and like you I don't expect them to either.

As you know, they have been given a great deal of information contradicting the present government reports on how the three high-rises collapsed. Unfortunately, so far it has been to no avail, and they don't seem to feel the need to answer the many serious and legitimate outstanding questions and contradictory evidence.

Without providing any evidence against him, I would bet many congress members would probably just say "Look we got Osama bin Laden. Doesn't that settle the 911 issue? It was the hijacked aircraft hitting the buildings and the fires that took them down, and you are nuts to think otherwise".

The fact that a large number of emergency personnel are on record stating that they saw, heard, or felt explosions in the buildings before and during the collapses should have caused any legitimate investigation to question anyone who had access to the interiors of those buildings like those involved in security, maintenance, and contract work. The fact that this was never done is amazing when you think about it. It is even more amazing after the findings in the dust were divulged.

I would also like to see the destruction of steel evidence from all three of the buildings, before it could be examined in an appropriate failure analysis, investigated. Nobody has ever been questioned with regard to that, which is also amazing. It is even more amazing given the fact that it is known it was done by Rudy Giuliani and his dept. of design and construction.

Unfortunately, it can only be high level politics stopping a real investigation from occurring, because the evidence showing any reasonable honest person that one is needed is there. The game plan from the start had to be to provide a fraudulent natural cause and patsies, get rid of the obvious contradictory evidence, ignore remaining contradictory evidence in official reports which blame the patsies and use the fraudulent natural cause to provide a narrative that would seem plausible to an unsuspecting majority, and stonewall any continuing questions while denigrating those asking them as conspiracy theorists or worse.

Finding a realistic venue for an investigation should be something considered and discussed, as you say, and I think it has been to some degree. NYC CAN & AE911Truth are trying to get the NYC government to investigate the collapse of WTC 7. They do have jurisdiction but never used it in this case. If they try to blame that on Osama bin Laden I am sure many of us would be all ears as to how he and 19 hijackers could have planted the demolition devices obviously needed to generate the 8 story freefall the building experienced.

First, Congratulations to Richard Gage and everyone involved in this great success.

I think we can get a fair congressional investigation to some degree such as the Commission on Presidential Assassinations which was able to conclude that the Kennedy murder was probably a conspiracy. I presume the "probable" declaration was due to a lack of hard proof of who the trigger man was. Despite this conclusion however no new investigation was ever conducted. Despite 75% of public disagreeing with the Warren Commission Report, there is no call for a new forensic investigation. As for an international investigation, I tend to think that most would not want foreigners digging through or deepest security secrets trying to find the perpetrators. I would be more in favor of an empowered citizens commission to handle the investigation internally and unless there is sufficient evidence of international involvement, we could appoint an international panel.

But to get any action, we must still keep up public pressure so this question is for Prof. Jones, Tony, et al that belong to professional organizations. It has been my perception that we have done much to provide evidence of the WTC demolitions, however, I don't feel we've enough to inform the public of just how fraudulent the NIST reports are. For example, the recent Jonathan Kay "debate" with Richard Gage, Paul Zarembka, and Barrie Zwicker; Kay implied that none of his detractors or "truthers" in general haven't read the reports and implies that these reports have answered all the questions about demolitions. Of course anyone who watched Kevin Ryan's presentation at the WTC7 symposium or read DRG's Mysterious Collapse of WTC7 would know just how false these reports are. Do you think presentations of the inadequacies of these reports to professional organizations such as American Academy of Sciences, ASCE, American Assoc of Physics Teachers (where I know David Chandler has spoken), etc.. would be productive? I think the goal would be to see if we could get official votes or stances by their governing councils on the validity of these reports. It has been my recent experience that pointing out the falsehoods and lack of evidence that support NIST conclusions to be very effective. What do you think? I appreciate your feedback.

dan
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction."
John F. Kennedy