Have you considered asking a grand jury merely to look at NIST’s evidence

From ____________:

Have you considered asking a grand jury merely to look at NIST’s evidence of WTC 7’s collapse explanation to judge whether they’ve provided enough proof to conclude that office fires were able to lead to complete and symmetrical failure of all of the columns at the same time?

Answer from C2C Team Attorney Mick Harrison:

 In response to your question “Have you considered asking a grand jury merely to look at NIST’s evidence of WTC 7’s collapse explanation to judge whether they’ve provided enough proof to conclude that office fires were able to lead to complete and symmetrical failure of all of the columns at the same time?”, the answer to your question as you precisely asked it, using the term “merely,” is “no.”

This is so because all of the demolition evidence and expert opinions reflecting controlled demolition presented by the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Richard Gage, and a plethora of associated experts need to be evaluated initially by the grand jury independent of any bias from a government report for the grand jury to reach an accurate and objective answer to the bombing crimes questions.

The crimes in question are federal “bombing” and related crimes the existence of which turn on a determination of whether incendiaries and/or explosives were used. NIST’s WTC7 report per se is not the proper initial focus of the grand jury inquiry, although the grand jury may eventually consider it. The primary question for the grand jury is not whether NIST did a good job or a bad job (although the grand jury could at some point address the issue of whether NIST officials were engaged in a coverup of a crime), the primary question for the grand jury is whether there is probable cause to believe that there was an intentional use of explosives and/or incendiaries to cause the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC 7.

Whether NIST answered that question correctly (or even adequately addressed it) is not the proper initial focus of a grand jury. Once the grand jury independently evaluates the evidence of these alleged bombing crimes for itself, it may, if it chooses, review any government or scientific reports that conclude, or assert that they conclude, that explosives and/or incendiaries were not used, to see if those reports would alter the grand jury’s independent findings, considering all of the evidence.

Non-primary evidence Information, such as NIST reports that conclude (or argue) that neither explosives nor incendiaries were used, might be offered at a trial by a defendant to try and create doubt in a trial jury’s mind as to whether the alleged crime was committed (by anyone) but a grand jury is not obligated to consider any defendant’s evidence or argument (but may). The initial role of the grand jury is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to initiate a prosecution (an indictment), not to complete a full analysis of all evidence on both sides of the question of guilt or innocence.

To the extent that NIST reports include actual hard scientific evidence (lab analysis of WTC material samples, instrument measurements, video, eye witness accounts etc.), it would be proper for a grand jury to consider that evidence along with all of the other evidence referenced by the Lawyers’ Committee on the threshold question of whether a bombing crime was committed.

But the grand jury should not allow itself to be biased by initial consideration of a government (or other) report that attempts to explain away or sweep under the rug the substantial objective evidence of a bombing crime (that has been well documented by the Lawyers’ Committee).