Frank Legge Begging For Peer Reviewers For Pentagon Paper, gets deleted at 911Blogger, LOL Options

[A. Syed]

Hello all,

This smacks of "theatre of the absurd."

For those who don't know who Frank Legge is, he is an Australian researcher whose name appears as one of the authors of the nanothermite paper. However, his name is known not so much for this as he is known for aggressively promoting the official view (physical evidence wise) that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. Very shortly after CIT's National Security Alert came out in the summer of 2009, along came Legge. He began presenting himself as an intellectual scholar on the Pentagon attack, writing a paper that was published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, in which, in a nutshell, he believes we should accept the official Pentagon story by default (he uses the double-negative hypothesis that there's no proof a 757 did not crash there), and that we should focus chiefly on the demolition of the WTC. He believes that if ever critical mass is ever achieved, whereby the masses of Americans are out in the streets by the millions, demanding a new investigation, the govt will release a video clearly showing AA77 hitting the building, and Frank claims that this would be a death blow to the movement and turn people away from looking at the WTC demolition. (I couldn't disagree with him more, but in the interests of space I'll move on.)

Back on May 16 of this year (2011), during an e-mail discussion between key members of Richard Gage's AE team, David Chandler (who, along with Jon Cole, authored a hit piece against CIT; you can see the CIT's super in depth rebuttal here) said the following words (boldface mine):

Space beams are not just an alternative theory: they're certifiably baloney. See http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...stStudies44.pdf

The same can be said about the CIT flight path. (Frank Legge and I have a paper in peer review right now that establishes this fact.)

A similar analysis needs to be done on the mini-nukes, but I have little doubt that it falls into the same category.

If AE has actual expertise and not just mailorder degrees, we need to be doing some actual research, whether theoretical, experimental, or whatever. We need to do active sifting of wheat from chaff.

--David Chandler

Legge and Chandler submitted the original version of their paper to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and Kevin Ryan passed the paper to Pilots for 9/11 Truth for peer review. Rob Balsamo tasked Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford (a Marines fighter pilot) with reviewing it. When I inquired to Shelton as to the quality of the paper, his reply to me was:

About as dreadful as you imagine. A hit piece to take its place among their other hit pieces.

That above quote was on June 8.

Fast forward to just recently, August 18, more than two months since Shelton's above response to me, and more than three months since I first learned by way of Chandler's email that such a paper was in the works. On 8/18, at 911Blogger, Frank Legge submitted a blog entry in which he practically pleaded with the 911blogger community to contact him and volunteer to "peer review" his and Chandler's paper. About 24 hours later, this blog entry was deleted. However, a colleague was wise enough to keep a cached version of the text on his hard drive. Here is the content of Legge's deleted blog entry (just the blog, not the comments, which I will reproduce later on in this post):

Its time to bite the bullet on the Pentagon

Submitted by Frank Legge on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:39am

citgo NOC overfly pentagon



There are two papers in need of review for submission to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

One is by David Chandler and myself. It provides evidence that the witnesses to the path of the plane approaching the Pentagon, who stated that it passed north of the Citgo service station, must have been mistaken. The paper concludes that the only plausible description of the approach is that the plane did not deviate round the service station but flew virtually straight and hit the Pentagon, as described by the vast majority of eye witnesses.

The other is by John Wyndham. Here is the abstract of his paper:
Abstract: The widespread belief among those who question the official account of 9/11, that a large plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11, is unsupported by the evidence. The failure of the 9/11 truth movement to reach consensus on this issue after almost a decade is largely due to a failure to rigorously apply the scientific method to the evidence as a whole. This paper, by so applying the evidence to each proposed theory, shows that a large plane hitting the Pentagon is by far the most plausible theory.

As this is a very touchy subject it has proved difficult to locate people who are willing to review these papers. These papers are based on straightforward logic and thus no aviation expertise is required. Aviation expertise would however be helpful in deflecting some types of arguments.

This is a call for volunteers to review the papers. If anyone is interested a response would be greatly appreciated. You won't find the papers boring. Contact me by posting here or by email to flegge@iinet.net.au.

Frank Legge's blog
Login to post comments

I noticed that in particular, it is clear how desperate Legge and Chandler are for their paper to receive some pats on the back by having to resort to "You won't find the papers boring." He also did not tell the 911blogger readers that the paper has already been reviewed by Shelton Lankford who found the paper to be "dreadful."

Now, I am a participant on the e-mail list serve entitled "911telecon," which is what we now call what was formerly known as the "9/11 Truth Leaders Teleconference." Quite a few well known people in the movement are on this list serve. I wrote Frank Legge and CC'd the telecon, alerting everyone to the points I just made in my above paragraph. I also gave him permission to post my e-mail publicly at 911blogger since I (and dozens of others) am banned there and can not address him publicly. Frank very selectively posted only 3 sentences of my rather lengthy and in depth e-mail to him. Frank then responded to my point about Lankford's negative review of the paper with a bald faced lie. Have a look, now, at the comments in that now-deleted blog entry. I'm posting all comments for the sake of posterity, but the relevant ones appear starting with the one from Frank whose subject heading (boldface) is "Adam Syed." (The number of votes a comment received appear above its subject heading.)

