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 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Legge Paper, Ver 4+ and Counting, Split from Sliming

dMz
post Sep 18 2009, 03:11 AM
Post #1



Group Icon

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



EDIT: I was recently reviewing the Legge paper discussion here at CIT:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...c=738&st=15

When I logged onto 911blogger tonight (for probably the first time in a year or so), I was surprised to find that I could reply but had no access to the [bullshit IMHO] vote up/down thing that I once was able to access- hmmmm... Has anyone else noticed this, and exactly WTF is going on over there?

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/40924

Oh, yes- it would appear to me that Dr. Frank Legge is just randomly "fudging" a hypothetical flightpath "willy-nilly" to fit some preconceived notion of his own devoid of any supporting data or evidence, much as "Q24" did with the Edward Paik diagram a while back, which I pointed out at post #48 here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10774364

Dr. Legge also appears to be currently doing this over at 911blogger:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

QUOTE
The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof.[3] More specifically, petitio principii refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise. "


The difference here being that P4T took the ASCE's claimed "column 14 impact" location, and working backwards from the NTSB heading and altitude data, did a 3D scale model vector analysis of what the data and ASCE documentation claim. This was also confirmed independently later by me using several 2D CAD analyses (using different software) as well as the NTSB data and Google Earth. I was unable to determine exactly where Dr. Legge is pulling his hypothetical "by the antenna 30 feet above ground level" from, and I didn't see a lat/lon or time reference either (spacetime coordinates requiring at minimum a 4-vector [x,y,z,t]).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-vector

I can draw straight lines in an infinite number of directions, but do they necessarily have any relevance to anything?

It also looks like Dr. Legge is headed for version 5 now:
QUOTE (Dr. Frank Legge)
... It is clear that version 5 will be needed after some time has gone by to allow these comments to act as peer review. I will certainly remove this reference.

I am well aware of the good work done by the people you mention but I know little of what the known deniers are up to as I routinely delete their emails without reading them. It helps to conserve my resources.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21359#comment-217091

Enter the "LA-LA-LA" [fingers in ears, non-reply] factor:
QUOTE (Dr. Frank Legge)
Painter, I have more to do than read long posts in blogs. Let it be known that I will not respond to any that are too long and I will be the judge of length. If you have a factual point that needs addressing in the paper a few lines should suffice....

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21359#comment-217096

EDIT2: Of course, Dr. Legge's paper being discussed was 12 pages long however... huh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Sep 21 2009, 12:07 PM
Post #2





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



QUOTE (Frank Legge)
Painter, I have more to do than read long posts in blogs. Let it be known that I will not respond to any that are too long and I will be the judge of length. If you have a factual point that needs addressing in the paper a few lines should suffice....


Perhaps this will be his excuse ("it was too long so I didn't read it) for not correcting a number of faulty claims that were pointed out to him very clearly in detail in an e-mail sent from Craig (CIT) to him, Steven Jones, and others on 8/7/2009 -- weeks before he even wrote version 3, let alone the current incarnation, version 4,

For example, Legge's original paper said:

QUOTE
There are now several theories about what hit the Pentagon. One is the official story, that a 757 approached at a low angle, striking light poles, then struck the Pentagon. Many eye
witnesses confirm this path.


Here's one of the things he was told about this in the e-mail:

QUOTE
...Furthermore, Legge includes “striking light poles” as part of the flight path which “many eyewitnesses confirm”. This is grossly misleading. Anonymous internet personality, alleged truther, and CIT detractor “Arabesque” has the most comprehensive list of alleged light pole witnesses with a total of 22. It can be found here if you scroll down to the part that says “Witnesses described the plane hitting lamp poles and objects.” However, contrary to what Arabesque wants to mislead his readers into believing, the fact is there are NO witnesses who claim to have seen the light poles get struck, including the people who claim to have been right on Route 27 just a few car lengths back from the plane. We directly refuted each and every one of Arabesque’s supposed light pole strike witnesses way back in 2007. Most of these witnesses do not explicitly claim to have actually seen the poles get struck. As explained in our rebuttal we have spoken with a number of them and they have clarified that they in fact did not see such a thing. Only one named person (Wanda Ramey) was quoted as having actually seen the poles get hit, and that was secondhand in a news article. We got a hold of Ms. Ramey on the phone and she could not remember whether or not she had actually seen such a thing. Considering that no one else saw such a thing, even the people with the best view, and considering that we now know that the plane was nowhere near the light poles, as confirmed in firsthand accounts by thirteen eyewitnesses in the best possible vantage points, it is clear that she did not see this.

