IPB




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

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

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Frank Legge Begging For Peer Reviewers For Pentagon Paper, gets deleted at 911Blogger, LOL

rob balsamo
post Sep 2 2011, 11:45 AM
Post #21



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,716
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Bruce Sinclair @ Sep 2 2011, 12:26 PM) *
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


Yeah, I know Joel. It's not surprising he jumped the gun again without hearing both sides of the argument. I knew the "endorsement" for Legge would either come from a non-pilot or one who isnt familiar with both sides for the argument. Joel isnt familiar with both sides of the argument. Just as I predicted.

I met Joel through a poorly written article he wrote back in 2007 with respect to our work. He only has 1000 total flight time.

After a brief email exchange bringing him up to speed on the details, he ended up apologizing, issuing corrections to his article, and joining our organization. I havent had much correspondence with him since.

I sent him this email... hopefully i hear from him...

Hi Joel,

First read through this....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21569

Then call me.

You are endorsing garbage.

In the future, please contact me to learn both sides of the argument before endorsing aviation related issues using our banner of Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Many pilots with much more experience than you, who understand both sides of the argument, already have established that anything from Frank Legge is pure garbage. You will too if you understand basic aerodynamics.

As you can see from our conversation below, you jumped the gun in the past, you are doing it again.

Call me.

xxx-xxx-xxxx

Regards,
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org
Full member list at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Photos here http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots



I'm not surprised Legge didn't want to give us the name. Poor Legge. When is he gonna learn.... Legge has been trying to divide our organization and the Truth Movement ever since Capt Latas and I called him out years ago regarding the FDR.

I rarely accuse anyone of "infiltration" or being an "agent", but Legge is certainly appearing to be a good candidate based on his actions over the past few years. It's a shame he isnt as sharp as he probably once was. If Legge is hired to disrupt, those who hired him may want to think about firing his ass as he isnt very good. I hear Neils Harrit even has problems with Legge? whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bruce Sinclair
post Sep 2 2011, 05:48 PM
Post #22


Core Member


Group: Contributor
Posts: 154
Joined: 31-March 08
Member No.: 3,074



Well, at least the mystery of the "favourable review" is solved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 2 2011, 06:12 PM
Post #23



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,716
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Bruce Sinclair @ Sep 2 2011, 06:48 PM) *
Well, at least the mystery of the "favourable review" is solved.



Yes, and this is what David Ray Griffin had to say... but apparently didn't want Frank Legge to know.

Rob,

Have just returned from a 2-week trip to Russia, so I was pleased to get updated on this issue.

No (of course) I did not endorse Legge's paper.

But the focus of my paper was not on the 757 issue but on arguing that this issue is quite unimportant, compared with all the things on which the 9/11 Truth Movement can agree with regard to the Pentagon (as you will soon be able to see if my book comes out on time).

Best,

David



For some reason, David was upset that i shared the above email with Frank Legge and others. Seems David may have succumb to the 9/11 "PR" Movement.

(by the way, according to Frank Legge, DRG knew all this time who "endorsed" the Legge paper, i'll dig it out if i have to. But apparently, DRG didnt feel the need to share that with us. Truth, Lies, PR or Transparency, you decide.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A. Syed
post Sep 2 2011, 06:26 PM
Post #24





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



Well... on the one hand, it's a relief to know that DRG hasn't endorsed Legge's paper. I was worried that DRG would use the Hearings as a venue to say: "I have now revised my position based on the good work of many movement scholars; I now believe a 757 DID hit." It appears that's not going to happen.

But you're right, for him to call the "757 issue" unimportant because we can't agree on it, is a major disappointment. I still maintain my view that probably 95-99% of the movement does not believe a 757 hit, so for him to acknowledge the supposed differences of opinion within the movement is basically to bend over backwards to legitimize the positions of Hoffman and co. and acknowledge those people as having major credibility status within the movement, when it's clear those folks are con artists.

This post has been edited by A. Syed: Sep 2 2011, 07:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 2 2011, 06:55 PM
Post #25



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,716
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (A. Syed @ Sep 2 2011, 07:26 PM) *
Well... on the one hand, it's a relief to know that DRG hasn't endorsed Legge's paper. I was worried that DRG would use the Hearings as a venue to say: "I have now revised my position based on the good work of many movement scholars; I now believe a 757 DID hit." It appears that's not going to happen.

But you're right, for him to call the "757 issue" unimportant because we can't agree on it, is a major disappointment. I still maintain my view that probably 95-99% of the movement does not believe a 757 hit, so for him to acknowledge the supposed differences of opinion within the movement is basically to bend over backwards to legitimize the positions of Hoffman and co. and acknowledge those people as having major credibility status within the movement, when it's clear those folks are con artists.


Yeah, i hear ya.

DRG has given me a load of grief via email for cc'ing Frank Legge on a reply with his above email attached. But when one looks at the email itself, is not really anything more than what DRG has expressed on Amazon aside from the fact that he says he didnt endorse the Legge paper.

Now why would DRG get so upset about that??

Why exactly would DRG not want Legge to know that he does not endorse the Legge "paper"? Why exactly would DRG omit which P4T member did? (as indicated by Legge that DRG knew who did endorse the 'paper').
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 3 2011, 08:30 AM
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (DRG)
But the focus of my paper was not on the 757 issue but on arguing that this issue is quite unimportant, compared with all the things on which the 9/11 Truth Movement can agree with regard to the Pentagon


You hit the nail on the head (as usual) Adam. That was just a cop out answer. Maybe the price DRG had to pay before he could talk at the Toronto Hearings.

Exactly what does the 95% v 5% of the "9/11 Truth Movement" agree on? Why is more importance put on what this lying shower of self imposed cred cops say?

The "5%" have tied their flag to Frank Legge's ridiculous FDR mast. That it was "Flight 77" as per the OCT, warts and all.

The "Toronto hearings" are going to come and go. Make no mistake, they are just a show of strength as per Bush's "you're either with us or against us" ultimatum. They've polluted the waters on the Pentagon. CD is next. A pure LIHOP control of information exercise. An obscene headcount of just who has lowered their sights on the truth and the importance of PR.

It saddens me more that more people haven't stepped out of the wings and called bullshit on these people.

"Unimportant"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 4 2011, 08:14 AM
Post #27



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,716
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 2 2011, 12:45 PM) *
Yeah, I know Joel. It's not surprising he jumped the gun again without hearing both sides of the argument. I knew the "endorsement" for Legge would either come from a non-pilot or one who isnt familiar with both sides for the argument. Joel isnt familiar with both sides of the argument. Just as I predicted.

I met Joel through a poorly written article he wrote back in 2007 with respect to our work. He only has 1000 total flight time.

After a brief email exchange bringing him up to speed on the details, he ended up apologizing, issuing corrections to his article, and joining our organization. I havent had much correspondence with him since.

I sent him this email... hopefully i hear from him...

Hi Joel,

First read through this....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21569

Then call me.

You are endorsing garbage.

In the future, please contact me to learn both sides of the argument before endorsing aviation related issues using our banner of Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Many pilots with much more experience than you, who understand both sides of the argument, already have established that anything from Frank Legge is pure garbage. You will too if you understand basic aerodynamics.

As you can see from our conversation below, you jumped the gun in the past, you are doing it again.

