Call for Euro-911 enquiry

[astro3]

CALL FOR A EURO-ENQUIRY

Its time to organize an international Euro-9/11 enquiry. It has to happen before the end of this decade. I suggest the four cities London, Berlin Amsterdam and Madrid. Each of these needs to have steering committees to organize their event. I suggesting a four-part, four stage process. It could be more but that is a minimum.

I’ve twice tried to propose this at London meetings and each time Ian Neil has spoken in opposition to the idea. So I guess the Founder of our movement will oppose the concept! I suggest liasing with the Bertrand Russell Foundation (Nottingham) to use their expertise in holding and organizing the events. I oppose the current ‘Reopen 9/11’ campaign insofar as it is calling for someone else to organize the event, it is too late for such useless daydreaming.

If the Euro 9/11 movement does not go for this event, it will peter out into insignificance. This event has to be the fulfillment and destiny and meaning of the 911 Truth movement. The different UK groups (Reopen 9/11, Whole Truth Coalition, We Are Change, All Faiths for 9/11 Truth, All Faiths Against Terrorism) could get together for an initial discussion.

I suggest that two people are fairly vital, one is the Icelandic lawyer Elias Davidson to design and approve the way it would proceed, the other is Cynthia McKinney, recent Green US Presidential candidate. We should invite her to be some kind of figurehead and her presence would have enormous media effect in conferring credibility. We would ask her to turn up at preferably each stage of the event.

Each of these events would have two or three modules. Modules could be dedicated to, eg, ‘MIHOP versus LIHOP’, or, ‘What hit the Pentagon?’, and each could be one day or half a day for some. Suppose these two day-event modules were held in Amsterdam – maybe in the latter part of 2009: in that case, the Amsterdam steering committee there would receive proposals for material to be submitted and it would have the job of sifting through what was of decent caliber to be included. This would have to start a good six months before the event.

People will take this event seriously if we ourselves take it seriously. I believe funding will flow in once people see that this event is really going to be ‘the’ Enquiry and there is unlikely to be any other. An announced appeal for expert testimonies would go out, and we’d see who responded. For example, suppose someone from Canada wanted to come and give evidence concerning the seismic tremors recorded during the collapse of the Towers: if his credentials were OK, then she/ he is invited. They are given the assurance, that their evidence is included in Proceedings that will be published - our one commitment. We don’t undertake to pay travel expenses.

It would be up to the national steering committees organizing this multi-stage event, whether they wanted to include ‘extraordinary science’ or ‘no-planes’ theories. One would tend to hope these would not have priority, or else journalists sniffing around would tend to report this and nothing else. Sound science/technology expertise would be a priority. The hardest thing would be persuading the ‘official version’ spokespersons to give evidence, but if they are not present the media will totally write off the Enquiry.

This is a credible point in time to call for such an Enquiry. The main books, we would say, have now appeared. We wanted to wait until Ian Henshall’s second book on 9/11. A proper shelfload of scholarly books are now available for the Steering Committees to consult. But, conversely, we can hardly wait any longer, otherwise real memories will begin to fade and these events will need to include testimonies from people really there.

Funding: appeals for funding would go to the big Euro-insurance companies who forked out the four billion $ to re-build Ground Zero. Silverstein re-insured the Towers with these Euro-companies weeks before they fell and they all paid up. In case these don’t help we’d approach millionaire Jimmy Walters who helped us years ago, or maybe Islamic banking sources. Such funding could pay for real lawyers to be present and grill the witnesses, which would make it all much more realistic.

Imagine a day entitled ‘Destruction of the WTC complex and environs on Sept 11th – presentations and submissions.’ Stakes would be high over who gives the evidence, and the event might get televised. First-hand witnesses, plus architects, etc. would be heard. Physicists might discuss micro-globules of vapourised steel… The hard bit here would be to find anyone prepared to stand up and argue that the collapse was due to plane collisions. But, that is needed for any sense of drama at an Enquiry.

Each of these events needs to have a panel (eg 3 people) of preferably eminent citizens, who assess the evidence. They have to sit through it. They cannot be us lot dressed up, or the media will scoff. There is a tricky balance here in that their judgements should not be predictable in advance, or else the whole enterprise will be scoffed at as a show-trial. If we could get e.g. international law professor Richard Falk (who has a chapter in Griffin’s ‘Intellectuals speak out about 911’ book) to be on one of the panels, that would be awesome. They express a conclusion at the end or maybe write a judgement.

While they are mulling over the evidence presented to them we ensure that they have a relevant ‘library’ to consult – thereby we define a bunch of relevant books. This event will have the gravitas that we give to it, the Euro-Enquiry, an event whose outcome we must not be able to control.
……………………..
For what a Citizens Enquiry can look like, maybe have a look at The Unnecessary War, The Belgrano Enquiry about the Falklands conflict, held in 1986 (Spokesman, 1988). I was on the steering Committee and four of us organised it, with minimal funding. That was a 2-day event.
N.K. Nov 26, 2008.

[ian neal]

It's not that I oppose the idea. If such a thing came to pass I would welcome it. Iit is just that I can imagine what is involved it pulling such thing together in a professional manner and I struggle to imagine it happening but I hope I'm wrong

[Stefan]

Inquiry

[TonyGosling]

'Inquiry' is the preferred U.S. English spelling.
How supremely unhelpful.

[astro3]

The new website www.reinvestigate911.org is now up. It features a totally empty blog by you, Ian. We might want a spot more clarification on whether or not you in fact believe in / do really want a Tribunal of Inquiry - or not.

I suggest that the front page of your new site is calling for a quite utopian Inquiry, which