Support 911Blogger

Two new papers at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

Two new papers have been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

The first is called "Why Australia's Presence in Afghanistan is Untenable," by James O'Neill. Here is an excerpt:

"The events of 11 September 2001 provided a nominal casus belli for the attack and occupation of Afghanistan, heavily promoted by the mainstream media, which particularly in the United States is closely linked to the major armaments manufacturers. The same mainstream media have uncritically accepted and promoted the US government’s version of events about 11 September 2001, not because that account is plausible, which it manifestly is not, but because to question the rationale for military intervention is to question the whole of post World War II US foreign policy. If US foreign policy is seriously flawed then that in turn must raise serious questions about the level and extent of Australia’s adherence to the policies of its powerful ally."

The second paper is by Aidan Monaghan. It is called "Review of Analysis of Observed and Measured In-Flight Turns Suggests Superior Control of 9/11 Aircraft." Here is an excerpt:

"Although human control of UA 175 cannot be ruled out, small margins for error are evident in the number of available degrees of bank that could generate impact with WTC 2 via a constant radius turn from approximately 1.5 miles distant. An error of 5 degrees of bank left or right seems largely indiscernible to an observer, but would generate substantial distances from a given target. To achieve impact via a mile-long plus constant radius banked turn, within an acceptable margin of error would seem to be a substantial challenge to a reportedly inexperienced pilot without aid. The CWS function would apparently provide an in-flight automated stability that would permit a pilot to apply greater attention to the course of an aircraft and consider whether additional maneuvers would be required."

I just posted a review of the Australian essay by lawyer O'Neill

It should be up soon but you can review it here in the mean time -

Really good read!

Kind regards John

Review up in the blog here now...

Regards John

Show "911" by Massudo

Great data for court

Aidan Monaghan has a wonderful paper. This type of presentation could be used in court. It certainly casts doubts upon the official story.

Simplifying The Numbers

Two turns were observed. The second turn 2.5 seconds before impact was not required to generate impact. Traveling at a rate of 799f/s means that if UA 175 began an identical 1.5 mile banked turn (possibly longer) as the one observed, even a second sooner or later, means that UA 175 would miss WTC 2 by 799f/s.

The final turn 2.5 seconds before impact may have been under autopilot control in order to create an impression of active human control for those by then watching events unfold on TV. Also, UA 175 being seen striking WTC 2 via a mile-long-plus constant radius turn might seem suspect to a trained observer.

Also, successful impact via a long range constant radius turn under wind conditions capable of pushing a plane wide of a target by more than 100 feet implies precise calculation. AA 11 also precisely struck WTC 1 via a descending turn. Hard to know if it was a long range constant radius turn due to lack of video.

Horizontal/Perpendicular Impacts Via Constant Radius Turns

Acheiving impact perpendicular to a surface and parallel to the horizon implies flight computer control and perhaps a programmer bias or intent to accurately impact certain locations of the towers.

UA 175 acheiving horizontal flight just seconds before impact after having virtually fallen from the sky just south of the Statue of Liberty (descending @ 10,000 f/m) is consistent with WTC 2 occupying a flight leg terminating waypoint within a programmed flight plan, at least with respect to the Y axis.


Although only having flown small aircraft for many years, (learning at the same airport where some of the hijackers learned in Venice Florida, I might add), it’s also my opinion that those last two smooth correcting turns were not made by a human, especially an inexperienced pilot.

One issue not elaborated on with Aidan’s good research paper, is the angle that the plane hit the face of WTC 2. NIST says that it hit at a slight angle of 6 deg down and 13 deg horizontally. My understanding of an analysis by Achimspok, is that plane didn’t just happen to hit the tower haphazardly; rather it hit the tower PRECISELY at 0 vertically. In other words, it hit perfectly perpendicular to the face.

Meaning that in addition to the x-y horizontal adjustment discussed, there also had to be a “Z” final adjustment in the last seconds to level out the plane (from a virtual dive) to hit the tower exactly horizontally and vertically too. (Achimspok synchronized multiple videos to get estimates on the speed, time and attack angles that conflict with NIST.) Regardless, to hit exactly, the guidance computers calculated the precise coordinated turn to adjust the elevator, ailerons and rudder, while compensating for the northerly wind so as to hit the tower precisely.

Or maybe that hijacker took some extra credit classes in his little Cessna 152 in Venice that I didn’t.
Of course the fact that the NIST lateral and vertical angle of attack is imprecise is of no surprise to me, as it matches the quality of the balance of NIST reports.

UA 175 the last 12 seconds part 2:


This uncanny precision of UA175 in its final adjustment is very telling, and all but excludes human pilots.
Forget fake phone calls. Even if the calls were real and Muslims were on board and sitting in the cockpit, they weren't in control of the planes.

Most fishy of all:

According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the BTS, the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 took place in Dec., 2000.