Arabesque even went as far as to cite people like Lee Evey who was not even a witness to the plane, the poles, or the attack AT ALL. He was the Pentagon renovation manager who has publicly admitted that he was at home at the time of the attack. As I say in our rebuttal to his light poles claim, this is EXACTLY why Arabesque's "research" is so damaging. He does ZERO fact checking and simply copies and pastes out of context words provided for him by the complicit mainstream media which often prove to be totally misleading. We have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in Arabesque’s research to him such as presenting non-witnesses as Lee Evey as witnesses, as seen in this thread. On the second page of that thread Arabesque said “I believe in honest research. That means it's possible for researchers to make mistakes and then correct them when they are pointed out. [....] I will examine all of the comments in this thread and will correct my research as necessary.” That was over two years ago! Despite his clearly false claim of “[believing] in honest research” to this day he has still not corrected his faulty information, which can now undeniably be called “disinformation”.


Legge did not respond to this e-mail at all (which documented many other false and/or misleading claims as well) and instead he made a similar but even MORE directly misleading claim in his "revision" a few weeks later, saying:

QUOTE
A large number of eye witnesses reported that something hit the Pentagon. A substantial proportion of these described a large passenger jet, and a similar proportion stated that the plane hit the light poles.


This same language appears his new version as well.

The full e-mail from Craig to Legge is in the 7th post of this thread:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...ic=738&st=0

ETA 9/26/09: The same language is STILL present in version 5 which Legge just released.

This post has been edited by Ligon: Sep 26 2009, 04:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Sep 21 2009, 11:25 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE
QUOTE (Dr. Frank Legge)
Painter, I have more to do than read long posts in blogs. Let it be known that I will not respond to any that are too long and I will be the judge of length. If you have a factual point that needs addressing in the paper a few lines should suffice....

I will remember this riposte and use it whenever I am losing an argument. I am still not sure how an Australian scientist is an expert on events at the Pentagon ......

I suspect that rather like arabesque's witness lists, this paper will be set in stone and worshipped on high as the final word on the Pentagon and any dissenters will be continually referred to this paper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Sep 22 2009, 12:02 AM
Post #4





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



I checked out Dmole's link to the discussion on the CIT page.

I have enjoyed Legge's articles at Journal Of 911 Studies and up to now think he's OK. I'd like to think that if Aldo and Craig keep after him he will come around. Legge's a scientist. He probably is driven toward accounting for and unifying everything that is solid into some grand final conclusion. Hopefully he will see that CIT's evidence is solid and also realize that he has misinterpreted PFT's claims.

Legge had better watch out if he hangs his hat on the ASCE Pentagon Damage Report as establishing that the plane hit the poles. That Report doesn't say that. it just says something like according to witness accounts the poles were knocked down, but leaves this in the reportedly stage and stops without finding that as a fact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Sep 22 2009, 12:25 AM
Post #5





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



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Sep 22 2009, 12:02 AM) *
Legge had better watch out if he hangs his hat on the ASCE Pentagon Damage Report as establishing that the plane hit the poles. That Report doesn't say that. it just says something like according to witness accounts the poles were knocked down, but leaves this in the reportedly stage and stops without finding that as a fact.

Exactly, it just vaguely references the poles when talking about Don Mason, and just implies that he saw them get struck, but doesn't explicitly say it. They also say it was "three" poles.

But what they do say is: "The site data indicate that the aircraft fuselage impacted the building at column line 14 at an angle of approximately 42 degrees to the normal to the face of the building."



More info here.

This post has been edited by Ligon: Sep 22 2009, 12:28 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Sep 22 2009, 12:57 AM
Post #6





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



Hi Ligon!

I read the link to the CIT page you provided. Thanks! You said:

QUOTE
But what they do say is: "The site data indicate that the aircraft fuselage impacted the building at column line 14 at an angle of approximately 42 degrees to the normal to the face of the building."


