Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: New Fdr Analysis By Frank Legge - Discussion
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Study > Debate
Pages: 1, 2
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.
Paul
QUOTE (Decalagon @ Jan 10 2011, 11:02 PM) *
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.


Dont worry i am sure you are not the only one, what a complete crock of bs that's all i have to say i am just waiting for Mr Balsamo and others much more qualified than meto tear the paper apart piece by piece along with any shred of credibility that Mr Frank Legge may have left intact i cant wait for it to begin, i am sure the detractors are having a great time right now running around screaming about how Mr Balsamo is wrong
while at the time attacking Pft & CIT and marching around boasting at the top of their voices how both oraginsations are full of frauds
mean while carrying on with their lame ass usual run of the mill character assasinations and so forth.

Just take this example from one 911blogger poster for starters

QUOTE
This refutes the Pilots for 9/11 Truth conclusion that Flight 77 was too high to have hit the Pentagon.

I commend Frank Legge and Warren Stutt for doing this necessary work. We needed more than a precautionary principle given the stakes-- we needed a scientific analysis of the FDR. Of course this is not a default to the official story-- it is a refutation of false claims. The Pentagon attack was an inside job for various other reasons.


Only in your wet dreams sonny jim, I bet you right now Mr Frank Legge is probably too busy tossing himself off over his newly published paper
along with all the other well known detractors who seem to gather together in massive bunches on certain well sites and enjoy self pleasuring
themselves while they try to make fun of us all and point and laugh and call us nutjobs fruitcakes tin foil hatters and so forth and whatever else they can come up with.

Maybe good old Robby boy can challenge Mr Legge to a real debate and watch him run and hide like a coward, because i am sure by the time they are finished debating Mr Legge would not even have a single Leg left to stand on in which to get up carry his sore away on.

laughing1.gif laughing1.gif whistle.gif whistle.gif
rob balsamo
The most apparent error is that they assume Radio Height always measures the height above the ground. Wrong.

Pilots know that you can be flying at 31,000 feet and see a Radio Height of 1000 feet (i'll let that one bake the noodle of Warren and Legge for a bit).

Next, their altitude divergence is completely and utterly deceptive and wrong. First they use averages, then they source wiki under the wrong FAR as it pertains to altimeter errors, and third, they speculate altimeters errors on Transport Category Aircraft calibrated with an Air Data Computer increase at "low altitude".

The paper is loaded with pure speculation, littered with errors and peppered with misleading statements. Also notice that not one verified aviation professional has signed their name to it. Reading through the document, it is clear they didn't consult anyone with an aviation background. The most blatant error (which is essentially the foundation for their whole argument), is sourcing the wrong FAR, combined with the fact that their source (wiki) also quoted the FAR they did source, wrong.

If Legge and Stutt were correct, combined with actual allowable errors, this is a depiction of what would be happening daily around the world.



These are just some of the most glaring errors with the paper. There are many more.

Most of the paper was also debunked before it was even published. See here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10792964
Paul
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2011, 11:54 PM) *
The most apparent error is that they assume Radio Height always measures the height above the ground. Wrong.

Pilots know that you can be flying at 31,000 feet and see a Radio Height of 1000 feet (i'll let that one bake the noodle of Warren and Legge for a bit).

Next, their altitude divergence is completely and utterly deceptive and wrong. First they use averages, then they source wiki under the wrong FAR as it pertains to altimeter errors, and third, they speculate altimeters errors on Transport Category Aircraft calibrated with an Air Data Computer increase at "low altitude".

The paper is loaded with pure speculation, littered with errors and peppered with misleading statements. Also notice that not one verified aviation professional has signed their name to it. Reading through the document, it is clear they didn't consult anyone with an aviation background. The most blatant error (which is essentially the foundation for their whole argument), is sourcing the wrong FAR, combined with the fact that their source (wiki) also quoted the FAR they did source, wrong.

If Legge and Stutt were correct, combined with actual allowable errors, this is a depiction of what would be happening daily around the world.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QkCQ_-Id8zI?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QkCQ_-Id8zI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

These are just some of the most glaring errors with the paper. There are many more.

Most of the paper was also debunked before it was even published. See here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10792964


Just reading you reply already makes me laugh this is great too good, maybe you should publish a rebbutal paper
to his latest paper which claims, oh boy do i have to say it? Maybe i should start believing in fairy dust and fairies
if i am ever going to believe what the paper claims, no i have got a better idea just knock me over the head with a brick.

Dee Bunked already even before the paper is even published, and even just after it has just come out too good lmfao lol.

laughing1.gif laughing1.gif laughing1.gif
rob balsamo
QUOTE (Paul @ Jan 10 2011, 08:20 AM) *
Maybe good old Robby boy can challenge Mr Legge to a real debate and watch him run and hide like a coward, because i am sure by the time they are finished debating Mr Legge would not even have a single Leg left to stand on in which to get up carry his sore away on.


Legge has already run from debate, several times.

He has also been informed of blatant errors in his last paper which he refuses to correct. He can now be officially classified as disinformation.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (Paul @ Jan 10 2011, 08:35 AM) *
Just reading you reply already makes me laugh this is great too good, maybe you should publish a rebbutal paper
to his latest paper ...



There really isnt any need. He discredits himself just by publishing his own paper when real experts read it. Why waste time posting a full rebuttal?

If people ask, i'll point out the errors. I'd rather spend my time doing real research and finishing our next presentation on NORAD, ATC and Radar.

I hear even Tino (who adamantly disagreed with my work on the Flight Deck Door) has already blasted Legge as a "disgrace to the movement" after reading his paper.

Seems Legge is his own worst enemy.
Paul
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2011, 11:08 PM) *
Legge has already run from debate, several times.

He has also been informed of blatant errors in his last paper which he refuses to correct. He can now be officially classified as disinformation.


Thats soo funny several times, gee i wonder why he has refused to debate you several times already? i think the answer to that question is
pretty glaringly obvious dont you? Proves he is complete coward, a blatant shill, i think the only reason Mr Legge wrote this paper using the
decode work and assistance of Mr Stutt is 1.) To try and attack and attempt to discredit Pilotsfor911truth & CIT using a series of blatant lies & mis information 2.) To try and suck people into believing that the FDR data contained on the black box data recorder which is allegedly from AA Flight 77
provided to us by the NTSB supports the official story flight of flight 77 all the way up until impact and the anomalies contained there in are easily explainable and nothing to worry about.

