Home          Evidence       Strategy       FAQ       Report       News       Contact

DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you


Pages: (2) [1] 2  ( Go to first unread post )

 Scientific Peer Review versus Citizen Jury Review, And is the JO911S a scientific journal?
Adam Syed
Posted: Feb 15 2010, 03:25 PM


Citizen Researcher


Group: Friends
Posts: 444
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 17-August 09



Over at 911blogger, Erik Larson continues to defend the premise that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. I took the opportunity to post Craig's call to debate Larson. I remarked that if Larson is comfortable with his positions and conclusions, he should accept the call.

In a long-winded response, he laments that CIT has never submitted a paper to the JO911S for peer review, and echoing my words, rhetorically asks "You'd think if they were "comfortable" with their "positions and conclusions", they'd do so, no?"

Here is my response to him:

QUOTE
This is also a good opportunity to bring up the nature of scientific journals and peer review.

For example, let's compare the nanothermite paper to CIT's National Security Alert video.

I have zero scientific expertise (beyond knowing Newton's 2nd Law of Motion which I learned in 8th grade) in the relevant fields of chemistry and physics needed to actually read and understand the nanothermite paper. And indeed, I have not attempted to read it, even though I've linked to it many times in the comments sections of hit pieces (and favorable pieces too). I am simply putting my faith and trust in the fact that the scientists who support "my side" are the ones in the right and that the Thomas Eagars and Zdneck Bazants of the world are wrong.

Chemically analyzing the dust of the WTC is a scientific process which needs to be peer reviewed by other scientists. Expertise in the field is required.

However, one does not need to be an expert in anything to be able to watch video/audio testimony of eyewitnesses relating their experiences of what they saw. One simply needs to be an adult with normal mental faculties of listening comprehension.

As such, CIT's work is not the kind of work which requires scientific peer review. It simply requires jury review, i.e. citizen review.

Imagine a criminal case involving a serious traffic accident which goes to trial. There is a jury, ordinary citizens with no particular scientific expertise in anything, listening to competing sides. They listen to eyewitnesses. They watch and listen to 12 eyewitnesses to the crash come up and testify, and they all testify that the crash occurred on the north side of the 4-way intersection.

Once again, such information does not require peer review in the scientific sense, just in the jury sense. And then when the jury deliberates, they all are in unanimous agreement that the witnesses are credible and corroborate one another. The eyewitness testimony has thus passed the "peer review."

(Also, in this court case, imagine that for whatever reason, the defense tries to defend the idea that the accident occurred on the south side of the intersection, and, in an attempt to counter the prosecution's 12 north side witnesses, presented a piece of paper with 3rd hand, printed quotes. It would be dismissed by the judge and jury.)

When a person actually takes the time to watch National Security Alert, one can see the interviews and understand that the North of Citgo path has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as stated by David Griffin in his endorsement blurb.

None of this is to take away from the excellent work of Neils Harrit and colleagues. But it shows that in many ways CIT uncovered what can be considered the simplest smoking gun proving a staged Pentagon scenario.
Top
Adam Syed
Posted: Feb 15 2010, 03:26 PM


Citizen Researcher


Group: Friends
Posts: 444
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 17-August 09



This also is a good opportunity to ask ourselves: If Pilots for 9/11 Truth do their investigation, and if a particular paper or letter they write is signed by 15 professionals with expertise in the relevant fields (ATC and pilots), isn't that peer review enough? Why should they then be required to submit their findings to the JONES in order for their stuff to be "peer reviewed" by people without the specific expertise, like Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan?
Top
Craig Ranke CIT
Posted: Feb 15 2010, 03:39 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 3,930
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07



Great point. Particularly since the evidence we present is firsthand testimony which can only be "reviewed" on video.

JO911S isn't even accepting new papers anyway:

QUOTE

Our mission in the past has been to provide an outlet for evidence-based research into the events of 9/11 that might not otherwise have been published, due to the resistance that many established journals and other institutions have displayed toward this topic. The intention was to provide a rapid acceptance process with full peer review. That has been achieved. It is now our belief that the case for falsity of the official explanation is so well established and demonstrated by papers in this Journal that there is little to be gained from accepting more papers here.


Furthermore their credibility has been tarnished by publishing the blatantly non-scientific opinion piece on the Pentagon by Legge.
Top
Adam Syed
Posted: Feb 15 2010, 03:51 PM


Citizen Researcher


Group: Friends
Posts: 444
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 17-August 09



Ha! That really destroys the premise of Larson's post. I just updated the thread over there.
Top
T3QuillAMocKINGbird
Posted: Feb 15 2010, 04:46 PM


Curious Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 24
Member No.: 1,143
Joined: 6-February 10



Excellent distinction to make things clear for everyone why peer review in this case means a jury of your peers! Brilliant...

It seems that Loose Nuke wants CIT to provide a witness that describes the plane go from the official path, which he says Paik is mistaken or we have mistaken his account on, to the North of Citgo position that is being witnessed by the Citgo Employee and the 2 pentagon police?

If the plane is being witnessed on the North by these witnesses then how does the plane get there if Paik is mistaken? I really don't get how any of his statements are conclusive to refuting a North of Citgo when the other witnesses are emphatically stating its postition from the best vantage point at the Citgo.

It goes to show how weak his argument really was in the first place.
Top
Ligon
Posted: Feb 15 2010, 04:59 PM


A Regular Jim Garrison


Group: Admin
Posts: 2,218
Member No.: 144
Joined: 14-July 08



I'm glad you posted this Adam because I wanted to address this.

In a recent post on 911Blogger (part of which Adam referenced in another thread, showing how it is very similar to the bunk argument that John McCain made about the 9/11 truth movement in general), Victoria Ashley said the following (emphasis added):

QUOTE
"It's not that hard to imagine why "what hit" is not the real issue to contend with, but a diversion kept alive by people who are claiming that a paper in the central scientific journal of the movement has it wrong, despite having passed a peer review, and no other paper asserting a Boeing couldn't have hit being able to reach such a point."


The notion that this paper is credible because it "passed a peer review" is a sad joke, and the fact that it is being touted as such demolishes the credibility of the Journal For 9/11 Studies and their supposed peer review process. This is a real shame and it shows the length that some people associated with the journal will go to in an attempt to try to obfuscate this undeniable evidence that the Pentagon attack on 9/11 was a false flag operation.

Here's a little background info for anyone who may be prone to buy Ashley's bogus argument quoted above.

On July 31, 2009 -- about a month and a half after National Security Alert was released -- Frank Legge published an article in the Journal of 9/11 Studies (JO911S) entitled “What Hit The Pentagon?”. The article was promptly posted to 911Blogger by Kevin Ryan, who, along with Legge and Steven Jones, edits the JO911S.

