Following-on from my two previous articles, whereby I raised serious questions about a study published May 2026 by the The International Center For 9/11 Justice called Manual or Automated? A Flight Simulation Study and Analysis of Reported Aircraft Maneuvers on September 11, 2001, authored by Dr. Piers Robinson.
In my first analysis article critique, Why the “Manual or Automated?” Study Is Fundamentally Flawed, I argued that the “Manual or Automated?” study is methodologically flawed and incapable of reliably distinguishing manual from automated flight.
My main criticisms were:
It used a Boeing 737 simulator to assess manoeuvres performed by Boeing 767s and a 757.
The simulator experiments involved only seven pilots, making broad probability claims questionable.
Pilots were given artificial instructions and reconstructed flight paths, rather than reproducing the original circumstances independently.
The experiments were affected by simulator unfamiliarity, starting positions, timing, graphics and other confounding factors.
The study relied on reconstructed radar trajectories rather than original flight-control data.
Most importantly, difficulty reproducing a manoeuvre manually does not demonstrate that automation performed it.
The proposed automated explanation was not itself experimentally demonstrated using a specific system capable of reproducing the flights.
Used a Boeing 737 simulator to assess manoeuvres performed by 757s/767s.
Relied on very small, non-independent samples and first-attempt failures.
Introduced artificial instructions, starting conditions and timing cues.
Was affected by simulator unfamiliarity and visual limitations.
Treated reconstructed flight paths as more certain than the underlying evidence warrants.
Made qualitative probability claims without actually calculating probabilities.
Tested manual flying experimentally but never experimentally tested the proposed automated mechanism.
Assumed pilots would naturally choose the easiest or most direct route.
Ultimately makes a major inferential leap from “difficult for these simulator pilots” → “therefore automated.”
The overall conclusion is that the study’s methodology, assumptions and interpretation are insufficient to establish its central claim, and that the evidence is repeatedly stretched beyond what the experiments actually demonstrate.
On the 10th May 2026, I joined the Zoom meeting of ‘The 9/11 War Room’ hosted by Gene and Sandra Laratonda, which is a weekly open roundtable discussion, every Sunday, that focuses on 9/11 news, strategy and activism. The meeting hosted author of the Manual Or Automated study, Dr. Piers Robinson, where he presented his study and conclusion. Ted Walter was also present, who is the Executive Director for the International Center For 9/11 Justice, and Piers Robinson its Research Director.
Below, is the full unedited version of The War Room & Q&A - 10th May 2026.
[You can hear my Q&A further-on in the article in a 10 minute video segment]
Some days earlier, I had previously read through the Manual or Automated 51 page study on its release to the public. After thoroughly reading the study and making some notes, I had some serious reservations and questions about the study, and its conclusions it had reached.
After the presentation by Piers Robinson, there was a Q&A, whereby I raised some of my concerns about the myopic scope of study, and also other official telemetry data which was seemingly omitted from the study, along with the mismatch 737 flight simulator instead of a 767/757 simulator, which should have been more appropriate use for related studies of the alleged aircrafts on 9/11.
For anyone who has taken the time to read the 51 page ‘Manual or Automated’ study, I would ask you, after watching the short 10 minute video segment below, did Piers Robinson actually answered my questions? I made a short statement before my questions, as I felt it was important to preface my points, and voice some of the other official data they seemingly omitted in their study.
Interestingly, ‘The 9/11 War Room’ host Gene Laratonda at 9:08 seemed to doubt my genuineness surrounding my questions, where he preceded to speak about caution, and infighting, with proving everybody wrong, and working together?
Why did Gene Laratonda feel the need to make those statements after my legitimate questions I raised? Was he somehow attempting to defend and deflect from legitimate concerns and questions I have about the study? Nevertheless, I found his statement rather strange, and noticed he did not concluded any of the other people asking questions this way, with the same type of statement?
At the end of my questions the second time, I did offer Piers Robinson, Ted Walter and (Aidan Monaghan who has been trolling my comments section of my Substack articles), to come on my podcast, so I could have an opportunity to ask further questions about the study. Up-to-now, none of the three gentlemen have taken up my invitation offer.
Thanks for reading and caring!
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.