"If all it takes to reassure people is to answer the questions now being asked, truthfully, then they should stand up and answer them, inviting them in."

When people get it into their heads that a conspiracy 'probably' exists, there is no end to the questions and demands for 'investigations'. Each answer and each investigation only sets off a new round of questions & demands for answers. It is, as we see, possible to object to or be suspicious of, even the most honest and expert answers and reports. The embedded assumption seems to be "...even *I* can see the flaws in your answers. Someone must be either stupid and careless or lying."

There is no way out of this circular pattern. If you try to answer after a certain point, you will never finish answering, because the built-in assumptions is always that "it couldn't have happened that way", therefore there WAS faked data, lying by investigators and hidden plots. Qusetions about how, if it is so obvious that fakes and lying are involved, no one in authority can see it and re-open the case are just met with.."they refuse because they are hiding something!". There is no-way-out of this circular set of demands

Above, Royston & I have been asked to 'prove' our silly 'faith-based' opinions, and I have declined to do this, and my explanation...that it is not my job or my expertise or my inclination to "show" how it all happened simply is ignored, or I am insulted for my refusal.

I said that **IF** one feels they see a flaw in the official reports,(which I think satisfy ME) it is their right to question those responsible for the reports thru some sort of official channels...not by demanding *I* explain what has already been explained to my satisfaction.

Many, many of the claims can be traced back to Prof. Stephen Jones...who, if you want to question motives, already HAD a theory about political agendas and conspiracies when he began asking for 'samples' of dust to test...4-5 years after the event.

ONE MORE TIME... I am not qualified to evaluate blueprints or metallurgical standards....but I CAN recognize a circular argument and know when to opt out of one.