CIT -> Legge revises opinion piece to reference CIT

Legge revises opinion piece to reference CIT, and misrepresents our claims

Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

madtruth	Posted: Aug 31 2009, 03:33 PM
Investigangsta Group: "Team" Member Posts: 71 Member No.: 967 Joined: 12-January 09	Yep!! Keep on rocking guys!!! Marc

rlshut	Posted: Aug 31 2009, 03:50 PM
Newbie Group: "Team" Member Posts: 4 Member No.: 1,039 Joined: 3-July 09	Yes, a plane north of the citgo gas station can't hit lightpoles or Pentagon. Simple enough. Seems like the information is so convincing ,they(infiltrators)will go to great lengths to confuse and misdirect. By the way NSA made it to the Zeitgeist forum under Miscelaneous topic.

painter

Posted: Sep 18 2009, 10:39 AM

Member

Group: Friends
Posts: 16
Member No.: 951
Joined: 29-December 08

This is my contribution to the blogger debate re Legge. It is being voted down, of course ( http://www.911blogger.com/node/21359#comment-217094 ):

QUOTE (painter)

You wrote:
"[CIT bases] their view on interviews with a
number of eye witnesses who say that the plane passed to the north of the Citgo service station.
If this is correct, the plane could not have lined up with the light poles and hence could not
have caused the observed damage to the Pentagon. [snip]

"It is part of this [fly-over] theory that the view of the departing plane was obscured by the effects of an
explosion which caused the damage to the Pentagon. While this might have obscured the view
from observers in line with the approach path, there would have been many potential observers
with a clear view from different directions. In particular 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*, it is not surprising that this theory, which is at present gaining
supporters, has received criticism.34"

1: You do not establish the critical difference between "reports" of eyewitnesses seeing the plane hit the Pentagon and the light poles VS independently verified RECORDS of eyewitness accounts which in many instances were earlier reported and recorded by the Library of Congress and the Center for Military History. The former are HERE-SAY reports published by the corporate media (which we know to be helping cover-up the events of 9/11 and which, therefore, can not be trusted) while the latter are established, face-with-the-name RECORDS, many of them recorded on-site, on-camera. If you want this paper to be considered "scientific" then you must include this distinction between UNVERIFIED (here-say) reports and independently verified RECORDS. These two data sets can not be considered equal in value for establishing possible fact.

2: Although it may seem reasonable to conclude, "...there would have been many potential observers with a clear view from different directions [of a fly-over]. In particular 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." the absence of such reports can not be considered conclusive. As stated it is nothing more than an appeal to incredulity. You fail to acknowledge A) the independently verified account of Rosevelt Roberts, initially recorded by the Library of Congress, later independently verified by CIT, of a commercial aircraft flying low over the south parking lot immediately after the explosion at the Pentagon; B) the possibility that there were fly-over witnesses whose accounts were obscured or suppressed or unreported; C) the appearance of the C-130 which was falsely reported to have been "shadowing" the attack plane and could have led fly-over witnesses to (falsely) assume that they had seen this second plane instead of a the fly-over attack plane and D) the reality that flights to and from Regan National Airport are a common site around the Pentagon. Any criticism of the fly-over hypothesis that does not include the verified account of Rosevelt Roberts and these other considerations can not be considered "objective."

You wrote:

"As stated above the authorities could easily show what hit the Pentagon, as they have many
video tapes of the event. That they choose not to do so must be because confusion serves their
purpose. The situation to bear in mind is that the perpetrators may be keeping evidence in
reserve which will prove that a 757 did hit the Pentagon. This evidence would be their
insurance policy. If they feel endangered by the progress of public opinion toward demanding a
new investigation, and realizing that this will likely lead to criminal charges and convictions,
they will produce this evidence. As many members of the 9/11 truth movement believe that no
757 hit the Pentagon, this evidence will throw the movement into disarray and create crippling
loss of credibility over issues which are far more important. It will become very difficult to
argue convincingly that explosives were used at the WTC.39

"Those who are not of the opinion that a 757 hit the Pentagon should bear in mind that it is
possible that they have been deliberately deceived by false evidence and have been set up by
this evidence to serve the purpose of the perpetrators, when the time comes. The release of an
FDR file deliberately modified to contradict eye witness reports appears to be a case in point."