...nine months before the attacks, while no pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for AA77 (N644AA)

And then nine months later (on 9/11), they are rolled back into commission and successfully strike specific sections of specific targets: the recently upgraded section of the N. Tower and the recently renovated section of the Pentagon.

That bears REPEATING

"According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the BTS, the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 took place in Dec., 2000. "

Who remembers reading about how some of the plane's records showed they were still operational (not crashed or destroyed) up until 2004?


possibly in the months prior to 9/11 they were getting guidance systems fitted?

RL McGee: What's the source on the BTS FOIA?

please post a link.

"According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the BTS, the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 took place in Dec., 2000. ...nine months before the attacks, while no pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for AA77 (N644AA)"

user submitted photos/entries at show all those aircraft in use in the nine months before 9/11, with pics from various months during that period, and some pics reportedly taken in Sept 2001. Of course, these are user entries and not definitive, but either all these entries are in error, or the FOIA is.

N612UA - UAL 175

N334AA - AAL 11

N591UA - UAL 93

N644AA - AAL 77

6/2009 BTS FOIA Request For 9/11 Planes

Hi Erik:

Below is a link to the FOIA records in question. Although the BTS FOIA reply indicates no pre-9/11 flights for 2001, the searchable BTS database does list pre-9/11 flights. The BTS FOIA officer said that the FOIA data was derived from the same source as that which supports the searchable database. Screen shots are linked that were captured within days of receiving the FOIA reply. No results were produced for N644AA (AA 77). The database does not allow for searches by tail numbers, which makes tracking tail numbers by daily activity difficult.

thx, missed that 2009 post

More info in the comments. So, the BTS online database does not match what they provided in response to your FOIA, according to which none of those planes even flew on 9/11; their "final" flights were all on the last, or next to last, day of 2000. Strange, and strange coincidence, if true. However, it may be what you said in the comments on the above thread; that hard copies for year 2001 were seized by the FBI, and thus not available to the BTS FOIA personnel.

In any case, both the BTS online database and various plane spotters confirm that all four of the 9/11 planes flew on many different dates in the 9 months prior to 9/11. And, it does seem that any special equipment that may have been installed could have been done during routine maintenance. Doing this would raise less notice in AAL and UAL corp mgmt/ops, than having expensive planes out of service for 9 months while installing it.

@ Aidan can you please say me

@ Aidan

can you please say me the value of the information, you gathered by this FOIA-request?

According to snowcash the agency, which anwered you ...

" (...) fucked you over and they're not shy about it. This tells me FOIA requests are subverted shamelessly in a lawless oligarchy."

911Peacenik wrote:

"his info makes the response to Aidan's inquiry even stranger. I guess the acronym needs to be changed to FOMIA (Freedom of MIS-information Act).

There is, of course, no real accountability here. The BTS can merely release incomplete data and even with demonstrable evidence to the contrary, cannot be made to account for their actions. Maybe someone could do a FOMIA request for any one of the flights mentioned here and then possibly find the BTS in violation of the FOIA."

bio, what do you mean by

"snowcash the agency"?

misplaced comma

According to snowcash the agency, which anwered you ...

According to snowcash, the agency which anwered you ...

thanks for the correction.

@loose nuke:
"it may be what you said in the comments on the above thread; that hard copies for year 2001 were seized by the FBI, and thus not available to the BTS FOIA personnel."

... about that stands nothing in the answer, which Aidan Monaghan got:

Subject: RE: Update on FOIA Request

According to the Office of Airline Information, in order to locate the responsive records, they performed a search in the following database: with the “tail numbers” you provided in your FOIA request. I hope this information is helpful.

Robert A. Monniere
RITA's Office of the Chief Counsel

in that database stands just the opposite, which the agency told Aidan.

nucking futs

A july 2008 email to Aidan said, “There were no flights in 2001 (August 26 to September 11, 2001) with tail numbers N591UA or N644AA.”

Yet a different database at the same agency says these planes flew on 9/11, the day before, and many times in the previous 9 months. And the airlines have claimed since 9/11/01 that these were the planes that were flying the routes on which planes were hijacked.

It does seem that if the FBI seized paper records, BTS would still have electronic copies/their database. Unless Aidan was thinking of something else when he said,
"The FBI May Have The Missing Information - Note the nearly simultaneous termination of information for the three aircraft - 12/30 and 12/31 of 2000. It wouldn't be surprising if the FBI seized this information along with other Department of Transportation and airline records for the 9/11 planes."

I don't know what this means, but if it wasn't the FBI, it may just be bureaucratic bungling. In any case, given that the same agency is providing conflicting info, it doesn't seem to be confirmed that the planes didn't fly for the nine months prior to 9/11 - besides the multiple accounts from plane spotters.


Well the conflicting reports are 'fishy' at least, but it doesn't prove that the planes were out of action for 9 months, so I take that back. Good eye, nuke. Besides, it would be overly suspicious and wholly unnecessary to do this. Any modification could be done during routine maintenance as you stated.

