scientific discussion

New Paper at Scientific Method 9/11 Supports Large Plane Impact at Pentagon

The Pentagon Attack: Eyewitnesses, Debris Flow and Other Issues – A Reply to Fletcher and Eastman, by John D. Wyndham.

This paper deals with issues raised in a November, 2012 letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies by Tod Fletcher and Timothy E. Eastman. These involve eyewitness testimonies as analyzed by Jerry Russell and by David Ray Griffin in his book, “9/11 Ten Years Later,” together with other topics that include debris flow through the Pentagon interior, energy considerations, and questions previously unaddressed by the author.

Four appendices focus on inaccuracies in the Fletcher and Eastman letter; on David Griffin’s list of physical evidence items that, in his view, weigh against the 757 impact theory; on the testimony of the unfairly-maligned taxi driver, Lloyde England; and on Jerry Russell’s and David Griffin’s analyses of Pentagon eyewitnesses.

You can read the paper and submit comments for moderated discussion at:

John D. Wyndham
April 12, 2013

Announcing a New Website for Scientific Discussions, and a New Paper on the Pentagon

A new website, is now up and running. Its primary purpose is the discussion of scientific papers on the events of 9/11. In order to maintain dialog at the level of principles inherent in the scientific method, the discussions will be moderated. After evaluation, comments and responses will be posted on the website in a discussion page. Authors are invited to submit their writings, both old and new, for discussion and feedback from the wider community of 9/11 researchers. Send papers to The community at large is invited to read the listed papers and provide comments and feedback.

A new paper is now available, “The Pentagon Attack: The Event Time Revisited,” by John D. Wyndham. From the abstract:

“Since publication of my paper, “The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact,” questions have arisen about some statements made therein, specifically those concerned with the clock evidence for the event time. This paper reviews the evidence and finds that it is much more convincing for an event time around 9:38 am than for a proposed earlier time around 9:32 am. It is shown, by experiment, that the minute hand of the Heliport clock could easily have moved from a time around 9:38 am back to a time around 9:32 am because of the abrupt deceleration that occurred when the clock hit the ground after falling off the wall.”

You can find this paper on the above-mentioned new website at:

John D. Wyndham
March 25, 2013