This "honey pot," precautionary principal -- that it is prudent for the truth movement to be wary of coming to a 'no-impact at the Pentagon' conclusion regardless of the evidence -- has been disrupting and dividing the truth movement for years. It is time to be done with it once and for all. It is not not objective and certainly not "scientific".

We have established via FOIA that there is no positively identified plane debris, including the FDR itself. We have established that the FDR data provided is altered, therefore fraudulent and therefore evidence of a cover-up. We have established that multiple eyewitnesses who can be confirmed to have been present and in a position to see precisely what happened, report a plane on a heading that is irreconcilable with the physical damage (light poles and path within the Pentagon). We have one confirmed eye-witness of a plane flying low over the south parking lot immediately after the explosion at the Pentagon. We have considerable reason to speculate that the 'low and level across the lawn' security camera video is fraudulent (smoke trail dissipates too rapidly, casts no shadow, etc.). We also have the fact that ALL of the physical evidence which could prove conclusively and scientifically precisely what happened at the Pentagon is under the control of the prime suspect AND HAS NOT BEEN MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.

Indeed, no doubt they do have video footage of the Pentagon event -- but we have no reason to conclude, given the obfuscations and out-right falsifications that have been released to date, that ANY evidence coming from government or military sources will be any less deceptive than what has been provided thus far. As I have said many times in various forums, we're not asking the government to prove something difficult or absurd, such as the idea that a UFO hit the Pentagon. They make the claim that it was specifically AA77 (N644AA.), a large, hijacked, Boeing aircraft. Although there is no *officially stated* "flight path," the physical evidence is precise: the plane (if any) that caused this damage would had to have flown on a very tight, narrow path and would had to have flown south of Columbia Pike and then descended from the VDOT to fly low and level across the lawn such that it impacted the building precisely at ground level yet without the engines causing ANY recorded damage to either the lawn or the foundation of the building. The government account is fantastic, that is to say, near miraculous, on its face, made even more so with the release of data sets that are obfuscatory and false and contradicted by confirmed eyewitness statements. All this is strong evidence of a cover-up at the Pentagon and a no-impact hypothesis.

The question that needs to be asked is, if the government has ACTUAL verifiable evidence that AA77 (N644AA) struck the Pentagon as claimed, WHY have they withheld it for all these years? If the government and military have nothing to hide, WHY are their data sets obfuscatory? I think the answer is very simple and obvious: They do not have such evidence and they do not have it because AA77 did not impact the Pentagon.

There is also a second question that needs to be asked: Given all this, why is it that the 9/11 Truth community has been divided and continues to be divided by this specific Pentagon event? Again, IF AA77 impacted the Pentagon as claimed this should be near OBVIOUS, not something that requires years of research to conclude. Yet, we are not provided with factual evidence from which this conclusion can be drawn. On the contrary. Moreover, the movement is kept divided and ill informed about this evidence often with direct attacks against the character of those who have brought much of this information forward -- without coherently and conclusively addressing the evidence provided (such as giving unverified media "reports" the same credibility as independently verified witness records or speculating that for something to be true it must have been witnessed and those witness accounts must have been reported, etc.)

It is high time for this to stop. Regardless what one "believes" happened, there is no independently verifiable evidence that AA77 impacted the Pentagon (nor is there any such evidence that some other aircraft or missile caused the physical damage due to impact). What we have in its place is strong evidence of a cover-up and obfuscation of the actual event. I see no reason for the 9/11 Truth community to continue to remain divided over what happened at the Pentagon. Indeed, it would be helpful if we had more than one fly-over witness. Indeed it would be helpful if persons critical of the fly-over hypothesis would address the credibility of the confirmed North of Citgo witnesses without recourse to appeals to incredulity.

