Support 911Blogger


New papers and a new format at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

We have a new format at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. As before, there are over 60 peer-reviewed articles, nearly 70 letters, and a section for those just beginning to look into the unanswered question of 9/11.

There are two new entries in the letter section.

The first is a detailed paper by Dr. Frank Legge entitled The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus.

The second is a letter written last year by the board of directors of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, addressed to Sir Paul Nurse of the Royal Society of London.

Unfortunately, Sir Paul and the Royal Society could not be troubled to respond. If you're wondering why, the Society's contact page is at this link.

The journal has also signed an agreement with a major distributor of academic content. As a result, the articles and letters in the Journal of 9/11 Studies will begin to see a wider audience.

@FL: Repackaging Premature Conclusions & Incomplete Information?

Frank:

With all due respect, this latest work seems to simply be a repackaging of very debatable opinions provided in very similar and previously published papers.

- The current paper (and similar past ones) seems to rely heavily upon unsourced content contained within an Arabesque blog page.
- The contents of the AA 77 FDR data file are presented as undisputed fact, even though the data is not attributed to a serially numbered FDR or even corroborated by other evidence.

Quoting your paper:

“CIT asked their witnesses to describe the way the plane appeared to them as it approached. To this end two of their witnesses were provided with a model plane with which to demonstrate its motion. They both showed the plane to be flying with wings level, close to the Naval Annex and a little beyond. The important consequence of these observations is that, if the plane is flying wings level, it must be flying straight ... None of these witnesses reported that the plane was steeply banked. The wings-level finding of the CIT study provides very strong support to the reports of Morin and Hemphill that the plane was still flying straight close to the south eastern corner of the Naval Annex.”

CIT witnesses Stafford and Prather both describe the plane ultimately banking to the right, which is not compatible with official versions of events claiming a straight "South of Citgo" trajectory. They also report the plane as being over or even to the north of the Navy Annex and not to the south as required by official versions of events.

Quoting your paper:

"For the plane to now deviate around the Citgo service station, as a few witnesses have asserted, is proved to be impossible; to do so, would require a bank angle of more than 84 degrees."

This seemingly unlikely conclusion is based on officially alleged ground speed for AA 77 that is not supported by AA 77 aviator witness Morin (who insists AA 77 was not moving at 500+ m.p.h.) and a selevtive placement of AA 77 well south of the Navy Annex (which is not supported by witness accounts).

Frank: Why do you as a journal editor persist with offering incomplete or selective information to form what therefore become erroneous conclusions? Would you agree that providing consclusions based on incomplete or selective information departs from the scientific method? Why does this latest paper fail to consider previously noted dissenting views? Was this latest paper reviewed by others?

With all due respects Aidan,

You do not appear to have read the paper with the care it deserves. You say:

AM: "- The current paper (and similar past ones) seems to rely heavily upon unsourced content contained within an Arabesque blog page."

FL: This is false. As explained in the paper, Arabesque is not a source. He or she has provided us with categorization of the witness testimony recorded by others. I went to the sources myself and categorized the testimonies. I found similar but not identical numbers in each category, as would be expected. You can find my categorization of testimonies in the spreadsheet linked to the paper. Apparently you chose to critique the paper without properly examining its contents, and in particular without examining the spreadsheet.

AM: " - The contents of the AA 77 FDR data file are presented as undisputed fact, even though the data is not attributed to a serially numbered FDR or even corroborated by other evidence."

FL: This is false. At no time have Warren Stutt or I made the claim that the FDR is undisputed fact. We have stated that it is impossible to prove that it is authentic, as you will see if you check. The FDR data is however internally consistent, corresponds with the radar data and with many witness reports and with the trail of damage at the Pentagon.

AM: "CIT witnesses Stafford and Prather both describe the plane ultimately banking to the right, which is not compatible with official versions of events claiming a straight "South of Citgo" trajectory. They also report the plane as being over or even to the north of the Navy Annex and not to the south as required by official versions of events."