Really on the last one i feel sorry for anyone who is dumb enough to get sucked into that black hole and anyone that does deserves to stay stuck
in their forever along with Mr Legge and all the rest of the idiots, we know who they all are.
rob balsamo
I did a bit more reading around... even known 'debunkers' who have claimed to be pilots know that Legge's paper is garbage. Too funny.
Paul
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2011, 11:12 PM) *
There really isnt any need. He discredits himself just by publishing his own paper when real experts read it. Why waste time posting a full rebuttal?

If people ask, i'll point out the errors. I'd rather spend my time doing real research and finishing our next presentation on NORAD, ATC and Radar.

I hear even Tino (who adamantly disagreed with my work on the Flight Deck Door) has already blasted Legge as a "disgrace to the movement" after reading his paper.

Seems Legge is his own worst enemy.


You know what your right keep working on what you are doing can wait to see it when it comes out it will give the detractors something else
to chew on and it might even reign in some new support if we are really lucky just ignore the paid shill Mr Legge and sit back and point and laugh.

thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif
SanderO
The problem is not that this is bogus research, but that too many people accept it. Then there is the fact that the site that publishes such bogus research discredits or taints all the other research they publish. If the "peer review" process at J911T is flawed, bogus, incompetent research all published and reviewed by that panel is ALSO suspect. This may be throwing the baby out with the bath water in a sense because there could conceivably be some decent work published by them. We just don't know. But it does undermine the authority of these "papers".

Why would anyone submit a paper to this group?

What say you?
rob balsamo
You raise a good point SanderO.

Being that i readily admit i am a layman when it comes to the WTC collapse, combined with the fact i have exposed their rather elementary mistakes and blatant errors in an area with which i do have expertise, one has to wonder what kind of blatant errors and mistakes they have made in their other papers. Especially when there are so many arguments against their theories on the WTC.

The fact that they refuse to consult us (or any aviation professional for that matter, at least, not one willing to put his name on the paper) prior to virtually attacking us and our work, is a blatant slap in the face, especially when their analysis is flat out wrong. When people come to me regarding the WTC, i usually refer them to the JO911S. I may have to rethink that position.

This is the second time Legge has done this. The first time, we had to spank him through 8+ revisions (of which more is needed but he refuses to correct). One would think he would have learned his lesson the first time. Guess not.
Decalagon
Thanks at all for the answers, but I'd like to better understand the technical errors mentioned by Mr. Balsamo. I am aware of the fact that the unidentified flying object has traveled a route to the north of the light poles: for this reason I wanted to understand the bullshits (excuse the term) said by Frank Legge :-)
rob balsamo
QUOTE (Decalagon @ Jan 10 2011, 12:54 PM) *
Thanks at all for the answers, but I'd like to better understand the technical errors mentioned by Mr. Balsamo. I am aware of the fact that the unidentified flying object has traveled a route to the north of the light poles: for this reason I wanted to understand the bullshits (excuse the term) said by Frank Legge :-)


Well, you dont have to look very far to see a very clear technical error consisting of several errors. The first one is in their very first paragraph. All you have to do is look at their source.

Legge states 09:37:44 and 09:37:46 as the "[impact time] depending on source", sourcing the first 'impact time' from the NTSB via wiki, the second from the 911 Commission Report.

No one states an "impact" time of 09:37:44. Legge would know this if he actually read his sources.

Attention to detail is not one of Legge's strong suits (nor apparently anyone who "Peer-reviewed" his paper).

First, his wiki source says 09:37:46 as a "crash time" and wiki sources the NTSB FDR pdf. This pdf says the recording ended at 09:37:44. This is true. This is not a time of "impact".

The NTSB Flight Path Study is the proper source for an "impact" time and the source used by all, this is what it states...



The above was calculated by the NTSB based on this...



Like the 9/11 Commission Report who sourced the NTSB for their "impact time" and got it wrong, Legge also has a problem with attention to detail.

Now, this may seem trivial, but it's not. This is the type of attention to detail that is lacking through every paper i have ever read that has been published by Legge and claimed to have undergone "Peer-Review". If I were to untangle each mangled mess Legge has made in his current paper, i would be typing for perhaps a week straight. I'm not going to waste my time when any real expert reading his paper can see that it is garbage and in fact only discredits the authors. Even those who support the govt story and claim to be pilots understand Legges' claims are bogus.

Again, just check through his sources (and the sources of his sources), especially regarding FAR's for altimeter errors (the crux of his paper), and you'll see where Legge has severely screwed the pooch.

Hope this helps.
Decalagon
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2011, 01:38 PM) *
Hope this helps.


thumbsup.gif

Thanks for the clarification.

However it was obvious that the content of this document was fake, since the facts (north path described by the eyewitnesses, the confession of the taxi driver Lloyd England, etc.) are in sharp contrast to the official version.
Ligon
Over at Blogger Steven Jones, co-editor of The Journal of 9/11 Studies (JO911S), writes:

QUOTE
This research paper has undergone thorough peer-review prior to publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Thank you for this work, Dr. Legge and Warren Stutt.


This same "peer-review" claim was made last time Frank Legge published an article about the Pentagon in the JO911S, even though it contained a considerable amount of false and/or misleading information. After the initial publication of this supposedly "peer-reviewed" paper it subsequently underwent multiple revisions to correct errors, and yet even after those revisions it still contained key misinformation (more properly called disinformation since it was pointed out to him after Version 2, and he is now on Version 8) which remains to this day. Read all about that episode here.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (Ligon @ Jan 10 2011, 02:17 PM) *
Read all about that episode here.



.... and here.


Well said Ligon.


Decalagon, i also changed the title of this thread to better reflect the content. By the way, thanks for posting this here so we have a link to send others who ask. Welcome to the forum.
DoYouEverWonder
QUOTE (Ligon @ Jan 10 2011, 02:17 PM) *
Over at Blogger Steven Jones, co-editor of The Journal of 9/11 Studies (JO911S), writes:



This same "peer-review" claim was made last time Frank Legge published an article about the Pentagon in the JO911S, even though it contained a considerable amount of false and/or misleading information. After the initial publication of this supposedly "peer-reviewed" paper it subsequently underwent multiple revisions to correct errors, and yet even after those revisions it still contained key misinformation (more properly called disinformation since it was pointed out to him after Version 2, and he is now on Version 8) which remains to this day. Read all about that episode here.

