IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

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

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

rob balsamo
post Sep 16 2011, 11:04 PM
Post #41



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I have become informed Frank Legge is getting so desperate for "peer-review", that he is willing to join a pilot forum to leech off the bias of those who blindly follow whatever the govt tells them.

As usual, Frank Legge lies to further his agenda.

Legge posting as "gravity32" trying to gain the support of biased pilots.
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/463565-alti...tml#post6703426

As usual, it backfires on Legge.

This is the intellectual honesty portrayed by an Editor of the Journal Of 911 Studies? Really?

Wow....

Yes Legge, even some pilots will refuse to discuss, research, or question the 9/11 Attacks and label anyone who questions 9/11 as "moonbats". These are exactly the type of "pilots" Frank is looking for through his anonymous internet ID. If Legge were to use his real name, those same "pilots" would call Legge a "moonbat" for his WTC theories.

Too funny.

Hey Legge, can your desperation get any worse? We know your last paper fell flat on its face, but really now, trying to gain the support of biased pilots? Why not just source the J.REF? Oh wait, you already tried that.

You should source the JREF for your next WTC paper. If perhaps you will ever write another. It's been what, 3 years and 3 papers that you been trying to prove the govt story through data provided by govt agencies with regard to the Pentagon? When will you write a paper on the WTC and thermate? Arent you a chemist?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Sep 16 2011, 11:36 PM
Post #42





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



Sorry, Albert. I didn't see the response on this thread until tonight.

I don't know Mr. Skousen, and all I know about him is on Patriotsquestion911.com

Sounds like he qualified in F-4's and flew one tour in Vietnam. 1000 hours isn't a lot of flight time, but it is probably average for a pilot who trained and flew one operational tour. That would equate to about 6-700 sorties.

I question the judgment of anyone with flight experience who would lend his name to Frank Legge's compilation of mendacity and cant.

SFL

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bgaede
post Sep 17 2011, 05:22 AM
Post #43





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 13
Joined: 11-September 11
Member No.: 6,245



It is scary to realize to what degree the peddlers of the official story will go to in order to destroy Truth organizations. What's next? Murder the skeptics?

We should question why the Government refuses to investigate 9/11. Period! The suspicious attitude of the people in Washington can only be interpreted as a cover-up in light of the fact that there is more than enough eyewitness testimony and lack of objective evidence to warrant a reopening of the case. The entire 9/11 Commission Report dealt almost exclusively with the phone-y calls fabricated by the Bush Team.

Again, what is ludicrous is when an infiltrator tries to sell you the story that we need to investigate the details of the collapse of the Towers or Building 7 when it is obvious that they could not have disintegrated symmetrically by fires. Perhaps, as one proponent argued, the US military used a sophisticated laser weapon or maybe they were demolished by thermate or maybe it was thermite. Was there a missile under flight 175? Who cares? The infiltrator shows his true colors when he harps on the tree to take your eyes off the forest.

9/11 was a crime committed by the Bush Administration. Until the infiltrator admits to this up front, we can have no rational analysis or discussion of the incidents that day. It is obvious that the infiltrator has a hidden agenda if he doesn't come clean on this non-negotiable, sine qua non ground rule. If people want to talk about fires and Arabs, that's fine. But they must first swear an oath that Bush and Co. did 9/11. The goal of an infiltrator is not to get to the bottom of 9/11. His objective is to derail. There are only three possibilities. Either the person who believes that 9/11 wasn't done by George is a very stupid individual -- bordering on Downs -- he is a person who is unwilling to surrender his religion -- right or wrong my country -- or he was sent by the Government to 'keep an eye' on things.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 17 2011, 09:54 AM
Post #44



Group Icon

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



Jeebus...

Well spotted Rob!

Look at his parting remark (based on J.REF frauds)

QUOTE
Several other people have calculated a wing load of less than 2g. That is very different. I have checked the calculation myself and have found it could be as low as 1.7g depending on the actual course taken.


Frank, there is only one course that the "directional damage" and your tweaked (make that dry humped) FDR data allows!

Did you see the following two quotes as well Rob?

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/463565-alti...tml#post6698507

QUOTE
avtrician
Its not a question of accuracy of the calibration of either device , as they are measuring differnt things. the altimeter measures air pressure, and the radalt measures the time it takes for a radar pulse to return to it.

Note, that a radalt is only accurate when aimed vertically at the ground, any tilt in the aircraft axis will give an erroneous reading.


http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/463565-alti...tml#post6698807

QUOTE
gravity32
The plane was nearly level at the end so radalt would not have been upset by angles.


And talking about himself in the third person...

biggrin.gif



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 17 2011, 02:20 PM
Post #45



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Sep 17 2011, 09:54 AM) *
Look at his parting remark (based on J.REF frauds)


lol... someone needs to ask Legge where his 2g data point is located in the Flight Envelope.