Call me.

xxx-xxx-xxxx

Regards,
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org
Full member list at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Photos here http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots



I'm not surprised Legge didn't want to give us the name. Poor Legge. When is he gonna learn.... Legge has been trying to divide our organization and the Truth Movement ever since Capt Latas and I called him out years ago regarding the FDR.

I rarely accuse anyone of "infiltration" or being an "agent", but Legge is certainly appearing to be a good candidate based on his actions over the past few years. It's a shame he isnt as sharp as he probably once was. If Legge is hired to disrupt, those who hired him may want to think about firing his ass as he isnt very good. I hear Neils Harrit even has problems with Legge? whistle.gif



Joel has replied to the above email -

I did review all that was written on our website, so I did the homework. I
suggested objections and changes to Legges' article but let stand things
which were of legitimate disagreement and essentially unprovable. That
isn't an endorsement, but an allowance for him to make his opinions known.

On a note of courtesy, I really object to the attacking tone you and others
of our group are taking. Using words like "you are endorsing garbage" is
hardly helpful. As for my mere 1,000 hours, you know nothing about my
extensive understanding of aerodynamics, which aren't reflected in hours
flown. Talking down to those you disagree with is very unproductive and
leaves me little motivation to talk to you personally.

I chastized Legge for questioning your motives and competency, and he agreed
to remove it from the article. Everyone should be more civil about this
discussion.

Joel Skousen.


Joel says, "I suggested objections and changes to Legges' article but let stand things which were of legitimate disagreement and essentially unprovable. That isn't an endorsement, but an allowance for him to make his opinions known." (bold emphasis mine)

I guess someone forgot to tell Joel that the "Journal Of 9/11 Studies" is not an Op-Ed, but rather described as a "peer-reviewed scientific journal."

Then again, considering the past few papers published in the Journal, it is clearly more of an Op-Ed.

I went on to ask Joel -

An aircraft cannot remain stable, controllable and/or hold together at 130-150 knots over it's max operating speed.. .and pull G's.

Do you disagree with the above statement? If so, i'll have more for you with respect to how much you understand aerodynamics.

As for our "tone", we didnt start this fight, nor the "tone".

Clearly you arent familiar with both sides of the argument.



Joel dodged and weaved never answering the question. I'll share the rest should Joel continue to dodge questions.

So, to sum it up...

Basically, since Legge's last 2 papers were torn to shreds and thoroughly discredited using real aeronautical knowledge and aerodynamics, Legge got desperate and went down our list of Core members one by one trying to find an "endorsement" from a "Pilots For 911 Truth" member for his latest garbage. Searching for his prey, Legge knows that our most heavily credentialed, experienced and active core members will never endorse his garbage, so he skipped most of them. Some simply weren't interested given Legge's reputation for misleading statements and spin, eg "problem child". Other active core members who also have excellent credentials, such as Bruce and Shelton, Legge hasn't heard much from in the past... so Legge tried them. It backfired. They gave his "paper" scathing reviews, not what Legge wanted to hear.

Legge's desperation grew worse... he kept trying to find anyone on our list to get an "endorsement", clearly using the philosophy that if you throw enough shit at the wall, something will stick. Legge came upon Joel's name. Joel Skousen is pretty easy to find through a simple google search so Legge tried him. Joel didn't read any rebuttals to Legge's garbage nor contact me personally. Joel also has a reputation of prematurely writing articles without contacting the organization and/or individual in which his article is focused, and then later having to post an apology and corrections. Legge reeled him in hook, line and sinker.

Legge's motives and objectives are clear, attempt divide and conquer techniques through any means necessary. Unfortunately for Legge, his actions keep backfiring. Legge's credibility has been thoroughly destroyed, so now it seems he wishes to destroy the credibility of some of our inactive and least experienced/credentialed Core members. Legge's actions are similar to that of a child predator, preying on the weak and uninformed to further his own satisfaction and agenda. Hopefully Joel will come to his senses and review the information i have given him. Joel had an open mind after I contacted him initially about his inaccurate hit piece he wrote back in 2007 so hopefully he will actually review the material, not just on our website as none of our rebuttals to Legge are on the main site (Legge doesn't deserve that type of publicity), but here on our forum.

If not, then we will have no choice but to remove Joel from our Roster during our next update (of which I have many more pilots to add). If Legge wants to help us sift through our least experienced core members who are inactive and refuse to address the issues, I welcome the opportunity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A. Syed
post Sep 4 2011, 03:16 PM
Post #28





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



The paper has just been published.

Note how none of the places it's posted at, including the "Journal," give any names as to who "reviewed" it.

This post has been edited by A. Syed: Sep 4 2011, 03:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 4 2011, 03:21 PM
Post #29



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,716
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (A. Syed @ Sep 4 2011, 04:16 PM) *
The paper has just been published.

Note how none of the places it's posted at, including the "Journal," give any names as to who "reviewed" it.



Legge's new "paper" was debunked over 2 years ago when "Reheat" attempted the same absurd argument.

9/11: The North Flight Path (official Release), Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible

The North Approach, Technical Supplement to "9/11: The North Flight Path"

Speed based on Radar

His previous two "papers" were also summarily debunked.

Warren Stutt Decode Shows Altitude too high to Impact Pentagon
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10778240

Warren Stutt's admitted lack of expertise with respect to FDR Investigation
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10799563

RA - PA Correlation, proving the "Altitude Divergence" calculated by Legge/Stutt was due to RA measuring from an object higher than ground level. Fatal to the Legge/Stutt argument.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794074

If Legge/Stutt "Altitude Divergence" calculations were correct, Aircraft would be slamming into the ground. IAD ILS RWY 01R Approach Analysis, Instruments required for IFR Flight Based on Regulation.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793490

Calculations based on Stutt Theory with respect to RA Tracking Capability, proving Stutt's theory false.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794159

Explains Lack Of Attention To Detail in the very first paragraph of the Legge/Stutt "Paper"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793061

Proof of Legge trying to weasel his way out of mis/disinformation he has presented
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793501

A Response To Frank Legge And Warren Stutt, P4T rebuttal to Legge/Stutt "Paper" and "Rebuttal"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21025


Now if he can only get someone on his side who has extensive aeronautical knowledge and understands aerodynamics. Then again, we already know what happened when he tried....

"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." - Lt Col Shelton Lankford


"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." - Captain Bruce Sinclair


Not even laymen with respect to aviation will endorse Legge's "paper".

"Rob,

Have just returned from a 2-week trip to Russia, so I was pleased to get updated on this issue.

No (of course) I did not endorse Legge's paper." - David Ray Griffin


For someone who claims to question 9/11, Frank Legge sure does spend an enormous amount of time trying to prove the govt story.... if it quacks like a duck...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Sep 5 2011, 11:24 AM
Post #30





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



First Review by Shelton (Maturin42) of Legge/Chandler paper purporting to refute the work of CIT

Since the paper has been posted, here is the first review I submitted. Steven Jones forwarded the first version for review, and I agreed to do it.

The captioned paper, by Frank Legge and David Chandler was submitted for my review via Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Rob Balsamo.

