I've been thinking a lot about 9/11 lately . . . [View All]

[OneBlueSky]

and particularly how the more we learn, the more the "official" story sounds implausible . . . yet most Americans still believe the official story as constructed by BushCo for reasons that, at this point, only they know . . .

I believe that there is enough physical evidence -- supported by other evidence -- to conclude that a) the planes were not the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers (and certainly not WTC7); b) something other than a jetliner hit the Pentagon (the photo evidence is more than convincing); and c) that Flight 93 exploded in the air (probably the result of a missile hitting it) . . . unfortunately, most Americans haven't seen the relevant evidence, and those in control are still disputing that evidence every time it's brought up . . .

a great deal could be accomplished by proving that this evidence IS conslusive, and by communicating same to the voters . . . if presented by authoritative and trustworthy sources, conclusions based on physical evidence would go a long way toward a) creating demand for a REAL, thorough investigation of 9/11, particularly what actually happened on that day, and b) defeating BushCo in November . . .

I'd like to toss out an idea to the various organizations concerned with learning the truth about 9/11 . . . they should think about getting together and jointly constituting a panel of individuals with impeccable credentials to answer, for the public, three questions:

1) Were the planes that hit the Twin Towers the cause of their collapse?

2) Was it physically possible for what hit the Pentagon to have been a jetliner?

3) Did Flight 93 explode before it hit the ground?

the panel should consist of at least one (possibly two) of the following: architects; structural engineers; physicists; fire investigators; aircraft experts; and persons with whatever other kinds of expertise would help the investigation . . . someone -- an individual, an agency, a foundation -- should be found to fund a very comprehensive examination of the evidence relevant to each question by the panel . . . I'm confident that, just by examining available evidence and the laws of physics, their answers to the questions would be 1) no; 2) no; and 3) yes . . . the investigation would have to be done quickly, so these folks should be prepared to work full-time for several weeks or a couple of months if necessary . . . might have to appeal to their sense of patriotism, i.e. they'd be performing an invaluable service to their country (and, in reality, to the world) . . .

people know that the Commission is a political body and that its findings will be political . . . this alternative panel must have instant credibility, and that can only happen if its members are qualified, impartial, and well-respected in their fields . . . no politicians allowed, and no one with ties to either party . . . if the panel earns the respect and confidence of the public right up front, their findings could be the blockbuster that's needed to start finding out the truth about 9/11 and to defeating BushCo in November . . .

just a thought . . . think it's worth pursuing? . . .