9/11 And “War On Terror” Questioned In Japan`s Parliament Landmark Speech By Congressman Yukihisa Fujita

You Tube Link (edited version of the 20 minute long speech – complete version will be added)

On October 22, 2008, Yukihisa Fujita, Congressman for the Democratic Party of Japan made a 20 minute speech on the floor of the Japanese Diet or House of Representatives. For the third time this year he directly questioned the official version of 9/11

At the same time he called on the government to stop all support for the US-led military operations. After presenting reports of heavy civilian and military losses in Iraq and Afghanistan he went on to describe the Kucinich impeachment debate in US-Congress and its wide support by representatives of the House. In detail he listed the particular reasons for impeachment, that US-Congressman Dennis Kucinich presented to congress this summer. He also reported on Ron Pauls demands for impeachment and new 9/11 investigations.
Fujita emphasized that there was never an official police investigation into the deaths of the 24 Japanese citizens who were killed on 9/11, he then talked about questions put forward by japanese victim`s families of 9/11 to the former Prime Minister Koshimizu and asked why the government never responded.
This time there was no public broadcast of his 20 minute speech on NHK television. It was the third time since January, that Yukihisa Fujita voiced his doubts about 9/11 on the floor of the japanese parliament.

Fujita is a member of the Democratic Party of Japan which is the main opposition party, holding a majority in the Upper House of Parliament and has 36 % of the seats in the Lower House, the more powerful house. Mr. Fujita`s calls for a new investigation are backed by his party leadership. He made also presentations to members of other parties.
Yukihisa Fujita is currently working to form an international coalition to demand an independent, international 9/11 investigation and has been in contact with politicians in Europe and the US.

Here a videointerview with MP Fujita in July 2008 in Berlin

Videos of Mr. Fujitas speech in japanese parliament April 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqtQrP2CZwY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOi8XrceC9w

Videos of Mr. Fujitas speech in japanese parliament Jan. 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq4_07FmCyA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02esZQr-u74
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t-dZiNE9NI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV_WIZ1PDt4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaEGhiHhZ1Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A43IxJcFJEw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hUexQWI948
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKtv36Sh3iQ

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.com

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 (STJ911.org). 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 (www.JournalOf911Studies.com), 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: http://www.stj911.com or
Contact: stj911@gmail.com
Phone: 510-769-5109
# # #

The Journal of Engineering Mechanics has recently published a paper I authored. It can be found here, beginning on page 915: (PDF 224kb)

Normally, such a publication would be announced [here] at 911Blogger to let everyone know we are still making progress publishing criticisms of the official fairy tale in mainstream technical journals, in the hopes of reaching more members of the scientific and engineering community.

While I am excited this paper will be reaching new audiences, and I would like to share that fact with you, I am writing today for a different purpose.

Not much is ever written about what we go through to get these papers published. The publication of this paper is a case study in the struggles we face. I’d like to relate to you exactly what I had to go through to get this paper published, and what influences the substance of it have already had. I hesitate to reveal some of the information below, but as will become clear, the Journal of Engineering Mechanics personnel have demonstrated a complete lack of scientific ethics, and I feel like I have no choice but to publish exactly what occurred in the lead up to my paper’s publication.

Before I begin, let me make it perfectly clear that I do not want anyone to call, email or otherwise harass the editors or staff at the Journal of Engineering Mechanics or the authors of the papers I talk about below. Such behavior is extremely counterproductive, and I do not support or endorse such actions.

The Bazant/Greening Paper

In June 2007, I was sent a link to a paper by Dr. Zdenek Bazant, Dr. Frank Greening, and others, that had been submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM) for peer review and publication. This paper (the Bazant/Greening Paper) can be found here: (PDF 729kb)

After reading through the Bazant/Greening Paper, I came up with essentially the same criticism that I was eventually able to get published this month at JEM. The Bazant/Greening paper repeated and expanded upon Dr. Bazant’s theory of crush down/crush up collapse progression. This crush down/crush up theory was first developed by Bazant in 2001, and expanded on by Bazant & Zhou in 2002, and Bazant & Verdure in 2007. I find the crush down/crush up theory completely unbelievable for the reasons I stated in my paper.

Back in June 2007, I sent an email to the editor of JEM that basically laid out my criticisms of the Bazant/Greening paper. About three weeks later, one of the Associate Editors of JEM sent me an email that read as follows:

Dear Mr. Gourley:

We recently received your critique on the paper entitled “Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?” I have attached a standard reviewer form that is filled out by each person as they review an article. If you could please complete this form so that we will have a better understanding of where your comments fall on our standard scale, we would appreciate it very much. When completed, you can e-mail the reviewer form to [redacted] or [redacted]. Thank you for the time and effort that you have already put into the review of this paper, and we look forward to receiving your further comments.

Sincerely,

[redacted]

I completed the reviewer forms that evening, and sent it back to JEM the following day. The reviewer forms allowed me to recommend for or against publication of the paper. I, of course, recommended against publication until my concerns were addressed.

Read the rest of this entry »

Delta Force officer: US officials stopped plans to kill bin Laden
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Monday October 6, 2008
The Raw Story

After September 11, 2001, a team of elite Delta Force commandos was sent into Afghanistan with an assignment to find and kill Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora — but that mission failed.

The commander of the Delta Force team has now written a book which tells what he says is the true story of what went wrong. He appeared anonymously on CBS’s 60 Minutes on Sunday to summarize that story.

Bin Laden was known to be holed up at Tora Bora on a ridge with an elevation of 14,000 feet. The Delta Force team’s initial plan was to come at him from the direction he’d least expect, climbing over the mountains at his back, but that plan wasn’t approved by the higher-ups. Their second idea, to drop hundreds of landmines along the mountain passes to Pakistan to impede bin Laden’s retreat and then bring in helicopters, was also turned down.

“How often does Delta come up with a tactical plan that’s disapproved by higher headquarters?” CBS’s Scott Pelley asked the commando leader.

“In my experience, in my five years at Delta, never before,” he replied.

The only remaining option was a frontal assault by 50 US Delta Force members plus their Afghan guides — and the Afghan warlord accompanying the commandos frankly told them, “I don’t think you guys can handle it.” A few million dollars from the CIA quickly secured his cooperation, but only to a degree.

The Delta Force leader told CBS that the Afghan fighters went home every night, abandoning whatever territory had been gained that day. “It was almost like it was an agreement, an understanding between the two forces fighting each other,” he stated When the CIA did come up with an exact location on bin Laden, it was nighttime, and the Afghan support was nowhere to be found.

“It wasn’t worth the risk at that particular moment to go up there and play cowboy,” the leader told CBS. “It was better to be cautious, refit, go up there with the entire force the next day and play the battle out as we had planned.” But when he attempted to move on bin Laden the next day, his Afghan allies balked, saying they had negotiated a cease fire with al Qaeda, and even drew their weapons on the Delta force team to prevent it from acting alone.

Read the rest of this story which includes a video from 60 minutes.