 |
|
Add to My Group
|
October 18, 2008 at 16:31:38
8 House Members View Draft Bill on Independent Science/Tech Probe of WTC 1, 2, 7 Collapses by Barbara Ellis Page 1 of 22 page(s) |
|
|
A draft bill setting up an independent science and technology investigation into the destruction of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 to mandate construction-code changes was presented Sept. 16-17 in Washington D.C. by three Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice for consideration to eight House members and the director and staff of the House Science and Technology committee.[1] The bill proposes a 25-member committee with subpoena power, selected from the national and international community of renown scientists, structural engineers, architects, and other technological specialists including those in demolition, advanced weaponry, and 9/11 first-responders.[2] The proposed legislation was researched and authored by four members of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth organization from Oregon and Maryland.[3] The pdf of the suggested bill is at the end of this article. Presentations were made to science and technology legislative staffers of House members Reps. Rush Holt (D-NJ-12), Jay Inslee (D-WA-1), Walter Jones (R-NC-3), Dan Lipinski (D-IL-3), Jim McGovern (D-MA-3), Ed Markey (D-MA-78), Dana Rohrabacker (R-CA-46), and John Tierney (D-MA-6). Two are members of the House Science and Technology committee: Lipinski is vice chair, and Rohrabacker is the third-ranking Republican. Only one staffer (Tierney’s) was disinterested. Another (Rohrabacker’s) asked the presenters for an additional hour of discussion.[4] The bill’s aim is to investigate the 14 major theories about what destroyed WTC 1, 2, and 7 that have been widely circulating nationally and internationally since September 2001, and, secondly, to urge Congressional action to mandate federal building-code changes for high-rise buildings (115+ feet ) both before construction or in remodeling the more than the existing 16,000.[5] They made three points in the presentation: • That determination of the cause(s) of WTC 1, 2, 7 collapses are vital for a federally mandated national change in building codes for high-rise structures consistent with the investigation’s findings. •That previous investigations on the collapses were either significantly limited, as was that of the 9/11 Commission in 2004 and the Federal Emergency Management agency (FEMA) in 2002. Two later studies by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)—2005 on WTC 1/2 and 2008 on WTC 7— at an estimated public cost of $50 million have been judged by scientific and technical experts to be significantly limited, biased, and heavily flawed in fundamental research methods.[6] •That both national and international demands are growing for a substantive science and technology investigation by an independent group to determine the collapse cause(s). If this proposed bill—with a $10 million price tag—is accepted by one or several House members, it will be revised for hoppering in the next session of Congress and presumably assigned to the 40-member House Science and Technology committee for hearings and a vote. If passed, it will move to a House floor vote and, from there, to the Senate committee for the same process. If signed into law by the next President, the House committee will select 25-member investigation group giving it subpoena power to probe the 14 theories of collapses to determine the cause(s). They will have a six-month deadline to issue a report on findings for recommendations to Congress mandating federal codes for developers, builders, and remodelers of high-rise buildings. The draft bill’s origins stemmed from 2007 correspondence between Joel S. Hirschhorn, Ph.D. and Oregon attorney Virginia Ross. Hirschhorn was a former professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin/Madison before becoming a Capitol Hill veteran as a senior associate at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. He was involved in providing expertise, drafting bills, and appearing in hearings as an expert witness on technology issues. Ross is former Air Force officer and an expert and lecturer on 9/11 events, and member of the Portland 911 Truth Alliance organization. The two were among the thousands of science and technology experts questioning as limited, significantly flawed and largely implausible preliminary reports on the WTC collapses issued by FEMA and NIST indicating fire was the cause. This conclusion has even run counter to President George Bush’s press- conference statement in mid-September 2006 that “explosives” might have been planted in the three buildings. To draft and promote a bill to Congress, Ross contacted Portland’s three Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice: Barry Ball, Barbara G. Ellis, Ph.D., and Warren Pease.[7] Their draft bill took months of research, discussion, and writing before the final draft was sent for review and changes to Hirschhorn and 22 nationally recognized experts either on the 9/11 event or renown in the scientific and technological fields about the collapses. Among them were three other Scholars in the vanguard of science and technology field issuing the initial adverse verdicts on NIST’s August 2008 report about the WTC 7.[8] The last step was determining which of the 435 U.S. House members might have interest in and/or expertise in building-code safety regulations or in settling the 9/11 controversy concerning the WTC collapses. That involved a content analyses of every bill that members hoppered from January 2007 to August 2008 regardless of party affiliation. They followed up by the September trip to Washington, D.C. to talk to the Representative’s science and technology legislative assistants. Post 9/11 Code Changes for High-Rise Buildings The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
