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


Contact: Victoria Ashley, STJ911 committee member
Phone: 510-769-5109

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

Berkeley, CA, October 22, 2008 -- On October 18, 2008, an OpEdNews article titled, "8 House Members View Draft Bill on Independent Science/Tech Probe of WTC 1, 2, 7 Collapses," was published by four members of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice ( The authors of the article and draft bill are not spokespersons for Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, and therefore are individually responsible for it.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice does not endorse the draft bill due to the inclusion of numerous unscientific claims and misrepresentations, and condemns in the strongest of terms any associations between the organization and the claims presented by the authors of this bill. 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..."

While in agreement with the authors of this bill that a new investigation into the tragic events of September 11, 2001 is warranted, representatives of the Scholars group note that the draft bill and article lack basic scientific rigor and credibility, with statements such as, "the entire WTC [complex] was destroyed by directed energy weaponry (DEW)," and the ideas that "nuclear materials, missiles or DEW weapons were used." The sister publication of the Scholars group, The Journal of 9/11 Studies (, has numerous peer-reviewed scientific articles refuting such claims.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice believes that a much better bill can be crafted using the strong analysis in articles by its members, several of which are recently published in scientific journals, including The Open Civil Engineering Journal, The Environmentalist, and the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Kevin Ryan, a former Underwriters Laboratories (UL) manager who was fired in 2004 for publicly questioning the NIST report, and a committee member of the Scholars' group, says the bill is harmful to the cause of exposing the truth. "Basically," he said, "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." In fact, the bill also omits any mention of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, which provided hundreds of questions left unanswered by the 9/11 Commission.

Scholars' member Dr. Steven E. Jones, a Professor of Physics, also notes that statements attributed to him in the bill are "errors . . . misrepresenting my published statements." Dr. Jones goes on to say, "It is unacceptable to misrepresent my views, as is done in this document by Ellis et al., and to ignore my published technical papers in established journals."

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization of over 500 independent researchers analyzing the September 11, 2001 attacks with a strong emphasis on the scientific method.

For information: or
Phone: 510-769-5109
# # #

Non-Scholar Low Information Americans

I suppose you could say I’ve developed a resentment towards the cell phone talking, text messaging, utterly uninformed, video game playing everything is either awesome or sucks crowd that make the work or real scholars easily overlooked.


EDIT: Digg

It'll get buried at Digg, but it boosts the Google rank just by being in there, doesn't it?

9/11 Sci-Fi Theories Plausible Enough For Suckers

Sci-fi theories like mini-nukes, DEWs and "no planes" are plausible enough for fools to contemplate and crazy enough to damage legitimate speculation and research, in the light of public scrutiny.

- Divide and conquer
- Discredit and conquer

Educated people could not honestly endorse these theories.

Mini-nukes? DEWs? "No planes"?

Why not sun-spot activity?

EDIT: Ellis Posts Response at OpEdNews, on STJ Thread

Barbara Ellis has posted the response of herself, Hirschhorn, Ball and Pease on the thread for the STJ911 press release posted at

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

(Ellis bill at OpEdNews) 8 House Members View Draft Bill on Independent Science/Tech Probe of WTC 1, 2, 7 Collapses

(My commentary at OpEdNews) Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice Rejects Association with Directed Energy Weapons and Mini-Nukes in Draft Bill by Erik Larson

If you support investigation of 9/11, including evidence of controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2 & 7, and you disavow association with debunked theories that discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement, i.e. DEW and mini-nukes, here’s a couple simple things you can do:

1) Click on the link to the STJ press release to boost its visibility in popularity/page view rankings at OpEdNews
2) Leave a comment- or several, if a discussion starts or trolls/shills appear.

Suggestions for commenting; remember, comments are ultimately for the lurking public:

1) Quote from Ellis’ press release and bill, debunk nonsense and promote good evidence, with links

2) Pose questions and suggestions to Ellis; don’t attack her

3) Ignore trolls and shills; even make it clear you’re ignoring them by repeating steps 1 and 2 as replies to their comments.

And if you support STJ911 and good evidence, please post a link to the STJ press release on your blog, if you have one; if you don't, check this out:

this is mine (thx for the inspiration, 911blogger, George Washington, Arabesque and Col. Jenny Sparks):

This is not a game.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Show "can this really hurt us?" by gerard

Discrediting by Association

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

This is not the first time that discredited theories widely rejected by the vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement have been presented to represent the 9/11 truth movement by association to U.S. government officials. For example, a 2007 press release by attorney Jerry Leaphart discussing a return for correction to NIST explained:

"Prof. Morgan Reynolds, with various evidence, challenges the assumption that large jet planes hit the towers... Dr. Wood, concludes from her study, that some type of Directed Energy Weapon was used to destroy most of the WTC buildings."

