111TH CONGRESS

       2ND SESSION              

H.R.___________

To establish an independent committee of scientific and technical experts to investigate the structural failures causing the collapse on September 11, 2001 of New York City’s World Trade Center’s  Buildings No. 1, 2, and 7 (WTC 1, 2, 7), and to make recommendations for legislative action and regulatory changes to address such problems in present and future high-rise buildings.

—————————————————

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. REPRESENTATIVE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on _______________________________

______________________________

A BILL

To establish an independent committee of scientific and technical experts to investigate the structural failures causing the collapse on September 11, 2001 of New York City’s World Trade Center Buildings No. 1, 2, and 7 (WTC 1, 2, 7), and to make recommendations for legislative action and regulatory changes to address such design problems for present and future high-rise buildings.

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Bill may be cited as “The Investigation of Structural Failures of New York City’s World Trade Center Building No. 1, 2, and 7 (WTC 1, 2, 7) Act.”

SEC. 2. PURPOSES AND FUNCTIONS

(a) Purposes – The purpose of this Act is to establish a committee of independent experts in science and technology to perform a detailed and comprehensive examination of the array of widely reported, but heretofore unexamined evidence and hypotheses concerning the cause of the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7; and to issue a report of its findings to the President and to the Congress, which shall also recommend legislative action and regulatory changes governing the construction and maintenance of steel-framed high-rise structures in the United States.

This investigation will provide total focus on areas beyond the limitations governing the 9/11 Commission because there were no scientific nor technical experts empaneled. Such limitations are a likely source for the high rate of public disbelief (81% in a 2006 CBS/New York Times poll) concerning the Commissions’ conclusions about WTC destruction. Data did not include an examination of evidence concerning the collapse of Building No. 7, a 47-story structure; it was never hit by aircraft, but suffered small fires and sank into its footprint within 6.5 seconds at 5:20 p.m. September 11, 2001.

Despite recommendations to modify existing codes in steel-framed high-rise buildings, to date none have been made in the United States either for construction or materials.

With important evidence surrounding the collapses left largely unexamined, speculation about these events has grown exponentially in many scientific and technological circles as well as with millions of Americans.

Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, admitted that panel’s shortcomings and has strongly recommended a continued investigation. FBI director Louis Freeh (1993-01) was among several officials suggesting the Commission itself was engaged in a “cover-up.”

Moreover, the Commission did not include a single scientist, engineer, or first responder (firefighters, police, volunteers) to provide expertise, vital for any definitive conclusions about the collapses. Commissioner Timothy Roemer did cite the remark of the “premiere collapse expert in the country,” Fire Chief Ray Downey who died under the North Tower. Downey was convinced “there were bombs up there [the South Tower]” because, he told others, its collapse was “too even.” 

The WTC’s senior project design engineer for electrical systems, Richard F. Humenn, PE,  has demanded a structural investigation of all seven WTC buildings. A lawsuit is being filed against the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by engineering professor Judy Wood, Ph.D. who challenges the science underlying its conclusions about the collapses.  A former NIST chief of the Fire Science Division, James Quintiere, Ph.D., has asked for an independent inquiry.

So has world-renowned scientist Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., board member of the National Academy of Sciences and holder of the National Medal of Science, America’s highest honor for scientific achievement. 

The international community wants a new investigation. In January 2008, Yukihisa Fujita, a spokesman for the main opposition party in the Japanese Parliament, accused the prime minister and the Bush Administration of lying about 9/11 and demanded a new inquiry. A month later, members of the European Union’s (EU) Parliament began exploring the establishment of an independent international 9/11 “Commission of Inquiry.”

Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, one-time leader of a NATO intelligence network, told a major Rome newspaper in December 2006 that 9/11 had been planned and executed by the Central Intelligence Agency and Israel’s counterpart, the Mossad. He added that his was a widely held view in Europe. However, it’s possible an EU inquiry would clear Israel of any allegations of complicity in the WTC events on 9/11.

In Canada, Parliament member Libby Davis recently demanded another investigation about the WTC collapses on behalf of the 24 Canadians who died in the Towers.

Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel, a 2008 presidential candidate, has endorsed petitioners seeking a New York City initiative for the November 2008 ballot that demands another 9/11 investigation about 9/11. A Republican Senator in the Arizona legislature, Karen S. Johnson, in a June 10, 2008 floor speech declared she and “millions of other people” did not believe the findings in the previous probe. Displaying photographic exhibits of the collapses and other documents, she demanded Congress launch a thorough independent “real investigation.”  

Minnesota’s former Gov. Jesse Ventura, a Navy Seal expert on demolitions, told a television audience in April 2008 that the collapses were attributable to controlled demolitions. In addition, nearly 280 engineering and architecture professionals have petitioned Congress for a scientific and technical  investigation about the structural failures.

Last, the families of those who died in the Towers are demanding a new investigation. First responders have lobbied extensively to have their testimony of events inside all three buildings included in

a new investigation.

In light of public and expert doubt of various explanations, evinced by such a significant call for a scientific and technological investigation, this Act would initiate the most thorough examination of all known and discoverable evidence to date as to what caused the catastrophic structural failures of the buildings.

 (b) Functions - Areas of scientific and technological investigation shall include the following theories:

(1) That collapses of WTC 1 and 2 were attributable to commercial aircraft strikes on the buildings, loosening asbestos wrappings of the steel framing which then weakened the structures.

(2) That collapses of WTC 1 and 2 were attributable to the softening of key columns both by aircraft strikes and subsequent jet-fuel fires that ignited office furnishings and materials in the first and only instance in 100 years that fires cause the collapse of steel-framed high-rise buildings.

Skyscrapers around the world have burned for hours without collapse. In fact, no high-rise building in the world has ever collapsed because of fire. The most recent has been the August 18, 2007 seven-alarm, nearly eight-hour fire at the 43-story Deutsche Bank building across from the South Tower site. The bank was completed in the same year as the Towers (1973) and was being demolished floor-by-floor until a workman’s cigarette ignited the mid-afternoon blaze. Unlike the three WTC buildings, the bank’s structure was open to inpouring oxygen because of its deconstruction. Yet its steel beams did not soften or collapse.  

(3) That compressed air was created as each floor collapsed onto those beneath it. This theory rests on the view that “pancaking” of floors was a factor in the collapses, a phenomenon that experts estimate would have reached a 14-story pile of concrete and steel rubble——or 12.5% of a 110-story building——not five feet of dust from the Twin Towers and five- or six-story high pile of rubble from Building 7.

 (4) That the phenomenon of Martensitic Transformation (phase change) was present whereby steel heated above 1,335ºF recrystalizes as austenite and softens and/or melts as temperatures increase. Thus, jet fuel from the aircraft was said to have caused fires hot enough to reach those temperatures simultaneously and throughout the Towers 110 floors of steel columns and beams.

In the case of the 47-story Building No. 7, minimal fires said to be from Tower debris never reached temperatures sufficient to blow out the windows, and FEMA could not single out a definitive cause for the collapse.

(5) That steel floor trusses were of a lighter weight than the columns and beams and therefore subject to a more rapid Martensitic Transformation from the jet-fueled fires. The theory provided suggests that when heat rapidly expanded the trusses, it caused “thermal bowing.” That, in turn, exerted “pull-in forces” on the exterior columns thus compressing the trusses. Compounded by shear forces within the trusses, the “diagonal struts” buckled, setting off cracking and buckling of an exterior column wall. The “explosive” sounds were attributed to the snapping of columns and beams.

That supposedly set off a chain-reaction, forcing tilting  of the Towers, which then spread buckling to all walls and into the structures’ core. The combination of tilting top sections and their overwhelming weight then were to have led to the buildings’ rapid vertical collapses  nearly into their own footprints. This phenomenon is called “progressive failure” (pancaking).

The phenomenon of dust instead of concrete rubble was explained as an ongoing energy transfer sufficient enough “to have crushed more than 90% of the floor concrete to particles well within the observed particle size range.” Too, doubts about the concrete quality were raised about the possibilities of “freezing during curing or too much air or water being added during construction.”

The volcano-like plumes of smoke were attributed to compression of air in elevator and air-conditioning shafts as floors collapsed. The “squibs” (ejections of materials) seen in photographs and videography were said to be light reflected from broken bits of  aluminum cladding from the buildings’ exterior. 

