Author Archives: admin

Two new videos by Scientists members

Two new videos by Scientists members:

Flight 93, by Ken Jenkins

YouTube

CIT: Deceptive Interview of Sgt. William Lagasse, by David Chandler

Odysee

This video is based on highlights of an article on the same topic posted on the Pentagon tab at https://911speakout.org.
CIT (Citizens Investigation Team) claims to have based their flyover theory on interviews of eyewitnesses videotaped at the locations where they observed the events of 9/11.  The most prominent interview was of Pentagon Police Sgt. William Lagasse.  David Chandler’s article and this video show that deception was involved in this interview, invalidating it as scientifically acceptable evidence and calling into question the legitimacy of CIT as a serious truth-seeking enterprise.

An analysis of a second CIT interview, a phone interview of Albert Hemphill, who worked as a civilian employee at the Navy Annex, directly across from the Pentagon impact point, is presented on the same web page.  Albert Hemphill was looking out a large window directly facing the Pentagon at the time of impact.  The article is presented with interspersed audio clips from the lengthy conversation.  The full audio of the CIT interview and two followup interviews by Jeff Hill, and transcripts of all three interviews are included.

Both Albert Hemphill and William Lagasse testify to a large plane, the size of a Boeing 757, flying through the path of the downed light poles and entering the Pentagon.

Panel Discussion on the video AA Flight 77 at the Pentagon

Panel Discussion on the video AA Flight 77 at the Pentagon

On October 25, 2020, Colorado 9/11 Truth held a Zoom Panel Discussion of the new video, AA Flight 77 at the Pentagon, by David Chandler. Panelists were David Chandler, Wayne Coste, Ken Jenkins, Warren Stutt, and John Wyndham. Here is the video, followed by the discussion with Q&A divided into two parts.

LBRY.tv / BitChute / YouTube

Part A

LBRY.tv, BitChute , YouTube

Part B

LBRY.tv, BitChute, YouTube

The high degree of correlation between the data in the AA77 Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and facts on the ground provides strong support for its authenticity and the identification of the plane that flew into the Pentagon as American Airlines Flight 77.

(See also, “Why We Expend Energy on Proving Large Plane Impact at the Pentagon” by David Chandler and Wayne Coste, http://911speakout.org/wp-content/upl…)

[FDR stands for Flight Data Recorder one of the “black boxes,” the other being the CVR: Cockpit Voice Recorder. Only the FDR was recovered in readable form from the plane that entered the Pentagon.]

Clarification of the reasoning for identifying the FDR as belonging to AA77:

  • The internal data in the FDR “identifies” the plane in terms of its recent history. It contains the entire last flight, start to finish, plus 11 prior flights for the same plane in the days leading up to 9/11. Those flights are a matter of public record. The total record in the FDR identifies the plane as AA77
  • Some have said the FDR does not contain the ID number of the plane in the file header. Warren Stutt has shown that other FDR data related to other air crashes also failed to include the ID numbers in the header that some have sought. (The aircraft and fleet ID ARE included in the body of the data.) This does not mean the data was faked. See Warren’s talk at the Denver Conference on the Pentagon Evidence: https://scientistsfor911truth.com/9-11-pentagon-study-group
  • Think about it: If this were a “propaganda version” of the FDR designed to portray a plane that wasn’t really there, why wouldn’t they have included an ID number to make it obvious? Why would they have made the last frame unreadable (by normal means) and the second to last frame corrupted? Why would they have programmed in the data drift rather than having the path go right to the hole? The bottom line is we had to work to pull the data out of a data set for a plane that went through a crash in which the FDR itself was dismembered in such a way that the last two frames were corrupted. As this video shows, the data we got matches the facts on the ground with amazing precision. This FDR “identifies itself” as AA77 and as the data for the plane that entered the Pentagon.

Archive of the Scientific Method 9/11 website

New Archive of the Scientific Method 9/11 Website

John Wyndham created a special website for moderated discussion and debate of topics of scientific interest related to 9/11, much of which could be considered preliminary or controversial. That site is no longer being actively engaged with and John is effectively retiring from maintaining it. The discussion there contains material of value, so we don’t want to lose it. It is therefore being archived as a sub-folder on this site. You can access the original site, as long as it is up, or the static archive (frozen as of April 5, 2021).

Fran Shure’s essays: Why do Good People Become Silent, or Worse, About 9/11?

Fran Shure, co-founder of Colorado 9/11 Truth, well known organizer in the 9/11 Truth Movement, and partner with David Chandler, has been writing (and continues to write) a series of essays on the topic, “Why do Good People Become Silent, or Worse, About 9/11?” Some of these essays have been published on the AE911Truth website, but the new home of the entire collection is on David Chandler’s site, 911SpeakOut.org. All of us who have dealt with the public on 9/11 issues are aware of how difficult it is to get some people to even listen to what we have to say. Fran has some helpful insights to offer.

Three Reviews of the movie SEVEN on OffGuardian

OffGuardian was launched in February 2015 and takes its name from the fact its founders had all been censored on and/or banned from the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ sections. Their editors & admins are based in the US, UK & Europe.

OffGuardian invited reviews of SEVEN from David Chandler, Kevin Ryan, and Piers Robinson. The movie is well worth viewing and we consider the fact that OffGuardian invited these three featured reviews to be a statement of its significance for a broader audience. Read the reviews here: David Chandler, Kevin Ryan, Piers Robinson.

