Two weeks ago, I spoke on a radio show regarding 9/11 – providing evidence that strongly challenges the official 9/11 narrative. Perhaps a quick outline of topics discussed/prepared for will be helpful – note that I spoke about much more than the WTC demolitions. I think this is important. (Summary of main points; not necessarily in the order followed on the radio show.)

0. Define the official narrative: A – There is no cover-up of 9/11 facts by gov't”; B-”the evil of that day was ONLY by Al Qaeda; there were no explosives in WTC towers or WTC7.” The radio interviewer and his studio guest Martin Tanner declared their support of the official story at the beginning.

1. Gov't cover-up/lies about the WTC dust danger: "WASHINGTON (AP) -- At the White House's direction, the Environmental Protection Agency gave New Yorkers misleading assurances that there was no health risk from the debris-laden air after the World Trade Center collapse, according to an internal inquiry.

As I have watched the Boston Marathon tragedy unfold, my heart goes out to the victims and their families. I had similar feelings on 9/11/2001 and continue to pray for comfort for victims and due-process punishment of perpetrators in both tragedies.

Yes, there are similarities -- but there are also significant differences, particularly as we see how the investigation of the Boston crime scene unfolds. Boston: investigators seek to preserve every scrap of metal from the explosive device, each nail and steel ball bearing. They look for clues in how it was constructed, where materials were obtained, what were the goals, who ALL was involved. Very little jumping to conclusions as to WHO all was involved and WHY. Investigators and the public are determined to leave no stone unturned as criminal investigators welcome public input and seek to capture and bring to justice ALL perpetrators.

A 6 Feb 2013 report in the Santa Barbara Review discusses the slaying of a 9/11 author Philip Marshal and his two children Alex and Macaila in their home in the "gated community of Forest Meadows", California, east of Sacramento. I have been through this area several times as my Brother-in-Law lived in nearby Pollock Pines.

Philip was just completing his book, “The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror.”

I wonder if the 9/11 Truth Community can help this brave man's family -- do any of us know him? We can also encourage a thorough investigation and fair reporting of the man's death. He was an outspoken member of our world-wide truth-seeking community. The photo in the article shows two beautiful youth with their father Philip.

http://www.santabarbaraview.com/phillip-marshall-wrote-about-a-conspirac...
QUOTE:
[quote] Phillip Marshall Wrote About a Conspiracy; Was He the Victim of One?
By Editor on February 6, 2013 in News

A Santa Barbara View Exclusive Report

In October of this year, I gave two talks in Missouri discussing 9/11, challenging the official narrative. Certainly I talked about the fall of the Towers and WTC7, but there is more to it than that. May I emphasize areas that are evidence-based and that I find also important in our discussions of 9/11:

1. How the government lied about factual dangers of the WTC dust, how thousands of people were in fact hurt by the WTC dust (see below);
2. The whistleblower testimony of Sec'y of Transportation Norman Mineta (50 miles out, 30 miles out, etc., reported to Dick Cheney);
3. The lack of air defenses that day, including at the Pentagon (2 and 3 are generally all I say about the Pentagon);
4. The whistleblower testimony of Sec'y of Treasury Paul O'Neill (he noted -from day one it was about getting us into Iraq; his opposing pre-emptive war, and how he was canned by Dick Cheney);
5. The whistleblower testimonies of Kevin Ryan, April Gallop, Susan Lindauer and Sibel Edmonds;
6. The attempts to discredit/marginalize whistleblowers (including myself) that also speaks of conspiracy to cover-up facts regarding 9/11;
7. Historical use of false-flag events by Germany, USA, and others to further political agendas; the Big Lie principle and why many people hesitate to question "official narratives";
8. The strange coincidence that emergency gear and hundreds of personnel were assembled in Manhattan on 9/10/01 (the day BEFORE the tragedy);
9. The destruction of evidence, that over 99.5% of the steel from the Towers and WTC7 was shipped to Asia for melting, contrary to the protests of scientists and engineers;
10. The remarkable growth and efforts of AE911Truth.org -- with over 1,700 architects and engineers and over 16,000 supporters now calling for an investigation. When questions arise about Judy Wood's book on DEW, I often refer to the FAQ at AE911Truth on this subject: http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/505-ae911truth-faq-6-... .
11. Public polls show that large numbers of the public question the "official 9/11 story." We are making progress despite the opposition.

