A series of posts on the 9/11 Pentagon crash elicited this observation.
Let's get 50 veteran airline pilots together and have them each get into a flight simulator and see how many could hit the Pentagon on their first attempt at the same trajectory as the terrorists did, who couldn't even fly a prop plane. My guess would be none.
I want to explore this suggestion as a trained historian.
I would heartily endorse this project. I would also make some modifications. But before discussing my recommended modifications, I want to discuss the nature of real-world historical research. This is the only historical research that anyone should imagine possible.
This suggestion rests on a series of assumptions. The first assumption is this: there is some organization out there, other than the federal government, that wants to pursue this matter. Second, this organization has the funds to put together this group. Third, the organization is capable of locating 50 representative pilots on a statistically reliable basis. The pilots selected should have experience flying a Boeing 757. Second, they should be selected randomly. Third, these pilots are willing to go public with their opinions after the flight simulator test. Putting together the search will be difficult. It would have to get cooperation from a number of airlines. The airlines might not be willing to cooperate.
Now let's talk about funding. The cost of bringing in statisticians, running the searches, and communicating with the pilots would probably be at least $50,000. I'm probably underestimating this.
There would be the cost of the flight simulator for 50 pilots. This might be $1,000 per pilot per hour. They would have to be flown to the simulator and housed. That might be another $1,000. But maybe they could hop on a free flight.
One problem is collusion before their individual testimonies. This should be minimized. To prevent collusion, the pilots would have to be interviewed separately. The cheapest way to do this would be through an online service such as Zoom. Every pilot would be sent an inexpensive lapel microphone and, if required, a $100 WebCam. It might not be required. Lots of people have good cameras built into their smartphones. Everybody would have to use a tripod or some other way to stabilize the recording device.
Each pilot would be limited to a 10-minute presentation. Then he would be asked questions from another pilot who would serve as the cross-examining expert for all of the testimonies. He would probably have to be paid something in the range of $100/hour to compensate him for his time. His job would be to ask intelligent questions about the assumptions that the pilot made in his presentation. Each pilot would send a written copy of his testimony, not necessarily word for word, in advance. This would be used by the cross examiner to do his job.
How could the program compensate pilots to do this? Would a pilot do this for $1,000? Maybe he would. Some of them might do it for less. But I think it's safe to say that compensating the pilots for their testimony and written assessment would be at least $1,000 per pilot.
The budget is flying upwards.
But that's only stage one. I want some modifications.
I would hire an eyewitness to interview other eyewitnesses to the crash. Would $25,000 do it? At some price, these people could be located. It would probably cost around $50,000 to do this. It might cost more. Then they would have to agree to make a written assessment and presenting a 10-minute summary. They would also have to submit to questions from another eyewitness. Would an eyewitness do this for $1,000? I hope so. Add another $50,000.
This would be an expensive project to organize and complete.
All of the members of the two groups must sign release forms allowing the recording of the conference. The agreement will release each video into the public domain. There would be no restrictions on the use of the videos.
I would invite media representatives to observe the interviews in a studio: major TV networks, Alex Jones' camera person, several 911 truth groups, several organizations of scientific skeptics, and representatives of the major professional historical associations, most notably the American Historical Association and the Journal of American History. Each group would be allowed to plug its computer into the recording system while a recording is going on.
The organization would pay to make printed transcripts of the presentations. These also would be placed in the public domain.
All participants would be allowed to make a second written assessment within one month of the release of the videos and transcripts. The person would offer an assessment of what he or she had heard/read and what his or her present opinions are.
Then I would like to organize three other projects: one on the Shanksville crash, one on the Twin Towers, and one on Building 7. I would invite pilots and eyewitnesses to participate. In the case of the Twin Towers and Building 7, I would also invite in representatives of the New York City Fire Department.
This is the kind of research that historians really do need. We need it within a month of an event. A week would be even better. It has now been almost 17 years.
CONCLUSION
This kind of research is never conducted. Imitations of such research are occasionally funded by the federal government, but the commission is always careful to select who gets to testify. Some truth comes out because cross-examination is usually allowed. But this is only a preliminary investigation, and these days the public is skeptical of the final report.
Needless to say, what I have described here is fantasy world research. Historians never have access to this kind of documentation. It would be wonderful if they did, but they don't, and they probably never will.
I want to make it clear that a professional historian is going to take the testimony of 50 non-colluding witnesses to an event far more seriously than he is going to take the speculation of 50 pilots who were not there. Testimony from a large group of individual eyewitnesses who were not allowed to collude in advance is far more likely to produce historical accuracy than speculation from experts who were not present at an event.
© 2022 GaryNorth.com, Inc., 2005-2021 All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission prohibited.