From the article: "Prior to 9/11, the Port Authority desperately wanted to demolish WTC 1 and 2 floor by floor because asbestos was driving off present and future tenants and corrosion could drop cladding to the street." I don't know if you're guilty of ignorance or willful dishonesty, but the towers were built while asbestos was being phased out of building construction. Consequently, the structural steel in the first 38 floors of the North Tower was covered with SFRM containing asbestos, but the remaining floors of that tower and all of the South Tower were asbestos free, and most of the asbestos used in the North Tower was abated during tenant fit-outs. In addition, the towers were at least 96% occupied on 9/11, so if tenants were being driven away, it's because there wasn't enough room for them. If there is another investigation, which I think would be a huge waste of taxpayer money, I hope the findings are more factual than your account of the asbestos situation in the towers. As for explosives or incendiaries, they weren't in evidence before or during the collapses, and if they had been used, it would have been obvious to all of the people who handled the steel during the eight-month cleanup period. Since no burned or severed column ends with the signatures of incendiaries or cutter charges were found in the debris, the probability of their use is zero, no matter how many investigations are undertaken. It's also highly unlikely that a more qualified group than the NIST investigators will be found, and any honest report will come to the same conclusions that they did. NCSTAR1's premise that columns severed by the planes, coupled with trusses on the opposite sides from impact which deflected as much as four feet, pulling perimeter columns inward to the point at which they could no longer support the weight above them is entirely consistent with the photos, videos, and eyewitness accounts of what happened. If bombs had triggered the collapses, their presence would have been obvious in the smoke around the initial collapse zone. I certainly hope my tax dollars don't go to lying crackpots like Richard Gage and his cronies, or we'll be hearing about DEWs and mini-nukes for sure. One of the nuts in his group even claims that the towers were blown up before the planes hit them, so I'm really not interested in investigations conducted by the 9/11 "truth movement," thanks just the same. If you'd like to help Gage with his "research," go to his web site and become an AE911TruthHero. Anyone can do it just by sending him $911/month. by
albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Sunday, Oct 19, 2008 at 3:03:13 PM
it proposes serious investigation of the debunked Judy Wood-Directed Energy Weapons and Bill Deagle- mini-mukes, as well as pods on the planes, why would someone write a bill setting it up to be discredited and dismissed? Ellis may have joined Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, but as you can see from their website, they present much better evidence than what's in this article and bill: Also see here for papers debunking Wood and Deagle, and presenting serious evidence of the controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2 and 7 http://www.journalof911studies.com by
Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1110 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:16:41 PM
Scholars for 9-11 Truth & Justice Misrepresented in Draft Bill Sent to 8 House Members by
Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1110 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:01:08 AM
Victoria Ashley Finds Cloud Inside Silver Lining by
Rolf Lindgren (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:00:20 PM
Barrett's PR representative: "Arabesque, the entire Barrett Campaign appreciates your great work for the Truth" By Arabesque Kevin Barrett and his PR Manager Slander 911blogger, Truthaction, and 9/11 Activists By Arabesque Also, just on GP I'm mentioning the Complete 911 Timeline used and endorsed by the Jersey Girls by
Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1110 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:47:29 PM
This has nothing to do with the work of Dr. Barbara Ellis. You are turning the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice into a train wreck. Either: * work with Dr. Ellis & the 8 congressional staffs to remove the offending portion of the draft bill * let the investigative committee debunk the Judy Woods crap * or send Gage, Jones, and Ryan to congress to do their own draft bill. Please bottle up your bogus "disinfo" crap. by