In general, I would say there are two ways to find out whether the “official story of 9/11” is true and complete, or not: 1) by looking at hard evidence and doing experiments to test hypotheses based on that evidence; and 2) analyzing historical and eye-witness testimony.

In my talks, I have emphasized method 1, using the scientific method. But I also emphasize method 2, pointing (for example) to the whistle-blower testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta regarding the lack of air defenses that day. And the important evidence regarding the purchase of put options on American and United Airlines during the week prior to 9/11/2001. There are many examples of both types of evidence that point to the conclusion that the official story of 9/11 is misleading and false.

Regarding the possibility that mini-nukes were used in the WTC Towers to bring them down, I wrote a paper in 2006 which was peer-reviewed and then published in January 2007. I sincerely wish more people would read the peer-reviewed papers I and colleagues have published, as a way of sorting out that which is based on hard evidence and that which is not. Here is the mini-nukes paper:

My tenacious colleague Dr. Grabbe has succeeded in getting a paper successfully through peer-review with editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. His paper confronts Bazant who previously published a paper supportive of the "official 9/11 narrative" in the same journal.

Sincere congratulations to Crockett for another significant peer-reviewed paper; it was accepted for publication in October 2012 in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Dr. Crockett Grabbe is a physicist who received his PhD from CalTech in 1978. He received a Bachelors of Science with Highest Honors from the University of Texas in 1972.

Dr. Grabbe has also published a notable book providing his scientific analyses of the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC7. Loaded with photographs, this is his fourth book written for the general public.

"National Swindle on the World Trade Center" challenges the official story of 9/11 with scientific data and analysis. Initial pages are available free here:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0098JOSJS#reader_B0098JOSJS

The following letter (with minor edits) has been sent to a scientist who recently contacted me regarding his intention to perform a study of the WTC dust, particularly the red/gray chips that we found in WTC dust samples. Included are some comments on a report by James R. Millette on red material which he found in WTC dust, sent to me by this scientist as a PDF file.

Dear [Interested Scientist],

Yes, I would encourage you to do a follow-up study on the World Trade Center dust, after you have carefully read our “Active Thermitic Materials...” paper. [Niels Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven Jones, et al. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", THE OPEN CHEMICAL PHYSICS JOURNAL, April 2009.]

Among the most salient observations in that paper are these:

1. the observation of elemental-iron-rich spheres in the ash following ignition of the red/gray chips in the Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC),
2. the sharp peaking of the heat-traces in each case for the ignition of red/gray chips in the DSC (Figure 19).

Yesterday, I went to a town hall meeting with an aid to US Senator Mike Lee (UT) and expressed my concerns regarding NIST's report on WTC 7. The Senator's aid was open minded and well aware that some felt strongly that events of 9/11 were allowed by the US government or even “orchestrated” (his term).

It seems to me that a new investigation by Congress would be most unlikely at this stage. Instead, I requested that NIST's computer model for the WTC7 failure and fall be released to us so that independent testing can proceed (my letter below). The aid to Senator Lee assured me that he would pass this request along to the Senator and include my concerns in his report to Senator Lee.

Do you think this approach has merit? Could we successfully apply pressure to NIST to release their WTC 7 computer model, via Senators, Congresspersons, polls, etc? Is this a worthwhile goal for the 9/11 Truth Community? Could AE911Truth engineers run the model if it were released?