But that isn't what we have, is it?

Craig Ranke CIT	Posted: Sep 18 2009, 12:00 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 1,949 Member No.: 1 Joined: 29-August 07	Great response painter! Thanks for that. This revision is pathetic. For the record he is now up to version 4: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009...nDrLeggeAug.pdf He is floundering all over the place and the notion that this is a "scientific" paper is laughable. I love he he gets all defensive about that. What kind of scientific paper has to defend the notion that it is a scientific paper! It's clear he is free-styling as he goes and has no real knowledge concerning the Pentagon attack at all. By now he MUST regret getting into this because I've never witnessed such utter buffoonery passed off as "science" before.

Craig Ranke CIT

Posted: Sep 19 2009, 10:17 AM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,949
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07

Great post by Adam Syed on blogger regarding the latest revision (version 4) of Legge's opinion piece:

QUOTE ( Adam Syed)

Is it me or have the revisions of this paper acutually gotten more convoluted?

Is it typical for the author of an alleged scientific paper to wait until the 3rd revision before bothering to state the hypothesis? I find it rather odd how this version opens with a note actually defending the "scientific" nature of the paper.

Furthermore I find the "minor and major hypotheses" presented to also be rather odd.

Legge wrote:

"The minor hypothesis of the paper is that there is no scientific proof that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon."

One would think that if this was his hypothesis he would directly address or refute the evidence that he is clearly dismissing as invalid. Legge does not directly address the incredible amount of evidence presented in CIT's National Security Alert at all let alone refute it.

As painter already explained very well, casually suggesting that other people have "estimated" that there are 89 secondhand media accounts of a plane impact (false claim) does not refute the definitive firsthand evidence CIT presents for a north side approach proving the plane did not hit.

This kind of outright dismissal is very reminiscent to me as to how mainstream sources treat the evidence for controlled demolition at the WTC.

Legge goes on to state his "major hypothesis":

"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."

Yet he does not attempt to provide any evidence for this at all. This "hypothesis" amounts to nothing but a blanket statement. Even if it is generally true it has no relevance to the evidence proving a deception and no valid case is made to dismiss this evidence that he has simply failed to address all together. This hardly seems like what I would call a valid hypothesis at all, and again, simply amounts to an opinion. Out of context I agree with the statement in general but so what? This would be similar to stating something like, "When people argue about information, they tend to not get along." Of course that's the case but I fail to see how claiming this as a "hypothesis" is a valid or scientific approach to this complex issue or valid way to address the definitive evidence presented by CIT and P4T that so many people are starting to understand and accept the importance of right now.

This seems more like a call to ignore and dismiss evidence rather than a scientific approach to discuss it.

source

I added the bold to the last sentence becasue it is a very poignant description.

Legge actually replied:

QUOTE ( Frank Legge)

Hi Adam, I am glad you brought that point up about not explicitly stating the hypotheses until version 3.

As I have already pointed out, countless people have made the case that flight 77 did hit the Pentagon and it has not had as much impact as one would expect - people keep arguing against it, causing disputation to the detriment of the truth community. I tried to find a new approach in order to get the question raised and have people take a fresh look at it. Instead of stating the hypothesis that a 757 appeared to have hit the Pentagon I asked the question "What hit the Pentagon?" then developed the hypothesis that it cannot be proved that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. It seems to have worked as a number of people have pointed out that is should be easier to find common ground with this double negative hypothesis than with the standard positive hypothesis.

The hypotheses are very clearly established in the text of the paper and the revisions have not changed them. So why did I eventually write a preface to set out the hypotheses of the paper? I came to the conclusion that there were some people who would not spend the time needed to really be able to work out the point of the paper, and perhaps there are a few who would not get it even if they took the time. Eventually I thought on balance that the paper might be more effective if I was a bit less subtle.
source

(bold added)

Note how he completely ignores that Adam explained exactly WHY these are not valid hypotheses and HOW this is not remotely a scientific approach.