5 votes

The more important question

is why the Pentagon was allowed to be damaged at all almost an hour after the first plane impact took place?
Submitted by scubadiver on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:05pm.
»


3 votes

thanks

Thanks Frank. I hope you get some responses. I'm glad to see John W has done a paper as well.

The topic here is important because having a peer reviewed resolution to this formerly highly divisive issue is helpful in moving forward.

I think many agree that in moving forward, there are many important questions that have been eclipsed for years by the "no Boeing" debate. Shoestring has done an excellent job at writing focused well-researched pieces on many of those questions.

http://www.shoestring911.blogspot.com/
Submitted by Victronix on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:56pm.
»


4 votes

There are even people

who have done their very best in the comment section. But the comment section, is transitive and inconsequential, isn't it? I hope Jimd3100 gets his due, that is, he will get credit for being right all along.
Submitted by SnowCrash on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:52pm.
»

1 vote

Yes, he's done a lot of

Yes, he's done a lot of debunking comments. Just as much as being right all along are those who were unsure or misled, who then looked closer at things, for whatever reason, and decided they were going down the wrong path. That's a lot harder then being "right" in the first place!
Submitted by Victronix on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 1:32am.
»


-4 votes

The Grass is Greener Where I Come From

Don't walk over my green grass.
Submitted by nausea7543 on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:36pm.
»


3 votes

Adam Syed

gets full marks for persistence but little else. He has sent me a long essay on why I must be a deliberate provider of disinformation and therefore a supporter of the official narrative. How he equates this with my contributions on the collapse of all three WTC buildings by controlled demolition is a mystery - apparently logic is not his strong point. He asserts that I "came out of nowhere in 2009", but I have been publishing on the subject since June 2006.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/article...molition_20.pdf

Adam is frustrated at being barred on 9/11Blogger and hopes I will copy his essay here. I will provide a portion:

"Back on June 21, I called you out, Frank, in front of the 9/11 Truth Leaders Teleconference (911telecon). At that time, you had already submitted your paper for peer review to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and Rob Balsamo tasked ________ with reviewing it. The fact that two months later, the paper has not passed peer review and you are begging for non-aviation experts to "peer review" it, is a pathetic grasp at straws."

Apparently he is unaware that a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth has reviewed the paper and found it satisfactory. Here is what he said:

"After a review of the final version, the paper by Frank Legge and David Chandler is acceptable to me. They have been good to work with in resolving all issues."

"The article is much improved and balanced. I also think you make your case very well, and I can now endorse it."

As the Pentagon attack has been such a contoversial issue it is not surprising that I should be looking for more endorsements. The reason for making this request for reviewers was to hurry the process in the hope that the paper could be published before the Toronto Hearings.

That is still my hope. I would like to see several volunteers as every endorsement will strengthen the paper.
Submitted by Frank Legge on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:44pm.
»


2 votes

Alright

Look, Rob Balsamo will lie. So will his peers. This is custom. Some people will see this as unthinkable; lying for whatever reason. Yet it does happen, and it's painful. Credit to those who put the pursuit of truth beyond personal gain and beyond the defense of favored theories which do not pass the evidence test.

Adam is an intelligent man who has put his skill to work defending theories he knows are wrong. Expect skillful subterfuge and artful dodging; the truth is the truth, it's as simple as that.
Submitted by SnowCrash on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:59pm.
»


0 votes

Open minds are best until there is proof

I do not think there is proof that Adam Syed is lying. His lengthy posts appear to be sincere. The alternative hypothesis must be borne in mind that he is simply deluded, deceived. Of course he has not read the final version of the paper. One can hope that when he does he will see the light. He has the energy to be a powerful speaker for the truth if he would grasp it.
Submitted by Frank Legge on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 2:15am.
»


0 votes

Frank: See Your Inbox

Because you have donated generous time reviewing 2 of my publications at the "Journal of 9/11 Studies", I want to offer my time in return to review the referred-to draft. Although my views on this matter may differ from yours in some respects, critical input would benefit any final product.
Submitted by Aidan Monaghan on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 4:52am.
»

0 votes

The other side

We have received another review of the paper by a member of P4T and an email accusing me of lying when I say a member of P4T has approved the paper. They want me to tell the truth. Here is the email:

"Hey Legge,

instead of lying to your minions, why not tell them the truth about the review done by a P4T member.

"There is nothing wrong with this paper that a trip through a shredder, and a sincere apology to CIT and the 9/11 Truth community could not cure." "

Out of courtesy I have deleted the name of the author of this email, a member of P4T.

Both sides are now shown. That should be fair enough.
Submitted by Frank Legge on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:37am.

For the record, here is the defunct URL of the blog entry that exists no longer:

http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/news/2011...bullet-pentagon

[ETA upon looking at the preview of my post: LMAO Rob! "911blogger-bans-truth.com!" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif) ]

Okay, so, for a bit of chronology. Frank first posted the excerpt from my email, and when I saw him say this I knew he was lying:

Apparently [Syed] is unaware that a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth has reviewed the paper and found it satisfactory. Here is what he said:

"After a review of the final version, the paper by Frank Legge and David Chandler is acceptable to me. They have been good to work with in resolving all issues."