To: Senator Mike Lee (Utah)
From:
Dr. Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics, Ret.
[address given]

1. The key to good science is independent verification.

A friend and fellow 9/11 researcher recently wrote to me that he has cancer. I wrote to him regarding alternative treatments, with summaries of articles by Dr. Mercola, MD, an advocate of alternative health approaches. As my friend replied, "Once having seen the truth about 9/11 it becomes easier to see that other authorities may be concealing important truth. I have been suspicious of "big pharma"... for some time. "

In December 2006, Dr Mercola sympathetically addressed the 9/11 Truth issue. He wrote:

[quote]"According to a poll conducted by Scripps News Service, a full one-third of Americans think that the U.S. government either carried out the 9/11 attacks themselves, or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East.

The government's pattern of deception on such issues as weapons of mass destruction, secret prisons, and illegal wiretapping has allowed alternate theories about 9/11 to flourish....
...it's a fact that one-third of Americans believe in some variation of the 9/11 Truth Movement...

Mike McAuliff collected a sample of the WTC dust on 9/11/2001, and a few weeks ago sent it to a lab for analysis.

He writes:  "very fine fragments of photographs, fingernails, bones, hair, and tissue."  What Mike does not ask is: What agent reduced human bone, fingernails, and tissue to very fine fragments (as he notes from lab reports)? Will pancaking floors have this effect -- if so how?  It seems to me that pancaking floors would tend to trap bones, not fragment them as explosives would do.  Centimeter-long human bone fragments were found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building, about 200 meters (or yards) away from the WTC complex.  What force splintered human bone and hurled it hundreds of yards?  Are not these observations evidence for the use of explosives?  I hesitate to speak in scientific terms of of such a sensitive matter, but victims' relatives (including Bob McIlvaine) have asked that I, as a Professor of Physics, speak out on these issues. 

A long article regarding 9/11 and challenges to the official narrative appears today in the Brazilian “Ultimo Segundo.” I was interviewed by the author, Marsilea Gombata. A Google translation appears below.

Link to the article in Portuguese: http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/11desetembro/perguntas+sem+respostas+aind...

SPECIAL SEPTEMBER 11 - TEN YEARS
“Unanswered questions still surround the September 11
Ten years later, scientists urge new investigation into the attacks that left nearly 3,000 dead in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania”

Marsilea Gombata, iG NY | 09/07/2011 08:00

Ten years later, on Sept. 11 is still shrouded in mystery, explanations that do not suit everyone and many questions unanswered. In the midst of several theories that raise the possibility the attacks were masterminded a plan by American authorities - because of coordinated actions by terrorists have been released without much technical knowledge and President George W. Bush (2001-2009) had a hurry to invade Afghanistan less than a month later -, academics and experts based on scientific evidence for a new investigation of the terrorist attacks.

During my career as a physicist, I have done research on muon-catalyzed fusion and metal-catalyzed fusion (both of which are examples of cold fusion and are published in the journal NATURE), on the dust generated on 9/11, on solar energy and non-conventional alternate energy; and on earthquakes. I have and will speak publicly on all of these research areas, except that I decline to say much at all publicly on earthquake research. Recently I was asked why this is the case.

When confronted with an interesting claim, I generally ask – What is the physical evidence and what experiments have been done? And -- Has the claim reached the level of a peer-reviewed publication? Not that such a publication is a necessity prior to discussion, but if there is a refereed publication, I would start with that.

Here I field questions that come to me fairly often, to help get the facts out and to counter misrepresentations and misunderstandings. I expect to make edits for a while and welcome comments.

1. Can nanothermites (also called superthermites) be explosive?

The definition of “explosive” can lead to endless debates. Is a flash of light required? Is a loud sound required? How loud? What rate of energy generation is required for a material to be called an explosive? Where is the line between low explosives and high explosives?
Rather than getting mired into ad nauseum debates, I will use the term “explosive” in conjunction with superthermites/nanothermites IF the national defense laboratories which developed these materials use the term. Here we go.

