IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New Legge Paper Continues Dishonest Attack On Pilots For 9/11 Truth, Cites Mackey, Implies P4T not interested in science & much more

Ligon
post Sep 26 2009, 02:50 PM
Post #1





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



This is the post script of Frank Legge's newest edition of "What Hit The Pentagon?". I figured it warranted a new thread.

This is Legge's FIFTH version of the paper.

The footnotes are at the end. They point to forum posts by R Mackey and friends.

QUOTE
It has been pointed out by Rob Balsamo, of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, that a pilot on a suicide mission would normally point the nose of the plane at his target. It is therefore surprising that the plane approaching the Pentagon aimed low enough to hit the light poles. How this came about we will probably never know. We must, however, deal with the mathematical consequences of the impact with the poles as we examine the event.

To pursue the issue raised in this paper, that flight paths may exist which could produce the observed impact damage, I prepared a spreadsheet which allowed insertion of various assumptions about impact and obstacle locations. The spreadsheet was designed to calculate initial pitch, g-force and ground clearance. A pilot in a difficult situation would wish to apply corrections as early as possible in order to minimize g-force. I therefore chose a circular flight path, as this would provide a uniform and minimum g-force throughout the entire arc from the obstacle to the Pentagon. A circular flight path is close to optimum as the descent angle in this case is never steep enough to significantly alter the vector values. It is also convenient as it is very easy to calculate a circular path if we can locate three points on the arc, as is possible in this case.

A similar calculation has been provided by R. Mackey who used a parabolic path. This is not quite as realistic as a circular path as the g-force along a parabola would vary; however it did provide a good approximation and showed that a low g-force path was possible. [48]

Some Google searching will reveal that problems with the Pilots for 9/11 Truth calculations have been discussed before. In 2008, Myriad explained in a post on the Randi forum that there was a visually obvious flaw in their diagram. This flaw would result in underestimating the radius of curvature and hence overestimating the g-force.[49[ He went on to show, using proprietary software, how to work out g-force in a circular model. [50] He obtained exactly the same value for radius and g-force as I do when I use his parameters. I am therefore confident that my spreadsheet is working correctly.

The findings from the spreadsheet are set out in the following table. The assumptions are that the impact was 30ft above ground on the first pole and 12ft above ground at the Pentagon. The values shown for Relative Centrifugal Force (RCF) are as calculated, plus one for gravity. All the figures shown are easily achievable as the plane is rated to 2.5g.

The top row of the table is the result of an experiment to determine how high above the antenna it would be possible to fly and still produce the observed damage. It turned out that the limit was not the g-force but the ground clearance near the Pentagon. The top row is not offered as a reasonable path, though it seems an expert might be able to perform it.

(Table here, see p. 15 of Legge's paper)

Study of the topography using Google Earth shows that the closest approach of the plane to the ground between the antenna and the first pole would occur about half way. This is shown in the Clearance column.

As all these paths show a g-force substantially below the rated capacity of the plane we see that the pilot would not have to stick rigidly to the arc. There is scope to pull up a little if an obstacle like a tree appears. We see that a higher course, going over the antenna, the course which has caused so much controversy, would be feasible. We also see that a course over the Navy Annex seems reasonable, which is of interest as it corresponds with reports of some witnesses. My preferred path would be to pass by the antenna on the south side, about 120ft above ground, which provides ample clearance. It requires an entry angle of 6.5 degrees. This is only about twice the normal approach angle for landing of commercial aircraft and would not be difficult. It is about the same as the power-off glide slope of a small plane, a procedure which student pilots routinely practice.

On the website of Pilots for 9/11 Truth we read: “Physically and aerodynamically, Arlington's unique topography and obstacles along American 77 "final leg" to the pentagon make this approach completely impossible as we will demonstrate”.

Transcribed from their G Force video we read: “As we can see, G loads required to pull out of a dive from the top of the VDOT antenna are impossible for a 757”.

Given that it is clearly possible to find a flight path that does not stress the aircraft, with an entry angle which would not stress the pilot, one wonders how it comes about that Pilots for 9/11 Truth have produced such a contrary finding. The answer is readily found. Firstly, there are gross errors in their calculation of g-force, as already pointed out. Secondly, they assume that the pilot would be stupid enough to maintain a constant descent angle from the top of the antenna all the way to the impact point on the first pole before pulling up. My calculations shows that the force required to avoid collision with the ground would vary widely, depending on the assumed height of contact with the light pole. At 20ft up from the ground it would be 7.5g, at 30ft up it would be 4.6g. The lower estimate is nearly twice the permitted force and very likely to destroy the aircraft. Even though these values are substantially below the value calculated by Pilots, 10.14g, they are still so high that the pilot would know in his bones that this delayed pull-up would risk failure of the project.