Rolf Lindgren (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:16:28 PM
Richard Gage and the rest of the more than 500 architects, engineers AND demolition experts supporting 9/11 Truth are true American heroes and have nothing to do with the DEW disinfo discussed in this bill. By the way, I don't for one minute believe that even in the USA unprecedented skyscraper collapses are investigated by first destroying the research material and then starting a 7-year (and over) speculation about what might have happened inside the facade (=the way WTC 7 has been officially "investigated"). The cause and mechanism of the building's speedy total destruction could have been conclusively determined by actually examining the debris, first on site and then off site as needed. But, as NIST says, "no steel was recovered from WTC 7". Besides, if NIST is correct in its claim that ordinary office fires brought the skyscraper floor by floor to its foundations (NIST have suddenly forgotten about diesel fuel and the claimed - asymmetric - damage), I will start a demolition company of my own, based only on using matches! by
Nordic (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:16:40 AM
Defenders of the official account of 9/11 would have you believe there are no credible critics of the official account. However, consider the following: by
Alan Miller (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 7 comments) on Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:12:37 AM
and may be intentional disinfo; NOTHING should've hit the Pentagon- the alleged hijackers would never even have gotten VISA's if the law was followed. I can understand someone maybe thinking the question of what hit the Pentagon is inconclusive from the few short video frames the Pentagon released that don't really show anything, but all the photos together show a 90" gash at the base of the Pentagon with a fuselage-sized hole in the center, a damage path that fits a 757, parts that match a 757, and also at least 100 eyewitnesses to a large passenger jet hitting the Pentagon; many said it was silver with red/blue and an AA logo; some even noticed the flaps and wheels weren't down. The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows 9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Eyewitnesses Described by
Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1110 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:28:33 PM
Let me add my support for these four courageous scholars of 9/11 research who have pursued these issues and brought them to the attention of members of Congress. I cannot imagine a more valuable contribution to the 9/11 movement than actions of this kind. That by-standers should carp and complain because of their personal opposition to one or more of the multiple theories that they have cited as requiring investigation is unjustifiable. Attacks of the kinds found here and elsewhere, which grossly misappraise the value of what is being accomplish and demoralize those who would exercise their intelligence and initiative for this most worthy cause, are to be universally condemned. Scientific inquiries require consideration of every alternative explanation, not the self-serving selection of a preferred set and the elimination of the rest. The full range in this case includes the possibility of mini-nukes, lasers, masers, and other novel mechanisms as well as various conventional explosives, with or without the use of thermite. A new investigation would have the duty to sort them out, even apart from prior studies of these issues, where replicating and confirming their findings would be indispensable to the integrity of the outcome. My personal belief is that any investigation conducted by Congress will experience political contamination, as was the case when The House Select Committee on Assassinations reinvestigated the deaths of JFK and of MLK (1976-77). An international inquiry might fare better. But to belittle or ridicule the efforts that have been made in this instance is irresponsible and inexcusable. The extremes to which some will go in their endeavors to undermine the movement are once again apparent. We must all appreciate that there are those within our numbers who are not truly dedicated to the discovery of truths about 9/11 and their dissemination, alas, and recommit ourselves to overcome the obstacles that they present. Whether or not this bill represents the views of the group that calls itself Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, it most certainly represents those of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Congratulations for work well done! by
Jim Fetzer (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:31:11 AM
