911blogger.com seeks to cover a broad spectrum of news, posts in the blogs section are the responsibility of the poster, readers are encouraged to check the facts and form their own conclusions.
John D. Wyndham's blog
Other Collapses in Perspective: An Examination of Steel Structures Collapsing due to Fire and their Relation to the WTC by Adam Taylor.
This paper discusses the failure due to fires of a number of steel-framed buildings and other structures that have been cited as evidence that the World Trade Center buildings that “collapsed” on 9/11 could well have done so because of damage and fire alone. Of the buildings cited by those who adhere to the official story of 9/11, almost none are high-rise skyscrapers, a point brought out by the author. This paper provides a solid basis and a photographic reference for rebutting the claims of the official story of fire and damage-induced collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. You can read and comment on this paper at:
John D. Wyndham
April 28, 2013
The Pentagon Attack: Eyewitnesses, Debris Flow and Other Issues – A Reply to Fletcher and Eastman, by John D. Wyndham.
This paper deals with issues raised in a November, 2012 letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies by Tod Fletcher and Timothy E. Eastman. These involve eyewitness testimonies as analyzed by Jerry Russell and by David Ray Griffin in his book, “9/11 Ten Years Later,” together with other topics that include debris flow through the Pentagon interior, energy considerations, and questions previously unaddressed by the author.
Four appendices focus on inaccuracies in the Fletcher and Eastman letter; on David Griffin’s list of physical evidence items that, in his view, weigh against the 757 impact theory; on the testimony of the unfairly-maligned taxi driver, Lloyde England; and on Jerry Russell’s and David Griffin’s analyses of Pentagon eyewitnesses.
You can read the paper and submit comments for moderated discussion at:
John D. Wyndham
April 12, 2013
A new website, www.scientificmethod911.org is now up and running. Its primary purpose is the discussion of scientific papers on the events of 9/11. In order to maintain dialog at the level of principles inherent in the scientific method, the discussions will be moderated. After evaluation, comments and responses will be posted on the website in a discussion page. Authors are invited to submit their writings, both old and new, for discussion and feedback from the wider community of 9/11 researchers. Send papers to firstname.lastname@example.org. The community at large is invited to read the listed papers and provide comments and feedback.
A new paper is now available, “The Pentagon Attack: The Event Time Revisited,” by John D. Wyndham. From the abstract:
“Since publication of my paper, “The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact,” questions have arisen about some statements made therein, specifically those concerned with the clock evidence for the event time. This paper reviews the evidence and finds that it is much more convincing for an event time around 9:38 am than for a proposed earlier time around 9:32 am. It is shown, by experiment, that the minute hand of the Heliport clock could easily have moved from a time around 9:38 am back to a time around 9:32 am because of the abrupt deceleration that occurred when the clock hit the ground after falling off the wall.”
You can find this paper on the above-mentioned new website at:
John D. Wyndham
March 25, 2013
In ongoing research into the Pentagon attack the following peer-reviewed paper has now been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
“The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact” by John D. Wyndham.
As stated in the abstract, this paper shows that, of all the theories about what caused the damage and debris at the Pentagon on 9/11, a large plane impacting the Pentagon is in best accord with the majority eye witness testimony and main physical evidence, and is by far the most plausible theory. The failure of the 9/11 truth movement to reach consensus on this issue after almost a decade is largely due to a failure to rigorously apply the scientific method to each proposed theory.
This work is supported by recent papers by Frank Legge and David Chandler: