The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:15px; border: solid 1px #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.5385em; box-shadow: 3px 3px 3px #bfbfbf inset, 1px 1px 1px #bfbfbf;"][font size=4]The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact by John D. Wyndham[/font]
In ongoing research into the Pentagon attack the following peer-reviewed paper has now been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
“The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact” by John D. Wyndham.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Wyndham1.pdf
As stated in the abstract, this paper shows that, of all the theories about what caused the damage and debris at the Pentagon on 9/11, a large plane impacting the Pentagon is in best accord with the majority eye witness testimony and main physical evidence, and is by far the most plausible theory. The failure of the 9/11 truth movement to reach consensus on this issue after almost a decade is largely due to a failure to rigorously apply the scientific method to each proposed theory.
(more)
I didn't even realize that the Journal of 9/11 Studies was still active until I saw this.
[font style="background-color:#ffffff;color:#ffffff;"][sarcasm][/font]
Since this is a peer-reviewed paper, should we consider at least this particular matter settled? [font style="background-color:#ffffff;color:#ffffff;"][/sarcasm][/font]
= new reply since forum marked as read