Further, the broken windows and detached marble panels in the lobby and witness accounts of explosions first occurring in the basements were attributed to “torque forces” from aircraft strikes above the 92nd floor in No. 1 and the 78th floor in No. 2.

As to molten metal that reportedly burned for weeks under the sites of No. 1 and 7, the cause was said to be the WTC’s still-operational continuous battery systems. 

(6) That NIST panelists admitted in their 10,000-page WTC report (October 2007) the free-fall vertical collapses of the Towers——by symmetrical progression——in less than 11 seconds just outside their footprints, was “inexplicable.”

Their most important conclusion was that though the Tower fires were fed by building furnishings, these oxygen-starved, jet-fueled fires never exceeded 500ºF.  Steel only begins to  soften at 1,000ºF and melts at 1,500ºF, they noted.

They also ruled out “pancaking” because resistance met by floors below would have added considerable time to actual collapse durations: 110 seconds minimum. 

(7) That

Aircraft designers, pilots and civil aviation examiners also are aware that any jet aircraft could be taken over remotely. For example, the Global Hawk remote-control system is frequently cited in the literature concerning the Department of Defense’s weaponry.

But after the air attack on the North Tower, some spectators said a plane struck the South Tower. Minute examination of the photographic and videographic evidence has suggested the possibility of a pod in the undercarriage of a plane that could have contained high-yield explosives. 

(8) That when steel (not concrete) buildings are impacted by aircraft, destroying several columns and beams——as demonstrated in 1945 when a B-25D struck the Empire State Building——the stress is “redistributed.” Remaining columns become a “truss network to bridge over the missing columns.” The Towers’ head structural engineer, John Skillings, noted that they were designed to withstand the same kinetic energy whether expended by a Boeing 707 or a 767.

 As to heat dissolving steel beams and columns, even fires involving 10,000 gallons of jet fuel——combined with office materials——none exceeded 500ºF, far too low to have any impact on those structures. If they had had impact, structural experts have posited that the collapses would have been gradual, in less than 10 seconds, because the beams and columns would not have gradually relinquished their structural strength.

Jet-fuel fires are typically brief,  and 9/11 photographs and video footage reveal that significant amounts of that fuel burnedoutside the buildings. But inside the buildings, the same visual evidence exhibits the characteristic of an oxygen-starved blaze; black smoke indicates an oxygen-deprived fire.

In addition, Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum——collapsing floors meeting the resistance of 100,000 tons in remaining floors——would have decreased the rate of descent significantly.

If “pancaking” had occurred, Newton’s Law application would mean that the Towers’ 110 floors would have had to collapse within one minute and fifty seconds. (No. 1: 11 seconds; No. 2: 9 seconds; both at nearly free-fall speed.)

Contrary to theories that floor collapses created compressed air responsible for plumes and squibs, this theory contends that compression lacked the force to propel 50-ton columns and 20-ton beams 300-400 feet to be embedded in nearby buildings.

Photographic evidence of interior damage at the neighboring Deutsche Bank building’s 15th floor reveals that beams and columns flung from the South Tower had an upward, not lateral,  trajectory that opened a 20-floor gash; that trajectory suggests the beams and columns had been ejected from the South Tower’s basement or lower floors. The same explanation may account for exterior damage to Building 7 from the North Tower.

 With regard to claims that continuous batteries furnished heat for the reportedly long-lasting molten stage of metal, none was found under Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 which also relied on that emergency power source. By contrast, both molten metal as well as dust clouds are recognized as byproducts of explosives.  Though heavily damaged from fire and debris, none of those four structures dissolved into dust.

 (9) That the collapses were caused by high-yield explosives such as thermate.

This theory is based on first-responder and survivors’ statements about hearing and feeling a series of major explosions from the Towers’ upper floors to its sub-basements, a characteristic of controlled demolitions.

A witness from the North Tower basement——William Rodriquez——has testified that explosions at his level sounded like bombs. He also saw a crumpled 300-pound metal door and a sub-basement survivor whose upper-body skin hung in shreds.

Observers outside the Towers have furnished many accounts of seeing flashes of light, squibs, and fire circling certain floors on the top half of the buildings prior to collapse.