You noted on CIT Forum that "approximately 42 degrees" sounds like less than one degree margin of error if you focus on the number and not the "approximately". This, and the way ASCE mentioned the lightpoles without embracing them, is part of a pattern both here and in a lot of the NIST stuff about the WTC. The Reports try to sound like they are saying something while actually not saying anything. EDIT TO ADD: "Approximately" belies any claim to precision, let alone one degree, and gives them an escape hatch to 37 degrees, 31 degrees or even NOC degrees in the face of other, stronger evidence.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Sep 23 2009, 10:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 22 2009, 01:49 AM
Post #7



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (KP50 @ Sep 21 2009, 11:25 PM) *
I am still not sure how an Australian scientist is an expert on events at the Pentagon ......


Does anyone know if Legge is in fact a "Scientist"?

He doesnt have a Patriots Question 911 Entry at http://patriotsquestion911.com, nor does he have a wiki page.

Considering Legge claims to be a PhD in mathematics, and i have caught him in some elementary errors (which you can see in his footnotes on his 4th revision of an alleged "peer reviewed" paper in JONES, and im far from a PhD in math), has anyone at all verified his credentials?

Legge sent me a document today outlining what he believes are errors in our G Force presentation. Of course his paper is loaded with assumptions, speculation and flat out errors, but im hesitant to even waste my time with a reply as nothing has convinced me Legge has more than a 9th Grade High School Math education.

I mean, how many PhD's in mathematics need to be corrected on simple trig?

Im actually starting to think Legge is a fraud and infiltrator. And as many of you know, i have never accused anyone of such who have signed their name to an alleged "peer reviewed paper". How does a "peer reviewed paper" endure so many revisions? Who is doing the "peer review" prior to publish? Its a joke.

Is Frank out to discredit JONES?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Sep 22 2009, 02:15 AM
Post #8





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



yes
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Sep 22 2009, 02:19 AM
Post #9





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



now that you mention it, i wonder if there might be a frank legge. and a frank legge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
panthercat
post Sep 22 2009, 03:23 AM
Post #10





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



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Sep 20 2009, 05:19 AM) *
now that you mention it, i wonder if there might be a frank legge. and a frank legge.

-------------------
Dr. Frank Legge posts stuff here
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 22 2009, 12:56 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 21 2009, 11:49 PM) *
Does anyone know if Legge is in fact a "Scientist"?

He doesnt have a Patriots Question 911 Entry at http://patriotsquestion911.com, nor does he have a wiki page.

Considering Legge claims to be a PhD in mathematics, and i have caught him in some elementary errors (which you can see in his footnotes on his 4th revision of an alleged "peer reviewed" paper in JONES, and im far from a PhD in math), has anyone at all verified his credentials?

Legge sent me a document today outlining what he believes are errors in our G Force presentation. Of course his paper is loaded with assumptions, speculation and flat out errors, but im hesitant to even waste my time with a reply as nothing has convinced me Legge has more than a 9th Grade High School Math education.

I mean, how many PhD's in mathematics need to be corrected on simple trig?

Well looking at publicly available sources, this paper states "Frank Legge (PhD Chem)":
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/LeggeCDatWTC.pdf
http://journalof911studies.com/

Over at A&E911T, Legge is listed as "Frank Legge (Ph D) Logical Systems Consulting Perth, Western Australia." [email address deleted by me for privacy and to foil spambot spiders]:
http://www.ae911truth.org/techarts.php

According to my research, Logical Systems Consulting in Perth is an Information Technology (IT) firm, but I'm not sure exactly what role a Chemist would play at an IT company:

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Legge_Frank_1182685331.aspx

"Editor
Studies

PhD Chemist
News"

According to yellowpages.com.au, the company is listed as "Computer Systems Consultants."

-------------------
Here is the latest convolution of "logic" that I saw recently at blogger though:

QUOTE (Frank Legge)
double negative
It seems a few people can't hack a double negative but why should I shy away from its excellent logical outcome for these few? There are those who say that the 757 could not have hit the Pentagon. The paper shows that every observation they present as proof does not stand up. That is pure clean science.
Submitted by Frank Legge on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 3:56am.


[Bolding above mine] Erm- no comment from me this morning on the "logic" expressed here- I think the quote speaks volumes for itself, but I am beginning to wonder if Legge is somehow channeling "Parabola" Mackey as of late.