Just because something is peer reviewed, doesn't mean it passed. Besides, peer review doesn't mean much when you're getting your buddy to check your homework and both of you have an agenda.
DoYouEverWonder
QUOTE
I bet you right now Mr Frank Legge is probably too busy tossing himself off over his newly published paper
along with all the other well known detractors who seem to gather together in massive bunches on certain well sites and enjoy self pleasuring
themselves while they try to make fun of us all and point and laugh and call us nutjobs fruitcakes tin foil hatters and so forth and whatever else they can come up with.


In the meantime, they ban anyone that disagrees with them from their forums. It's easy to attack people and their work, when you won't let them defend themselves in an open forum. I guess that's one way to never lose an argument? rolleyes.gif
SanderO
The peer review cited in 9/11 research is pretty pathetic and it makes a mockery of the peer review process.
Decalagon
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2011, 02:22 PM) *
Decalagon, i also changed the title of this thread to better reflect the content.


No problem ;-) thanks for welcome.

About the Legge's paper: I believe this is wrong because of the many eyewitnesses that describe the north path and for other reason. For example, the debris of the alleged American 77 have not been officially identified as belonging to Flight 77 or tail N644AA#, and there has been no attempt to reconstruct the plane as is usually the protocol during aircraft crash investigations. Correct me if I am wrong.
I also find it strange that these data "have been discovered" only now, after 9 years... rolleyes.gif
Aldo Marquis CIT
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2011, 02:38 PM) *
He can now be officially classified as disinformation.


Absolutely.

It's a team out of Australia. Stutt, Legge, and Bursill. Working in conjunction with the American and Canadian (Jeff Hill) counter parts. The movement is infested and they are desperately trying to contain the evidence/analyses from PFT/CIT.

What do we know about Warren Stutt? Absolutely nothing other than he is an identity that is supposed to be a debugger with a degree in computer science that posts on your forum, J.REF (the cesspool of supposed 9/11 Truth debunking), and works with "Dr." "Frank Legge" "PhD" to produce a paper to undermine PFT and their sterling, and truly peer-reviewed, analysis of the alleged Flt77 black box data while attempting to reinforce the official flight path to undermine the smoking gun evidence collected by us, CIT.

What do we know about Frank Legge's background? He's supposed to be a chemist with "Logical Systems Consulting" (alleged experience with Bio-Diesel Energy and Sheep)and has blended in well trying to act like a 9/11 Truth supporter and working with the CD crowd, but yet seems to step out his area of expertise and knowledge to CONTINUALLY AND PERSISTENTLY work to undermine CIT and PFT with (8+) drafts of "peer-reviewed" papers (what kind of peer-review allows for multiple mistakes?) containing overwhelming amounts of disinformation. Is he being influenced? His actions say otherwise.

What do we know about John Bursill? We know he too has tried to blend in with 9/11 Truthers working with the same crowd trying to cast doubt on CIT and PFT. Except he has had the gall to step into the light and debate Craig Ranke, lose the debate, concede he lost and concedes that he will not attack CIT any longer.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=942

Except in true bizarre, infiltrator/provocateur fashion he goes back to attacking us as if nothing he said matters. With bizarre, subversive behavior, one might expect to see some type of connections in his past to military/intelligence, sure enough right in his bio...

John has served his country as a member of the Australian Army Reserve over many years and finished up as acting Operations/Intelligence Sargent for 4/3 RNSWR.
Source: visibility911.com/johnbursill/about-john-bursill/

It's interesting Steven Jones steps out to support them and encourage everyone to go there, especially in light of his behavior with us. I will leave it at that.

Right now, it is a game of mental manipulation and they are using 'Appeal to Authority' to cast doubt by using a Phd and computer techno-jargon and a simple confidence by declaring it is proof of the impact on the official path. They are taking flawed, problematic gov't supplied data which does not prove an impact and are trying to use it to prove an impact. They refuse to acknowledge where they are wrong and instead try to use speculation as proof. Furthermore, this data would mean there is a serious Flight Safety issue and yet Stutt and Legge are only targeting 9/11 Truthers in a psyop, and not taking this supposed crucial find of an alleged bug to the aviation authorities. This proves their agenda is not genuine but instead is designed to target a specific audience.

Read Rob's responses and therein lies the truth.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (Decalagon @ Jan 10 2011, 07:00 PM) *
No problem ;-) thanks for welcome.

About the Legge's paper: I believe this is wrong ....



The main and most glaring reason Legge is wrong, is the fact I am still alive, as well as all our Core members.

If Legge were right, We would have plowed into a runway long ago on a foggy night shooting approaches. And so would every other pilot who shoots those approaches (this is why even debunkers who claim to be pilots understand Legge's paper is garbage).

I remember one particular approach into Roanoke. Boy, I'm so glad Legge wasnt flying that approach. I'm sure my passengers are as well.

Those who think Legge is right, better never get on another airplane if your destination is calling for fog and/or low visibility. You'll die! (according to Legge and Warren Stutt).
Aldo Marquis CIT
It appears all the fake truth sites are deleting comments that support CIT and PFT and show Stutt and Legge are wrong.

Not surprising. There is definitely a campaign going on here.
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (Decalagon @ Jan 10 2011, 05:54 PM) *
Thanks at all for the answers, but I'd like to better understand the technical errors mentioned by Mr. Balsamo. I am aware of the fact that the unidentified flying object has traveled a route to the north of the light poles: for this reason I wanted to understand the bullshits (excuse the term) said by Frank Legge :-)


Legge is trying as hard as he can to simply cast doubt.

He is hoping you will dismiss the witnesses who undeniably contradict the official story in favor of his spin and lies to support the official story based on govt provided evidence.

Yes it's transparent but Legge and his cohorts are desperate.

All they can hope to do at this point is influence the people who prefer to take their word for it instead of investigating for themselves or paying attention to both sides of the discussion.

Legge's deceptive papers really have no effect on anyone who actually views National Security Alert so he is simply hoping that he convinces you to not bother watching it.
KP50
Legge works hard to link the SoC flightpath to the plane striking - so mathematically he counts everyone who thought the plane hit the Pentagon as a SoC flightpath witness and comes up with a figure greater than the NoC flightpath witness figure.

From a post on 9/11 Blogger (http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-01/joint-statement-pentagon-david-chandler-and-jon-cole)

QUOTE
CIT claims that their witnesses to north path, and therefore to overfly, are infallible because they have them on video. I have found an equal number of witnesses to impact, and therefore to south path, on video.

Legge also states in that same post
QUOTE
Roosevelt Roberts. Saw the plane pass over the light poles then heard impact and screaming. He is a witness to south pass and impact. CIT gives a different impression.