      I heard April Gallop speak a few years ago and had the opportunity to talk with her, when we both participated in a conference in Irvine, California. April was in the Pentagon with her infant son on Sept. 11, 2001, when the devastation occurred. There was no warning. We know from Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony that Dick Cheney et al. were following the progress of the jet as it came in towards the Pentagon, "50 miles out", 30 miles out, etc. Yet there was no warning to April Gallop or her co-workers in the Pentagon, and the jet was not intercepted. (See articles in the Journalof911Studies.com )  Over 100 died in the Pentagon disaster. April suffered physical injury from the blast and has filed a lawsuit charging Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and others.

She deserves to be heard. But her case has been dismissed by Judge Denny Chin of United States District Court for Southern District of New York and is now in appeal status before the Circuit Court in Connecticut. Can we do SOMETHING to help April Gallop in her quest for justice and a fair hearing?

                 When I jumped into the ring to study 9/11 events in early 2005, I found that there were numerous wild and even conflicting claims. It was the “wild, wild west.” Some were saying that no planes hit the WTC Towers at all, and some said (in 2005 or soon thereafter) an energy beam from space knocked the Towers down. There were NO published peer-reviewed scientific papers in the field. To make a long story VERY short, this confused situation changed via experimental data and peer-reviewed papers published by Kevin Ryan, Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Frank Legge, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, James Gourley, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, Tony Szamboti, and myself and others. Now the science of 9/11 and the use of pyrotechnics/explosives is on firm experimental footing and serious challengers to our papers will need to find a way to publish peer-reviewed papers of their own (in established journals preferably) if they can. (They have not done so.) That's how science works-- peer-reviewed published papers stand until challenged by another peer-reviewed paper.

 Let me know what you think -- I find evidence that Glenn Beck in the last few weeks is raising questions about the government "creating a situation" -- a false flag event.  

Exhibit 1:  "if you ever got an oppressive state, if you ever had people who didn't respect the Constitution at the top, the fastest thing they could do to take over is create a situation and then have the Army march into these states.” http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/48957/ 

As a Full Professor of Physics at BYU, I reviewed dozens of scientific papers as an "anonymous" peer-reviewer.  I have reviewed papers since accepting early retirement from BYU in 2007. And I have published as author or co-author over fifty papers which have been subjected to peer-review. Based on my experience in the peer-review system,  I can add that it is not the place of an author of a paper or even an editor to reveal the names of anonymous peer-reviewers, but it is precedented and generally acceptable in the scientific community for a peer-reviewer to disclose his/her OWN name and role in the review of an important paper. This is the case for a prominent reviewer of the Harrit, Farrer, et al. paper -- one of the reviewers discloses his name and further comments on our paper and his review of it here:   http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2010/09/911-truth-evidence-of-energet... .  The reviewer's name is Prof. David L. Griscom.   Among his impressive credentials, Prof.

After a period of several weeks, Bentham Scientific has restored access to our "Fourteen Points" paper, but the link has changed -- please update your links to this paper:

"Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the
World Trade Center Destruction"
Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F.
Szamboti, James R. Gourley
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, pp.35-40, Vol 2 (April 2008)

The new link is: http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/articles/V002/35TOCIEJ.pdf

(The old (defunct) link is:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000... )

I am incorrectly quoted (to put it mildly) in http://911booger.blogspot.com/2007/05/steven-jones-on-wtc-7-collapse-we.... :
"Steven Jones (above, left) admitted today that he and other 9/11 researchers "screwed up on the collapse time of WTC 7. We blew it."

