I agree. While there are lots of people who are very highly qualified (on paper) who are extremely ignorant, if not complete nutcases; and there are people with no qualifications who are highly intelligent and self-educated; I would tend to be very suspicious of someone who comes out with "scientific opinions" who obviously doesn't have any scientific research to back up his claims.

Was Bush "panicking" when he sat and waited before getting up and leaving the class when 9/11 happened? Or was he sitting there quietly collecting his thoughts and planning his response? Noboby but Mr. Bush can say for sure.

I read the Flying magazine "Aftermath" column about the female pilot who crashed into a backyard barbeque in Phoenix (I'm assuming it was the same crash); the official NTSB report was that the door had popped open and the pilot (who knew better, as she had handled an identical occurrence without incident some months previously when flying with an instructor) apparently trimmed up the plane, undid her seat belt, and reached across to try to close the door. If so, this was an example of extremely poor judgement, but clearly not panic.

I believe that, like any crank, he's trying to prove a point and is gaily selecting facts that he thinks will support his argument. Contrast this with Laurence Gonzales's book "Deep Survival" which IMO, although not a scientific research paper, at least approaches the subject fairly and open-mindedly.