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

hadmatter
post Jan 7 2012, 12:06 PM
Post #61





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 13
Joined: 27-June 07
Member No.: 1,271



QUOTE (mrodway @ Jan 4 2012, 08:55 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



Actually, there's more than that. Another stocking stuffer was left behind this holiday season. Frank Legge has published an addendum to this shredder paper. So far the only place I've seen it is at Foreign Policy Journal :

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/1...ver-hypothesis/

It looks like more of the same.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 7 2012, 12:40 PM
Post #62



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (hadmatter @ Jan 7 2012, 05:06 PM) *
Actually, there's more than that. Another stocking stuffer was left behind this holiday season. Frank Legge has published an addendum to this shredder paper. So far the only place I've seen it is at Foreign Policy Journal :

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/1...ver-hypothesis/

It looks like more of the same.


Jesus...same old, same old.

QUOTE
Thanks for the above effort Jeremy. Of course Richard Allen is right about one thing – we “made up” the flight path we used to calculate the bank angle. We made it up in such a way as to provide the easiest possible path for the plane. We had it pass right at the north corner of the Citgo gas station to minimize the bank angle. We used the last known position of the plane as determined by radar. We used the testimony of CIT’s witnesses to determine the bank angle as the plane passed the Naval Annex, zero bank.

Frank Legge


This one?



Why was Ed Paik ignored Francis?

And claiming that Morin witnessed an "impact"

Approx view

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/b...navyannex-2.jpg

http://i50.tinypic.com/2nis0tx.jpg

Disinfo merchant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jan 7 2012, 03:36 PM
Post #63


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



That approximate view photo for Morin is foreshortened also so the pentagon appears much closer. Also it appears the ingersoll is holding the camera over his head.

I would stamp a huge "foreshortened" on that pic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 7 2012, 05:50 PM
Post #64



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,706
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 6 2012, 09:12 AM) *
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



As a follow-up to the above, I sent the following to Kevin Ryan, an Editor at the "Journal Of 9/11 Studies"...


From: Pilots For Truth <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>
To: Kevin Ryan <kncryan@msn.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 4:32 PM
Subject: Question - "Scientific Peer-Reviewed Journals"

Dear Mr Ryan,

Just a quick question.....

Since when does a "Scientific Peer-Reviewed Journal" allow authors to intentionally provide false information as a "honey pot" for readers?

Please click here for more information.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10803456

Seems "Dr Legge" is not only proud of the fact he is providing false information in your "Journal", but is apparently bragging about it.... and has no intention of correcting his errors. You may want to click the link above. Others certainly will... especially those in BCC.

Seems "Dr Legge" has been proud of his intentionally false information distributed in your "Journal", for nearly a year..

Regards,
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org
Full member list at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Photos here http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots


Wait... arent these people the same who accuse the Pentagon of "honey pot" traps?

As the old saying goes.... If it quacks like a duck..... it must be [The Journal Of 9/11 Studies]. It's no surprise Dr Jones left....

I will advise of any reply.

side note: Those in BCC include (but certainly not limited to...) Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 7 2012, 10:20 PM
Post #65



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Jan 7 2012, 08:36 PM) *
That approximate view photo for Morin is foreshortened also so the pentagon appears much closer. Also it appears the ingersoll is holding the camera over his head.

I would stamp a huge "foreshortened" on that pic.


Wow, I hadn't noticed that before Aldo.

Here's an overhead of where the shot was taken (approx - according to the yellow parking space lines)
and an idea of the foreshortening by looking at where the blue bin(?) is:

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/3680/in...foreshorten.jpg

Ingersol shot:

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/b...navyannex-2.jpg

It's also at least +2m ASL from where Morin placed himself.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 8 2012, 10:25 AM
Post #66



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
Wait... arent these people the same who accuse the Pentagon of "honey pot" traps?

As the old saying goes.... If it quacks like a duck..... it must be [The Journal Of 9/11 Studies]. It's no surprise Dr Jones left....

I will advise of any reply.

side note: Those in BCC include (but certainly not limited to...) Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin.


What's funny is that all of those people who were harangued into withdrawing support from CIT and pilots and blindly throw themselves into the OCT/Al Qaeda/Bin Laden breadcrumb trail and Legge's blatant disinfo are now being openly attacked by the same players. Ryan, Jones and DRG included

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7396

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 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: 31st October 2014 - 12:51 PM