The way I know that there are many holes in the official story is that my 14-year-old daughter did her term paper this year on what actually happened on 9-11-01. She found dozens of facts and pieces of evidence that contradict the official story touted by Washington and the corporate media. My own subsequent research has convinced me that the official story is a big lie. That does not mean that I know exactly who planned the attacks, how they did it, and why they did it. I do know, however, that the government lies on many smaller, less significant issues, so why wouldn’t they lie about this huge issue?
“It has become increasingly clear to me and many people I work with that our government lies constantly and cannot be trusted. Heads nod when one says this, yet when questions are raised about what actually happened on September 11, 2001, there are some people who don’t even want the questions to be asked.”
Kevin Danaher
The only way a thorough investigation will happen is if we, the people, demand it. Whether you trust the official story about 9-11 or not, we must all support the principle of basing our laws and policies on “truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”
If you believe that real democracy requires open and accountable government, I urge you to assist the 9/11 family members and support groups such as 911truth.org and http://www.911visibility.org in their just struggle for the truth.
Getting at the truth regarding 9/11/01 will not bring back the thousands of people who died, but it will at least ensure that they did not die in vain.”
In less than fifteen seconds World Trade Center One and World Trade Center Two exploded into a pile of rubble ejecting multi-ton perimeter wall sections 600 feet laterally impaling some of them in adjacent buildings.
The questions we have to ask is:
Can high rise steel framed buildings be destroyed in a gravity-only collapse in a matter of seconds? (Answer: No)
Can the light weight top of the tallest steel high-rise buildings in the world fall through their massive structure which provides the path of maximum resistance to their decent? (Answer: No)
Can jet fuel or office fires reach temperatures high enough to significantly weaken or melt the highest quality structural steel? (Answer: No)
Wasn’t it true that World Trade Center building One and Two were designed to withstand the impacts of airliners because of the fact that a B-25 bomber impacted the Empire State building at the 80th floor in 1945? (Answer: Yes)
Isn’t it also true that the collapse of World Trade Center Building One and Two displayed several characteristics consistent with controlled demolition? (Answer:Yes)
This section will provide video, audio, written presentations and analysis about the physical evidence to answers these questions and more.
In response to speculation that “advanced” weapons or other advanced technologies were used to destroy the World Trade Center Towers from a distance, this article will examine the magnitude of energy that seems to have been on display on 9/11 and will consider some potential sources for this energy. The magnitude of energy available through the ubiquitous electric energy grid will be used as a reference and compared to other known sources of energy. As expected, it is not possible to quantify energy produced by advanced “Directed Energy Weapons,” but published data does suggest some limitations on this class of…
The collapse of WTC Building 7 represents one of the worst structural failures in modern history. The official story contends that fires weakened the structures, resulting in a gravitational collapse. The evidence, obvious to so many researchers but omitted from NIST’s Final Report, supports a very different conclusion – one that points squarely to explosive controlled demolition.
If WTC 7 was intentionally brought down, then clearly it becomes a ‘smoking gun” that must be investigated. Who were the terrorists that had access to this highly secure building, occupied in part by the CIA, FBI, Dept of Defense, IRS, SEC, and others, and the technology required to prepare it for demolition?
Written by Simon Falkner and Chris Sarns (AE911Truth – Reprinted by Permission)Now let us ask: Did NIST’s explanation of how this initiating event led to the observed collapse of the entire building also contradict its own data? The short answer: “Yes.” For a more detailed answer, we must first assume, for the sake of argument, that column #79 buckled and that this event did lead to NIST’s hypothesis for how the complete collapse of WTC 7 occurred. NIST presumed that a localized collapse of the northeast section of the building set off a progressive collapse of the core, and that this 7.6-second core collapse sequence (see NIST’s time line) occurred while…Read more…Saturday, August 20, 2016
Written by Simon Falkner and Chris Sarns (AE911Truth – Reprinted by Permission)In 2008, the final report on World Trade Center Building 7 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) abandoned two myths that the 2005 Popular Mechanics article had misleadingly presented as the foundation of the official explanation for WTC 7’s destruction. The first myth it discarded was the sensational story about the non-existent 10-story gouge. The second myth was about a non-existent seven-hour-long diesel fuel fire.Read more…Saturday, August 20, 2016
Written by Simon Falkner and Chris Sarns (AE911Truth – Reprinted by Permission)The 2005 Popular Mechanics article referred to in PART 1 and PART 2 propped up NIST’s myths about WTC 7 in yet other ways. It said, for instance, that NIST was continuing to investigate two possible contributing factors that may have helped the (non-existent) 10-story gouge destroy the building.The first of these two alleged contributing factors, according to PM, was the supposed ability of the trusses on Floor 5 and Floor 7 to transfer stress from the damaged south face to the rest of the building.Read more…Saturday, August 20, 2016
Written by Simon Falkner and Chris Sarns (AE911Truth – Reprinted by Permission)Considering the lack of evidence, as we outlined in Part 1, NIST’s early insistence on the 10-story gouge, as dramatized in the 2005 Popular Mechanics magazine article, makes no sense, until you realize that the agency was reverse engineering its theory for the demise of Building 7. In other words, because NIST’s 2004 preliminary report contended that the east penthouse could cave in (as the videos show) if column 79 were to buckle, it had to make up a story to account for the failure of that column in order to sell its theory to the scientific community and to…Read more…Saturday, August 20, 2016
Written by Simon Falkner and Chris Sarns (AE911Truth – Reprinted by Permission)In its infamous 2005 article, “Debunking the 9/11 Myths,” Popular Mechanics quoted NIST director Shyam Sunder asserting that falling debris from the North Tower poked a huge “gouge” in the front of WTC 7: “The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7.” Sunder went on to say, “On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom ― approximately 10 stories ― about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.” [Emphasis added]Read more…Saturday, August 20, 2016
Written by Simon Falkner and Chris Sarns (AE911Truth – Reprinted by Permission)The United States government’s official investigator of the destruction of the three skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an arm of the Department of Commerce. The agency became highly politicized during a Clinton-era restructuring. “In essence,” recalls a NIST whistleblower, “we lost our scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.'”Read more…Wednesday, June 04, 2014
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) maintained in its August 2008 Final Draft Report, and the associated technical briefing, that WTC Building 7 took 40% longer to collapse than if it had been in free-fall. NIST Project Leader Shyam Sunder explained that WTC 7 could not have come down in free-fall, because there was resistance to the fall provided by the steel structure underneath. But a determined high school physics teacher in central California, David Chandler, demonstrated that NIST was using fraudulently manipulated data to try to show a slower rate of collapse. David Chandler – “There is…Read more…Tuesday, June 03, 2014
Published on Feb 16, 2013 In its draft report, released in August 2008, NIST attempted to cover up evidence that WTC7 fell at free fall, but the cover-up was transparent. In its final report, released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged free fall, but couched it in a bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance. This video displays the brazenness of the NIST WTC7 cover-up. [The WTC7 series has elicited a number of questions from people unclear on the details of how I did the measurements, compared to how NIST did them and how the representatives of NIST…Read more…
A Blanket of Dust is a political thriller about one woman’s shocking ordeal seeking justice for her husband’s death in the World Trade Center. Struggling with facts of official murder, treason and fraud, Diana Crane—a modern day Antigone—finally confronts them all in a harrowing act of sacrificial tragedy.
The 9/11 Truth Action Project (9/11 TAP) is a new organization that grew out of the aspirations for grassroots action expressed by several previous 9/11 Truth groups. 9/11 TAP’s mission is to build and mobilize a global grassroots movement to create a groundswell of civic support that achieves transparency and accountability for the crimes of 9/11, justice for its victims, an end to unwarranted wars, and restoration of our civil liberties.