Here is a hint...



(I've also underlined the operative word in which Legge loves to forget.)

The guy is a joke. Each consecutive paper he has written has progressively had the opposite effect of Legge's objective, further chipping away at any credibility he may have had within the "Truth Movement". When will the guy learn.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 24 2011, 04:23 PM
Post #46



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Seems Legge is still trying to obtain support from biased pilots who havent thoroughly researched all the information. But now it's based on witnesses and his latest garbage written with Chandler.

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/446123-roll...tml#post6706487

So, lets briefly examine the exploits of "Frank Legge".

Years ago, Legge attempts to influence my thought process to abandon the facts and data... he failed.

He tried to influence Capt Jeff Latas .... Fail!

He tried to influence Capt Kolstad and Capt Aimer... Fail!

He tried to influence Dwain Deets.... Fail!

Legge tried to influence Lt Col Lankford and Capt Bruce Sinclair.... Fail!

He tried to influence Joel Sousken through deception... Fail!

He begged for "peer-reviewers" at 9/11 Blogger... "no aviation experience required" .... Fail!

He is now attempting to influence pilots at an airline forum in which most would think his theories on the WTC are batshit crazy.... Fail!

Legge is an epic failure, although i do admire his persistence.

However, most people realize that when they have dug themselves into a deep hole, they stop digging.

Frank, when will you learn that truth always prevails. You will not be able to influence any pilot who thoroughly researches all of the data. You cannot change aerodynamics no matter how hard you try. The only type of pilot you may get to endorse your crap is one who is not interested in researching all the data, gets his/her "facts" from Fox News religiously, and would think your WTC theories are batcrap crazy. You may want to try the govt loyalist site next. However, those who claim to be pilots arent willing to put their name to their claims on that forum either, so I dont suspect they will endorse anything from you. Good luck though...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 24 2011, 06:38 PM
Post #47



Group Icon

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



Aieee..he's using a bastard spawned frankenstein diagram of Achimspok, Reheat and Yougenedebs all puked over one image!



And this beaut:

QUOTE
Over a hundred people are on record as saying they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.


He has a whole new virgin patch to spread his lies. Frank Legge is a disinformationist on all issues Pentagon related. Fact.

Frank, what legacy do you want to leave for your kids??

QUOTE
"no aviation experience required"


Ahahaha!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Oct 8 2011, 06:48 PM
Post #48



Group Icon

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



http://www.pprune.org/6724429-post64.html

laughing1.gif

End of convo. lmao.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9/11 Justice Now
post Oct 9 2011, 03:46 AM
Post #49





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 6-May 08
Member No.: 3,289



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 25 2011, 06:23 AM) *
Seems Legge is still trying to obtain support from biased pilots who havent thoroughly researched all the information. But now it's based on witnesses and his latest garbage written with Chandler.

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/446123-roll...tml#post6706487

So, lets briefly examine the exploits of "Frank Legge".

Years ago, Legge attempts to influence my thought process to abandon the facts and data... he failed.

He tried to influence Capt Jeff Latas .... Fail!

He tried to influence Capt Kolstad and Capt Aimer... Fail!

He tried to influence Dwain Deets.... Fail!

Legge tried to influence Lt Col Lankford and Capt Bruce Sinclair.... Fail!

He tried to influence Joel Sousken through deception... Fail!

He begged for "peer-reviewers" at 9/11 Blogger... "no aviation experience required" .... Fail!

He is now attempting to influence pilots at an airline forum in which most would think his theories on the WTC are batshit crazy.... Fail!

Legge is an epic failure, although i do admire his persistence.

However, most people realize that when they have dug themselves into a deep hole, they stop digging.

Frank, when will you learn that truth always prevails. You will not be able to influence any pilot who thoroughly researches all of the data. You cannot change aerodynamics no matter how hard you try. The only type of pilot you may get to endorse your crap is one who is not interested in researching all the data, gets his/her "facts" from Fox News religiously, and would think your WTC theories are batcrap crazy. You may want to try the govt loyalist site next. However, those who claim to be pilots arent willing to put their name to their claims on that forum either, so I dont suspect they will endorse anything from you. Good luck though...


Can you give us a link to the airline forum plz Rob i just want to read and laugh.

Thanks

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Oct 9 2011, 07:59 AM
Post #50



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
Can you give us a link to the airline forum plz Rob i just want to read and laugh.

Thanks


Try here:

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/446123-roll...tml#post6706487

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9/11 Justice Now
post Oct 10 2011, 08:46 AM
Post #51





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 6-May 08
Member No.: 3,289



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Oct 9 2011, 09:59 PM) *


I like this reply from a real pilot who is posting on the forum know as A320

"Quote"

Don't you ever get tired of going in circles "gravity32"?

Click, read, study.