FL: At the place where Stafford and Prather say the plane was wings level there is no possible way it could turn to get round the Citgo service station no matter how steeply banked. The bank they show is trivial. Most witnesses reported little or no bank or did not find the bank worthy of comment. If you wish to assert the plane was north of the Annex you have to deal with the question of how it could get there. You have to ignore all the witnesses to the south path and the radar and FDR data. You can't ignore Paik's observation so the curve required is still sharp and the bank would be at least 60 degrees. Nobody reported such a bank. There is no end to what you can claim if you are willing to ignore data.

AM: Quoting the paper:

"For the plane to now deviate around the Citgo service station, as a few witnesses have asserted, is proved to be impossible; to do so, would require a bank angle of more than 84 degrees."

AM: "This seemingly unlikely conclusion is based on officially alleged ground speed for AA 77 that is not supported by AA 77 aviator witness Morin (who insists AA 77 was not moving at 500+ m.p.h.) and a selevtive placement of AA 77 well south of the Navy Annex (which is not supported by witness accounts).'

FL: So a plane goes over Morin's head at high speed. What does he say? “… the noise was absolutely deafening.” “The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB).” “Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft.”

So Morin says the sound was deafening and that the throtles were "steady and full". This corresponds with the FDR file which shows the throttles were steady and full. This means the plane had been accelerating and was by now going very fast, as shown by the FDR file (see graph in paper).

It seems you have cherry picked his words to find the speed but not the throttle setting.

If you check the spreadsheet you will find that a significant number of witnesses used words like full throttle to indicate the unusual sound of the plane.

AM: Frank: Why do you as a journal editor persist with offering incomplete or selective information to form what therefore become erroneous conclusions? Would you agree that providing consclusions based on incomplete or selective information departs from the scientific method?

FL: The paper does not provide conclusions. It lists evidence. It tries to make up for the appalling cherry picking of evidence by the supporters of the no-plane-impact theory. I have searched for and found a considerable amount of evidenence, freely available, but ignored by the no planers, which supports the straight south path. I present the evidence and you can make what you like of it but you cannot deny that it exists.

It is late. That is enough for today.

Essentials

I have purposely stayed away from the minutia of the Pentagon incident on 9/11 as it is deficient in 'best evidence' (video, as example).

Thank you, Frank, for the work you've done in pinning it down as best you can with what is available. I wholeheartedly endorse your assertion that the destruction of the towers is the key to establishing the impossibility of the official narrative.

My perspective:

1) Minetta's SWORN TESTIMONY of the monitoring of the attack on the Pentagon by Cheney and the PEOC.
2) Strong - though disputed - evidence that Minetta was in place and time to witness what he TESTIFIED to.
3) That the Pentagon WAS attacked a full 34 minutes after the second tower was hit, through some of the most protected airspace in the country, without being militarily challenged.

I've said before, in other contexts, that the 'truth' of 9/11 is so threatening to the political class that they can NEVER acknowledge it.

We do what we can. Peace.

@ Frank Legge

"FL: This is false. As explained in the paper, Arabesque is not a source. He or she has provided us with categorization of the witness testimony recorded by others. I went to the sources myself and categorized the testimonies."

Your paper cites an Arabesque web page as an information source. Yet, Arabesque's hyperlinked quote footnotes do not lead to source publications or dates.

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html#_edn67

"FL: This is false. At no time have Warren Stutt or I made the claim that the FDR is undisputed fact."

You fail to note major discrepancies that raise valid concerns regarding FDR data authenticity (e.g.: absent FDR serial numbers). This creates an appearance that FDR authenticity is settled. It is not.

"FL: At the place where Stafford and Prather say the plane was wings level there is no possible way it could turn to get round the Citgo service station no matter how steeply banked."

That is because your calculations rely on AA 77 being somewhere that it was not reported as being and moving at a speed that was also not reported.

FL: "So Morin says the sound was deafening and that the throtles were "steady and full". This corresponds with the FDR file which shows the throttles were steady and full. This means the plane had been accelerating and was by now going very fast, as shown by the FDR file"

Morin does not corroborate alleged AA 77 FDR data. Morin does not report AA 77 traveling at 500+ mph. Morin was 3,000 feet from from the reported AA 77-Pentagon impact point. Using Morin’s average estimate of 12.8 seconds from sighting to sound-of-impact (averaged from his cited 13-18 seconds, minus the 2.7 seconds the sound of impact requires to reach his location), a ground speed of 160 mph for AA 77 can be deduced (a problematically low estimate due to stall potential, but much closer to the very realistic 180 mph recommended approach-to-landing speed recommended for major commercial Boeing/Airbus jets)

Was your latest paper peer reviewed or with all due respect, has the Journal become a quasi personal blog for your repeated and occasionally less than scientific views on the Pentagon matter?