The goal of this new movement is to achieve an independent, comprehensive Congressional investigation, by mobilizing and coordinating the efforts of volunteers across the U.S. and abroad, through local Truth Action Groups coordinated at the state, regional, national and international levels.
The way 9/11 TAP envisions that this will be accomplished is to:
Create a groundswell of civic support;
Educate the public regarding the events of 9/11, their origins, and their consequences;
Promote independent, Truth friendly media;
Overcome propaganda, psychological warfare, and intimidation waged against 9/11 transparency and accountability;
Support local efforts to achieve a Truth-friendly majority in the U. S. Congress.
The 9/11 Truth Action Project is a spin-off from the volunteer network previously nurtured by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), the most influential 9/11 organization.
What makes TAP different?
TAP is focused on bringing about a comprehensive new investigation of 9/11 based upon scientific explanations using the standards of evidence advanced by AE911Truth for the explaining the destruction of the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 and 7. The implications of discovering that that the destruction of these skyscrapers was accomplished by using pre-planted explosives are vast and consequential for our country and the world. They call into question not only the War on Terror, with its destructive forces abroad and its constriction of civil liberties at home, but also the honesty and trustworthiness of our political and national security leaders, the mainstream media, professional associations, and universities. The Truth Action Project is a movement that seeks to correct the conditions which made the deception of 9/11 possible, and to roll back the consequences of that deception.
To accomplish that mission, TAP relies on two basic mechanisms:
Systematically identifying the obstacles to achieving a sweeping, transformative investigation of 9/11, its origins, and its consequences, and devising convincing strategies to overcome each of those obstacles. TAP is committed to a comprehensive program of civic action with clear and reasoned objectives, rather than action for action’s sake.
Building a pyramidal grassroots organization to mobilize and coordinate the efforts of hundreds of thousands of volunteers across the U. S. and abroad. A vertical organization—committees at the national, regional, state, and local level—will work at enlisting volunteers for educational, civic, and political action, supported by national Task Forces. National leadership will be drawn from the growing ranks of newly empowered volunteer leaders at the State and regional level.
TAP will continue to draw upon AE911Truth for its educational programs regarding the science of 9/11, and believes strongly in the continued importance of AE911Truth’s mission. But 9/11 TAP will also work closely with other groups, including the recently-formed Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry (LC), which aims to be the first public interest law firm focused on 9/11 and its causes and consequences. The LC will have its public “launch” this September 11 in New York. The Lawyers committee is developing a long-term legal strategy that will require grassroots support in order to be successful in the courtroom.
How will TAP win a new investigation? And what good would such an investigation do?
TAP aims to win a new investigation by—
bypassing mainstream media and assisting independent Truth-friendly media;
by educating people through one-to-one contact in the community settings;
by disseminating information on its own social media;
It will train people, in local meetings, to recognize and reject propaganda;
It will overcome the power of money in politics with the power of MANY, raising a Truth Agenda in future election campaigns across the country, and building alliances with natural allies.
It will combat ‘learned helplessness’ and apathy by—
developing local Truth Action Groups as support groups,
nurturing new leaders; and by
renewing civic consciousness through quiet conversations among neighbors.
TAP is not a political party; it is a movement of civic and democratic renewal that will pave the way for the election of a Truth-friendly Congress. It will do this by providing the best educational and outreach materials available.
If you’d like to help, sign up and become a TAP member.
Contact your State or Regional Coordinator.
Join a local Truth Action Group or start a new one.
Volunteer for a Task Force or project that needs your talents.
Read, and contribute to, the TAP website.
Organize presentations by TAP-endorsed speakers in your neighborhood. Contribute your ideas and hear those of others.
Don’t act helpless; you are powerful if you act as a free man or woman, in concert with like-minded others. You are important; we are all important; but the hour is late and the time for action is now.Published inOfficial PublicationsMore in this category: « Strategic Plan for the 9/11 Truth Action Project
[Note: John Wyndham and others such as Ken Jenkins, Jim Hoffman, David Chandler among others are hell bent on making the 9/11 movement believe the government narrative on the Pentagon 9/11 attack. They have failed for the most part because the facts despite their claims otherwise do not support their quasi-government narrative. I personally find these people’s motives, interest and passion in smearing the more factual theory on the Pentagon attack highly suspect! It is one thing to put forward your theory that you believe fits the facts better, but to constantly claim your theory closes the debate while they maliciously distort other people’s theories is disgusting.
The combined research of the Barbara Honegger in her “Behind the Smoke Curtain” presentation and the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) based on over 10 on the ground witnesses, 2 heliport workers prove the plane had a northern flight path that couldn’t possibly have cause the Pentagon damage. This plane was destroyed with on board explosives just before reaching the Pentagon near the Heliport. This further explains the debris, fire truck and trees in flames and the blackened Pentagon walls just in front and to right of heliport. The government has never released any videos of some of the dozens of video cameras focused on or from the Pentagon except for only a few suspect frames of a security camera. The explosion shown does seem to be what many witnesses claim they say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. On closer look this explosion could just as easily be the northern flight plane exploding just on other side of heliport. The only witness to the downing of light poles, a taxi driver whose testimony is totally discredited in an interview with the CIT. Further photographs of the Pentagon damage before and after the collapse of that damaged section support controlled demolition rather than caused by any plane! The original damage is too small and incorrect for a airliner crash. After the collapse is further suspect. It looks like a hinged collapse from the right side which leaves a near perfect shear left open wall. The odds of a plane crash causing such damage must be one in a million if not a billion, but easily done by precision demotion explosives! In fact, there are photos of items on the edge of the shear wall that are undisturbed and unburned.
Remember the government DID NOT make the Pentagon crash site a place where it protected the crime scene, preserved physical evidence and collected and submitted the evidence for scientific examination. If the government’s narrative was true, then why would they have quickly ignored and violated this legal requirement of crime scenes.
Those pushing the Government theory of the Pentagon attack have little traction with the average people in the 9/11 movement. Personally antidote: Ken Jenkins gave a presentation at the September 2019, 9/11 film festival in Oakland supporting the government Pentagon attack theory. Normally everyone claps in appreciation of presenters, yet when Jenkins finished he was meant by total silence from a crowd of 300 + until I stood up and yelled it was total b.s. MEK]
It’s time for the 9/11 truth movement to resolve its Pentagon debate by applying the scientific method. Doing so points conclusively to large plane impact.
For over fifteen years the 9/11 truth movement and some of its most visible leaders have debated this question: Did a large plane, matching a Boeing 757 in general and Flight AA 77 in particular, hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001? In the last several years a group of scientists and engineers have presented a number of scientific papers that answer both of these questions with a resounding “Yes.” A number of these scientists and engineers are affiliated with the organization Scientists for 9/11 Truth, which also fully supports the hypothesis that the impacts and resulting fires from the Boeing 767s crashing into the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11 could not account for the destruction of these buildings. Building 7 (WTC7) was destroyed without being impacted by any plane. The evidence is clear that all three of these buildings were destroyed by some form of controlled demolition. While the 9/11 truth movement generally agrees on what happened in New York City, thus far there has been no closure on the Pentagon debate.
As an organization, Scientists for 9/11 Truth has stood virtually alone in maintaining large plane impact at the Pentagon together with controlled demolition of the buildings in New York City. With the publication of three new works, cited below, there are now indications that the 9/11 truth movement may be ready to adopt this position also. See, for example, this article on the Truth Action Project website.