All the hundreds of millions of people who, in their time, believed the Earth was flat never succeeded in unrounding it by an inch.” — Isaac Asimov

The Pentacon and National Security Alert, along with the information posted at the Citizen Investigation Team website comprises a body of work assembled by a team of researchers who did something that has been done too rarely among those seeking answers to the burgeoning list of questions surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 - direct investigation, largely on-site, and using first-person witness accounts directly from the mouth of the witnesses themselves. The documentary, hereafter referred to as NSA, and the growing collection of information on the CIT website, along with a number of threads on the Pilots for 911 Truth forum comprise one of the most comprehensive bodies of evidence concerning the Pentagon event that exist outside the classified vaults of the federal government.
From the time their initial findings were published, in the form of “The Pentacon” to the present day, and, as their research product began to gain traction, CIT has been subjected to outrageous attacks the likes of which have rarely been seen, primarily from a group of individuals whose qualifications and expertise lies in other disciplines than aviation and who have not produced any independent work of their own related to the Pentagon. Their sole purpose, judging from their works, has been to discredit other work done by other researchers related to the Pentagon, and to work exclusively to support the official scenario in which a hi- jacked Boeing 757 crashed into the newly renovated wing of the Pentagon.
The truth community has grown accustomed to attacks from those who defend the official version of events, in which only Islamist extremist hijackers, hapless and ineffectual but well-meaning government officials, and innocent victims played a part. In the scientific and academic communities, the findings of explosive residue in the Manhattan dust, and
the growing numbers of Architects and Engineers going on the record to challenge the various gambits by NIST to provide non-explanatory explanations of the Twin Towers' and Building 7's collapse, mutual support and encouragement from other professional groups has largely been the rule. Schisms have occurred - notably around the explanations proffered by Dr. Judy Wood, who attempts to build a case around more exotic explanations involving Directed Energy Weapons, “dustified” steel, mini-nuclear devices, and other alleged, but generally unknown, technologies and effects - and their counterparts with a focus on the aircraft- the “no-plane enthusiasts”. The supporters of the more exotic theories have come under heavy criticism and divisive rhetoric has been the result, unfortunately providing fodder for a large number of public criticisms and sarcastic jibes that are routinely used to attempt to put serious researchers on the defensive any time they manage to appear on mainstream media outlets. Conflation of fringe theories with the solid research of Dr. David Ray Griffin, Dr. Steven Jones, Richard Gage, and other mainstream researchers and authors is a favorite tactic used by those eager to tar all 9/11 researchers and destroy or diminish their credibility.
Leveraging the fringe nature of the Wood theories and the No-Plane group, and emulating the worst of the mainstream media, the authors of this paper set the stage by reference to those cases and clearly intend to imply that CIT and their well-documented work is a similar instance. This view is not consistent with an honest viewing of CIT’s work and an honest appraisal of the relative strength of their case and that of their critics.
The subject paper is a work about which it is legitimate to ask, “what is the purpose of this and other similar papers by Dr. Legge directed at the CIT findings?” Is it an honest attempt to evaluate the evidence and methods used by CIT and point out flaws or mistakes, or is it a dishonest hit piece intended to provide a thin gloss of scholarly method to a shabby personal attack on researchers who have brought to light important facts refuting the official government account. An attempt to refute a body of evidence is normally a legitimate endeavor when there is substantial counter-evidence that has either been ignored or falsified in support of a thesis. No such body of counter-evidence exists. Since CIT has provided testimony of the witnesses in their own words and in context, and
included the long-form record of the interviews, and they, themselves, make the point that the witnesses at the time of the interviews believed they saw an impact, the fragmentary and context-less quotes plucked out of the statements and included in the Legge paper as rebuttal create a false impression - that CIT was attempting to misrepresent the
witnesses. CIT has made it clear that none of the witnesses have retracted their statements supporting the North side approach, nor have they accused CIT of misrepresenting what they said, even after viewing the video. CIT, and many others who have examined the facts, maintain that the strong evidence supporting the position of the aircraft passing on the North side of the Citgo station makes moot the witnesses’ beliefs that an impact occurred, on the grounds that such an impact could not occur without leaving telltale evidence conflicting with the markings and artifacts seen at the scene. If it had, the evidence on the ground would have had to be radically different from the scene at and around the Pentagon due to the angle at which the aircraft approached. The approach of the aircraft as observed is consistent only with pre-staged damage, a flyover, and a well-timed explosion to create the illusion of an aircraft collision with the building. Although many researchers were suspicious of the curious lack of typical wreckage at the Pentagon, numerous anomalies including a paucity of physical evidence of a crash (seats, bodies, luggage, large aircraft pieces), caused many people to doubt the scenario presented by the government. The effect of CIT’s evidence is to expose the Pentagon as revealing an elaborate staging of a terrorist event that reveals knowing complicity of a number of actors, inconsistent with a “let it happen” or other terrorist driven scenarios.
Statements that are false on their face have no place in any honest attempt at criticism. The Legge paper has an unusually high number of false statements and allegations, particularly for one which has been in the works for the amount of time that this one has, in its several editions. It is filled with straw-man arguments, unsupported and doubtful opinion, selective use of witnesses, appeals to non-authoritative authority, and the ignoring of “best evidence” in favor of non-conclusive speculations. Data obtained from government sources is accepted unquestioned and deferred to especially when it helps bolster the case against CIT.
Examples of the foregoing include:
1. Failure to examine the strongest NOC witnesses.
2. Inclusion of witnesses who were not in a position to see the reference points - aircraft and Citgo station as refuting those who were.
3. Reference to a blog entry “suggesting” accumulated evidence of impact is so substantial that an assertion of impact is somehow evidence.
4. Use of an egregious and irrelevant straw man to provide a patina of scientific gloss by calculating g-forces on an aircraft attempting to perform an impossible task - squaring the aircraft position North of the Citgo with the damage path at the Pentagon, which is exactly the point demonstrated by CIT and several analyses by P49T. An aircraft from that position cannot maneuver to achieve the required flight path to conform to the damage path. Neither CIT nor Legge/Chandler, nor anyone else among the well-placed witnesses has alleged that the aircraft attempted any such thing. (1)
5. Use of Fig. 5 (Hoffman's illustration of the Pentagon sticking up in the otherwise flat landscape, with an oversize aircraft flying over) to illustrate visibility of an overflight by omitting the many obstructions to vision from various vantage points in the Pentagon area.
6. Use of Flight Data Recorder data when it supports a claim but disregarding it when it conflicts with the official story.
7. Reliance on a missing 4 seconds of data from the FDR when no such data has been recognized or credited by other researchers or FDR experts and has been discredited by FDR experts.
The authors claim that “the bulk” of witnesses agree with physical data indicating impact. That is analogous to an investigator drawing an average among witnesses to a murder between those who were in the room and saw “A” point the gun and fire it, and a larger number who simply heard the shots and saw “B” running from the room and concluded that “B” had done it. The “bulk” of the witnesses opinion that “B” fired the shots would be persuasive were there not other important criteria to apply - namely, which group has the better basis for credibility? In the present case, the most weight is given by CIT to those who are positioned to observe both the aircraft and the landmark in question - the Citgo station. These same witnesses were not well-placed to judge impact, due to distance and a very large distraction - a violent explosion and huge clouds of black smoke.
One problem with attempts to evaluate witness information is the lack of equivalence in the way it is presented. CIT's witnesses are presented in
their own words in thorough video interviews. The contrary witnesses, to the extent that their testimony is presented at all, are not interviewed on video, and are frequently referred to by sentence fragments or context-free paraphrasing.
The authors "assume away" the controversy existing from the first minutes of the aftermath of the attack related to the atypical appearance of the "crash scene". Anyone familiar with aircraft investigation would challenge de Boer’s assertion that a few pieces of purported aircraft wreckage that remain to this day unidentified by the usual method of matching of serialized parts to the aircraft maintenance records, in any way establishes the identity of the airframe or even impact itself. This is doubly rendered doubtful by the photographic record of post-crash dashing about on the Pentagon lawn of unidentified persons carrying what look like pieces of “aircraft wreckage”, in flagrant violation of any protocols of accident investigation or crime scene security. It begs the question whether they were collecting them or distributing them, but in any case, an accident investigator or crime scene investigator would view the activity as being at best egregiously in violation of procedure, and at worst, criminal contamination of the evidence and scene. The sequestering of the evidence, the inconsistencies around the flight data and cockpit voice recorders, and the lack of information about the individuals involved only adds to the suspicious nature of the government’s action.
There is consistent downplaying in the Legge paper of the importance of the CIT witnesses who were in the best position and with the clearest view of the events, and able to see both the aircraft and the Citgo station. Events that are testified to in their statements that would be less subject to being mistaken are ignored in favor of those aspects they were less able to view or which were likely to be subject to deception. The opinion of experienced pilots about aircraft capabilities and limitations are ignored in favor of speculation by the authors and others outside their field of expertise.
The authors claim that “destructive dissension has arisen”, and that is undeniably true. This destructive dissension is centered on the website 911Blogger, the website that initially banned many contributors who now
blog at Pilots for 911 Truth and CIT and their supporters, while allowing the attacks on CIT to continue unabated and uncensored on the site. The authors do not mention the role they and their close allies played in bringing about that dissension. This censorship prompted an article in the Rock Creek Free Press questioning 9/11 Blogger’s motives in acting as censors while continuing to host scurrilous attacks on CIT
The two Pentagon police officers, whose statements appear in the CIT record numerous times, are not analyzed in the Legge paper in any depth except to point out that they were emphatic about having seen the aircraft impact. Sgt. LaGasse, in particular, being under the canopy refueling his vehicle was equally emphatic that it was impossible for him to be mistaken about the position of the aircraft relative to the station (this part apparently escaped the notice of the author). Had LaGasse been describing an aircraft on the south side, or even directly overhead, he would have seen something entirely different, if he had seen anything at all. Instead, both he and Sgt. Brooks drew almost identical paths showing the aircraft passing on the north side of the station and continuing without any dramatic maneuvering to the Pentagon. Sgt. LaGasse was recorded by the Citgo station cameras in the act of refueling his vehicle, which verifies his position and reactions.
The important thing about the unanimity of the 13 witnesses questioned at length by CIT is that they unequivocally establish the aircraft inbound to the Pentagon on a track North of the Citgo. From that position, it has already rendered it impossible that it could create the damage path from pole number 1 to the punch-out hole in the “C” ring of the Pentagon. Any course correction attempt, as is explained by the authors, would have not have been successful and would very likely have destroyed the aircraft in the process, as it would have been well outside the flight envelope for the 757.
The authors use the fact that most eyewitnesses, even those who CIT references, believe the aircraft impacted the building. In previous iterations of their writings attacking CIT they have implied that CIT attempted to mislead the viewers of NSA as to this fact. CIT has never asserted anything of the sort. The eyewitnesses were unwitting that the position in which their testimony places the aircraft is irreconcilable with
the damage trail and thus fatal to the hypothesis that the aircraft hit the building. Even after they are told the implications of the North of the Citgo path, they are equally adamant that the path they drew and described was what they observed. Legge attempts to de-emphasize the importance of the position of the aircraft and give the impression that the impact was the main thrust of the statements, when any viewing of the interviews must conclude that in fact, the position of the aircraft relative to the Citgo, Navy Annex, and other landmarks, was the most relevant issue, given that an impact from that position would instantly be identifiable as presenting conflicting wreckage patterns. At least one CIT critic has argued that even though the light poles and generator damage were staged, nevertheless the aircraft seen on the NOC flight path did collide with the Pentagon. This argument is, at best, incomprehensible, since it explains nothing.
Collision with the Pentagon was exactly what the entire scenario at the Pentagon was intended to establish. The shortage of the usual accoutrements of legitimate aircraft crash scenes - the lack of a convincing photographic record from a building ringed with video, the curiously sparse fire and lack of jet fuel odor reported by survivors - all presented challenges to the government version of events well before discovery of the alignment of the witnesses behind one incontrovertible fact: the aircraft passed over Arlington in a position negating any chance of creating the damage trail.
Impossibility is a concept that is appealed to in other aspects of 9/11. For example, much is made, and correctly so, of the fact that steel buildings do not lose their strength and fall when exposed to ordinary office fires or even office fires fueled by kerosene. Ordinary fire cannot weaken or melt steel to produce catastrophic collapse in a building that is built to modern building codes. The science of aerodynamics provides the criteria for declaring that the aircraft could not have both flown the NOC flight path AND created the damage trail. Aerodynamic impossibility has the same scientific validity as any other physical science, as any pilot should be able to attest. While I have not evaluated the calculations of the authors in showing that the aircraft could not have accomplished the maneuver to conform to the evidentiary wreckage trail, they appear to recognize the fact, and Rob Balsamo and analysts at P49T provided
several good visualizations of what such a maneuver attempt would look like.
My qualifications for my opinion about the capabilities of the plane in question are stated below. Having been trained in air-to-ground and air- to-air combat, and having executed countless bombing runs, high and low angle, in the A-4, as well as numerous attack profiles and maneuvers in both light attack and transport category aircraft, what is presented by the witnesses is a classic description of an overshoot. The situation can be described as follows: The 5 light poles said to have been felled by the inbound aircraft, the damaged generator trailer, the hole in the facade, the path of damage through the building to the “punch-out” hole in the C ring, define a straight line from which the aircraft must not deviate more than a few feet. In order to conform to the flight path which is laid out on the ground and defined by the alleged damage, the aircraft must remain on the South side of Columbia Pike, lined up with the downed light poles, the damaged generator, the entry hole, and the wedge of destruction in the Pentagon. What is immediately clear to any trained pilot, particularly one who is experienced in precision maneuvering at low altitude and high speed, is that an aircraft that appears North of the Citgo inbound toward the Pentagon has badly overshot the required course to be consistent with ground evidence. Were I to find myself in the same position in the A-4, one of the most nimble aircraft in the Marine Corps fleet at the time, I could not duplicate that flight path, nor could anyone else. Attempting it in the C-130 would be foolhardy and most likely fatal. The 757 would doubtless fare worse. This fact, and I use this word advisedly, since 13 unanimous, well-situated, and un-refuted witnesses can be said to have established fact in this instance, is impossible to square with the official story, and in particular, the “evidence” that it is obvious had to have been (incompetently) staged in order to sell the event as an attack by a hijacked aircraft on the Pentagon. How many opinions that claim the impossible happened does it take to make it so?
I refer you to Mr. Asimov's quote, above.
The attempts to refute the CIT witnesses using highly selective and dubious conclusions, self-referential and sweeping assertions, and unqualified blog posts are unworthy of anyone pretending to adhere to any standard of scholarship. Quoting a member of CIT, Craig Ranke, "in order to refute this evidence, it is necessary to provide evidence to the contrary of greater strength. The instant paper is an obvious attempt to “spin” events to damage a serious and commendable contribution to the evidence pool of the Truth movement. These authors have failed.
Publishing it in its current form does a disservice to the cause of uncovering the truth about 9/11, and further contributes to the very dissension about which they claim to warn us.

