Professor Peter Dale Scott adds another well-researched paper to the Journal of 9/11 Studies: "9/11, JFK, and War: Recurring Patterns in America’s Deep Events."
One peer-reviewer writes: "It is an amazing paper."
Another: " It should be a fine addition to the high standards seen in all the articles published to date.
You are to be congratulated."

Prof. Scott writes: "If history is what is recorded, then deep history is the sum of events which tend to be officially obscured or even suppressed in traditional books and media. Important recent deep events include the political assassinations of the 1960s, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and now 9/11. All these deep events have involved what I call the deep state, that part of the state which is not publicly accountable, and pursues its goals by means which will not be approved by a public examination. The CIA (with its on-going relationships to drug-traffickers) is an obvious aspect of the deep state, but not the only one, perhaps not even the dirtiest."

Dr. Frank Legge (PhD in Chemistry) writes a letter to an educated friend who is a "Die-Hard Supporter of the Official Explanation," presenting straightforward arguments regarding the collapse of WTC 7. This marks Letter #50 in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. He begins:

"Dear friend, let's not talk about the details of our previous discussions. Instead let's start from the beginning and consider emotions, and move from there to a brief summary of the case. You already have the observations, calculations and conclusions in the papers in front of you, from the Journal of 9/11 Studies. These will not be repeated, but the essential thread of the argument relating to WTC 7 will be carefully spelled out as an example of how the case for explosives may be made.

The Journal of 9/11 Studies has published a brief but important letter: Update on Why Did the World’s Most Advanced Electronics Warfare Plane Circle Over The White House on 9/11? By Mark H. Gaffney

In his Letter, Mark Gaffney notes "CNN has now confirmed the basic facts regarding the USAF E-4B fly over of the White House on 9/11." Furthermore, Mark has updated his detailed paper on this subject, which appears in the July volume of the Journal of 9/11 Studies. His full letter is below.

Mark's research raises compelling questions IMO regarding the presence of this sophisticated USAF electronics jet over the White House/Pentagon area about the time the Pentagon was hit. Of course, the military denies its presence -- but with the clear and substantiated evidence gathered by Gaffney, this denial is tantamount to cover-up. I think this is a very important line of inquiry... one which should be pursued by Congress/other investigations; it would no doubt be important (for example) in an impeachment proceeding.
Reading of Mark's updated paper is also highly recommended, here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Gaffney_911Mystery%20Plane.pdf

More great work from Physicist Gregory Jenkins has been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Here, Dr. Jenkins continues his examination of claims made by proponents of the Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) explanation for destruction of the WTC buildings. This new, painstaking analysis includes the paper “Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence”, and a supplemental, related paper on “Miscellaneous Topics”.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Fe-DustStudies44.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf

With these papers, we hope to emphasize the importance of legitimate scientific discussion (which the Journal welcomes), as opposed to inappropriate personal attacks (which we do not publish).

Moving forward, we are pleased to announce that PhD Chemist Frank Legge has agreed to join us at the Journal of 9/11 Studies as a third co-editor. Professor Jones and I both greatly admire Dr. Legge’s past contributions, and look forward to his insights and guidance in directing future work at the Journal.

Dr. Frank Legge from Australia continues his diligent efforts to reach the public regarding 9/11 issues with his paper on the collapse of WTC 7 sans math, in an article entitled: "9/11 – Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations"

The paper begins:
"There are several reasons why a large proportion of the public is resistant to looking at the scientific evidence that explosives were used in the demolition of three buildings at the World Trade Centre on 9/11. The reason for some is that they do not trust their own calculations, or find calculations tedious, and instead rely on a trusted authority. The purpose of this paper is to provide an argument that explosives were used which does not require any calculation. The hope is that readers will be curious to see how this can be done and will read on and discover, perhaps with some surprise, that they are able to rely on their own judgment. The argument is based on material readily available for all to study, namely videos and photographs. "

Also discusses motivations... Read it here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/LeggeVerticalCollapseWTC7_6.pdf

Excellent comments and good-natured humor again enter the Journal of 9/11 Studies with the addition today of a Letter by Francisco González, "Comments on Garcia's Sept. 12, 2007, article in Counterpunch."

Here is a short excerpt to entice you to read this pithy, insightful Letter:

"The last section of his masterpiece has the following title:
"WTC7 Collapse, So What?" and reproduces a letter by a reader, who narrates how she saw a fire raging on one side of the building. Mr. Garcia needs no further proof than a letter from a reader to conclude that a fire on one side of a steel building can cause it to come down in perfect imitation of a perfectly symmetrical demolition at free fall speed. Happens all the time, apparently. Frivolous quibbles on the matter are left for the irrationals to investigate "to their hearts content." He also claims that the fires were fed by fuel tanks in the basements, apparently unaware that most of the fuel was recovered inside intact tanks, as described in the FEMA report. http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm "

The exchange between Greg Palast and Steven Jones is now a published Letter in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. I wish to thank all who commented on an earlier version of this letter here on 911blogger (thanks to all for making 911blogger a great resource).

