Journal of 9/11 Studies
A new article published by the Journal of 9/11 Studies argues that the evidence supporting the official story of the destruction of the World Trade Center is so weak that the standards for expert testimony established by the U.S. Supreme Court, if applied competently, would exclude this evidence from the courtroom. The article is entitled “The Cause of the Destruction of the World Trade Center Buildings on September 11, 2001 and the Admissibility of Expert Testimony Under the Standards Developed in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc.” The author of the article is Stevan Looney, J.D. He is a trial lawyer and practices primarily in the courts of New Mexico and the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
Follow this link for the new article.
At the Journal of 9/11 Studies, we have a new article that is a revision of an important chapter from 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out. Dr. Daniele Ganser revised his chapter for use as an article at the Journal. Here’s an excerpt.
“Having examined much of the data related to the 9/11 events, I am convinced a new and thorough investigation is needed. But when I have questioned the official narrative of 9/11 in my native Switzerland I have encountered vigorous objections from people. Why would any government in the world, they have asked, attack its own population or, only slightly less criminal, deliberately allow a foreign group to carry out such an attack? While brutal dictatorships, such as the regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia, are known to have had little respect for the life and dignity of their citizens, surely a Western democracy, the thinking goes, would not engage in such an abuse of power. And if criminal elements within a Western democracy, in North America or in Europe, had engaged in such a crime, would not elected officials or the media find out and report on it? Is it imaginable that criminal persons within a government could commit terrorist operations against innocent citizens, who support the very same government with the taxes they pay every year? Would nobody notice? These are difficult questions, even for academics who specialize in the history of secret warfare. But in fact, there are historical examples of such operations being implemented by Western democracies.”
from Kevin Ryan
We have two new letters and an article at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. http://www.journalof911studies.com/index.html
At the Journal of 9/11 Studies we have a new letter from Professor Lance de-Haven Smith.
The letter is titled Conspiracy Denial in the U.S. Media. Here's an excerpt:
"Many American journalists appear to be locked into a peculiar way of thinking that makes them blind to signs of political criminality in high office. This mindset is characterized by an apparent inability to differentiate groundless accusations of elite political intrigue from legitimate concerns about the integrity of U.S. political leaders and institutions. For some reason, when it comes to popular suspicions of schemes involving the nation’s political elites, many journalists in the United State make no distinctions. They categorize all such suspicions as “conspiracy theories,” which they assume are not only untrue, but wacky and paranoid."
We would like to announce the publication, in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, of Matthew Witt’s article, “Morewell than Orwell: Paramilitarization in the United States post-9/11”. Matthew Witt is well known as a member of the group of scholars that has encouraged the study of “State Crimes Against Democracy” (SCAD). In this article he looks, not at the events of 9/11 themselves, but at the crisis of legitimation that the U.S. state faces and the way it has, since 9/11, chosen to respond to this crisis. The Occupy Wall Street movement is taken as the central example of state response and repression.
As we announce this publication we also want to announce our intention to broaden the scope of the Journal. The historical importance of the Journal lies in detailed, critical examination of the events of the day of 9/11, and we have no intention of abandoning this focus, but there are many disciplines we would like to invite into the conversation and we would like to include studies of the context and meaning of 9/11. We are aware that there are other journals that attempt to deal with these issues, but with few exceptions these journals accept the official narrative of 9/11 and tend to exclude the writings of authors with a critical perspective. In our view this means that the interpretations of 9/11 developed in these journals are bound to be faulty. We want to create a space where researchers working in the humanities, such as John McMurtry, whose recent article on the moral decoding of 9/11 has drawn a good deal of attention, and Matthew Witt can write without the usual pressure to adhere to flawed accounts of 9/11. In this process we also hope that people who have not traditionally read our Journal will find themselves drawn to it and to its critical perspective on recent history.
Please post links to these articles on all relevant websites so that we can invite as many people as possible into a dialogue on these important events.
Kevin Ryan and Graeme MacQueen
A new letter at the Journal of 9/11 Studies: Our Truth is a Command Toward Freedom Don Paul, December, 2012
At the Journal of 9/11 Studies we've published a new letter from author-activist Don Paul. The letter is titled -- Our Truth is a Command Toward Freedom: Connecting " '9/11' " to The " 'War on Terror,' " 1.4 Billion Rounds and 30,000 Drones.
A winner of Stanford University's Stegner Fellowship in creative writing, Don Paul is known for his groundbreaking books " '9/11' ": Facing Our Fascist State and Waking Up From Our Nightmare (with Jim Hoffman). Paul's use of double quotes around 9/11 and The War on Terror reflects the corporate government/media's intention to create an echo-effect or resonance of such terms in our public consciousness.
Here's an excerpt from the letter:
"We need to keep telling our truths. We need to keep pointing out holes in Official Stories. We need to keep confronting monsters. We need to keep seeing straight and raising our voices.
One reality we can continue to tell is that " '9/11'' " and the " 'War on Terror' " are both absurd but murderous pretexts. They're rotten root and rotten branch.
The " '9/11' " rotten root and the " 'War on Terror' " rotten branch run through both Republican and Democrat Administrations."