(e.g. he fails to directly address the primary evidence proving the plane did not hit while dismissing it with a hand wave as inconclusive)

Legge's excuse for orginally not bothering to state the hypothesis mystifying:

"It seems to have worked as a number of people have pointed out that is should be easier to find common ground with this double negative hypothesis than with the standard positive hypothesis."

Easier?

So the reason he has refused the proper scientific approach by stating a position and supporting it with evidence is because it is "easier to find common ground" by refusing all positions and dismissing the evidence with a hand wave as inconclusive.

He actually admits that this is the purpose of the paper while defiantly insisting that it's still "science".

Incredible.

Craig Ranke CIT

Posted: Oct 3 2009, 09:47 AM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,949
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07

Excerpt from Legge's recent interview with Wolsey regarding V5 of his "essay":

QUOTE (Legge)

Wolsey:� Now Dr Legge as we just talked about you've contributed to uh scientific papers in your career including this active thermitic paper, and uhh, you're obviously no stranger to the scientific method.� However um,� in the case of the Pentagon attack, ummm, ah, we don't, uh necessarily have the physical evidence such as what you had when you were investigating the collapses of the towers, for example you guys had dust that you could analyze and perform experiments on.� So um tell us how you were able to apply the scientific method as it applies to the attack on the Pentagon.

Legge:� Well this is a question which is apparently has bothered a lot of people.�� Uhh quite a number of people have said that my paper is not scientific.� They say it doesn't have a hypothesis.� But it does. The hypothesis, well there's really a couple of hypotheses in it.� Ahhh I really wrote the paper about the hypothesis that uhhhh If supporters of 9/11 truth conflict with one another, it will be detrimental to the uhhhhh to the process of getting the truth out to the public.� And I think that that is certainly true. Mm but what the paper rests on is the hypothesis that it cannot be proved that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.� Now that's a negative hypothesis but like any hypothesis all you have to do is find one piece of evidence that proves it wrong and it has to be abandoned.� Now if you can find one piece of evidence that proves that a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon, then that uhhh hypothesis will have to be proved...er ah abandoned, or modified.� And uh so far I am not persuaded that there is a piece of evidence which proves that hypothesis wrong.

Uh huh.

Because you deliberately ignored it Legge.

They continued:

QUOTE

Wolsey:� So when you look at the hypothesis that there was no plane hitting the Pentagon what were the most compelling arguments to you that said these people who were saying to you that it's a fact that American 77 didn't hit the Pentagon what was the most significant things that you saw that that persuaded you of this?

Legge:� Well, first of all there are a great many of eyewitnesses who have said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.� Now how can you explain that if it didn't really happened?� Umm it seems logical enough that the plane did hit the Pentagon.� 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.

So he admits that his "scientific paper" has a hypothesis that is deliberately designed to shift the burden of proof on to those he does not agree with.

Funny how CIT has been using our boot on Legge since the release of V1 and funny how he did not state ANY hypothesis until V4 as a result of that boot and even more hilarious is how he has STILL failed to directly address the evidence we present even though we ARE the ones who openly claim to provide proof that the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

After using talk of deliberate disinfo and space beam theories at the WTC he segued into this:

QUOTE

Legge: Other people are now starting to talk about the fact that you, you know, the plane flew over the top of the Pentagon that the, that nobody saw it happen. Um you know one wonders. Has somebody got at them? Have they been threatened?

