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

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

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New Fdr Analysis By Frank Legge - Discussion, What do you think?

onesliceshort
post Jan 30 2011, 08:47 AM
Post #81



Group Icon

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



There are more contradictory statements that stand out like a sore thumb which shows why it's important to get first hand interviews with alleged witnesses.

Patterson was allegedly in a 14th floor apartment and described the aircraft as being "20ft" AGL, then the report goes on to say that it held "8 to 12 people". Looking down from his alleged POV, he could tell this?

The aircraft was allegedly 150ft from his apartment yet it "flew over Arlington Cemetery"? 2000ft away?

Finally..

QUOTE
Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.


huh.gif

This smacks of a reporter or "stringer" making a deadline.

ETA: Cissell is also on record as not only rejecting what the media attributed to him but also states..

QUOTE
"Looking at the trajectories in the diagrams they have online seems off to me. I remember the plane
coming in more directly at the side of the building than at an angle," said Cissell."


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


I agree though that witness links posted at 911Blogger are outdated, debunked and can be classified as disinformation.

Peace
OSS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Jan 30 2011, 10:54 AM
Post #82





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



OSS,

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 2 2011, 05:01 AM) *
<snip>

How is your path plotted Warren? I ask because i genuinely don't know.
For the image with the numbered yellow pins, I wrote a program to read through the data and output the positions in to a Google Earth file. I then opened the file in Google Earth and took a screen shot.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Atomicbomb
post Jan 31 2011, 05:48 AM
Post #83





Group: Newbie
Posts: 64
Joined: 28-January 10
Member No.: 4,870



QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jan 30 2011, 05:44 AM) *
You admit that you had to adjust the positions of the plotted path to match the time and position of impact.

You admit that the positions recorded for the takeoff from Dulles are not even on the runway.

You admit that you had to adjust the positions for the landing so they would show the aircraft turning off the onto the runway.

And we're not even off the ground yet!

Like they say, garbage in = garbage out.

So if the data was so screwed up to begin with, why even bother to continue using data you already know is bad?

Here's a layman's example of what I mean:

Many years ago I went to the dentist to have my wisdom teeth pulled. On my follow up visit, the dentist came in the room and started asking me about my crowns and dentures. Since I didn't have any crowns or dentures, I asked him what the heck was he talking about. Then he looked at my chart again and said, "You're not 84 years old either, are you?" It turned out he had another patient who had the same name as me.

Now at that point he had two choices:

1: He could correct the chart and change the birth date to match mine and then continue the exam, marveling at what a good job he did on those crowns because they looked just like my real teeth. So good, that even he couldn't tell the difference or

2: He could give the chart back to his office assistant and ask her to find the correct chart.

When you found out the data you received was so screwed up that the plane wasn't even on the runway, shouldn't you have just gone back to the source of the data (ie the government) and tell them that there was a serious problem with the data and it couldn't possibly come from the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon or anything else that day? Instead you've wasted years of your time and a lot of other people's time trying to prove the official myth using data you know is bad to begin with.

Outstanding post DYEW. Garbage in = garbage out, exactly right! I want to point out another obvious and major issue with Stutt and Legge's paper that people rarely talk about (except Rob and a few others) but is so crystal clear to me that I am amazed more people don't point it out. Stutt and Legge are not experts in this field and therefore are NOT qualified to render an expert opinion on it. Their opinion is no more valuable or trustworthy then any layman's opinion who has looked at the issue. This is a fundamental and foundational problem for their research and their paper. They have no verified aviation experts who confirm or support their work, period. Their paper is therefore NOT peer reviewed and should not be considered anything more then an opinion piece. This glaring problem would be illustrated perfectly if Rob Balsamo and the P4T started arguing physics and chemistry issues surrounding the nano-thermite evidence with Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. Rob would be laughed out of the room and rightly so.

In the final analysis the question you have to ask yourself is "who am I going to rely upon as the experts on the pentagon aviation issues? A chemist? A software engineer? Or pilots, aircraft crash investigators, and NASA engineers?" The fact that the 911Blogger disinformation hub relies upon the chemists and software engineers while censoring the pilots, NASA engineers, and anyone who supports them should speak volumes to us all about what is really going on here. Think about it people, what is really going on at Blogger and what is REALLY going on with Stutt and Legge?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 31 2011, 08:43 AM
Post #84



Group Icon

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



Hi Warren,
I've a breakdown of your responses to my posts but I've been waiting for a response or two to Rob's pertinent posts regarding PA readings which you apparently disregarded because of what you thought showed a "reasonable" explanation to question the PA's reliability at low altitude taken from an FDR file:


QUOTE
How then can a plane taking off from the runway, before it starts to pitch upwards, have a true altitude of 349 feet? Just as in this example, I usually find when the true altitude is calculated this way when the plane is at low altitudes, that the result is higher than it should be.