About the commenter. LtCol. Shelton F. Lankford, USMC (Ret.) was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Marine Corps from the Navy ROTC program at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, N.C. He completed the Basic Officer’s Course in Quantico, VA in 1965, and entered Navy flight training in Pensacola, Florida. After basic flight training, he completed basic Jet training in Meridian, MS, completed initial carrier qualification in Pensacola, and advanced Jet training, including carrier qualification in the F9F-8T, and air to air combat training in the F-11 in Beeville, Tx, receiving his wings in 1967. He was assigned to VMA-332 in Cherry Point, NC for operational qualification in the A-4E Attack aircraft, and after combat qualification in the A-4, was reassigned in early 1968 to Marine Attack Squadron 121 operating from Chu Lai Air Base in the Republic of Vietnam. While assigned there, he flew 303 combat sorties in support of Marine and task force operations. During this assignment, he was detached to serve a three-month assignment as a forward air controller for 1st Bn. 1st Marines operating on the DMZ and later South of Da Nang Air Base before rejoining Marine Aircraft Group 12 at Chu Lai, where he completed his tour in early 1969.
Upon reassignment to Cherry Point, NC he received transition training in the KC-130 aircraft, qualifying as a command pilot. He was deployed to Okinawa and flew missions on detachments out of Thailand in support of Marine and Navy operations, and transport missions in South Vietnam. He was trained as an Aviation Safety Officer at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA. He holds a BA Degree in Psychology from UNC - CH and a Master of Science Degree in Systems Management from the University of Southern California. He holds 32 awards of the air medal, and the Distinguished Flying Cross for action in Feb. 1968, and amassed over 10,000 flight hours in his flying career. He retired from active service in
Oct. 1984.
(1) For additional exploration and visualizations of the North flight path and the witness testimony, see http://video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509#, and "The North Approach - Technical Supplement to 9/11: the North Flight Path" (NoC_TechPaperPDF.pdf) from Pilotsfor911Truth.org.