"The article is much improved and balanced. I also think you make your case very well, and I can now endorse it."

I knew this was a lie, because on that very day, Shelton Lankford told me privately (when I inquired as to the quality of their second/revised version of the paper) he said this:

I finished the second review today and sent it back to Kevin. I don't think they will like it any better than the first one. I don't want to send out a copy right now, because I don't think it has been released to the wild, and it isn't my place to put out copies of their paper, but when I can I will put it on line. I will share one line with you from my review that kind of sums it up.

“There is nothing wrong with this paper that a trip through a shredder, and a sincere apology to CIT and the 9/11 Truth community could not cure.”

Now, I received this email BEFORE Legge's attempt to try and discredit me in the eyes of the rigged environment of 911blogger, so I knew immediately that Legge was lying through his teeth. After Legge had posted his comment, I was not the only person to notice the lie. Rob Balsamo immediately wrote Frank, CC'ing the 911telecon list serve (which, remember, contains a decent number of well known scholars within the movement):

Hey Legge,

instead of lying to your minions, why not tell them the truth about the review done by a P4T member.

"There is nothing wrong with this paper that a trip through a shredder, and a sincere apology to CIT and the 9/11 Truth community could not cure."

Perhaps because he realized he was getting called out on a bald faced lie in front of quite a few people via email, Frank then tried to neutralize the situation by posting "both sides" at 911blogger:

We have received another review of the paper by a member of P4T and an email accusing me of lying when I say a member of P4T has approved the paper. They want me to tell the truth. Here is the email:

"Hey Legge,

instead of lying to your minions, why not tell them the truth about the review done by a P4T member.

"There is nothing wrong with this paper that a trip through a shredder, and a sincere apology to CIT and the 9/11 Truth community could not cure." "

Out of courtesy I have deleted the name of the author of this email, a member of P4T.

Both sides are now shown. That should be fair enough.

He basically tries to squirm out of it by acknowledging that "another" member of Pilots found the paper terrible. However, at that stage (and, I believe still), Shelton was the only person tasked with reviewing it whereby the reviewer would be speaking officially on behalf of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Rob Balsamo ascertained this in an email:

I emailed some of our active core members to see who might have endorsed Legge's claims, as Legge alleged at Blogger....

Here are just some of the replies...

"Not me. That would have been a shocker if he had asked me."

"Absolutely not! I have received no emails from Frank Legge , nor have I sent him any."

"Hi Rob:

I was asked to review it and definitely did not endorse it!"

"No, not asked and I haven't seen any such paper. I know that Legge is a problem child here and would have let you know."

and of course from Shelton...

""There is nothing wrong with this paper that a trip through a shredder, and a sincere apology to CIT and the 9/11 Truth community could not cure."

there are many more who i spoke with on the phone. Their first reply was laughter when i asked if they endorsed anything from Legge.

If Legge did get a P4T member to endorse his claims, either A) The person is not a pilot and will no longer be with our organization, or B) is not familiar with all the counter arguments to Legge's garbage.

I'll go for C... Legge is talking out his ass as usual...lol

Rob"

And, for more entertainment, Rob put forth to the list serve a few more lines from Shelton Lankford's review of the current version of the paper:

quote this too Legge....

"The efforts to marginalize CIT and Pilots continue unabated, and it is difficult to see any daylight
between the instant paper and those efforts. Far from letting the CIT evidence stand or fall on its
own merits, the instant paper attempts to build a case where there is none, and throw jet fuel on
the fire that they, themselves started, all the while decrying the “divisiveness” allegedly caused
by CIT. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. One is reminded of the boy who killed his parents, then
appealed to the court for mercy on the grounds he was an orphan."

and thats just part of the conclusion after many pages of analysis.

The best part is, I had nothing to do with the above review.

Rob

Now, here is where things REALLY turn to the "theatre of the absurd."

As pointed out at the top of this thread, the ENTIRE blog entry was deleted at 911blogger roughly 24 hours (maybe a bit less) after it was first posted. I pointed this out to the telecon list serve. Legge responded to myself and the telecon, and he said this:

Finally, you may be interested to hear that the main reason my recent blog was removed from 9/11Blogger was that I had criticised you. This was seen as unfair, as you are barred from responding there.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Given the mass bannings of P49T, CIT and their closest and most articulate and knowledgeable supporters at 911blogger, not to mention the vitriol that is allowed to be leveled at these individuals, Frank's statement is laughable. I responded with this:

Sorry Frank, no dice. I know how 911blogger works. If what you say is true, they would have simply deleted your comment in which my name was brought up, not the entire blog entry and non-Syed-related comments within the comment thread. Also, your argument holds no water, because since my being barred from commenting there in May 2010, there have been numerous comments that have attacked me and my pro-CIT position. Also, it's no secret that the moderators of 911blogger do not have one iota of good will in their hearts towards CIT, P4T (they even removed the P4T link on their left column) and anyone who dares support them. Comments calling Craig Ranke, Rob Balsamo and Kevin Barrett "paid disinfo agents" not only are allowed to stand, but receive plenty of up votes, and none of us are able to respond. So frankly your argument holds no water.

