Why I Try to Waste as Little Time as Possible on Fake Truther Infighting...

So I decided to read the new "peer-reviewed paper" at Jones and Ryan's Journal of 9/11 Studies:

New Paper at The Journal of 9/11 Studies

Submitted by Kevin Ryan on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 11:57am

• Dr Frank Legge
• FDR
• Pentagon analysis
• Warren Stutt

A new paper by Dr. Frank Legge and Warren Stutt has been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. This is entitled “Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon.”

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_...

Here is an excerpt:

“There have, however, been other interested parties who looked at the
available data and came to different conclusions. Researcher John
Farmer concluded that there was indeed a defect in the file and that
about 4 to 6 seconds of data was missing from the end. If this is true
it would be easy to find a flight path which would permit the plane to
descend and pull up safely. Despite this finding the adherents of the
contrary theories have remained adamant that the plane flew over the
building or could not have survived the final pull-up. They continue to
maintain that the official account of the path of the plane, which
necessarily includes impact with the Pentagon, is false. A number of
analyses have been presented which indicate that there are elements of
the official account of the attack on the Pentagon which are false but
it is our purpose to show that the FDR data is not one of them.”

Many interested parties have discussed the issues related to this
paper, but few have been willing to approach it with a thoughtful,
objective manner and with attention to detail. As we have in the past,
my co-editor Steve Jones and I call for a similarly thoughtful,
objective and detailed response that addresses all the evidence. If
such a response can be made, we would welcome it as a submission to the
Journal of 9/11 Studies.

This research paper has undergone thorough peer-review

prior to publication in the Journal of 9/11
Studies. Thank you for this work, Dr. Legge and Warren Stutt. I hope
that my friend Barrie Zwicker will study this paper, along with the
recent statement by David Chandler and Jon Cole here at 911blogger.

I agree with Kevin Ryan and wish to underline his challenge:

"Many interested parties have discussed the issues related to this
paper, but few have been willing to approach it with a thoughtful,
objective manner and with attention to detail. As we have in the past,
co-my co-editor Steve Jones and I call for a similarly thoughtful,
objective and detailed response that addresses all the evidence. If such
a response can be made, we would welcome it as a submission to the
Journal of 9/11 Studies."

"IF SUCH A RESPONSE CAN BE MADE," indeed.

Submitted by ProfJones on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 12:06pm.

So on the very first page, the third paragraph, the authors allude to the problems with the flyover theory, one being that the plane flying over would have been seen and reported by many, "given the large number of vehicles in traffic jams nearby."  Now, this quoted part is footnoted (number 8) and curious as to their source for there actually having been large numbers of vehicles in traffic jams I looked to the notes and found the source to be "Hoffman, J. Critiquing the Pentacon. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html"  Wondering now where Jim Hoffman had gotten the information on the state of traffic that morning I clicked on the link. I was actually surprised to find that neither the word traffic nor any reference to jams was to be found on that page, so while the rigorously peer-reviewed paper would seem to give the impression that the fact that traffic was snarled up that morning is a matter of historical record backed by sources, that seems to be far from the case.

What I *did* find on that page was this:

A while back I pointed out  that Hoffman had falsely claimed in an interview with Michael Wolsey that Meyssan's book was only about the Pentagon.  It seems that he is still under that strange delusion--has he not read the book?  While it's really pretty bad, it is not at all focused solely on the Pentagon, and includes what are probably the original references to Delmart Vreeland, Buzzy Krongard, Operation Northwoods--I could go on--it really seems to be the Ur document of the fake truth movement given that the one thing he REALLY doesn't contest is that real flights were somehow (by remote he believes) hijacked.

As for questioning the destruction of the WTC--he does, as I have dutifully copied from my english language edition of The Big Lie:

pgs 34-35

After the crashes, the Twin Towers collapsed upon themselves. An investigative commission was entrusted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). According to the preliminary report, the combustion of the planes' fuel unleashed a formidable amount of heat that weakened the central metallic structure of the two buildings.

This theory was vigorously rejected by the New York firemen's associations and the professional review, Fire Engineering, which, backed up by calculations, claimed that the structures could have resisted the fire for a long period. 23 The firemen affirm that they heard explosions at the base of the buildings and demanded the opening of an independent investigation. They wondered about substances stored in the buildings, and not finding the answer there, about criminal explosions that would implicate a ground-based team. 24 A famous expert from the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Van Romero, claimed that the collapse could only have been caused by explosives. In the face of public pressure, he later retracted 25.

Be that as it may, the planes' crashes do not account for the fall of a third building, tower 7. The hypothesis of a destabilization of the foundations was discarded by the American Society of Civil Engineers: tower 7 wasn't leaning over, it collapsed in upon itself.  The question is no longer "was it dynamited?" rather, "what other hypothesis can one formulate?" 

23 '$elling out the investigation' by Bill Manning, Journal of Fire Engineering, January 2002. See also 'WTC Investigation? A Call for Action' a petition published in the same issue of the review.

24 See, for example, the testimony of fireman Louie Cacchioli - http://people.aol.eom/people/special/U, 11859,174592-3,OO.html

25 'Explosives Planted in Towers, N.M. Tech Expert Says', by Olivier Uyttebrouck, Albuquerque Journal, 11 September 2001. Retraction in 'Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings. Expert Says', by John Fleck, Albuquerque Journal, 21September 2001: http://www.abqjoumal.com

pg 105:

Not only does the agent bin Laden credit the fables of the towers' collapse due to the effects of combustion, that of the kamikaze teams, and even that of the Pentagon plane crash, but he also takes care to deny the obvious. 

Not only is Hoffman sloppy, but so is Legge, his co-author, Jones, Ryan, and the peer-reviewers.  If they get such simple facts wrong, and cite sources that do not support their most simple points, do you think I'm going to spend hours teasing out the latest argument the fake Pilots for Truth or CIT have with the fake Journal of 9/11 Studies over the altimeter calibration of a fake flight data recorder?  Seriously people, this is beyond farcical.