Legge's dramatic depiction of the Pentagon events as a "stageplay" right before his "Precautionary Principle" section was interesting though. Apparently Legge doesn't realize how much this description has in common with the "military psy-op deception" position sometimes expressed by CIT's Pentagon body of work. This leads me to ask whether Legge is just ignorant of CIT's work or whether other, unknown factors are at play here.
---------------------------------------
[The following text was split from my post #52 here on the "Sliming of Pilots and CIT" thread:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10776968

IMHO, Dr. Legge would have been well advised to have skipped one of those Ph.D.-level chemistry courses and taken a basic course in logic instead. Sadly, it would appear that I had learned more about logic and debate way back in my High School days (from my AP English and Debate courses, plus Boolean Logic and Set Theory from my Algebra and computer programming classes).

EDIT: "Let's agree to disagree" and "nothing should have hit the Pentagon" appear to be the newer mantras (in lieu of retractions or corrections, of course) for those keeping score at home.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Sep 22 2009, 02:59 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



I am, quite literally, waiting with baited breath for Version 5 of this worthy tome. Maybe science and logic don't go together.

My logic is this :-

If the plane hit the lightpoles, it hit the Pentagon.
If the plane didn't hit the lightpoles, it didn't hit the Pentagon.

I'm seeing where this piece of logic takes me in a couple of debates I am currently engaged in with what you might call "Legge-followers".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Sep 22 2009, 03:19 PM
Post #13





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



Wonder why Legge didn't include his plane bomb theory into his paper.

Here are some quotes from his interview with Hereward Fenton of Truth News Radio Australia on 8/19/09

As I noted on the CIT forum, 911Blogger saw fit to put this interview on the front page of their site despite not putting CIT's recent press release -- which has been featured on infowars.com and many other sites -- on the front page.

(Note: Dan Collins was also on the show, so he is "COLLINS". If I don't know if it's Fenton or Collins talking I will just put "INTERVIEWER". Bold has been added in all transcript sections for emphasis by me.)


QUOTE
[13:10-14:36]

FRANK LEGGE: You know, there's a certain amount of space between the windows. It's concievable that the fin hit the wall between the windows and didn't hit the window. It's also conceivable that the glass was extremely thick. (chuckle and inaudible word or two). But the--there's also another theory; that is that, uh, prior to the impact, or just on impact, there was a big explosion, which would have shattered the plane. And if that happened uhhm, then the, the, you know, you wouldn't expect it to make the marks and do the damage that it might if it was undamaged by an explosion. One of the pieces of evidence for an explosion is the, uh, in the, uh, video clip that was released it shows that, that the plane, or -- no, well [I'm not going to?] say the plane -- and the, it doesn't show what is hitting. But, but at the beginning you see a great white flash and then in the, in the next frame you see a red fireball from the fuel. Well now, the fi... the white flash is characteristic of an explosion, not, not, not fuel burning. And also you see pieces bouncing across the road up near the video camera that's a long way away. How can those pieces have been given enough energy that they would fly that far? Umm, it seems highly likely that there was an explosion; why wouldn't there be an explosion? I mean, the perpetrators used explosives to bring down the towers; why wouldn't they have used explosives to destroy the planes for some reason or another?


He says this too later...

QUOTE
[27:49]

INTERVIEWER: Going back to the photo of the window, the unbroken windows that, you know, gets a lot of, a lot of, a lot of air time. And that was, you know, the unbroken windows was the original, um, thing that propelled Thierry Meyssan to write the um, you know, the uh, his um, provisional stuff on the, um, on, on the Pentagon deception, you know... um...

LEGGE: Well if the plane was destroyed by the explosives about the time the nose of the plane arrived at the Pentagon why would it destroy the window?

INTERVIEWER: So, they would potentially claim that, um, they blew it up with a missile before it hit, or...or I mean... surely that... surely that re.....

LEGGE: How do you know the plane wasn't filled with explosives!?



QUOTE
[28:48]

INTERVIEWER: The problem is that this explanation, I think, would actually lead to more, you know, unansweredable questions. Do you see?

LEGGE: Well, what's... what's uh... what's unanswerable about the idea that they loaded the aircraft with explosives!?

INTERVIEWER: Well, did the terr... I mean, this is all part of the terrorist... did the terrorists?...