Logically the pilot would avoid overstressing the aircraft by pulling up sooner and passing over the light poles. However, if there was some reason why he wanted to make the final impact near horizontal, as occurred, he could still avoid the risk of failure by starting a little steeper and pulling up sooner, spreading the load out over a much wider arc, as shown in the table.

Why Pilots for 9/11 Truth restrict calculations to the improbable straight line approach path from the antenna to the poles is unclear. It does not come from the FDR, which certainly does not show this uniform approach slope. Could it be that this group has an agenda to prove that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon, rather than a scientific determination to find the truth, come what may? Given the assertion of these pilots that they do not have a position on whether a 757 hit the Pentagon, their simultaneous assertion that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon is contradictory. They are adopting a position that will require them to accept that the plane flew over the Pentagon, and that the complex damage pattern to the poles and the interior of the Pentagon, which fit well enough with the 757 theory, was created by other means. This would appear to be an uncomfortable position for a team which has done much work to obtain and analyze the FDR data, enabling us to see its flaws

Members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth have had over a year to address these concerns, but so far have shown themselves to be unwilling to do so. Whether this represents the position of the majority of members, or just of the executive, is not clear.


Footnotes:

QUOTE
[48] Mackey, R. March 2008. http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=109066 It could be that this work was ignored by the truth movement because Mackey is known to support the official story of 9/11. This does not, however, prove his calculations are wrong.

[49] While there may be no published peer reviewed paper showing calculation of the g-force which a plane would be subjected to if the pilot was allowed to choose the most favourable path toward the light poles and the Pentagon, there have been a number of serious discussions on blogs which should have alerted Pilots to review their position. Googling terms like vdot, pentagon, parabola will locate heated mathematical discussions. For example http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=123859. A post by Myriad in this thread clearly sets out the reason why Pilot’s calculation of g-force works out wrong. As this is dated 15 Sep 2008, 6:25 PM, ample time for correction has elapsed. He makes a small error in calculating the descent angle but his argument is correct (it is after all a blog, not a peer reviewed paper).

[50] Myriad, 15 Sept 2008, provides a similar result with a circular model at 8:18 PM. Note that he used an impact point at the top of the first pole whereas I used a point about 10ft from the top, which would affect the result. He obtained 1.65g: I got 1.8g. http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=123859


This post has been edited by Ligon: Sep 26 2009, 03:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Sep 26 2009, 03:10 PM
Post #2





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



This is a direct attack/accusation:

QUOTE
Why Pilots for 9/11 Truth restrict calculations to the improbable straight line approach path from the antenna to the poles is unclear. It does not come from the FDR, which certainly does not show this uniform approach slope. Could it be that this group has an agenda to prove that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon, rather than a scientific determination to find the truth, come what may? Given the assertion of these pilots that they do not have a position on whether a 757 hit the Pentagon, their simultaneous assertion that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon is contradictory. They are adopting a position that will require them to accept that the plane flew over the Pentagon, and that the complex damage pattern to the poles and the interior of the Pentagon, which fit well enough with the 757 theory, was created by other means. This would appear to be an uncomfortable position for a team which has done much work to obtain and analyze the FDR data, enabling us to see its flaws

Members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth have had over a year to address these concerns, but so far have shown themselves to be unwilling to do so. Whether this represents the position of the majority of members, or just of the executive, is not clear.


Legge is losing it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Sep 26 2009, 03:31 PM
Post #3





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Wow. References Farmer for the completely addressed and debunked claim that the NTSB data completely stops:

QUOTE
39 John Farmer has analyzed this data thoroughly and has concluded that the data finishes up to 6 seconds before
the impact time. His file takes a very long time to download. The relevant conclusion is quoted here:
(cites anonymous proven liar Arabesque). This means that for nearly a
mile there is no information about its speed, course or attitude
. Due to this uncertainty it cannot be scientifically
asserted that the FDR data rules out impact by a 757. There are of course other reasons for not relying on the FDR
data: the known falsehoods in other 9/11 documents.


