. Therefore, if at least one representative would be willing to challenge murder charges against the Speaker of the House, on the basis of incontrovertible evidence and, perhaps, out of mere political loyalty, why wouldn’t at least one representative rise to challenge the scientific impossibility of the 9/11 Commission Report? Have we gone so far astray from the principles of law and justice in this republic as to allow the Executive Branch of the federal governmenI have a difficult time understanding how any honest and upright representative or senator, of the 109th Congress, can not consider the scientific impossibility of ten tons of steel and titanium, the amount of material comprising the engines of the Boeing 757 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, being consumed in a kerosene jet fuel fire as incontrovertible evidence that a Boeing 757 did not crash into the Pentagon. Furthermore, if the sore lack of 757 aircraft wreckage and the dearth of remains of, what would inevitably be, a large quantity of engine material does not point to misrepresentations by the 9/11 Commission, what would? If it was a scientific impossibility for such a crash to yield almost zero wreckage of airframe and engine materials, and if the only conclusion that one could have drawn was that such an aircraft could not have crashed into the Pentagon, where, pray tell, are the alleged passengers that supposedly perished in the crash? Moreover, if a Boeing 757 did not crash into the Pentagon, as alleged by the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, what doubt does that throw on the government’s allegations that terrorists in high-jacked commercial airliners were totally responsible for the collapses of the WTC towers?

If there is not one bold senator or representative in Congress willing to officially contest the findings of the 9/11 Commission, this republic is in serious trouble. If, perchance, charges were brought against the Speaker of the House for personally murdering an associate member of the House, supposedly at the same time he was standing in full view at the podium, presiding over the House chamber, I am doubly sure that at least one representative, of either party, would have the temerity to stand and refute the charges on the basis of the impossibility of the Speaker committing the act. Therefore, if at least one representative would be willing to challenge murder charges against the Speaker of the House, on the basis of incontrovertible evidence and, perhaps, out of mere political loyalty, why wouldn’t at least one representative rise to challenge the scientific impossibility of the 9/11 Commission Report? Have we gone so far astray from the principles of law and justice in this republic as to allow the Executive Branch of the federal government

e lack of 757 aircraft wreckage and the dearth of remains of, what would inevitably be, a large quantity of engine material does not point to misrepresentations by the 9/11 Commission, what would? If it was a scientific impossibility for such a crash to yield almost zero wreckage of airframe and engine materials, and if the only conclusion that one could have drawn was that such an aircraft could not have crashed into the Pentagon, where, pray tell, are the alleged passengers that supposedly perished in the crash? Moreover, if a Boeing 757 did not crash into the Pentagon, as alleged by the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, what doubt does that throw on the government’s allegations that terrorists in high-jacked commercial airliners were totally responsible for the collapses of the WTC towers?

If there is not one bold senator or representative in Congress willing to officially contest the findings of the 9/11 Commission, this republic is in serious trouble. If, perchance, charges were brought against the Speaker of the House for personally murdering an associate member of the House, supposedly at the same time he was standing in full view at the podium, presiding over the House chamber, I am doubly sure that at least one representative, of either party, would have the temerity to stand and refute the charges on the basis of the impossibility of the Speaker committing the act. Therefore, if at least one representative would be willing to challenge murder charges against the Speaker of the House, on the basis of incontrovertible evidence and, perhaps, out of mere political loyalty, why wouldn’t at least one representative rise to challenge the scientific impossibility of the 9/11 Commission Report? Have we gone so far astray from the principles of law and justice in this republic as to allow the Executive Branch of the federal governmen

passengers that supposedly perished in the crash? Moreover, if a Boeing 757 did not crash into the Pentagon, as alleged by the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, what doubt does that throw on the government’s allegations that terrorists in high-jacked commercial airliners were totally responsible for the collapses of the WTC towers?

If there is not one bold senator or representative in Congress willing to officially contest the findings of the 9/11 Commission, this republic is in serious trouble. If, perchance, charges were brought against the Speaker of the House for personally murdering an associate member of the House, supposedly at the same time he was standing in full view at the podium, presiding over the House chamber, I am doubly sure that at least one representative, of either party, would have the temerity to stand and refute the charges on the basis of the impossibility of the Speaker committing the act. Therefore, if at least one representative would be willing to challenge murder charges against the Speaker of the House, on the basis of incontrovertible evidence and, perhaps, out of mere political loyalty, why wouldn’t at least one representative rise to challenge the scientific impossibility of the 9/11 Commission Report? Have we gone so far astray from the principles of law and justice in this republic as to allow the Executive Branch of the federal governmen

ssion, this republic is in serious trouble. If, perchance, charges were brought against the Speaker of the House for personally murdering an associate member of the House, supposedly at the same time he was standing in full view at the podium, presiding over the House chamber, I am doubly sure that at least one representative, of either party, would have the temerity to stand and refute the charges on the basis of the impossibility of the Speaker committing the act. Therefore, if at least one representative would be willing to challenge murder charges against the Speaker of the House, on the basis of incontrovertible evidence and, perhaps, out of mere political loyalty, why wouldn’t at least one representative rise to challenge the scientific impossibility of the 9/11 Commission Report? Have we gone so far astray from the principles of law and justice in this republic as to allow the Executive Branch of the federal governmen. Therefore, if at least one representative would be willing to challenge murder charges against the Speaker of the House, on the basis of incontrovertible evidence and, perhaps, out of mere political loyalty, why wouldn’t at least one representative rise to challenge the scientific impossibility of the 9/11 Commission Report? Have we gone so far astray from the principles of law and justice in this republic as to allow the Executive Branch of the federal government to deceive the nation with impunity?

There were many facts about the happenings on 9/11 which were not even considered by the panel of politicians that comprised the 9/11 Commission. Had there, instead, been a panel of nine apolitical police chiefs from nine cities in nine different states to have comprised the commission, I sincerely believe that the conclusions about the causes of 9/11 would have been greatly different. Ordinary police officers, unaffected by political consequence, are usually determined to ferret out the relevant and material facts and to place the blame for the crimes squarely upon the shoulders of those culpable perpetrators.

I won’t pursue it to any degree in this writing, but will only say that the Blue Ribbon Commission that investigated the Japanese surprise attack at Pearl Harbor, from 1942 until 1944, was as much a farce as the 9/11 Commission. They were pretty much the same in purpose, to produce a political ruse to ensure that no blame would fall on the President of the United States or any part of the Executive Branch. I will only encourage concerned Americans to read Dr. Charles Tansill’s book, “Backdoor to War: Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1939-41,” and the book, “The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11,” if they want to understand how two separate presidential administrations can succeed in being directly responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans and foreign nationals, and be equally successful in deceiving the American public into believing that they were totally blameless.

Now, nearly six years after 9/11, the 110th U.S. Congress-to-be appears ready to disregard the impeachable offenses, for which incontrovertible evidence shows that George W. Bush and Richard Cheney were directly responsible. If this happens, and Bush and Cheney are allowed