LEGGE: No no! It's got nothing to do with terrorists!

INTERVIEWER; But how would you exp...

LEGGE: This... this... this is the authorities! The CIA!


I should also point out that this interview took place almost two weeks after CIT sent Steve Jones and Frank Legge information explaining that while there are witnesses who mention the light poles there are no witnesses who literally SAW the plane hit any light poles, and that it was misleading to imply otherwise and downright false to state it. (I pasted the quote from the CIT e-mail to Jones, Legge, etcearlier in this thread, see here)

And yet here is what he said in the interview:

QUOTE
LEGGE: And also, a fairly substantial portion said that it DID hit the light poles. So I think the numbers are in favor of, uh, [the/a] 757 hitting the, the Pentagon.


He also said (in response to Collins talking about some theory that all of the photos taken in the aftermath of the Pentagon attack were actually fake/photoshopped)...

QUOTE
[21:44] LEGGE: Mmm... how would you get 17 or 20 or something eyewitnesses to say they saw the plane hit the light poles?

COLLINS: Well it wasn't that so much, he, he was r....

LEGGE: You can't say they photoshopped eyewitnseses.


This post has been edited by Ligon: Sep 22 2009, 03:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Sep 22 2009, 06:04 PM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE
When I logged onto 911blogger tonight (for probably the first time in a year or so), I was surprised to find that I could reply but had no access to the [bullshit IMHO] vote up/down thing that I once was able to access- hmmmm... Has anyone else noticed this, and exactly WTF is going on over there?


Damn, I haven't clicked on that site in over a year. Now you've made me curious.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 23 2009, 02:20 AM
Post #15



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Ligon @ Sep 21 2009, 10:25 PM) *
Exactly, it just vaguely references the poles when talking about Don Mason, and just implies that he saw them get struck, but doesn't explicitly say it. They also say it was "three" poles.

But what they do say is: "The site data indicate that the aircraft fuselage impacted the building at column line 14 at an angle of approximately 42 degrees to the normal to the face of the building."



More info here.

You have stumbled across one more of the glaring holes in the OGCT here Ligon. Rob and I discussed this at posts #21 and 22 on this thread:

Flight Path and Pentagon Destruction Path
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10774345

As your overhead ASCE image above clearly shows (and the B757 scale looks very close to me), "42 degrees" ["off"-normal to the West Pentagon wall IMHO] completely misses light poles #2, 4, and 5 (as well as hitting the wrong 4 that were NOT down on 9/11, and a "bonus" overhead freeway exit sign) to make 6+ light poles on the "42 degree" path.

According to my CAD (and GE) work, in order to align with that Wikipedia/approximate ASCE "column 14 impact" location, the "off"-normal angle needs to be quite close to 39.08 degrees in order to hit all 5 "downed" light pole locations. Here are some "NTSB data" 2D CAD/GE overhead screencaptures illustrating this (assuming the final NTSB True Track angle of 61.2 degrees and using a B757-200 CAD model scaled to the 921-foot Pentagon wall):

Wide, with image
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/43061

Wide, no image
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/43062

Mid, with image
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/43063

Mid, no image
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/43064

Zoomed, with image
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/43065

Zoomed, no image
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/43066

NOTE: On that Google Earth image that I imported in my CAD software, I time adjusted the imagery to Sep. 7. 2001 for a pre-damaged condition. The earlier versions of Google Earth did not allow this, as I recall.

I actually did this analysis to find/derive the "projected" ~160.816 foot "wingspan" and the ~26.859 foot fuselage centerline-turbofan axis projected "radius." More on this and an Ingersoll image later, but it involves [distance]/ cos ("off"-normal angle).

EXAMPLE: 124.8333 foot B757-200 wingspan / cos (39.08 deg) ~= 160.8124686307 feet. Since the error is out in the 3rd decimal place (and the CAD units were only set for 3 decimal places), I'm going to call "close enough" here for forum discussion (and most other) purposes. Also note that one limiting case of the above relation is at cos (0 deg) for "direct impact" at the "normal" angle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 23 2009, 03:42 AM
Post #16



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (dMole @ Sep 23 2009, 12:20 AM) *
NOTE: On that Google Earth image that I imported in my CAD software, I time adjusted the imagery to Sep. 7. 2001 for a pre-damaged condition. The earlier versions of Google Earth did not allow this, as I recall.

