In all frankness, we do NOT KNOW what the TRUTH is.

But we DO KNOW what the LIE is.

We KNOW what we have been told is a lie because it directly conflicts with the LAWS OF SCIENCE and the PRINCIPLES OF ENGINEERING, PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY, and is in unprecedented opposition to ALL HISTORY OF STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE.

Do we rush to a legal process without knowing and disclosing the full science? No. What we ask for, what we must demand is an OPEN NON-POLITICAL scientific analysis, and then an OPEN FULL EXAMINATION of how that analysis fits with the relevant actual facts including those theretofore not revealed that took place before, during and after the atrocity.

This process must be non-partisan. There must be no "closed sessions" so favored by both political parties. The analysts and the examiners must be beyond political bias. Means to ensure this are indeed possible, despite the prevalent attitudes that those of stubborn partisanship insist are impossible. Full academic rigor is essential to this entire process.

The truth will be difficult to digest, but not as difficult as will the course of history prove to be without it. We have two choices: (a) To reveal and deal with this atrocity honestly however difficult that may be, so we may have a chance of preventing similar atrocity in future. Or (b) To live with the lie and to allow it to become precedent for the inevitability of similar future political and slaughterous treachery.

I support option (a). History will also support that decision, or will describe the certain disaster of the alternative, if in fact its reporters survive it to so report.