From what i understand Pearl Harbor had 3 investigations. Why shouldn't there be another for 9/11? Some say it would be a waste of money. We waste so much money on the dumbest things. This wouldn't be so dumb.
I have stated many times. A missile didn't hit the pentagon nor was the WTC's wired with explosives. The evidence doesn't add up. Not even close. However, there are blaring issues with our intelligence agencies and with the Saudi's. Something another investigation would shed light on. My belief is, (and its only a belief) that another investigation would uncover serious incompetence on our part.
There is already more than enough evidence to show gross dereliction of duty. So that's the route to take toward a meaningful investigation. Focusing on the chain of command that day would answer all the basic questions as to whether this was allowed to happen. That would be step one.
If sufficient evidence were to support the idea that certain military leaders deliberately stood down, freezing our defenses, it would open the floodgates toward exploring the "made to happen" angle, including the possible use of explosives as supplementation.
As for the explosives idea itself, there are very solid reports made by many credible people that there
were in fact explosions shortly before the planes hit. No matter how this particular aspect were to play out in the end, it is very compelling evidence that would carry tremendous weight in any courtroom, period.
As to the Pentagon attack, the thought of a missile hitting it
rather than a plane doesn't make sense for obvious reasons, but a missile
in addition to a plane would actually correlate with the supplementation theory of the WTC.
Again, none of these last questions could be answered until step one is accomplished and the floodgates were opened.
And I haven't yet heard any argument as to why step one couldn't be accomplished.