9/11 ATTACK ON AMERICA: RESPONSE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Please see the response of the International Criminal Court to my letter regarding the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States.

As suggested in the ICC letter, would you be interested in "raising it with appropriate national or international authorities"? Are you prepared to commit time and/or funds to this effort?

Please reply via email to ceo@twf.org, with ICC/OTP/911 in subject line, if you are interested.

Enver Masud
Founder and CEO

9/11: Communication to International Criminal Court Delivered

Letter to ICC/OTP

9/11: Communication to International Criminal Court

THE WISDOM FUND
P O Box 2723 
Arlington, VA 22202

October 1, 2012

International Criminal Court 
Office of the Prosecutor 
Communications
Post Office Box 19519 
2500 CM The Hague
The Netherlands 

Dear Sir:

It is stated at the ICC website: “The OTP is currently conducting preliminary examinations in a number of situations including Afghanistan, . . . ” and one is invited to “submit information about alleged crimes”. This letter and enclosures provide information about the coverup of the facts of 9/11 used to justify the wrongful invasion of Afghanistan.

Former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, chief U.S. prosecutor at the first Nuremberg trial, called waging aggressive war "the supreme international crime”. The enclosed Evidence of Complicity andCover-up at the Pentagon, slide presentation, and book 9/11 Unveiled contain information that could lead to indictments of individuals who were either complicit in or covered up the facts of 9/11 that led to the invasion of Afghanistan.

A co-founder of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., Deputy Director for Planning at the National Security Council, and Principal Foreign Policy Adviser to Richard Nixon has written: “9/11 Unveiled . . . is the best short summary of what most Americans and virtually all of the rest of the world consider to be the ‘9/11 mystery’.”

I managed the National Power Grid Study (directed a couple of dozen, multidisciplinary teams — total 150 persons), and the National Electric Reliability Study for the U.S. Department of Energy. I also set up and directed the Operations Review Division at the Iowa Commerce Commission, and consulted for the U.S. Agency for International Development and the World Bank in several countries. I’ve received awards from the Human Rights Foundation (South Africa), the U.S. Department of Energy, and the American Federation of Muslims of Indian Origin.

I urge you to examine the enclosed evidence. My associates and I are prepared to provide more. 

Sincerely,
Enver Masud
Founder and President

A note on the technical feasibility of the destruction of World Trade Center 1 and 2 by a directed energy weapon

Some in the 9/11 truth movement have advanced the theory that a directed energy weapon was used to destroy World Trade Center 1 and 2. Before one entertains this theory, one must determine if this is technically feasible.

For example, if I were to state that I will transport 1000 people, 3000 miles, in my BMW z3 Coupe, in one week, it would immediately be obvious that this is not technically feasible.

Similarly, when one considers the possibility of a directed energy weapon having been used to destroy World Trade Center 1 and 2, a little research (undertaken between 3:00 am and 4:00 last night) shows that this too is not technically feasible.

The goal of the High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System, launched following a research breakthrough by DARPA in 2003, was to fabricate and demonstrate a system with an output power of 15 kW. "Based on the results of this demonstration, additional laser modules [would] be developed... to produce a 150 kW laser weapon system demonstrator."

The Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed Energy Weapons in its December 2007 report proposed 1-3 MW (i.e. 1000 to 3000 kW) Free Electron Laser prototype in 2020.

Note that a few years after the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, directed energy weapons of the order of 15kW, to 3000 kW by the year 2020, were targets for development. A 15 kW system was yet to be "fabricated and demonstrated".

Could a 15 kW directed energy weapon (not yet developed in 2001) have brought down the World Trade Center?

To put this in perspective, "Measurements show a house will occasionally use as much as 15 kilowatts for short intervals".

In other words, the 15 kW directed energy weapon (not yet developed in 2001) is equivalent to the maximum demand for a typical house. Even a 3000 kW directed energy weapon (a target for 2020) would be equivalent to the maximum demand for 200 homes.

One doesn't need to do any calculation to conclude that directed energy weapons available in 2001 were not sufficient to bring down the World Trade Center. Even directed energy weapons that were targeted for development by 2020 would not be sufficient to bring down the World Trade Center.

Therefore, one may safely conclude that a directed energy weapon having been used to destroy World Trade Center 1 and 2 is not technically feasible.

Enver Masud
Founder and CEO
The Wisdom Fund

1,000 fire departments receive piece of WTC steel