two parties, and if 9-11 was an inside job, it was probably bipartisan.

Aside: check this Slashdot story today for a lasting gift from Bill Clinton:
Total Internet surveillance, fully legal. Goes into full swing on Monday, but dates back to 1994.

In another post today you propose contacting Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. I don't know that either of them has a political death wish. Both are most likely unelectable. The main point I want to make though is this: what have they done so far? On the one hand you have people who have written books, made movies, spoke out and organized, rallied people all over the world. On the other hand, you have two congressmen whose main attraction is that they have not yet been bought and paid for. If they are the Truth Movement's only hope, we really have no hope. This is not a Hollywood movie and there will not be ONE BRAVE GUY who will save the world.

Di I have a better idea? Perhaps not. I am heartened to see the movement grow, and I think the only way to make it unstoppable is to have many millions of people on our side. Then, the media. You will probably get the media much sooner than you will the Congress.

I also am "heartened to see

I also am "heartened to see the movement grow" and agree that "we probably will get the media before we get Congress."

But ultimately, this issue will have to be investigated and only Congress has the power and jurisdiction. I mentioned Kucinich only because he has already decided to open a "limited investigation" in September.

I have been making the point about a new Congressional investigation for three main reasons:

1) It is the logical next step and in perfect accord with the scientific method. (If the theory contains serious anomalies, it must be reconsidered.)

2) Only Congress has the legal authority to require testimony under oath.

3) It is the clearest way to state our argument. For this reason, it is fairly easy to defend. It is hard for the average person to disagree with it.

I do not know how representative of the US population the answers I have gotten here have been, but they have made me think about what I am saying. I have reached a couple of conclusions since I first posted this:

1) A lot of people have zero faith in the US Congress or the US political system. That's probably a good thing because they do suck. They are a bunch of lying puppets backed up by a fake news media. Having a specific goal may depress some of the people who do not trust Congress and cause them to become even more dissatisfied and even less effective. I hope this result is not widespread.

2) The only other positive "goal" anyone has proposed is grow the movement, or as you put it "the only way to make it unstoppable is to have many millions of people on our side." I completely agree with this. I do not see any contradiction between this goal and the one of getting a new investigation (except for the point just above).

3) Maybe it is a good thing for even more people to become thoroughly dissatisfied with the US system. If that trend continues, we will truly find ourselves in a "cold civil war" as some have called it. This state would recognize that 9/11 is essentially a symptom of something much worse. As property values and the dollar fall, this outcome will become more likely. But it, too, will have to be resolved through some sort of political process.

4) By "grassroots" do we mean a lot of people, or the strong emotions of some people who feel thoroughly powerless and angry? Powerless, angry people will affect the political process, but in this country they usually become diffuse, go off in different directions, and weaken their effectiveness. Short of a revolution, which is extremely unlikely and would be far more destructive than constructive, we surely need deep reforms in the system we have--in campaign financing, lobbying rules, and the way in which issues are presented to the public by the media. Is there a better wedge issue for this than 9-11? I believe this is the best single issue we could ever hope for.

5) The internet has brought about a massive change in the media. All of us know many things about 9-11 that we would not know without the internet. Can we use this new medium to effect major change in the US? I believe the answer is yes. How will we do that? For me, the answer comes back again to having clear goals and doing whatever we can to realize them.

6) It may be too early to press for this one goal right now, but waiting can be even more perilous.

7) For me, it comes down to this: either accept your servitude and powerlessness or do something. If you are going to do something, do something that can work. Congress is made up of only a few hundred people. There are millions of us. I say, let's spend the money, make the noise, and put pressure where it counts.