Attached File  Comments_on_Legge_Paper.pdf ( 94.02K ) Number of downloads: 70


This post has been edited by maturin42: Sep 5 2011, 11:25 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Sep 5 2011, 11:42 AM
Post #31





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



This is the second and last review I did of the Legge/Chandler Paper. The paper is posted on Legge's blog on 9/11 Blogger
Shelton F. Lankford
(maturin42)


Second Review of Alleged Refutation of 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) August, 2011

“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.” Shelton F. Lankford, M. S., Systems Managment, LtCol. USMC (Ret.) Combat Pilot, Vietnam, 10,000+ flight hours, Distinguished Flying Cross, Air Medal (32 Awards) Reviewer.

Introduction
The captioned paper is largely a reprint of the first version of an attempt to discredit the work of Citizen Investigation Team as reflected in their film “National Security Alert” (NSA), in which they document the testimony of 13 witnesses to the approach, and apparent explosion of a large commercial aircraft purported to be American Airlines Flight 77 on Sept. 11, 2001. It appears to be a continuation of the effort that was mounted by a small group of self-styled 9/11 Truth advocates who suddenly emerged as analysts of the Pentagon attack shortly after Pilots for 9/11 Truth’s findings and CIT’s PentaCon and National Security Alert were beginning to gain traction within the 9/11 Truth community. These critics were not particularly known previously for their interest, nor expertise, in disciplines - e.g. aviation, and, astonishingly, Flight Data Recording - pertinent to the Pentagon case. The vicious nature of the attacks on Pilots and CIT was unexpected and, once it sank in that it was a frontal assault on their research, provoked some in- kind responses by their defenders. The instant paper is an apparent continuation of the effort to marginalize Pentagon analysts, CIT and Pilots for 911 Truth, who challenge the official government account by questioning whether the damage to the building and its surroundings was caused by an aircraft at all, since the more it was examined, the less probable that finding seemed.

This paper, if anything, calls attention to the implausibility of the official version of events as opposed to refuting CIT’s findings. For example, CIT’s witness pool is described as “small” and “selected”, as though the pool they were citing were larger and more random. The witness pool “selected” by the authors, presumably the strongest, amounts to five individuals, a little over 1/3 of the pool represented as direct witnesses in their own words in National Security Alert, the film produced by CIT that documents the eyewitness testimony. Of course, as in previous critiques of CIT’s work, a much larger group who are claimed to have seen the aircraft crash into the building are lumped into the mix whether it can be shown that they saw anything relevant or not.
NSA’s very clear and detailed account of the witness’ locations, visible landmarks, ability to see the aircraft and its relationship to the surroundings, and articulations of the maneuvering of the aircraft, are in stark contrast to the limitations of the five cited in this paper, who are distinguished primarily by their being relatively poorly placed to see the relevant landmarks and/ or the aircraft, and, for those not interviewed in NSA, unverified. As is the case with these and other CIT critics, much of the interview material and video is a product of CIT field work documented in NSA, or extant news reports. CIT has accounted for and posted available information on all the claimed “impact witnesses”. For a listing of and, where applicable, an accounting for those witnesses, see < http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82 >.

As CIT examined the accounts of those who had been identified in an oral history project conducted in the weeks and months following 9/11/01, following up on their initial group who were in the immediate vicinity of the Citgo station, the picture emerged of an aircraft that could not possibly have done the directional damage attributed to it. The fact that most of the witnesses believed that the aircraft that they saw inbound to the Pentagon in fact struck the Pentagon is unsurprising and was explicitly noted in NSA’s narration. CIT had never claimed that the witnesses supported overflight except insofar as their detailed testimony confirms the aircraft on a course north of the Citgo gas station from which it could not possibly have caused the directional damage to the Pentagon or its surroundings. Overflight is put forward by CIT as the only plausible explanation for an aircraft on a course from which it could not have crashed into the Pentagon without producing directional damage that would be totally inconsistent with the physical evidence put forth to support the official story.

The strongest and most credible witness statements are presented by those in the immediate vicinity of the Citgo gas station. The orientation of the station and its physical properties make it virtually impossible that those witnesses were mistaken as to the position of the aircraft relative to the station. In the most dramatic, but far from the only such example, Sgt LeGassee, was under the canopy of the station, his position verified by security cameras at the station. A position from which he most likely would not have seen the aircraft at all had it been south of the station, since that direction was blocked from his view by the station itself. The video makes that fact obvious. It is also significant to note that the northern course witnesses (there appear to be NO southern course witnesses) maintained their description of the plane’s position even after learning of the incompatibility of that course and impact. The authors even agree that the north course is incompatible with impact and the directional damage observed, but, in an astonishing non-sequitur, assert that everyone thought it impacted so the one thing that all 12 of the direct, well-positioned, and very articulate eyewitnesses agree upon must be mistaken.
The authors even go through flights of aerodynamic fancy culminating in “proof” that an aircraft north of the station could not maneuver to achieve the required Southern approach. But the
presence of a huge explosion and (as they noted) two examples of aircraft flying into buildings in New York that day convinced almost everyone with a television set that it was the third such occurrence.
The authors assert, in the absence of any verified witnesses to the plane in the position it must be in to contact the light poles, generator, entry hole, and to plow through the building directionally, that the CIT witnesses are simply wrong, mistaken, and that an impact that they conclude that they saw trumps any contrary evidence. They assert that the five witnesses they selected refute the flyover scenario, even though those witnesses do not describe a southern flight path, and are ambiguous at best. The assertions by witnesses that impact occurred is about as surprising, and as convincing as would be an audience member at the “disappearance” of the statue of liberty, performed by David Copperfield, if particularly gullible audience members really believed that the illusionist had dematerialized the landmark in New York Harbor ( http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=VAEw-gtDkO4 ).
Even the authors make the point that many, if not most, people had been conditioned by the previous events of the day in New York. The expectation had already been created in the mind of anyone aware of those events, that an aircraft inbound to the seat of U. S. military power could only intend one thing - destruction similar to that visited on New York that same day.
Summary and Conclusion (from Legge/Chandler paper) Reviewer comments in italics.
The calculations we have displayed here show extreme values for the g-force required to deviate from the initial path to pass north of the Citgo service station, 4.3g being the lowest conceivable value, requiring that Morin’s testimony be totally set aside for no apparent reason, and the impossible 12.1g if some of Morin’s testimony is accepted. The bank angles are even more telling, since they would be clearly observable, 77° being the lowest possible. These values are confirmable by the reader using free software tools.
[ Reviewer comment] Morin was situated in between two parallel sections of the annex in an area comparable to an alley between two buildings. His view of the aircraft passing overhead was necessarily a fraction of a second. Here the authors create a virtual mountain of assertion from a molehill of evidence that is based on the entirely unrealistic airspeeds alleged by the official story, and the very fleeting glimpse of the aircraft described by Morin. This fleeting glimpse is the foundation of a great deal of conjecture about the path that follows, used to attempt to refute the clear testimony of witnesses with much longer periods of unobstructed observation.
The force calculated is well beyond the legal [ Reviewer comment] (a better word would be ‘design’ - sfl) limit for this aircraft, 2.5 g, and also above the likely strength safety margin.

Control of the aircraft, even at the lowest computed g-force, would be impossible for other than a highly trained aerobatic pilot and the physical survival of the aircraft would be at least in doubt.

The bank angle would be so steep as to astonish observers and be well remembered and frequently reported, but steep bank angles were not reported at all. Nothing more than a slight bank was described, even by those observers who claimed to see the path of the plane clearly enough to feel sure it was north of the Citgo service station.
It is physically impossible for a passenger plane to pull sharply out of a descent at a steep bank angle. The plane was descending steeply but managed to quickly level off, hence could not have been steeply banked.
It is physically impossible for any plane to pass NOC at the reported speed without banking steeply, hence the few witnesses who claimed to have observed the north path were necessarily mistaken about the path of the plane. Several such witnesses reported that the plane was flying level in the vicinity of the Navy Annex, in complete contradiction of the curved NOC path. The NOC witnesses are outnumbered by witnesses to impact by about 10 to 1, or about twice that if we disqualify the NOC witnesses who contradicted themselves by reporting that they saw the impact. There is a complete absence of witnesses to the plane flying over the Pentagon, though hundreds of people were in a position to see it and the sight would have been striking, commencing, or approaching, with a remarkably steep bank.

[ Reviewer comment] The “10 to 1” number is derived by lumping together all the alleged witnesses who have ever been said to have seen anything that day, whether it can be shown that they saw anything or not. It is somewhat surprising that the authors stopped there. They might well have called in the relatives of those people known to be in the area, since thanks to the nonstop breathless coverage in the mainstream media, practically everyone in the country thought that the plane hit the Pentagon.

The impossibility of the aircraft impacting the building without producing contradicting directional damage has been shown. The testimony of twelve impartial and well-placed individuals who show no ambiguity at all in their description of a north side approach is simply dismissed. A “10-to-1” ratio is alleged for impact witnesses, but the position witnesses are 12 to 0. And the impact witnesses are simply not equivalent to those appearing in NSA in terms of qualification (were they in a position to see anything relevant?), identity, and distance away from the scene? This is only one of many intellectual dishonest statements that fatally flaw this analysis. It is intellectually dishonest simply to assume that leaping to a collision assumption under the circumstances of obvious efforts to create an illusion creates a south-side witness out of one who is not.

Complete absence of flyover witnesses requires the total disregard for the statements of Roosevelt Roberts who states that, immediately after the explosion, he observed a commercial aircraft flying away at treetop level over the south parking area.
If, as we have shown, the plane did not fly north of the Citgo service station there is no reason to suspect that it did not hit the Pentagon. If it had been flying close to the ground in the vicinity of the light poles, as described by many witnesses, it could not miss. The FDR file, the damage to the light poles, the fence and the generator, and the shape of the damage on the face of the Pentagon all indicate impact. [ Reviewer comment: This statement is freighted with sweeping falsehoods. The Flight Data Recorder file, even after it received the unverified and unverifiable “Stutt” treatment, does not support impact, nor does it support the south flight path. The data file does not contain the requisite identifying information tying it to the airframe alleged to be Flight 77, or any other aircraft. The hole in the Pentagon is still too small, the wreckage too sparse and unidentified with any aircraft, and the absence of convincing amounts and types of wreckage of a massive commercial aircraft do not make up for the basic implausibility of an alternative to flyover. All arguments used to suggest that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon have been shown to be unfounded.31,5 [Reviewer’s comment: Far from it! This is an outrageous and unsupported assertion.] CIT is shown to be presenting a hypothesis which is physically impossible. According to the scientific method this hypothesis must be abandoned.

[ Reviewer’s comment: On the contrary, CIT’s hypothesis is the only one compatible with the demands of scientific fact. For the authors to claim otherwise turns science on its head. CIT’s witness pool, augmented by others not contained in the film but published in additional interview material on their web site, show clearly that what is physically impossible is reconciliation of the clear and convincing testimony of the north side witnesses with the approach path that must be used by any aircraft creating the damage demanded by the official (and author-claimed) flight path. Twelve credible and convincing witnesses to zero is a powerful argument that the authors have not overcome. Only by presenting non-existent witnesses to the south side approach who were in a position to see the aircraft and relevant landmarks is it possible to refute the CIT evidence. The authors have not come anywhere close to this standard. ]
It is to be hoped that those who have been puzzled by the apparently contradictory assertions surrounding the Pentagon attack, will now see that it is appropriate to withdraw support for the divisive notion that no plane hit the Pentagon. There are many disturbing issues related to the Pentagon attack, as have been clearly set out by Kevin Ryan 1 and others, but the question of whether a plane hit the Pentagon should not be on that list.

[Reviewer’s comment: At this point is is appropriate to ask why the notion that no plane hit the Pentagon is ‘divisive’ among the Truth community. The case presented by CIT in their documentary films on the subject of the Pentagon, set a new standard for 9/11 related evidence, in that the evidence mainly consists of first-person accounts in the words of the witnesses, and careful follow-up of other potential and actual witnesses. This is contrasted with the use of anonymous and unverified accounts, unwarranted conclusions based on distortions and highly selective readings, and half-truths which underpin the authors’ case. The questions set out by Kevin Ryan are, indeed, good questions, but if, as NSA clearly and convincingly shows, the damage and “crash” scene was staged as part of an elaborate psychological operation conducted against the American people, and, indeed the entire world, those questions contain unwarranted assumptions that, in light of the evidence presented in NSA, can only lead researchers down a dead-end road.

The statements of taxi driver Lloyde England made to CIT and contained in accompanying video to NSA, but which are not mentioned in the paper, clearly indicate that he and unnamed others engaged in activities that it would be reasonable to conclude were part of the dressing of the stage with the unfortunately placed “downed light poles”. http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/vi...ofthestorm.html

1 Ryan, K., “A dozen questions about flight 77...”, http://visibility911.com/kevinryan/2010/10...ozen-questions- about-flight-77-and-the-pentagon-that-might-lead-to-justice/

Notes on the attempted refutation (Reviewer’s comments)

The questions surrounding whether the Pentagon was hit by a plane are some of, if not THE oldest questions voiced about 9/11. These questions appeared on the internet with “Hunt the Boeing”, a challenge from journalist Thierry Masson, who attempted to make sense of the paucity of signs of an aircraft crash near the Pentagon. (Arslan - Sept 11 Fiction of Matrix) of The reason is that from the very beginning, the lack of any significant wreckage that normally accompanies an air crash aroused the curiosity of many people for whom the facts alleged by the government did not add up.

[Reviewer comment: This “wreckage” has had to pull the bulk of the load for supporters of the official story, attempting desperately to sell the government version of events in the face of an almost complete lack of physical evidence of a large plane crash. Lucky government - Legge- Chandler-Stutt are here to help.]

Other circumstances raised additional questions. Why did the attack focus on striking the building in a spot that seemed calculated to minimize the casualties, since it was recently renovated and not fully occupied? What did Al Qaeda have against accountants? Why did the damage not match the official account? Why did the foundation of the Pentagon not suffer from impact of the massive engines. Where WERE the aircraft parts that normally survive even the most violent crash - tail section, wings, engines, and landing gear. Why was there no positive identification of serialized parts to match the equipment alleged to have been American Flight 77? As time passed, the list of unanswered questions grew longer. The receipt of data from NTSB by Pilotsfor911truth.org raised more questions than it answered, since the government- supplied data showed the aircraft in a position incompatible with the official story - one that does not support impact with the building. One of the hinges from which the present paper hangs involves a software engineer from Australia, Warren Stutt, who claims to have found a missing four seconds from the Flight Data Recorder, decoded it, and despite having no particular expertise in Flight Data Recorders, finds just the thing to bolster the government case, despite the fact that a) the “new” data still does not support collision with the building either, and b) the data cannot be identified as having anything to do with Flight 77, since the relevant identification data is missing from its usual place in the preamble (Not to mention that the serial number on the Flight Data Recorder itself was missing from the NTSB FOIA response.) Without this data there is literally NO connection with American Airlines Flight 77, nor, for that matter, with any other aircraft.

Quoting from a post on Pilotsfor911truth.org website, here is Dennis Cimino, EE, commercial pilot and Flight Data Recorder Engineer, commenting on the “Warren Stutt Discovery”:

QUOTE
Mr. Legge, Mr Stutts, I'm not going to scream at you for decoding and then writing this paper you wrote, but clearly, neither of you has taken the time to study this event like some of us have. There are so many 'from an experienced pilot' standpoint holes, that it doesn't compute even a little bit.
and the icing on this entire 'merde' cake, is the no ACFT ID and no FLEET ID in the FDR data preamble.
and I'll go one step further. The N.T.S.B., the F.B.I., and the F.A.A., had no constructive reason to hide from all of us, particularly Aidan Monaghan, who submitted the F.O.I.A., that just wanted these parts of this plane to be identified by serial number.
Because, Mr. Legge, and Mr. Stutts, these planes create a huge paper trail when they are built. Those documents would have reinforced the government's assertion that N644AA hit the building and was destroyed that day. The on the spot, almost premeditatedly confiscated video tapes the F.B.I. grabbed that would show the plane, are not available for us to look at.
and for god's sake, why did it take the F.A.A. more than THREE YEARS to strike these involved aircraft from the F.A.A. registries?
I'll tell you why. Because these planes weren't involved. We know '2' were at the WTC, but we have no constructive proof that the plane the F.A.A. lost track of over the W. Virginia 'radar hole' where the FPS-117 long range, 3-d airsearch radar is located, by the way, is now said to have hit the Pentagon.
Because without meeting certain criteria, per Robin Hordon's excellent outcry over this fact, that flight could never be positively known to be FLT-77.
Because, per Gerard Holmgren's excellent work, we know that FLT-77 wasn't even a scheduled carrier flight on Sept. 11th. 2001.
So I clearly have many many many problems with this from any number of standpoints, the most significant one is the bogus FDR data that is non-reality, which you so faithfully, painstakingly decoded the 4 seconds that the N.T.S.B. swears on a stack of bibles more or less, that it was unable to decode. Something is seriously wrong with this entire picture, and I am not accusing either of you of being putzes, but I think that you miss a whole lot of valid, very real reasons your assertions cannot stand in a reality based world of real aeronautics, real physics, and real airplane flight limits, when 'incompetent' pilots were allegedly performing these feats of magic you show in your paper. It's just not real, guys!


Dennis Cimino’s experience and qualifications: Electrical Engineer Commercial Pilot Rating, since 1981 Navy Combat Systems Specialist: RADAR, ECM, cryptographic communications Flight Data Recorder Engineer Smiths Aerospace
BA-609, IDARS, Military and Commercial Millimeter wave RADAR and countermeasures expert since 1973 Two patents held for Doppler RADAR ( Kavouras ): long pulsewidth RADAR droop compensation network, and wave guide arc detection for high powered RADAR
- http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...=20999&st=0

The Legge/Chandler paper, far from rebutting the north of the Citgo flight path, provides strong evidence of the desperation shown by some alleged members of the truth movement in their efforts to prop up and validate the official version of events. Their efforts in this regard were initially greeted with bewilderment on the part of the truth community, but are now seen by a significant number of the community as deliberate distortions and attempts to sow discord in the community. They, and their fellow detractors of CIT have gone to absurd lengths ranging from personal attacks on fellow researchers, slander, and hit pieces placed on truther websites, to misrepresentation and distortion of evidence, and attempts to silence supporters of CIT by allies and associates who are affiliated with the web site 911blogger, who banned postings by CIT to answer their critics and terminated the accounts of many CIT defenders, particularly those who write on Pilotsfor911Truth.org. This while allowing the derogatory comments and attacks to continue on that blog site, where they could not be answered by CIT, or, apparently, by anyone else without risk of having posts deleted and being banned. This was the experience of Barrie Zwicker, one of the most well-known and respected 9/11 Truth advocates, and an endorser of CIT, who had his post in support of the researchers removed after about 30 minutes. The hostility and unfair treatment by Blogger attracted the attention of the Rock Creek Free Press who wondered in a headline whether 911Blogger had “joined the other side”, meaning the evidence- proof critics of 9/11 Truth and the likes of Cass Sunstein who openly advocated that government disinformation agents sow “cognitive diversity” - disinformation - among the 9/11 Truth community as a way of discrediting adherents.

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.

A proper and legitimate rebuttal to CIT would be to present witnesses who could, with equivalent authority based on position, qualification, and ability to see clearly, contradict CIT’s witnesses as to the position of the aircraft, or presenting convincing evidence that CIT’s witnesses were, in fact, lying. They have done neither, presumably because such witnesses do not exist. Instead, they have attempted to stretch to the breaking point, the ambiguous statements, sentence fragments, and verbalized assumptions of persons who either were in no position to see or to testify reliably.

This review has, by necessity, only skimmed the surface of the flaws of the paper. To do a comprehensive deconstruction of this document would be akin to attempting a detailed description of the damage, and what would be required to fix, an automobile that had been through a salvage yard compacter.

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.

Shelton F. Lankford, M. S., LtCol. USMC (Ret.) 18 August, 2011 Reviewer

Attached File  Notes_on_Second_Review.pdf ( 281.68K ) Number of downloads: 71




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Sep 5 2011, 08:42 PM
Post #32





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 228
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



Thanks for re-posting your review of Legge and Chandler's work.

I wonder if it would be too much trouble to italicise or parenthesise any quotes taken from the paper itself? Sometimes it's difficult to figure out who said what and I get confused.

But, again - thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Sep 5 2011, 09:01 PM
Post #33





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



The .pdf file attached is the review in.pdf with the original formatting, in which I believe is much easier to distinguish my comments. Some of that formatting was lost in pasting it into invision. Check that version if you get lost. Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 5 2011, 09:49 PM
Post #34



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,716
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (maturin42 @ Sep 5 2011, 10:01 PM) *
The .pdf file attached is the review in.pdf with the original formatting, in which I believe is much easier to distinguish my comments. Some of that formatting was lost in pasting it into invision. Check that version if you get lost. Thanks



Just an FYI -

If you look in the upper right corner of the post window when posting, you'll see a little clockwise arrow icon all the way to the right. If you click that, you can change your post window from plain to rich text and vice-versa. When the post window is rich text, you can copy/paste and all proper formatting should post correctly... even photos... etc..

It's not working for a direct copy/paste from your pdf, but if you have your review in .doc or html format, it should work.

smile.gif

Thanks for posting your review Shelton.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Sep 6 2011, 12:04 AM
Post #35





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



maturin, loved the incisions.

as concerns joel skousen. his wiki bio identifies him as a usmc fighter pilot in the vietnam invasion. true?

he is also related to a family of individuals that i would identify as fascist bastids. though some of them have hidden under the umbrella of libertarianism, if you read them carefully, they think that they are the anointed to govern the usa.

in other words, i would assert that it is in the skousen family's interest to accept the official conspiracy theory concerning the events of 11/09/2011.

and i might be getting it inaccurately, but as i recall, the skousen clan was very much the fan of george walker bush and the pnac.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Sep 6 2011, 12:17 AM
Post #36


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



Stellar work on a very thorough and honest review Shelton.

The best way to handle this is to all sit down and go through this stuff with a fine tooth comb and confront each other the claims made. We stand by our findings as does PFT. We have been and are willing to sit down and hash this all out. With cameras rolling.

I mean one side is clearly right and the other, clearly wrong. So why won't they get us on camera or audio and prove we are wrong? It seems their side insists on maintaining an online Berlin Wall where they engage us in a game of written ping pong where they hope the readers, novice and veteran truthers, are left confused, divided, doubtful, lacking confidence in the evidence, and are daunted by the task of researching every little detail and piece of technical jargon that is presented. Which is the purpose of such an operation I am sure. We have corrected the blatant errors and disinformation in their attack essays. Yet it stays in their pieces. They ignore our corrections and counter evidence to their flimsy claims. So we have attempted to take it to the next level practically pleading for a live dialog or on camera debate to once and for all address all the issues. They of course stay locked up in their ivory towers and refuse to acknowledge us, while leaving the blatant disinformation up.

We MUST conclude that the movement has been heavily infiltrated and compromised and our findings are so explosive that they must be contained and neutralized at all costs.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Sep 6 2011, 12:28 AM
Post #37





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



aldo, boy do you say that accurately.

their game is to discredit your work. and the knowledge of this site. and it is a zero sum endeavor. a winner[not to be us]. and a loser[to be us].

knowing the secret state as i think i do, i would assert that a lot of payola has been flowing. much as it has been flowing to the "rebels" in libya.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Sep 6 2011, 12:30 AM
Post #38


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Sep 6 2011, 05:04 AM) *
maturin, loved the incisions.

as concerns joel skousen. his wiki bio identifies him as a usmc fighter pilot in the vietnam invasion. true?

he is also related to a family of individuals that i would identify as fascist bastids. though some of them have hidden under the umbrella of libertarianism, if you read them carefully, they think that they are the anointed to govern the usa.

in other words, i would assert that it is in the skousen family's interest to accept the official conspiracy theory concerning the events of 11/09/2011.

and i might be getting it inaccurately, but as i recall, the skousen clan was very much the fan of george walker bush and the pnac.


Very interesting. Sounds like the same guy as he is listed as a USMC pilot during the 'nam era on the PFT list.

If it is the same guy from the wiki bio then perhaps we are dealing with a Trojan horse of sorts. I guess we will have to wait and see how far operative legge takes this "see even a pilot(a USMC 'nam era fighter pilot no less!) from PFT understands our paper demonstrates a plane flew SoC and hit the pentagon" charade before we can make that determination.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 6 2011, 01:00 AM
Post #39



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,716
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Sep 6 2011, 01:30 AM) *
Very interesting. Sounds like the same guy as he is listed as a USMC pilot during the 'nam era on the PFT list.

If it is the same guy from the wiki bio then perhaps we are dealing with a Trojan horse of sorts. I guess we will have to wait and see how far operative legge takes this "see even a pilot(a USMC 'nam era fighter pilot no less!) from PFT understands our paper demonstrates a plane flew SoC and hit the pentagon" charade before we can make that determination.


From what I understand, the "paper" isnt even published at the Journal Of 9/11 Studies. It appears someone may have come to their senses and realized that Legge's paper is far from being "scientific" and rather more opinion. (of course being consistent with his past papers littered with misleading statements, spin, and confirmed disinformation).

I've had a few more exchanges with Joel via email, perhaps the most correspondence i've had with him since 2007 when he eventually corrected his article written about our work and joined our organization. It's clear he didn't understand he was being asked to "peer-review" a paper for acceptance into a "Journal" arguably described as "Scientific". Apparently Joel thought that he was just giving a review of another persons opinion, albeit "unprovable". Joel felt the guy [Legge] is entitled to his opinion. I tend to agree. Legge is entitled to his opinion. But unfortunately for Legge, his own opinions only end up diminishing any credibility he may have had left.

Joel is a writer. He has his own website in which a subscription is needed to read his articles.

http://www.joelskousen.com/about.html

I was notified of his article written about us back in 2007 by one of his subscribers.

He did fly in Vietnam, but that looks to be about the extent of his aviation career. He only has about 1000 hours total flight time.

He is currently traveling and said he will review all the information and both sides of the argument when he returns. Since his name does not appear on the Legge "paper", he will remain on our roster, for now.

Interesting information you came up with Albert. Yes, that appears to be the same Joel Skousen on wiki. He does have an account here on the forum, so maybe he'll stop in and say a few words. He does have a link to this thread.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Sep 6 2011, 01:33 AM
Post #40


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Sep 6 2011, 05:28 AM) *
aldo, boy do you say that accurately.

their game is to discredit your work. and the knowledge of this site. and it is a zero sum endeavor. a winner[not to be us]. and a loser[to be us].

knowing the secret state as i think i do, i would assert that a lot of payola has been flowing. much as it has been flowing to the "rebels" in libya.


Thx Albert. You know, you can take those very things I said and ask them why they won't engage us in live debate on the matter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: 23rd November 2014 - 06:54 PM