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 )

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New Fdr Analysis By Frank Legge - Discussion, What do you think?

Decalagon
post Jan 10 2011, 08:32 AM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 8-December 09
From: Italy
Member No.: 4,778



http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010...ltimeter_92.pdf

I'm reading the document and I am still very doubtful about what it says. Someone can give me some information about that?
Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Jan 10 2011, 09:20 AM
Post #2





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (Decalagon @ Jan 10 2011, 11:02 PM) *
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010...ltimeter_92.pdf

I'm reading the document and I am still very doubtful about what it says. Someone can give me some information about that?
Thank you.


Dont worry i am sure you are not the only one, what a complete crock of bs that's all i have to say i am just waiting for Mr Balsamo and others much more qualified than meto tear the paper apart piece by piece along with any shred of credibility that Mr Frank Legge may have left intact i cant wait for it to begin, i am sure the detractors are having a great time right now running around screaming about how Mr Balsamo is wrong
while at the time attacking Pft & CIT and marching around boasting at the top of their voices how both oraginsations are full of frauds
mean while carrying on with their lame ass usual run of the mill character assasinations and so forth.

Just take this example from one 911blogger poster for starters

QUOTE
This refutes the Pilots for 9/11 Truth conclusion that Flight 77 was too high to have hit the Pentagon.

I commend Frank Legge and Warren Stutt for doing this necessary work. We needed more than a precautionary principle given the stakes-- we needed a scientific analysis of the FDR. Of course this is not a default to the official story-- it is a refutation of false claims. The Pentagon attack was an inside job for various other reasons.


Only in your wet dreams sonny jim, I bet you right now Mr Frank Legge is probably too busy tossing himself off over his newly published paper
along with all the other well known detractors who seem to gather together in massive bunches on certain well sites and enjoy self pleasuring
themselves while they try to make fun of us all and point and laugh and call us nutjobs fruitcakes tin foil hatters and so forth and whatever else they can come up with.

Maybe good old Robby boy can challenge Mr Legge to a real debate and watch him run and hide like a coward, because i am sure by the time they are finished debating Mr Legge would not even have a single Leg left to stand on in which to get up carry his sore away on.

laughing1.gif laughing1.gif whistle.gif whistle.gif

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Jan 10 2011, 09:36 AM
Reason for edit: added quote tags
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 10 2011, 09:24 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,712
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



The most apparent error is that they assume Radio Height always measures the height above the ground. Wrong.

Pilots know that you can be flying at 31,000 feet and see a Radio Height of 1000 feet (i'll let that one bake the noodle of Warren and Legge for a bit).

Next, their altitude divergence is completely and utterly deceptive and wrong. First they use averages, then they source wiki under the wrong FAR as it pertains to altimeter errors, and third, they speculate altimeters errors on Transport Category Aircraft calibrated with an Air Data Computer increase at "low altitude".

The paper is loaded with pure speculation, littered with errors and peppered with misleading statements. Also notice that not one verified aviation professional has signed their name to it. Reading through the document, it is clear they didn't consult anyone with an aviation background. The most blatant error (which is essentially the foundation for their whole argument), is sourcing the wrong FAR, combined with the fact that their source (wiki) also quoted the FAR they did source, wrong.

If Legge and Stutt were correct, combined with actual allowable errors, this is a depiction of what would be happening daily around the world.



These are just some of the most glaring errors with the paper. There are many more.

Most of the paper was also debunked before it was even published. See here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10792964
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Jan 10 2011, 09:35 AM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2011, 11:54 PM) *
The most apparent error is that they assume Radio Height always measures the height above the ground. Wrong.

Pilots know that you can be flying at 31,000 feet and see a Radio Height of 1000 feet (i'll let that one bake the noodle of Warren and Legge for a bit).

Next, their altitude divergence is completely and utterly deceptive and wrong. First they use averages, then they source wiki under the wrong FAR as it pertains to altimeter errors, and third, they speculate altimeters errors on Transport Category Aircraft calibrated with an Air Data Computer increase at "low altitude".