Roberts has clearly stated that explosion came first and then he saw a large plane - and from where he was situated, he would never have been able to see the plane prior to "impact" anyway - and so Legge is obviously believing the charlatans who twist and distort witness evidence while accusing CIT of doing the twisting and distorting.

Whatever his motives, it is a big call for a physics man and a computer geek to interpret FDR data - there are no great programming skills required to decode large amounts of data, just time and patience, but it takes a considerably different expertise to actually know what the data means.
onesliceshort
QUOTE
CIT claims that their witnesses to north path, and therefore to overfly, are infallible because they have them on video. I have found an equal number of witnesses to impact, and therefore to south path, on video.


Man, I haven't even got the appropriate words to describe that "logic".

In a recent exchange between Chris "NOC impact or whatever" Sarns and Frank OCT Legge at 911B, both half-arsedly making their contradictory claims, John schizo Bursill interceded and said, "guys, you're on the same page" (!!!).

Legge also claimed on the same thread that Stutt's "data" showed a smooth descent by the VDOT mast through th lightpoles to the Pentagon. No it doesn't. It shows a path that goes by the Navy Annex, descending to a height of 4ft AGL before reaching Route 27, missing the poles, all the while executing a slight right tilt, completely ignoring the True Altitude and every single witness on record!

That sums up their agenda and "scientific method" right there. But they're going to push it nonetheless.
Decalagon
QUOTE
If Legge were right, We would have plowed into a runway long ago on a foggy night shooting approaches


Understood. So, I will never take a plane piloted by Frank laugh.gif
Paul
QUOTE (Ligon @ Jan 11 2011, 04:47 AM) *
Over at Blogger Steven Jones, co-editor of The Journal of 9/11 Studies (JO911S), writes:



This same "peer-review" claim was made last time Frank Legge published an article about the Pentagon in the JO911S, even though it contained a considerable amount of false and/or misleading information. After the initial publication of this supposedly "peer-reviewed" paper it subsequently underwent multiple revisions to correct errors, and yet even after those revisions it still contained key misinformation (more properly called disinformation since it was pointed out to him after Version 2, and he is now on Version 8) which remains to this day. Read all about that episode here.


http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread648696/pg1

Look at all the replies already looks many have already been sucked into the deep dark black hole from which their is no return created Warren & Legge what a bunch of pathetic loosers, i hope Legge is happy with himself he has acheived what he has wanted to being a shill and a disinfo
agent, i bet he is reading all the replies right now jacking himself off all over his keyboard at the positive response from the all guillable idiots
and f4T & CIT haters his new paper has gotton so far.

blahblah1.gif blahblah1.gif yes1.gif yes1.gif doh1.gif doh1.gif
tnemelckram
Hi All!

Here's three posts saying what I think of the Legge Paper. I haven't bothered to read it so maybe he has revised his approach to avoid some of this, which are broad conceptual problems with his approach, but I'll bet not all.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777284

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777287

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777290
onesliceshort
QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Jan 16 2011, 12:10 AM) *
Hi All!

Here's three posts saying what I think of the Legge Paper. I haven't bothered to read it so maybe he has revised his approach to avoid some of this, which are broad conceptual problems with his approach, but I'll bet not all.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777284

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777287

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777290


Very useful links Mark. Particularly the first one.
I recommend people to refresh their memories of just how illogical and out of his depth Legge actually is.
SanderO
While peer review is a sound approach to having qualified experts in a field review new research, the peer review process at Journal for 911 Studies is not peer review but simply having some other people who are not necessarily experts in the field review the research and pass on it. Not only that the reviewers are all pre disposed to supporting the work of their associates in many cases.

What the truth movement is doing is standing on the shoulders of the peer review concept as providing gravitas or validity to their work. It's really an abuse of the peer review concept... and nothing more than an appeal to authority (which is not there).

Bazant's work has been pretty much debunked at the 911 Free Forums - http://the911forum.freeforums.org - as well as faulty critiques of Bazant by James Gourley in the truth movement from Journal for 911 Studies. False critique of false claims! But that is what results when people who are not experts in one field decide to take on an "analysis" and put forth an hypothesis.

All scientific analysis must employ and obey the basic scientific principles. However, each individual discipline.. aeronautics, structure, engineering etc. has advanced set of principles, rules and so forth most of which have been derived from both theory and empirical data. One needs to have mastered these disciplines before one can argue with credibility any analysis within these disciplines. Much of the truth movement's claims tend to reduce complex esoteric data into broad scientific principles and come up with broad (inaccurate in some cases) conclusions. Why? One could suspect plants who are blowing smoke and confusing the issues. One could also attribute it to big egos. And perhaps it's a little of both.
SwingDangler
Good day all. Nice job Rob on the Jesse show. I'm wondering why he didn't contact Craig or Aldo at CIT? Anyway, I posed some of the more interesting points over at Blogger as I'm not quite banned yet.

The biggest issue I see is that people outside their field of expertise are writing papers, calling it peer reviewed, and claming it as fact. I compared that to experts in their field having a peer reviewed paper published in a mainstream journal. And now more than ever I'm convinced that 9/11 blogger is a blockade to anything but official story regarding the Pentagon. Sure, we all know the air defense should have interecepted whatever was wondering in the skies that morning, and we all know why that part of the Pentagon was attacked, and yet to suggest anything other than the official story, your voted down immeditely. That is too bad because that site use to be a great tool and resource.
rob balsamo
Hi SD, good to see ya!

Feel free to send an invite to those at Blogger who wish to discuss the paper and its numerous errors, without censorship. None of them are banned here.

Post a link to this thread.
rob balsamo
I was a bit bored tonight and went over to Blogger to see how they're making out without any real experts, sure enough, Legge continues to make a fool of himself.

Frank says...

"Pilots do not depend on the pressure altimeter as they approach the runway...... Instrument pilots use radio height."


Gotta love it... a Chemist trying to tell a Certified Flight Instructor, Instrument Instructor and Multiengine Instructor, how approaches are flown. I guess all those students i had which passed their Check rides (many now flying for airlines themselves), were taught completely wrong information and should have instead listened to a Chemist.

I then sent this email to Frank, Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones.

QUOTE
Frank,

A Radio Altimeter isnt even required for Instrument Flight. Many planes which are IFR Certified do not have a Radio Altimeter.

