Jones Beene wrote:
... in case you are unaware of it, it can be a serious crime in
itself to have evidence of another's serious crime EVEN IF YOUR ARE
NOT INVOLVED - and to fail to make some effort to report it. Does
"accessory after the fact" ring a bell?
Of course, he and many others who were NOT involved in any way in
the initial incident "could be" prosecuted for a serious felony as
accessories - and - this sad fact would be the** leverage** that
some folks in government could be using to ensure continuing silence.
You are saying he is committing a crime by not speaking up, and the
government is using this as a lever to prevent him from . . .
speaking up. Right? So why didn't he speak up in the first place?!?
And do you really seriously imagine that thousands of other experts
like him in every country in the world are also magically under the
gun, including experts in Japan where the U.S. federal government has
no jurisdiction? Please note they concur with the NIST findings.
Agencies in Japan and all over the world are changing fire standards
in response to NIST's recommendations. You seem to be suggesting they
were duped or intimidated by people who have no authority over them.
This is Alice-and-Wonderland logic if ever I heard it.
I believe you have jumped the shark, as the expression goes.
To get full cooperation, any investigation would absolutely have to
give immunity, or else this witness or any other would be foolish to
come forward now . . .
People write books criticizing government actions and revealing
conspiracies (both real and imaginary) all the time. All he would
have to say is: "after due consideration and careful study I now
believe . . ." Voila, he is off the hook. (An imaginary hook in this case.)
If he or anyone had found evidence back then, any evidence at all
pointing to a hasty demolition to bring down a crippled building,
and of course, given that there were deaths or injuries involved,
both prior to and after the demolition - and if he had withheld that
information - even if he was ordered at the time to withhold it by
Federal or State authorities, then he is at risk.
You are saying the information is in the public domain in the form of
photographs and so on. Which is it? Is it secret or public? If it is
public, then the only thing that Loizeaux has withheld in this
scenario would be an expert opinion, and no one is ever obliged to
give an expert opinion outside of an official inquiry or trial. Plus,
as I said anyone can change his opinion.
Unless Loizeaux is hiding melted samples of material in a warehouse
somewhere he could not possibly be guilty of hiding anything or doing
anything against the law.
- Jed