The Pentagon question has divided the 9/11 truth movement, impeding its thrust toward truth and public credibility. Despite hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw a large plane fly towards the Pentagon and impact it, critics continue to claim otherwise, mainly because the crash scene was unlike those for other plane crashes. Few critics considered that for this unique event—a high-speed impact of a large plane with a building—preconceived expectations of the observed outcome are of little value. The plane largely penetrated the building, leaving many small fragments outside but relatively few large pieces. In a recent conversation with a “no plane impact” advocate, the advocate stated “We will only know for sure what hit the Pentagon when the people who know the answers come forward.” In fact, these “people” came forward a long time ago in video and audio recordings and in written statements, starting on 9/11 itself. Regrettably, the 9/11 truth movement at large either does not know about these hundreds of witnesses, or else has refused to listen to or believe them.Pentagon 9/11 Watch this video on YouTube
Eyewitnesses affirm large plane impact, and the damage trail establishes the plane path before and after impact with a high degree of precision. The plane flew low from the southwest straight toward the Pentagon on a path making a 52-degree angle with the Pentagon’s west wall. It clipped a tree; downed five light poles; struck a fence, a generator-trailer, and a low concrete wall; and impacted the building at the first and second floors, creating an 18-foot wide hole atop a 96-foot gash in the façade. Outside, plane debris was strewn to the north near the Heliport because of the speed and angle of impact. The light poles’ separation gives a plane wingspan in the range 100 to 130 feet (a Boeing 757 wingspan is 124 feet 10 inches), while the low concrete wall and generator-trailer damage separation indicates an engine separation of approximately 43 feet (Boeing 757 engine separation is 42.5 feet). See Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph Showing Plane Path
Inside the Pentagon, the plane was increasingly fragmented by the steel and concrete columns, creating a fluid-like flow of solid debris. This flow of material destroyed or damaged many internal columns, defining a continuation of the outside path, and ultimately created an exit hole in the C ring wall. Debris, including plane parts, spilled into the AE Drive in the direction of the original plane path. Internal columns were bowed and abraded in the flight path direction and much of the first floor suddenly filled with debris. The first floor ceiling beyond the collapsed portion of the building remained intact.
These elements all confirm a flight path that is supported by eyewitness accounts, the radar data and the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data, which was released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). There are over 62 documented eyewitnesses who saw the plane impact. Fourteen (14) witnesses saw one or more of the light poles struck. Four witnesses saw the right engine/wing hit the generator-trailer, while one witness saw the left engine hit the low concrete wall and break apart. Multiple witnesses traced the passage of the plane as it flew from the Sheraton Hotel (last radar reading) to impact at the Pentagon. There were some initial problems reading the last frame of the FDR data, but the properly decoded FDR data traces the plane’s path all the way from take-off at Dulles Airport to impact at the Pentagon.
Applying the Scientific Method
Such a confluence of physical, eyewitness, and other evidence provides an overwhelming case for a large plane—a Boeing 757 and specifically Flight AA 77—impacting and penetrating the Pentagon on 9/11. The initial hypothesis of large plane impact, when examined for its consequences as shown by the eyewitness testimony, physical damage, and other supporting evidence, survives the scientific method test and becomes a theory that explains virtually all the observations. No other hypothesis, such as impact by a missile or pre-planted bombs, has even ventured to explain all this evidence.
This illustrates the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, and the application of the scientific method in solving physical problems. Those who deny large plane impact offer only criticisms or alternative hypotheses, not a theory. A complete theory examines the consequences of a hypothesis, compares these consequences with the evidence, and discards the hypothesis if it leads to results that do not match the evidence. Figure 2 illustrates the flow of analysis using the scientific method.
Figure 2 – Analysis Flow Using the Scientific Method
The Large Plane Impact Hypothesis and Theory
Ask a Question
Let’s begin with the topmost oval in Figure 2 and ask a question: What caused the damage and deaths at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11?
Do Background Research
To answer this question, we first do some background research.
Eyewitnesses: According to eyewitnesses, a large plane flew (in about six seconds according to FDR data) from the vicinity of the Sheraton Hotel at the west end of the Navy Annex and impacted the Pentagon west wall. It flew above Columbia Pike, crossed the clover-leaf intersection of Columbia Pike with S. Washington Boulevard (Route 27), clipped a tree and impacted five light poles, a fence and a generator-trailer and a low concrete wall, all before hitting the Pentagon façade and then largely disappeared inside the building. Plane parts rained down on the Pentagon lawn and the highway that runs parallel to the west wall. Those who observed this fleeting event from outside the Pentagon, from the standstill traffic on route 27, from the vicinity of Arlington Cemetery, and from nearby buildings, are in substantial agreement that impact by a large plane occurred. Some witnesses identified the plane from its silver color and red and blue markings as an American Airlines plane, a Boeing 757, or both.
Witnesses to the aftermath of plane impact who did not see the plane hit, saw many small pieces of plane “confetti” as well as some large pieces of silver fuselage. Some witnesses did not see any large plane parts, and did not recognize the confetti for what it was. Critics have seized upon these latter accounts to try to prove that there was no plane. These accounts cannot negate the many positive observations of others as well as the abundance of photographic evidence. There are also photographs and a significant number of witnesses who described seeing plane parts in the interior of the building and in the AE Drive.
Photographs and Videos: Photographs taken outside and inside the Pentagon show many small pieces of silver fuselage with AA colored markings, plane and engine parts, landing gear and a tire. Abraded and bent interior columns show the direction of flow of fragmented plane parts, aligning with the known outside path to within a few degrees. Much of the first floor area under the non-collapsed ceiling suddenly filled with debris. Outside the C ring hole, debris and plane parts were strewn in the AE Drive in alignment with the flight path.
Radar and FDR Data: Figures 3 and 4 show the plane’s path from takeoff at Dulles Airport to a point close to the Sheraton Hotel (radar data) and to impact at the Pentagon (FDR data).
Figure 3 – [Figure 6 from Frank Legge’s letter “The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus“ published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies]. IAD, PLA, QBE, and QHY are radar tracking stations.Figure 4 – [Figure 7 from Frank Legge’s “The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus“]. The course of AA 77 from the FDR data closely matches the radar data.
The continuous radar data matching the FDR data indicates that assertions of tampering, as well as suggestions that a plane swap took place, are mistaken. There is no reason to doubt that Flight AA 77 traveled from Dulles to its impact at the Pentagon. The radar track of AA 77 is continuous from Dulles to the vicinity of the Sheraton Hotel and is supported by the FDR data. From there, the FDR data and many eyewitnesses tracked the plane all the way to impact at the Pentagon. The eyewitness and physical evidence fully support impact by a large plane with dimensions matching a Boeing 757.
Pentagon Security Videos: Recent work on the video from two Pentagon security cameras shows that they captured images of the approaching, low-flying plane. In his paper “The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras,” Ken Jenkins explains the images, how the date error came about, and the likely origins for the trailing white smoke. There is no evidence at this time that the government is withholding other images of the event captured by the surveillance cameras.
Ken Jenkins and David Chandler also recently took pairs of sequential images from the Pentagon surveillance video cameras, putting them together as you would see them in what is called a blink comparator. In this way, the image of the plane “pops out.” If you watch the image cycle a few times, the details of the plane are clearly visible. You can find the blink comparisons on David Chandler’s website, 911SpeakOut.org.
Construct Hypothesis
Based on the above background research, we propose and test the hypothesis that the Pentagon was struck by a large plane matching a Boeing 757 and most probably Flight AA 77.
Test with an Experiment
Many physical hypotheses can be tested by experiment in a laboratory using relatively simple equipment. In the case of the Pentagon 9/11 event, costs to test and/or reproduce some features of the event would be prohibitive. Fortunately, there are prior relevant tests, airplane incidents and other evidence that are pertinent to the event and that support the large plane impact hypothesis.