Regards,
Warren.


To which Rob replied...

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 30 2011, 11:19 AM) *
Because of change in AOA in a 'dirty' configuration while the aircraft is on the ground. I explained this to you before, but it seems to either have gone in one ear and out the other, or you are just intellectually dishonest.

Now lets see what happens a few seconds later when the aircraft breaks ground and is truly at a "low altitude" (roughly 10 feet above the runway according to RA).



Hmmm, 320 feet? Runway departure end is at 309 feet? 309+10 = 319... Pretty damn accurate.

(by the way, IAD was calling 30.21. Check the Baro Cor column)


Have you posted a response to this?

Also..

Where do these readings fall wihin the Vg Diagram?



ETA: If you felt the need to "calibrate" with the data in certain areas, why didn't you "calibrate" the g force data which was very eratic and speculated on as "flutter"?

Cheers
OSS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 31 2011, 09:31 AM
Post #85



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Warren ignores the information which destroys his arguments, and cherry picks quotes of those where he feels he may have some argument left. He does this constantly. It is known as trolling.

If he did the same thing at Blogger or JREF, he would have been toast long ago. Due to his repeated trolling, i've sent him on a vacation so he can gather his thoughts and perhaps come back addressing the information that has destroyed his arguments. Let him go play in the cesspool for awhile.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 31 2011, 09:47 AM
Post #86



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Atomicbomb @ Jan 31 2011, 05:48 AM) *
This glaring problem would be illustrated perfectly if Rob Balsamo and the P4T started arguing physics and chemistry issues surrounding the nano-thermite evidence with Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. Rob would be laughed out of the room and rightly so.


Perhaps for Legge's next paper, he should write up a "Nano-Thermite" analysis sourcing Mackey and Mark Roberts as he did for his Pentagon piece(s), claiming the "Nano-Thermite" are nothing more than paint chips.

Hmmm... think it will get 'published'?

laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 31 2011, 10:51 AM
Post #87





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,125
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 25 2011, 01:17 PM) *
No, I don't think so OSS. Why would they?

Warren.

OSS linked this image, you say is not redundant:

Besides the 0.7 secconds point is nowhere at the pathway required to kick down all the poles, the point drawed in GE is about 280 meters from the point of impact. So the plane would need to fly 650 knots to make it with its nose to the impact point in 0.7 seconds. You still believe the image is not redundant?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9elevened
post Jan 31 2011, 03:10 PM
Post #88





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 12-January 11
Member No.: 5,583



<14+ witnesses at opposing vantage points all describing a plane on the north side of the gas station,>

but we also have about 10 witnesses to a smaller plane and several to two planes flying low. Not only the Boeing E-4, but also the C-130 could have been guiding a smaller plane.

as for the noise of the plane re Khavkin, do we really think in that case they would have used a simple commercial commuter plane mocked up with AA logo? it would have been souped up to become "the missile" described by Rumsfeld

the photos we've been shown of engines, especially the one where it is not even as large as the nearby worker's leg, show these cannot be the rolls royce engines used on the 757

the unburned, umarked scrap of the American Airlines "N" laying well away from the Pentagon, how did it get there when the fuselage supposedly penetrated all the way to the third ring and the wings folded back on top of it?

If the plane was banking to the left when it hit as NIST claims, how does the engine (much less the right wing; NIST says wing not engine) strike the generator?

how is the tree left intact (tho burning) when it should have been bisected by the wings of a 757?

It's simply bizarre to state Khavkin/Patterson are "planted" reports on the day of 911 itself and that's what the link I was referred to was straight out saying.

as for clocks time provides a timeline all its own

there were early reports of truck bombs

Honegger's witness (now suing Rumsfeld/Cheney) whose watch was broken at 9:32 (not "just" Pentagon clocks and other witnesses including vistiros saying it was just after 9:30)

witnesses and those injured inside did not know what hit them at first (reported smell of cordite)

the early report of a fighter jet dispatched to the Pentagon and reported no outside damage (this HAS to be the high speed turn and dive jet observed by ATC)

after this pilot leaves, at just after 9:40, something hits the Pentagon (note that NORAD maintained for two years that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:45)

but over and above all, it's just too convenient that the hijackers (assuming they could determine a blind target in the first place) wouldn't just simply dump the plane on top of the Pentagon instead of passing all the way over it, executing a manouver that tested the tolerances of the plane, for a pinpoint hit on the comptrollers offices that were attempting to determine where the $2.3 trillion went, killing most of them

and the head comptroller of the time was Dov "RoboZionist" Zakheim, yet another PNAC/Zionist a la Cheney/Rumsfeld, whose previous gig was as CEO of a company that sold pilotless flight software.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9elevened
post Jan 31 2011, 05:07 PM
Post #89





