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

Legge just put out a revision of the first version of his very simplistic and inaccurate opinion piece on the Pentagon attack that was published on the Journal for 9/11 Studies called "What Hit the Pentagon?" but now he references CIT directly (although barely) even though he avoided doing so in the first version.

Revised version:

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009...nDrLeggeAug.pdf

There was an email discussion going on between him and Rob from Pilots for 9/11 Truth that a few of us were copied on.

I accused Legge of misrepresenting the position of Pilots for 9/11 Truth while deliberately avoiding mentioning us WHILE using his paper as a propaganda vehicle for Hoffman and Ashley's brand new hit piece against us.

Legge refused to reply to me but Steven Jones specifically asked me for examples of how he misrepresented P4T.

Well I broke it all down in detail for him and cited many many examples and of course copied Legge.

Neither of them ever replied.

But now he's released this revision that is just as pathetic as the first version.

He continues to misrepresent the claims of Pilots for 9/11 Truth (although in a different way) but now he is DIRECTLY misrepresenting our claims as well.

In fact he has gone so far as to suggest that we have COMPETING THEORIES that "radically conflict" with each other!

So he STILL has it wrong and has failed to even bother referencing the evidence at all while preferring to set up false theories for him to "debunk" instead.

That is what critical thinkers classify as a straw man argument and is actually deceptive faulty logic.

What I want to know is why is a professor using a scientific journal to disseminate opinion at all?

They are really cheapening the Journal with this type of inaccurate and incomplete opinion based articles about various "theories" while completely ignoring the evidence.

I'll use this thread to document exactly what we told him was wrong with the first paper and what is wrong with this revision as well.

Yup, I read Legge's paper too, and found it full of very questionable statements and assumptions.

He starts off, for example, by claiming that the far more fundamental question is "Why was the Pentagon hit?", but doesn't really back up why this is far more fundamental. Whatever it was that hit the Pentagon - plane, missile, truck bomb, or combination thereof - would have a great bearing on coming up with the right answer to the question of why it was hit, so the two questions can't really be treated separately.

He says the Mineta account of the Cheney-aide exchange is crucial to this debate - which debate? What hit the building? Where Cheny was? Why NORAD was stood down? It certainly potentially reveals a lot about Cheney's intentions that morning, but offers little either way in helping us understand the physical damage scene.

Then when Legge gets into the finer details point by point, he says "there is at least one photograph which shows ample small fragments scattered over a wide area" - but without specifying what type of debris we are talking about - plane debris, building debris, bomb debris, what exactly? He then talks about all sorts of ways such fine debris would be obscured from view on the darker lawn; other parts missed by various photographs; refers to men in white shirts and black trousers hastily collecting debris from the lawn; discusses debris flying high up in the security camera video frames - but all again without offering any proof this is *plane debris* specifically, except to briefly mention various photos of plane parts, acknowledging that some people have suggested they were planted, but offers nothing to rebut that suspicion, and moves on without exploring that possibility at all.

He spends a lot of time discussing whether Hani Hanjour could have in fact have been at the controls, perhaps assisted by auto-pilot or remote control - but this has little bearing on establishing a line of physical evidence establishing what happened, and is in many ways a diversion from the matter at hand.

Discussing the flyover theory, he says "the view over the roof of the Pentagon from the south would inevitably produce numerous eye witness reports," which he assumes would automatically make it into the media and eventually into the permanent historical record - conveniently forgetting, of course, that hundreds of accounts of explosions at the WTC never somehow made it into this same historical record, and every other aspect of 9/11 suggests that what makes into the media is highly controlled and manipulated to fit a certain narrative. If the media is not willing to report the testimony of firefighters, police and rescue workers who witnessed explosions at the WTC, why does he assume they would report witnesses to a plane flying away - which, as CIT points out, could easily misinterpret what they are seeing as just another plane taking off from the nearby airport.

But the most misleading argument, in my view, is his contention that the reason that the Pentagon videos haven't been released "must be because confusion serves [the perpetratos'] purpose" - when it's far more likely that the reason is because the videos don't show what the government claimed happened there. This whole notion, which Alex Jones seems to share, that there may be real authentic footage of a 757 hitting the Pentagon - which the perpetrators are keeping in reserve to unleash at the right time - is highly speculative, and it's just as reasonably to speculate that these videos will never be released, because they show something different than what the government claims happened.

Having read many scientific papers about both the Pentagon and the WTC, I find this a lousy, intellectually unsatisfying series of arguments, and Legge is best sticking to the WTC issue, on which his scholarship is considerably more developed.

My two cents.

Excellent observations.

Glad to see you contributing, nobody!

Since it's clear Legge has no evidence, coherent argument, or even a decent understanding of the evidence at the Pentagon, the question is why would he go so far as to publish a paper on it?

The tone of the article with a stated bias in favor of the official narrative in the last line of the hollow "conclusion" makes it quite clear if you ask me.

He actually ends his summary with a question admitting he has no conclusions!

His intent is clearly to influence people to ignore the Pentagon attack.

He puts out a bunch of confusing "theories", misrepresents the claims of P4T and CIT, FAILS to even bother addressing the evidence at all, and then throws his hands up in the air because he just doesn't get it.

Or doesn't want to get it.

So because Frank Legge doesn't get it and finds the official narrative "highly probable" his message is simply that it's all too "confusing".

Notice at 911blogger, how this is the very first pentagon entry to make the news section rather than just the blogs section. I know from real life that truthers who have busy lives don't check the blogs section as much.

