New Fdr Analysis By Frank Legge - Discussion, What do you think? Options

[Decalagon]

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.

[9elevened]

As a complete layman bewildered by all the (to me) almost impenetrable technical issues,

(tho I do thank Mr. Balsamo for his short video on the Flight 175-EgyptAir comparison, after giving up early the first couple tries I finally perservered and "got it")

and so primarily an interested observer going back and forth between "Pilots" and 911Blogger, I think Pilots winning the debate on Legge's paper.

Pilots techs seem better credentialed, and if only because 911Blogger is now essentially blocking debate, allowing Legge, Bursill etc to comment freely and blocking anyone attempting to refute them (including myself, apparently, my first comment went through but all since then a message comes up saying it has to be vetted first and then nada).

Blocking debate seems one-sided, unfair and (dare I say it) un-American, especially when 911Blogger posted the other paper by Chandler and his co-author that at least first graciously lists the various Pentagon concerns before it goes on to attack CIT.

Plus some at 911blogger are arguing the Pentagon issue based on long outdated/debunked information. One basically insulted me on two issues, one being research (and so far after a number of days 911Blogger has not given me the opportunity to publicly respond).

Then he points me to HIS research, which with just one glance I noticed he was still quoting the Cissell "faces in window" quote as fact even though Cissell himself contacted prisonplanet in 2006 and said he never saw any such thing (physically impossible at the stated speed of the plane)

that he was drastically misquoted, and that the plane went over so fast he did not even see what airline it was from

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2...606flight77.htm

Personally I lean toward Honegger over CIT. One of the survivors interviewed by Honegger is now suing Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.

Bombs at 9:32 destroying comptrollers office (INSIDE explosions), the fighter pilot sent to investigate reports no observable outside damage (THIS is the "high speed turn and dive plane" observed by ATC), leaves, something hits at just after 9:40 (OUTSIDE explosions) as reported by outside witnesses.

The witnesses with the best viewpoint were all the apt window witnesses who observed the small plane. Khavkin posting on the BBC comment board on 911 said the small plane first swung around and took out the lightpole(s?). What if the Boeing E4 sent up by Cheney/Rumsfeld was actually controlling the smaller plane, arrived first at a much slower speed ("loitering in the air"), descended to 100 feet above the Pentagon (with its blue stripes along the side doubling for Flight 77 whether they meant it to or not) and guided it in?

The outside explosions thus covering for the earlier inside explosions, the actual plane possibly arriving late, or even sent in after they made sure the comptrollers offices were destroyed.

Did 911blogger mainly post Legge's paper because Dr. Jones has "approved" it? I don't really understand the antipathy the WTC crowd has for the Pentagon crowd. I don't think it will ever really happen, but if the general public ever does come to understand/accept the problems with NIST/WTC basic physics, they would become even more open to the same physics problems at the Pentagon. I think though a great portion of the public questions how the Pentagon could have been allowed to be hit at all, and also questions the absence of crystal clear security footage.

At least one videographer examining the footage released (sadly I no longer have the links) says the Pentagon frames are "enhanced" by someone with no idea of how to create "3D" effects (plane's tail drawn on, exhaust must penetrate the ground, at least two frames have to be missing before the explosion)

The obvious problems with the Pentagon witnesses are the numerous discrepancies, which itself illustrates why in the U.S. judicial system judges routinely instruct jurors that circumstantial evidence is to be given greater weight than eyewitness testimony.

Most of these witnesses barely had a glimpse of what happened, especially (as is demonstrated in the case of Cissill) with something that was going over their heads at nearly the speed of a bullet. We also cannot rule out that some witnesses are lying or deliberately obfuscating the issue (one has admitted he lied to draw attention to himself), or planted Operation Northwoods style witnesses (Probst being a prime candidate for that).

Once a body like the NIST says we must ignore basic physics, a LOT becomes "possible" (tho I personally draw the line at "holograms"). Especially when you then go on and read the Operation Northwoods plot, which the major media was willing to report on BEFORE 911 but nothing since.

thanks for the forum (in which at least Pilots allows the posting of dissenting views!)