Hi! The design of the International Citizen's 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal is to provide a judicial, impartial forum for the evaluation of forensic evidence.

At present, there are several alternative, though not mutually exclusive models of how the WTC Towers fell, in a controlled demolition. While there is compelling evidence for one model over another at this time, the purpose of an impartial forum is to allow evidence to be presented. This includes evidence of traditional chemical means of controlled demolition, as well as more exotic means, as warranted by the forensic evidence. The models of controlled demolition to be explored, thus would include at least: traditional thermite and thermate explosives; Microfusion devices (4th generation nuclear weapons); and Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), be they land-based, air-based, or space-based. Correspondence with the USAF Kirtland Base Directed Energy Directorate does not rule out the existence of Directed Energy Weapons in these configurations.

Victronix comments, particularly after the complete explanation set out in the MEDIA ADVISORY, are thus suspect in intent, as they are intended to prejudice the public against the process of fair adjudication in a Citizen;s Tribunal.

I would urge any open-minded person to reject Victronix Comments.

Sincerely,

Alfred Webre
Vancouver, BC

Support the International Citizen's 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal

http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/911/

Alfred, I expect you are sincere but are wading into an area in which you will meet with great resistance.

Our movement is made up of real people doing real science. It sounds like you haven't read the Journal of 9/11 Studies, where the ideas you are presenting have been refuted repeatedly by scientists. By including "space weapons" in your Tribunal you primarily make our movement look nutty to average Americans. You may not care about that, but since 99% of the rest of us do, you should not claim to represent us. If you cast out the most extreme ideas into the public and claim to represent anyone but tiny minority, you are not being sincere. You can claim you know more than others about space weapons, but you don't have any evidence they were used on 9/11/01, and if you are going to say that they were, or even suggest it, then you need to write up the refutations to the below papers and show that you do. Show us the evidence.

Without a need for evidence, we could claim that space weapons cause almost everything that goes wrong in the world. That's why the scientific method exists. It's easy to say "it could have been" but it's a whole different ballgame to do the work to actually show that it "could have been". Just because technology exists or is hidden by the US military doesn't mean it was used on 9/11/01. Show us the evidence and debate with the researchers. Submit a paper to the Journal and they will publish it. Then someone may respond in their own paper to your claims.

Scientific theories are not 'explored' in an International Tribunal. Evidence which has been carefully gathered and examined closely and tested is presented. You have not been debating and testing this evidence with others involved in 9/11 yet now you claim to represent us to the world. This is big problem.

Please read the refutations here -

Were “mini-nukes” used at the World Trade Center?
“Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers” (January 16, 2007)
Steven Jones
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-th...

Was a “star-wars” beam weapon used at the WTC?
The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center
Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed...

“Scientific Critique of Judy Wood’s Paper “The Star Wars Beam Weapon” (January 9, 2007)
James Gourley
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/scientific-critique-of-judy...

INTERVIEW WITH DR. JUDY WOOD AND DR. GREG JENKINS (May 15, 2007)
Analysis by Greg Jenkins and Arabesque
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Wood-JenkinsInterview.pdf

Victronix - I went to your profile. You list your website as an organizational website:

9/11 Truth.

http://www.stj911.org/

You list no personal details about yourself.

If you do not identify yourself and your personal stakes in this project, you have no personal accountability for what you say and no accountability for the consequences of your statements, which are repetitive cant without any substance, and assume a lack on integrity on the 9/11 Independent Prosecutor Act which has been ongoing for 18 months.

Identify yourself now, or shut up and withdraw, and go perform your hoaxes on some other project.

Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd
Vancouver, BC

Support the International Citizen's 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal

http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/911/

"Victronix" is Victoria Ashley, longtime lover and partner of COINTELPRO agent Jim Hoffman, an NSA & NASA animator related to Neil Armstrong (of Apollo 11 tv-fakery fame) by marriage.

Hoffman & Ashley have spent years trying to propagate the lie that an American Airlines Boeing airliner crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.

Having failed in that endeavor, the two have now turned their hysterical 9/11-denial to the issue of exotic weaponry.

It should be little surprise that this NASA-connected COINTELPRO agent, Victoria Ashley, is now focusing her lies and propaganda on denial of space-based weapons.

When the revolution comes, Ashley may be fairly tried and hanged for treason-related charges of accesory-after-the-fact -- HOWEVER, she still has time to repent and tell the truth.

We hope she does so and wish her well in that journey.

Mr. Webre, the evidence for "TV Fakery" is quite strong, and I trust you are aware of it.

I have stated elsewhere at 911 Blogger that even if the evidence for exotic weapons is weak, it is pragmatic and beneficial to consider this evidence because so many in the movement believe it to have merit. There is no need to defensively worry about how this will be perceived--it's not for us to explain how the towers were pulverized, as we know that they were and that it is utterly implauisble that "Al Qaeda" did it. Thus, divisive allegations of disinformation are unnecessary.

However, I think you are missing a very key point--involvement and/or use of mass media organs to sell a false story. Fred at 9/11 Researchers has even offered some video analysis suggesting that the faked broadcasts served to hide what was happening to the towers before they were pulverized.