This paper, which supposedly was peer reviewed, contained a considerable amount of false or misleading information, which will be documented shortly. Here is a download link to that version of the paper, which I don't think is available on JO911S site anymore.

FAA certified pilot Robert Balsamo, founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth (pilotsfor911truth.org), wrote an e-mail to Legge in which he (Balsamo) took issue with part of Legge’s paper, most specifically Legge’s claim that “it is not hard to point a plane at a wall.” This message was also sent to Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others. Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke of CIT were CCed.

Legge responded to Balsamo’s e-mail, and a back and forth discussion ensued.

Eventually Craig Ranke of CIT entered the group discussion on 8/6/2009, saying:

QUOTE
Frank,

Not sure who you are suggesting is "attacking" you but we have merely pointed out how you misrepresented the position of Pilots for 9/11 Truth by implying they suggest the NTSB data proves a flyover but also how you have ignored the evidence proving that the plane did not hit in favor of a campaign to dismiss this evidence. Ignoring hard evidence in the spirit of "harmony" is not prudent or scientific.

As you admitted the goal of your piece is to encourage people to ignore evidence of MIHOP at the Pentagon in favor of questions that only implicate LIHOP.

If it wasn't you would have addressed the hard evidence for MIHOP as laid out succinctly in National Security Alert as opposed to the old debunked straw men arguments you chose to set up instead.

Faulty logic does not refute evidence and publishing an opinion piece in a scientific journal is not an honest approach to addressing this information.  Particularly since you misrepresented the position of Pilots for 9/11 Truth in the process.

A retraction is in order.

Craig


Steven Jones then responded with this, also on 8/6/2009

QUOTE
Dear Colleagues,

I believe I understand Dr. Legge's position from what he actually wrote. I find in his paper what he has recently emailed:

"My paper tried to show that it didn't matter what hit the Pentagon. The important issue was that nothing should have hit it and the administration needed to be investigated to find out what happened and why."

I further understand that P4T states on their website that they are NOT taking a position regarding what did -- or what did not -- hit the Pentagon; BUT, I would like to see the Quotation from the p4t website on this issue to be sure..

I believe in Quoting what has been actually written, not paraphrasing which is so prone to misunderstanding.

Now, Craig R wrote to Frank:

Particularly since you misrepresented the position of Pilots for 9/11 Truth in the process.

A retraction is in order.

Craig


AGain, Craig, if you would please -- QUOTE the actual words that Frank wrote that lead you to assert that Frank "misrepresented the position of Pilots for 9/11 Truth". First, quote from P4T their "position" and then Quote from Frank how he "misrepresented the position of Pilots for 9/11 Truth".

Can you, will you please actually QUOTE what has been written? Is this so difficult? In the interest of avoiding misunderstanding, I ask you to do it.

Thank you all,

Steven J


On 8/7/2009, the following e-mail was sent by Craig to Jones, Legge, Ryan, and the others who were still CCed on the e-mail exchange. Quotes were bolded for ease of reading.

QUOTE
AGain, Craig, if you would please -- QUOTE the actual words that Frank wrote that lead you to assert that Frank "misrepresented the position of Pilots for 9/11 Truth". First, quote from P4T their "position" and then Quote from Frank how he "misrepresented the position of Pilots for 9/11 Truth".

Steven,

Rob has already done this (using quotes).  But, since you asked, not only will I do it again, but I will also explain (also with quotes) how Legge has also misrepresented a lot of relevant things in his paper such that it seems the entire purpose of his opinion piece is to steer people away from the irrefutable MIHOP evidence at the Pentagon and towards LIHOP only, and to do it using false claims and misleading innuendo.

Firstly, to answer your request most directly, I said to Frank: ... you misrepresented the position of Pilots for 9/11 Truth by implying they suggest the NTSB data proves a flyover” (underline added)

Notice that I used the word “implying”.  I did this very deliberately because he uses sneaky language which implies that this is P4T’s position while not outright stating it.

In his paper, Legge writes: This interesting work, which can be viewed at http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/, provides an animation of data showing the flight path of a plane. The path terminates near the Pentagon, far too high, and coming from the wrong direction, to have hit the light poles. This data path is mostly smooth and consistent with a plane flying on auto pilot but there is a short section on the return leg, and another near the end, in which there are wild variations in altitude, just as was observed with the radar trace. As a plane on this path could not have done the observed damage some argue that the plane flew over the building and that the damage was done by something else.  The overfly theory has met with substantial opposition. [4][5] (underline added)

The heading of this section is “Calum Douglas Flight Data Recorder Presentation in Ipswich”.  Legge cites a June 2007 presentation by Douglas and links to Pilots for 9/11 Truth’s site.  The context of the underlined statement in this particular paragraph makes it perfectly clear that when he says "some argue" that the plane flew over the building that he is IMPLYING that Pilots For 9/11 Truth are part of the "some" people who (allegedly) make this argument, and no doubt many readers will come away with this impression.

In case there was any doubt that this was his intent, Legge has made it abundantly clear that he does in fact believe that this is P4T’s position in this e-mail exchange.  He writes: "I totally agree with P4T that the official story and the NTSB data conflict. But does the data prove the official story wrong about the flight path, or does the observed trail of damage prove the NTSB data wrong?  So the question is not about whether the official story is wrong (we all agree on that) it is about where it is wrong. The point I am making is that the fact that flight data exists which contradict the official story is not proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon."

Once again, just like in the article, Legge clearly implies that P4T cite the flight data and/or animation as “proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.  However, they do nothing of the sort and in fact go out of their way to make this clear.  On the front page of their website in the very first paragraph it says “We do not offer theory”.  I have not added the underline, and in fact it is part of the only sentence that is underlined in their welcome message.

Furthermore, as Rob said in response to the above-quoted “point” by Legge: “Pilots For 9/11 Truth never made such a claim. Scroll to the bottom of the home page and check the article corrections we had to implement for Fetzers article titled "Pilots For 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 Hit The Pentagon"

On that page it says: "Pilotsfor911truth.org does not make the claim that "No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon". We have analyzed the Flight Data Recorder data provided by the NTSB and have shown factual analysis of that data. We do not offer theory."

But that’s not even the most egregious part of what Legge says in that paragraph.   Again, he says “As a plane on this path could not have done the observed damage some argue that the plane flew over the building and that the damage was done by something else..”