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 12-January 11
Member No.: 5,583



<and the head comptroller of the time was Dov "RoboZionist" Zakheim, yet another PNAC/Zionist a la Cheney/Rumsfeld, whose previous gig was as CEO of a company that sold pilotless flight software.>

If people are offended by the use of the "Z" word henceforth I can limit the descriptions to PNACers and others aligned with those interests. Also it appears a single use of the "Z" word has gotten me banned over at 911blogger.com hahaha

but if you're gonna talk about plots how are you leaving out perps and their motives?

and this is not just just limited to PNACers Cheney (personally chose the brand name date of 911 for his personally devised and scheduled war games),

Rumsfeld (June 2001 stand-down order had the effect of blocking jet fighters being sent up to even observe planes before impact),

or Zakheim (after most of his original comptrollers were killed at the Pentagon, personally assured Congress that the $2.3 trillion was accounted for)

A Washington Post reporter recently published a biography of Colin Powell, in which Powell is quoted referring to Cheney/Rumsfeld crew as "the JINSA crowd" and that JINSA convinced Cheney to invade the Middle East. Cheney along with Perle, Feith and others headed up JINSA before entering the Bush admin (Perle went to Pentagon's Advisory Board)

PNAC issued its "we sure could use a New Pearl Harbor" manifesto in September 2000. This having evolved from Oded Yinon's Kivunim piece (break up the largest Arab countries into more "manageable" smaller units) in 1982, and the proto-PNAC "Clean Break" paper in 1996 (remove Saddam Hussein)

In October 2000 Barbara Bodine former Kissinger aide/associate, as ambassador to Yemen, ignored repeated FBI warnings and allowed the USS Cole to dock (positioned for "terror attack" with explosives used famously traced to Israel). Bodine was later "head of security" for Baghdad for a brief period, during and after which all the bombs started going off. Based on the attack of the Cole, the plans for the invasion of Afghanistan landed on Bush's desk on Sept. 10, 2001

June 2001, Joint Chiefs implement Rumsfeld's "stand-down" order which reverses decades of NORAD SOP. Now only Rumsfeld can authorize any military response to terrorist hijackings, including merely sending up planes to observe.

also in 2001, the Silverstein family takes over the WTC (controls the WTC on 911). According to a pre-911 Ha'aretz article, Silverstein speaks to Netanyahu every Sunday by phone. Netanyahu would have been warned of any plot uncovered against the United States. After the invasion of Iraq, Netanyahu touted a Mosul-Haifa pipeline to Brit investors. Netanyahu HAS to know this is impossible unless Iraq is broken up and Kurds gain independence.

CIA agent Steele says Silversteins brought down the WTC on their own, making sure of solving their asbestos problem. Newsday reported on Sept. 12 that bomb-sniffing dogs were ordered out the thursday before the attack. South Tower witness Fiduciary Trust employee to complete powerdown of South Tower for 48 hours over the weekend before the attack, disabling security cameras/locks/doors. Observed "recabling" crew that carried no identifying information such as security badges, etc.

ICTS, the Israeli-owned security company which invented profiling, controls all three 911 airports, yet allows red-flagged hijackers to board (there should be departure lounge security footage of both hijackers and identifiable passengers; the footage of Hanjour and crew at Dulles is highly suspicious as it contains no date or time stamp, and was ordered publicly released by a judge in a civil suit over the objections of the govt)

Chertoff (who is currently making a personal fortune off airport body scanners) named to head the 911 investigation. 911 Commission asked for the actual impounded 911 plane/passenger phone records. Chertoff refuses, instead providing his own written "summary" of the calls. Chertoff cousin at Hearst Publishing oversees the Popular Mechanics 911 hit piece, which as it turned out the NIST didn't even agree with. Still no retraction from PM.

The warning text message that went out over Jerusalem-based Odigo hours before the attack on the WTC, warning people to stay away (confirmed by FBI and Odigo's manager). Bush and Washington Post report hundreds of Israeli fatalities at the WTC, but by October 2001 New York Times reports that of the 4000 Israelis that the Jerusalem Post itself reported could have been harmed in the attack, only two were killed. One on a plane and one that was visiting did not work there.

