It's official! Over 1,500 Architects and Engineers demand a reinvestigation into 9/11!
What an accomplishment! This is great news for the upcoming 10 year 9/11 anniversary.
About a week ago, I posted in a couple of forums that AE911Truth was just short of 1,500 A&E's and just short of 12,000 other supporters -- and invited folks to read and sign up if they agreed. I recommend we do this -- remind people of this opportunity to join the quest.
(At the same time, several have told me that the call for a "Congressional investigation" as it says in the petition is NOT reasonable, that Congress would not be a desirable body to conduct a fair and open investigation... just a note -- something we should discuss further in the 9/11 truth community perhaps.
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.
If public pressure becomes sufficiently intense then I think a congressional investigation could occur, or perhaps something at the international level. Awareness just has to reach a tipping point, a critical mass. If that happens I wouldn't worry about officials compromising the investigation because there would be too much pressure on them to do it right. It would be a revolutionary time and I think the assumption that we could be duped by another 911 commission style fiasco would be out of the question.
would have to happen in the United States before a real investigation into this issue could actually take place.
The fact that it did happen there says it could happen anywhere.
So I would agree with you if there was enough pressure mounted by the populace and the majority of the military sided with the public.
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.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"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
"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."
And what about the American Institute of Architects (AIA)?
Raising awareness in these institutions and ideally getting some of them aboard would have a vastly greater effect than raising awareness among the populace at large.
Dan and Vesa,
Richard Gage did approach the American Institute of Architects and they declined to take a stance as an organization.
Generally, these organizations are reluctant to take on a controversial public position while speaking for the group. So unless the majority of their membership is moving in that direction they won't touch it. This means that in cases like we have here that educating members individually needs to be done first.
AE911Truth was able to get booths at AIA conventions so the AIA is not against discussing the issue and educating its members on it.
job... the NIST reports are false explanations. The people at NIST involved in the shameful lies and obfuscations we've seen, must be held to account.
"When asked whether it (NIST) had carried out tests for explosives on 911, NIST said it had not.” Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” NIST, August 30, 2006 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
When a reporter asked NIST spokesman Michael Newman why not, he replied: “Because there was no evidence of that.” When the reporter asked the obvious follow-up question, “How can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?”
Newman replied: “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers’ money.”
Translation, it's a white wash, coverup and we are only robbing the taxpayers like everyone else in on the scam..