I swear it's like he simply didn't watch AoP at all and merely googled responses from detractors.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Sep 26 2009, 04:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Sep 26 2009, 04:02 PM
Post #4





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



In a footnote on p. 12 Legge claims that his Postscript, quoted in full in the OP of this thread, "shows that the work of Pilots for 9/11 Studies is not only flawed in placing excess faith in the FDR file, and consequent failure to consider flight paths a little to one side of the VDOT antenna, but also contains crucial errors in calculation."

This post has been edited by Ligon: Sep 26 2009, 04:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Sep 26 2009, 04:46 PM
Post #5





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



As Craig said on p. 9 of his paper Legge says:

QUOTE
John Farmer has analyzed [the raw FDR] data thoroughly and has concluded that the data finishes up to 6 seconds before the impact time. [...] This means that for nearly a mile there is no information about its speed, course or attitude.


As Craig also said Rob addressed this long ago:



This post has been edited by Ligon: Sep 26 2009, 04:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 26 2009, 05:39 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I was gonig to put together a detailed rebuttal, but you know what? We dont even know if this guy is a PhD, he doesnt show how he derived his calculations table, and looking over my CAD program more thoroughly for his calculations, its just absurd to waste too much time on this.

So... i'll just post what i've done already... quotes from his paper in quotes. My replies in bold.


“Frank Legge (PhD)"

There has not been any verification noted that “Frank Legge” is a PhD. Legge cannot be found on “Patriots Question 9/11” as can his peers and co-authors of other papers.

“Too little Debris”

None of the debris has been positively identified as coming from N644AA, American Airlines Flight 77, nor has it been positively identified as coming from a 757-223.

“There are also photos which show debris identifiable as the engine rotor”

Frank was made aware of the following photograph prior to his Revision 3.
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myp...dRB211paint.jpg

Franks reply to the above photo via email.


“It appears that the photo on the left is of the intermediate rotor while the debris photo on the right is of the high pressure rotor. If this is the case it would not be surprising that the indentations do not correspond.”

When made aware the above photograph was taken from aerospaceweb, his source, to compare the left engine to match the right rotor, Frank ignored his contradiction above.

To sum up.. When shown the rotors do not match, Frank claims they are from two separate sections of the engine although he still uses the same photo as source in his paper claiming that they do match. The reason for such ignorance is unclear.


“...combustion chamber,
suspension and wheel of a 757.16 Critics may of course argue that these pieces did not come
from the Pentagon crash site. Doubts are, however, not proofs.”

Nor are photographs sans source, serial number or part number.

“Investigation of the wreckage was carried out by the National Transport Safety Bureau
(NTSB)”


Incorrect. This was pointed out to Legge prior to his revision 4, but ignored.

F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14406




“Anyone who has learned to fly a plane knows that it is essential to pull back on the control
column before touch-down. The pilot thus terminates the descent and then holds the plane off
the runway while speed declines.”

But yet later Legge claims...

"Secondly, they assume
that the pilot would be stupid enough to maintain a constant descent angle from the top of the
antenna all the way to the impact point on the first pole before pulling up."

That is what a pilot is trained to do as you just told us above regarding landing.

This is what Franks pilot view is from the cockpit based on his calculations....



Frank also has to account for the arc west of the antenna which no one saw the aircraft so high...



Let me guess, the pilot flew negative G's to enter a nose down angle looking at the ground after the VDOT? I thought the target was the pentagon?

Its clear Frank has never flown an aircraft.



These are the witness POV for Franks Calculations.

Paik



Morin




Brooks



Lagasse



Turcious



ANC Witnesses




Frank will have to throw all of the above under the bus to hold onto his theory as none of the witnesses describe the above POV or an aircraft plowing down trees.


“Footnote 39” - Missing Seconds Claim
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7163

Claim 2 and 2a.