There is an added footnote in the published Letter which may be of interest:

Following her widely-read paper on overcoming psychological barriers to 9/11 Truth acceptance, Laurie Manwell has “Part II” published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies today.

A reviewer wrote: “It is an excellent -- (and the first real attempt from anybody really) -- effort to address the concerns related to human personality variables, multiple disciplines, logic and the vagaries of persuasion associated with discussing the truth. And not just 9/11 truth but truth globally and the means to search for the truth. Hoping to create many little epiphanies in those with whom we communicate.

"I especially liked your personalization towards the end where you speak about your fears and concerns .... and the children. And the future they face if we do not act. [I worry much about the children. And I worry about other life that shares this planet.]

Dr. Crockett Grabbe of the University of Iowa has had a new paper published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. He studies visual evidence for explosive activity during the destruction of the WTC towers, and follows closely on Kevin Ryan's paper, which studies similar subject matter:

Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage by Dr. Crockett Grabbe

High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers by Kevin Ryan

INN News Report interviews Dr. Grabbe (April, 2007)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2438958231402017959&hl

(Don't forget the "Letters" section, which is updated periodically;
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters.html )

The following message was sent to Michael Newman, spokesperson for NIST’s WTC investigation, on June 19th.

Dear Mr. Newman,

I've been asked to identify a defender of the official story of 9/11/01, for a possible debate or discussion on the Thom Hartmann radio show.

Would anyone from NIST be interested in joining me for this debate? If so, please respond to me, and David Pool (copied), the producer of Thom's show.

Thanks.
Kevin Ryan

To date there has been no response to this invitation, from Mr. Newman or anyone else at NIST. Having waited nearly three years to hear back from NIST’s Frank Gayle, I can say that this is no surprise.

But here is a new paper covering one of the issues that might have been discussed in such a debate, that is, if NIST scientists actually did have the integrity to stand up for their work.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf

Some Physical Chemistry Aspects of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Aluminum-Rich Microspheres, the Eutectic, and the Iron-Sulfur System as Applied to the Demise of Three World Trade Center Buildings on 9/11/2001
Jerry Lobdill

Introduction

It has been established through a study of the photographic and video evidence that there were a number of instances of white-hot areas that produced glowing liquid flows from window openings on the 80th to 82nd floor of WTC 2 that persisted for quite a number of seconds.

According to the NIST FAQ1 these events came within the last 7 minutes before WTC 2 began its collapse. White-hot temperatures cannot be produced by ordinary fires. These observations have therefore been conclusively shown to be incendiary events. This fact is inconsistent with any theory of collapse except controlled demolition.

Steven Jones, professor of physics, and Leslie Robertson, a structural engineer on the World Trade Center project, discuss the 9/11 collapses

Journal of 9/11 Studies

Note: This Journal entry by Gregg Roberts, associate editor of http://911research.wtc7.net has been updated after some additional feedback by Arabesque.

In pdf form: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Close-to-Free-Fall.pdf

Frank Legge (Ph D)
Logical Systems Consulting
Perth, Western Australia.
flegge (at) iinet.net.au

Version 2.0

Abstract

The topic of the downward acceleration of the buildings at the World Trade Centre has been frequently discussed. The discussion is usually brief and combined with other lines of evidence for explosive demolition and its significance is thereby obscured. Acceleration is an important topic because it is based on evidence readily available to all, namely videos, and also because the calculations involved are not complex and can easily be verified by the reader. The conclusion reached that explosives were used in the demolition of these buildings is therefore not only compelling but readily accessible.

On the 11th of September 2001 the twin towers of the World Trade Centre (WTC) were hit by aircraft and collapsed with tragic loss of life shortly afterwards. Videos of these collapses have been shown repeatedly on television. About seven hours later building 7 of the WTC also collapsed. This caused astonishment as it had not been hit by a plane. Despite the intriguing nature of this event videos of this collapse have rarely been shown and most of the population is unaware that a third building fell that day. This paper will deal only with that building.

There was little evidence of fire and it seems reasonable to assume that if firefighters had been permitted to work in the building the fires would have been extinguished. No loss of life occurred with WTC 7 as it had been evacuated long before the collapse. This arouses suspicion that someone in charge was aware that it was to be demolished and motivates investigation.

Continued...
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/911-Acceleration-Close-to-Free-Fall.pdf

Following is a full, unedited copy of the “S911T & J911S Revitalization & Reconstruction Proposal” that Steve Jones, Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds & Judy Wood asked me to prepare after Morgan & Judy’s resignations from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.  (Editing Exception: Formatting & contact information has been edited.)

After this blog is posted, I will post Steve & Jim’s response to this proposal.  However, after some negotiation, the parties ultimately rejected the following Proposal, and none of the contained sub-proposals have been implemented (or at least, not fully).