Home          Evidence       Strategy       FAQ       Report       News       Contact

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


 

 Dr. Frank Legge and his Strange Incongruity
keenan
Posted: Aug 4 2009, 11:58 AM


Curious Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 29
Member No.: 1,049
Joined: 18-July 09



Something is bizarre about the strange incongruity with the way Dr. Frank Legge treats the research of controlled demolition of the WTC as compared to his treatment of the subject of "What Hit the Pentagon?".

Paper "What Hit the Pentagon?"
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009...agonDrLegge.pdf

This short 5 page paper is basically a rehash of Jim Hoffman's old discredited arguments from 2004-2006 in support of the OCT of AA77 having crashed into the Pentagon. Reading Legge's paper, it is obvious that Legge has not even considered research done in the last few years by CIT or P4T, and certainly is not familar with CIT's latest video "National Security Alert" video, or he wouldn't be making uninformed statements such as this:

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.

Frank Legge, Ph.D., is co-author of two scientific papers in mainstream peer-reviewed journals regarding evidence for controlled demolition of the World Trade Center: "14 Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction" and the clincher, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". Dr. Legge is also a co-author of the important paper "Extremely High Temperatures During the World Trade Center Destruction."

How is it that this scientist can be so thorough and objective with the evidence for controlled demolition and so un-scholarly with his short 5 page paper regarding the Pentagon? For example, the "Active Thermitic" paper is 25 pages and contains 25 references, with every claim supported. His paper on the Pentagon, however, is a skimpy 5 pages long, contains numerous unsupported claims and wild speculation (in order to solve the problem of too small of an entry hole and lack of airplane debris he speculates that the plane was blown up at or just before impact), and uses only 6 references, only 2 of which are related to the Pentagon and both are merely hit pieces against CIT's "Pentacon" video by Jim Hoffman/Victoria Ashley on Jim Hoffman's web sites:

footnotes
5 http://911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html
6 http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html

It seems obvious that Frank Legge has not actually done any of his own research or independent thinking regarding the Pentagon, but merely took his collegue Jim Hoffman's claims and conclusions on faith without examining any of the source material for himself. Though, at least he makes an attempt to reconcile the contradiction between the small entry hole and lack of aircraft debris on the lawn, which is an improvement from Hoffman's ridiculous assertion that "there's no contradiction at all", even though his solution is pretty unconvincing and constitutes wild speculation:

The authorities released a video purporting to show what hit the Pentagon but it did not do so. The video did, however, show some substantial pieces of debris flying high up in the frame. See it at Judicial Watch, video 1: http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/flight77-1.mpg You will also see five pieces of debris land and bounce across the road just in front of the camera. Consider the force required to project the pieces so far. If there are similar amounts from here all the way to the impact site, and on the other side as well, there will be a very 3 great number of pieces not previously taken into account. This appears to be a missed piece of evidence for a powerful explosive charge being set off at, or just before, impact. The video also shows an intense white flash just before the red fire ball from combustion of the dispersed fuel. This white flash, very different from the fire ball, is further evidence for the use of explosives.

If explosives were used to destroy the plane you would not expect it to make a perfect impact mark on the building, as happened at the towers, nor would it leave much in the way of large easily recognized pieces.


So, Legge appears to be attempting to reconcile the problem of too small of an entry hole with the lack of expected visible plane debris with a highly speculative argument that the plane was blown up "at, or just before, impact".

By the way, that video Legge references above is the one released by the Pentagon with missing frames and obvious tampering, etc., yet he seems to give credence to it...that it somehow proves that jet fuel was ignited in a "red fireball", and, therefore, a jumbo jet was involved? How can anybody use this video to prove anything of the sort?

What a huge waste of a potential. Imagine if Dr. Frank Legge could put a small fraction of his thoroughness and mental acuity he has shown in research on controlled demolition towards research on "What really happened at the Pentagon?"