The paper is loaded with pure speculation, littered with errors and peppered with misleading statements. Also notice that not one verified aviation professional has signed their name to it. Reading through the document, it is clear they didn't consult anyone with an aviation background. The most blatant error (which is essentially the foundation for their whole argument), is sourcing the wrong FAR, combined with the fact that their source (wiki) also quoted the FAR they did source, wrong.

If Legge and Stutt were correct, combined with actual allowable errors, this is a depiction of what would be happening daily around the world.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QkCQ_-Id8zI?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QkCQ_-Id8zI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

These are just some of the most glaring errors with the paper. There are many more.

Most of the paper was also debunked before it was even published. See here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10792964


Just reading you reply already makes me laugh this is great too good, maybe you should publish a rebbutal paper
to his latest paper which claims, oh boy do i have to say it? Maybe i should start believing in fairy dust and fairies
if i am ever going to believe what the paper claims, no i have got a better idea just knock me over the head with a brick.

Dee Bunked already even before the paper is even published, and even just after it has just come out too good lmfao lol.

laughing1.gif laughing1.gif laughing1.gif

This post has been edited by Paul: Jan 10 2011, 09:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 10 2011, 09:38 AM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,712
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Paul @ Jan 10 2011, 08:20 AM) *
Maybe good old Robby boy can challenge Mr Legge to a real debate and watch him run and hide like a coward, because i am sure by the time they are finished debating Mr Legge would not even have a single Leg left to stand on in which to get up carry his sore away on.


Legge has already run from debate, several times.

He has also been informed of blatant errors in his last paper which he refuses to correct. He can now be officially classified as disinformation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 10 2011, 09:42 AM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,712
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Paul @ Jan 10 2011, 08:35 AM) *
Just reading you reply already makes me laugh this is great too good, maybe you should publish a rebbutal paper
to his latest paper ...



There really isnt any need. He discredits himself just by publishing his own paper when real experts read it. Why waste time posting a full rebuttal?

If people ask, i'll point out the errors. I'd rather spend my time doing real research and finishing our next presentation on NORAD, ATC and Radar.

I hear even Tino (who adamantly disagreed with my work on the Flight Deck Door) has already blasted Legge as a "disgrace to the movement" after reading his paper.

Seems Legge is his own worst enemy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Jan 10 2011, 09:59 AM
Post #7





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2011, 11:08 PM) *
Legge has already run from debate, several times.

He has also been informed of blatant errors in his last paper which he refuses to correct. He can now be officially classified as disinformation.


Thats soo funny several times, gee i wonder why he has refused to debate you several times already? i think the answer to that question is
pretty glaringly obvious dont you? Proves he is complete coward, a blatant shill, i think the only reason Mr Legge wrote this paper using the
decode work and assistance of Mr Stutt is 1.) To try and attack and attempt to discredit Pilotsfor911truth & CIT using a series of blatant lies & mis information 2.) To try and suck people into believing that the FDR data contained on the black box data recorder which is allegedly from AA Flight 77
provided to us by the NTSB supports the official story flight of flight 77 all the way up until impact and the anomalies contained there in are easily explainable and nothing to worry about.

Really on the last one i feel sorry for anyone who is dumb enough to get sucked into that black hole and anyone that does deserves to stay stuck
in their forever along with Mr Legge and all the rest of the idiots, we know who they all are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 10 2011, 10:01 AM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,712
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I did a bit more reading around... even known 'debunkers' who have claimed to be pilots know that Legge's paper is garbage. Too funny.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Jan 10 2011, 10:03 AM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2011, 11:12 PM) *
There really isnt any need. He discredits himself just by publishing his own paper when real experts read it. Why waste time posting a full rebuttal?

If people ask, i'll point out the errors. I'd rather spend my time doing real research and finishing our next presentation on NORAD, ATC and Radar.