If your "altitude divergence" was correct, planes would be plowing into the runway daily on foggy approaches. The Baro Altimeter is required, it is the Primary altimeter for use with Category I ILS Instrument approaches, and is used daily. Radio Altimeters are not used on Category I ILS. They can't be, because they arent accurate, especially with rolling terrain or terrain with building, trees, or other objects along the approach.

You may want to stop telling others how aircraft are flown and let the real pilots handle it before you look more a fool.

Please find the required equipment below for Instrument Flight from the FAR's. Please pay particular attention to number 5. Note, the Baro altimeter is required, a Radio Altimeter not. And you call your paper "peer-reviewed"? Now that's laughable.

The reason you are seeing an "altitude divergence" is because the Radio Altimeter is not measuring from the ground. That was your first major error. And if you had your paper actually "peer-reviewed" by a real pilot, they would have told you that Radio Height does not guarantee your height above ground.

Good luck!

Subpart C—Equipment, Instrument, and Certificate Requirements

(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required:

(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph of this section.

(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.

(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft:

(i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance with the instrument requirements prescribed in 121.305(j) of this chapter; and

(4) Slip-skid indicator.

(5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure.

(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation.

(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.

(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).

(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).



Frank may also want to look at an actual ILS Approach plate.

Here is one from Dulles.

This is the Profile View and Minimums Section of the approach plate. It tells you the altitude you're allowed to descend to before either continuing for landing, or breaking off for a missed approach. You must see at least the "rabbit"(ALSF) to continue another 100 feet below these minimums, you must have the runway environment in sight to land (Full approach lights, runway lights... etc).



(here is the full approach plate - ILS RWY 01R IAD)

Look at S-ILS 1R in the left margin.

These are the minimums for a Straight in approach to ILS Runway 1 Right at Dulles.

You'll see a 512/18 followed by a 200 then (200 - 1/2)

The 512 is your "minimums". This is directly referenced from your primary altimeter, the Barometric altimeter and is your height above sea level at Minimums. The 18 means forward visibility in hundreds. 1800 feet is required visibility for Airliners (Part 121/135) to shoot the approach, but not for private/corporate aircraft.. .etc, this is a little over 1/4 mile in fog. This is based on RVR measurements from equipment on the side of the runway (Runway Visual Range). The 200 means this is your height above the Touch Down Zone Elevation (TDZE) at 512 feet MSL (note, this is NOT your height above the ground you are flying over, at that point on the approach). The (200 - 1/2) means it is a standard 200 and 1/2 Category 1 ILS. The Airport could be actually calling "Zero/Zero" in fog (Zero ceiling, Zero visibility) and Corporate Aircraft (Part 91) can shoot the approach to go down and take a "look-see". If they dont see the lights at "Minimums" (512 MSL), they must execute a missed approach.

All altitudes and callouts are referenced from your "Baro Altimeter" during the approach.... (i call it a Baro altimeter here for the layman, it's really referred to as your Primary Altimeter, or just plainly "The Altimeter").

When you get down to 512 MSL, if you see the approach lights, you can continue another 100 feet. If you go down another 100 feet (now 412 MSL... 100 TDZE) and dont see the runway environment, you must execute a missed approach.

If Legge was correct with his "altitude divergence" of more than 80+ feet, up to an error of almost 124 feet, not only would pilots be busting minimums daily... but worse, there would be many crashes. Pilots on approaches in low visibility would be calling "minimums" at 512 feet thinking they were 200 feet above the runway TDZE, but they would really be as low as 120-80 feet above the runway (Minimums Busted, Expect a call from the FAA). If they saw some approach lights, they would continue down another 100 feet hoping to see the runway. Again, all this is based on referencing the Primary Altimeter, the "Baro Altimeter". They would continue down another 100 feet thinking they were 200 feet above the runway, but according to Legge, they would really only be 120-80 feet above the runway. If the visibility were low enough, they would slam into the runway before they even called "Missed Approach" thinking they were almost 100 feet higher.

Now, this is for a Cat I ILS. Cat II makes it worse. Most Cat II approaches do reference the RA when you get that low and there are certain requirements when that low, specifically a runway clearway zone so you know for a fact that the RA is measuring from nothing but grass (and not trees, buildings, etc...), but RA is not required for a Cat II under Part 91. If shooting a Cat II with referencing the Primary Altimeter only, pilots would be calling "minimums" at almost 50-100 feet below the pavement, if Legge were correct.

The only way to tell what the RA is measuring from (a building, trees... other objects...) is to check it against your Primary Altimeter as you have a solid reference for this height, which is from sea level. Final MSL height in the "extra" data Warren decoded shows 174' MSL (above sea level), RA shows 4'. This can only mean the RA was bouncing off an object higher than ground level and the MSL height shows too high to hit the Pentagon.

End of story.
SwingDangler
Long time no chat, gents. As an associate member of PFT and long time supporter, I have yet to be banned at 9/11 Blogger. As a result, I've garnered some attention from Legge over there regarding his perception of flying.

QUOTE
Regarding the question of aviation experts being highly skilled at understanding the arguments, I need only draw your attention to the calculation by Rob Balsamo that g-force would have destroyed the plane on approach to the Pentagon. It only takes high school maths to show that his calculation is so far out as to be laughable.

Equally surprising is Balsamo's comment:
"If Legge were right, We would have plowed into a runway long ago on a foggy night shooting approaches. And so would every other pilot who shoots those approaches (this is why even debunkers who claim to be pilots understand Legge's paper is garbage."

Pilots do not depend on the pressure altimeter as they approach the runway. Visual pilots look at the runway to judge when to commence the flare. The idea of taking your eyes off the runway to look at the altimeter at this critical moment would be absurd! Eyes are better than altimeters for landing. Instrument pilots use radio height or ILS with glide slope. Ground proximity warnings are generated by radio height, not by the altimeter. Automated landings do not depend on the altimeter alone. Nobody cares whether the altimeter is accurate near the ground. There is no need to check it. Everybody knows that radio height, accurate to about 1 foot, is the thing to depend on. The accuracy of the altimeter can never be anything like that.

There is however one situation in which radio height would not be safe to use by itself until the plane was over the runway. That would be the case if the ground sloped upward steeply before the runway. ILS with glide slope could still be used. This would be specified in the landing procedures for that airport.

It is also important to note that our paper does not say that all aircraft suffer divergence between pressure altitude and radio altitude as they descend to land. Perhaps it is only Boeing 757s. Perhaps it is only the particular plane that hit the Pentagon. We found the divergence in all the 12 flights of that plane on the file. 12 out of 12 seems pretty consistent.