Dr. Fetzer asserts Victoria Ashley is responsible for the STJ911.org press release, but it is the product of the STJ911 steering committee and reflects the previously stated objectives of the organization, which Dr. Ellis should have familiarized herself with before joining; as it says on their website, and in the press release; "As stated at the front page of their website, Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice "take[s] care to present the strongest, most credible research available..." " Fetzer says, “The full range in this case includes the possibility of mini-nukes, lasers, masers, and other novel mechanisms as well as various conventional explosives, with or without the use of thermite. A new investigation would have the duty to sort them out, even apart from prior studies of these issues, where replicating and confirming their findings would be indispensable to the integrity of the outcome.” The draft bill was never submitted to journalof911studies.com for peer review, or posted at the STJ911.org discussion board for discussion. For some reason, Fetzer has yet to post the Ellis bill and press release at 911Scholars.org- even though he is no doubt one of the unnamed “22 nationally recognized experts”, according to Ellis’ press release, and knew about the bill before it was published at opednews Oct 18. Who are the others, and what was their response? As Fetzer knows, the mini-nukes, lasers and masers “theories” have been debunked by Dr. Steven Jones and many others at JournalOf911Studies.com – anyone can go there and see for themselves that these theories don’t hold water: A Brief Analysis of Dr. Judy Wood’s Request for Correction to NIST: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly By Dr. Greg Jenkins Co-author: Arabesque Video.Google Interview with Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Greg Jenkins – National Press Club, Jan 10, 2007 INTERVIEW WITH DR. JUDY WOOD AND DR. GREG JENKINS: National Press Club, Washington, DC, January 10th 2007 - Transcript by Arabesque; Analysis by Dr. Greg Jenkins and Arabesque Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers by Dr. Steven E. Jones The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers by Dr. Greg Jenkins, co-author Matt Sullivan Submissions by STJ911.org members have been published in peer-reviewed journals such as the Open Civil Engineering Journal, the Environmentalist, and most recently the Journal of Engineering Mechanics; these and many others can be viewed at JournalOf911Studies.com that debunk the NIST and FEMA reports with their own words, and lay out compelling evidence that likely some combination of explosives and thermate destroyed WTC 1, 2 & 7; for instance, Appendix C of FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study documents evaporated steel and sulfidation, which is suggestive of the presence of thermate, a substance which can cut rapidly through steel. Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction by Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley, Open Civil Engineering Journal Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials by Kevin R. Ryan1 , James R. Gourley2 and Steven E. Jones 3 in The Environmentalist Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse? by Dr. Steven Jones 9/11 – Evidence for Controlled Demolition: a Short List of Observations by Dr. Frank Legge 118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers by Dr. Graeme MacQueen The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites by Kevin R. Ryan Evidence: The Destruction of the World Trade Center – Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice A much better bill, one that might be taken seriously by Congress, the general public- and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and the wider 9/11 Truth Movement, could be drafted based on information documented in these papers. As Kevin Ryan says, s Kevin Ryan observes in the STJ911.org press release, "asking Congress to investigate many poorly defined, and highly implausible hypotheses minimizes the chances that Congress would be willing or able to investigate the actual evidence for the demolition of three WTC buildings." See here for more info about Dr. James Fetzer and some other notorious disruptors of the 9/11 Truth Movement: An Open Letter about the Subject of Disinformation and Disruption within the 9/11 Truth Movement By Arabesque The Sound of Disinformation: What Will They Say Next? by Arabesque by
Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1110 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:26:26 PM
