[This is an archive of blog entries Frank Legge posted to his site between 2007 and 2013. Entries are in reverse chronological order.]
Is this the last paper on the 9/11 Pentagon attack?
Perhaps not, but it should be, at least regarding the question of plane impact! This paper has gathered every argument raised to dispute the official claim that AA77 hit the Pentagon. It shows that not one of these claims stands up to investigation. Just because the official reports of the events of 9/11 are full of lies and clever deceptions does not necessarily mean that everything they assert will be incorrect.
In this case the clever deception is to release only a small amount of information and to make sure that what they release is ambiguous or contradictory. Thus conflict develops among truth activists with obvious damaging effects on their credibility. How can we expect the public to pay attention to our claim that explosives were used in the demolition of the WTC buildings if we cannot agree about such a straightforward matter as the attack on the Pentagon?
It was David Ray Griffin who provided the trigger for this paper. He set out to assemble the evidence for and against the plane impact theory in Chapter 7 of his recent book “9/11 Ten Years Later“. It seemed to me that he had done so in a way which left the reader with the impression that it was likely that there was no plane impact. I had previously thought that the matter had been settled to the satisfaction of any scientist by the publication of papers co-authored with Warren Stutt and with David Chandler. Griffin is not a scientist but he has written many excellent books on the subject of 9/11 and is highly regarded and influential. I thought his book would prolong the debate to the detriment of the 9/11 truth movement and decided to set out the evidence that I had collected over the years of studying this incident. It is to be found at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, titled The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus. Comments are invited.
More on the Pentagon Attack
Two new papers have appeared recently. One is by John Wyndham in which he examines the evidence and applies the scientific method to it. Here is his abstract:
The widespread belief among those who question the official account of 9/11, that a large plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11, is unsupported by the evidence. The failure of the 9/11 truth movement to reach consensus on this issue after almost a decade is largely due to a failure to rigorously apply the scientific method to each proposed theory. This paper, by so applying the evidence to each proposed theory, shows that a large plane hitting the Pentagon is by far the most plausible theory.
The other paper is by David Chandler and myself. It is an addendum to our previous paper showing that the North of Citgo flight path could not have occurred as it would produce a very steep bank angle and no such angle was reported.
The addendum draws on two additional pieces of evidence to show that the required bank angle could not be survived.
The north path is thus shown to be not merely improbable, based on conflicting witness testimony, but impossible, based on the laws of physics.
New scientific paper on the Pentagon attack
A paper by David Chandler and myself is now available at S911TJ, Foreign Policy Journal and Global Research. It is titled “The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path.”
The paper shows that the few witnesses to the plane passing north of the Citgo service station must have been mistaken as the north path flight would have incurred a very steep bank angle, which none of the witnesses reported. Many witnesses reported the bank angle was slight. The only reasonable conclusion is that the plane flew straight and hit the Pentagon and that activists should focus their attention on other issues such as the failure of the normal intercept procedure. An Addendum to this paper has now been submitted for publication. It draws on additional witness information to show the north path to be even more impossible than previously calculated.
Architects and Engineers anniversary campaign
With the 10th anniversary of 9/11 fast approaching, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is mounting a campaign to expose the truth and call for a new investigation. They have produced a new DVD “Experts Speak Out” which is now available from their site, http://911expertsspeakout.org/
Find their discussion of Building 7 here: http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/
New decoding of FDR file throws light on Pentagon controversy
The publication of the paper by Warren Stutt and myself on the FDR file from the Pentagon attack has ignited a fresh round of controversy. The new decoding by Warren reveals 4 more seconds of data at the end of the file. It thus shows that the scientific study of radar data by John Farmer and Tom Lusch had led to the correct conclusion that data was mising from the files originally available. The new decoding shows the plane descending and hitting the Pentagon, as reported by the majority of eyewitnesses and as indicated by the long straight line of damage. Those who say the FDR file shows the plane could not have hit the Penagon are thus proved wrong. In response to criticism of the paper I have added new pages under the Pentagon tab.
Another new website: Scientists for 9/11 Truth!
A website for scientists called Scientists for 9/11 Truth has opened. Membership is growing. If you are a scientist, consider joining.