I'd like your response to his comment above. Thanks all and great job on Ventura's show!
rob balsamo
It appears Frank made some edits to that post after i sent him the email and made my post above yours, clearly he is now trying to weasel his way out of his mistakes. He's only made it worse... wish i took a screenshot.

Here's an example. It looks like he added the bold here....

"Instrument pilots use radio height or ILS with glide slope."


The sentence stopped at "Instrument pilots use radio height" in his original post (see my post above yours). It appears Frank added - "... or ILS with glide slope." Clearly he added this in an attempt to weasel his way out of looking like a fool after I posted the approach plate above and notified him that a Radio Altimeter is not required for Instrument flight, but it only made him look more like a fool.

Basically, Frank is now saying Instrument pilots can use Radio Height alone to shoot Instrument approaches, OR an ILS with Glide slope [and a "Baro Altimeter"].

So, i guess if an aircraft is equipped with a Radio Altimeter, an Instrument pilot can just barrel his way on down into the soup without any vertical or lateral guidance whatsoever? Wow! I'd like to see you try that Frank.

Frank, the only time RA is used on an approach, is WITH an ILS, if you're so equipped. There is no "or" about it.

Most of Legge's BS was addressed in the post above yours, but thanks for posting it as i forgot to address this.... (well, I already addressed it with Legge, many times, but he still doesnt get it....).

Frank says...

"I need only draw your attention to the calculation by Rob Balsamo that g-force would have destroyed the plane on approach to the Pentagon. It only takes high school maths to show that his calculation is so far out as to be laughable."


That is exactly the problem with Frank. He is using High School math, not aerodynamics.



The above is for a 767, reduce the speeds by 10 knots for a 757.

Frank, what does it say all the way to the right at 1 G? That's right grasshopper, it says "Structural Failure". Very good!

Frank, can you guess what that big Yellow "Caution" zone is? Do you know how it is derived? After reading your paper, clearly you don't.

This is the best part....

Nobody cares whether the altimeter is accurate near the ground. There is no need to check it.


Quick, someone alert the FAA to re-write every approach plate Missed Approach Point that has ever been made! While you're at it, alert every Airline, Regional, LCC, National, Military, Corporate, Charter, Flight School, to Private Pilot... to change their Standard Operating Procedures for checking altimeter accuracy on the ground, prior to each departure.

Frank Legge is his own worst enemy.... too funny.
SwingDangler
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 17 2011, 02:30 PM) *
It appears Frank made some edits to that post after i sent him the email and made my post above yours, clearly he is now trying to weasel his way out of his mistakes. He's only made it worse... wish i took a screenshot.

Here's an example. It looks like he added the bold here....

"Instrument pilots use radio height or ILS with glide slope."


The sentence stopped at "Instrument pilots use radio height" in his original post (see my post above yours). It appears Frank added - "... or ILS with glide slope." Clearly he added this in an attempt to weasel his way out of looking like a fool after I posted the approach plate above and notified him that a Radio Altimeter is not required for Instrument flight, but it only made him look more like a fool.

Basically, Frank is now saying Instrument pilots can use Radio Height alone to shoot Instrument approaches, OR an ILS with Glide slope [and a "Baro Altimeter"].

So, i guess if an aircraft is equipped with a Radio Altimeter, an Instrument pilot can just barrel his way on down into the soup without any vertical or lateral guidance whatsoever? Wow! I'd like to see you try that Frank.

Frank, the only time RA is used on an approach, is WITH an ILS, if you're so equipped. There is no "or" about it.

Most of Legge's BS was addressed in the post above yours, but thanks for posting it as i forgot to address this.... (well, I already addressed it with Legge, many times, but he still doesnt get it....).

Frank says...

"I need only draw your attention to the calculation by Rob Balsamo that g-force would have destroyed the plane on approach to the Pentagon. It only takes high school maths to show that his calculation is so far out as to be laughable."


That is exactly the problem with Frank. He is using High School math, not aerodynamics.



The above is for a 767, reduce the speeds by 10 knots for a 757.

Frank, what does it say all the way to the right at 1 G? That's right grasshopper, it says "Structural Failure". Very good!

Frank, can you guess what that big Yellow "Caution" zone is? Do you know how it is derived? After reading your paper, clearly you don't.

This is the best part....

Nobody cares whether the altimeter is accurate near the ground. There is no need to check it.


Quick, someone alert the FAA to re-write every approach plate Missed Approach Point that has ever been made! While you're at it, alert every Airline, Regional, LCC, National, Military, Corporate, Charter, Flight School, to Private Pilot... to change their Standard Operating Procedures for checking altimeter accuracy on the ground, prior to each departure.

Frank Legge is his own worst enemy.... too funny.


Thanks Rob, I appreciate. My deceased grandfather who was a AT-6 Texan pilot trainer for WW2 pilots and an FAA Flight Examiner for the State of Indiana would be laughing in his grave. Nevermind, he has been laughing since the first revision.

I fully expect to be banned over there very soon. smile.gif
rob balsamo
QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Jan 19 2011, 02:14 PM) *
I fully expect to be banned over there very soon. smile.gif



It's a badge of honor nowadays. The list gets longer by the day.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10790766

I wouldnt be surprised if they have banned more "Truthers" than JREF by now. lol.

I heard they recently banned Tino as well, for attempting to correct and explain the Radio Altimeter to John Bursill. What a joke.
onesliceshort
QUOTE
That's right grasshopper...


laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Sometimes I feel like I'm in The Twilight Zone when I see Leggy making assertions with no knowledge at all.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 19 2011, 03:34 PM) *
laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Sometimes I feel like I'm in The Twilight Zone when I see Leggy making assertions with no knowledge at all.


As I said, Legge is his own worst enemy. Although, he has been a great help in providing comic relief for my phone calls with people like Capt Ralph Kolstad, Capt Rusty Aimer... Capt Jeff Latas.

With that said, i forgot to address this part of Legge's rant....


It is also important to note that our paper does not say that all aircraft suffer divergence between pressure altitude and radio altitude as they descend to land. Perhaps it is only Boeing 757s. Perhaps it is only the particular plane that hit the Pentagon. We found the divergence in all the 12 flights of that plane on the file. 12 out of 12 seems pretty consistent.


Seems Legge missed this part in the email I sent to him....

QUOTE
The reason you are seeing an "altitude divergence" is because the Radio Altimeter is not measuring from the ground. That was your first major error. And if you had your paper actually "peer-reviewed" by a real pilot, they would have told you that Radio Height does not guarantee your height above ground.
rob balsamo
I briefly went over to Blogger today to see if they corrected any of their mistakes and/or finally got some actual "peer-review" from a real expert. As expected, zero, zilch, nada.

