To the Editor:
I’ve sent this letter to Senator John Kerry.
You claim you read your constituents comments “diligently.” After numerous attempts, with e-mails and by telephone, I have yet to receive any kind of official response from your office regarding my complaints about the 911 Commission, which admitted, admitted, that it never looked for nor considered any evidence of controlled demolitions in the destruction and ultimate collapse of WTC Building #7.
As more people are becoming alarmingly aware, this was the 50-story, steel building never even hit by a plane, yet it fell in perfect, quintessential, controlled demolition fashion (see youtube.com) following the destruction of WTC #1 and #2.
The commission’s reasoning for this blatant, intentional failure is even more bizarre: Because it was “highly improbable” that the Islamic fundamentalists had either access to or the technological wherewithal to transport, plant, and detonate such devices.
Fine. Maybe someone else did it? But such evidence shouldn’t dismiss itself. Because the evidence still remains. What’s effected and should be brought into question is the foregone conclusion, not the evidence.
My question to you is this: Since when does any thorough and complete investigation not consider any and all evidence simply because it cannot be corroborated by a forgone conclusion, determined in this case by coerced confessions of illegally held and tortured (water boarded) suspects who, by the way, were inaccessible to those conducting the 911 investigation?
(A joint letter, signed by then-Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Ashcroft, prohibited interviews by the 911 Commission of detainees, as doing so would “compromise National Security and ongoing interrogations.”)
Torture, we must remember, is criminally outlawed around the world (except here and now in the USA), because it is not only inhumane but unreliable in establishing the truth. So, the investigation learns not from its own investigating/interrogations but through another, separate source (CIA), what the conclusion is and, starting with that conclusion, determines what evidence should be allowed or dismissed to complete its report.
How backwards is this? It is the difference, sadly, between a government report (such as the Warren Commission Report and the 911 Commission Report), incapable of investigating itself, and a pure, unbiased, independent investigation, the former unable to ask the tough questions that a real prosecutor would ask in chasing down contradictory testimony under oath to find out who is lying and why.
One doesn’t have to be a demolition expert, trained as I was by the Navy, to know the difference between a building collapsing or a building exploding (or imploding). Ask your local fire chief how a building on fire collapses. They don’t go down intact, uniformly. And last time I checked, steel doesn’t catch fire by office furniture. Go watch “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” or any number of old westerns where the bad guys blow up the bank (or train car) to get the money. Construction materials fly up and out, all over the place, rather than falling straight down with gravity. How else do you explain multi-ton steel girders impaled in adjacent buildings, across the street, 600 feet away, rather than at the base of the supposedly collapsed building?
Indulge us, please, senator. Hypothetically, if a six-year-old girl is murdered with plenty of evidence at the crime scene, (DNA, fingerprints, blood type, etc.), all pointing to the mother as perpetrator, can you imagine an investigation actually dismissing such evidence on the grounds that it would be highly improbable that any mother would want to murder her own child, and therefore it couldn’t be the mother, in spite of the evidence? So, any and all evidence pointing to the mother, now or in the future, should be ignored and laughed at?
At issue is not a lack of patriotism or lunatic conspiracy theory or the need to move on. At issue are good, valid, intuitive, scientific questions, put forth by a growing number of concerned scholars and professionals, fellow Americans, that are being stonewalled by our representatives, afraid of being asked by a less than curious, monopolistic and complicit mainstream media. At issue are the carefully evolved principles of what makes for standard and proper investigative protocol upon which our laws and system of justice is based. What’s needed are answers to these questions, not ad hominem attacks on those who would have the audacity to ask them. If you were in our shoes, is this the way you would like your representatives to act?
Our politicians are fooling no one but themselves. The people know that those who are most afraid to investigate and who hamper proper investigation have the most to fear from the truth. No politician wants to be the last one to see the light. Ultimately, any and all discourse on any number of important issues facing us and the world, be it the environment, the economy, healthcare, education, is meaningless without proper representation and a government in which we can trust.
Nick van NesWest Tisbury