Happy New Year, Kevin
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
Ferdinando Imposimato Points to AE911truth Evidence
[Editor’s Note: The following is an excerpt of a letter written by Italian Supreme Court President Ferdinando Imposimato for the Journal of 9/11 Studies. While AE911Truth does not speculate on who was involved in the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers, we applaud Imposimato for speaking out on this important issue, calling attention to the explosive 9/11 evidence, and, most importantly, pursuing justice.]
Professor Graeme MacQueen and I are pleased to announce two new, peer reviewed articles that have been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
The first is from German journalist Paul Schreyer and is titled Anomalies of the air defense on 9/11.
This paper identifies six major, simultaneous anomalies that occurred on September 11, 2001 with regard to the national air defenses. Here is an excerpt:
“The official explanation for the detour is that air traffic controllers at Langley had sort of a standard flight plan, sending all jets generally to the east and that this standardized eastern heading somehow replaced the original NORAD scramble order. But this seems to be a dubious claim. Because how could that have happened? The pilots knew the original scramble order. They knew which direction NEADS wanted them to fly. And then they somehow forgot? But, same as with the Otis scramble, there seems only little chance to dig deeper because ‘Giant Killer’, the responsible control facility, deleted all its tapes from the communication on 9/11."
The second article is from licensed structural engineer Ronald H. Brookman and is titled A Discussion of “Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse.”
This paper discusses a recent article published in the Journal of Structural Engineering, authored by a team including several of the primary NIST WTC report authors. Brookman’s discussion reviews how the NIST authors continue to ignore facts related to the construction of WTC 7 in their computer models, and how the basic information needed to verify those computer models remains unavailable to independent researchers. Here is an excerpt:
“The destruction of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001 and the final NCSTAR reports issued in 2008 raise many questions in addition to those outlined here, but one thing is certain: Thousands of hours of computer simulation are no substitute for a forensic investigation based on published national standards and well-established principles of scientific inquiry. “
William Pepper is a U.S. attorney and British barrister who has represented governments and prominent people around the world. He was a friend of Martin Luther King and later represented the King family in a wrongful death civil trial. The jury took less than an hour to find in favor of the King family.
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He has written books that highlight the historical relationship between the U.S. government and Al Qaeda.
Lee McKenna is a Canadian trainer and activist, preacher, musician and writer. She is principal of Partera International and works in war zones leading training in third-party non-violent intervention.
Ferdinando Imposimato is the Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy and a former Senator who served on the Anti-Mafia Commission. He is the author or co-author of seven books on international terrorism, state corruption, and related matters, and a Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy.
For the 11th anniversary of September 11, we at the Journal of 9/11 Studies would like to share a series of letters from thoughtful people who have reflected on the tragic events of that day. Five letters are being published today, from the following individuals.
Lorie Van Auken is a founding member of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee. Without her dedication there would never have been a 9/11 Commission investigation.
Gregg Fishman is Secretary of the World Trade Center Rescuers Foundation. Like others he represents, Gregg risked his life and health in an attempt to rescue and recover victims following the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings.
Father Frank Morales is an Episcopal priest, activist, and author from New York City. He was present at Ground Zero shortly after the 9/11 events, offering prayers for the victims and support for the first responders.
David Johnson is Professor Emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Tennessee. Dr. Johnson served as a panelist at the Toronto Hearings on the tenth anniversary of 9/11.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has investigated the events of September 11, 2001 and his writings on that and other subjects have attracted a worldwide following.
A similar number of letters from other contributors will be published later this week. We hope that the words and sacrifice of these great people will make a difference on the anniversary of 9/11 and into the future.
Sincerely, Graeme MacQueen and Kevin Ryan, co-editors
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.
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."
Hereward Fenton with TNRA welcomes Craig Ranke to discuss the important evidence CIT presents in their latest video National Security Alert and to address the latest paper by Australian truth movement personality Frank Legge.
For those fence sitters who haven't taken the time and have only a vague idea of what CIT's research is about, perhaps based on a quick skim of the blogs, and aren't sure whether CIT or their opposition are closer to the truth, it is interesting to note that within the first couple minutes of the show, the host makes it clear that he takes a very strong stand against disinformation. He points out that the "no planes at the WTC" is a blatant example. Then he makes clear that the Pentagon is another story, and indeed, that the video National Security Alert goes beyond speculation; it provides a very fine compilation of verifiable information.
Critical WTC 7 Foreknowledge Article by Graeme MacQueen, in anticipation of BBC Program
Graeme MacQueen Debunks Mackey & Roberts
The BBC program comes out on Sunday, so I thought I'd get a leg up and post this here. I expect the arguments of Mackey and Roberts to be incorporated into the BBC program.
Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories
Prof. Graeme MacQueen
This is a great article. It totally debunks the idea put out by MacKey and Roberts that the WTC 7 foreknowledge was a rational thing for the firemen because of all the fire and debris damage.
This article shows that only 7 firemen actually made observations that they thought WTC 7 would fall, while 50 "were told" it would fall. These 7 firemen sound very confused and paranoid, and contradict NIST, who still doesn't know why WTC 7 fell seven years later.
MacQueen also finds that a majority of the firemen "definitely" thought WTC 7 would fall. Really, they knew definitely?