Reynolds' document entitled "What Planes?" asserts that video footage of the attacks on the World Trade Center were "simply based on impossible physics, rather like a 'Road Runner' or 'Tom and Jerry' cartoon". As already mentioned, many of these claims have been exhaustively discredited in the Journal of 9/11 studies, but these authors persist in their promotion of these discrediting claims. James Gourley explains:

"It's called discrediting by association... You've got these people saying that real planes didn't hit the WTC towers at all in their submission... That only discredits the rest of us, regardless of what the real motive behind it is."

What was particularly noteworthy about the NIST return for correction by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds is that it shortly preceded a submission by a "group of scientists, researchers and 9/11 family members" which challenged official reports of the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11, with "a Request for Correction (RFC) with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)." When NIST finally replied to this request for correction, they stated that they were "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

This latest article which associates discredited claims with the 9/11 truth movement and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice has the similar function of discrediting by association, regardless of intent.

A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog


Memories. People that promote this bunk have tacked on years to this cause, and that is unforgiveable.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

i see your point


sorry, another question

is there anyone from our side working on a similar bill draft?

yes to real legislation, and what DO the 22 think?

re: your question about were the researchers contacted; in Ellis' press release, the “22 nationally recognized experts” are not named, and this statement only says it was sent to them “for review and changes”; it would be good to find out the names of the 22 and get their opinions on it; the press release doesn't say what they thought of the bill, or if they support it- hmmmmmmm.

is anyone else drafting legislation and lobbying Congress? It sounds like a good idea, and I hope truth activists with the brains and experience for that crank some stuff out, hint, hint, if you're reading this

This is very unfortunate

I thought the DEWers were left in Fetzer's camp.

My interpretation

is that this is an attempt to slam Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice by associating them with outrageous 'theories'.

After all, the Scholars have written articles debunking DEW/nuclear.

Show "so the authors of the draft" by gerard

i should clarify

i should clarify: i definitely think some of the people positing outrageous theories are saboteurs. the no planes stuff is just so far out there... just so far beyond the pale... i mean, they must be intent on causing harm to the truth movement. it's the only way to interpret that stuff. first responders pulled LANDING GEAR off pedestrians IN THE STREET. there is simply no other way to spin that. plane flew into building. period.

but fetzer just seems like a guy who suffers from PTSD and/or some other disorder.

as Arabesque and Gourley have noted

no one "needs" to know the intent of people promoting misinformation or if there really is an organized COINTELPRO style effort; misinformation distracts and discredits and damages the 9/11 Truth Movement; do you trust the judgment and integrity of people who promote misinformation- especially if they keep on doing so despite attempts by numerous reputable truth activists to get them to see their errors, even with articles published in peer-reviewed journals- as Fetzer, Wood, Reynolds, etc. have done?

good point.

thanks for pointing this out.

initially i was thinking that it would all just "come out in the wash" ... that they weren't going to go away but that they'd be vetted early in the process of a review by "the powers that be". but then again, when i see realize how absolutely STUPID people are when it comes to politics, current events, etc, well, i agree that the 9/11 truth movement simply cannot take the chance to have the association with bunk theories... in any context.

there are so many people that i've approached with 9/11 truth info... and it's always surprising to see how many actually stop and ask "you're not one of those people who believe in 'no planes' are you?". so yes, i see how it would be ultimately harmful.

but we REALLY need someone doing this. someone drafting this legitimately. is anyone aware of a movement to do this?

I agree..and more

Even beyond slamming STJ911, it may be an effort to pacify those with credibility and influence, like Hirschhorn, who have presented reasonable arguments for a new investigation, while giving themselves a back door to discredit the entire line of inquiry. Why else would they include the "14 major theories about what destroyed WTC 1, 2, and 7 that have been widely circulating nationally and internationally since September 2001?" Fourteen theories? I've been in this movement for almost three years and I can count only about four or five, three of which are a far cry from "widely circulated." Can this hurt us? Can it help us? Possibly on both counts. In some respects, the outcome has to do with the "us" portion of the equation, which is all we have control over. I am confident that the people at STJ911 can handle themselves. In the bigger picture, it really doesn't matter where this ends up. The movement has already vetted Wood and Fetzer, moving forward accordingly. Those who want to discredit us by associating our efforts with some of the wackjobs are already doing so, and yet we remain resilient and stronger than ever. Among our strongest suits is our ability recognize inadequate inquiry, along with the fact that we have no overriding political agenda that fits into any conventional paradigm. This must frustrate the hell out of politicians who would love to eliminate us by pointing out our political motives. I think if we just keep on doing what we are doing, we will be fine, and even an adverse outcome of this proposed bill will not be a setback.