My suspicion is that the Jim Hoffman camp was in a panic after the recent endorsement by the 9/11 Truth heaveweights of CIT and their latest video "National Security Alert", which makes it more obvious that Jim Hoffman's "Don't question the OCT of AA77 having crashed at the Pentagon" camp is a tiny and dwindling fringe of the truth movement that has made itself irrelevant. This paper by Dr. Frank Legge bears all the hallmarks of a desperate rushed attempt to bolster the endangered species of Pentagon AA77 huggers that is rapidly becoming extinct and show that Jim Hoffman's camp still has legitimate standing among respected 9/11 truth researchers by enrolling the services of a respected scientist who has truther capital for CD advocacy. Dr. Frank Legge apparently stepped up to the plate and provided this crutch. But the result was so shoddy, they may have shot themselves in the foot and made themselves appear more desperate.

Lesson to the Jim Hoffman camp that is desperately trying to save their sinking ship of credibility: If you're going to produce a shoddy piece of nonsense, it's probably better to just take a pass altogether, otherwise you risk exposing yourselves even more and sinking faster.
Top
A.Marquis
Posted: Aug 4 2009, 12:07 PM


A Regular Jim Garrison


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,523
Member No.: 2
Joined: 31-August 07



Great piece. Please challenge him directly if you can Keenan. He just may be completely naive about what it is he is talking about or linking. Encourage him to show up here.

The real kicker is the ol' plane bomb (another theory that makes no sense). I want to desperately understand how they can fathom this absurd theory when there is no evidence for it.

So how did all the plane parts end up inside? How did so little of the plane remain outside?

Where is the crater from a huge Boeing 757 being blown up a few feet above the ground?

Why are the spools still there?

WTF is going on with these people?
Top
Craig Ranke CIT
Posted: Aug 4 2009, 12:28 PM


Administrator


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



QUOTE (keenan @ Aug 4 2009, 07:58 PM)


My suspicion is that the Jim Hoffman camp was in a panic after the recent endorsement by the 9/11 Truth heaveweights of CIT and their latest video "National Security Alert", which makes it more obvious that Jim Hoffman's "Don't question the OCT of AA77 having crashed at the Pentagon" camp is a tiny and dwindling fringe of the truth movement that has made itself irrelevant. This paper by Dr. Frank Legge bears all the hallmarks of a desperate rushed attempt to bolster the endangered species of Pentagon AA77 huggers that is rapidly becoming extinct and show that Jim Hoffman's camp still has legitimate standing among respected 9/11 truth researchers by enrolling the services of a respected scientist who has truther capital for  CD advocacy. Dr. Frank Legge apparently stepped up to the plate and provided this crutch. But the result was so shoddy, they may have shot themselves in the foot and made themselves appear more desperate.

Lesson to the Jim Hoffman camp that is desperately trying to save their sinking ship of credibility: If you're going to produce a shoddy piece of nonsense, it's probably better to just take a pass altogether, otherwise you risk exposing yourselves even more and sinking faster.

Bingo.

Excellently written critical review.

You should definitely post this on 911blogger.

It speaks volumes that they are forced to resort to casting doubt on us without even being able to reference us! Particularly since they are exploiting Legge's credibility in order to do it.
Top
Janusaur
Posted: Aug 4 2009, 07:27 PM


Curious Citizen


Group: Friends
Posts: 40
Member No.: 28
Joined: 25-January 08



QUOTE (Keenan)
Jim Hoffman's "Don't question the OCT of AA77 having crashed at the Pentagon" camp is a tiny and dwindling fringe of the truth movement that has made itself irrelevant.

If you count all truthers, absolutely. I'm unsure about America though.

The "truthaction" people that believe whatever Hoffman says at least *seem* to make up a significant number, but then again the Lloyd video got tons of views and support as well. There's still a decent number of CIT supporters on 911blogger.

I keep hearing statements like:

" I'm saying that promoting something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon has never helped this movement. That's a fact. In the almost 7 years I've been doing this, 99.99% of every hit piece has focused on that "theory".- John Gold

99.99%? WTF is he smoking?

I think confront Gold about this and report back.