The theory of a physicist specializing in the collapses, Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., has been that the only explosive capable of causing the collapses is a thermate compound, a high-yield agent commonly used in controlled demolitions which is also employed to cut through iron and steel alloys. Thermate is used because of its 4,500ºF to 6,000ºF  range because it easily slices and/or melts steel.

Jones’ additional evidence offered to indicate the presence of thermate or similar high-yield explosives includes: a) photographs and many witnesses attesting to molten metal pouring down Tower exteriors; b) pools of molten metal burning  under sites No. 1 and No. 7’s weeks after September 11; c) iron microspheres and other elements he discovered by chemical analysis of steel fragments and ground-dust samples, key components such as sulfur, of thermate.

These conclusions are supported by 300 structural engineers, architects, and scientists, as well as demolition experts. Add to that, 188 depositions about explosions from first responders, street-level witnesses, and Tower tenants.

Some scientists, such as William R. Deagle, Ph.D., another WTC investigator, are now suggesting that even more powerful explosive devices than thermate were used because of the volcanic-like kinetic energy displayed above the Towers before collapse and because of their free-fall speed. 

Other signs of high-yield explosives he has cited were the mid-air pulverization and vaporization of concrete with outward-arching plumes reminiscent of volcanic energy. Deagle notes that this phenomenon was accompanied by rapid expansion and pyroclastic flow of significant dust clouds and the “squibs” caught by hundreds of photographers and videographers 40 floorsbelow the aircrafts’ impact zones.

One inconsistency photographed at street level was that squibs from the Towers progressed downward. But at No. 7, they progressed upward. Those patterns, he says, suggests faulty explosive devices thus, contradicting the theory that the squibs were evidence of compressed air ejected horizontally from the collapsing upper floors.

Photographic evidence also exists of cutter-charge patterns shown by fire flashes on the Towers’ upper floors.

No. 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds at nearly free-fall speed. Hundreds of witnesses and photographic evidence would seem to indicate that destruction began in its basement. In 1993, bombs were placed in the Towers’ basement areas. Demolition company officials have pointed out they generally initiate operations on high-rise buildings by planting explosives in basements so that the weight of the upper floors helps “collapse the structure.”

Two European experts in demolitions, Hugo Bachmann, Ph.D. and Daniel Jowenko, examined documents and videos of No. 7’s collapse without knowing its identity and  immediately pronounced it a “perfectly executed controlled demolition.”

A skyscraper cannot be prepared for demolition in a single day, as recent television programs about “pulling” celebrated buildings demonstrate. This theory posits therefore if thermate or another high-yield explosive were used, WTC 1, 2, and 7 would have had to be primed for demolitions long before September 11.

Officials, unwittingly or not, engaged in organized prevention of forensic examination of beams and columns. Though it is a felony to remove material evidence from a crime scene, they ordered instant trucking of most of the beams and columns from the site to nearby docks for immediate shipment to Asia as scrap.

Before trucks departed, however, witnesses attested that beam/column ends were cut at 45º angles and “softened;” some ends dripped with molten metal, possible only at temperatures exceeding 2,500ºF. Such testimony would indicate explosives were wrapped diagonally around beams and columns. This is a procedure that demolition experts call  “stepping a building” so it falls in a symmetrical, vertical path to prevent damage to neighboring structures. 

Additional evidence of thermate, according to this theory, has been the 2007 discovery of 744 fragments of human remains on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building. To cremate human remains requires temperatures of at least 3,200ºF.

(10) That the collapses and “dustification” ——molecular destruction of steel and concrete——could have been caused by high-altitude aircraft armed with super-powered lasers now used in direct-energy weaponry (DEW)——or a combination of DEWand high-yield explosives.

Super-laser weaponry is part of the Defense Department’s space-wars armamentarium. The commander of the Air Force’s Cyberspace Command, Maj. Gen. William T. Lord, told the media in April 2008 they have been preparing kinetic weaponry for the “cyber wars” of the 21st century.

That a DEW caused the “dustification” of the Towers is the theory of Judy Wood, Ph.D. who is an engineer knowledgeable about the effects of this kind of weaponry. She has issued a legal challenge to the NIST report’s results asking if the WTC destructive effects might be “consistent” with the use of DEWs. The case is supported by voluminous evidence surrounding the collapses——photographic, seismographic, atmospheric——prior and immediately following No. 7’s collapse. Data also includes statements by multiple witnesses of hearing overhead sounds “of a high-pitched ‘jet engine’” prior to the Towers’ collapse.

The spokesman for the Air Force’s Directed Energy Directorate, Juventino R. Garcia,  quickly reviewed her evidence, and readily conceded the existence and testing of stratospheric weaponry; he stated that the data were “worthy of further investigation.”

Aerial photographs showed large perpendicular holes in the midsections of Buildings 3, 5, and 6 containing dust, but few signs

of rubble from the carved-out portions. No. 4 was split in half by a clean, vertical cut, but also shows no rubble from the destroyed half.

Too, of the hundreds of vehicles cleared from nearby streets and those half-a-mile from the WTC on Roosevelt Drive, many had engines and windows revealing an inside explosion; one car with that burned-out front end missing door handles had a back end that was newly waxed back. A firetruck’s gas tanks were untouched, but its inner parts had disintegrated.

Wood concluded that such phenomena suggested results consistent with claims about DEW’s pinpoint accuracy. They were also characteristic of random explosions subjected to such weaponry’s hurricane-like features similar to a Class 5 storm.

(11) That if high-yield explosives were responsible for the collapses, some may have contained fusion-boosted fissionable materials such as a 1/10th of a kiloton, fourth-generation micro-nuclear device. Or devices. This theory is held by William Deagle who reported his findings about the Oklahoma City bombing at a major 9/11 conference in Vancouver, BC in July 2007. His confidential “Special Op” sources claimed the Murrah building’s floors were “layered” with thermate. Micro-nuclear devices that were placed at its top took out the core, they reported. He indicated this procedure should not be ruled out in theories concerning the Towers’ destruction.

Federal reports did indicate that tritium and “massive amounts of strontium and barium were found in the dust” of the WTC complex. And above the dust, a blizzard of paper covered the Towers’ immediate area. Paper becomes inert if energy is generated by electromagnetic pulses and thus raises questions why fires alleged to be hot enough to weaken structural steel, were not hot enough to burn paper.

Another nuclear aspect Deagle has cited involves significant cracks found in the substructure of WTC basement’s retaining walls keeping the Hudson River from flooding downtown Manhattan. Because the cracks were underwater, fire involvement has been ruled out.

Similarly, the force ascribed to impact by aircraft on the Towers’ upper stories is highly unlikely, according to Deagle, to have generated direct and adequate energy to cause any damage to those retaining walls.

Add to this evidence, the molten metal that reportedly burned for months at the WTC site despite efforts of firefighters to extinguish it. The ineffectiveness of water and constant replacement of soil to cool those hotspots——especially at the No. 7 site——would seem to underpin Deagle’s view that a “mini-nuke” device had been detonated onsite.

Another Deagle theory involves the possible use of the Pentagon’s  new weapons of “ultra-powerful magnetic pulses.” Lasers can generate nuclear explosions without requiring a nuclear fission/fusion as their trigger.

(12) That only a cursory investigation of No. 7’s collapse was done by federal agencies and the insurer. That enabled owner Larry Silverstein to collect $861,000,000 in claims. (The 9/11 Commission did not deal with No. 7.)

That has been the theory of many who have read official reports (FEMA/NIST) about the building’s collapse. Among them was a shareholder, John-Paul Leonard, from the building’s principal insurer, Allianz Group of Munich. He sued the company in April 2005 on grounds of fraudulent explanations about the collapse and claimed it was caused by a controlled demolition.

FEMA’s report (2002), which apparently satisfied Allianz officials, claimed the collapse was the direct result of several fires ignited by North Tower debris and not shock waves from the Tower collapses.

Yet if flaming  debris fell on the roof, the obvious unanswered questions ever since September 11 have been: 1) Why fires were seen inside No. 7 on two or three floors though the windows had not been blown out, customary in conflagrations; 2) Why firefighters were ordered from the building at 11:30 a.m. “for safety reasons” instead of extinguishing the fires; and 3) How  Silverstein could claim that his directive to the Fire Chief to “pull it” alluded to pulling firefighters from the building if none were inside. (“Pull” is the demolition term for setting off explosive charges for an implosion.) FEMA’s report stated that “no manual firefighting operations were taken.”