I'm sure our cause will still be lumped in with our purely political motivations once a Democrat takes the presidency.

It sickens me every day when I think that people actually hold these people in such high regard as to consider them heroes
Together in Truth!

Cointelpro figures out a way...

This is very disturbing but surely makes the point that we are definitely on the right track at exposing these criminals because this is exactly how cointelpro does its thing.

Not knowing the authors, or caring to know them, I am not making claims that they are THE cointelpro agents involved, but I DO STATE OPENLY, that the net result is a perfect profile for cointelpro actions designed to discredit credible people and orgnizations.

As we all know, the "steering" of such public actions usually takes place by people who are several layers removed from the "public face" of these types of actions. They are hard to find, and even hardrer to rout out.

Talk to the peace movements and they STILL have no idea that they have been hacked for 30+ a few of their their alleged "friends in peace" with whom they congregate almost every day!

However, anyone who would forward such a bill and would use the organization and names associated with Scholars for Truth and Justice are flat out responsible for this event getting onto the wrong track. It hardly seems by accident and indeed, I suggest that it is not by accident but by some design.

Semper Fi...

Ollie North, Blackwater, and the Fetzer and Ventura types...some military folks have very interesting senses of duty...some have the brass balls to do ANYTHING if they saw it as their duty....there are no civil laws...only following orders...or expressing their own versions of patriotism...

Robin Hordon

This disinfo move can

This disinfo move can backfire on the clowns though, in the same way "no planes" garbage has. If it’s publically rejected strongly enough by stj911.og then it can actually help to draw a clear distinction between the nutball junk science and the real credible work by Dr Jones etc. Everything these jokers do falls flat and ends up inadvertently helping the real cause for truth and justice.

DBLS- you're right on about the backfire effect-

the thing that actually got me to look seriously at Jim Hoffman and evidence for a 757 hitting the Pentagon was actually shills like Fetzer and Von Kleist heavily promoting as a given something that was obviously speculative and not proven

John Albanese commented on this phenom on GW's "Hey, Hot Shot" article

Are these mofo's "fighting the last war"; the 60's hippies? This is the information age; the old techniques no longer, work; instead, they create a clear contrast in an environment where claims can be almost instantly verified or disproven; if these people are promoting BS, why and what's the truth?

(Fizzle- if you're here taking notes; the "ho ho ho"'s on you)


The fact that certain operatives seek to discredit honest activists just reaffirms the value and importance of the good, honest work available.
The operatives cannot reach all the uninformed or undecided professionals and laypersons. I reached out to some more today. Reading this thread spurs me on.

Who Are The 4 Members Cited?

Who are the 4 members cited that are alleging:

"the entire WTC [complex] was destroyed by directed energy weaponry (DEW)," and the ideas that "nuclear materials, missiles or DEW weapons were used."

This would constitute a remarkable act of deliberate tampering designed to bring ridicule upon the movement and to undermine other legitimate investigative efforts.

from the draft bill's OpEd press release:

this print-friendly link is easier to read thru; 22 pages on the main link

"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."

This site was asked to report on the Draft bill...

In its current state. It isn't long before one runs into problems.

In the seventh paragraph of Sec.2(a);

"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."

As I noted in this blog entry; On Disinformation and Damaging Associations, this lawsuit has had the effect of being a spoiler for future legal action. Judge Daniels in particular has certainly been compromised with a lawsuit heavy on ideas, and light on evidence, never mind proof!

In one of the most vitally important jurisdictions for 9/11 legal action in the country, Wood, Reynolds & Co. have left a huge turd in the punchbowl.

This lawsuit can't be refiled in Daniels' district, and possibly in any US District Court. Had Daniels allowed it go forward, it could have resulted in a legal precedent innoculating Underwriters and Silverstein Properties from prosecution for 9/11 action. Considering the nature of the lawsuit, which you can read about here;

Citing the Wood "lawsuit" was a terrible gaffe. This draft bill should have been heavily vetted BEFORE it was circulated to Congress.

In subsection (11) paragraph of Sec.2(b);

"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."

I see Deagle is now incorporating Thermate into his visions now. Nice.

Jones challenged Deagle on his evidence after his presentation last year;

(Sorry, you will have to crank up the volume on the above viddy, don't forget to crank it back down!)

We're still waiting for proof of "micro-nukes" at WTC.

"Citing the Wood 'lawsuit' was a terrible gaff"

"Citing the Wood "lawsuit" was a terrible gaff. This draft bill should have been heavily vetted BEFORE it was circulated to Congress."