The F4 Experiment: In the F4 Phantom jet experiment, a plane was propelled at high speed on a rocket sled into a massive and impenetrable concrete wall. The plane was completely fragmented into small pieces. This experiment supports the fragmentation of the Boeing 757 plane parts that did not enter the building.F-4 Phantom Test Watch this video on YouTube
Ground Effect: Because of what is known as ground effect, it is claimed by critics that the plane could not have flown closer to the ground than 56 feet, so it would have impacted at the fourth and fifth floor levels. Some experienced pilots have supported this objection. The physical evidence, such as the five downed light poles, confirms that a large plane did fly low. In addition, many witnesses actually reported that they saw a large commercial jetliner, identified as a Boeing 757, fly low and close to the ground. Actual experience confirms this behavior. For example, at an air show in Portugal, Evora 2007 (Figure 5), an Airbus A310, similar in size to a Boeing 757, repeatedly flew low, sometimes with the gear down and full flaps but with at least one pass at a relatively high speed, with no concern about any ground effect. The height of the plane above the runway was little more than the diameter of the fuselage.
Engineers and scientists working in the aerospace field feature an article which explains that, because of the high speed and low angle of attack, ground effect is not a relevant factor, particularly with an aircraft that is under automatic control, as was likely the case for Flight AA 77 at the end. According to Jeff Scott, “ground effect would have been quite small on Flight 77 given its high rate of speed and small angle of attack.” See Aerospaceweb.org and the answer by Jeff Scott, “Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect.”
Figure 5 – [From a video at Portugal, Evora 2007] TAP Airbus A310 flying very low at high speed [Figure D-6 from the paper by Victoria Ashley et al., “The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted,” ScientficMethod911.org.]
Further Analysis of Corroborating Physical Evidence: Several items of physical evidence can be further analyzed to see if they comport with a large plane hitting the Pentagon.
Clipped Tree: One witness described the plane as “picking off trees and light poles.” Photographs show that the starboard (right) engine of the plane did clip a tree. Jon Cole has shown experimentally that it is possible for the leading edge of an engine to cut the tree. Cole compared this action with similar-looking ragged branches cut with a heavy brush cutter with heavy, thick dull blades rotating at a lesser speed than the airplane that cut the woody branches of the Pentagon tree (See Figure 6). Branches ingested by the right engine can explain the smoke trail from the right engine from that point on, as seen in the security camera videos and in this simulation.911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77 Watch this video on YouTube
Figure 6 – Sheared Tree Branches [From “The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras” by Ken Jenkins, 9-11TV.org.]
Downed Light Poles: Many witnesses saw the plane hit light poles. In all, five light poles were torn from their bases and broken into pieces. Pole pieces had considerable curvature as if hit by a blunt force at high speed, such as the moving wing of a plane. One pole piece pierced the windshield of a taxi driven by Lloyde England. The back seat of the taxi was pierced indicating how the pole piece was supported at that end and stuck out through the windshield. The separation and positions of the downed light poles indicate a plane wingspan of more than 100 feet, but less than 130 feet. The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is 124 feet 10 inches.
Rotated Generator-Trailer: Several witnesses saw the right plane engine and/or wing strike one end of a very heavy generator-trailer. The trailer was found to have rotated about the other end toward the building. In addition to the damaged end, there was a gash in the trailer top corresponding to the position of the first flap “canoe” beyond the right engine of a Boeing 757. The location and direction of the gash was consistent with the canoe’s position on the wing and the plane’s flight path.
Gouge in Low Concrete Wall: One witness saw the left engine hit a low concrete wall and break apart. The wall shows a curved gouge consistent with impact by an engine. The distance between the wall and the struck end of the generator-trailer is approximately 43 feet, matching the engines’ separation of a Boeing 757 of 42.5 feet. When the left engine hit the wall it was a few inches above ground level at that point. The wall sits on a high point, and this explains why the engine did not gouge the surrounding lawn as it traveled over the lawn. Some nearby, upright wooden spools were not struck as they were positioned between the plane fuselage and the low-slung left engine.
Debris by the Heliport Area: There was a noticeable amount of plane debris, mostly small pieces, at the Heliport area north of the impact hole. This is in accord with the plane’s path which made a 52-degree angle with the Pentagon west wall as it approached from the southwest. This distribution of debris is entirely to be expected since, after fragmentation, debris that remained outside the building would have a significant velocity component causing it to travel in a northerly direction.
The Impact Hole and Façade Damage: Many claims have been made that the impact hole was too small for a plane the size of a Boeing 757 to have entered the building. None of these claims have merit. The fuselage of a Boeing 757 is 12.33 feet wide and 13.5 feet high and the corresponding hole was about 18 feet wide. Early photographs were obscured by spray from fire hoses and hid a long gash of about 96 feet in the first floor façade. There were many missing outer support columns. Thus the plane’s fuselage, both engines, and the heavier, inner parts of the wings had sufficient room to penetrate the building.
According to witnesses and the FDR data, the plane had rolled about 5 degrees counterclockwise when it hit the wall. Façade markings, such as a long gash made by a wing, confirm these observations. Critics frequently point to the absence of a clear vertical gash that they contend should have been made by the vertical portion of the tail. There are, as shown by Jim Hoffman, markings in the area where the tail might have hit. It is possible that the tail was blown off and fragmented, and did not reach the wall intact. One witness described seeing the fuel explosion while the tail was still visible. Many witnesses saw the tail, and this criticism cannot overturn the other evidence of plane approach and impact.
Internal Column Damage: Figure 7 taken from The Pentagon Building Performance Report depicts internal column damage. At the top, red and blue squares depict missing and severely damaged columns. Green and yellow squares show columns with less damage. The width of the damage at the west wall (top) is about 100 feet, which is consistent with the impact of the fuselage, engines, and the heavy parts of the wings of a Boeing 757. As the fuselage moved into the building, it was shredded and scattered to the sides along its path, but a cone of decreasing width of material maintained enough focus to break through and make a hole in the C ring wall. The dark shaded area of the figure is where the building collapsed about 30 minutes after impact. The first floor area with damage but no collapse filled up with debris without the first floor ceiling collapsing. All these observations support the impact with the façade and passage of a large plane through the building primarily at the first floor level.
Figure 7 – Pentagon Building and Performance Report Figure 7.9
It is noteworthy that April Gallop, who has been extensively interviewed and quoted as an important witness, had an office in wedge 2 over 150 feet from the impact hole. Gallop’s office structure did collapse and the lights went out but Gallop was too far away to smell jet fuel. She, with her child and others, exited through a window near the Heliport. Once outside, Gallop collapsed, was apparently unconscious, and was moved to the outer lawn area, and then to a hospital. Gallop had no opportunity to see aircraft debris inside or outside the building.
C Ring Exit Hole: The C ring exit hole can be understood as resulting from the impact of many pieces of plane debris. This process and the false assertion that workers created the hole as a way to access the building interior are fully discussed in the papers listed below. The exit hole lines up with the plane path that made a 52-degree angle with the Pentagon west wall. This fact in itself points to the hole’s origin since the exact plane path was not known until some days or weeks after the event. There is no evidence that any part of the crash scene was staged to imply a non-existent plane crash. All the physical and eyewitness evidence points to actual large plane impact.
Debris in the AE Drive: Debris strewn outside the C ring exit hole was in line with the direction of the plane’s motion and included a plane tire and a wheel rim consistent with a Boeing 757. See Figure 8.
Figure 8 – C Ring Hole, Plane Parts and Debris Angle
Figure 8 shows a large remnant of a tire outside the C Ring Hole (2). Also shown is a wheel rim (1). The debris angle (3) is also clearly visible. A single doorway lies in the direction pointed to by (4).
Analyze Results – Draw Conclusion
Both the background information that includes the eyewitnesses and the detailed examination of the plane path and damage presented above support the large plane impact hypothesis. The conclusion drawn is that a large plane matching a Boeing 757 and most probably Flight AA 77 struck the Pentagon on 9/11.
Hypothesis is True
The hypothesis of impact by a large plane matching a Boeing 757 and Flight AA 77 is true. The next step in the scientific method is to report the results.
