Flaws in the Citizen’s 9/11 Commission Campaign by Erik Larson

A new investigation of 9/11 is needed, as all investigations so far have been superficial or corrupted, and have failed to meaningfully address significant issues. However, the Commission proposed by the Citizens 9/11 Commission Campaign will be unable to meaningfully address these issues, and there are significant problems with the Campaign itself; this essay will address three. First, state authority will be of little value in a 9/11 investigation due to the ‘sovereign immunity’ of the US federal government. Second, the Campaign and proposed Commission are not structured in a way that makes them accountable to the public; mechanisms are not built in to ensure the public has adequate oversight of the course of investigation, the use of funds and those entrusted with responsibility for these things — short of passing another ballot initiative, or petitioning their state legislature to act. Finally, the Campaign has made inaccurate and misleading representations: The proposed Campaign promotes itself as a way to circumvent the federal government’s failure to adequately investigate 9/11, but state-level authority does not meaningfully provide a way to do this. And, despite rhetoric to the contrary, the Campaign and the Commission do not truly represent direct democracy, as the Campaign Steering Committee and Board of Directors are self-selected and the commissioners would by chosen by them, not by the people. The first two points will be addressed in separate sections below, and the third point will be addressed in both sections.

I. State authority will be of little value in a 9/11 investigation, and the Campaign has made inaccurate and misleading representations concerning what is possible and feasible for the proposed Commission to accomplish.

The 9-11cc.org FAQ: Is the Citizens 911 Commission Campaign’s approach legally sound? states that, “Legislative Counsels of the states of California and Oregon … drafted the legal language,” and that in the case of Massachusetts (where the ballot initiative was certified) “Several attorneys review [a proposed initiative] for the Attorney General, who then certifies it as legal and constitutional.” Furthermore, “It is [Mike Gravel’s] guess that more than ten attorneys in three states, who do nothing but review initiatives and draft legislation for their respective legislatures, have thus acknowledged the legality of our proposed 9-11 initiative.” It may be the case that the initiatives comply with state legal and constitutional requirements, but this says nothing about a more important question; whether or not a state-level investigation has meaningful authority over federal government witnesses and records.

According to the Citizens 9/11 Commission Campaign FAQ: Who Chooses the New Commission? How Will It Operate? web page:

Q. Will the Commission have the power to subpoena suppressed evidence, like the videos of the Pentagon that have been classified and withheld by the FBI? Can we subpoena the CIA? The NSA? The Bush presidential archives? Can we call Bush to testify, or is he immune?

A. Yes, all of the above can be exercised by the Commission.

This answer is misleading. The states belonging to the federal union known as the USA do not have the power or authority to oversee the federal government, except through the members elected to Congress by those states. Subpoenas can be issued by a commission authorized to do under state law, but federal agencies are not obligated to comply with state subpoenas for federal records, due to the sovereign immunity of the US federal government:

The complete immunity of a federal agency from state interference is well established. United States v. Owlett, 15 F. Supp. 736, 741 – Dist. Court, MD Pennsylvania 1936

It has been long settled that the United States cannot be sued, either in federal court or in any state forum, unless it has waived sovereign immunity. … States and comparable entities are treated no differently than any other litigant. Indeed, the lower courts have repeatedly held that, absent a waiver, the United States cannot be forced to obey a subpoena issued by a state court, state grand jury, or state legislative committee. [emphasis added] Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. US, 490 F. 3d 50, 71 – Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit 2007

Persons no longer employed by the US government or not subpoenaed in their official capacity would be in a different situation, if subpoenaed to appear before a state commission and submit to questioning under oath. However, as the “Who Chooses” FAQ acknowledges, the Commission will have little recourse should they fail to appear:

The more likely scenario, however, is that certain individuals and agencies that the Commission subpoenas (presumably those with something to hide) will refuse to respond. Little can be done about this unless any one of these officials enters the state whose powers are used by the Commission to issue the subpoenas.

[Read more…]

Newly Released Memo: Government ‘Minders’ at 9/11 Commission Interviews ‘Intimidated’ Witnesses – Kevin Fenton

 

Source: http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/newly-released-memo-government-‘minders’-at-911-commission-interviews-‘intimidated’-witnesses/

[Read more…]

JREF, Paint, Kaolin, Bentham and Media Coverage of the ‘Active Thermitic Material’ Paper by Erik Larson

[Read more…]

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes back to the Program Dr. Steven E. Jones

This important episode of Visibility 9-11 welcomes back to the program Physicist Dr. Steven E. Jones.  Dr. Jones is a retired physics professor and first emerged in late 2005 with his important paper, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?, and has continued to do groundbreaking research into the “collapses” of all three high rise buildings on September 11th, 2001.