Further comments

AM: Your paper cites an Arabesque web page as an information source. Yet, Arabesque's hyperlinked quote footnotes do not lead to source publications or dates.

FL: As should have been obvious from my paper, I merely listed the numbers of witnesses in various categories provided by Arabesque for comparison with my own, and found them to be similar, as you can see if you use the link. I went to the original sources for my figures. If you take the trouble to look at my spreadsheet you will see all the material I used as sources, including portions of the testimonies of each witness and links to the websites where the full testimonies were found. Your criticism appears hasty.

AM: "FL: This is false. At no time have Warren Stutt or I made the claim that the FDR is undisputed fact."

AM: You fail to note major discrepancies that raise valid concerns regarding FDR data authenticity (e.g.: absent FDR serial numbers). This creates an appearance that FDR authenticity is settled. It is not.

FL: I am truly astonished at this criticism! On page 9 of the paper, under the heading Data Sources, I discuss this very point. In particular I provide a link to your own paper on the subject, so I do present one of your concerns.

The other criticism, that there is no FDR serial number, has been made ad nauseum in blogs in some quarters. It proves nothing - there is a lot of other information we have a right to but do not have, regarding 9/11. We don't have a serial number for any part of any plane, but there is no doubt planes were involved. I challenge those who reject the FDR file to find one piece of evidence that the file is not internally consistent with the flight of AA77 into the Pentagon as recorded by radar as far as the Sheraton, and as observed.

AM: "FL: At the place where Stafford and Prather say the plane was wings level there is no possible way it could turn to get round the Citgo service station no matter how steeply banked."

That is because your calculations rely on AA 77 being somewhere that it was not reported as being and moving at a speed that was also not reported.

FL: Re the position of the plane, I list 7 witnesses to the south path. Five of these witnesses were almost exactly under the plane as it passed. They could hardly have been mistaken. The remaining 2 were in excellent positions to note that the plane was to the south of their positions.

Re the speed of the plane, if you had studied my spreadsheet you would have seen that I located 39 witnesses who said the plane was accelerating, full throttle, spooling up, or words to that effect. Do you say they are all lying or all mistaken? The speed and acceleration of the plane can be calculated from the radar data. It corresponds with the FDR data. Even if the throttles had been closed as the plane passed the last radar position, it could not have slowed down significantly in the last 6 seconds of flight. You would know that to be true if you think about it. How many witnesses reported hearing the plane throttle back or slow down? None that I have heard of.

AM: FL: "So Morin says the sound was deafening and that the throtles were "steady and full". This corresponds with the FDR file which shows the throttles were steady and full. This means the plane had been accelerating and was by now going very fast, as shown by the FDR file"

Morin does not corroborate alleged AA 77 FDR data. Morin does not report AA 77 traveling at 500+ mph. Morin was 3,000 feet from from the reported AA 77-Pentagon impact point. Using Morin’s average estimate of 12.8 seconds from sighting to sound-of-impact (averaged from his cited 13-18 seconds, minus the 2.7 seconds the sound of impact requires to reach his location), a ground speed of 160 mph for AA 77 can be deduced (a problematically low estimate due to stall potential, but much closer to the very realistic 180 mph recommended approach-to-landing speed recommended for major commercial Boeing/Airbus jets)

FL: Now you are quoting from an interview given years later. You can place a great deal of trust in the above speed calculation if you like but I prefer his statement made soon after the event in which he asserted that the engines were whining, showing that the throttles were steady and full. I have 38 other witnesses to high power. How many witnesses do you have that the plane took about 12 seconds from the Annex to the Pentagon?