Feith at the Pentagon created the OSP to get past the CIA (disinvited to briefings) and get the phony Iraq intelligence to Bush. Washington Post called PNACer Michael Ledeen "Bush's only foreign policy adviser." Antiwar.com has linked Ledeen to the forged Niger docs.

Over at the DOJ, John "Israel First" Ashcroft was advised against flying commercial and rebuffed Clinton impeachment lawyer David Schippers trying to get around the "firewall" at the top of the FBI's counterterror unit (FBI agents attempted warnings about what came to be 911 hijackers). After leaving the govt, Ashcroft became a highly paid lobbyist for the Israeli defense industry.

NY Times and others reported the Dancing Israelis set up their cameras before the WTC was hit. One of the Dancing Israelis told the Jerusalem Post they were there to document the event. Who likes to document their having brought down buildings with bombs? Check out the Irgun's official website. Bomb-sniffing dogs reacted positively to Israeli-driven van near the Lincoln Tunnel, they were arrested and eventually deported (Urban Moving systems owner fled to Israel). Recent Israeli PM Olmert paid a visit to Irgun-linked offices in lower Manhattan on Sept. 10, not on his public schedule. Anthrax attacker Bruce Ivins was another Israel-firster. Even some in govt doubt FBI insistence he could have acted alone. The anthrax was mailed just a few miles away from Urban Moving Systems.

Tony Blair for one has said the invasion of Afghanistan was impossible without 911. So we got the invasion of Afghanistan and the "sideshow" in Iraq. Four countries have just now signed the final agreement for TAPI (Trans-Afghanistan pipeline) which will send trillions of dollars worth of Israeli-owned natural gas from Turkmenistan to the Indian Ocean.

If Iraq breaks up or is broken up and some agreement with Jordan, Netanyahu gets his Mosul-Haifa pipeline which would reduce Israel's energy costs by 25 percent. Iraq can be broken up simply by telling the Kurds to secede and seize Kirkuk and that they will be protected from invasion by Turkey/Iran (UN troops have been discussed to replace US troops but only in Northern Iraq). Kurds control Kirkuk's water supply via dam and want to add Kirkuk to "their region."

Bush oil buddies like the Hunts have been making deals with the Kurds outside the purview of Iraq's central govt. Not just limited to Republicans however. One of Hillary Clinton's first campaign promises was to leave behind enough troops to protect the Kurds (northern Iraq's oil) and what if Obama ends up doing that, erasing yet another dividing line between himself and "Bush." Joe Biden in 2006 introduced the CFR's plan to "balkanize" Iraq as a nonbinding Senate resolution, which passed overwhelmingly.

If Iraq breaks up northern Iraq's oil takes the first hidden steps to Haifa, but who takes the fall for southern Iraq "merging" with the already demonized Iran? Why the Bush placemarker Obama of course! In Dec. 2004 I began predicting a Dem president "allowed" in 2008 on this basis alone. It couldn't be Clinton because of her husband signing the CFMA (it would have instantly become the Clinton recession, even with her as running mate), so we got what turned out to be a Clinton-clone, Obama (tho his voting record actually suggested he was going to be no "change" whatsoever).

Then the AIPAC-occupied media will start hyping the resulting "threat" to Saudi Arabia and calling Jeb Bush with the Bush-Saudi ties the best candidate to deal with it. We already see this past year the media resurrecting the Bush brand just as it did in 2000. Instead, PNACer Jeb as president will take Saudi Arabia down the same road as Iraq.

And finally there are the recent events in Egypt, where the Obama administration will not save Mubarak who will be replaced just like in Iraq with "Islamist democracy," after which the Sunni-Shia tensions will again be heightened all across the Middle East (note the recent revelation that after Iraq's first election Egypt asked the Bush admin to stage a coup and install another Sunni strongman; the Bush admin refused).

Ralph Schoenman (1988):

"In this regard the desire to destabilize the Arab regimes and fragment their countries, while not unwelcome to the United States, is met by Pentagon caution as to timing and implementation."

fast forward to:

The PowerPoint That Rocked the Pentagon (2002)

"Iraq (breakup) is the tactical pivot
Saudi Arabia (breakup) the strategic pivot
Egypt (breakup) the prize"

http://www.slate.com/id/2069119
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 31 2011, 05:47 PM
Post #90



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 27 2011, 01:05 PM) *
The longitudinal acceleration went from slightly positive (since the plane was accelerating) to the most negative value (deceleration) that the FDR could record. We took the time of the deceleration as the time of impact.


I'd like to expand on the above a bit as some detractors are attempting to use the above as "proof" of impact. It isnt, and here's why.

