The Rinf article at first erroneously attributed Mr. Blacker as a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and Prisonplanet picked up that version.

Someone apparently straightened it out, and now the Rinf article correctly says Mr. Blacker is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

I didn't have anything to do with this, and wasn't even copied on any email,s just happened to notice the progression.

The intention is appreciated - nice to see! - although we hope John can perhaps use some of the most strong evidence and points the community has general agreement on.

John has got a couple of errors and weak evidence in his questions, and unfortunately implies an inclusion of the plane swapping hoax with FL 93. Everyone makes mistakes, that's how we learn.

>>A 757 simply cannot fly at ground level due to what is known as “Ground Effect”.

This effect is not agreed upon in the community of researchers, so likely is not a good point for a courtroom.

9-11 Research discusses 'ground effect' here -
The influence of ground effect may have required the plane to adjust its attitude in order to maintain a course toward the Pentagon's first floor. Since lift is proportional to angle of attack up to the critical angle of attack (at which the wing stalls), compensating for the increased lift due to ground effect is simply a matter of adjusting the pitch downward to cancel out the increased lift. Although the adjustments required to maintain the shallow angle of descent may have challenged a human pilot, they would seem an easy task for a 757's autopilot, with its ability to read instruments and adjust control surfaces accordingly with great speed and accuracy.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

>>You show a so called independent computer animator who suggests that jet fuel caused most of the damage at the Pentagon, yet failed to mention his animation omitted the two 9 ft, 6 tonne engines from the animation and also the clear fact his animation totally contradicts photographs of the Pentagon prior to collapse. Hello! What sort of BBC Deceit is that?

No one should be using animations of the Pentagon situation, but the fact is, the Pentagon evidence is the weakest of the evidence we have. Trying to use Pentagon no plane or no Boeing claims in a lawsuit won't get far at all when our own community of 9/11 researchers themselves cannot agree - a court would only rip it to shreds. It makes no sense to try to bring debated points into a courtroom. The courtroom is for strong points, not weak ones. Ask William Pepper, who sucessfully brought the MLK assassination through a courtroom - http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=183849

>>Also, his animation failed to account for the fact 6 reinforced concrete walls were penetrated à they omitted the 6 reinforced walls completely. Indeed, the official image of the hole in the inner wall of the C block shows this animation to be total and utter fiction, yet the BBC gave it raving credibility.

ERROR: 'The C-Ring Punch-Out Hole Was Made by a Warhead'
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/punchout.html
"This argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Pentagon's design. In fact, the light wells between the C- and D-ring and D- and E-ring are only three stories deep. The first and second stories span the distance between the Pentagon's facade and the punctured C-ring wall, which faces a ground-level courtyard. There are no masonry walls in this space, only load-bearing columns. Thus it would be possible for an aircraft part that breached the facade to travel through this area on the ground floor, miss the columns, and puncture the C-ring wall withough having encountering anything more than unsubstantial gypsum walls and furniture in-between."

>>No mention that two planes were reported by two independent sources as landing at Cleveland Hopkins Airport due to two separate bomb threats, not just one, and that flight 93 was one of those reported to have landed by locals.

Don't fall for the plane swapping hoax, please! Again, extremely weak and debatable evidence. Flight 93 was merely shot down. Unfortunately the plane swap idea (originally from Nico Haupt and Woody Box) is the outcome of the poor research of Loose Change and that meme spreading. Here's a good summary of FL 93 evidence from a handout created when the film was released -
http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/flight93/flight93.html

It's far better to ask questions about our strongest evidence -

Building 7
Norman Mineta
Molten Metal
The effective 'Stand Down'
War Games
etc.

See some of the best evidence here -

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html#military

Good luck John! Use the best and strongest evidence . . .