No, I never said that. The blog goes on with its despicable misrepresentations, putting words in my mouth that I never said:

"Responding to the overnight controversy, Steven Jones announced this morning that WTC 7 did indeed take over 13 seconds to collapse. 'We screwed up. We had never seen the CBS video when we claimed that it took WTC 7 6.5 seconds to collapse. We only relied on the street video that does not show the Penthouses. By the time we saw the CBS video, we had so much invested in the 6.5-second collapse time, we could not disappoint our supporters who were successfully using the 6.5 free fall time to push 9/11 Truth. We just ignored the evidence.' "

Checking today, the count of architects and engineers calling for a new, serious 9/11 investigation is 1197:
"1197 architectural and engineering professionals and 8178 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation. The petition is open to everyone."
Note that the total membership approaches a significant milestone: 10,000 members!
This calls for an effort to get a few hundred more to sign up -- and then for a big celebration. I am inviting people to sign up on forums that I frequent (including 911blogger).
Perhaps you will be #10,000 ;)

A few days ago I was asked by a distinguished Professor at the University of Massachusetts what happened to me at BYU, in my own words. I often get this question and would like to say the following.

1. In September 2005, I presented a colloquium at Brigham Young University (BYU) in a large auditorium, presenting the physical evidence I had accumulated by then that the “official story” of the 9/11 disaster (that it was all due to Al Qaeda ALONE with no US foreknowledge of the attacks) was highly suspicious. I had invited professors from across campus and many came, from numerous disciplines including physics, math, psychology, engineering. I asked them to take the “kid gloves off” and tell me where I was in error. In particular, we watched the rapid, nearly-symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 – which was NOT hit by a plane and yet fell to the ground seven hours after the Towers were completely destroyed.

The editors of the Journal of 9/11 Studies are pleased to announce publication of the following peer-reviewed article in the February 2010 volume of the Journal:

Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics
By David Chandler

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationO...

Physicist David Chandler continues his insightful analysis of the destruction of three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11/2001 in this very readable paper. From the summary:

I am pleased to announce the translation of the peer-reviewed article on “Active Thermitic Materials” by Prof. Niels Harrit et al. into Spanish and German, published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/SpanishRedGray.pdf

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/RedGrayChipsGerman.pdf

May I take this occasion to wish all of you a Happy New Year.

In the past I have urged all to acquire at least a three-month (preferably 1-year) supply of food and water, wherever this is legal. Now to add to this – I urge you to have a rural place of safety to go quickly to, perhaps in groups of families or friends, far away from the large cities. In a case where trucking of food into the cities is curtailed, or the electric power is out, or an EMP blast, or any number of scenarios where services to cities are cut, it will clearly be prudent to have pre-arranged retreat(s). The goals of self-sufficiency and voluntary-simplicity that some have been discussing “theoretically” in the Truth Movement for years can be quickly achieved with pre-planning and work and cooperation.

A special on 9/11 has just been shown on the National Geographic Channel, produced by Robert Erickson. Robert also conducted interviews with me and others. In March 2009, Prof. David Ray Griffin and I and Gregg Roberts exchanged emails with Robert Erickson which demonstrate our efforts to get Mr. Erickson and his team to be accurate and fair in their treatment of our scientific work regarding 9/11 – particularly the evidence for the use of explosives in the World Trade Center destruction. For the record, then, I have pulled together our exchanges of emails.

Robert Erickson, emailed David Ray Griffin on 3/27/09:
"if Jones is surprised that we just placed bags of thermite around the column...what else would Jones have suggested? "

I was informed of the question above and I responded on 3/28/09 as follows:

Robert,

Bags of commercial thermite set against a steel column -- what a pathetic "experiment." Not anywhere close to representing my views, as you must know, from our discussion about the red/gray chips and the crucial distinction between ordinary thermite and super-thermite! What a terrible and unfair straw-man joke you are evidently trying to pull.