The explanation for the firefighter evacuation seems to have been the basement and lobby explosions set off in No. 7 beforethe Towers collapsed. Two witnesses to the explosions were both high-ranking city officials: Michael Hess, New York City’s corporate counsel, and Barry Jennings, deputy director of emergency services in the city’s Housing Authority. They had rushed to the 23rd floor’s Emergency Center for the complex.

Ordered to “leave right away” by an unidentified person prior to the Tower collapses, the two rushed down the stairs. When they reached the 6th floor, an explosion collapsed the stairs beneath them. They clambered to the 8th floor and took another route to the lobby and found it destroyed and littered with bodies.

They were ordered not to look at what Jennings described to the media as a “King Kong” rampage in the lobby. His street-side account would seem to support the multiple-explosion theory in the basement areas. It also contradicts suggestions that No. 7’s collapse was attributable to fire.

Evidence about explosive devices includes statements that were made by television reporters for the British Broadcasting company and Cable News Network. One in particular was that the building had collapsed a half-hour prior to that event——despite its presence directly behind the BBC reporter. This raised questions about a pre-arranged demolition by owner Larry Silverstein should the Towers suffer a ruinously expensive repeat of the 1993 bombings ($330 million).

Prior to 9/11, the Towers were in such dangerous condition that floor-by-floor demolition——as has now been done with the Deutsche bank building——that at least two applications had been filed to the city by the WTC complex owners, the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey. The Towers were insulated with asbestos, and the alumninum exterior cladding was so corroded that it endangered pedestrians below. Both conditions were singled out as causes for significant declines in tenancy.

But the city denied the applications because the WTC was built on municipal bonds and because it was a major attraction to tourists and bound up in civic pride. The Port then turned to leasing the complex and thrusting the renovation expenses onto the whoever won the bid.

Repair estimates exceeding $200,000,000 were provided by the Port Authority to Silverstein and the other three parties who submitted bids in late 2000. Silverstein’s bid of $3,200,000,000 made him the leaseholder.

A clause in Silverstein’s insurance policy for the buildings——his financial backers insisted upon $3,500,000,000 coverage——included the right to rebuild the complex in the event of another 1993 bombing. Rationale for the clause seemed to be that such an attack would require repair costs far exceeding those for demolition and replacement of the Towers.

Again, the time frame between Silverstein’s late-afternoon order to “pull” the building and its collapse would have been insufficient for demolition professionals to place explosives. Installation would have had to have been long before September 11. Foreign demolition experts have estimated it would have required weeks of planning and implementation by specialists.

Domestically, nearly 300 scientists and technology experts have agreed, stating the No. 7’s collapse was attributable to high-yield explosives, because of several markers: sudden onset and destruction at its base; demolition waves removing column supports; the 6.5-second free-fall speed removing the path of greatest resistance; chemical evidence of thermate on beams and in dust samples.

Adherents of the thermate theory have pointed out that the heat from molten metal at No. 7’s base consumed volunteers’ boots and the need to protect paws of search-and-rescue dogs.

The rapid, straight-down collapse exactly into the building’s footprint also underpinned the stockholder’s charge that Allianz had paid a fraudulent claim of millions out of reserves that would affect dividends and the company’s solvency. That no other Allianz shareholders except Mr. Leonard, or company officials took issue with the payout might suggest losses may have been covered by outside sources wanting immediate closure to further inquiries.

Mr. Leonard obviously was aware that the 26 insurance companies involved in the WTC event carried out far more thorough investigations about the collapses than FEMA or NIST. Adjusters were on site the afternoon of September 11. The Department of Defense provided insurers with powerful computer programs for classified research——but, curiously, not to FEMA.

The result was said to be a monumental compendium of analytical documents, photographs, audio tapes, and  videos. Public release might have prevented insurers from paying $4,550,000,000 in claims to Silverstein for his other WTC losses. But they all decided against that action. Those records remain closed to the public.

No. 7 tenants included the federal government’s major investigative departments and their records: the FBI, Department of Defense, Secret Service, IRS, and the SEC. Reportedly all but the IRS and SEC staffs had time to move records to safe quarters. The SEC lost irreplaceable documents pertaining to its ongoing investigation of ENRON.

(13) That redundant systems involving a combination of two or more of those listed above——e.g., thermate, DEWs, mini-nukes, electromagnetic forces——may have been used to ensure a successful series of destroying the three buildings.