But i did find some questions raised by some anonymous idiot who doesnt have a clue or the courage to come here and "debate" (although mostly he just offers personal attacks) face to face.

I'll just go over these quickly.

* Does the fact that the FDR was found inside the Pentagon support Legge's analysis?


Can The Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location Of Flight Data Recorder

Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's - Location of American 77 Flight Data Recorder - Part II

9/11 Aircraft 'black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

FDR Expert Confirms No Evidence Linking FDR Data to N644AA



* Does it confirm the height reported in the now recovered missing frames?


No.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10778240

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793490

* That catastrophic deceleration seen in the FDR data, what's it for? To surf the fireball?


1 G is "catastrophic"? Really now... You better not hit your brakes too hard in your car or you might crush your delicate body.

A -1 G acceleration can be caused by many things. Including speed brakes and pulling the Thrust Lever's to idle. You know... ummm.. to perhaps tighten your turn radius? Actually, you wouldn't know this, as you are not a real pilot nor have any real or veified aviation expert on your side. Keep an eye on our list, I have another major update coming i just havent had time yet to publish.

* When will you, CIT and P4T stop this insanity?


When are you, Legge and the JO911S going to get a real and verified expert to "peer-review" your "work"? Beachnut is your "expert"?? Really? A guy who can't distinguish between a Boeing 757 and an Airbus A320? (By the way, I'm still very current and qualified. You should really stop listening to and quoting anonymous JREFer's. But as the old saying goes, "... if it quacks like a duck..."... you must be a duck...)


When is Legge going to correct his numerous errors and logical fallacies? He should start with correcting his last paper first.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777266

His new paper is just piling on the errors and mistakes as pointed out and well sourced right here in this thread.

I said it before but it needs repeating.

It is interesting that a person like Frank Legge, someone who is highly critical and skeptical of the NIST data and reports, is now attempting to use unverified data from another govt agency to support the govt story regarding a Pentagon impact. Legge's motives are even more puzzling especially when that data in fact conflicts with an impact, performance limitations set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing, and precedent.

Again... ".. if it quacks like a duck..."
SwingDangler
Thanks, Rob. His latest logic...

QUOTE
After quoting my website you say:

"If I follow your logic correctly, you suggest the authorities decided long ago to withold evidence, not follow proper procedures, etc. to cause in fighting among truthers within a movement that did not exist until years after the event. Great forsight on behalf of the perps or an illogical squence to cast doubt on anything other than the official story?"
Do you not think that the perpetraters, who spent millions of dollars on 9/11, would not have done some forward planning? It makes perfect sense to conclude that they would have given thought to the fact that many people would become suspicious. They were right. What better way to weaken the arguments of those who were suspicious than by having them argue against one another.


He literral things the authoriteis did not follow proper protocol, withheld evidence, etc. to prove infighting among truthers today. My gawd...I could just as easily say they faked the entire FDR to cause infighting among truthers. Geez and this guy has a Phd. I have a feeling they are going to ban me soon after I address the rest of the attacks after work.
rob balsamo
lol.... I see Legge is claiming Steven Jones tried to email about my calculations. Well, no he hasnt.


Matter of fact, i sent this email to Steven over a week ago, no reply yet...

QUOTE
From:
"Pilots For Truth" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>
View contact details
To:
"Steven Jones" <hardevidence@gmail.com>


Hi Steven,

I was sent a link to Kevin's post at 911Blogger regarding Legge's latest paper. You had commented that the paper was "Peer Reviewed".


May I ask who "Peer reviewed" the paper?

The reason I ask is that clearly they are not well versed on Federal Aviation Regulations nor Altimeter Errors, nor everyday arrivals. This is just one example and a gross error, considering the foundation of the paper. We may cover more blatant errors if Frank ever learns of his gross error. Although I doubt he will as his last paper still argues the "hijackers" could have used CWS to aid in control, after already being informed CWS can do no such thing, not to mention it wasn't even installed on the aircraft reported.

Sourcing wiki with an incorrect quote, combined with the incorrect FAR, as the basis for their whole theory, will only serve to discredit yourself for any real aviator who looks at the paper.

Just a heads up because I still respect you and I would hate to see your work be questioned by those who once supported it.

Legge and Ryan have lost my respect and the respect of many of my peers long ago. Hopefully you will reconsider.

Feel free to call anytime if you would like a more thorough explanation.

xxx-xxx-xxxx

Rob

BCC:

P4T Core members


If Steven does contact me, I'll be happy to explain to him our calculations. Just as I did with Dwain Deets and others. They get it. I'm sure Steven will too, once explained.

I tried to explain it to Legge many times, he doesnt get it. He never will.

(By the way, they arent just "my calculations", they were done in consultation with Aeronautical Engineer Capt Jeff Latas).
Aldo Marquis CIT
QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Jan 20 2011, 07:25 PM) *
Thanks, Rob. His latest logic...

QUOTE

After quoting my website you say:

"If I follow your logic correctly, you suggest the authorities decided long ago to withold evidence, not follow proper procedures, etc. to cause in fighting among truthers within a movement that did not exist until years after the event. Great forsight on behalf of the perps or an illogical squence to cast doubt on anything other than the official story?"

Do you not think that the perpetraters, who spent millions of dollars on 9/11, would not have done some forward planning? It makes perfect sense to conclude that they would have given thought to the fact that many people would become suspicious. They were right. What better way to weaken the arguments of those who were suspicious than by having them argue against one another.


He literral things the authoriteis did not follow proper protocol, withheld evidence, etc. to prove infighting among truthers today. My gawd...I could just as easily say they faked the entire FDR to cause infighting among truthers. Geez and this guy has a Phd. I have a feeling they are going to ban me soon after I address the rest of the attacks after work.


Wow. So they created problems in their FDR, created fake witnesses or a "citizen" investigation team to somehow fake or force a faking of testimony all of which points to or proves an inside job so astute "PhD's", not in anything aviation related mind you, can come about years later and say that the the gov't supplied data which was problematic to begin with now proves an impact( which it obviously doesn't) and that they did all this so we can sit around and argue.

No, what I think is Frank Legge "Phd" and Warren Stutt "Phd" are part of the same Australian intelligence team that John Bursill is a part of that have infiltrated the truth movement. They think because they have a PhD after their name, are from Australia, and work with other supposed "truthers" that you will believe the "disagreement". There is no disagreement. There is no doubt. There is no controversy. It is all manufactured to give the "impression".