I have expressed to Frank time and time again to use USGS for his calculation, instead he uses Google Earth and still gets it wrong... , to visit our Debunking FDR Debunking thread, to view our film in full, the list goes on as you can see above... its clear Frank is the one with the agenda as he has ignored all data, witnesses and even his own contradictions, to suit his theory.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IRIQUOIS227
post Sep 26 2009, 06:27 PM
Post #7





Group: Core Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 22-September 08
From: New Mexico
Member No.: 3,841



JESUS H. KRIST!!!
My fellow aviators! Surely such people as yourselves are not still concerned about the approach of the aircraft that DIDN'T plow into the Pentagon!! There is an unending plethora of available data from the building alone to put this item to rest forever. The Pentagon was not struck by a 757. Perhaps an AGM-129, but I doubt even that. not NEAR enough damage. Perhaps some kind of cruise missile, but certainly not an airplane. No wing marks, no engine marks, no wreckage, no bodies except those of the poor bastards working in that area at the time of impact of whatever hit the building. The plume of smoke and a little fire say to me that it was small. It didn't last long as well. The holes in the inner rings stink of cruise missile. Further, the scientist's world wide who don't work for the CIA say the entire building would have been leveled if an aircraft the size of a Boeing 757 had hit it. But an 18 by 16 foot hole? No chance. The roof took thirty seconds to drop, and windows surrounding the alleged entry of this giant bullet were unharmed. Blast proof or not, they wouldn't be there. What was under that big blue tarp? what was that line of dimwits looking for on the ground? wreckage?

I don't think the data concerning turns and approach angles and such is even relevant anymore. Do you? really? I've gone over this data a thousand times (W.A.G.), and my mind is settled that no 757 hit the pentagon, or Shanksville PA. What makes this so easy is there are SO many screwups that it HAD to be the US Govt. trying to foist this damnable catastrophe, and THEN, continue the fraud and all of it's horrible consequences. Then to continue this horror to this very second? I'm sure gents, you can give this a rest.

thank you, and thanks for your work

tedbohne
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 26 2009, 06:28 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Ligon @ Sep 26 2009, 04:02 PM) *
In a footnote on p. 12 Legge claims that his Postscript, quoted in full in the OP of this thread, "shows that the work of Pilots for 9/11 Studies is not only flawed in placing excess faith in the FDR file, and consequent failure to consider flight paths a little to one side of the VDOT antenna, but also contains crucial errors in calculation."




Yeah, and i have told Frank endless times that we dont place "faith" in anything or cite anything as "proof". I have also told him to watch AoP a few times as the FDR heading places the aircraft south of the VDOT. All ignored, obviously...


I have told Frank via email that I will debate him on this topic on air at anytime. This way i dont have to repeat myself endlessly falling on a deaf ear as many will be listening to Frank stumble along...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
panthercat
post Sep 26 2009, 07:45 PM
Post #9





Group: Core Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 14-April 07
From: Pahoa, HI
Member No.: 952



Quote from Dr. Frank Legge: “One has to conclude that these photos which show little debris have resulted from the foreshortening which occurs when the camera is at a distance and close to the ground. There are photos which show debris identifiable as an engine rotor and wheel of a 757: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml . There are photos which show men in white shirts and black trousers, not ordinary workers, hastily collecting debris from the lawn. A point often missed is that the interior walls did not reach the ground.” (Blah, blah, yada, yada, there’s more, but it’s not necessary)
-----------------------------------------------------
OK, so he has a PhD in chemistry, or at least that’s what he claims, which if that is the case, he’s out of his field of expertise. I didn’t bother joining Linkedin to get his full profile. Official imagery on http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pen.../erreurs_en.htm clearly shows Dr. Legge does not have an appendage on which to stand regarding the lack of debris from his “foreshortening hypothesis.” The image in question #3 was taken far enough back to show the entire aircraft, but there are fire trucks taking up space where the airplane should be. Bear in mind this image is from the US Army.

The fact that he sincerely believes a few men in suits can pick up the FOD from a 757 crash is proof the knows very little about aircraft in general, not just flying one. Could you imagine the response from a ground crew after a large twin engine jet crash to, “Fall in for FOD walkdown!” “Up yours” and “Chuck you Farley,” would be the few printable responses. I know it would have been mine! “Does someone want to give me a hand picking up this empennage?” Yeah, right! Tell us about the bunnies, George!

After looking at the aerospace web page he included, he has a lot of nerve to talk about foreshortening, as those images he references are worse than images of a house by a real estate agent. Dr. Legge (I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt) is evidently out of his element. Those parts could have been left there for the purposes of fooling characters such as him and if that is indeed the case, it worked beautifully. If someone had left an accumulator bottle, would you think he would have made any connection to the 757? Where in hell is the rest of the airplane?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
panthercat
post Sep 26 2009, 08:06 PM
Post #10





Group: Core Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 14-April 07
From: Pahoa, HI
Member No.: 952



If it were a missile (who knows?), I'd put my money on a BQM-34 Firebee. A GE-85 is a fairly small engine.