The real reason I think they deleted it is:

Number one: because of what Keogh, Larson and Ashley probably noticed as an embarrassing double standard with regard to the concept of "endorsements" --- after all, haven't Chandler, Ryan and Gage essentially condemned CIT for "seeking endorsements" because they say it's "divisive" and "puts people into camps" and that their endorsements are a weak substitute for writing a paper that would pass "peer review" in a scholarly journal??? And there you were, Frank, practically pleading for the community to endorse your paper, and yes, you flat out used the word "endorsements." And you did in the full knowledge, but without (initially) telling the community, that the person to whom you had submitted the paper several months ago finds the paper to be absolutely terrible! In other words, you weren't really seeking true review, you were seeking uncritical pats on the back (admitting you wanted to hurry the process so it could be published before the anniversary and the Hearings), the exact sin of which you and yours accuse CIT of being so guilty!

Number two: Perhaps because you were being called out behind the scenes, you got scared and decided that maybe the safe thing to do IS admit that "another" member of P4T wrote a harshly critical review, and provided the Lankford quote as proof that you're showing all sides. The fact that this quote said that the paper deserves to be shredded and that CIT and the truth community are owed a huge apology, probably caused Larson's, Keogh's and Ashley's blood pressure to go through the roof. Fearing that the blog entry might blow up in their faces (outside the controlled environment of the site), they figured the safest thing to do was flush it down the memory hole.

Things have been quiet as crickets since then. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

Legge's dishonesty is yet another piece of evidence to show how 911blogger, as (what was once) the most vigorous and active 9/11 news site, has been co-opted by people shilling for the official account, or significant aspects thereof. The Rock Creek Free Press was right on the money!
PS: Regarding my comment about Frank "coming out of nowhere in 2009" when he was actually publishing at the Journal of 9/11 Studies as far back as 2006: While this is true, he did not start becoming significantly well known within the online community until his paper "What Hit the Pentagon?" paper was published, to great fanfare at 911blogger, in the summer of 2009, not so coincidentally, very shortly after CIT's "National Security Alert" video was released to the public amid glowing blurbs of praise from many notable figures in the movement for the presentation.

PPS: Maybe Rob can pick it up from here (it's taken me a few hours to create this thread) regarding the laughable, and likely fabricated, "flight plan" that Frank Legge showed the telecon as "proof" that he is a pilot and has some aviation expertise.

PPPS: The issue of infiltration in the 9/11 truth movement was discussed on tonight's bi-monthly teleconference call.

This post has been edited by A. Syed: Aug 25 2011, 02:34 AM

[mrmitosis]

I guess the first question which comes to my mind is: Which P4T member is responsible for writing the peer review endorsing Legge's paper, if it wasn't Shelton Lankford?

Or does this individual wish to remain anonymous?

In that case, I have an anonymous peer reviewed scholarly article endorsing the legitimacy to claims I have a 14-inch Johnson.

This post has been edited by mrmitosis: Aug 25 2011, 02:50 AM

[rob balsamo]

For someone who claims to question 9/11, Frank Legge sure does spend an enormous amount of time trying to prove the govt story. His last 3 papers over the past 3 years are all attempting to prove the govt story based on a logical fallacy....

Legge claims - "If it can't be proven AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then it must have hit...". Frank must still believe in Santa Claus as well as it's never been proven he doesn't exist.

Legge and Chandler submitted the original version of their paper to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and Kevin Ryan passed the paper to Pilots for 9/11 Truth for peer review.

Actually, Steven Jones sent me the paper as his last order of business before resigning from the "Journal", and asked if I would review it.

Here is the email exchange.... (i post this for historical accuracy, normally i would not post an email exchange unless the truth was in jeopardy)



From: Steven Jones
Subject: Request that you review a paper re: 9/11 Pentagon plane
To: "Rob Balsamo" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 1, 2011, 10:22 AM

Dear Rob,

This is retired Prof. Steven Jones.
Hope you are doing well.
Attached is a paper submitted to the Journalof911Studies,

The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the North-of-Citgo Flight Path Hypothesis

Frank Legge, (B.Sc., Ph.D., Chemistry) and David Chandler, (B.S. Physics, M.S., Mathematics)


I'm writing to ask if you would be willing to provide a review of this paper, giving some feed-back to the authors regarding the suitability of the paper for publication. Your review would be done as an anonymous referee, your identity known only to co-editor Kevin Ryan and myself, unless you wish to identify yourself.

If you wish to decline, I understand, but then would you kindly provide me with email addresses for P4T member Shelton F. Lankford and Bruce Sinclair, so that I may pursue this request to them. As you know, all papers in the journal undergo close scrutiny and peer review; here is an opportunity for you to participate in this effort.


Please let me know.

Best wishes,

Steven Jones


PS -- this will be my last duty as co-editor as I am stepping down from this position soon. At that point, Kevin Ryan will correspond with you (should you accept to do the review).