(BTW: Does anyone know who started the whole anti-Pentagon research thing? The earliest I can find is John Judge here.)
Top
casseia
Posted: Aug 4 2009, 09:23 PM


Curious Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 6
Member No.: 813
Joined: 1-November 08



Well, oddly enough, most (but not all) of the people who would be supporting CIT at 911blogger were banned from there for challenging other sacred cows like the Patsystan connection. I'm sure Keenan would LIKE to publish that there, but I believe that he cannot. We also can't upvote/downvote posts. (So when a remark is made on another forum about the "decisive thrashing" CIT got on 911blogger recently, it's completely disingenuous -- everyone knows or should know that 911blogger and TruthAction have been steadily purging dissent for the last two years or more.)

I've seen enough evidence to conclude that the kneejerk rejection of CIT's work is part of a larger agenda, which is to allow for a revision of the OCT that would incorporate explosive demolition of the WTC, while clinging desperately to the idea of Boeing crash causing the damage at the Pentagon. The worst case scenario, from my perspective, would be to posit an "al Qaeda blew up the Towers" theory, thus maintaining the myth of scary Muslims who hate our freedoms being at the center of the 9/11 events. "Al Qaeda blowing up the Pentagon" is going to be a much, much tougher sell.
Top
keenan
Posted: Aug 4 2009, 11:19 PM


Curious Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 29
Member No.: 1,049
Joined: 18-July 09



I am indeed banned from 911Blogger, someone else is welcome to post it there.

As far as challenging Dr. Franke Legge directly, I thought perhaps I should try to post this, or perhaps a re-written version, at the Journal of 911 Studies. Anybody know if they allow non-members to submit reviews?
Top
A.Marquis
Posted: Aug 5 2009, 08:57 AM


A Regular Jim Garrison


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,523
Member No.: 2
Joined: 31-August 07



Probably not, but it doesn't hurt to ask or try to join.
Top
Ligon
Posted: Aug 5 2009, 09:15 AM


A Regular Jim Garrison


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



QUOTE
when a remark is made on another forum about the "decisive thrashing" CIT got on 911blogger recently, it's completely disingenuous -- everyone knows or should know that 911blogger and TruthAction have been steadily purging dissent for the last two years or more.

Exactly. These frauds don't care though. They can't defend their position on an intellectual level so the best they can do is quietly ban their opponents and then pretend like no one is able to debunk their disinfo.
Top
Craig Ranke CIT
Posted: Aug 5 2009, 10:34 PM


Administrator


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



What's pathetic about this Legge piece is that he erroneously suggests that Pilots for 9/11 Truth argues that the NTSB data proves a flyover!

Of course they haven't done this and NEVER has CIT suggested the data OR animation corroborates the witnesses in any way whatsoever.

We've always pegged it as irreconcilable and fraudulent while Pilots for Truth merely highlights the issues without suggesting ANY implications because they don't endorse theory.

When Pilots for 9/11 Truth states "the data shows an altitude too high to hit the Pentagon" they are stating a fact about the data, not attesting to the legitimacy of the data or supporting an "overfly theory" as erroneously implied by Legge.

Legge has exposed his absolute ignorance regarding the Pentagon attack with this useless paper that merely sets up a few straw men arguments to knock down like "ground effect" or the "impossible spiral descent".

Hilariously he ignores all the powder keg evidence we have recently uncovered like Roosevelt Roberts' flyaway account, Lloyde's virtual confession, and of course 9 ADDITIONAL north side witnesses discovered! Instead Legge simply cites a presentation by Calum Douglas from over 2 years ago in June 2007!!
laugh.gif

Their wild desperation to say ANYTHING to obfuscate the Pentagon attack is utterly transparent.

Legge was even willing to take a credibility hit for the team to do it.
Top
Craig Ranke CIT
Posted: Aug 6 2009, 06:21 AM


Administrator


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



What's also notable is that none of the articles he references by Arabesque or even the new ones by HoffmanAshley directly address the evidence presented in National Security Alert.

They're too afraid to even utter the title!

In essence they're all rushing out these "scientific" papers (that seem as though they were written by high schoolers) to create the impression they are addressing the information, yet NONE of them actually address the information.

Of course these articles will be added to the list to be linked ad nauseum whenever CIT or P4T come up while they proclaim "debunked!"
Top
« Next Oldest | CIT response | Next Newest »
InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register Now

Topic Options



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: 0.0976 seconds | Archive