Wolsey: Yes indeed I've asked the same question or even worse and you hate to go there because you can't prove anything but what you can do is you can look at the behavior. You can look at their theories, and they have been soundly, I would, in my opinion debunked and you know I guess what frightens me the most is the fact that they were able to get several high profile members of the movement to basically endorse this work which is why I came out ah uh in critical fashion against them in the first place because I for years have been ignoring these crazy kinds of theories, the ones that aren't backed up with substantial research, and uh but when uh you know the CIT guys came out and were asserting that every single thing that uh lined up with the flight path of 77 was faked and that eyewitnesses were agents everybody from USA Today is an agent and can't be trusted even though they were on the highway on their way to work and they saw the plane hit the Pentagon....so everything that doesn't fit in with their story is either planted, faked, or uh government op. But yet we have the fact that nobody saw this plane fly over and so I hope, I pray that this sort of information goes by the wayside and takes the course of Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood but uh you know I had to get involved with this I felt really compelled to do it because I sensed the danger that you sensed I sensed it for many years I sensed this danger increasing and so I'm going to use my voice to stand up and say wait a minute, let's take a closer look at this information that's all I'm advocating so, I really appreciate what you're doing Dr Legge with this paper "What Hit the Pentagon", now, I want to talk just a little bit about this because I know that you have gone in and done at least 5 revisions when I talked to you on the phone last night...you mentioned that you have another one coming up. Let's talk about the revisions, what brought them about. I see this as kind of a peer review process almost even though we're not a scientific journal but I've seen this kind of play out over at 911blogger and I know you've mentioned you've received many emails I'm sure from various people but let's talk about the various versions and what has prompted you to go ahead and alter your paper?

Legge: Well the first uh significant alteration was in version 3 where I found that too many people were unable to understand the concept of the scientific process when when the hypothesis was negative. So I wrote a preface there to try and explain the fact that there indeed was a hypothesis and uh it can be scientifically addressed. Ummm but then, um then there came a number of questions about my assertion that it may have been possible to uh find a flight path where the plane could have come down and hit the light poles and hit the Pentagon as the as the damage indicates. And I, I (inaudible). In about version 4 I think, oh uh, version 3 probably. In version 4 I took an example and said you know if the plane is flying 30 feet above the ground as it passes the antenna and it flies in a straight line towards the tops of the poles it will hit the tops of the poles and go on to hit the Pentagon in the position that we know it hit. It's a straight line there's absolutely no upward force required there is no curve. No G forces required for that path it's a straight line. But it's not quite realistic because the plane did not hit the tops of the light poles it hit about 10 feet down so the path really was curved. Um but I put that into the paper about the straight line because you would think that any rational person would look at that and say hey if it didn't fly straight to a point 30 feet above the ground near the antenna opposite the Navy Annex, it must be possible to find a flight, fight path where you can do it from a bit, bit higher up and still take out the light poles. However, uh that paper was attacked. Nobody, nobody uh seemed to think here so I'll look into that and see if I can find a flight path. Pilots for 9/11 Studies just uh ridiculed the idea. So I decided to do version 5 to actually prepare a uh a spread sheet which I could calculate fight paths. Now I've done that and I listed a table of um feasible flight paths a-around the uh antenna uh that result in uh the poles being hit. Now in version 5 there are actually a couple of mistakes, I've also got a couple of fight paths going over the Annex and I, there are errors in that and I've got some information I need to get about the height of the Annex and things like that before I can correct those. But the uh, the other flight paths are all correct as far as I know. And they show that you can easily fly a plane um past the uh, well even over the top of the antenna and still hit the tops of the light, hit the uh, light poles as we observed and still hit the Pentagon without hitting the ground. So that's where version 5 is up to and version 6 of course has got to correct those two flight paths going over the Annex. Um and I think there might be some other, I might add a few other things there about the logic which people are using as they attack the paper, so uh, version 6 is going to uh, I'm hoping version 6 will be the last. There will be no need to go any further than that.

Yeah right!

Still no mention of CIT by Legge let alone the evidence we present proving the plane did not hit.

