Legge's "addendum" Fallacies, Frank's at it again.. Options

[onesliceshort]

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.

Hope you guys don't mind that I started a new topic on this given that it's about Frank Legge's "addendum" to his already flawed disinfo piece. I've been posting at the site linked to above but the site owner is very "selective" on what he allows posted there (to date anyway) and I wanted to keep record of very relevant information that is "awaiting moderation" there.

Basically, Legge has made up his own "NOC flightpath" and claimed that the bank angle necessary, based on his interpretation (and his alone) of what the NOC witnesses described would require a "73º" right bank.

Legge has omitted witness Ed Paik's testimony completely based on a totally contradictory piece done by Erik Larson (911Blogger moderator) where Ed Paik repeated the exact same description of the flightpath he had described to CIT!

Legge came up with this:

(IMG:http://fpj.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/fig01.jpg)

Here are the posts:

2) On Ed Paik, see me previous remarks on CIT’s dishonesty.”

Did you know that the first interview with Ed Paik was in the presence of Russell Pickering, no friend of CIT and an avid “impact” theorist? They ALL believed that Ed Paik was outside his shop.

http://youtu.be/-SeOa6AQyt0

CIT answered Erik Larson’s unfounded accusations here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1013

And how could CIT have been “deceitful” when Ed Paik repeated the same testimony??

Here are two stills from the Larson interview:

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Li...OverShopNOC.jpg
http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Li...pNOCoutside.jpg

And one of multiple overhead maps with Paik’s description of the flightpath:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lyt...path/CITGO2.jpg

It was even worked out what sort of view he would have had had the aircraft flew where Frank says. Not the witnesses.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/POV_Cams/...80_EST_TEXT.jpg

Even his brother Shinki Paik’s testimony regarding a “shadow” was taken into account!

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/POV_Cams/...80_EST_TEXT.jpg

Discussed here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10782468

Frank’s ommission of this guy’s testimony is dishonest and is a major flaw to his entire “addendum”.

4) On your links, as I said, neither addresses either this addendum or the original paper.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1646

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10798304

The links address the fatal flaws of the previous papers of this “Addendum”. How can there be an “addendum” to an already flawed analysis??

The path Frank drew to “represent” the NOC witness flightpaths were decribed by nobody.
How can this..

http://fpj.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/upl...11/12/fig01.jpg

..possibly be addressing these maps drawn by the witneses themselves?

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/b...GroupsMap-3.jpg

Add Ed Paik’s description of the flight of the aircraft (again repeated in Erik Larson’s interview) and you’ll see why Frank purposely omitted him.

All I saw was the wing…If I could see the left hand side then I could see the body..NO..all I could see was triangle (right wing)

http://i45.tinypic.com/oqbxgy.jpg

Legge even claimed (as did the owner of this site) that William Middleton was a witness to the "southern path"... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

As for your comment that he (William Middleton) saw it “banking over the ANC carpark”, that seems to be your own addition to this invention. Nowhere did he say it was banking. But that is immaterial. Whether he did or didn’t, he couldn’t have seen the plane on a NOC path, as shown in this paper.

My own invention? Have you even watched his interview??

Here’s his original CMH interview:
http://www.thepentacon.com/WMiddleton.mp3

“…And he glazed over like our parking lot here and MADE A TURN toward the Pentagon….”

William Middleton

Here’s the path he drew and what he described as he drew it:

http://i40.tinypic.com/2d9eijt.jpg

@37mins into this video:

http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm

A: When I seen him, if this is it here, I would say… [William Middleton draws flight path]
Q: Ok, so…
A: Well, this is our parking lot, right here.
Q: Yeah, so…
A: That’s— It came right over the parking lot.
Q: Oh, it looked like it came right over the parking lot like that. Ok.”

Again, his view:

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5305/middletonpov.jpg
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/9835/mi...povpentagon.png

HE HAD NO VIEW OF THE OCT PATH!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giX1a1qnL_w

From the same site:

"Witnesses actually described a straight path" rebuttal:

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/1...=175341#respond

Terry Morin an "impact/SOC witness" rebuttal:

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/1...=175375#respond

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/1...=175331#respond



NOC flightpath aerodynamically possible and witness compatible:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509

NOC flightpath tech paper:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...post&id=122

Detractor answers:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...15948&st=20

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15861

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Jan 11 2012, 12:07 PM

[rob balsamo]

Basically, Legge has made up his own "NOC flightpath" and claimed that the bank angle necessary, based on his interpretation (and his alone) of what the NOC witnesses described would require a "73º" right bank.

That is nothing new... and it was debunked over 3 years ago...

Basically, Legge is cherry picking/mix and matching, using the FDR speeds... to suit his bias. If he were intellectually honest, he would write something like this...

- Speed: Flight Data Recorder (FDR) information not available for airborne vehicle witnessed on North Approach. Exact speed is impossible to determine based on witness statements. Several speeds are offered in this analysis including that of the Flight Data Recorder information plotted by the NTSB for this segment of flight in which many parameters conflict with a Pentagon "Impact". When using FDR information as plotted by the NTSB it would be technically inaccurate to focus on one parameter and ignore the rest for such a segment. Therefore, the reader must also understand FDR altitude as plotted by the NTSB for this segment has to be taken into consideration which shows too high to hit the Pentagon*. With that said, we will still demonstrate how even the highest and final FDR speed plotted by the NTSB at less than 1 second west of the pentagon wall, is still aerodynamically possible for the North Approach based on bank and G loading for conventional aircraft, as witnessed. All other speed data as plotted by the NTSB for this segment will lower aerodynamic requirements than those demonstrated in this paper utilizing final FDR speed. - The North Approach, Technical Supplement to "9/11: The North Flight Path", http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15930

and put together something like this...

[onesliceshort]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)