However my concern that remote control of some kind was employed stands. The technical maneuvers exceed the capabilities of the alleged pilots. Besides, controlled demolition of the towers logically implies remote control of the planes. Otherwise, perpetrators of a false flag operation which required targets to be struck as a necessary condition, would be at the mercy of hapless pilots and other intangibles to succeed. If a guy who'd never flown a jet before didn't hit his target, then the operation fails.

if the guidance system

in a missile can get it to a target then perhaps such a system figured in some way in the events of 9/11 possibly with /possibly without some kind of real time remote control operated by a human


"Besides, controlled demolition of the towers logically implies remote control of the planes."

It would be helpful, but one does not automatically prove the other. Personally, I've always considered a remote control takeover as a 'second hijack' scenario: take over and perform the final lap.

Remote control isn't flawless either:


Do you think that perps who rigged the World Trade Center with explosives and planned on taking them down in dramatic "Shock and Awe" demolitions would NOT ensure the towers were hit? And just leave that up to hijackers?

Of course if you DON'T believe these were controlled demolitions and you DON'T think the flight maneuvers exceeded the skill of the alleged hijackers, then that's a different ball game. You would then believe it was a coincidence that the Muslims hit Wedge 1 and the newly-fireproofed portion of the N. Tower.

I don't like theorizing and don't promote fake phone calls or anything other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. But I do think there was a 'second hijack' scenario as you call it.

job for frank again...

perhaps scientific analysis of the behaviour of the flights can yield the number of corrections per second at various stages of the flights
that may be helpful to decide at which stage the original human control by the regular pilots that day was replaced by flying by remote / and or missile guided to a laser dot lit up missile guidance system target ... if at all

perhaps FDR analysis can yield this

UA 175 is a hot issue !

"...that hijacker took some extra credit classes in his little Cessna 152 in Venice... --Jon Cole


Thanks Aidan.

Downward Acceleration

The rate of the final plunge is another issue that bears looking into. Again, based on Achimspok, the plane that hit the south tower dove at an average decent rate of 732 m/12 seconds or over 60 meters/second. That is significant.
I am unsure of the initial downward acceleration but my guess is that things not strapped down were "floating" at times.
Perhaps if the hijacker forgot to fasten his seatbelt, he just steered with is feet while holding himself off the roof of the plane. (Silly I know, but you get the point.)

UA 175's Final Descent At 10,000 Feet Per Minute

(8:58 a.m.-9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Controllers Watch Flight 175 Descending 10,000 Feet per Minute

Air traffic controllers at the FAA’s New York Center who are watching Flight 175 on the radar screen (see (8:57 a.m.-9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001) see the aircraft descending at an astonishing rate of up to 10,000 feet per minute. [The Learning Channel, 2005] From 8:58 a.m., Flight 175 is constantly descending toward New York. [National Transportation Safety Board, 2/19/2002 ] One of the New York Center controllers, Jim Bohleber, is looking at his radar scope and calls out the plane’s rate of descent every 12 seconds, each time the screen updates, saying: “It’s six thousand feet a minute. Now it’s eight. Now ten.” [Newsday, 9/10/2002; Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006] Dave Bottiglia, the controller responsible for monitoring Flight 175, will later comment that 10,000 feet per minute is “absolutely unheard of for a commercial jet. It is unbelievable for the passengers in the back to withstand that type of force as they’re descending. [The hijackers are] actually nosing the airplane down and doing what I would call a ‘power dive.’” [The Learning Channel, 2005] While Flight 175 is in this rapid descent, it heads directly into the paths of several other aircraft, and narrowly avoids a mid-air collision with flight Midex 7 (see (9:01 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [Spencer, 2008, pp. 73-76]

Determining factors

While it may be that analysis of technology and flight pattern alone cannot decisively eliminate either autopilot or manual pilot control, other factors may assist in making the determination. For example, humans generally are not suicidal. To get four of them to give up their lives without a hitch is a bit fantastic. A recent report by Wayne Madsen indicates that some of the so-called "suicide bombs" in Iraq were nothing of the kind. Yet it is one thing to detonate a bomb, and another to guide an aircraft precisely into a building after flying a long distance, dealing with hypothetical passengers etc.


Almost tongue in cheek:
"The low probability of such a fortunate initial selection must be considered."
I enjoy this - it reminds me of Monthy Python.
I can envisage John Cleese reading this aloud. ;-)

Anyways. I have long been thinking that remote control of the airplanes is the most likely speculative scenario.
It solves the suicide-problem, which otherwise would be a strong argument for the involvement of fanatically devoted pilots - read 'muslims'. It would be an unlikely scenario that the perpetrators could hire skilled western agents to commit suicide in a false-flag-op.
It also solves the issue of how inexperienced pilots could perform so perfectly.

New FOIA Video of Airplane Debris NYC