I think you should look carefully at the words used by Morin as he described the plane approaching the Pentagon. See above. He described it as disappearing behind a row of trees from the bottom up. the only explanation for this remark is that the plane was travelling wings level toward the Pentagon and therefore travelling straight. If travelling straight, it could not have deviated round Citgo. It is time to abandon the north path. It is not scientific.

AM: Was your latest paper peer reviewed or with all due respect, has the Journal become a quasi personal blog for your repeated and occasionally less than scientific views on the Pentagon matter?

FL: The paper was reviewed but of course I am not able to state by whom.

FL: The paper was reviewed

Frank Legge - "The paper was reviewed but of course I am not able to state by whom."
http://911blogger.com/news/2012-07-01/new-papers-and-new-format-journal-911-studies#comment-256981

Why can't you state who reviewed it?

@ Frank Legge: Creating Consensus or Division?

John Bursill @ AM: "Your arguments here are so full of bile."

Hi John. Nice to hear from you.

To whom it may concern: Having questions about AA 77's precise flight path does not make one a "no planer".

@ Frank:

It is quite frustrating and perplexing when an otherwise intelligent person insists on distorting, omitting and arbitrarily favoring select information on this matter, seemingly in order to fit a preferred outcome (the AA 77 "South of Citgo trajectory). And when distorting or omitting the highly corroborating accounts of Citgo's LaGasse, Brooks and Turcious becomes impossible, you have devised an unobserved, impossible and conditional "magic bullet" style scenario and claim that because this impossible scenario was naturally not observed (AA 77's alleged extreme banking and turning), that therefore LaGasse et. al. simply didn't see what they claimed to see (AA 77 "North of Citgo").

Moreover, your unwarranted faith in 9/11 FDR data authenticity implies a belief that real hijackers piloted planes into buildings on 9/11, while the military-industrial complex demolished the WTC. Such a bizzare position will not create consensus within the 9/11 skeptics community. It will divide it.

Per Kevin Ryan's suggestion, I may pursue these matters in a later more formal rebuttal to your views and not preoccupy this comment section.

Further comments #2

Aidan, you say: "It is quite frustrating and perplexing when an otherwise intelligent person insists on distorting, omitting and arbitrarily favoring select information on this matter, seemingly in order to fit a preferred outcome..."

I agree wholeheartedly with that. Let us examine whether you or I are "distorting, omitting and arbitrarily favouring select information..."

How often have you reported that the FDR file appears to correspond exactly with the radar data and with the majority of eyewitness reports? How often have you pointed out that the testimonies of Albert Hemphill and Terry Morin exactly describe a south of Citgo path for the plane? Have you ever protested that CIT blatently misrepresent these witnesses? Have you ever pointed out that Madelyn Zakhem, Jimmy Chu and Isabel James stated the plane flew over their heads, close to Columbia Pike? If you have not, you are omitting evidence which supports the south path and refutes the north path.

Let me ask you a question. If LaGasse, Brooks and Turcios provide proof that the plane flew north of citgo, why do the 5 witnesses I have listed above not provide proof of the south path?

Can you give a satisfactory answer to that question?

You might try the numbers game and say that there are 13 witnesses to the north path against my 5. If you wish to try that, I suggest you read the section titled "Analysis" in the current paper. You will find that the ratio of witnesses to straight flight versus a steep bank is 99 to zero. Straight flight wins hands down. Straight flight is necessarily the south path.

You mention Chad Brookes. Did you ever take the trouble to listen to his military interview? It should dismiss the last shadow of doubt you might have. He makes it gut wrenchingly clear the plane hit the Pentagon. You will find a link to it in one of my papers.

You apparently set aside the testimony of Sean Boger, flight control officer, who watched the plane approach from his position in the heliport control tower. He said it didn't veer. That means it was flying straight, so could not have been returning from a deviation round the Citgo service station. He also said he watched it go inside the building then explode. Do you assert that he just made that up?

By leaving out this sort of material in your writings it appears you may be "distorting, omitting and arbitrarily favoring select information on this matter, seemingly in order to fit a preferred outcome..."