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Pilots For Truth <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Steven,

Call me when you can and we'll discuss it. I will probably decline as the past two papers published at your Journal on this topic are now confirmed disinformation. In other words, Legge and Stutt have admitted errors, but have apparently refused to correct them. Call me and I can give you details. I can also quickly explain to you why our calculations are not wrong on G Loading when considering aerodynamics. Legge is using basic 10th grade physics. There is much more involved.

xxx-xxx-xxxx

I was also just notified of the attacks on you over at Blogger and Truth Action. Wow, very sad sight, but i cannot say i am surprised. I predicted this long ago. Personally i think Blogger has been taken over by the likes of JREF and Screw Loose Change.

Hope you're doing well...
Rob

Re: Request that you review a paper re: 9/11 Pentagon plane
Wednesday, June 1, 2011 10:55 AM
From:"Steven Jones"
To:pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com

Thanks for your reply, Rob.
I don't doubt that you have very good reasons for challenging Legge's paper; but I have so little time for the next week to even phone you, regrettably. And my interest in such details is frankly waning. Traveling tomorrow and out of town.

If you can share the email addresses of one of these two (Sinclair or Shankford[sic]), I would appreciate it -- my last duty with the Journal. Or if you agree to be a reviewer for this paper, this is a chance to respond to Legge (I suppose).

I will be stepping down right away.

Thanks,
Steven

We already know the results of Shelton's review. Here is a statement from Captain Bruce Sinclair:

Hello Shelton:

I read your review of the Legge/Chandler paper and it is excellent!
Thank-you very much for your efforts in this regard. I have not reviewed
the paper and don't intend to, but I have read it and agree whole-heartedly
with your comments. The dark forces of disinformation are very busy these
days, in particular in regards to CIT and P4T. Of course this is because
the research of CIT and P4T demonstrates a direct link between the
military/government and the false flag events at the Pentagon.

http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/news/2011...bullet-pentagon

[ETA upon looking at the preview of my post: LMAO Rob! "911blogger-bans-truth.com!" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif) ]

Yes, sites like Blogger and J.REF are bad words around here, their urls are automatically changed by the forum to reveal their true nature. But, you are free to curse if you wish... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Okay, so, for a bit of chronology. Frank first posted the excerpt from my email, and when I saw him say this I knew he was lying:

Frank lies quite frequently. As i have said numerous times in the past, he is his own worst enemy.

PPS: Maybe Rob can pick it up from here (it's taken me a few hours to create this thread) regarding the laughable, and likely fabricated, "flight plan" that Frank Legge showed the telecon as "proof" that he is a pilot and has some aviation expertise.

It's not "likely" fabricated. Frank admits he did fabricate the document on his computer. I'll attach the document which Frank has offered as "proof" he is a pilot.

As i said on the telcon list serve:

I don't think Legge has a pilot certificate, that is why he hasn't provided one.
And even if he does come up with one, pilot certificates can be fabricated as
well. I fabricated one in "Pandora's Black Box - Flight Of American 77" for Hani
Hanjour to show how easily it can be done, if one just wants to show a piece of
paper.

The real proof is in the pudding. Can the guy walk the walk and talk the talk.
Legge cannot. This is why I say a real pilot can spot a wannabe from a mile
away.

As i said, Legge probably joined a local flying club to impress some friends
that he is learning to fly in a high performance single engine, and perhaps to
take his family flying, all with an Instructor on board sitting right next to
him. He probably ran out of cash (the A36 is not cheap, East Hampton Airlines
charges 325/hr), and given Legge's clear lack of aeronautical knowledge and
inability to learn basic flight concepts and fundamentals, his Instructor
probably told him to no longer waste his money, similar to what Instructors told
Hani for the same reasons.

When someone asks me if I am a pilot and to provide credentials, i dont send
them a flight plan from my flight training decades ago during my student cross
country work (which is what Legge's "Flight plan" looks like). I show them my
pilot certificate, medical and logbook. If they need more, i hand them my resume
with contact information for all the places i worked as a pilot coming through
the ranks.

Notice Legge's "Flight Plan" didn't have any contact information on it. I'm not
too familiar with Australian aviation regulations, but a Flight Plan will not be
accepted in the USA nor any ICAO Nation (of which Australia is one of them i
believe) if you dont provide contact information.

Legge should have tried a C-152 first to see if he can understand the basics, it
probably would have saved him tons of cash.

Frank has been caught in numerous lies. His most blatant is claiming that he is an instrument rated pilot while also claiming "pilots do not use their pressure altimeter when approaching a runway". Frank then attempted to backpedal on his statement but made it worse by saying, "Well of course the pilot uses the pressure altimeter on approach if he is not using an ILS.". Frank is now implying that pilots do not use a pressure altimeter if they are shooting an ILS. Not only is Legge not instrument rated, but it is clear Frank has never picked up an Approach plate.

Frank, real pilots do not offer a decades old flight plan fabricated on a home computer as proof of their credentials and expertise. The fact that the attached document is all you have to offer initially to support your claims, compliments your extreme lack of aeronautical knowledge nicely and confirms that you are willing to lie to further your agenda.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[rob balsamo]

I guess the first question which comes to my mind is: Which P4T member is responsible for writing the peer review endorsing Legge's paper, if it wasn't Shelton Lankford?