Report Results
Among the first to report the results of a scientific analysis of the Pentagon 9/11 event were Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley. Subsequently, scientists affiliated with Scientists for 9/11 Truth, with additional authors such as engineers and computer scientists participating, produced a substantial number of papers. These papers, all listed in the Additional Reading section below, include the three new works mentioned above and listed here, together with a new article:
See also the article “Why Not Use a Plane?” by Frank Legge and Ken Jenkins on the Scientists for 9/11 Truth website.
Other Pentagon Hypotheses
Since the Pentagon 9/11 event, many individuals have tried to prove that a large plane did not impact the Pentagon. These individuals often point to testimonies by witnesses who did not see the plane impact. For example, an aftermath witness might not see recognizable plane parts and claim or imply that there was no plane involved. Some Pentagon workers inside the building inferred a bomb, since to them whatever happened sounded like a bomb. But an expert witness with military experience, who also saw the plane tail just before impact and following fireball, stated that it sounded like a “2000 lb” bomb. While many witnesses reported that they smelled the odor of jet fuel, a smaller number thought they smelled cordite, an explosive that has not been in use since WWII. Although at least 14 witnesses saw the plane hit the light poles one second or less before impact, some critics claim this could not have happened without the wings being visibly damaged or destroyed.
Even though the event occurred in broad daylight and was viewed by hundreds of people, scores of whom were stuck in traffic on route 27 with a clear view, critics have dismissed witness accounts by claiming these to be fraudulent. However, there is not a single case where a Pentagon witness has been shown to have deliberately lied. On the contrary, there has been an attempt by some to manipulate witnesses years later and lead them to a different conclusion about what they saw at the Pentagon. This is the case with those who postulate the “North path” approach in which the physical damage could not have been done by the plane. While the advocates of a “North path” approach claim the plane flew over the Pentagon, there is not a single, unequivocal witness to this scenario, and many of the very few North path witnesses affirm that the plane impacted the building.
Based on these criticisms, a number of alternative hypotheses have been proposed. Although often termed theories, these hypotheses do not rise to the level of theories because they have not been subjected to the discipline of the scientific method. It is instructive to subject these alternative hypotheses to analysis according to the scientific method steps of Figure 2.
Alternative Hypotheses Analyzed According to the Scientific Method
[Note: Below is the demeaning dismissal of a distorted and false presentation of the Honegger/CIT theory on the Pentagon attack! MEK]
The Bombs (Pre-planted Explosives) Hypothesis
Those who hypothesize that there was no plane impact attribute all damage and deaths to pre-planted explosives or bombs. These researchers include Barbara Honegger in her “Behind the Smoke Curtain” presentation and the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT). Their assumption is that the approaching plane seen by many flew over the Pentagon. Honegger has modified her hypothesis in the last several years to postulate that a white plane was destroyed with some sort of explosives outside the Pentagon near the Heliport area without any debris hitting the Pentagon wall. For these “no plane impact” hypotheses, the next step in the scientific method, Test with an Experiment, raises immediate problems.
The first major problem is the scores of eyewitnesses who saw the plane impact the Pentagon west wall. To solve this problem, many critics simply ignore or attempt to discredit the witnesses, claiming they are lying, incoherent, or manipulated by insiders to tell a false story. These criticisms fail for lack of proof. The witnesses cannot be explained away in any credible fashion.
The second major problem is how to explain the plane debris seen by witnesses and in photographs. No credible explanation has been offered as to how the large volume of plane debris was planted and distributed outside the Pentagon, inside the Pentagon, and in the AE Drive, except by a plane crash. Honegger’s “white plane destroyed” hypothesis appears to be an attempt to explain the plane debris near the Heliport, but it does not explain the plane debris found inside the Pentagon building or in the AE Drive.
The third major problem is a failure to explain, using bombs, the observed damage. This damage includes the clipped tree, the five downed light poles, the generator-trailer that was damaged and rotated toward the Pentagon, the gouge in the low concrete wall, the shape and nature of the façade damage, the internal bowed and abraded columns, the sudden appearance of internal plane debris, the C ring hole and the debris strewn in the AE Drive.
There is no credible evidence for Honegger’s “white plane.” The plane’s supposed destruction without its fragmented parts hitting the Pentagon west wall violates laws of physics, specifically the law of the conservation of momentum. The center of gravity of the combined fragments would still be moving toward the wall at the plane’s pre-explosion speed. There is nowhere near enough plane debris outside the wall near the heliport to account for an entire plane.
The bombs-only hypothesis fails the test of the scientific method in major ways, and the analysis shows the hypothesis is false. However, although the evidence is scant or nonexistent, it is still possible that there were some internal bombs timed to explode at the same time as large plane impact.
The Small Plane Hypothesis
Some investigators claim that a small plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. These include Massimo Mazzucco in part 2 of his film September 11 – The NewPearl Harbor, and David Ray Griffin, author of many books on the events of 9/11. Griffin has publicly endorsed Mazzucco’s work, including that on the Pentagon. This hypothesis immediately encounters major problems.
The great majority of over 180 eyewitnesses to the approach of the plane and its impact with the Pentagon west wall described a large plane. Only a very small number (six or less) of witnesses described a small plane, and most of these viewed the plane at a great distance, making size judgments difficult and unreliable. Of the large plane witnesses, many described it as a silver American Airlines plane, a Boeing 737 or 757. One knowledgeable witness, Tim Timmerman, an airlines’ pilot, recognized it unequivocally as a Boeing 757.
Secondly, a small plane could not have created the observed physical damage. The downed light poles require a minimum wingspan of 100 feet, while the generator-trailer and low concrete wall separation gives the separation of the engines as about 43 feet, closely matching the actual separation of Boeing 757 engines at 42.5 feet. Given that wingtips of a plane are very light and might easily break off, a small plane would be unlikely to create a 96-foot gash in the first floor.
The small plane hypothesis fails the test of the scientific method and the analysis shows the hypothesis is false.
The Missile Hypothesis
The missile hypothesis cannot explain the spatial characteristics of the physical damage. The light poles were effectively 100 feet apart, and the generator-trailer and low concrete wall were effectively 43 feet apart. These objects could not all have been impacted by a missile. The shape and size of the impact hole precludes a missile, the damaged internal columns were spaced apart over a wide area, and the bowed and abraded columns could not have been rendered in such a condition by a missile. A missile could possibly have created the C ring hole, but only plane parts were found in the debris in the AE Drive.
Donald Rumsfeld alluded to a missile, and eyewitness Mike Walter spoke of a missile, but in the metaphorical sense of a plane acting as a missile. These comments fueled the missile hypothesis. But no witnesses claimed to have seen a missile. Witnesses overwhelmingly described a large plane. The missile hypothesis fails the test of the scientific method and the analysis shows the hypothesis is false.
Conclusion
Despite the clear evidence and its analysis using the scientific method of large plane impact, a substantial portion of the 9/11 truth movement, including accepted leaders and those involved in major organizations, continues to publicly endorse, adhere to, or promulgate talks, writings and films on false Pentagon hypotheses. Some simply offer criticisms and reject or ignore evidence that would bring closure to the argument. There is clear evidence by way of disintegrating truth groups that these endorsements and communications are injurious to the movement. Public feedback shows that the false Pentagon hypotheses undermine public acceptance of other highly credible scientific findings, such as the demolitions of the Twin Towers and Building 7 (WTC7) in New York City.
Most rank and file members of the 9/11 truth movement take their cues on the Pentagon from well-known speakers, writers, and acknowledged leaders of the movement. The quickest way to end the ongoing damage to the movement’s credibility and bring closure would be for these prominent individuals to publicly repudiate their former endorsements, views, and statements on the Pentagon event and acknowledge the scientific method and its conclusion of large plane impact. In the absence of public repudiations, the damage caused by false Pentagon hypotheses is likely to continue indefinitely, even if those who fueled their spread cease to promote them. Consequently, the surest way to end the debate and enhance the credibility of the movement is for each individual to study, without bias or prejudice, the evidence for themselves.