Our talk today with Dr. Jones features an in-depth discussion on a new paper which has been formally published and peer reviewed by The Open Chemical Physics Journal titled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.  In this revolutionary new research paper, discoveries made in the World Trade Center dust, particularly the red/gray bi-layered chips, are examined in great detail and include evidence of the thermite fingerprint at every juncture.

The research paper ends with this sentence, which pulls no punches when it comes to what the authors believe these red/gray chips to be:

“Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

Kevin Ryan says,

“My colleagues and I have a new mainstream peer-reviewed paper published today, entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust From the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”.  Basically it shows that high tech explosive/pyrotechnic materials are scattered throughout the WTC dust.  How can this be?”

Dr. Steven E. Jones another co-author of the paper writes:

“In short, the paper explodes the official story that “no evidence” exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings.”  The red/gray chips are the “loaded gun” of  9-11.

Download this important episode of Visibility 9-11 here.

Find links to the research paper, these episodes, and watch for other planned interviews on this topic at our Visibility 9-11 Special Report, The Thermite Fingerprint; The Loaded Gun.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice Rejects Association with Directed Energy Weapons and Mini-Nukes in Draft Bill – Erik Larson

300x150_stj911Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice Rejects Association with Directed Energy Weapons and Mini-Nukes in Draft Bill by Erik Larson 

Scholars for 9-11 Truth & Justice Misrepresented in Draft Bill Sent to 8 House Members

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice has just issued a press release to make clear that it does not support a recent draft bill that proposes Congress investigate discredited theories, i.e. that “mini-nukes” or “Directed Energy Weapons” caused the destruction of World Trade Center 1, 2 & 7. Also, Dr. Steven Jones, known for publishing papers that address flaws in the NIST reports and present evidence of controlled demolition, has objected to the way he’s represented in the draft bill; he has never referred to thermate as an “explosive”, for instance, though the bill says so. Also, no mention is made of the papers he’s co-authored that have been published in peer-reviewed journals, a major milestone in the 9/11 Truth Movement: 

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 

In the press release for the Ellis, et al bill it says the idea originated with Joel Hirschhorn and Virginia Ross; that Barbara Ellis, Barry Ball and Warren Pease drafted the bill; that 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”; and following that, Ellis, Ball and Pease went to DC to lobby 8 members of Congress to adopt it. The “22 nationally recognized experts” are not named, and this statement only says it was sent to them “for review and changes”; it does not say what their response was, or that any of them actually support the draft published at opednews.com. Steering committee members of STJ911.org were sent a copy of the bill, and they decided not to support it, for the reasons outlined in the STJ press release; no endorsement was given by the organization, though Ellis refers to the bill’s four authors as “Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice”. 

The eight House members are named; according to Ellis’ press release, “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.” If you support new investigations into 9/11 and are in DC, or are one of these Representative’s constituents, you may want to contact their office and find out what they were told, and what their response is- and also let them know about STJ911.org’s press release disavowing association with DEW, mini-nukes and the current version of this draft bill. You can look up your Reps at VoteSmart.org

The draft bill cites Judy Wood and Morgan Reynold’s NIST Request for Correction (RFC) that faults NIST for not addressing the unsupported and discredited theory that Directed Energy Weapons destroyed the WTC; however, it makes no mention of the credible RFC filed by family members and Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice. This, even though those involved in this draft bill appear to be associating themselves with Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. Judy Wood is not a member of the organization; indeed, a number of articles and letters have been published at STJ911.org’s peer-reviewed, open access web journal, Journalof911Studies.com, that refute her work. 

This draft bill proposal for a new investigation of 9/11, although it takes space and time to detail absurd claims, also makes no mention of the fact that 70% of the victims families questions were ignored by the 9/11 Commission, and are still waiting to be addressed by an honest investigation. 