I have contacted all the active core members of our organization to see if anyone had reviewed and endorsed Legge's garbage. Here are some of their replies.

"Not me. That would have been a shocker if he had asked me."

"Absolutely not! I have received no emails from Frank Legge , nor have I sent him any."

"Hi Rob: I was asked to review it and definitely did not endorse it!"

"No, not asked and I haven't seen any such paper. I know that Legge is a problem child here and would have let you know."

and of course from Shelton...

""There is nothing wrong with this paper that a trip through a shredder, and a sincere apology to CIT and the 9/11 Truth community could not cure."

...there are many more who i spoke with on the phone. Their first reply was laughter when i asked if they endorsed anything from Legge.

It is possible Legge tried as hard as he could to get someone from our organization to endorse his crap. No doubt he begged and pleaded the best he could as is indicative of his now deleted Blogger entry. It is possible he could have gotten a "favourable review" (as Legge calls it) from someone within our organization who is not familiar with both sides of the argument, or is not a pilot, after all, we have hundreds of people listed on our core member list with another big update on the way.

Legge may have gone down the list covertly trying to get an underhanded "backdoor endorsement", no doubt in an attempt to create more divide. Legge of course will not release the name of the person, because if he did, when and if he does, he knows that he will probably lose the "favourable review" if the review came from a pilot and I am then able to discuss the information with that person.

For more on Legge's past attempts to prove the govt story for them, click here...

Response to Legge's first paper which needed 8 revisions, and needs more. Confirmed as Disinformation.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777266

Response to Legge's second paper. Confirmed Disinformation
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10798304

[A. Syed]

It is possible he could have gotten a "favourable review" (as Legge calls it) from someone within our organization who is not familiar with both sides of the argument, or is not a pilot, after all, we have hundreds of people listed on our core member list with another big update on the way.

Thing is, even if the person IS a pilot and can provide the credentials, this doesn't make your organization immune to infiltration. Look at Richard Gage's organization. I've seen several people (I'll refrain from naming names) who absolutely do have sufficient credentials, yet push some pretty absurd stuff. One particularly persistent architect, for example, argues that only a small select number of explosives would be needed around the WTC crash zones in order to initiate the collapses, and that that from then on, it actually was a gravitational collapse. This of course flies in the face of what we see with our own eyes, combined with the testimonies of ground level explosions. (This person did get ousted from AE eventually.)

That being said, do you have a "verification team" like Richard does re appropriate credentials?

Also, re one of your above comments: we haven't proven that Santa doesn't exist, technically. But we do know that the official Santa Clause story is false logistically, i.e. that even if reindeer could fly, he couldn't visit hundreds of millions of homes in one night or have enough room in his sleigh for so much stuff.

Don't mean to put you on the spot, just trying to address things prior to them being addressed by "teh faction" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by A. Syed: Aug 25 2011, 08:49 PM

[rob balsamo]

That being said, do you have a "verification team" like Richard does re appropriate credentials?

I am the verification "team"....lol

Unlike Richard, our work gets suppressed and attacked (mostly by those who support Richard), so we don't have the amount of financial support that Richard gets. So i pretty much do all the administrative duties. The website, the forum, applicant verification.. etc. This is why it takes me awhile to update the core member list.

With that said, it is pretty easy to verify core members with an FAA certificate. They can be cross checked at faa.gov. But we certainly do not do a thorough background check as would an airline attempting to hire a pilot. We just dont have the resources. And yes, we even have some who tried to play games. I left one of them listed who fell through the cracks, but changed his experience and credentials to better reflect his motive and agenda.

Gianluca Frati
Italian "duhbunker" who likes to play games
Liar

Perhaps that is our "Core member" who gave Legge a "favourable" review...?

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[onesliceshort]

Remember Beachnut is member too! LMAO!

One is reminded of the boy who killed his parents, then
appealed to the court for mercy on the grounds he was an orphan.

in that case, I have an anonymous peer reviewed scholarly article endorsing the legitimacy to claims I have a 14-inch Johnson.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/handsdown.gif)

Haha! I needed that guys!

Nice work Adam.

[A. Syed]

Thank you.

[GroundPounder]

and of course from Shelton...

""There is nothing wrong with this paper that a trip through a shredder, and a sincere apology to CIT and the 9/11 Truth community could not cure."

that says it all !

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

Rob you should arrange for a phone/skype call with this clown. I think that should button it up nicely.

We have to learn that they love typed discussions because the lack emotion and tone. Questions can be avoided and readers can be distracted or sidetracked. When in person or live on the phone you can make them answer your questions and you stop them in their tracks when they try and pull some bullshit.

I wouldnt doubt that he is just a figurehead and other individuals are typing the responses and constructing strategies, arguments, and likely the papers themselves.

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Aug 27 2011, 09:50 PM

[lipsmalloy]

Thank you for this very informative thread. I lobbied David Chandler to get his joint paper peer-reviewed, if not by P4T, then by experienced aviation experts elsewhere. I'm glad to see Steven Jones submitted it to P4T. I was hoping Dennis Cimino would have been asked to review it as well. I'm sorry to hear Steven Jones has stepped down from the Journal of 9/11 Studies. I hope he is well.