QUOTE (IRIQUOIS227 @ Sep 24 2009, 08:27 PM) *
JESUS H. KRIST!!!
My fellow aviators! Surely such people as yourselves are not still concerned about the approach of the aircraft that DIDN'T plow into the Pentagon!! There is an unending plethora of available data from the building alone to put this item to rest forever. The Pentagon was not struck by a 757. Perhaps an AGM-129, but I doubt even that. not NEAR enough damage. Perhaps some kind of cruise missile, but certainly not an airplane. No wing marks, no engine marks, no wreckage, no bodies except those of the poor bastards working in that area at the time of impact of whatever hit the building. The plume of smoke and a little fire say to me that it was small. It didn't last long as well. The holes in the inner rings stink of cruise missile. Further, the scientist's world wide who don't work for the CIA say the entire building would have been leveled if an aircraft the size of a Boeing 757 had hit it. But an 18 by 16 foot hole? No chance. The roof took thirty seconds to drop, and windows surrounding the alleged entry of this giant bullet were unharmed. Blast proof or not, they wouldn't be there. What was under that big blue tarp? what was that line of dimwits looking for on the ground? wreckage?

I don't think the data concerning turns and approach angles and such is even relevant anymore. Do you? really? I've gone over this data a thousand times (W.A.G.), and my mind is settled that no 757 hit the pentagon, or Shanksville PA. What makes this so easy is there are SO many screwups that it HAD to be the US Govt. trying to foist this damnable catastrophe, and THEN, continue the fraud and all of it's horrible consequences. Then to continue this horror to this very second? I'm sure gents, you can give this a rest.

thank you, and thanks for your work

tedbohne
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 26 2009, 08:26 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (panthercat @ Sep 26 2009, 07:45 PM) *
Dr. Legge (I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt) is evidently out of his element.



Ya think? smile.gif

This guy "Legge" has started something he cannot finish.

I sent an email to Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and Legge, authors of the Nano-Thermite paper, asking them if i can publish a paper in Journal Of 9/11 Studies (JONES) on the WTC Collapse using the same source Legge used for his paper on aviation related aspects of 9/11 at the Pentagon.

I dont expect i'll get a reply.

His paper is not science, its pseudo-science, opinion and speculation, loaded with errors, contradictions, misinformation and now confirmed disinformation.

Legge is discrediting JONES with every revision they let him publish.

Such a shame...


Legge claims his original paper was to reduce infighting within the "movement". Exactly the opposite has occurred. By design? You decide.

Gotta love it when people think they own the "movement".

Its not Legge's name on our work. Its not his FAA certificates up for grabs by the US Govt. Its not Legge recording the FBI nor NTSB regarding the data they provide. One has to ask, what is Legge's motivation, and then ask, what is JONES if they let him publish such attacks publicly?

As i said, Legge has started something he cannot finish. I will see it through.. .albeit wasting as minimal time as possible. Legge is child's play compared to some of the spin i have come across.


Edit to add: I received an email asking me to not refer to the Journal Of 9/11 Studies as JONES. So if anyone wants to use an acronym as pilots love to do... please use JO911S.

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Sep 26 2009, 08:49 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 26 2009, 09:44 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



More lies from Legge in his very first sentence Post Script.

Frank claims i said:

"It has been pointed out by Rob Balsamo, of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, that a pilot on a suicide mission would normally point the nose of the plane at his target."

Please note Legge never sources such a quote because i never said any such thing as "a pilot on a suicide mission would normally point the nose of the plane at his target."

I said/implied all pilots point the nose at their target... this is actually what i said in regards to Legges absurd pitch calculations and assumptions which point the nose at the ground at the VDOT, unable to see the pentagon.



"What pilot points the nose at the ground when he wants to hit a target out in front of him? ie, a runway!

Frank, dont try to assume what pilots would do when you arent a pilot. You'll only insult your own intelligence more."


Why does Legge lie and spin so much? Has anyone verfied his credentials? Why isnt Legge listed at Patriots Question 911?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Sep 26 2009, 11:15 PM
Post #13





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi All!

Legge has problems that are even more basic than the technical problems that have alredy been so capably raised. According to his stated purpose, he is starting with nothing and heading toward nowhere:

QUOTE
To pursue the issue raised in this paper, that flight paths may exist which could produce the observed impact damage, (my emphasis added)(


The weasel words "may" and "could" make his purpose so amorphous that it is meaningless and/or useless. To illustrate, I think the following true statement goes him one better:

"A flight path does exist that would produce the observed impact damage."