Roll rate

Roll rate

I enjoy this diagram as well. It reflects the data point you are so willing to support, yet fail to get the support of any real and verified pilot.


Apparently "gravity32", you are the only one getting a "kick out of this" as you continue to dig your hole deeper and deeper losing support along the way, while Pilots For 9/11 Truth continue to grow.

Numbers are on the x-axis. You just cannot determine those numbers because you don't understand V-speeds nor do you have any aeronautical knowledge.

This is on page 4 http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/446123-roll-rate-4.html

Yeah it really seems like Frank is really convincing everyone with his lies NOT he is talking shit out of his ass, even i can gather this and i am
know very little about aviation and flying.

Good one Frank you paid disinfo shill you fail, you couldnt even convince a two year old with your utter nonsense.

laughing1.gif laughing1.gif laughing1.gif

This post has been edited by 9/11 Justice Now: Oct 10 2011, 08:49 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 30 2011, 10:29 PM
Post #52



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



So... i was browsing facebook tonight... and was suggested to "add a friend" of Frank Legge.

I clicked on his page and read this posted by Legge only a few weeks ago...

"In a large commercial passenger plane, like a 757, would not the computer intervene between the pilot and the control actuation to provent[sic] excessive force being applied?


Needless to say I was laughing so hard i wasn't able to accept the friend request.

Hilarious...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Oct 31 2011, 09:57 AM
Post #53





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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Oct 29 2011, 01:29 AM) *
So... i was browsing facebook tonight... and was suggested to "add a friend" of Frank Legge.

I clicked on his page and read this posted by Legge only a few weeks ago...

"In a large commercial passenger plane, like a 757, would not the computer intervene between the pilot and the control actuation to provent[sic] excessive force being applied?


Needless to say I was laughing so hard i wasn't able to accept the friend request.

Hilarious...


i dunno rob, there was a bit of buzz when airbus 447 went down about how the computer is the final arbiter in an airbus cockpit, which caused the saying to come about, 'if it ain't boeing, i ain't going'. not to say that legge isn't a doofus, he is, but perhaps he was mixing up aircraft. just a thought.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 31 2011, 10:04 AM
Post #54



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Oct 31 2011, 09:57 AM) *
i dunno rob, there was a bit of buzz when airbus 447 went down about how the computer is the final arbiter in an airbus cockpit, which caused the saying to come about, 'if it ain't boeing, i ain't going'. not to say that legge isn't a doofus, he is, but perhaps he was mixing up aircraft. just a thought.


For someone like Legge who has supposedly done so much extensive study on the Pentagon, and written three papers on the topic, to not know that a 757 is not Fly-by-wire is just so beyond the pale to be ludicrous.... it's beyond ludicrous... there just isnt a word for what it is...

But then again, we are talking about Legge here. I think we should just call such absurd acts as a "Legge"... I'm sure he still thinks CWS aided "hijacker control" when in fact it was deactivated and removed from the reported aircraft in question long before 9/11/2001 due to the fact it doesnt aid in anything, and in fact hindered ...lol

After being informed of this fact, Legge then came up with one of his best "Legge's" as a retort, "Well, the govt must have reinstalled CWS to help the Hijackers!"

LMAO! You just can't make this stuff up....

Legge never fails to give a good belly laugh with his work... at least he is good at one thing...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 6 2011, 10:53 PM
Post #55



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Rob Balsamo)
After being informed of this fact, Legge then came up with one of his best "Legge's" as a retort, "Well, the govt must have reinstalled CWS to help the Hijackers!"


Ha!

Ah well, he must have thought it okay to use that gimp logic seeing as how Ashley claimed that the gubmint snook a box into the cargo hold to enable mobile phonecalls from the aircraft, or when Hoffman claimed surface to air missiles were used to break "Flight 77" up to aid easier "penetration" (I call it the "vaseline theory")

I swear to god man, is it any wonder they hide and launch this verbal tripe? "Strongest evidence", my left one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrodway
post Jan 6 2012, 06:55 AM
Post #56





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 283
Joined: 5-August 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,609



I just discovered this bobbing up and down in the local online toilet...

Not sure if this is new revision of the John D. Wyndham paper or just the old one but it is dated more recently (December 2011) than the prior link above.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Wyndham1.pdf

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 6 2012, 09:54 AM
Post #57



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (mrodway @ Jan 6 2012, 11:55 AM) *
I just discovered this bobbing up and down in the local online toilet...

Not sure if this is new revision of the John D. Wyndham paper or just the old one but it is dated more recently (December 2011) than the prior link above.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Wyndham1.pdf


Haha. Good analogy mrodway.

QUOTE
The CIT evidence for a north-of-CITGO path, which infers that plane impact did
not occur, lacks credibility for several other reasons: it is an inference from an imprecise observation; some witnesses appear to have been led in their descriptions of the flight path; there are only a small number (about 12) such witnesses;


Like the rest of the paper, unfounded wordsmithery void of any evidence to counter the NOC testimony and in effect brands all witnesses interviewed by CIT as morons who can't tell the difference between left and right.