Please note that John Lear from Pilots for 9/11 Truth is someone who supported the Judy Wood lawsuit:

"On [Above Top Secret]... one of the things I talked about was... there were no planes on 9/11. There were no planes. There was no plane in Shanksville. There was no airplane at the Pentagon. There was no airplane at the World Trade Center... what they did with controlled demolitions... was to make what we call the "Wiley Coyotee" cut-out in the face like an airplane crashed in it which is absolutely insanely ridiculous but a lot of people believed it... March 31st, 2007... a guy named Morgan Reynolds... filed a suit... complaint against these 22 companies. We're talking about major companies here. Science applications international corporation, applied research, Hughs... all these companies... are being sued... for accepting money for providing a government agency with fraudulent information. The government agency they provided this fraudulent information with was NIST... I filed an affidavit... in support of the complaint in an opposition to the motion that to dismiss... I testified no. 1 why the airplanes couldn't have traveled as fast as they did and how they couldn't be flown as well as they were and why there was no wreckage in there... other pilots are employed, they can't afford to come forward... many have. There's an organization called pilots for truth... and I'm a member--one of the earlier members of that... there's a lot of people who realized that this can't have possibly happened..."

"Letter to Alex Jones

by Jerry Leaphart, Attorney for Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds
signed by: Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Morgan Reynolds, John Lear... I am the attorney for Drs. Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds. Collectively, we are a group of people who are taking formal legal steps in furtherance of proving the "no plane" theory and the "directed energy weapons" (DEW) causal theory in connection with the events of 9/11/01, in federal court. Thus we are "no planers" and we are "exotic weapons" adherents in the formal sense of putting our proofs of claim forward in legally permissible ways; namely federal lawsuits... signed by:

Dr. Judy Wood
Dr. Morgan Reynolds
John Lear"

I spent some time debunking Judy Wood's RFC here:

A Brief Analysis of Dr. Judy Wood’s Request for Correction to NIST: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Tactics Are Brilliant, Devious

The methods of Woods, Reynolds & Co. are crazy - like a fox.

They seem perfectly designed to derail legitimate inquiry.

If it is any consolation, these apparently deliberate efforts may be one of the strongest signals that we are right to suspect that the 9/11 attacks we an Inside Job and that disruptive operatives have been deployed to undermine our search for the truth and justice.

How else can one explain this activity?

I Remember

Their behavior only makes sense in the context of being intended to disrupt and discredit.

The "TV Fakery"/"No Planes" rubbish is plausible enough for suckers to ponder and for reasonable observers to ridicule - that is why it is so effective and seems to have been well considered.

This almost seems like a Saturday Night Live skit (except that no mention is made of Reynold's ties to the Bush White House or control of Reynolds' Texas A&M by Defense Secretary & ex-CIA boss Gates, just an inferred association to the academic community):

Other less plausible outcomes seem to have been poorly considered in the absence of complete information but the bunk peddled by Reynolds, Fetzer, Woods & Co. seems to have been crafted.

And more recently, it was hard not to notice Jim Fetzer lurking in the background while Jesse Ventura was being interviewed at the Republican convention counter-event.

These people embedded themselves and attached themselves to the movement and major figures within it. Then simultaneously they seemed to attack plausible alternative outcomes while generating absurd ones of their own.

fool me... can't get fooled again

with some people there's a clear pattern- thank god for the web and, everything's on everyone's permanent record.

btw, Aidan, still lists you as a member; have you asked to be removed?

just wondering.

Your FOIA'ing is very illuminating- seriously

EDIT- PS, i'm one of the people that voted up Aidan's comment i replied to- along with a number of other good ones above

Was One Of The Original 50 Members 3 Years Ago

I don't think I have ever asked to be removed from the list of members of S911T (lazy?). However, if someone can provide a link to Fetzer's inbox, I'll make the request in light of this conversation.

Let me state for the record that I want nothing to do with Fetzer, Reynolds, Woods & Co. To put it politely, I have serious questions about the motives of this group.

When Steve Jones, DRG and others joined S911T several years ago, I was inspired to also join.

That changed once Fetzer began to attack Steve Jones' views while peddling other Sci-Fi 9/11 theories.

Aidan's name has been removed from

formerly sandwiched between these two unfortunate souls:

Max J. Mizejewski (AM)
Retired US Army combat veteran. Served as helicopter pilot in Viet Nam

Tony Morgan (AM)
BA, teaching in Japan

Thanks for taking care of that, Aidan.

And Arabesque's right, imho; posting your research on your own blog, in addition to, is a good idea.

Web Coverage of the press release

The New Media Rules!

I've updated my blog post on this with a round up of one week's web coverage- scroll down, let me know if i missed anything:

Ellis posted by Galileo aka James Madison at

Are there any Paul fans that post over there that can smack this down with the press release?