I hear even Tino (who adamantly disagreed with my work on the Flight Deck Door) has already blasted Legge as a "disgrace to the movement" after reading his paper.

Seems Legge is his own worst enemy.


You know what your right keep working on what you are doing can wait to see it when it comes out it will give the detractors something else
to chew on and it might even reign in some new support if we are really lucky just ignore the paid shill Mr Legge and sit back and point and laugh.

thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 10 2011, 10:11 AM
Post #10





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The problem is not that this is bogus research, but that too many people accept it. Then there is the fact that the site that publishes such bogus research discredits or taints all the other research they publish. If the "peer review" process at J911T is flawed, bogus, incompetent research all published and reviewed by that panel is ALSO suspect. This may be throwing the baby out with the bath water in a sense because there could conceivably be some decent work published by them. We just don't know. But it does undermine the authority of these "papers".

Why would anyone submit a paper to this group?

What say you?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 10 2011, 10:57 AM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,712
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



You raise a good point SanderO.

Being that i readily admit i am a layman when it comes to the WTC collapse, combined with the fact i have exposed their rather elementary mistakes and blatant errors in an area with which i do have expertise, one has to wonder what kind of blatant errors and mistakes they have made in their other papers. Especially when there are so many arguments against their theories on the WTC.

The fact that they refuse to consult us (or any aviation professional for that matter, at least, not one willing to put his name on the paper) prior to virtually attacking us and our work, is a blatant slap in the face, especially when their analysis is flat out wrong. When people come to me regarding the WTC, i usually refer them to the JO911S. I may have to rethink that position.

This is the second time Legge has done this. The first time, we had to spank him through 8+ revisions (of which more is needed but he refuses to correct). One would think he would have learned his lesson the first time. Guess not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Decalagon
post Jan 10 2011, 01:54 PM
Post #12





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 8-December 09
From: Italy
Member No.: 4,778



Thanks at all for the answers, but I'd like to better understand the technical errors mentioned by Mr. Balsamo. I am aware of the fact that the unidentified flying object has traveled a route to the north of the light poles: for this reason I wanted to understand the bullshits (excuse the term) said by Frank Legge :-)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 10 2011, 02:38 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,712
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Decalagon @ Jan 10 2011, 12:54 PM) *
Thanks at all for the answers, but I'd like to better understand the technical errors mentioned by Mr. Balsamo. I am aware of the fact that the unidentified flying object has traveled a route to the north of the light poles: for this reason I wanted to understand the bullshits (excuse the term) said by Frank Legge :-)


Well, you dont have to look very far to see a very clear technical error consisting of several errors. The first one is in their very first paragraph. All you have to do is look at their source.

Legge states 09:37:44 and 09:37:46 as the "[impact time] depending on source", sourcing the first 'impact time' from the NTSB via wiki, the second from the 911 Commission Report.

No one states an "impact" time of 09:37:44. Legge would know this if he actually read his sources.

Attention to detail is not one of Legge's strong suits (nor apparently anyone who "Peer-reviewed" his paper).

First, his wiki source says 09:37:46 as a "crash time" and wiki sources the NTSB FDR pdf. This pdf says the recording ended at 09:37:44. This is true. This is not a time of "impact".

The NTSB Flight Path Study is the proper source for an "impact" time and the source used by all, this is what it states...



The above was calculated by the NTSB based on this...



Like the 9/11 Commission Report who sourced the NTSB for their "impact time" and got it wrong, Legge also has a problem with attention to detail.

Now, this may seem trivial, but it's not. This is the type of attention to detail that is lacking through every paper i have ever read that has been published by Legge and claimed to have undergone "Peer-Review". If I were to untangle each mangled mess Legge has made in his current paper, i would be typing for perhaps a week straight. I'm not going to waste my time when any real expert reading his paper can see that it is garbage and in fact only discredits the authors. Even those who support the govt story and claim to be pilots understand Legges' claims are bogus.