[lipsmalloy]

I was also hoping someone like Lt Col. Jeff Latas (Former USAF Accident Investigation President) would be asked to review the paper(s). After all, a peer-review process generally involves reviews from several knowledgable people.

[rob balsamo]

I was also hoping someone like Lt Col. Jeff Latas (Former USAF Accident Investigation President) would be asked to review the paper(s). After all, a peer-review process generally involves reviews from several knowledgable people.

One of the replies from our active members quoted above is from Latas.

I have received many more replies from others as well during this time.

I can safely say at this point that Legge not only has been caught in numerous lies, but is completely full of shit.

Legge's objective has been made abundantly clear based on his actions over the past few years. Legge's clear objective is to create divide through any means necessary, including blatant deception. Those who have perhaps employed Legge and the minions he has been able to persuade, should think about firing such an old timer. Legge's credibility is completely and utterly destroyed.

[albertchampion]

what is legge's background? his cv?

any ties to any intell service?

[SanderO]

Rob,

If you are correct about Legge's motive and I suspect you are... that is he's not simply self delusional how does one explain the fact that he is embraced by so many of the *truth leaders*? What possibly could be their view of his *work*? Since he is not shunned they are all either too stupid to see what he is up to... and are fooled or they are perfectly aware of what he is up to and support him because they share his intent. Either of these positions is very troubling.

There are several strong CIT supporters who find the work of the group that Legge is closely associated with work on the World Trade Center to be *the cat's meow*... that is they accept the case that this group has put forth for explosive controlled demolition of the three towers. That is these group is producing perfectly rigorous reasearch and findings at the WTC, but rolls over and plays dumb or even worse supports the OCT at the pentagon as has been pointed out. This could be a type of cognitive dissonance... or it could be a larger deception and the theories about the WTC can be just as suspect as their support of the OCT is at the pentagon.

I believe we are well enough into this whole matter for the supporters of controlled demolition to begin to question the case that this cabal has made in support of ECD. I am not alleging that there was no engineered intervention associated with the destruction of the three towers.. but I am asserting that their case is not made, is misleading and is likely overblown... It is as deceptive as the OCT in a sense.

I and others at the 911 Free Forums have done independent research which demonstrates that the prevailing AE911T controlled demolition case is simply not there... that is the one that THEY have made. Some might argue that this hardly matters... but now one needs to question their motives as their motives have been exposed at the pentagon to one which supports the OCT. Why would they support it at the pentagon and not in some odd way at the WTC? And we are not talking ignoring the pentagon but actively and aggressively trying to destroy the best evidence about what has happened at the pentagon by PFT and CIT? What could be more obvious?

I am sorry to say I believe most of us have been deceived by these guys... Some of us have decided to not simply trust... verify and discovered that we ARE being deceived by their ECD theory. Iive attempted for over a year to get people here and on a few other 911 sites to open their eyes to the science and engineering issues and the correct application of physics and the correct interpretation of the observables and met with enormous resistance and even ridicule... which I don't mind. It will turn out that I am correct... perhaps not 100% but substantially correct because all I have done is investigate the actual structure and the engineering and physics issues. I've tried to argue on an "everyman" level which is pretty difficult... and other scientists and engineers make a very sophisticated technical case which is not completely ignored.. but would be beyond the grasp of most people without an engineering or physics background. With all due respect... David Griffin is not an scientist nor an engineer...neither is Graham MacQueen. I won't question their motives but I will question their competence to deal with complex technical matters. What they can do is apply logic to *evidence* they can't possible be facile with... such as Graham MacQueen a retired professor of religious studies analyzing seismic data from Lamont Doherty and publishing a *scientific* paper on this. I am not being a elitist snob... I am simply noting that the leaders we are so quick to listen to are not the technical experts they need to be in the fields they opine about. Gage is another example of someone who simply is out of his depth... but then again he's never done a stitch of research...he's just a PR guy who (mis) represents other architects and engineers giving the appearance that the all are familiar with the body of research that AE911T uses and agree with it.

It's high time to demand that we deal with facts and not speculative shock and awe type theories which have little substance. Science is not... it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck so it is a duck... which is the type of science used to support explosive controlled demolition... They have the theory and hunt around for something which supports it. YIKES!

Wake up people and thank you PFT and CIT for sticking to the facts.

[rob balsamo]

what is legge's background? his cv?

any ties to any intell service?

Well, when Legge attempted to provide any sort of "cv" for his claims/experience, he offered the attached "Flight Plan" which he admitted he fabricated on his home computer, as "proof" he is a "pilot".

Legge hasn't provided any real proof for any of his claims, nor expertise. As a matter of fact, Legge isn't even listed at http://patriotsquestion911.com.

If the past three years of dealing with Legge is any indication, he clearly doesn't question 911, rather he is attempting to prove the govt story through logical fallacies, speculation and deception.

When i called him out on the fact that a real pilot doesn't offer a decades old flight plan to prove their credentials and expertise, Legge then claimed perhaps I don't know how to handle a Be-36.