The recent papers by scientists, engineers and others showing large plane impact at the Pentagon have been collected together on a website that invites feedback and discussion. Comments can be sent to the Scientific Method 9/11 website which specifically invites feedback on many of the papers listed below.
Acknowledgments
This article is based on the research and writings of the following authors: Victoria Ashley, David Chandler, Jonathan H. Cole, Jim Hoffman, Ken Jenkins, Frank Legge, Warren Stutt and John D. Wyndham. These writings point to many other researchers, such as Adam Larson, Russell Pickering, John Farmer and Arabesque, who have contributed to an understanding of the Pentagon evidence.
The author of this article would like to thank David Chandler, Jonathan H. Cole, and Ken Jenkins for reading the manuscript and offering useful comments and suggestions.
Additional Reading – Websites, Papers, Articles and Videos
Frank Legge and Ken Jenkins, “Why Not Use a Plane?,” Scientistsfor911Truth.org, January, 2016.
John Wyndhamhttp://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/John D. Wyndham (PhD) studied under two Nobel Prize-winners in physics at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, U.K. and, in his early career, was a Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology. He is currently Coordinator of Scientists for 9/11 Truth. His research papers on 9/11 can be found there and on the website Scientific Method 9/11 for which he acts as Moderator. You can contact him at moderator@scimethod911.org.
Scientists for 9/11 Truth is a group of scientific professionals who are calling for new, independent, and scientific investigations of the events of September 11, 2001.
Organizing Committee:
David S. Chandler, BS Physics, Harvey Mudd College, MS Mathematics, California Polytechnic University
Jonathan Cole, P.E., Bachelor of Science Civil Engineering, University of Connecticut
David S. Chandler, BS Physics, Harvey Mudd College, MS Mathematics, California Polytechnic University
Purpose:
Our specific purpose is to collect, study, analyze, report on, and disseminate scientifically factual information and data on the events that took place on September 11, 2001 (9/11), and issues related to these events; to solicit public support for new, independent and scientific investigations of the events of 9/11; and to present, for scientific, educational, and civic purposes, a unified front of professional scientists who stand behind the emerging science of 9/11.
As scientists, we are committed to upholding the scientific method developed painstakingly over the past centuries, sometimes at great cost to personal reputation, circumstance, and freedom, and even to life itself.
Considering the tremendous impact, on decisions to go to war, of the official account of 9/11, and the many thousands of lives snuffed out by these wars and on 9/11 itself and thereafter, it behooves us, as representatives of the scientific tradition, to uphold that tradition with truth and honor by exposing the absurdity of the official story of 9/11 as seen from a scientific perspective.
It is probable that many of you, for reasons of time, political outlook, and personal inclination, or a desire not to question the government, have not yet closely examined the official story of what happened on September 11, 2001. To you and all those who seek a rational world through reason and truth-telling, we offer these pages.
Membership:
Scientists for 9/11 Truth includes both natural scientists and formal scientists (mathematicians, computer scientists, and systems scientists). For individual member statements, see Signatories.
For membership information, click Join Us here or in the main menu. View our Petition by clicking Petition here or in the main menu.
New Hampshire Nonprofit Corporation:
In 2010 Scientists for 9/11 Truth was registered as a nonprofit corporation under the provisions of RSA Chapter 292.
The officers of this corporation are:
Mark Basile, President
Eleanore Smart, Treasurer
John D. Wyndham, Secretary
The by-laws of the corporation established an extended board consisting of not less than five members. The organizing committee and coordinator (the scientific committee) are members of the extended board. Other individuals on the extended board who are members of Scientists may particpate in and vote on scientific issues, but their vote is counted only when it is necessary to achieve a quorum.
In addition to the corporation officers listed above, the following are members of the extended board.
Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11
NEW YORK CITY, NY (Oct. 26, 2004)(Updated Sep. 11, 2009) – An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and “consciously failed to act,” with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation.
Focusing on twelve questions, the Statement highlights areas of incriminating evidence that were either inadequately explored or ignored by the Kean Commission, ranging from insider trading and hijackerfunding to foreign governmentforewarnings and inactive defenses around the Pentagon. The Statement asks for four actions: an immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Congressional hearings, media analysis, and the formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.
The Statement’s list of signatories includes notables spanning the political spectrum, from Presidential candidates Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, and David Cobb to Catherine Austin Fitts, a member of the first Bush administration, as well as Washington veterans like Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. Other signers range from peace activists like Global Exchange’s Kevin Danaher to former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq, Edward L. Peck; from environmentalists like Randy Hayes and John Robbins; from populist journalist Ronnie Dugger to renowned investigative reporter Kelly Patricia O’Meara.
The Statement also includes 43 noted authors, including New York Times #1 bestseller John Gray, as well as 18 eminent professors, historians, and theologians. Other notables include five-term Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, singers Michelle Shocked and Michael Franti, and actors Ed Asner and Mimi Kennedy.
The Statement was facilitated by 911truth.org, a leading coalition. The organization has also announced a press conference outside of Eliot Spitzer’s Manhattan office (corner of Cedar and Nassau) at 2:00PM on Thursday, Oct. 28th where 9/11 family members and victim group representatives will file a formal complaint demanding the first criminal investigation of 9/11 events by the New York Attorney General.
Page Update 9/9/2009: Following is the actual statement endorsed by these signatories, as referred to in the press release above.
The Statement
We Want Real Answers About 9/11
On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found nearly half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of those in New York state believe US leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks and “consciously failed” to act. Of the New York City residents, 66% called for a new probe of unanswered questions by Congress or the New York Attorney General.
In connection with this news, we have assembled 100 notable Americans and 40 family members of those who died to sign this 9/11 Statement, which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.
We want truthful answers to questions such as:
Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
Why hasn’t a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
Why haven’t authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA’s radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?
Those who are demanding deeper inquiry now number in the hundreds of thousands, including a former member of the first Bush administration, a retired Air Force colonel, a European parliamentarian, families of the victims, highly respected authors, investigative journalists, peace and justice leaders, former Pentagon staff, and the National Green Party.
As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:
Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.
Given the importance of the coming election, we feel it is imperative that these questions be addressed publicly, honestly, and rigorously so that Americans may exercise their democratic rights with full awareness.
In closing, we pray and hope for the strength to approach this subject with wisdom and compassion so that we may heal from the wounds inflicted on that terrible day.
Signed,
Signatories
Note: All organizations are mentioned for identification purposes only. Individuals have signed this statement as an act of their own conscience, not to signify organizational endorsement.
Update 9/11/2009: Signatories removed. Posted by Janice Matthews, current Director, 911Truth.org Following recent media-generated controversy over Obama appointee Van Jones’ signature on this Statement, he and two other signatories have requested their names be removed. That has been done.
Virginia Deane Abernethy, Ph.D., anthropologist, author, Population Politics
Ed Asner, actor, activist
Marshall Auerback, international portfolio strategist for David W. Tice & Associates, Inc.