Dr. Barbara Ellis Responds to Henpecker Below is Dr. Barbara Ellis' response to Victoria Ashley and the Scholars for 9/11 truth & Justice: [Rolf's comments in brackets, bolding by Rolf] "Response to Victoria Ashley's post We four who drafted and promoted the bill asking for a scientific/technological investigation of the WTC collapses submitted to House members, have spent the last two days consulting about a response to your news release about this project to 911Blogger, the indymedia circuit, etc. Aside from the fact that we never purported to speak for Scholars anymore than other members do when they publish or are on the 9/11 speaker circuit, making videos, or expressing views on websites, interview shows, etc., let me assure you that on Capitol Hill, we did not mention STJ911 or say that we were in the 9/11 movement. Rather, we presented ourselves as citizen activists. Nor is STJ911 or the movement mentioned in the bill’s text. As to OpEdNews and other websites, it’s long been a journalistic rule that every author and person mentioned in a story must have an identifier; again, that does not mean they speak for an organization or institution. We would appreciate your fairness in making that correction and the points below to all recipients of that news release perhaps in sending this response—without deletions—to them. Most reputable professional journals provide a commentary section just for that purpose on controversial issues. And, judging from the adverse responses to the news release in website threads,a contrary view seems not only ethically merited, but wise. Second, the statement quoted from the bill is a descriptive of just one of the 14 major theories to be examined by investigators. I’m sure you’d agree that House members need to have a descriptive of each theory about the collapses—as will any member of the proposed investigative committee. A second and careful reading of the bill should make that clear. Further, we are puzzled that a bill asking for a scientific/technological investigation of these 14 major theories to arrive at a hypothesis—the traditional protocol in any credible research—be censored or be subject to prior restraint from any holders/adherents of those theories. For someone to insist his/her theory is more credible than any other, prior to a supposedly objective and thorough investigation, seems little different than NIST ruling out all causal theories except fire in both of its reports on the WTC collapses. [The real disinformation is the fire & impact theory. Disinformation is not destructive unless it is believed by the people it is aimed at. Millions of people believe the fire & impact theory, while few believe the ray-beam theory of Dr. Judy Wood.] One of the methods the perpetrators have used to discredit the 9/11 movement in general and research in particular to prevent the public from learning what happened, is to fan scientific divisiveness. A cooperative effort in fitting the puzzle pieces together would reveal what happened at the WTC and institute the hunt for the perpetrators. We undertook this project because we saw such motives and the results. Our aim was to get to the truth of this monstrous deed by letting such a committee examine each theory espoused by its researcher(s). Thus far, it appears that our bill is the only realistic one that has strategy and drive to obtain that objective: to overturn the Bush Administration’s explanations for the WTC collapses. [Why do the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice "associate" with real disinformation, the fire & impact theory?] As one of our colleagues just observed: “The real dispute is not between alternative theories, but between the government and the search for 9/11 truth.” [The membership of the investigation committee set up by this draft bill is the most important part of the bill. This draft bill does not have rigged membership, like NIST or the 9/11 Commission.] The unending debate concerning those theories has prevented fruitful results toward the overall goal of a second, substantive investigation about the collapses. Surely, those paying a terrible price for the events of that day are by now owed practical and cooperative action by those capable and willing to seek the truth, to attain accountability and justice. Doing nothing means the perpetrators win. Waiting for the “perfect” bill to be written on which all researchers agree, means the perpetrators win. We would hope that baleful consequence of doing nothing and debating everything is plain to all involved in scholarly endeavors concerning the collapse causes. [It would be nice if the ray-beam theory could be officially debunked, rather than being bandied about ad nauseum on the Internet. This draft bill would be a good start to getting that done. The draft bill could also debunk the fire & impact theory as well.] A charge of “errors” would seem to require the fairness of citing what they are, particularly in that the historical aspects of the collapses and the 9/11 Commission’s report usually depend upon subjective perceptions, sources’ credibility, and how current the data is. New information is constantly arriving such as the BBC tapes disclosing that WTC 7 met its end around 11 a.m. on 9/11, or that arson provided the cover the perpetrators needed for the theory about fire. It would have been fair for the news release to have included the pdfs of the article/bill sent to you so that readers could judge the merits of the bill and whether any “errors” or “misrepresentations” were contained therein. In this regard, I’m not sure Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan told you that they had ample opportunity months ago to make corrections to the bill’s text. It was sent in mid-May by priority snail mail to 23 of the major 9/11 researchers. Each packet also included a stamped envelope to return input by our deadline of May 