New website announced: 9/11 Truth News
The editors of 9/11 Truth News are pleased to present 911truthnews.com. 9/11 Truth News is intended to be an accessible and factually oriented first reference for those curious about 9/11 truth. Our movement must serve its audience and this site was created for that purpose.
The key to effectively serving this purpose is our strategy. That starts with the site being solely related to 9/11 truth and edited by four longtime movement activists. With a good deal of thought about who we need to reach and the obstacles that stand in the way of reaching them, the editors of 911truthnews.com will be publishing only that which we believe to be the best this movement has to offer.
What does ‘the best’ look like? Uplifting images of people committed to educating the public. Videos of thoughtful actions and real connections with our audience. Stories of our mutual challenges and cooperative successes. Important discoveries. Revealing hit pieces. Thoughtful commentary. The best looks like positive movement.
In order for this site to reflect the best this movement has to offer, we will need help from the movement to keep us informed about what we might include. We need people to help us find relevant news. We need groups to send us their best images and videos of their actions and events. We need people to help us fill out the resources section by submitting links to related history, our strongest evidence, and information relevant movement strategy.
Commenting is provided on our site primarily to allow readers to post thoughtful questions and commentary that enhances the educational value of our posts. We will be strictly moderating comments to maintain that educational value. If you’d like to comment, please stay on topic and don’t get too heavily into details, speculation or debate.
David Ray Griffin on SCADs and WTC 7
David Ray Griffin has recently published a remarkable paper which discusses the concept of State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD) in relation to WTC 7. The paper is titled Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight.
It is a powerful and effective paper, providing a detailed summary of the evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was an inside job. He points out that very few members of the public are aware that this building collapsed, let alone how it collapsed, thus showing the power of a controlled media. He cunningly shows how NIST team leader Shyam Sunder proves the NIST report false, using his own words.
NYC CAN blocked
The initiative of NYC CAN, calling for a referendum on a new investigation of the events of 9/11, was defeated by the system, as can be seen here. The path forward is now described as calling for support from the people.
NYC CAN again in the news
MARCH FOR ANSWERS
80,000 New Yorkers have signed the petition. As with every other NYC ballot initiative, the City of New York is denying the will of its people to vote on the issues it considers most important.NYC CAN responded by filing suit, and on September 9 the City conceded NYC CAN did in fact submit enough valid signatures to put the referendum before the voters. Now NYC CAN is battling to prove the petition is legally valid. On September 28, the referee will report on the petition’s legality, and a final determination will be made in the days that follow.
On the eve of the referee’s decision, let us take to the streets in the THOUSANDS on behalf of the families, first responders and survivors of September 11th and the 80,000 New Yorkers who signed the petition. As the climate ripens and public opinion continues to swing in favor of a new investigation, this is our opportunity to send a message like never before. If we stand together, we can make history.September 27. 2pm. Battery Park.Please help promote this event. Post the flier on your website. If you have a radio show please contact email@example.com to have an NYC CAN representative on the show. If you can volunteer to hand out fliers starting Saturday, September 19, please email firstname.lastname@example.org and put VOLUNTEER in the subject line. For fliers to print out and distribute on your own, go to nyccan.org.
Thinkers think and talkers talk. Patriots ACT.
New York City CAN
On Monday, August 10, NYC CAN began a comprehensive review of the nearly 26,000 signatures invalidated by the New York City Board of Elections and City Clerk. With 26,003 signatures accepted as valid by the City, at least 3,997 additional signatures were needed to exceed the threshold of 30,000 signatures. 10 days, 50 volunteers and 1,000 man-hours later, we are thrilled to report we have so far discovered 6,924 signatures we will argue were wrongly invalidated.
In addition, the Court has granted an extension allowing us to complete our review of 6 unfinished volumes. We anticipate having well over 7,000 additional valid signatures once the review is complete. The 50+ individuals who helped conduct the review take great pride in knowing their work has stopped the silencing of 7,000 New York City voters and allowed their voices to be heard.
