A new article and a new letter at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

At the Journal of 9/11 Studies, we have published a new article and a new letter. That makes 2012 as productive as our past three years at the journal combined.

This month's article is from Dr. Andre Rousseau and is titled "Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001?"

The conclusion states: "Near the times of the planes' impacts into the Twin Towers and during their collapses, as well as during the collapse of WTC7, seismic waves were generated. To the degree that (1) seismic waves are created only by brief impulses and (2) low frequencies are associated with energy of a magnitude that is comparable to a seismic event, the waves recorded at Palisades and analyzed by LDEO undeniably have an explosive origin. Even if the planes' impacts and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could have generated seismic waves, their magnitude would have been insufficient to be recorded 34 km away and should have been very similar in the two cases to one another. As we have shown, they were not."

The letter is in response to an article that was previously published at the journal. It is from Tod Fletcher and Dr. Tim Eastman, and is called " The Pentagon Attack in Context: a Reply to John Wyndham."

Here is an excerpt: "A broad-based analysis is needed to understand the Pentagon events – an analysis that is based on the full range of available evidence and therefore cannot be exclusively scientific in a narrow sense. This is especially important due to the fact that physical, quantifiable evidence is extremely limited, while there are multiple related events and information that can contribute helpfully to addressing (and providing context for) the problem. Thus, we have emphasized the superiority of a systematic contextual approach that builds effectively on such related information, and the need to treat the limited available evidence within its associated context. Further, we have emphasized the need to leverage the best established results, including attention to the likely means, opportunities, and motives of perpetrators."

In December, we expect to have more to share.

Kevin Ryan and Graeme MacQueen

Glad to see the Journal looking good

... and glad to see more papers added to the list. The new layout is a big improvement.

Spread the word...

the Wyndham reply

I found the Wyndham reply to be of little substance in arguing pro-flyover or pro-no-plane-attack. That may or may not have been the primary purpose.

I do appreciate and welcome any new efforts to explain some of the observations of the Pentagon event and I do not necessarily champion the defense of Wyndham's paper. I also certainly echo all parties call for utitlizing the scientific method for arriving at conclusions and hope for some reconciliation in the movement over this issue.

From my examination:

In the 1st 8 pages, the author(s) offered no real arguments.

Pg9 attempts to argue that the pentagon attacks required more precision than the WTC attacks and thus requiring pre-planted explosives inside the building. Speculative at best and certainly does nothing to counter the large plane impact theory. Of course planes + bombs are most likely ... especially those pre-planted on all the planes for abort, etc. reasons. We know that is what the planners did at the WTCs. On pg10 he states it was unlikely the same M.O. was used for both Pentagon & WTC ops. More unfounded speculation and I was surprised to read that.

At the bottom of pg10, top 11, he argues that rapid cleanup of site was unnecessary if a plane really hit. This of course is also countered by logic that states the cleanup would have been done for other reasons (e.g. plane or building pre-planted explosives, modified plane parts, other unrelated covert miscellania, standard procedure). He then argues that planting evidence at the site would have been easy. Although that is true for items inside, that is not true for the debris outside in full view of dozens of agents and hundreds of motorists.

Pgs 11 & 12 he argues (apparently echoing Griffin) that dozens of pentagon impact witnesses can be dismissed due to Pentagon, govt, or corporate affiliations. If that is true then nearly all eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable. The US govt and its Pentagon exert influence far beyond DC and probably most people in the area are employed by them or their contractors. I have read some of the detailed complaints and have not found them convincing enough.
However as it stands, there are dozens (possibly >100) of impact witnesses and zero witnesses to alternative theories.

However, as I stated before, I appreciate the efforts of these researchers and hope for more substance in the future.

At the top of pg14 he argues that other senses may be just as reliable as vision. In some special circumstances that is true but not so during a highly visual event. I was surprised to read this. Did anyone hear, smell, taste or feel a plane flyover the Pentagon immediately after the explosion?

He goes on further to state that pics inside the building do not show enough plane debis. But what should one expect from such a high speed impact against and through a reinforced structure? The only contextual example I can find on the web (the F4 test crash) shows that it completely disintegrates. And should we expect the Pentagon to release all photos showing all elements of the crash before picking through it ... when they don't have to? Who knows how many closet skeletons one might see. The huge outside debris field does appear satisfactory to account for the small % of debris that would not slide into the building. Who cares if one describes it as a fluid flow or just as demolished junk continuing to move in the direction it was going?