30. We heard from several who made suggestions and corrections. However, we heard nothing from Steven who certainly could have cleared up any “misrepresentations” or “errors” concerning his theory at that time. Too, the bill’s format was a singular departure (one used for Congressional drafts) from regular mail. [Dr. Ellis has obviously made an attempt to work with STJ911 leaders regarding this draft bill.] Kevin emailed us on May 27, briefly indicating the chief reason he would not support the bill was because it included five theories he regarded as “long-discredited.” By whom he did not say, but this is what some other theorists continue to say about other’s research. House members and investigators may well suspect that the “whom” is self-serving exclusiveness. [Not supporting a draft bill is one thing. Actively opposing a draft bill is quite different.] The review time also was adequate for Kevin to suggest any theory from the 9/11 Family Steering Committee; he did not do so. The only error he noted to us last May had to do with being consistent on temperature units (centigrade or Fahrenheit) and “heat dissolving steel”. We fixed the units, but ruled out deleting the later suggestion because it involved the FEMA/NIST fire theory. Let me also say that both the article and bill cited in the release were sent by email October 15—again for changes—to all 23 reviewers before I began querying websites about publishing it. We heard nothing from Steven or Kevin. Last, to close the article accompanying the bill in both OpEdNews and 911researcher websites, I used poet John Milton’s great quote about scholarship that’s most applicable to qualitative research in any discipline: “Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter.” by
Rolf Lindgren (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:36:47 PM
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two.... Most Popular Articles
Health Insurance Exec Whistleblower Wendell Potter Testifies Before Congress by Wendell Potter Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact AuthorContact Editor
View Authors' Articles
Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta
by Daniel Hopsicker
$19.95
Lowest New Price $11.79
Number of pages: 414
Publisher: Trine Day
12 comments
(0+)
(0+)
(0+)
The Silver Lining:
October 18, 2008 at 16:31:38
8 House Members View Draft Bill on Independent Science/Tech Probe of WTC 1, 2, 7 Collapses
by Barbara Ellis Page 1 of 22 page(s)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/8-House-Members-View-Draft-by-Barba ra-Ellis-081018-925.html
The Cloud:
Scholars for 9-11 Truth & Justice Misrepresented in Draft Bill Sent to 8 House Members
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice
Source: http://stj911.org/press_releases/Misrepresentation.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Victoria Ashley, STJ911 committee member
Phone: 510-769-5109
Site: www.STJ911.org
Email: stj911@gmail.comhttp://www.911blogger.com/dailynews
Leave it to Victoria Ashley to turn a positive into a negative.
Four members of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice recently made presentations to science and technology legislative staffers of eight members of the United States House of Representatives, including Rush Holt (D-NJ-12), who has been critical of the FBI's claims about the Anthrax case. And this was not just talk, but a draft bill was produced.
Their draft bill took months of research, discussion, and writing before the final draft was sent for review and changes to Joel Hirschhorn and 22 nationally recognized experts either on the 9/11 event or renown in the scientific and technological fields about the collapses.
Among them were three other Scholars in the vanguard of science and technology field issuing the initial adverse verdicts on NIST’s August 2008 report about the WTC 7.
But rather than meet with the representitives, or coordinate this with scholars, or offer praise, Victoria Ashley has decided to pick another public fight with members of the 9/11 Truth movement.
This is a draft bill, and can be modified, just like almost ever other draft bill in congress, before it is voted on.
At issue is the mention in the draft bill of the "ray-beams" theory of Dr. Judy Wood.
[There is also a minor error regarding the work Dr. Steven Jones that can be fixed easily.]
First of all, no claim is made in the draft bill that this "ray-beam" theory is true. Nor is this "ray-beam" theory the focus of the bill.
This portion of the bill could be removed. Or since the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice have already proven this theory to be untrue, the issue could be investigated and clarified by the special committee and lay this issue to rest. Light could be shed on the real capabilities of space-based weapons.
All pioneering scientific work contains errors. The greatest scientists in history, from Galileo, to Newton, to Darwin, to Wegener, the Einstein, all made errors.
We need to praise Dr. Barbara Ellis for her hard work. Nobody is perfect. But if Dr. Ellis can help get a real official probe going on the WTC, then we can move closer to the truth.
