by Kevin Ryan
February 17, 2011
Posted at Ryan’s blog at 911blogger.com
Two new papers have been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
The first is called “Why Australia’s Presence in Afghanistan is Untenable,” by James O’Neill. Here is an excerpt:
“The events of 11 September 2001 provided a nominal casus belli for the attack and occupation of Afghanistan, heavily promoted by the mainstream media, which particularly in the United States is closely linked to the major armaments manufacturers. The same mainstream media have uncritically accepted and promoted the US government’s version of events about 11 September 2001, not because that account is plausible, which it manifestly is not, but because to question the rationale for military intervention is to question the whole of post World War II US foreign policy. If US foreign policy is seriously flawed then that in turn must raise serious questions about the level and extent of Australia’s adherence to the policies of its powerful ally.”
The second paper is by Aidan Monaghan. It is called “Review of Analysis of Observed and Measured In-Flight Turns Suggests Superior Control of 9/11 Aircraft.” Here is an excerpt:
“Although human control of UA 175 cannot be ruled out, small margins for error are evident in the number of available degrees of bank that could generate impact with WTC 2 via a constant radius turn from approximately 1.5 miles distant. An error of 5 degrees of bank left or right seems largely indiscernible to an observer, but would generate substantial distances from a given target. To achieve impact via a mile-long plus constant radius banked turn, within an acceptable margin of error would seem to be a substantial challenge to a reportedly inexperienced pilot without aid. The CWS function would apparently provide an in-flight automated stability that would permit a pilot to apply greater attention to the course of an aircraft and consider whether additional maneuvers would be required.”