I think you should reconsider your position. I suggest you start by studying John Wyndham's peer reviewed paper. He looks at the several hypotheses which have sprung up around the Pentagon attack. He finds all are without merit except for one, namely "large plane impact." After John's paper was published, David Ray Griffin came out with his "9/11 Ten Years Later" in which Chapter 7 deals with the Pentagon attack. My recent letter was initially merely to deal with points in this chapter, not already covered by John's paper, however a few additional issues found their way into it. One of these was the exact correspondence between the radar and FDR data, thus allowing one to assert that there was a very high probability that the plane which hit the Pentagon was in fact AA77.

@ FL: Answers To Questions

FL: "How often have you reported that the FDR file appears to correspond exactly with the radar data and with the majority of eyewitness reports?"

Never. Because they do NOT correspond with witness accounts regardless of how often you stubbornly insist they do.

FL: "How often have you pointed out that the testimonies of Albert Hemphill and Terry Morin exactly describe a south of Citgo path for the plane?"

Never. Because they don't.

Hemphill (looking east from an east-facing Navy Annex window, toward the Pentgaon):

“Then I hear a roar and look out the window at the plane … over my right shoulder … over the gas station … ” (located 400 feet north of the official AA 77 ground track).

Hemphill's location (according to your paper diagram) is 650 feet north of the official AA 77 ground track. And Citgo is 400 feet north of the official AA 77 ground track. Meanwhile, Morin insists AA 77 was not south of Columbia Pike. Yet the official AA 77 ground track is 350 feet south of Columbia Pike relative to Morin. Moreover, witness Paik states AA 77's fuselage was directly over his property, while the FDR places it 400 feet south of his property.

Hemphill and Morin (along with Paik) soundly rebut the alleged AA 77 FDR and radar data.

FL: "You apparently set aside the testimony of Sean Boger, flight control officer, who watched the plane approach from his position in the heliport control tower. He said it didn't veer."

Wrong.

Boger regarding AA 77: "Coming at like an angle ... his wings were tilted ... trying to bank towards the Pentagon."

Comments #3

AM: FL: "How often have you reported that the FDR file appears to correspond exactly with the radar data and with the majority of eyewitness reports?"

AM: Never. Because they do NOT correspond with witness accounts regardless of how often you stubbornly insist they do.

FL: There are 99 witnesses to wings level or near wings level flight and zero witnesses to steeply banked flight. Do you not agree that wings level flight is straight flight? Do you not agree that straight flight cannot deviate around the Citgo service station and therefore must be on the south side?

And whatever you think about witnesses, you cannot deny that the radar and the FDR data correspond with one another, hence you are suppressing important evidence and thereby creating a distortion.

AM: FL: "How often have you pointed out that the testimonies of Albert Hemphill and Terry Morin exactly describe a south of Citgo path for the plane?"

AM: Never. Because they don't.

FL: This is getting tiresome - Hemphill's testimony has been discussed in considerable detail in the past. It shows without a doubt that he watched the plane flying STRAIGHT from when he first saw it to its impact with the Pentagon. When asked where it had come from he said it appeared to come up Columbia Pike. A straight line from there to the impact point cannot possibly pass North of Citgo. You suppress that important fact.

Many years later, when no longer at his office window, he was asked whether the plane passed to the north of Citgo. He replied "it is hard to say". He was then inveigled into saying that the plane passed north of the Citgo but in his many prior written testimonies and other interviews he makes it clear the plane was always on his right and flying STRAIGHT. For you to leave out his assertions that the plane flew straight has the appearance of being deliberate deception by omission, as his assertion of straight flight is readily available and has been mentioned in the papers we are discussing.

It is true however that his view of the plane does pass over the roof of Citgo when it gets close to the Pentagon, but the plane does not. Have a look at the recent animation if you can bear to see how it would have looked to Hemphill. See it in the Addendum to the paper with David Chandler.

AM: Meanwhile, Morin insists AA 77 was not south of Columbia Pike. Yet the official AA 77 ground track is 350 feet south of Columbia Pike relative to Morin.

FL: This is gross cherry picking. You leave out the fact Morin said the plane was flying parallel with the Annex, thus straight. You leave out the fact that he described the plane as disappearing from the bottom up, thus flying wings level and thus straight., on its way to the Pentagon. I have mentioned this already in this thread - I should not have to repeat points.