On Friday, August 28, we must serve a Bill of Particulars listing all signatures we argue should be deemed valid by the Court. Special Referee Louis Crespo will begin a line-by-line review of the disputed signatures on Tuesday, September 8, and is scheduled to complete his review by Friday, September 18.
Pending the outcome of the Court’s review of the disputed signatures, lawyers for NYC CAN and the City will begin arguing the legality of the petition’s proposed amendment to the City Charter.
Looking ahead, NYC CAN will submit an additional 28,000 signatures on September 3 to satisfy the requirement of 15,000 valid signatures needed to override the City Council’s failure to act on the petition. The 60-day period for the City Council to approve the referendum’s placement on the ballot ended today, August 24, 2009. If NYC CAN wins in court, the submission of 15,000 more valid signatures will guarantee the referendum’s placement on the ballot.
Legal proceedings are expected to last through the month of September, by which time a favorable determination from the Court is needed in order for the referendum to be placed on this November’s ballot. Over the last 25 years six ballot initiatives have been attempted in New York City. Only one has made it on the ballot: the 1993 initiative to limit New York City elected officials to two terms in office, whose supporters also had to go to court to prove the initiative legal before passage by the voters, and which was nevertheless undone by the City Council last year. We will battle against all odds to see that the initiative to establish a critically needed reinvestigation of 9/11 does not suffer the same fate as past ballot initiatives.
NYC CAN now calls upon its thousands of members and millions aware of the egregious inadequacy of the 9/11 Commission Report to help ensure our fight for a real investigation does not go unnoticed by the larger public. Nearly 80,000 New Yorkers have put pen to paper to call for the right of all New Yorkers to vote an impartial, independent investigation into existence. This momentous step forward in the quest for truth about September 11th will be looked upon with admiration across the globe. Through the ages those who have fought for justice did not win by backing down when their government said no. We will continue this fight and future efforts with the same determination that has gotten us to where we stand today.
Thinkers think and talkers talk. Patriots ACT.
I will gradually add links to websites which provide good information about 9/11.
A new group is forming which will be called Scientists for 9/11 Truth. Its mission will be similar to that of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice but it is hoped that a large membership of scientists will add weight to the existing calls for a new investigation. Expect more news on this shortly.
One of the most useful sites for reliable information is the Journal of 9/11 Studies. This journal presents papers and letters. The papers are all subject to peer review before publication. The letters in some cases are controversial, in which case they are presented at the same time as letters which provide counter arguments. Click to view.
An early site which focused only on well established evidence was Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. It links to many good papers and also provides information about events which have occurred and are planned.
A complaint sometimes aimed at presenters of information about 9/11 is that they cannot be taken seriously if they are not engineers. I of course argue that some of the evidence is best studied by physicists and chemists and other specialists, and some is so simple that anyone can understand it, once they have seen it. There is however a website run by the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth which should answer this complaint in a direct manner. Their numbers are growing and now exceed 1600.
An immense amount of information has been collected over the years by Jim Hoffman. His site, 9-11 Research, provides both detailed discussion and numerous links to essays and other related sites. It is a great place for the investigator to search for facts, quotes and arguments.
Another good source of information about 9/11, with frequent addition of new articles, is 911Truth.org.
A recent important addition to the list of 9/11 web sites has been created by fire fighters. These people are not only familiar with the results of fires, including both accidental and deliberate fires, but are also familiar with the normal and legally required steps to be taken to investigate fires. They state that the required investigation of debris for signs of arson was not carried out.
Several other sites have been created recently by people with specific expertise and concern for scientific and moral principles. They are listed below:
Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth
Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth
Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth
Welcome to The Science Of 911
For a lot of people it is a shock to discover that there are serious scientists who dispute the official reports about the events of 9/11. It is my hope that, by focusing on scientific evidence, avoiding political attacks and subjective feelings, it will be possible to provide a less emotional approach to this topic, and thus help the newcomer analyze the evidence.
It is clearly a topic of grave important as the events of 9/11 have shaped a large number of government decisions and actions around the world and these actions have had a profound effect on the lives of millions of people. I think we would all agree that it is important to have a clear understanding of the historical events which have determined our present state and which will continue to influence the future. It is reasonable to believe that a better understanding will lead to better decisions and a better world.