The word “as” at the beginning of the first sentence clearly implies causality; namely that the reason that “some” argue that the plane flew over the building is based on the fact that the plane in the animation “terminates near the Pentagon, far too high, and coming from the wrong direction, to have hit the light poles.”  Who asserts a flyover based on the animation?  As I’ve already explained it’s not Pilots for 9/11 Truth, contrary to what Legge implies.  We as readers don’t know who else it could be because Dr. Legge uses “weasel words” to say that “some” make the argument without saying who.

In reality  Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT both know and assert the heading of the animation is not even consistent with the FDR data that it is supposedly based on.  It seems as though the map has been simply rotated to change the heading because all other values (such as altitude, pitch, roll etc) correlate.  It’s certainly suspicious that the professionals at the NTSB would make such an error and then refuse to correct it or comment, but NEITHER of our organizations claims that the animation is a valid representation of what actually happened.  (However both of us understand how it is still admissible government supplied evidence fatally contradicting their own explanation of the event.)

The fact is the vast majority of people who talk about the conclusively established fact that the plane flew over the building do so based on the evidence presented by CIT, which is summarized in National Security Alert; most specifically the corroborated, firsthand video and audio recorded eyewitness accounts of 13 eyewitnesses in the best vantage points unanimously placing the plane north of the gas station, as well as witnesses who saw the plane flying away after the explosion.

Does Legge know this?  If he read the articles that he cites then the answer must be “yes, he is well aware”.

He says “As a plane on this path could not have done the observed damage some argue that the plane flew over the building and that the damage was done by something else.  The overfly theory has met with substantial opposition. [4][5]” (underline added)

Again, he clearly implies that the primary basis of the “overfly theory” is the NTSB animation yet in the very next sentence he links to two articles by Hoffman and Ashley which  –  while full of false claims, ad hominems, etc.  – nevertheless clearly acknowledge the TRUE basis of the “overfly theory”, which, again HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NTSB ANIMATION OR DATA.  In her very first paragraph, after putting words in our mouth (“magic show”) and making other false claims about our “theory” and about the evidence (that the plane “somehow flew away, unnoticed by anyone in the area”), Ashley says: CIT took their camcorders and went to Washington, DC, where they interviewed a select group of Pentagon attack eye witnesses whom they believe, indicate a different flightpath from the accepted flightpath (the one described by a trail of damage leading up to the building). These interviews, it is claimed, provide the primary "evidence" for the flyover theory. (underline added)

Even Ashley acknowledges this yet Legge implies that the primary evidence is the NTSB animation, even while linking to Ashley’s dishonest hit piece.

The fact is that it is not our “belief” that the witnesses “indicate a different flight path” from the required flight path.  They do, period.  That’s the whole point.  Go watch their interviews in National Security Alert.  They are absolutely adamant and unequivocal about where they saw the plane, which was, independently and unanimously, north of the Citgo station and/or flying over the Navy Annex headed toward the north side of the Citgo.  NONE of the witnesses have said that we have misrepresented their accounts BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT, contrary to what Ashley wants to mislead readers into thinking by saying that it is our “belief” (as opposed to a fact) that their accounts contradict the required flight path; that it is just a “claim” that we make and call “evidence” (her scare quotes).

Legge uses similarly dishonest rhetoric in his article (probably following her lead), when he summarizes what are supposedly the three main “theories” about “what hit the Pentagon.

He says:  There are now several theories about what hit the Pentagon. One is the official story, that a 757 approached at a low angle, striking light poles, then struck the Pentagon. [...]  The early alternative theory was that a missile hit the Pentagon. This concept apparently originated from observation of the small circular hole in the inner wall. [....]  Finally we have a theory based on a flight data recording which came into the hands of the 9/11 truth movement.  Calum Douglas gave the first presentation on this at Ipswich, as will be discussed below. This flight data describes a path which is too high, and at the wrong angle, to have produced the observed damage.”

ONCE AGAIN, look how he presents the flyover “theory” as “BASED ON A FLIGHT DATA RECORDING”, namely the NTSB animation.  Again, this is FALSE.  The flyover theory IS NOT based on the flight data recording.

Looking specifically at the last sentence of the quote above and the sentence that immediately follows it in Legge’s article, he says “This flight data describes a path which is too high, and at the wrong angle, to have produced the observed damage. Claims have been made that several eye witnesses support this path.”

This is yet another tangled mess of misinformation if not outright disinformation.   We, CIT -- the main proponents of the flyover, the people who recorded the eyewitness interviews being alluded to, and the targets of the dishonest, childish hit pieces Legge links to as supposed “substantial opposition” to the “overflight theory” (which he dishonestly represents as “based on a flight data recording”) -- DO NOT claim that the witnesses “support this path” (the NTSB animation path), and neither does Pilots For 9/11 Truth.  PERIOD.  We have NEVER made such a claim.  Again, we have always maintained that the NTSB animation which shows the plane on the north side is simply a misrepresentation of the alleged “black box data” which has apparently been rotated – most likely deliberately to foster this kind of confusion and invite this kind of mis- or dis- information.

The fact is, however that eyewitnesses DO support a path (as opposed to the path shown in the animation) which is “too high, and at the wrong angle, to have produced the observed damage”.  Like Ashley, Legge says “claims have been made” to this effect.  No, we’re not making “claims” that eyewitness support the path.  They support the path, period.  It is the witnesses themselves who were in the best possible positions to judge that make the north side claim, INDEPENDENTLY, UNANIMOUSLY, AND UNEQUIVOCALLY.  And it’s not “several”, it’s THIRTEEN and counting..

Now compare Legge’s dishonest “Claims have been made that several eye witnesses support this path.” sentence to this sentence which preceded it:   “There are now several theories about what hit the Pentagon. One is the official story, that a 757 approached at a low angle, striking light poles, then struck the Pentagon.  Many eye witnesses confirm this path.” (underline added)

Notice the stark difference in language.  According to Legge “many” eyewitnesses “confirm” the required (south side) flight path whereas people are just making “claims” about “several” witnesses contradicting it.

If THIRTEEN is “several” then how many is “many”?  The fact is HE DOESN’T PROVIDE A SINGLE EXAMPLE, LET ALONE WELL OVER THIRTEEN TO SUBSTANTIATE “MANY”.  What are their names?  Where are the sourced quotes?  Where are their audio recorded interviews?  This is science?  Again, we have provided firsthand audio and video recorded interviews with THIRTEEN eyewitnesses who were each in an excellent position to judge where the plane flew in relation to the gas station and or Navy Annex and they unanimously and independently, insist that the plane flew on the north side.  Hoffman, Ashley, Legge, and all of our detractors from the “debunker” camp have had TWO AND A HALF YEARS since we released The PentaCon to find and interview any such witnesses, if they exist.   If the plane really flew on the south side where it had to be it would have been a piece of cake to find them and interview them since there would undoubtedly be many more south side witnesses than people who “erroneously” thought it flew on the north side (despite their excellent if not perfect vantage points).