I actually did this analysis to find/derive the "projected" ~160.816 foot "wingspan" and the ~26.859 foot centerline-turbofan axis projected "radius." More on this and an Ingersoll image later, but it involves [distance]/ cos ("off"-normal angle).

EXAMPLE: 124.8333 foot B757-200 wingspan / cos (39.08 deg) ~= 160.8124686307 feet. Since the error is out in the 3rd decimal place (and the CAD units were only set for 3 decimal places), I'm going to call "close enough" here for forum discussion (and most other) purposes. Also note that one limiting case of the above relation is at cos (90 deg) for "direct impact."

Following up on the CAD analysis of the ASCE Fig. 6-1 at post #20 here (which yielded a [negative in the "impact" frame] 8.11 degree port wing "downward" bank):
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10776775

Using the above "projection" method based upon a top-view CAD/GE analysis looking at the 5 lightpole alleged locations in the context of this "analysis" over at blogger:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21359#comment-217247
QUOTE
I ignored any bank, since it seemed that the correction to the result would be negligible. However, I'm not sure of this.

Conclusion: if one really wants to accept that the round imprint is from a 757 engine (personally, I do), then either the calculation or the source data is incorrect, or the plane engine was ripped off due to the impact with the generator. However, a 757 engine does fit the diameter of the round imprint. Furthermore, the imprint is more pronounced in the left edge, indicating impact of an object moving from south west to north east. (right-to-left facing the Pentagon facade)


Well at least the middle portion of that quote was somewhat accurate, but I get between 21 and 27.7 feet from this "round imprint" to the starboard turbofan centerline depending upon "impact"-to-wall normal angle (using the ASCE Fig. 6-1 [negative]8.11 degree "CCW" bank angle and aligning the pink ASCE "cutout" approximately with the damage seen in the photo "Metcalf_6.jpg," or "6.jpg" of the Ingersoll-Metcalf collection). Also "several/all of the above" is a possibility, as is pro-Boeing "impact" confirmation bias, and...

With image "Metcalf_6.jpg"
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/43067

Without image
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/43068

NOTE: The blue circle (26.859 foot radius) derived above should correct for any conceivable "off"-normal angle [in the 2D top view only, with pitch angle neglected] from direct=0 deg (as the B757-200 drawing is oriented of necessity in this photo "Metcalf_6.jpg" of unknown observer angle and "head on" CAD view) to the "NTSB data" 39.08 deg that should manage to hit (or very nearly so) all 5 alleged lightpole locations, as described in the post above.

Yet more problems are the NTSB's SSFDR data is in conflict with the ASCE Fig. 6-1 bank, with the roll angle (Capt) going from +6.3 to +5.3 deg and the pitch angle from -4.9 to -5.6 deg in the final 4 (post 09:37:44 EDT) complete data lines. Vertical accelerometer is the only other data parameter taken for approx 0.5 seconds after this (until 09:37:44.875 EDT by my extrapolation from the NTSB data).

EDIT: I don't have my reference books with me to quote tonight, but the "illustrious?" Wiki and this paper I found puts "positive" roll angle as starboard/right wing down, and "positive" pitch angle would be climbing by usual convention.

http://www.shadmehrlab.org/book/kinematics.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_dynamics
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Sep 23 2009, 06:34 AM
Post #17





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



when i first approached a 'friend' many years ago about a plane hitting the pentagram, he said the asme(?) confirmed the data as consistent w/ blah blah. i knew at that point (call it intuition) that there was fraud going on. the 9/11 omission, NIST just adds to my conviction.

doesn't PhD stand for 'piled higher & deeper'? it's a credential, not omniscience.

has legge been provided w/ fdr data? if not, dump it in his lap and say 'look at it or keep your head in the sand'.

This post has been edited by GroundPounder: Sep 23 2009, 06:35 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Sep 23 2009, 07:46 AM
Post #18





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Sep 22 2009, 06:04 PM) *
Damn, I haven't clicked on that site in over a year. Now you've made me curious.