AM: Moreover, witness Paik states AA 77's fuselage was directly over his property, while the FDR places it 400 feet south of his property.

FL: Again gross cherry picking. The Paik brothers also speculated that the plane had hit an antenna on the VDOT tower nearby. This shows they were happy with the idea the plane was flying in the region of the VDOT tower which is very close to Columbia Pike. It also shows that any idea that the plane was angling over the roof of the Annex appears to be false. Furthermore the plane was not just skimming the roof of Paik's shop - it was probably close to level with the top of the VDOT tower. Given that Paik had his head inside his shop and the roof of his shop was obstructing his vision, it is reasonable to believe that the fuselage could have been out of his sight even if the plane was on the official track.

Another thing about Morin. In one of his statements he states that he saw the colours of American Airlines. This means the plane was not directly over his head.

You fail to mention that Madelyn Zakhem, Jimmy Chu and Isobel James were very clear that the path of the plane was over their heads, hence close to the official path. This is again noted as a serious omission.

And by the way, don't you think Boger would have stated the bank angle was very steep if it had been very steep? It could not have been remarkable if the plane "didn't veer". Perhaps it was "slight". The plane did hit at an angle of about 5 degrees, as shown by very clear impact marks, but that was to the left, not the right, as required by the North of Citgo claim. NOC doesn't make sense. It is impossible given the readily available evidence.

Edited to add final paragraph.

Aidan

Letters are reviewed but not in the way that articles are reviewed, and editors do not handle their own submissions so Frank would not know who was involved. These two letters, of which only one is of any interest apparently, were reviewed sufficiently to publish as letters at the journal.

If you would like to submit a letter in response, please do so.

Thanks to the Journal you all have an opportunity to be heard...

....unfortunately so many chose to attack the veracity of research there while failing to produce the required papers to argue their case in the proper way!

Aidan; it is simply so obvious that you are very angry that Legge again points out the logical fallacies in the no-plane at the Pentagon assertion. This is imo because your arguments here are so full of bile and short on accuracy.

You know that Frank will answer all your points in private and would love to see no-planners step up and commit their views to a scientific purpose. So do it?

Best John

It's

absolutely grueling.

What is gruelling? Science...?

Paul, your portraying a spoiler in this thread, what's up?

Regards John

John, sometimes when a person fights

with someone he's actually fighting for them.

It's grueling because it's too long making it a Tin Rat (They'll never read all this). For example, the Arabesque content is unnecessary even damaging.

It's grueling because if you go to the spreadsheet you'll see that a lot of the witness statements are not sourced to the original but to sites supposedly linking to the original sources. If you follow the chain you'll find that at least in two cases you'll end up at up at a URL that is not there.

It's grueling because I don't see where they explain their peer review process on their site.

It's grueling because you're attempting to associate the phrase “no planer” with your opponents here. This is inaccurate, unfair, and beneath you.

It's grueling because I don't enjoy arguing on 911blogger.com due to the hiding of comments here.

I like the new format, Kevin.

And I'm pleased to hear that: "The journal has also signed an agreement with a major distributor of academic content. As a result, the articles and letters in the Journal of 9/11 Studies will begin to see a wider audience."

Steve

Of course,All of this ignores

Of course,All of this ignores the real (undebunkable) proof 911 was an inside job. That being the question of where the fighters were at the time. Fact is fighters were scrambled in time to stop FL77 (admitted to by Gen Arnold before the 911 Commission) but they (all of 3 them) were sent in the opposite direction (North East) to allow flight 77 to strike from the South West. Why? They were chasing a 'ghost/phantom' they KNEW had crashed 3/4 hour before (FL11). We can prove this,Yet, Mr legg chooses to draw people into endless debate & ignore what we can PROVE (because it is the official story) Why?
Is the purpose to engage us in endless debate? So,that we never present an organized,provable story? I think it is. Just like it is obvious that CD ALWAYS ends up as an expert versus expert debate & nothing more (which we KNOW going into it because the American people don't understand Maths & science) but which is THE ONLY aspect of 911 presented to people when we try attempt to 'wake them up'. I think our enemies are running this 'Movement'.