Furthermore, Legge includes “striking light poles” as part of the flight path which “many eyewitnesses confirm”.  This is grossly misleading.  Anonymous internet personality, alleged truther, and CIT detractor “Arabesque” has the most comprehensive list of alleged light pole witnesses with a total of 22.  It can be found here if you scroll down to the part that says “Witnesses described the plane hitting lamp poles and objects.” However, contrary to what Arabesque wants to mislead his readers into believing, the fact is there are NO witnesses who claim to have seen the light poles get struck, including the people who claim to have been right on Route 27 just a few car lengths back from the plane.  We directly refuted each and every one of Arabesque’s supposed light pole strike witnesses way back in 2007.  Most of these witnesses do not explicitly claim to have actually seen the poles get struck.  As explained in our rebuttal we have spoken with a number of them and they have clarified that they in fact did not see such a thing.  Only one named person (Wanda Ramey) was quoted as having actually seen the poles get hit, and that was secondhand in a news article.  We got a hold of Ms. Ramey on the phone and she could not remember whether or not she had actually seen such a thing.  Considering that no one else saw such a thing, even the people with the best view, and considering that we now know that the plane was nowhere near the light poles, as confirmed in firsthand accounts by thirteen eyewitnesses in the best possible vantage points, it is clear that she did not see this.

Arabesque even went as far as to cite people like Lee Evey who was not even a witness to the plane, the poles, or the attack AT ALL.  He was the Pentagon renovation manager who has publicly admitted that he was not present at the Pentagon at the time of the attack.  As I say in our rebuttal to his light poles claim, this is EXACTLY why Arabesque's "research" is so damaging. He does ZERO fact checking and simply copies and pastes out of context words provided for him by the complicit mainstream media which often prove to be totally misleading.  We have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in Arabesque’s research to him such as presenting non-witnesses as Lee Evey as witnesses, as seen in this thread.  On the second page of that thread Arabesque said “I believe in honest research.   That means it's possible for researchers to make mistakes and then correct them when they are pointed out. [....] I will examine all of the comments in this thread and will correct my research as necessary.” That was over two years ago!  Despite his clearly false claim of “[believing] in honest research” to this day he has still not corrected his faulty information, which can now undeniably be called “disinformation”.

Nevertheless, this did not stop Ashley from linking to that very Arabesque article herself in her very recent article, and even worse, NONE of what I mentioned in these past few paragraphs stopped Legge from linking to the Ashley article and making the claim that “many eyewitnesses confirm” a flight path which has the plane “approach[ing] at a low angle, striking light poles, then [striking] the Pentagon” while dismissively and inaccurately stating that “claims have been made” that “several” eyewitnesses support a contradictory (north side) path.

The articles by Hoffman and Ashley are childish gossip-and-lie-filled hit pieces against CIT that simultaneously suggest we are as delusional as someone "smoking crack" yet also brilliant, diabolical "con” men who have pulled off an incredible "magic show" to deceive thirteen witnesses into supporting a north side approach and also a number of respected scholars, veterans, activists etc, such as Peter Dale Scott, Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, Sander Hicks, etc., into endorsing our efforts.

These articles amount to personal attacks and arguments from incredulity and do not offer any direct evidence whatsoever to refute the north side approach (i.e. witnesses to a south side approach).

I have good reason to believe the promotion of these articles was the primary intent of Legge's paper in the first place.  [This] is primarily due to the convenient timing of its release in conjunction with Hoffman and Ashley's dual hit-pieces, but also due to the undeniable attention our new presentation National Security Alert has been receiving lately.  What's particularly ironic about Legge's claim that the "overfly theory has been met with substantial opposition" is the fact that we have an unprecedented list of more well known, credentialed, and respected individuals than Hoffman/Ashley endorsing the effort.   Peter Dale Scott acknowledges that the compendium of eyewitness interviews presented in National Security Alert "successfully rebuts the official account of Flight 77’s flight path".  David Ray Griffin says that the north side approach is “proven beyond a reasonable doubt”.  Are they “smoking crack”?  Have they been “conned”?  No.  It is a conclusively proven fact that the plane flew on the north side which neither Ashley, Hoffman, Legge, nor anyone else can rebut, which is why they resort to dishonesty.

A plane on the north side CANNOT hit the light poles or building, period.

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/fa..._plane_hit.html

This is a scientific fact.  To acknowledge the north side yet deny the flyover would be just as bad as acknowledging free fall and/or the presence of nanothermite yet denying controlled demolition.

This is why Roosevelt Roberts Jr. and others saw the plane still in flight immediately after the explosion.

The bottom line is that in light of everything spelled out in this message and more, I find it unlikely that Legge had been planning to put out a simplistic opinion piece on the Pentagon all this time without any consideration for our new release, and that it happened to be a coincidence that he published it in the Journal of 9/11 Studies just as attention to the hard evidence we present is reaching "critical mass" within the movement and only days after the attack pieces on us that he referenced were put out.  I also find it telling that you are writing to me now after failing to give me the common courtesy of a reply to my multiple requests for you to view National Security Alert and consider giving an endorsement.  The fact is, Legge, Ashley-Hoffman, you, and everyone who supports the notion of controlled demo at the WTC unequivocally proving MIHOP (which we agree with by the way) are being hypocritical if you make proactive efforts to lie about/obfuscate/marginalize/dismiss hard evidence for MIHOP at the Pentagon in favor of questions that merely suggest a LIHOP scenario.  CIT is relentlessly attacked in a campaign to marginalize our findings, specifically by individuals you are closely associated with.  We called Jim Hoffman long ago on the phone to discuss the evidence and he failed to answer or call us back.  Our supporters have e-mailed him making similar pleas to no avail.  We have challenged Michael Wolsey, who recently had Hoffman on his show to trash us, to a public debate.  He has failed to respond.  Our supporters have e-mailed him to make sure he got the message.  Silence.  And yet Hoffman, Ashley, et al. continue to lie about us and lie about the evidence, and Legge is helping them in their effort.

We would be happy to engage in a civil debate with any of them anywhere anytime.

Finally, besides using dishonesty to try to convince people that our research is not only inconclusive but insane (yet also somehow a genius “con” job), people such as Legge, Hoffman, et al. try to get people to ignore this evidence under the entirely false premise that the general public will more readily accept the notion of a televised triple covert controlled demolition in downtown Manhattan as opposed to a flyover at the Pentagon right next to Reagan National.

