I agree, Tony. We should not assume "they all know" that the 9/11 narrative is false, although we can assume that they know that it is not politically viable to question it. It's one thing to have heard that there are some "conspiracy theories" afoot, and another entirely to have been persuaded to spend the countless hours required to look at the evidence. Most of the information placed in front of Members of Congress' noses is filtered up through their staffs. Senators and Congresspersons are NOT sitting around their office by day or their studies by night reading 9/11 websites. In fact, they are woefully ignorant about most of the relevant details of the subjects under their purview.

As a part of the lobbying effort in D.C. the week of 9/11/07, groups played a five minute video of WTC7 collapsing, with a split screen image of a CD, for staff members of their representatives. It included the "prescient" BBC video. From all reports, the staffers were rather ho-hum with the talking points before the video was played, but increasingly bewildered and ultimately stunned during and after. They were not faking their reactions. I had the same experience playing the video while meeting with the chief of staff for a Senator and presidential candidate. We followed up with "Now you can't say you didn't know," and began talking about misprision of treason.

Bill Christison, Former National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, said that he believed himself to be speaking authoritatively for the first five years after 9/11 when questioned about the possibility of U.S. involvement. After finally deciding that he needed to educate himself -- only to inform his denial of any such possibility -- he began to change his mind. It had never for a moment occurred to him that his previous responses were ill-informed or a product of his own cognitive dissonance. He had simply made an a priori argument.

In the specific case of good old Chuckie, I would suggest that his performance in the Congressional inquiry into Waco (as can be seen in the documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" -- highly recommended), demonstrates that he either has a mondo case of congnitive dissonance when it comes to government-condoned murder OR that he makes it his nasty business to snarl and show disdain for all evidence thereof as a means to cover it up. Watch the movie for yourselves and decide. At the very least, he has been handed a debunking point (the buildings were poorly constructed) to deflect questions. This does not mean that he is aware of the credible science and authority behind the alternative scenario.