First, the Longitudinal deceleration recorded which Legge and Stutt believe represents the "impact" and others have called "severe" is roughly 1 G. This is basically equivalent to hard braking in your car, or deploying speed brakes and moving the thrust levers to idle in a jet, especially at a high speed, high drag phase of flight.



The last Longitudinal acceleration data point is recorded at Word position 225. Vertical Acceleration is recorded at Word 226, and Lateral Accel is recorded at Word 227.

Vertical acceleration doesnt show any signs of an "impact". It shows small changes... no "spikes".

Vert Accel - Last Second - 8 hz
1.68
1.74
1.65
1.5
1.79
1.66
1.86
1.95



How could Vertical accel not show any signs of "impact" when it is recorded after the alleged "spike" in Long Acceleration, if in fact an impact occurred? There isnt any major change recorded in Vertical Accel, because the Long Accel is not recording an "impact".

Lateral accel is not a full scale deflection (or 'spiked out' like John Farmer prefers to use) at 0.564. Lateral Accel limits are the same as Long.

Name: LONGITUDINAL ACCEL
Units: G's
Minimum Value: -1.08333
Maximum Value: 0.999498

Name: LATERAL ACCELERATION
Units: G's
Minimum Value: -1.08333
Maximum Value: 0.999498

As we already know, Farmer is an idiot.. i digress.

If the aircraft impacted on an angle at almost 500 knots, why didnt the Lateral acceleration "spike" to max value? It's because no impact occurred according to the data.

Basically, the above data shows that no such "impact" took place, rather it appears (if the data is authentic), the aircraft is initiating rapid deceleration to decrease turn radius. It possible there are many more "seconds" missing from this data, perhaps many minutes, maybe even another hour... again, if the data is authentic. However, no evidence has been presented thus far to indicate it is authentic.


There isnt any change/"spike" in pitch either, which is also recorded after the alleged "impact" at Word 228... (according to Warren's Notes on Parameters).

Pitch Angle - Last Second of Data, 4 hz.
-2.3
-2.1
-1.8
-1.2

Pitch shows a downward angle. Vertical Accel should have "spiked". It didn't. Lateral Accel should have "spiked" to max if impacting on the angle alleged. It didnt.. Because no such "impact" occurred according to the data.


There is no indication of "impact", but there is indication the aircraft was too high to hit the Pentagon, pulling up from a descent... and perhaps reconfiguring to leave the area, if the data is authentic.

The "additional" data Warren has claimed to decoded is exactly what one would expect to see if the aircraft flew over the pentagon. This is not to be equated/confused with the Witnesses interviewed by CIT, as they place the aircraft on a path opposite the physical damage.

Read more here...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15930
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9elevened
post Jan 31 2011, 06:15 PM
Post #91





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 12-January 11
Member No.: 5,583



one of Legge's latest over at 911 blogger is that the ground effect would have aided not hindered the pilot

In my 911 travels I have not seen even one other trained pilot say this, in fact completely the opposite

that the ground effect would have made it harder to hit the Pentagon (some say impossible even by remote control/autopilot), or even reach the Pentagon, as is suggested by the sim on the Ventura show

the next time you watch a commercial airliner come in for a landing and think to yourself "that's what Flight 77 must've looked like coming into the Pentagon" you must first:

A) increase the speed by 5x to 6x

B) lower it to moving horizontally 25 feet above the ground

which would for all practical purposes be like a bullet going over the heads of those on the ground

and in fact Cissell the "faces in windows" witness came forward in 2006 to say he was grievously misquoted, that it happened so fast he could not even tell what airline it was from, tho he still says "big plane"

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2...606flight77.htm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 31 2011, 06:29 PM
Post #92



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (9elevened @ Jan 31 2011, 06:15 PM) *
one of Legge's latest over at 911 blogger is that the ground effect would have aided not hindered the pilot


Legge has also stated pilots never check their Primary Altimeter near the ground as Radio altitude is much more accurate below 2500 Feet AGL.

Legge says many absurd things. As i've said before, he is his own worst enemy.

He also thinks a device called CWS also may have aided in "hijacker control". When we told him that CWS was removed from the aircraft reported because the pilots hated them as they didnt help with anything (this coming from Capt Ralph Kolstad, a 757/767 Capt from American Airlines and has flight time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11), Legge then claimed "the govt must have reinstalled the CWS to help out the "hijackers".

Legge should take up Comedy, people will then probably take him more seriously and gain some respect.

Alot of this is actually not Legge's fault. He is an old timer and gets fed this stuff from a supposed Avionics Tech, one would think an Avionics Tech would know better. All he is doing is making Legge look like a jackass.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5
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: 11th December 2017 - 11:26 PM