You say:  "I find in his paper what he has recently emailed, "My paper tried to show that it didn't matter what hit the Pentagon. The important issue was that nothing should have hit it and the administration needed to be investigated to find out what happened and why.."

First of all, the first sentence of what Legge e-mailed there is false.  He explicitly says “if you look at the evidence carefully you will find that it cannot be conclusively proved that no 757 hit the Pentagon.”  That is implicitly weighing in on National Security Alert and saying it is inconclusive, and besides that, as I have shown, it is clear that Legge either has not “look[ed] at the evidence carefully”, or has chosen to lie about it if he has.

But regarding the notion that “The important issue was that nothing should have hit it and the administration needed to be investigated to find out what happened and why.":  The deception can not be exposed by asking that question.  In fact this was the extent of the "hard" questions asked by the 9/11 Commission and therefore constitutes the deliberate whitewash.  Most Americans arleady agree that nothing "should have" hit the Pentagon OR the WTC and the whitewash is centered around a "cover-up" of incompetence.  You more than anyone should understand how this question doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the true depths of this deception.

The psychological hurdle of accepting the notion of a false flag attack on 9/11 isn't any easier for average Americans to accept whether we uncover evidence for a deception at the WTC or at the Pentagon, but the more evidence for a deception that is uncovered overall the better case we will have.  This is a fact that can not be honestly denied.  What's also clear is that there is absolutely no logic in fully accepting a MIHOP scenario at the WTC while making a conscious decision to limit questions about the Pentagon attack to LIHOP.

I am calling for a stop to the intellectually dishonest attacks on us and the critical evidence we present while renewing my call for you to join the other respected scholars and researchers who have rallied behind this information with their public endorsements.  Steven, will you stand up for what's right and publicly support this definitive evidence?

Craig


Neither Legge, Jones, nor Ryan responded to this!

Instead, Legge released a new version of the paper a few weeks later. On 8/29/2009 Jones posted on 911Blogger announcing that "Noted 9/11 research Dr. Frank Legge has published a revised version of his paper", noting that "His first version of the paper generated a great deal of discussion about this important issue." (Full post here).

On the day of Jones' announcement I saved a copy of that "revised" version. The paper itself is dated 8/27/2009. two days before Jones' announcement on 911Blogger and 20 days after Craig's e-mail. However, for some reason it it called "Version 3". I don't know what happened to Version 2. (ETA: It seems that the version published by the JO911S on July 31 2009 was actually Version 2. There was an earlier incarnation of the paper written by Legge in 2007, which I guess they are considering to be Version 1. I don't think that one was published in the JO911S)

Surely this "peer reviewed" paper had it right now, right?

Not even close.

"Version 3" corrected a few false and/or misleading statements that were pointed out by Craig and others, but it failed to correct others and it also introduced new misinformation.

Legge went on to publish Version 4 on 9/14/2009, the preface of which stated that in this version Legge "corrected some errors".

Of course misinformation STILL remained, so 11 days later (9/25) he released Version 5, the preface of which stated that "Significant changes have been made starting under the heading 'Calum Douglas Flight Data Recorder Presentation'" and that "Errors in the previous version have been corrected."

Yes, he admits that after releasing at least three different versions of this "peer reviewed" paper it still contained errors.

Version 6 came a month later and the preface said that "Calculation errors in the previous version have been corrected".

Legge is now up to Version 7 of this "peer reviewed paper". He does not admit in the preface that Version 6 or Version 7 have errors, yet he STILL has some of the same misinformation in it as Version 1 (and 3, an 4, and 5, and 6) which Craig already corrected on August 7, 2009 in the e-mail quoted in full above.

For example, in response to Version 1, Craig's e-mail said:

QUOTE
Legge includes “striking light poles” as part of the flight path which “many eyewitnesses confirm”.  This is grossly misleading.  Anonymous internet personality, alleged truther, and CIT detractor “Arabesque” has the most comprehensive list of alleged light pole witnesses with a total of 22.  It can be found here if you scroll down to the part that says “Witnesses described the plane hitting lamp poles and objects.” However, contrary to what Arabesque wants to mislead his readers into believing, the fact is there are NO witnesses who claim to have seen the light poles get struck, including the people who claim to have been right on Route 27 just a few car lengths back from the plane.  We directly refuted each and every one of Arabesque’s supposed light pole strike witnesses way back in 2007.  Most of these witnesses do not explicitly claim to have actually seen the poles get struck.  As explained in our rebuttal we have spoken with a number of them and they have clarified that they in fact did not see such a thing.  Only one named person (Wanda Ramey) was quoted as having actually seen the poles get hit, and that was secondhand in a news article.  We got a hold of Ms. Ramey on the phone and she could not remember whether or not she had actually seen such a thing.  Considering that no one else saw such a thing, even the people with the best view, and considering that we now know that the plane was nowhere near the light poles, as confirmed in firsthand accounts by thirteen eyewitnesses in the best possible vantage points, it is clear that she did not see this.

Arabesque even went as far as to cite people like Lee Evey who was not even a witness to the plane, the poles, or the attack AT ALL.  He was the Pentagon renovation manager who has publicly admitted that he was not present at the Pentagon at the time of the attack.  As I say in our rebuttal to his light poles claim, this is EXACTLY why Arabesque's "research" is so damaging. He does ZERO fact checking and simply copies and pastes out of context words provided for him by the complicit mainstream media which often prove to be totally misleading.  We have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in Arabesque’s research to him such as presenting non-witnesses as Lee Evey as witnesses, as seen in this thread.  On the second page of that thread Arabesque said “I believe in honest research.   That means it's possible for researchers to make mistakes and then correct them when they are pointed out. [....] I will examine all of the comments in this thread and will correct my research as necessary.” That was over two years ago!  Despite his clearly false claim of “[believing] in honest research” to this day he has still not corrected his faulty information, which can now undeniably be called “disinformation”.

Nevertheless, this did not stop Ashley from linking to that very Arabesque article herself in her very recent article, and even worse, NONE of what I mentioned in these past few paragraphs stopped Legge from linking to the Ashley article and making the claim that “many eyewitnesses confirm” a flight path which has the plane “approach[ing] at a low angle, striking light poles, then [striking] the Pentagon” while dismissively and inaccurately stating that “claims have been made” that “several” eyewitnesses support a contradictory (north side) path.


This is absolutely critical information since the light poles are make or break for the official story.

There was no reason for Legge not to have gotten this right in the first place, especially since the paper was supposedly "peer reviewed" and this information had been published by CIT in 2007.

However, he had absolutely no excuse to get it wrong after having explained to him.