Catherine Austin Fitts, Asst. Secretary of Housing in the first Bush administration
Keidi Obi Awadu, aka The Conscious Rasta, talk show host, LIBRadio
Michael Badnarik, Libertarian candidate for President
James W. Walter Jr., venture investor, philanthropist, founder of Walden Three
Dan Whaley, E-commerce pioneer, founder of GetThere.com, acquired for $750M
Burns H. Weston, J.S.D., Professor of Law Emeritus, Director, Center for Human Rights, U-Iowa
Howard Zinn, professor, historian, author, A People’s History of the United States
Family Members
Joanne Barbara, wife of FDNY Asst. Chief of Dept. Gerard Barbara
Gayle Barker, sister of William A. Karnes, WTC
Michele Bergsohn, wife of Alvin Bergsohn, Cantor Fitzgerald
Derrill Bodley, father of Deora Bodley, passenger on Flight 93
Kathryn C. Bowden, sister of Thomas H. Bowden, Jr. WTC1, 104th floor
Janet Calia, wife of Dominick Calia, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC1
Maggie Cashman, wife of William Joseph Cashman, United Flight 93
Lynne Castrianno Galante, sister of Leonard Castrianno, 1WTC, 105th floor
Elza Chapa-McGowan, daughter of Rosemary Chapa, Pentagon
Bruce De Cell, father-in-law of Mark Petrocelli North Tower, 92nd floor
Ralph D’Esposito, father of Michael D’Esposito, WTC, 96th floor
Loisanne Diehl, Surviving Spouse, Michael D. Diehl, WTC2, 90th floor
Adina D. Eisenberg, sister of Eric Eisenberg, WTC
Jonathan M. Fisher, son of Dr. Gerald Paul “Geep” Fisher, Pentagon
Michael J. Fox, brother of Jeffrey L. Fox, Tower 2, 89th floor
Laurel A. Gay, sister of Peter A. Gay, AA Flight 11
Irene Golinsky, wife of Col. Ronald F. Golinski USA RET, Pentagon
Lori, Jerry, and Beatrice Guadagno, sister and parents of Richard Guadagno, Flight 93
Kristen Hall, daughter of fallen firefighter Thomas Kuveikis 9/11
Kurt D. Horning, father of Matthew D. Horning, WTC Tower One, 95th floor
Jennifer W. Hunt, wife of William C. Hunt, Euro Brokers
John Keating, son of Barbara Keating, passenger on AA Flight 11
L. Russell Keene II, father of Russ Keene III, WTC2, 89th floor, KBW
Peter Kousoulis, sister died in WTC
Paul & Barbara Kirwin, parents of Glenn Davis Kirwin, Cantor Fitzgerald 105th floor
Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, mother of William E. Krukowski, NYC firefighter
Laura and Ira Lassman, parents of Nicholas C. Lassman, died in WTC, Tower One
Johnny Lee, husband of Lorraine Greene
Alicia LeGuillow, mother of Nestor A. Cintron III
Francine Levine, sister of Adam K. Ruhalter, who died on 9/11
Bob McIlvaine, father of Robert McIlvaine, WTC, Merrill Lynch
Mary McWilliams, mother of FF Martin E. McWilliams- Engine 22
Daryl J. Meehan, brother of Colleen Ann Barkow, WTC 1, 105th floor
Elvira P. Murphy, wife of Patrick Murphy, WTC 1
Natalee Pecorelli, sister of Thomas Pecorelli of Flight 11
James L Perry, M.D and Patricia J. Perry, parents of John W. Perry, Esq., NYPD Officer 9/11
David Potorti, brother of James Potorti, North Tower, WTC, Marsh & McLennan
Terry Kay Rockefeller, sister of Laura Rockefeller, North Tower, WTC
Grissel Rodriguez-Valentin, wife of Benito Valentin, WTC1, 94th floor
Alissa Rosenberg-Torres, widow of Luis Eduardo Torres, post-9/11 mother, writer
Elaine Saber, mother of Scott Saber
Julie Scarpitta, mother of Michelle Scarpitta, WTC Building 2, 84th floor
Paula Shapiro, mother of Eric Eisenberg, WTC2
Elizabeth Turner, wife of Simon Turner, lost on 11th September 2001
Adele Welty, mother of Firefighter Timothy Welty, FDNY, Squad 288
Joan W. Winton, mother of David Winton, WTC, South Tower, 89th floor
David Yancey, husband of Vicki Yancey, American Airlines Flight 77
Nissa Youngren, daughter of Robert G. LeBlanc, flight 175
Late Signatories (starting toward 200 …)
Rita M. Haley, President, National Organization for Women, New York Chapter
Immortal Technique, Harlem-based hip-hop artist with Viper Records, Revolutionary I&II
Bob Kirkconnell, served in the U.S. Air Force 27 years, reaching the rank of Master Sergeant
Dennis Kyne, former Army air medic, 18th Airborne Corps during Gulf War I, musician, author, “Support the Truth”
Paul Landis, author, “Stop Bush Now!”
Eric H. May, former Army military intelligence officer and media essayist
Charles Shaw, Editor, Newtopia Magazine, National Peace Action Coordinator, National Green Party
Peter Erlinder, professor, William Mitchell College of Law, past-President National Lawyers Guild
Daniel Robert Rezac, 2004 Vice-Presidential Write-In Candidate, former Aviator & Armor Officer, Army National Guard, B.S.B.A.
Joel Horwitz, lost beloved cousin in WTC 1
Jessica Murrow, lost husband Stephen Adams, Beverage Manager, Windows on the World, WTC 1
Ellen Mariani, lost husband Neil on Flight 175
Jean Hunt, disabled survivor of Pentagon attack
Ralph & Brigitte Sabbag, lost son Jason in WTC 2
Take action!
Send this information to your congresspeople and journalists, demanding attention
Help New York citizens and 9/11 family members, beginning Thursday, Oct. 28th, by signing an online petition in support of their formal complaint to be filed with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. Petition at Justicefor911.Org
We ask signatories of the statement that helped drive Van Jones from office if they stand by it.
Thanks in large part to his association with the 9/11 Truth movement, Van Jones is no longer a member of the Obama White House. Jones resigned last week amid a swirl of controversy — prodded on largely by Fox News’ Glenn Beck — that included the former “green jobs” advisor’s signing of a petition put out by the 9/11 Truth movement urging a further investigation into the World Trade Center attacks. Most controversially, the petition wondered darkly that “unanswered questions … suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war,” before drifting into a list of wild and dubious speculation. (You can read the petition right here.)
Initially, Jones said that he hadn’t fully reviewed the statement before he signed. But that didn’t stop the onslaught of bad publicity that ultimately led to his exit.
The statement was released in October 2004 and has been signed by nearly 200 people, including many relatives of those who lost someone in the attacks. It called for an investigation into 9/11 but also directly questioned the government’s conclusions about the plane crashes.
In the wake of Jones’ departure, Politico’s Ben Smith contacted two other signatories of the statement, Rabbi Michael Lerner and historian Howard Zinn. Smith found that both men felt they had signed a petition of more limited scope than the one that appears at the 9/11 Truth Web site, one that asked only for an investigation into the attacks and not one questioning President Bush’s prior knowledge of 9/11.
Salon contacted nearly 30 of the petition’s signatories to see if they felt, as did Lerner, Zinn and Jones, that the document didn’t reflect their views on 9/11. We asked a simple question: If you had to do it all over again, would you still sign the statement?
Salon has not heard back from two of the statement’s most famous signatories: actor Ed Asner and comedian Janeane Garofalo. (Updated: We have received and added Asner’s response to the list below.) But many did respond and most — though not all — expressed their full-fledged support for the petition. Their responses are below:
Ed Asner (through his company, Quince Productions): Mr. Asner would sign the petition again without the slightest hesitation.
Gray Brechin, historical geographer and visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley’s Department of Geography: Until recently, I thought that I (like Van Jones) live in a country with a First Amendment that permits freedom of speech, thought and petition without fear of reprisal. I had that pleasant illusion despite growing up in the dark shadow of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, of red scares, blacklists and witch hunts, of the John Birch Society (and worse), which the Old Guard of the Republican Party then considered zanies. The ideological descendants of those wackos have since taken over that party. I suspect that you did not grow up at that time.