New Video from David Chandler — an outgrowth of the Denver Conference on the Pentagon Evidence May, 2019

LBRY.tv / BitChute / YouTube

The high degree of correlation between the data in the AA77 Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and facts on the ground provides strong support for its authenticity and the identification of the plane that flew into the Pentagon as American Airlines Flight 77.

(See also, “Why We Expend Energy on Proving Large Plane Impact at the Pentagon” by David Chandler and Wayne Coste, http://911speakout.org/wp-content/upl…)

[FDR stands for Flight Data Recorder one of the “black boxes,” the other being the CVR: Cockpit Voice Recorder. Only the FDR was recovered in readable form from the plane that entered the Pentagon.]

Clarification of the reasoning for identifying the FDR as belonging to AA77:

  • The internal data in the FDR “identifies” the plane in terms of its recent history. It contains the entire last flight, start to finish, plus 11 prior flights for the same plane in the days leading up to 9/11. Those flights are a matter of public record. The total record in the FDR identifies the plane as AA77
  • Some have said the FDR does not contain the ID number of the plane in the file header. Warren Stutt has shown that other FDR data related to other air crashes also failed to include the ID numbers in the header that some have sought. (The aircraft and fleet ID ARE included in the body of the data.) This does not mean the data was faked. See Warren’s talk at the Denver Conference on the Pentagon Evidence: https://scientistsfor911truth.com/9-11-pentagon-study-group
  • Think about it: If this were a “propaganda version” of the FDR designed to portray a plane that wasn’t really there, why wouldn’t they have included an ID number to make it obvious? Why would they have made the last frame unreadable (by normal means) and the second to last frame corrupted? Why would they have programmed in the data drift rather than having the path go right to the hole? The bottom line is we had to work to pull the data out of a data set for a plane that went through a crash in which the FDR itself was dismembered in such a way that the last two frames were corrupted. As this video shows, the data we got matches the facts on the ground with amazing precision. This FDR “identifies itself” as AA77 and as the data for the plane that entered the Pentagon.

New 2020 edition of Calling Out Bravo-7, by Firefighters for 9/11 Truth

New 2020 edition of Calling Out Bravo-7, by Firefighters for 9/11 Truth

(“Bravo-7” is a phonetic alphabet reference to B-7 or Building-7.)  Among 9/11 videos, Calling Out Bravo 7 is among the most accurate.  This new 2020 edition incorporates material from the University of Alaska study and other updates.  Here is a firefighter’s perspective on the science of the building fires and mode of failure of WTC 7 on 9/11/2001.

CALLING OUT Bravo 7 The 2020 Edition from Firefighters For 9/11 Truth on Vimeo.

Interview of Members of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth

Colorado 9/11 Truth invited Eric Lawyer to make a presentation about the ongoing work of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth on a June 14, 2020 Zoom video conference.  As planning progressed this evolved into a group presentation by six firefighters.  The presentation was recorded and is available here:


(YouTube)

Request for Correction Under the Data Quality Act to NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

Request for Correction Under the Data Quality Act to NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

(A new major challenge to the veracity of the NIST WTC 7 report, spearheaded by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.)

Excerpt from introduction:

This petition is a request for correction of information disseminated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”). This Request for Correction (the “Request”) is being submitted by 10 family members of people killed on September 11, 2001, by 88 architects and structural engineers, and by the organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc. (referred to herein collectively as “Requesters”). It is being submitted under Section 515 of Public Law 106-554 (commonly known as the Data Quality Act or Information Quality Act; herein referred to as the “DQA”), the Office of Management and Budget’s (“OMB’s”) government-wide Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies (the “OMB Guidelines”), and NIST’s “Guidelines, Information Quality Standards, and Administrative Mechanism” (the “NIST IQS”).

Two members of Scientists for 9/11 Truth made substantive contributions to this effort: David Chandler contributed an analysis of the freefall descent of the building and André Rousseau contributed a section on the seismic signals associated with the collapse of the building.  [If I’m overlooking the contributions of others, please let me know.]  The section on freefall contains new research, tracking both visible corners of the building plus a point near NIST’s tracking point to come up with a clearer understanding of the exact nature of NIST’s deception.

Main Document:  Request for Correction (RFC)

Exhibit A:  A Structural Reevaluation  of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Exhibit B:  Declaration of André Rousseau regarding the seismic signals associated with the building collapse.

Exhibit B1:  André Rousseau, CV

Exhibit C:  Email from Michael Newman, NIST Public Affairs Office

Exhibit D:  Expansion of Beam K3004 vs Temperature

Exhibit E:  Documentation Indicating WTC 7 Steel Shipped to NIST

Final Report: A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth funded this multi-year project at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, to model the structure and assess the possible collapse mechanisms of WTC 7.  The conclusions of the study make it clear that fire and progressive collapse were not the mechanisms that brought the building down.

Simple observations show that WTC 7 fell at or near freefall.  Measurements show that it fell at actual freefall.  Highschool physics is all it takes to conclude that there was no resistance, and therefore the massive amounts of actual structural resistance had to have been completely and suddenly removed by demolition charges.

However, those who have been skeptical of any explanation that deviates from the official story maintained that somehow the structural details would allow for some kind of progressive collapse.  This project, by a research team led by Dr. Leroy Hulsey, lays all those fantasies to rest.  It builds a complete finite element model of the building, including every structural member.  The model could then be altered to simulate various kinds of damage to try to get it to fail as observed in real life on 9/11.  The conclusions are inescapable: fire could not have caused the observed failure.  This study reinforces the conclusions of other researchers, that the collapse of WTC 7 was the result of demolition by preplaced explosives.