(14) That two adjunctive and vital inquiries pertinent to most of the stipulated theories need to be resolved: a) building security; b) suppression of witness statements by authorities.

a) Security on all three buildings would have to have been breached if demolitions were the cause of the collapses. An employee of Fiduciary Trust, original tenants of the South Tower’s 90th, 94th-97th floors,  reported his firm was given three-weeks notice that for the first time in the building’s history the electricity was going to be shut off from the 48th to 110th floor during the long Labor Day weekend of September 7-10, 2001.

Two other tenants told the media that there were several powerdowns as well as evacuations and, in particular, the sight of “ethnically diverse” men in overalls with tools was “unprecedented.”

 As the WTC’s leaseholder, Larry Silverstein explained that the powerdowns were for a cabling upgrade to increase the Center’s computer bandwidth. Several upper-floor tenants did report finding fine dust on furnishings and equipment the following Monday morning, indications of drilling.

Yet for “powder monkeys” (demolition professionals) to prepare upper floors without arousing suspicions would have required tenants’ absence and the cooperation of the WTC’s security vendor as well as Silverstein’s approval.

b) That oral histories about the collapses, taken immediately after September 11, 2001 were sealed, unlike data from other major catastrophies in New York City’s history. Testimony about the events was given by 503 firefighters and medical workers and sealed by the City of New York from early 2002 until 2007 when a Freedom of Information suit filed by The New York Timesand families of 9/11 victims for public access was finally won in the New York Court of Appeals.

The theory in many quarters has been that the city was ordered to conceal what caused the collapses lest the public suspect the federal government was involved, not 19 terrorists with boxcutters. That the charge of “9/11 was an inside job” might appear to have substance and cause a public uproar with calls for accountability.

Other explanations have been that national security was involved. That revelations of what happened might lead other terrorists to repeat such devastation.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT

There is to be established an independent group   known as the Science and Technological Committee to Investigate the Structural Failures of the New York City World Trade Center’s Twin Towers and Building No. 7 (in this Act referred to as the ‘Committee’).

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.

(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)’sFinal 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.

(8) 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.

 (b) IN GENERAL.——Each member of the Committee shall be appointed for the life of the Committee.

 (c) VACANCIES.——Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the Committee shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made.

 (d) DEFINITION OF MEMBERS.——For the purposes of this section, the term “Member” means those selected for this independent Committee.

(e) QUORUM.——A quorum constitutes a majority of the Members, but a lesser number may hold hearings. All recommendations and reports of

the Committee required by this Act shall be approved only by a majority vote of a quorum of the Committee.

(f) MEETINGS.——First meeting shall be called by the Committee Chair not later than——

(A) 60 days after the date of enactment

 of this Act; or

(B) 30 days after the date of the

enactment of legislation making appropriations

to carry out this Act.

(C) Subsequent meetings shall meet at

the call of the Committee chair except as

provided in paragraph (f) above.

SEC. 5. POWERS OF COMMITTEE

(a) HEARINGS AND EVIDENCE.——The Committee or, at its direction, any subcommittee or member of the Committee, may, for the purpose of carrying out this Act—

 (1) hold such public hearings in places deemed germane to the investigation, sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence,

and administer such oaths as the Committee or Member considers advisable; and

(2) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, tapes, and materials (electronic/digital communication, e-mails, web content, etc.) as the Committee or such subcommittee or member considers advisable.

(b) ISSUANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

OF SUBPOENAS.——

(1) ISSUANCE——Subpoenas issued under subsection (a) shall bear the signature of the Committee Chair and shall be served by any person or class of persons designated by the Chair for that purpose.

(2) ENFORCEMENT——In the case of contumacy or failure to obey a subpoena issued under subsection (a), the United States District Court for the judicial district in which the subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found may issue an order requiring such person to appear at any designated place to testify or to produce documentary or other evidence. Any failure to obey the order of the Court may be punished by the Court as a contempt of that court.

(3)ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT——In the case of any failure of any witness to comply with any subpoena or to testify when summoned under authority of this section, the Committee may, by majority vote, certify a statement of fact constituting such failure to the appropriate United States attorney, who may bring the matter before the grand jury for its action, under the same statutory authority and procedures as if the United States attorney had received a certification under sections 102 through 104 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 192 through 194). Additionally, the Committee may utilize the House’s procedure of inherent contempt to enforce a subpoena.