And yet 12 days later he went on Truth News Radio Australia and said (around the 19:00 mark):

QUOTE
LEGGE: Uhhh, uh, a great many eyewitnesses, uhh, s... somebody's done an estimate of what the various eyewitnesses said.  Apparently there were 89 witnesses who said that they say something hit the Pentagon.  Of those a fairly substantial portion said it was a passenger plane.  And also, a fairly substantial portion said that it DID hit the light poles.  So I think the numbers are in favor of, uh, [the/a] 757 hitting the, the Pentagon.


He also said (in response to Dan Collins talking about some theory that all of the photos taken in the aftermath of the Pentagon attack were actually fake/photoshopped)...

QUOTE
[21:44] LEGGE: Mmm... how would you get 17 or 20 or something eyewitnesses to say they saw the plane hit the light poles?

COLLINS: Well it wasn't that so much, he, he was r....

LEGGE: You can't say they photoshopped eyewitnseses.


And now in January of 2010 in Version SEVEN of his "peer reviewed" paper Legge says...

QUOTE
A large number of eye witnesses reported that a plane hit the Pentagon. A substantial proportion of these described a large passenger jet, and a similar proportion stated that the plane hit the light poles."


So Legge is still making the misleading claim in his "peer reviewed" paper that "substantial portion" of the "large number of eyewitnesses" who "reported that a plane hit the Pentagon" "stated that the plane hit the light poles", despite the fact that Craig already explained to him 5+ versions ago that none of the witnesses SAW the light poles get hit; they just saw or heard about them afterwards. (Not to mention Legge doesn't even give a single name or quote to support his misleading claim anyway.)

Another example:

Remember that Craig said this as part of his response to Version 1...

QUOTE
Looking specifically at the last sentence of the quote above and the sentence that immediately follows it in Legge’s article, he says “This flight data describes a path which is too high, and at the wrong angle, to have produced the observed damage. Claims have been made that several eye witnesses support this path.”

This is yet another tangled mess of misinformation if not outright disinformation.   We, CIT -- the main proponents of the flyover, the people who recorded the eyewitness interviews being alluded to, and the targets of the dishonest, childish hit pieces Legge links to as supposed “substantial opposition” to the “overflight theory” (which he dishonestly represents as “based on a flight data recording”) -- DO NOT claim that the witnesses “support this path” (the NTSB animation path), and neither does Pilots For 9/11 Truth.  PERIOD.  We have NEVER made such a claim.  Again, we have always maintained that the NTSB animation which shows the plane on the north side is simply a misrepresentation of the alleged “black box data” which has apparently been rotated – most likely deliberately to foster this kind of confusion and invite this kind of mis- or dis- information.

The fact is, however that eyewitnesses DO support a path (as opposed to the path shown in the animation) which is “too high, and at the wrong angle, to have produced the observed damage”.  Like Ashley, Legge says “claims have been made” to this effect.  No, we’re not making “claims” that eyewitness support the path.  They support the path, period.  It is the witnesses themselves who were in the best possible positions to judge make the north side claim, INDEPENDENTLY, UNANIMOUSLY, AND UNEQUIVOCALLY.  And it’s not “several”, it’s THIRTEEN and counting..

Now compare Legge’s dishonest “Claims have been made that several eye witnesses support this path.” sentence to this sentence which preceded it:   “There are now several theories about what hit the Pentagon. One is the official story, that a 757 approached at a low angle, striking light poles, then struck the Pentagon.  Many eye witnesses confirm this path.” (underline added)

Notice the stark difference in language.  According to Legge “many” eyewitnesses “confirm” the required (south side) flight path whereas people are just making “claims” about “several” witnesses contradicting it.

If THIRTEEN is “several” then how many is “many”?  The fact is HE DOESN’T PROVIDE A SINGLE EXAMPLE, LET ALONE WELL OVER THIRTEEN TO SUBSTANTIATE “MANY”.  What are their names?  Where are the sourced quotes?  Where are their audio recorded interviews?  This is science?  Again, we have provided firsthand audio and video recorded interviews with THIRTEEN eyewitnesses who were each in an excellent position to judge where the plane flew in relation to the gas station and or Navy Annex and they unanimously and independently, insist that the plane flew on the north side.  Hoffman, Ashley, Legge, and all of our detractors from the “debunker” camp have had TWO AND A HALF YEARS since we released The PentaCon to find and interview any such witnesses, if they exist.   If the plane really flew on the south side where it had to be it would have been a piece of cake to find them and interview them since there would undoubtedly be many more south side witnesses than people who “erroneously” thought it flew on the north side (despite their excellent if not perfect vantage points).


In Version 7 Legge STILL doesn't provide a single name or quote of a south side witness.

Instead, he simple says:

QUOTE
...the view over the roof of the Pentagon from the elevated road to the south would be very likely to produce numerous eye witness reports. Given the failure of such a body of reports to arise, while there are many reports of the plane hitting the Pentagon,7 it is not surprising that this theory, which is at present gaining supporters, has received criticism. There appears to be no scientific reason to prefer the CIT eyewitness reports over the very many conflicting reports.


Again, NO NAMES OR QUOTES of the "very many conflicting reports" are provided, let alone audio or video recorded testimony.

Also the name Roosevelt Roberts Jr. does not appear anywhere in any version of this "peer reviewed" paper.

I hope this helps people understand what's behind this "peer reviewed" line.

UPDATE: On Feb 15, 2010, Legge released Version EIGHT (PDF). In the introduction he says "This is essentially Version 7 with typos corrected". The examples I just gave from Version 7 still remain verbatim in Version 8. The name Roosevelt Roberts Jr. is still completely absent.
Top
Craig Ranke CIT
Posted: Feb 15 2010, 08:03 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 3,930
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07



Thanks for breaking that all down Ligon.

It gets so convoluted and becomes almost impossible to make clear to people what's going on here.

There is NOTHING "scientific" about Legge's paper whatsoever. It amounts to one big opinion piece so there is nothing to "peer review" in the first place. Unless we're supposed to accept that his peers read it and said, "yep, that's Frank Legge's opinion alright!"

There was no stated hypothesis in the first versions whatsoever until I pointed this out to him and then he stated this as his "major" hypothesis:

QUOTE (Legge)
"The major hypothesis is that if various groups within the 9/11 truth movement strongly assert contradictory views it will weaken the credibility of the movement as a whole. The damage is exacerbated if the supporters of these views not only disagree but also attack one another."


Of course he does not even attempt to provide one bit of evidence to support this "major hypothesis" throughout his entire paper. This is clearly NOT a scientific hypothesis at all. It is an opinion and a sweeping generalization, even if it's self-evident and true.

