I'm flying home from Vancouver after participating in the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings. The memory of the Canadian customs official questioning me as I entered Canada is vivid in my mind. After asking me what conference I was attending, I replied, "the 911 Vancouver Hearings."
While hoping that would be a sufficient answer, he followed quickly with another question.
"And, what is your role?" he asked.
"As a speaker," I replied.
"Okay, you may go."
And as if to add an exclamation point, he came down with the stamp machine on my passport.
With an inner sigh of relief, I promptly moved on, almost afraid I would be called back for further questions.
Fast forward to the opening session. I really was thinking of this as a conference. Calling it a Hearings was, I thought, just a quirky little thing. Something like giving it some spin to make it sound more dignified. But, soon it would become clear there was a good reason these were called Hearings.
A panel of jurists, headed by Judge Alfred Lambremont Webre, would be hearing evidence from each of the witnesses. I was to be one of the witnesses.
I listened closely as the first witness was called. Judge Webre swore him in, asking him to affirm he would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The first witness was also asked to state his qualifications as it relates to the area of 9/11 research.
At the end of the first session at which three witnesses testified, Judge Webre asked each of them to identify two or more individuals for which prima facia evidence exists indicating they should be questioned.
This grabbed my attention. I immediately realized I would be asked the same question, and that would be taking a big "next step." I always had placed myself solidly on the "what happened" question. It was for others some time later to ask the "who did it" question.
My time to be called as a witness was the next day, nearly 24 hours later. Not enough time, it seemed, to sufficiently mull over two difficult questions. One; what qualified me to be a witness on the destruction of the Twin Towers? And two; who would I name as, in my terminology, "persons of interest"?
The idea of being qualified as a witness brought back to mind my answer to a question asked of me many times in my stint being a 9/11 activist -- “aren't you afraid to be speaking out so publicly about 9/11?” My answer has always been -- no, because I hidn't witnessed anything. I've never considered myself a witness or in any kind of danger. But, now, I'm suddenly looking for a reason why I am qualified to be a witness.
I did decide it made sense to be a witness on the Twin Towers destructions because of my experience as an engineering general manager. There wasn't any particular discipline that would make me that much more qualified, in that the breadth of disciplines possibly involved in the Twin Towers destructions was quite large, indeed.
As it turned out among Internet chatter the next day, I was accused of not being qualified because I was not an architect. Or maybe the criticism was that I was more qualified in other areas, such as with airplane issues. I would agree, I am more qualified with airplane issues, but I feel I am adequately qualified in general engineering and matters involving the laws of physics. The Twin Towers destructions certainly falls within those areas.
My presentation on assessing alternative theories on the Twin Tower destructions was meant to propose a process for evaluating evidence. I illustrated the process by assessing four theories against nine issues. This is limited both in number of theories considered, and number of issues considered. Thus, this example shouldn’t be a final answer. However, in this limited assessment, there was one issue, radionuclides, that made a strong difference in support of nuclear devices of some sort. So, the matter of who would be my top two persons of interest was logically associated in a negative sense to that issue.
I decided, from the evidence that I put forward in my presentation, the most troubling information pertained to the concentration levels of elements found in the dust, as reported by the USGS. Although USGS apparently didn't recognize the significance of these measurements, several different 9/11 truth researchers have reported the strong correlation between certain elements that correlate with nuclear fission. This, I conclude, makes the strong implication that the isotopes of these elements must be radionuclides, that is, radioactive.
Having radionuclides in the rubble must have been known by those behind this treasonous event, and been of great concern that their presence must be covered up. The first person that comes to mind when I think of hiding the rubble is Mayor Rudi Giuliani. He was the one who ordered immediate removal of the debris, and therefore should be a person of interest for the criminal destruction of evidence.
The second person I identified, tentatively at this point, was Michael Chertoff. At the time (2001), he headed the criminal division of the Department of Justice. My understanding is that Chertoff had authority over the part of the FBI conducting the WTC investigation. Many indicators suggest this part of the FBI was primarily hiding any evidence related to the WTC debris from the public, rather than conducting a serious investigation. I will investigate further this possible connection between Chertoff and the FBI before deciding if the “tentative” qualifier should be removed.