As 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.” People are bound to speculate on the reasons someone would frame a bill this way, but whatever the intent of the authors, it’s true that misinformation distracts and discredits, and that using wording that associates the bill with an organization that didn’t endorse it and had no role in drafting it, is not normal, reasonable or ethical. Given that there’s no actual evidence for “mini-nuke” and DEW theories, and polls show these theories aren’t endorsed by the vast majority of people who support investigation of 9/11, including the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, it’s actually shocking that they would be included in a bill drafted and presented to members of Congress by people calling themselves “Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice”. The bill’s authors are free to speak and publish as they wish, but if their desire is for full disclosure regarding 9/11, in my opinion, they should withdraw this submission in favor of a bill that will generate support from established and reputable 9/11 Truth organizations, scholars and activists; such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice– and the many organizations, activists and researchers that will be reposting their press release. 

For more information on WTC controlled demolition, and debunking of DEW and mini-nukes: 

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 Towersby 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 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 2007Transcript by Arabesque; Analysis by Dr. Greg Jenkins and Arabesque 

Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towersby 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  

Scholars and Family Members Submit Request for Correction to 9/11 NIST Report: Gaps and inconsistencies reveal fundamental flaws in NIST’s building collapse analyses – Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

The Facts Speak For Themselves

Thanks to www.historycommons.org, DHS, and simuvac. This is dedicated to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Jon Gold
9/25/2008

Before I begin, I would like to say that theorizing about what happened on 9/11, when you’re not being given answers to your questions about that day by the people who SHOULD be able to do so, is PERFECTLY normal. As is suspecting that the reason these answers aren’t being given is “sinister” in nature. As Ray McGovern said, “for people to dismiss these questioners as “conspiratorial advocates”, or “conspiratorial theorists”… that’s completely out of line because the… The questions remain because the President who should be able to answer them, WILL NOT.” When you think about everything this Administration has done in almost 8 years, the idea that they might not be giving us the answers we seek because of something “sinister” is not crazy. In fact, it’s the most logical conclusion one can come to at this point. After seven plus years of obfuscation, spin, lies, and cover-ups regarding the 9/11 attacks, it is unavoidable to think that criminal complicity is the reason why.

That being said, we have not proven it beyond the shadow of doubt. We do not have documentation that shows they planned it. We do not have a signed confession from someone. We have pieces of the puzzle, and to most of us that have been doing this a long time, those pieces point to more than just Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and 19 hijackers. If we could somehow download all of our knowledge to every person on the planet, this fight would be over tomorrow. However, we can’t do that. I wish we could. I wish the media would DO THEIR JOB. But, they’re not. Therefore, we have to be smart with how we approach people. This is America, and in America, you are innocent until proven guilty.

As I have often said, we don’t need to come up with a narrative (theory) because our facts speak for themselves. I am going to do my very best to prove my point. A lot of these facts are from mainstream news outlets. Yes, they do report the news, but they DO NOT put the pieces together, they DO NOT ask the tough questions over and over again until they get an answer, they DO NOT give these facts the attention they should, reminiscent of the attention that Britney Spears, Scott Peterson, The Aruba Murders, and The Swift Boat Veterans got, and they DO NOT portray us in any other light except as “Conspiracy Theorists.”

Fact #1
The Bush Administration was predominantly made up of members of an organization called “The Project For A New American Century.” This group produced a document entitled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that said the “process of transformation” they wanted our military to undertake would take an excessively long time, unless there was a “catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” That document was written in September 2000. This document even cited that “advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” A lot of the same people were part of a group that wrote a report entitled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” that advocated an aggressive Israeli policy in the Middle East.
[Read more…]

Michael Wolsey Guest Hosts on Words of Freedom, Again! with Guest Janice Matthews

In this special broadcast of Visibility 9-11, Michael once again guest hosts for Words of Freedom with George Flynn. Words of Freedom is aired on KRFC, 88.9 FM in Fort Collins, Colorado on Monday nights at 5:30 – 6:00 pm mountain time (no commercials).  This opportunity provides a valuable window to introduce 9-11 truth to an audience who rarely hear our message.  Many thanks to George for the honor of sitting in for him while he is away on business.

This episode of Words of Freedom features an interview with Janice Matthews, Executive Director for 911truth.org.  Janice works as hard or harder than anyone in the movement and may be one of the most knowledgeable 9-11 activists in the world.  Here, Janice discusses 911truth.org, its mission, and the current state of the 9-11 movement.

Direct Download this episode of Words of Freedom.