You must be special. I can log in but I still can't post. However, I did get my posting privileges removed after I challenged Rep directly by posting a quote from David Ray Griffin where he said he didn't think planes had hit the Towers, after Rep said that anyone who claimed such a thing was an idiot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 26 2009, 10:12 AM
Post #19



Group Icon

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



I found one of Legge´s earlier papers (the link to which I have lost and to be honest could not be arsed to find as the paper he wrote is not worth the sweat and time we could have spent on something more productive)
It deals with treatment of ´conspiracy theories´

QUOTE
Complexity becomes apparent wherever you look. How was the National Transport Safety Board persuaded to give up its legislated role as investigator of aircraft crashes and why are there continuing concerns about the information they supply? Where is the wreckage of the planes? How were the police persuaded to give up their role as guardians of forensic evidence and instead facilitate the quick removal of the steel? Why was the steel sold overseas at less than local prices? Where are the samples of steel and debris? Where are
the many tapes showing what hit the Pentagon?


Is he talking about the ´wreckage´ that was apparently found on the lawn of the Pentagon too? One of the main reasons he believes the plane hit? The undocumented debris that the FBI said they didn´t document because ´they took it for granted´ that it was Flight 77? (Aidan Monaghan´s Foia request)

QUOTE
A similar problem is found in the far more substantial NIST report....One begins to see a pattern emerging: the reports are long and most people, including journalists, will not read through them so the authors can construct a myth in the report conclusions. Challengers will be so few that those who do challenge will be in a small minority and can safely be labeled as irresponsible conspiracy theorists. These people will be ignored by the mainstream media who will simply further establish the myth by repetition.


Is that the same myth constructed by the ASCE report and the 100s of witnesses to an ´impact´ continually referred to by Arabesque et al? The myths that have been busted over and over by Pilots and CIT? The myths that are continually repeated no matter how many times they are debunked? The same media reports that Legge is now relying on to back up his claims?

QUOTE
The Scientific Method
Definitions of the scientific method are varied and sometimes complex. A minimal definition would be that it is a technique for advancing knowledge by creating hypotheses to explain observations, performing tests attempting to prove the hypotheses wrong, and provisionally retaining only those hypotheses which survive.

The essential component of all valid definitions is that the process must include testing and that any hypothesis proved wrong must be discarded.


Uh huh..

QUOTE
Conclusion: the Case for Reinvestigation of 9/11
A substantial body of evidence has been presented that the official reports of the events of 9/11, which together create the “official explanation”, are flawed. They defy common sense and are ridiculed by Occam’s Razor. They are suspect on the grounds of who benefits. They contain serious inconsistencies and deficiencies. Finally they are proved wrong in critical ways by the scientific method. It appears inescapable that the official explanation is a carefully crafted myth and that it has been created for the purpose of manipulating the public.


FDR/RADES...Debunked
100s of witnesses to an ´impact´...Debunked
Gatecam...Debunked
Witnesses to south path....None
Witnesses to low level approach via lawn....None
Witnesses to thick white plume of smoke via Gatecam...None
Lightpole witnesses...Debunked
Lloyd England story....Debunked


Northside corraborated testimony...Proven
Flyover and possible flyover testimony....Proven
Lloyd England ´virtual confession´....on tape


You see the list narrowing Legge?
His other ´proof´ is the debris found at the scene.
If all the evidence leads us to only one possible conclusion, that of the NOC flightpath, an ´impact´ is out of the question given the damage to the lightpoles and the building. That means that the debris had to have been planted.
So what he is basically reduced to is the argument of incredulity.
If he believes (as I do) that explosives were used in the destruction of the towers and WTC7, done in broad daylight in front of the world media how the hell can he rule out the possibility of operatives planting evidence (or confiscating it as they did at Ground Zero)

The guy has definitely had his ear bent by Hoffman and his ´crew´ because I see no scientific methodology used AT ALL.

On a sidenote guys.
Are there any threads on Kinetic Energy Dissipation and/or thoughts on explosives used at the Pentagon (especially concerning blastwaves felt up to 3 km away from the facade/blastwaves from deflagrations)?

Cheers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Sep 26 2009, 04:58 PM
Post #20





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



I started a new thread for version 5, which really ups the ante by implying that P4T is biased and doesn't care about science, places "excess faith in the FDR file", repeats long-since-ebunked arguments by JREFers and specifically cites R Mackey, John Farmer, and others as sources, and so on.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18088
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: 22nd August 2019 - 05:34 AM