FYI
Here is the most important part of the bill, the part that establishes membership on the investigative committee. This portion of the draft bill was ignored by Victoria Ashley:
"SEC. 4. MEMBERSHIP
(a) Members – The Committee shall be composed of the following 25 individuals or their designees:
(1) 1 Member shall be designated chair by the mutual consultation of the Committee chair and ranking member. Credentials shall require nationally recognized expertise either in structural engineering or architecture for steel-framed, high-rise buildings.
Remaining members will be selected by consultations of the House Committee’s chair, and the ranking member, and the Act’s Committee chair, shall include:
(2) 3 Members from the architects and structural engineers who designed and built the WTC.
(3) 4 Members from the New York City Fire Department who directed operations on September 11, 2001 at the affected three buildings.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/17/8-House-Members-View-Draft-by-Barb ara-Ellis-081018-925.html
(4) 2 Members from the Custodial and Maintenance staffs of the three aforenamed WTC buildings who were on duty September 11, 2001.
(5) 3 Members from among the Project Leaders of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)’s Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster.
(6) 2 Members from the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Justice.
(7) 4 Members from the National Association of Demolition Contractors with expertise on steel-framed high-rise buildings.
(
2 Members with internationally recognized credentials in directed-energy weaponry.
(9) 3 Members from the international scientific community with recognized expertise either in the scientific or technological aspect of structural collapses of steel-framed buildings.
(10) 1 Member of the House Committee on Science and Technology with expertise either in architecture or structural engineering."
http://www.opednews.com/articles/18/8-House-Members-View-Draft-by-Barb ara-Ellis-081018-925.html
To me it is clear, that a committee composed of these members would be able to figure out that the WTC was destroyed by explosives.
The actions of Victoria Ashley are destructive and should be condemned by all memebrs of the 9/11 Truth movement. Her press release is an embarrassment to 9/11 Truth, an insult to Dr. Ellis, and seems designed to discredit the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice by making it look clueless. (0+)
(0+)
(0+)
(0+)
- Raymond McGovern, PhD - Former Chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) and 27-year CIA veteran. "I think at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke." (According to the CIA, NIE's are "the most authoritative written judgments concerning national security issues.")
- William Christison - Former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, overseeing 250 CIA analysts. 29-year CIA veteran. "I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. ... The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them."
- Melvin Goodman, PhD - Former Division Chief of the CIA's Office of Soviet Affairs and Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup. I don't know how else to describe it."
- General Albert Stubblebine - Former commanding general of U.S. Army Intelligence. 32-year U.S. Army veteran. "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"
For decades, we relied on these individuals to collect information essential to our national security and provide critical analysis during which time the U.S. faced far more real and much more serious threats than anything today. We cannot now ignore their stunning condemnation of the official account of 9/11.
More information about these and 1,000 other credible critics of the official account of 9/11 is available at http://PatriotsQuestion911.com/ (0+)
(0+)
Jim
James H. Fetzer
Founder
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
(0+)
(0+)
(0+)
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
Click Here to Login (or Signup)
View Ratings
Here are the current ratings
Must Read (2)
Well Said (0)
News (0)
Touching (0)
Funny (0)
Supported (0)
Interesting (2)
Inspiring (0)
Valuable (3)
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)
REPORTING FROM HONDURAS: Hondurans Call Out for Help from the International Community by Medea Benjamin
North Korea – Impending Missile Launch May Require US Military Action by Steven Leser
Bush's 4th of July Celebration Posted by Darla
Cynthia McKinney and the Spirit of Humanity Crew are captured and detained by the Israel Navy by Cynthia McKinney
Italy to Declare Independence from U.S. Military by David Swanson
You Don't Have To Eat 10,000 Boxes Of Crackerjack To Become An Ordained Minister! [Satire] by Daniel Vojir
How the Terminator Can Save the World by Scott Baker
Most Americans stupid as a box of rocks as to overpopulation: On American sustainability--Anatomy of Societal Collapse by Frosty Wooldridge
Tampa, FL - UnitedHealth to Enter Funeral Parlor Industry by James Dunham
Powered by Populum