Noted 9/11 research Dr. Frank Legge has published a revised version of his paper with additional notes and discussion, “What Hit the Pentagon?” The paper is available at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf

His first version of the paper generated a great deal of discussion about this important issue. In presenting this revision, Dr. Legge notes:

“This version has been prepared to take into account a number of issues raised by critics and defenders of the original paper. Discussion of the implications of accepting or rejecting the official position that a 757 hit the Pentagon has been expanded and clarified. I am very grateful for the help provided. All significant alterations have been identified and discussed in footnotes.”

No doubt this revised version will encourage further discussion of what hit the Pentagon, and perhaps more importantly, a renewed push to obtain release of withheld video footage that will show unequivocally what hit the Pentagon – and a renewed interest in the whistleblower testimony of Secretary of Transportation (at the time) Norman Mineta.

As we approach the 8th anniversary of 9/11, we can work for increased media attention.... and get it.

An article just came out in City Weekly, a newspaper in Salt Lake City:

http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-8858-we-all-fall-down.html

The author, Eric Peterson, interviewed me in my home in rural Spring City, Utah. (I moved away from the densely populated Wasatch front area last year.) He makes some good points while missing a few points, IMO -- but I would like to hear what you think of this news article. The comments at cityweekly.net so far are supportive of 9/11 research.

The reporter did his homework -- contacting BYU, Fetzer and Greening to get "balance", which is fair. And he caught Fetzer in an error when he blamed Greening's non-appearance at a conference on me unfairly. "Greening sides with Jones," the article says on this point. Greening got this straight, but makes other criticisms without substantiation.

The reporter says that "James Farrer is currently giving presentations on the nano-thermite research in Europe" -- he meant, Niels Harrit. I could nit-pick a few other points.

Announcing two new papers by Dr. Frank Legge (Ph.D., Chemistry):

1) "Controlled Demolition at the WTC: an Historical Examination of the Case" provides a brief history of research related to explosive demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001, from Dr. Legge's point of view. Cogent and pithy; worth the read.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/LeggeCDatWTC.pdf

2) "Frank Greening versus Isaac Newton" provides a brief expose of the "lapse" by F. Greening in understanding Newton's Third Law -- and the significance of this gaffe by Greening. Sometimes humorous, certainly enlightening.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/FGvsNewton.pdf

Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

The 116th peer-reviewed paper was published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
“The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis,”
by Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti. Take a look!
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf

This fine paper underwent several months of rather arduous peer-review preceding its publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The paper supports work by James Gourley published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and recent analysis by David Chandler. A few quotes from the paper should wet your interest:

“In its Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, the National Institute of Standards and Technology summarizes its three year study and outlines its explanation of the total collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2.[1] Readers of the report will find that the roughly $20 million expended on this effort have resulted in an explanation of the total collapse of these buildings that is so vague it barely qualifies as a hypothesis. But it does have one crucial feature of a hypothesis: it is, in principle, falsifiable. In fact, it is easy to demonstrate that it is false.
In this paper we will, concentrating on the North Tower, offer a refutation that is:

• easy to understand but reasonably precise
• capable of being stated briefly
• verifiable by any reader with average computer skills and a grasp of simple mathematics.

[snip] Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely agrees, have never hesitated to say that the upper block fell. [8] Bazant has likewise been frank about the need for severe impact as the upper and lower structures met: he believes the impact may have been powerful enough to have been recorded by seismometers. [9] In his view, collapse initiation of the lower structure required “one powerful jolt.”[10] Of course, if there was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord with Newton’s Third Law.”

We are pleased to announce that an article by Aidan Monaghan (B.Sc., EET) article has successfully passed the peer-review process at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The article was published Oct 3, 2008: Plausibility Of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated By GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems. Link here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/AutopilotSystemsMonaghan.pdf

The editors continue to accept submitted scholarly papers, with the proviso from the Introductory page at this Journal, which states that we encourage contributors to first consider submission to mainstream established journals. And frankly, the editors themselves are busy doing research and writing on such papers (one of which is now undergoing the peer-review process with such an established journal, on the subject of anomalous red/gray chips observed in the WTC dust).