NOC aerodynamically possible

NOC flightpath aerodynamically possible and witness compatible

NOC tech paper

CIT response to David Chandler

Stutt/Legge rebuttals

"Directional damage path witnesses" debunk

If the paper is based on those foundations listed above which have been repeatedly addressed and never answered, the rest isn't worth delving into.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2012, 10:12 AM
Post #58



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Someone pointed this out to me the other day. It appears Legge/Stutt are intentionally leaving their errors in their 'paper' to deceive readers.

"The current plan is to leave the wrong FAR reference in the paper as a honey pot to see how many stupid, illogical things critics will say about it." - Legge/Stutt


How many Scientific papers do you know where the author(s) intentionally leave inaccurate or erroneous references in their papers? Not to mention bragging about leaving errors in their... ahem... "peer-reviewed"(laugh) papers...? These people call themselves Scientists? What a joke..

As a reminder.....

Warren, the reason the FAR in your paper was so pivotal, is because it describes when the largest errors occur, on landing, at high AOA, in the dirty configuration. You thought it was for all "operational speed ranges" of the aircraft in any configuration (+/- 30 feet per 100 knots) because that is what Wiki told you. You then used this as your theory for the possible error at such high speed at the Pentagon. You were wrong, wiki is wrong. You would have known this had you actually looked at the Reg. You picked the FAR for a Cessna 172 static system which was quoted incorrectly. You may have found they quoted the regulation wrong if you actually looked at the Reg, but you probably would have still used the wrong regulation as you do not have the aeronautical knowledge to tell the difference between Normal, Utility, Aerobatic and Commuter, vs Transport Category. As you can see from the above calculations correlating as close as possible to "4 RA", the Air Data Computer has removed such errors on Transport Category Aircraft when the errors should be at their worst, in the landing configuration at high AOA. Keep in mind the ADC is designed and certified to remove position error's in the static system up to Mach 0.86. This is why you are reading a Calibrated Airspeed on the IAS, and the reason you have an IVSI in most modern jets, not a laggy VSI found in a Cessna 172. It is also the reason you have an Electric Altimeter as your Primary Altimeter. - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794074

And then they wonder why they cannot find one pilot or aviation professional to endorse their crap. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sergio
post Jan 6 2012, 10:43 AM
Post #59





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 15-February 11
Member No.: 5,658



QUOTE
The CIT witnesses appear in some instances to have been led by their interviewer (for example, the interview22 of Albert Hemphill by Craig Ranke).

p. 7-8

LOL
If one listens to Ranke's interview and then to Jeff's interview, I wonder how on earth can blame Ranke for using leading tactics.
Anyway, Hemphill confirmed to Jeff that the plane flew "right over the Navy Annex" and "more over the, the gas station".

Right over the Navy Annex / more over the gas station = No SoC
End of story.

Pure disinformation. Back to ACARS.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 6 2012, 10:59 AM
Post #60



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Sergio @ Jan 6 2012, 03:43 PM) *
p. 7-8

LOL
If one listens to Ranke's interview and then to Jeff's interview, I wonder how on earth can blame Ranke for using leading tactics.
Anyway, Hemphill confirmed to Jeff that the plane flew "right over the Navy Annex" and "more over the, the gas station".

Right over the Navy Annex / more over the gas station = No SoC
End of story.

Pure disinformation. Back to ACARS.


Yeah, what a joke. The partial story is laid out here

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...p;#entry2464894

Hill sent this image to help "jog" Hemphill's memory!:



Even after the above image was sent to Hemphill, he said this:

QUOTE
Hemphill: Okay. I would put it uh slightly inb [word trails off] I, I would put it in between that uh more over the, the gas station uh I think the official flight, flight path looks pretty damn close to what I saw.

Jeff: So you would be more consistent with the uh official flight path (that Hill handed to him on a plate) rather than the so-called north of Citgo flight path that theyíre uh trying to say?

Hemphill: Yeah. [unintelligible] That just. It didnít. Thereís just no way! It came, it looked like it went over the gas station!

Jeff: Yeah. Well. If you [unintelligible] From what Iím looking at the picture, if youíre looking at the gas station, that would be over to your left. And then if you look

Hemphill: No, the gas station would be to my right.

Jeff: It would be to your right?

Hemphill: Yep!

Jeff: Okay. Maybe just the way it looks in Google Earth, or something. (or maybe because it is?)


So at what point would the aircraft have appeared "over/ to the Arlington Cemetery side of Citgo" on the directional damage path??



Pure horsekack. Even with Hill leading him throughout the interview and lying through his teeth, he still is an NOC witness.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th September 2014 - 11:46 PM