Take John Bursill for instance, he helps put on the Australian "Hard Evidence Tour". Not for the truth movement. But for credibility. Of course who do we see on their panel, sockmaster and anonymous bearded infiltrator "Cosmos" one of the many caretakers at 911blogger, Frank Legge, Visibility 9/11. Same people attacking and spreading ABSOLUTE DISINFORMATION about CIT and PFT, the same people who have been running from discussions with us. Of course, Bursill was used to attack PFT because he is an "aircraft mechanic" and of course he was also used to attack CIT except he was bold enough to take on Craig Ranke in a phone debate in which he made many, many concessions going so far as to even admitting he lost the debate...

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=942

Sure enough he goes right back to attacking us in some bizarre twilight zone move only an operative set on subversive behavior and confusing and confounding would do. Sure, you say, but he is an aircraft mechanic! Do you have any proof that he has any military or intelligence ties, Aldo?! In fact I do...

QUOTE
About John Bursill

John Bursill (Born 1968) is a Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer based in Sydney Australia working on Boeing Aircraft and is qualified in Avionics (Elect/Inst/Radio) on the 767, 747 and 737 series aircraft. He is a family man and involved with numerous community events and organisations. John has served his country as a member of the Australian Army Reserve over many years and finished up as acting Operations/Intelligence Sargent for 4/3 RNSWR. John considers himself a true patriot of his country and a supporter of the US alliance in the sense of us together supporting national security, freedom and justice throughout the world.

visibility911.com/johnbursill/about-john-bursill/


It's the exact reason why they won't let PFT/CIT respond on 911blogger and elsewhere and why they all refuse to come here on our forum.
rob balsamo
New article just published in part as a response to Legge and Stutts paper.

Now available here....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20999

It's also running front page.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org

Spread it everywhere!
SwingDangler
Hey where do I get my official "Banned From 9/11 Blogger" Uniform at? I just spent the last 30 minutes shredding Frank's stupid logic and correcting Loose_Nuke's Roberts account. And tada, none of my comments show up.

Oh well, they have really showed their cards surrounding the Pentagon event. I didn't want to believe the Mods over there were gate keepers, but that is exactly what they are. I suspect that is why there is such a disconnect there between the WTC event and the Pentagon event over there.
SwingDangler
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Jan 18 2011, 07:40 PM) *
He literral things the authoriteis did not follow proper protocol, withheld evidence, etc. to prove infighting among truthers today. My gawd...I could just as easily say they faked the entire FDR to cause infighting among truthers. Geez and this guy has a Phd. I have a feeling they are going to ban me soon after I address the rest of the attacks after work.


Wow. So they created problems in their FDR, created fake witnesses or a "citizen" investigation team to somehow fake or force a faking of testimony all of which points to or proves an inside job so astute "PhD's", not in anything aviation related mind you, can come about years later and say that the the gov't supplied data which was problematic to begin with now proves an impact( which it obviously doesn't) and that they did all this so we can sit around and argue.

No, what I think is Frank Legge "Phd" and Warren Stutt "Phd" are part of the same Australian intelligence team that John Bursill is a part of that have infiltrated the truth movement. They think because they have a PhD after their name, are from Australia, and work with other supposed "truthers" that you will believe the "disagreement". There is no disagreement. There is no doubt. There is no controversy. It is all manufactured to give the "impression".

Take John Bursill for instance, he helps put on the Australian "Hard Evidence Tour". Not for the truth movement. But for credibility. Of course who do we see on their panel, sockmaster and anonymous bearded infiltrator "Cosmos" one of the many caretakers at 911blogger, Frank Legge, Visibility 9/11. Same people attacking and spreading ABSOLUTE DISINFORMATION about CIT and PFT, the same people who have been running from discussions with us. Of course, Bursill was used to attack PFT because he is an "aircraft mechanic" and of course he was also used to attack CIT except he was bold enough to take on Craig Ranke in a phone debate in which he made many, many concessions going so far as to even admitting he lost the debate...

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=942

Sure enough he goes right back to attacking us in some bizarre twilight zone move only an operative set on subversive behavior and confusing and confounding would do. Sure, you say, but he is an aircraft mechanic! Do you have any proof that he has any military or intelligence ties, Aldo?! In fact I do...



It's the exact reason why they won't let PFT/CIT respond on 911blogger and elsewhere and why they all refuse to come here on our forum.


Can you believe that??! They use the exact same logic that debunkers do to support the official Pentagon story. It was all planned to be faked long ago to cause disruption in the truth movement. CIT. Faked. Anamolies at the crash scene. Faked. FDR. Faked.
It is the grand conspiracy in reverse. So many were in on it can't be believed. Instead of the logical they are covering up the truth.

Gate Keepers anyone?? thumbdown.gif
rob balsamo
QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Jan 21 2011, 01:43 PM) *
Hey where do I get my official "Banned From 9/11 Blogger" Uniform at? I just spent the last 30 minutes shredding Frank's stupid logic and correcting Loose_Nuke's Roberts account. And tada, none of my comments show up.

Oh well, they have really showed their cards surrounding the Pentagon event. I didn't want to believe the Mods over there were gate keepers, but that is exactly what they are. I suspect that is why there is such a disconnect there between the WTC event and the Pentagon event over there.



lol... they're so predictable.
onesliceshort
QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Jan 21 2011, 07:43 PM) *
Hey where do I get my official "Banned From 9/11 Blogger" Uniform at? I just spent the last 30 minutes shredding Frank's stupid logic and correcting Loose_Nuke's Roberts account. And tada, none of my comments show up.

Oh well, they have really showed their cards surrounding the Pentagon event. I didn't want to believe the Mods over there were gate keepers, but that is exactly what they are. I suspect that is why there is such a disconnect there between the WTC event and the Pentagon event over there.


Here ya go mate..



cheers.gif
wstutt
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Jan 16 2011, 02:07 AM) *
<snip>
Furthermore, this data would mean there is a serious Flight Safety issue and yet Stutt and Legge are only targeting 9/11 Truthers in a psyop, and not taking this supposed crucial find of an alleged bug to the aviation authorities. This proves their agenda is not genuine but instead is designed to target a specific audience.

<snip>
That's incorrect Aldo. Read my letter to the NTSB about the problem with their decode. An earlier letter I wrote to the NTSB was referenced in the paper.

Warren.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.