Craig Ranke CIT

Posted: Oct 3 2009, 02:39 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,949
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07

Legge does not reference CIT or the north side evidence once throughout the entire interview but this statement is very revealing:

QUOTE

Legge: Other people are now starting to talk about the fact that you, you know, the plane flew over the top of the Pentagon that the, that nobody saw it happen. Um you know one wonders. Has somebody got at them? Have they been threatened?

Funny how he simply ignores the direct evidence we have presented for a flyover not to mention the north side which proves a flyover. As if he is utterly clueless to the accounts of Roosevelt Roberts and Erik Dihle.

Legge simply pretends like he has never even seen National Security Alert! Of course the timing of his first release of this essay only days after the Hoffman and Ashley CIT/National Security Alert hit-pieces came out (and that he referenced) and the fact that we have had extensive dialog with him via email informing him of this evidence demonstrates that he is well aware and that he continues to ignore it deliberately.

keenan

Posted: Oct 7 2009, 11:44 PM

Member

Group: "Team" Member
Posts: 13
Member No.: 1,049
Joined: 18-July 09

QUOTE (madtruth @ Aug 31 2009, 03:45 AM)

unlike Jones who has doctored photographs to deceive.

Can you say more about this? Which photographs did Jones doctor?

Craig Ranke CIT	Posted: Oct 22 2009, 01:22 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 1,949 Member No.: 1 Joined: 29-August 07	He has now put out V6 which is supposedly the last: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...nDrLeggeAug.pdf Naturally he still fails to address the evidence we present as a means to push his fraudulent negative hypothesis that "there is no scientific proof that no 757 hit the Pentagon". Anyone can ignore evidence as a means to claim it doesn't exist. He is using faulty logic and blatant obfuscation tactics to manipulate the reader into ignoring the evidence we present. There is nothing remotely scientific about this sloppy opinion piece. A direct public challenge to his faulty premise with a call to debate will be forthcoming.

tezzajw	Posted: Nov 18 2009, 03:15 AM
Newbie Group: "Team" Member Posts: 7 Member No.: 1,121 Joined: 28-October 09	Last night I saw Legge present his Thermite paper at the Melbourne Hard Evidence Public Lecture - an event under the AE911 banner. Most of the night was dominated by Richard Gage, with Legge taking up a smaller portion when the WTC dust was being discussed. Legge spoke in a dry, scientific manner, with some technical power point slides, showing the composition of elements in the WTC dust. The bloke next to me seemed to start snoring and a few other people in the hall looked like they were shuffling their feet. Putting that aside, it appears that Legge knows his stuff about the analysis that he's done. In a convoluted way, he summed up that there was evidence of thermite in the WTC dust. There was an open speculation about Flourine being involved to help the thermitic reaction and Legge stated that their next line of research is to try and find the compound that could have been added to assist the thermite reaction. Anyway, my point is that someone with the scientific grounding, such as Legge, certainly brushes aside the NOC witnesses, while making some strange observations in his Version 6 paper. He should probably stick to what he knows best and leave the Pentagon alone. I wonder if he regrets writing his paper in the first instance? In case you're wondering, I had no real opportunity to ask Legge about the Pentagon. The whole presentation was geared towards the WTC. The event ran way over time and was rushed, with little chance for any official question time. At the end, Legge and Gage were swamped by different fan-boys-and girls, while they were walking out to dinner and I headed back to my car. I wasn't in the mood to fight through Legge's fans to get a brush-off from him about the Pentagon.

Craig Ranke CIT	Posted: Nov 18 2009, 07:09 AM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 1,949 Member No.: 1 Joined: 29-August 07	Thanks for the report tezz. That's about what I would have expected.

Swing Dangler	Posted: Nov 20 2009, 07:51 AM
Investigangsta Group: "Team" Member Posts: 104 Member No.: 21 Joined: 14-January 08	"Pilots for 9/11 Studies"...Hmm a new group out there?? No witnesses to a fly over?? This guy is essentially clueless and apparently has not studied the body of work here.

« Next Oldest | CIT response | Next Newest »