He then argues that some areas on the facade (and possibly a support column?) did not receive the expected damage that a fully intact AA77 might create, avoiding the distinct possibility that the plane may have been breaking up somewhat due to stressful aerial maneuvers, ground turbulence, abort explosives going off just before impact, lightpole damage, etc. and that such actions might disposition some parts, especially the extremeties.

I did not find any new evidence or revelations to counter the argument that it is most likely that a large plane impact occurred at the Pentagon. No amount of pure speculation regarding massive problems with witness reliability, unconfirmed flight path anomalies, etc. can counter the highly one-sided witness testimony (many for an impact vs none for a flyover, despite a potential witness pool of hundreds of thousands for a flyover), physical debris evidence, flight path damage, even frames of a video, which although unclear, certainly argue more for a craft of some type and probably a large one, etc.

The art of peer review

Hi gallenk

You say "I did not find any new evidence or revelations to counter the argument that it is most likely that a large plane impact occurred at the Pentagon."

That is an excellent piece of work.

How would you like to comment on the other letter on the same subject:

Witnesses felt ground shake BEFORE collapses began

As further evidence of the "subterranean explosions" suggested by Dr. Rousseau in his paper, a number of witnesses have recalled feeling the ground shaking below their feet before each of the Twin Towers began to collapse. The following two Complete 9/11 Timeline entries give the details:

Shortly Before 9:59 a.m. September 11, 2001: Ground Shakes Prior to South Tower Collapse

Shortly Before 10:28 a.m. September 11, 2001: Ground Shakes Prior to North Tower Collapse

Yet more evidence is the fact that some witnesses have recalled seeing "a massive fireball at ground level, coming from the South Tower" just before it started to collapse. See:

Shortly Before 9:59 a.m. September 11, 2001: Some Witnesses See Ground-Level Explosion Just Before WTC 2 Collapse

AND, witnesses felt ground shake BEFORE plane HIT

INTERVIEW: CBS 8.52 am live feed Bryan Gumble talking to ‘Stuart’: a working waiter in Thompson street Soho who 'heard/felt something 'earthquake like', looked up and saw the plane go into tower one.
Heard/felt something like an earthquake -
looked up
saw the plane go in.

Sound travels at??

BT Did you - were you looking up as the plane approached the building or did you - did it only call your attention , catch your attention after it crashed into the WTC?

S.I heard sort of a crashing sound, and I looked up quick enough to actually see something go into the building, but everything happened so fast I wasn’t quite sure what I was looking at.

S.um..I was serving tables at a restaurant and I just heard sort of like a boom sound....an almost sound.....almost like an earthquake sound , and I looked up and I saw literally some thing like....it might’ve even bounced off a little bit of the building and next thing I know I saw a big ball of fire on the top of the building and, just lots of smoke and what looked like to me, glass going down.....it happened really quick ....its really hard to..

corroborates Willie Rodriguez and others testimony of sub-basement explosive events immediately before plane impact.

The police reports do also say it shooked violently

before the sound or dust was described. Just two examples (there are many more)

"While assisting NYFD, the entire building began to shake violently, the undersigned was thrown to the floor. There was a loud rumbling sound and the outside windows began to implode. Smoke and dust filled the building and all electrical power was lost. The NYFD radios alarmed and ordered all to evacuate."

Police Officer James E. Hall, on 19th floor North Tower as South Tower was exploded.

"We felt what I can only describe a shudder in the building and then ran towards the exit. We ran up the Barclay St. ramp and made a right onto Vesey St. I turned to look up at buildings as Tower #2 began collapsing. I ran east on Vesey and then turned north onto Church St."

Sgt. Robert Greff, Special Investigations Unit

Port Authority Police Reports for 9/11

Bombs in the Basements


Why is the first seismic signal twice as long as the second?

Why was the 1993 2100MJ high explosive (HE) detonation two floors underground not detected seismically?

How does a jet impacting parallel with the ground between floors 94 and 98 with 2,358MJ of kinetic energy cause a larger seismic signal than a 3,150MJ HE detonated two floors underground?

Can a low order jet fuel explosion between floors 94 and 98 or between floors 78 and 84 cause the seismic signals?