Members of this Board may have heard of it. huh.gif It's called the South Path. idea.gif It's just that it has a few problems.

PFT has noted that due to a singular deviation from all prior practice and experience, the universally accepted source of knockdown proof of it (the FDR), is useless because it is adulterated and in any case doesn't support it at all. Moreover, for aerodynamic and spatial reasons, the claim that it produced the damage is at best extremely dubious. And then you have CIT, which has produced independent direct evidence of a different path. Finally, you have the fact that the government has never expressly and officially claimed that there was Any Final Flight Path, let alone that it in addition produced the damage.

And this failure of conventional methods of proof, contrary evidence, and government avoidance of the matter are the real issues - not whether the South Or Some Other Abstract Path could produce the observed damage. Sure they could if there was any reason at all to think they actually happened.


So I'd like to suggest a way for Legge's paper to receive foolproof Peer Review. He should blow us off, maintain his course, and send his final product to the government. Say here's a blueprint to use for an express and official claim that the South Path or Any Other Path As Long As It's Not The North Of Citgo Path produced the observed impact damage. Trumpet that he did so - smear it all over the Internet, put up billboards, put ads in the newspaper, buy some TV time. I'll bet the government does nothing with it, because it is nothing new to them and they would have made the claim years ago if they did not already know that it was horse hockey. That would mean it failed the Peer Review.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Sep 26 2009, 11:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 26 2009, 11:27 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Sep 26 2009, 11:15 PM) *
So I'd like to suggest a way for Legge's paper to receive foolproof Peer Review.


.... That would mean it failed the Peer Review.



Legge et al claims his paper was peer reviewed since his first revision. He is now up to revision 5.

The first indication that legges' paper never under-went scrutiny, and most blatant, are addressed above prior to Legges' revision 3, of which many are still in his paper, each revision getting more speculative, loaded with fallacies and now confirmed disinformation.

It appears Legge is seeking attention and that is all.

I suspect the JO911S is not getting the hits/views they hoped for as Kevin Ryan himself encouraged a full rebuttal paper in hopes of further discussion prior to Legges revision 3.

When i pointed out Legges' absurd errors via email in the only way i know how with a full plate and such elementary errors, Ryan attempted Divide and Conquer tactics to split our organization. Little did Ryan know that we have loyal members who included me on a reply.

I have lost all respect for Legge and Ryan since.

Others will follow im sure. Im prepared for that.

Im willing to debate any one of them based on their claims regarding Pentagon research.

It seems Legge was not looking to reduce infighting, but create more.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Sep 26 2009, 11:57 PM
Post #15





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Rob!

QUOTE
It seems Legge was not looking to reduce infighting, but create more.


To me our only real opponent is the government. What we say is directed at them and their version of the story in the 911 Commission Report. What GL's and other Truthers like Legge say and write is meaningless unless the government says it too. That's why I think it's best to simply direct them all to the government instead of fighting with them (along with my confidence that the government will not adopt what they say). Only our real opponent can make any of their stuff matter.


QUOTE
. . . . only way i know how with a full plate, . . . . .
. . . . . .
Im willing to debate any one of them based on their claims regarding Pentagon research.


Applying the above in reverse, even if you win that debate, it is not meaningful because you did not score points against the government, only some schmuck dumb enough to do their work for them. Maybe ther's better things to spend your scarce and valuable time on.


QUOTE
. . . . Kevin Ryan himself encouraged a full rebuttal paper . . . .


I wish he'd stick to the WTC's where he knows what he is talking about and is doing useful things and consistently addresses himself to the government.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Sep 27 2009, 12:55 AM
Post #16





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Here's another non technical logical flaw in Legge's analysis:

QUOTE
(The G Force Stresses) are still so high that the pilot would know in his bones that this delayed pull-up would risk failure of the project.

Logically the pilot would avoid overstressing the aircraft by pulling up sooner and passing over the light poles. However, if there was some reason why he wanted to make the final impact near horizontal, as occurred, he could still avoid the risk of failure by starting a little steeper and pulling up sooner, spreading the load out over a much wider arc, as shown in the table.