You can't have a scientific paper with an opinion for a hypothesis that you don't even bother to present evidence to support!

His "minor hypothesis" that is supposed to be what the major hypothesis rests on is this:
QUOTE (Legge)
"The minor hypothesis of the paper is that there is no scientific proof that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon."


He admits it's a negative hypothesis and therefore he is not required to provide evidence for this claim at all. In his interview with Wolsey he straight up admits that he deliberately uses a negative hypothesis as a means to shift the burden of proof to anyone but himself!

QUOTE (Legge)
But many people who have written papers trying to prove that the plane did hit the Pentagon and it hasn't had a lot of impact with the public.  So that is why I decided to write my paper the other way around.  Instead of trying to prove that the plane did hit the Pentagon I tried to get other people to prove that it didn't.  Now it puts the boot on the other foot, that's all it does.  Um...and I'm waiting for somebody to use that boot.


I'm sorry but that is not the scientific method.

Particularly when you simply dismiss out of hand the most prominent and talked about evidence that proves the plane did not hit: the north side approach witnesses.

That is being disingenuous.

The "boot" had been used before he started writing version 1 and then re-iterated directly to him in detail (as shown in the email posted by Ligon above) while he was writing his numerous "revisions". He simply ignored what was already in his rear-end.
Top
Craig Ranke CIT
Posted: Feb 15 2010, 08:15 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 3,930
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07



For the record this was all documented as it happened in this thread:

Legge revises opinion piece to reference CIT, and misrepresents our claims
Top
Domenick DiMaggio CIT
Posted: Feb 15 2010, 08:44 PM


Citizen Investigator


Group: Admin
Posts: 532
Member No.: 3
Joined: 1-September 07



IMO :

this is a classic example of gate keeping. a small group of individuals are clearly not chosen electorally are appointed the be all end all. it is not until they say it is so.

but whats great about what CIT does is they completely remove the need for the authoritarians and empower every single individual who is willing to set a small amount of time aside in their life to look at the evidence themselves and draw their own verdicts about it.

kind of like a direct democracy which is something i would love to have in our country. throw all the congress criminals out and empower the citizens.

excellent summary there adam!

thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif
Top
Stefan
Posted: Feb 16 2010, 01:58 AM


Citizen Researcher


Group: Friends
Posts: 208
Member No.: 1,070
Joined: 19-August 09



What depresses me about this is that the Journal being convinced to run this fluff (I would hazard a guess by Victoria Ashley) damages the credibility of all of the other, extremely good and utterly valid papers there.

To have a paper written by a chemist about a subject completely out of his area of expertise, full of mistakes, misunderstandings on his part and linking known disinformation as sources, now on it's seventh version yet still apparently peer reviewed is making a mockery of the whole project.

Clearly this has been possible because the majority of the writers for the journal are heavily focussed on and researching the events in New York. We know how capable Ashley is of lying and distorting this issue, we also know she has the ear of the scholars. I find it quite likely that they have been conned by her into thinking that CIT is on the same level as "no-plane" stuff like Judy Wood and are not giving it proper attention for this reason. Indeed it is Ashley who is most keen on propagandistically linking CIT and no-planes with every breath, it's one her most commonly used and most pathetic tactics.

I have to accept either that these scholars and phD holding academics are too stupid to understand this evidence (which I do not), or that they are being misled by someone who they trust. The latter seems obvious to me.

This vendetta of theirs has gone too far. Hoffman, Ashely and the now-vanished Arabesque have a lot to answer for. They are actively and deliberately damaging the campaign for 9/11 Truth, and they don't give a damn about it so long as they "win".

Thankfully, they are losing, and they were only ever going to lose. Because the truth always wins and all they have acheived is booking themselves a footnote on the pages of history as obstacles in its path.
Top
Adam Syed
Posted: Feb 16 2010, 10:03 AM


Citizen Researcher


Group: Friends
Posts: 444
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 17-August 09



Excellent posts everyone. Thank you.

Ligon, very interesting history there, even if lengthy reading. It is extremely frustrating to know that Jones and Legge never responded to Ranke's email. The email was lengthy to be sure, but it was as thorough an answer as possible to their questions.

Stefan, once again I really enjoy your posts wherever you post, because you sum it up so eloquently. The Journal gained respectability over the last 3-4 years with some truly excellent papers, much like Hoffman and Ashley themselves gained respectability over the course of several years by writing some truly excellent articles about the WTC collapse in addition to nipping actual disinfo in the bud. That respectability is what then allows them to function, wittingly or not, as gatekeepers, because many people put their trust in the said peoples'/Journal's credibility. My friend Sheila Casey told me that a few members of her DC 9/11 Truth group, who admit to knowing jack all about CIT's work and conclusions, are nonetheless suspicious of CIT by default because they trust Hoffman, and know that Hoffman doesn't support CIT.

When PentaCon came out in 2007, I was at a point where I was already 100% convinced 9/11 was a false flag op, so at the time it flew right over my head that Pentacon even existed. In fact, I first heard of the film on Hoffman's Hoax Promoting Videos page. At the time, I trusted that Hoffman was a thorough researcher, and his dismissal of PentaCon was enough to convince me, for basically 2+ years, that the film couldn't be too important. Plus, like I said, I was already a convinced truther and therefore didn't take the time to watch the film, then look at the "rebuttals" and make up my own mind. For me, it was the Lloyde England Virtual Confession in mid 2009 that made me do a big time double take and say, "Okay. NOW I've got to take this plunge and dive into CIT's stuff."

This exact same thing is happening w/r to Legge's paper. The Journal gained such respectability over several years that there's this assumption now, amongst a number of people at blogger, that every single paper published there must be good as gold. (with a lowercase 'g' wink.gif)

And of course, Frank Legge's thread was front paged.

Though I never e-mailed the blogger team to ask them why this particular Pentagon thread was front paged (given that the Pentagon issue is 'divisive' and all pro CIT entries are back paged), I'm sure their answer would be: "Because any time a paper is published in the [hallowed, sacrosanct] Journal, it is considered 'news.'"

Does anyone else find it odd that now that the Journal declares on its home page that they're not interested in accepting new papers, that the Journal now seems to be solely used as a conduit for neutralizing the Pentagon investigation?

I have a good e-mail relationship with John Wright (LeftWright) who is a moderator there (blogger that is). Several weeks ago he admitted to me that he had not watched more than the first 10 minutes of NSA. As such, and as a family man who doesn't have an unlimited amount of time for 9/11 research and activism, and whose limited time forces him sometimes to judge a book by its cover, he is under the impression that "CIT's work has been thoroughly critiqued at 911blogger," simply because there have been lots of anti CIT blog entries over the months whose authors range from Chris Sarns to Victoria Ashley to Frank Legge to Arabesque to Erik Larson.