Since when did Salon permit Glenn Beck and the almost equally loony WSJ editorial page to set the terms of discussion, calling those who want answers to so much that remains unexplained about 9/11 “truthers” and thus giving them equivalence with “birthers,” “deathers” and “tea baggers”? Since when was Van Jones a “czar” rather than an advisor? Since when was he not entitled to his opinions, past or present? Was it when he was born black and inexcusably smart? Jones is the kind of visionary with whom Franklin Roosevelt surrounded himself but of which the Obama administration is almost entirely bereft, and now that administration has shamefully thrown him to the sharks.Advertisement:
Have you contacted the widows and other family members who lost loved ones on that terrible day and asked them if they recant wondering why, for example, New York City and the Pentagon — the fucking Pentagon! — were defenseless on that morning more than a month after the would-be president was informed that Osama bin Laden was determined to attack the United States? Have you asked them if they are as disloyal, or as nuts, as Van Jones for signing that petition? Have you an answer for that and other questions on that petition, which were never discussed by the mainstream media when it piled on Jones at Beck’s behest?
Van Jones was not only flayed for once signing a petition but for jokingly calling Republicans “assholes.” Why is that “extreme” speech when Glenn Beck freely advocates violent overthrow of the U.S. government, gives an exegesis of the Communist/Fascist messages that “progressive” John D. Rockefeller Jr. insidiously inserted in the art of Rockefeller Center, and fantasizes killing Michael Moore and the speaker of the House on air to millions? When will the men with butterfly nets take this man away so that he does not hurt others or himself, rather than journalists allow him to take them down into his rat-infested sewer with him?Advertisement:
I keep hoping that, like Joe McCarthy, Mr. Beck (and O’Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, “Savage,” etc.) will go too far, but — with the wreck of public education and its replacement by entertainment — Americans have so lost any moral compass that “too far” no longer exists as long as one is to the right of Dick Cheney.
Paul Hawken, author and co-founder of Smith & Hawken: (Editorial note: Hawken requested to have his name removed from the list of signatories) I don’t regret signing it because I never did sign it, and I am not sure Van did either. What might have happened is that an e-mail was sent around calling for an endorsement for a more thorough investigation into the events leading up to and on the day of 9/11. I have asked for any records showing that I signed anything and the 911truth.org committee says that they are unable to supply any such record. I was completely unaware of the press release or that my name was used until I was contacted during the Beck lynching. I do remember e-mails around that time but they were about the families of the victims feeling that their government (the 9/11 Commission) had let them down.Advertisement:
Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law and practice at Princeton University; distinguished visiting professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara: I would re-sign the 9/11 statement calling for investigation and clarification with respect to the series of questions that have never been satisfactorily answered. To call for an investigation along these lines does not make one “a 9/11 truther” or an endorser of a conspiracy theory. The deliberate blurring of the boundary between questioning the persuasiveness of the official version of 9/11 and the endorsement of an alternative theory of the events that implicates high officials in the Bush presidency seems designed to prevent further inquiry. Citizens in a democratic society deserve to know the truth, and to seek the truth in matters of such fundamental national importance should be treated as an expression of patriotic duty rather than the reverse.
Richard Heinberg, author: No, I don’t regret signing the petition. The petition, as I signed it, was essentially recommending that an independent investigation take place. I felt at the time, and still feel, that with events of such monumental importance as this, the more light that can be shed the better. I do not believe that the official 9/11 Commission Report addressed many of the most important questions about the events. Nevertheless, I have no ongoing association with the 9/11 Truthers.Advertisement:
However, unless one has a transparent investigation (perhaps something in the nature of the Watergate hearings), plus exchanges between scientists, engineers, architects, pilots, etc. — on all sides of the issue, I may not have much confidence in the findings.
The fact that such a statement should be controversial at all has less to do with what it says than with the great taboo that still inhibits rational discussion of the evidence.
First of all, the statement asks for a new inquiry into 9/11. That is hardly an insane demand, considering the many obstacles and limitations that prevented the 9/11 Commission from doing a proper job. That body was deliberately enfeebled by Bush/Cheney: grossly underfunded ($3 million — while, for example, the budget for the study of the Challenger disaster was $50 million, and Whitewater cost over $40 million); granted no subpoena power; forced to rush the process; denied all sorts of vital information; and otherwise slowed down, fouled up, kept in the dark. (I write at length about Bush/Cheney’s varied efforts to prevent, then hobble, the Commission in my book “Cruel and Unusual,” pp. 33ff.)Advertisement:
Witnesses employed by the USG were daunted openly by departmental colleagues who sat in on the hearings, ostentatiously, as “minders.” (“The Commission feels unanimously,” said Chairman Thomas Kean, “that it’s some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who you either work with or works with your agency.”) And Bush/Cheney themselves refused to testify except in tandem, with a strict limit on their time, and their testimony given off the record and not under oath.
So how could anyone regard that body’s findings as definitive — even if those findings were not rife with logical and physical impossibilities, as well as glaring omissions? (Such problems have been very thoroughly and soberly discussed by David Ray Griffin, in his three books on the subject, one of them, on the inexplicable collapse of Building 7, just now coming out.) A new investigation is not just a good idea, but, I’d say, a major civic obligation, what with the scale of that horrendous tragedy, and its disastrous national and global consequences.
In calling for a new inquiry, the statement also proposes that the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the attack. Now, if I had been the one to draft the statement, I would probably have worded that bit less assertively, in order not to draw the sort of propaganda fire that’s been directed at the statement since it first appeared. Having said that, however, I must also note that there should really be no controversy over that suggestion, either; since it’s well established that the Bush White House was pointedly forewarned of some such looming terrorist attack — by, among others, the CIA, Mossad and the intelligence agencies of France and Britain, among others — and yet did absolutely nothing to prevent its happening.Advertisement:
In any case, I find it more than troubling that the mere fact of Van Jones’ having signed that statement ought to be deemed a priori evidence of his “extremist” views. (Although I’m sorry that he felt obliged to back away, I can’t really blame him for it, what with the shit storm that was drenching him.) I think the press should be examining the evidence itself, instead of squaring off against the so-called truthers — a move that only bolsters the taboo against all rational discussion of this all-important issue.
Chuck Turner, Boston City Council: I need to see the final 9/11 piece. I have read that the piece was changed after people signed it. So I can’t really say whether I would do it again until I am clear on what it says.
Douglas Sturm, professor emeritus of religion and political science, Bucknell University: In direct response to your query, I in no way repudiate my action signing the 9/11 statement. It stands as an appeal to investigate closely and carefully a series of questions about that tragic event that have yet to receive fully satisfactory answers.
I have no idea why Van Jones now regrets his signature, nor shall I speculate about his motives in doing so. He is a person of immense talent who has a sterling record of activities serving the public interest. I am saddened that he is no longer in the post he assumed in President Obama’s administration.Advertisement:
Given personal circumstances, I have been unable to be active in the continuing movement to have these questions taken seriously, but I support those who persist in this important endeavor.
Burns H. Weston, professor emeritus, University of Iowa law school: Yes, I would do it all over again. It is my position that too many critical questions have not yet been officially answered, if even investigated, and that, therefore, the jury is still out on the complete truth of 9/11.
The original Two World Trade Center (also known as the South Tower, Tower 2, Building Two, or 2 WTC) was one of the original Twin Towers in the original World Trade Center in New York City, New York. The Tower was completed and opened in 1973 at a height of 415 meters (1,362 ft) to the roof, distinguishable from its twin, the North Tower by its outdoor observation deck and the absence of a television antenna. Both the South Tower and the North Tower had mechanical floors, and the same type of walls. The new 2 World Trade Center (currently on hold) has the same flat roof, with no observation deck, and no mechanical floors.
The address of this building was 2 World Trade Center with the WTC complex having its own ZIP code of 10048. It was destroyed along with the North Tower (1 World Trade Center) in the September 11 attacks. The South Tower was the second tower to be struck (in this case by United Airlines Flight 175), at 9:03 a.m., and the first tower to collapse, at 9:59 a.m. The South Tower stood for 56 minutes after the aircraft impact. Of the 2,977 victims killed in the attacks, 900 were in the South Tower and on the ground. At the National September 11 Memorial & Museum, the southern pool marks the spot where the South Tower stood.