Notice how now that the conversation is in the news section and being read by more people, it's harder for the True Faction clique to bury our posts. Funny how that works.

Open statement to Dr Frank Legge from CIT and P4T:

Dr Legge,

We have extensively communicated to you via email the issues with the first version of your Pentagon paper titled "What Hit the Pentagon". We explained how you misrepresented the position of Pilots for 9/11 Truth while omitting any direct reference to Citizen Investigation Team while linking to personal hit-piece articles that focus solely on CIT.

You have now put out a revision that references CIT by name (without ever quoting us) but misrepresents our position with your own simplistic and incomplete interpretation of what we assert. You have also continued to misrepresent the position of Pilots for 9/11 Truth (although in a different yet even more egregious way than in the first version and again without quoting them). But to make matters worse, you falsely told the reader that CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth "radically conflict with one another" based on your misinterpretation of our positions. This inaccurate information is damaging to us and I am formally and publicly requesting a full retraction. A full rebuttal to your piece exposing your faulty interpretation of our positions in detail and the over-all faulty logic in your article in general is forthcoming.

Sincerely,
Craig Ranke, Citizen Investigation Team
Rob Balsamo, Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Before we get into the rebuttal I think it's in order for us to disclose what was explained to Legge before he released this "revision".

As I explained in the OP, Steven Jones was the one who asked me to give him direct examples with quotes from Legge's paper showing exactly where he was misrepresenting P4T.

I will post our response to that now.

But first here is Steven Jones' initial request:

So of course I obliged. Below is the full response that was sent on Aug 7, 2009 and never responded to by Jones or Legge.





"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 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 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 at home 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.  The 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.

www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.html

[/URL]

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

This statement right here should have made it PERFECTLY CLEAR to Legge that the positions of P4T and CIT do not conflict at all let alone "radically".


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 claim 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.

Craig,
In my opinion you have more credibility than Steven Jones, by far. You and Aldo and P4T have never used deception to prove your findings.You used 100% legit facts/witnesses,etc with integrety and honesty unlike Jones who has doctored photographs to deceive. Does his and Legge's opinions count? For Legge and Jones to go outside of their expertise and into the Pentagon scene with NO research at all, is mind boggling and bothersome. But I suppose if they are misrepresenting your facts on a busy section of 911blogger news where many folks will read, then this issue definitely needs to be resolved by them. I wish you good luck and hope the cowards reply. Don't get me wrong, someone like S.Jones has done decent work outside of some of his deception practices but as far as the WTC's go, we in the truth movement can do fine with Kevin Ryan ,Richard Gage,Neils Harrit, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen and even Legge. So,it's been about 4 weeks and no reply? Definitely disappointing and to me a total lack of respect especially as far as CIT has gone, which is from excruciating hard work.

Marc

Dr. Legge did a radio interview recently about the Pentagon attack. I thought I'd start a new thread for it. So, more information and a partial transcript here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=740

Apparently Jones has finally responded again after weeks of silence. On 911Blogger he says:

Regarding the "plane bomb" theory that Hoffman says has "strong evidentiary support", Legge said in the 8/19/2009 interview mentioned in my last post...

Absolute idiocy.

Where's the crater from a 757 blowing up just a few feet above grass and dirt?
Why did the spools stay in place and nearly undamaged after a huge 757 just blew up right over it?
Where is the debris from the exploded 757?
Why are they ignoring the black box data/topography/grainy video frames proving the plane can't even approach the building as seen in the video and blow up in favor of theorizing a stupid plane bomb they clearly did not think through?

What they are trying to do is steer everyone back to an "impact". They are trying to validate pole witnesses, a south side flight path, and the surveillance video but conning the conspiracy minded people by adding the plane bomb scenario. You of course can never prove it was a plane bomb and what it is does it brings you right back to an impact. They just want to sucker you in with the plane bomb and group think but in the end you are left supporting a south side flight path, pole striking, impact.

I am getting tired of keeping my mouth shut with these guys.

Craig, great work, concise, honest, and utterly to the point.

As i said a while back, the NOC witnesses(now that enough people are aware of them)are "truly smoking out" the people who have nothing in mind regarding 9/11 than to continue to blather about it and make sure nothing more than talk ever gets done about it.

Your Excellent presentation has forced these "fake truthers" out of their foxholes and out into the open, for all of us to see.

Its both exciting and disgusting at the same time

Speak your mine Aldo! Call these guys out. You guys have more credibility in your findings than in theirs - and I am talking about the WTC's. As far as their expertise on the Pentagon,they have ZERO reason to even go there. Jones may have responded somewhat to the 911blogger,but he's still a coward and show disrepect for never replying back to Craig's last email.
A plane bomb! you have to be kidding me! So, these are guys who supposedly used evidence to prove the WTC's had signs of explosives in them, but try and prove the Pentagon was subjected to a plane bomb with NO evidence supporting their claims?! I guess they think their credibility as experts in the WTC's & subsequent backing and popularity from the truth movement, especially those who read 911blogger regularly, qualfies them as being able to "theorize" on the Pentagon and know or think they know that their fanship will believe anything they say.
Again -- isn't that deception?


Marc

The more they spout off unsupported conspiracy theories that are easily debunked like this the more desperate they look.

We have evidence and truth on our side.

They have ignored the Pentagon for years so the fact that they are all rushing out to assert sloppy and old debunked theories just because we are finally getting some serious attention really exposes how deep their confirmation bias against what we present runs.

People can see it for what it's worth.

There are thousands waking up to the proven flyover for every one that might be momentarily led astray by these blatant obfuscation efforts.

In fact all this only helps bring more attention to us.