Imagine you don't have time to delve into all this thoroughly. It's quite easy to see the plethora of anti CIT essays, and look at the downvotes pro CIT comments receive over there, and come to the (on the surface) logical conclusion of "Wow. With this much critique leveled at their work, and with all these down votes, the CIT supporters MUST have it all wrong!"

LeftWright also said to me, via e-mail: "I suggest you read - or reread - Frank Legge's paper and reconsider the merits of CIT's work." doh1.gif

I have patiently pointed him in the right direction. If he is indeed an honest activist with no agenda, which so far I believe he is, and if he doesn't succumb to peer pressure from any side, he will come around and truly see who's who.

This post has been edited by Adam Syed on Feb 16 2010, 10:23 AM
Top
KP50
Posted: Feb 16 2010, 02:14 PM


Citizen Researcher


Group: Friends
Posts: 246
Member No.: 586
Joined: 24-September 08



Some very astute observations there. I didn't even come to 9/11 Truth until December 06 when I saw In Plane Site on a main TV channel here in NZ. I then delved into 9/11 on the internet for months and from the Pilots site I found the website marker for the Pentacon before it was actually released. Thus my viewing of the Pentacon was the first action of looking into the eye-witness statements, lightpoles etc etc - and I came in with an open mind.

If your views were already clouded by the work of Hoffman, arabesque etc then it would be easy to view CIT's work as disinfo. After all, it is just too simple a way to prove an inside job to many people .......
Top
Craig Ranke CIT
Posted: Feb 16 2010, 03:28 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 3,930
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07



QUOTE (KP50 @ Feb 16 2010, 10:14 PM)

If your views were already clouded by the work of Hoffman, arabesque etc then it would be easy to view CIT's work as disinfo. After all, it is just too simple a way to prove an inside job to many people .......

Yeah I think we suffer from the "it's too good to be true" syndrome.

People simply can't believe that it's this simple and definitive.

Plus there seems to be an adversity to taking a definitive stance at all.

For some reason people seem to want to be "just asking questions" forever and get mad at the fact that we stopped asking them and went and found the answers for ourselves.
Top
Swing Dangler
Posted: Feb 22 2010, 10:51 AM


Concerned Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 121
Member No.: 21
Joined: 14-January 08



Here were/are my two cents sent to Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice......

---
Good day. I originally signed up for Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice using the screen name, Swing Dangler, due to my employment as an educator at a public high school. My fear was that I might face repercussions for using my real name, etc. in pursuit of 9/11 truth. I migrated to ST&J after the split between the Scholars running the organization.

I've been a follower of the Journal for 9/11 Studies since its inception and I have fought tooth and nail whenever and wherever possible for 9/11 Truth. NIST even posted my email publicly when I contacted them about their WTC 7 investigation draft for public comments and a piece of steel that was recovered. David Ray Griffin followed up with me on the conversation with NIST as well. In other words, I'm not a novice to the 9/11 investigation. I've debated successfully online and on radio supporters of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory and published my own research.

It has come to my attention that a paper has been published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies by Dr. Frank Legge entitled, What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth regarding the Pentagon attack and the controversy surrounding what, if anything, hit it. In the paper itself, it is very clear that there is a non-scientific attack on Citizen's Investigation Team, their research, and their conclusions. The verbiage makes it clear as well as the line of logic as well, including the title of the paper itself. Craig Ranke contacted the author and apparently one of the peer reviewers, Dr. Jones, and addressed the issue of Frank's paper which can be read here:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=738&st=0 and here http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1036

Craig Ranke, the primary contact person for Citizen's Investigation Team has contacted Dr. Steven Jones regarding the paper and its glaring errors and misinformation and just plain wrong data. To this date, Dr. Jone's hasn't responded yet Dr. Legge's paper remains.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice website continues to link to faulty information, especially alleged "witnesses" who reportedly witnessed the last moments of the Pentagon attack. The press accounts of each of those witnesses have been shown to be incorrect. Researchers have personally contacted those cited in these accounts and time and time again, their press accounts and reality do not match as can be shown via this thread: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=51&st=0
Over and over again, the press reported false accounts, assumptions, and deductions and not facts. Years later the research shows that no person actually saw the plane hit the light poles on the Pentagon approach. Yet 10 years later Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice as well as Dr. Legge's paper asserts that these accounts are true and factual. Why? I'm a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, not Scholars for 9/11 Lies and Justice.

To make a long story short, the paper as published by Dr. Legge is not scientific. It is not fair and balanced and reads more like a hit piece rather than a piece of scientific work. There are numerous fallacies of omission within the paper itself. The research he links to is outdated and simply wrong and reads like a subtle character attack as well.

Dr. Legge, as shown in his paper and in the above threads lacks proper research methods, he relies on erroneous research and collections of others, character attacks by others, and down right wrong mainstream press accounts. This has nothing to do with conflicting views on the conclusions of what happened at the Pentagon. This has everything to do with proper formal research for a paper to be published in what I thought was a properly peer reviewed journal.

Because this paper has been published, it is a clear ethics violation by the Journal itself as well as the sponsoring organization Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice to "publish" this paper as a part of a " research journal" . As a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, I expect the Journal of 9/11 Studies to be properly peer reviewed. After 7 versions with the same mistakes, errors, and disinformation, as found in version 1, it is clear that this paper in particular is NOT being properly peer reviewed or it would have never seen the light of day in version 1 let alone supposedly properly peer reviewed for 6 different versions. This pains me because I have argued with "debunkers" at JREF and other places that the Journal is a legitimate line of research. The publication of What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth paper has now called into question my belief in the Journal. This also calls into question the purpose of the paper itself.

This whole incident and paper questions the legitimacy of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice as well as the Journal for 9/11 Studies. As a result of this controversy, the publication of the very non-scientific improperly researched paper published at the Journal for 9/11 Studies, and the lack of response to the paper's glaring issues in the face of imminent re-printing, I respectively withdraw my membership in Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

Perhaps at a future date if the Journal offers a public retraction of What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth and will refuse to publish papers based upon un-sound, illogical, improper research disguised as facts, I will seek to reestablish membership with Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

Thank you for your time,
Top
tezzajw
Posted: Feb 22 2010, 11:45 PM


Curious Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 16
Member No.: 1,121
Joined: 28-October 09



Nicely worded, Swing...

Repeating errors through seven versions clearly demonstrates that the 'peer review' process has failed.
Top
« Next Oldest | CIT response | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (2) [1] 2 



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.1289 seconds | Archive