Now wait a minute, how is Hani, who is at at best a very inexperienced pilot of planes several magnitudes less complex than a 757 and has no experience whatsoever in a 757, supposed to know all these things, "in his bones", in his head or elsewhere? How does he know the effect of a delayed pull up, what is logical, the that the concept of over, under and in between stress even exists let alone what the parameters are, or that adjusting the arc was an available option or the proper solution? Ad then, how would he be capable of executing the maneuvers that Legge attributes to him? And I'm sure this is only the start of the fun you can have with this passage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Turbofan_*
post Sep 27 2009, 01:18 AM
Post #17





Guest






Rob, feel free to use these images to for your discussion with Legge, or give me his e-mail address and I'll repond
about FLASH EEPROM erasure and basics of understanding the FDR data vs. his calculations:







Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Sep 27 2009, 01:54 AM
Post #18


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,871
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE
QUOTE
To pursue the issue raised in this paper, that flight paths may exist which could produce the observed impact damage, (my emphasis added)


The weasel words "may" and "could" make his purpose so amorphous that it is meaningless and/or useless. To illustrate, I think the following true statement goes him one better:

"A flight path does exist that would produce the observed impact damage."

Members of this Board may have heard of it. It's called the South Path. It's just that it has a few problems.

PFT has noted that due to a singular deviation from all prior practice and experience, the universally accepted source of knockdown proof of it (the FDR), is useless because it is adulterated and in any case doesn't support it at all. Moreover, for aerodynamic and spatial reasons, the claim that it produced the damage is at best extremely dubious. And then you have CIT, which has produced independent direct evidence of a different path. Finally, you have the fact that the government has never expressly and officially claimed that there was Any Final Flight Path, let alone that it in addition produced the damage.


QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Sep 26 2009, 08:57 PM) *
QUOTE
It seems Legge was not looking to reduce infighting, but create more.

To me our only real opponent is the government. What we say is directed at them and their version of the story in the 911 Commission Report. What GL's and other Truthers like Legge say and write is meaningless unless the government says it too. That's why I think it's best to simply direct them all to the government instead of fighting with them (along with my confidence that the government will not adopt what they say). Only our real opponent can make any of their stuff matter.


Amen to that. This whole thing is a direct attack against the credibility of Pilots and by extension CIT -- and I think it's going to blow up in their faces. Legge is a farce and worse -- an transparent act of utter desperation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 27 2009, 07:11 AM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (painter @ Sep 27 2009, 01:54 AM) *
and I think it's going to blow up in their faces.



It already has.... Five revisions on a supposed "peer-review" paper due to simple math errors, assumptions and blatant misrepresentations?

I had an exchange with Legge on Blogger when he released Revision 4. (i'd link directly to it, but Blogger direct links to comments dont work anymore and the blog entry is now buried somewhere). Legge ignored it all. I predicted Legge will be up to 10 revisions before he gets anything right, if not the paper pulled from JO911S completely.

And in case anyone is wondering, we didnt make any errors in our calculations, there is a reason the entry is more than the slope. Legge is just demonstrating once again he hasnt a clue about aviation or an aircraft in flight. I didnt go over it in the film as the presentation was technical enough, but i do think i mentioned it at one point when GL's were attempting to use it as an excuse. I knew others who are ignorant and make excuse for the govt story would jump on the bait. Legge is taking it hook, line and sinker... wink.gif

I found this pretty funny. Although Legge attempts to source his own enemies to discredit us, he even goes so far to say that his sources are wrong in his Revision 5!

When referencing Myriad: "He makes a small error in calculating the descent angle.."

Small errors at such high speeds are fatal Legge.

When referencing Mackey Parabola: "This is not
quite as realistic as a circular path as the g-force along a parabola would vary"

Yet Mackey claims the G Load is constant along his parabola.

"This does not,
however, prove his calculations are wrong."

Wait, do the forces vary along a parabola as Legge claims? Or are the forces constant as Mackey claims....? Someone is wrong, either Legge saying Mackey is not wrong or Mackey's calculations. Hint: They are both wrong.

Again, just more examples of Legge's paper as a walking contradiction.

Is it any wonder why Legge, Cracky and the other anonymous individuals Legge sources who make excuse for the govt story refuse debate, yet attempt to debate our work sans an opponent?

wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 27 2009, 09:56 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Legge is apparently quite:

Born To Be Lied To - 911 The Musical


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8WxmkAYh0c

Quoting the Illusionist duhbunka-forum and some anonymous hearsay blogger as "science..." that's RICH! rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th January 2022 - 04:13 AM