(c) WITNESS ALLOWANCES AND FEES——Section 1821 of Title 23, United States Code, shall apply to witnesses requested or subpoenaed to appear at any hearing of the Committee. The per diem and mileage allowances for witnesses shall be paid from funds available to pay the expenses of the Committee.

(d) CONTRACTING——The Committee may, to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in Appropriation Acts, enter into contracts with Federal, State, or local agencies, or private institutions or organizations, for the conduct of research or surveys, procurement of supplies and properties, preparation of reports, and other activities enabling the

Committee to discharge its duties under this Act.

 (e) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES——

(1) The Committee may secure directly from any Federal department or agency such information as the Committee considers necessary to perform its duties. Upon request of the Committee Chair, the head of such department or agency shall furnish such information to the Committee.

(2) Information shall only be received, handled, stored, and disseminated by Committee members and its staff that are consistent with applicable statutes, regulations, and Executive orders.

(e) ASSISTANCE FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES——

(1) General Services Administration——The Administrator of General Services shall provide to the Committee on a reimbursable basis, administrative support and other services for the performance of the Committee’s functions.

(2) Other Departments and Agencies——In addition to the assistance prescribed in paragraph (1), departments and agencies of the United States may provide to the Committee such services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support services as they may determine advisable and as may be authorized by law.

 (f) UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICES——the Committee may use the United States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

SEC. 6. PERSONNEL.

(a) Subject to adoption of expenses resolutions as required by Clause 5 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee may incur expenses in connection with its functions under this Act.

(b) In carrying out its functions under this Act, the Committee is authorized to——

(1) appoint, either on a full-time basis or as experts or consultants, such staff as the Committee considers necessary;

(2) prescribe the duties and responsibilities of such staff;

(3) fix the compensation of such staff at a single per annum gross rate which does not exceed the highest rate of basic pay, as in effect from time to time, of Level V of the Executive Schedule in Section 5316 of Title 5, United States Code. All Committee members who are officers or employees of the United States shall serve without compensation in addition to that received for their services as officers or employees of the United States.

(4) procure temporary and intermittent services by order of the Committee Chair under Section 3109(b) of Title 5, United States Code, at rates for individuals that do not exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for Level V of the Executive Schedule under Section 5316 of such title.

(5) allow Committee members travel expenses, which shall include that of  per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under Subchapter I of Chapter 57 of Title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Committee.

(6) terminate the employment of any such staff as the Committee considers appropriate.

         (c) The Committee and all authority granted in this Act shall expire 30 days after the filing of its Report with the House of Representatives.

SEC. 7. COMMITTEE REPORT.

(a) In General——The Committee shall report to the House as soon as practicable during the present Congress, but not later than six months after the date of passage of this Act, the results of its investigation and study, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable. The Committee shall report to the House Committee on Science and Technology as soon as practicable during the present Congress, but not later than six months after the date of passage of this Act, of any additional substantial or credible information which

such Committee receives in carrying out its responsibilities to recommend solutions to subsequent construction failures for steel-framed high-rise buildings in the United States.

 (b) Considerations——In developing any and all recommendations under subsection (1) the Committee shall consider——

(1) the role of the Federal Government in preventing similar construction failures by means of revising building codes with substantial penalties for non-compliance by architects, structural engineers,  building contractors and subcontractors.

(2) ways in which to strengthen accountability of all actors, including building owners and leasees.

(c) Establish culpability of any parties in these events making them subject to a full-range prosecution with applicable punishment.

(d) Any additional information provided to the Committee when the House is not in session shall be filed with the Clerk of the House.

(e) Any additional information shall be referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology over the subject matter thereof.

(f) The records, files, and materials of the Committee shall be transferred to the Clerk of the House.

SEC. 8. TERMINATION.

The Committee shall terminate upon the expiration of the 90-day period beginning upon the date on which the Committee submits its report to the Congress under Section 7(a).

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General——There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this Act.

(b) Availability——Any amounts appropriated pursuant to this section shall remain available, without fiscal-year limitation, until expended.