Again, just check through his sources (and the sources of his sources), especially regarding FAR's for altimeter errors (the crux of his paper), and you'll see where Legge has severely screwed the pooch.

Hope this helps.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Decalagon
post Jan 10 2011, 03:12 PM
Post #14





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 8-December 09
From: Italy
Member No.: 4,778



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2011, 01:38 PM) *
Hope this helps.


thumbsup.gif

Thanks for the clarification.

However it was obvious that the content of this document was fake, since the facts (north path described by the eyewitnesses, the confession of the taxi driver Lloyd England, etc.) are in sharp contrast to the official version.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Jan 10 2011, 03:17 PM
Post #15





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



Over at Blogger Steven Jones, co-editor of The Journal of 9/11 Studies (JO911S), writes:

QUOTE
This research paper has undergone thorough peer-review prior to publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Thank you for this work, Dr. Legge and Warren Stutt.


This same "peer-review" claim was made last time Frank Legge published an article about the Pentagon in the JO911S, even though it contained a considerable amount of false and/or misleading information. After the initial publication of this supposedly "peer-reviewed" paper it subsequently underwent multiple revisions to correct errors, and yet even after those revisions it still contained key misinformation (more properly called disinformation since it was pointed out to him after Version 2, and he is now on Version 8) which remains to this day. Read all about that episode here.

This post has been edited by Ligon: Jan 10 2011, 03:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 10 2011, 03:22 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,712
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Ligon @ Jan 10 2011, 02:17 PM) *
Read all about that episode here.



.... and here.


Well said Ligon.


Decalagon, i also changed the title of this thread to better reflect the content. By the way, thanks for posting this here so we have a link to send others who ask. Welcome to the forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jan 10 2011, 04:24 PM
Post #17





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



QUOTE (Ligon @ Jan 10 2011, 02:17 PM) *
Over at Blogger Steven Jones, co-editor of The Journal of 9/11 Studies (JO911S), writes:



This same "peer-review" claim was made last time Frank Legge published an article about the Pentagon in the JO911S, even though it contained a considerable amount of false and/or misleading information. After the initial publication of this supposedly "peer-reviewed" paper it subsequently underwent multiple revisions to correct errors, and yet even after those revisions it still contained key misinformation (more properly called disinformation since it was pointed out to him after Version 2, and he is now on Version 8) which remains to this day. Read all about that episode here.

Just because something is peer reviewed, doesn't mean it passed. Besides, peer review doesn't mean much when you're getting your buddy to check your homework and both of you have an agenda.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jan 10 2011, 04:27 PM
Post #18





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



QUOTE
I bet you right now Mr Frank Legge is probably too busy tossing himself off over his newly published paper
along with all the other well known detractors who seem to gather together in massive bunches on certain well sites and enjoy self pleasuring
themselves while they try to make fun of us all and point and laugh and call us nutjobs fruitcakes tin foil hatters and so forth and whatever else they can come up with.


In the meantime, they ban anyone that disagrees with them from their forums. It's easy to attack people and their work, when you won't let them defend themselves in an open forum. I guess that's one way to never lose an argument? rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 10 2011, 04:37 PM
Post #19





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The peer review cited in 9/11 research is pretty pathetic and it makes a mockery of the peer review process.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Decalagon
post Jan 10 2011, 08:00 PM
Post #20





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 8-December 09
From: Italy
Member No.: 4,778



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2011, 02:22 PM) *
Decalagon, i also changed the title of this thread to better reflect the content.


No problem ;-) thanks for welcome.

About the Legge's paper: I believe this is wrong because of the many eyewitnesses that describe the north path and for other reason. For example, the debris of the alleged American 77 have not been officially identified as belonging to Flight 77 or tail N644AA#, and there has been no attempt to reconstruct the plane as is usually the protocol during aircraft crash investigations. Correct me if I am wrong.
I also find it strange that these data "have been discovered" only now, after 9 years... rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by Decalagon: Jan 10 2011, 08:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st November 2014 - 09:44 AM