I then gave him a scanned page from my logbook from years ago (one of many in the Be-36/A36)

(IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/Be36_N7248W_EHA.jpg)

Unlike Legge, i was actually paid to fly a Be-36 many years ago.

For those reading who have been suckered in by the below "flight plan" offered by Legge as his poor attempt to "prove" his expertise, it is no surprise why you are also suckered in by his blatant disregard and total lack of understanding with respect to the fundamentals of flight, especially Instrument Flight. Remember, Truth will always prevail in the end. It is not surprising that Legge never sent this to me directly and instead attempted to persuade a layman with the attached bullshit.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[albertchampion]

what i meant was, tell me about legge....

how old is he?

what does he do for a living?

was he ever in any branch of the military?

or was he ever an employee of a government?

how was it that he became focused on explaining the events of 11 september 2001?

do you get my drift?

[rob balsamo]

what i meant was, tell me about legge....

how old is he?

what does he do for a living?

was he ever in any branch of the military?

or was he ever an employee of a government?

how was it that he became focused on explaining the events of 11 september 2001?

do you get my drift?

I don't know much about Legge aside from the fact that he claims to be a Chemist who lives in Australia. He claims to be an Instrument rated pilot yet makes such absurd statements like "pilots do not use their pressure altimeter when approaching a runway". In order to support his claims of being a pilot, he doesn't offer a pilot certificate as any real pilot would, rather he offers a "Flight Plan" he admits he fabricated on his home computer from decades ago. A "Flight Plan" which looks like one used by a Student pilot working on his cross-country time. In other words, he hasn't provided any documents to support his claims, and judging by his absurd statements with respect to aeronautical knowledge, he doesn't have any such documents because he isn't a trained and qualified pilot. In further words, he lied.

From his pics, he appears to be pushing 90.

He has written 3 papers over the past 3 years. All of them on the Pentagon. All of them littered with speculation, misleading statements, elementary errors and confirmed disinformation, all of them attempting to prove the govt story. All of them attacking our work and the work of CIT.

His first "paper" went through 8 revisions and needs more.

His second "paper" is pure garbage.

His third "paper" is still going through "peer-review" for perhaps the past year, but it seems Legge isn't getting the reviews he wants to hear, so he has begged for "peer-review" applicants on Blogger as pointed out in the OP.

According to a brief google search, he was at a Reunion of a Tracking Station used during the Gemini and Apollo program. So he probably has worked for the govt in some capacity.
http://crotrak.com/35th_anniversary_attendees.htm
http://crotrak.com/2004_35th_3.htm

I'm sure one of our savvy researchers can dig up more on him.

[onesliceshort]

Warren..(OT I know but..)

(IMG:http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/5281/warrene.jpg)

[Bruce Sinclair]

Rob:

It took me a while, but I finally found the correspondence with Frank Legge that I was mentioning to you. This thread took place on Facebook between myself and Frank. So as you can see, Frank has identified the "favourable" reviewer as Joel Skousen. Do you know who this person is? It would be helpful to correspond with him to verify the "favourable review".

Regards,

Bruce


March 6Frank Legge
FDR
Hi Bruce. I got a message from you and one from Rob Balsamo so it appears you have been discussing the paper by Warren Stutt and myself. This paper has been attacked by Rob. We have written a reponse which you might like to consider.
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebuttal
The Science of 9/11 | Response to Rob Balsamo
www.scienceof911.com.au
As the paper on the data file from the Flight Data Recorder by Warren Stutt and myself has been attacked we have prepared a rebuttal to the issues raised in these attacks. [Ed Note: Response from P4T here]
Share

March 6Bruce Sinclair
Thank-you Frank. I have read your paper and your response. My greatest hope is that we can continue to pursue the truth wherever it may lead us - even if a few oxes get gored in the process!

March 6Frank Legge
Pursuing truth wherever it leads is the answer, as you say. I still have hope that Pilots for 9/11 Truth will come round to correcting their errors and abandoning their abusive style so that we can all work together for the benefit of all.

June 1Frank Legge
Bruce, I just came across a video of you talking about the Pentagon attack. You mentioned that it was impossible for the plane to do the maneuver. Do you still think that? If so you might like to study the attached spreadsheet file. This sets out how to calculate the g-force for the maneuver. It shows the maneuvre is possible and that Rob Balsamo's calculation is incorrect. It is clear from the FDR file, if it is to be believed, that the plane did hit the Pentagon and never experienced more than about 2g, easily managed. Would you be interested in reviewing another paper on the subject?
G-force_calculator_Pilots2.xls
[Ed Note: P4T Response here]

July 29Frank Legge
Bruce, David Chandler and I have written a paper showing that the overfly theory put up by CIT must be false as the bank angle required to pass north of the Citgo service station is at least 77 degrees. Nobody reported seeing anything other than a slight bank. A bank of 77 degrees would be astonishing and nobody would forget it, if it happened. We conclude it dodn't happen.
[Ed Note: P4T Response here and here, 2 years prior to Legge's "findings".]

July 29Frank Legge
So would you be interested in reviewing this paper? I think it is important to have it reviewed by members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. We have had one favourable review already by Joel Skousen but another would be very helpful if we are to get it published.