Kevin Ryan Jumps Another Shark, Lands in Jim Hoffman's Sinking Ship of Pentagon Disinfo
Right on cue, Kevin Ryan posts a short blog article on 911Blogger summarizing a new paper by Dr. Frank Legge published in The Journal of 9/11 Studies, entitled "What Hit the Pentagon?" 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 reviewed CIT's latest research or National Security Alert video, or he wouldn't be making ridiculous statements, like this one:
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.
As far as I know, there hasn't been a single independently verified witness produced that can confirm the South of Citgo path, or collision with the light poles. And what kind of a "scholarly" paper would make such a claim without backing it up? Anyway...
EDIT: I meant to say "credible independently verified witnesses", meaning witnesses who don't discredit themselves with demonstrably false statements and contradictions, because there are definitely some non-credible "witnesses" being thrown around lately by the disinfo crew, like this Father Stephen McGraw character, a former Justice Dept. employee, who claims absurdities like seeing the plane "bounce" off the lawn and such.
It is obvious that Legge has only looked at one camp's arguments to make such a false statement. There is absolutely nothing new in this paper, with the possible exception of this:
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?
- Keenan's blog
- Login to post comments
Credible South of Citgo Witnesses
I wouldn't dis Stephen McGraw, necessarily -- I think he sounds candid, especially when he explains that he has two distinct "flavors" of visual recollection -- the image that was consistent and which stuck with him (of the Pentagon windows blowing out) and the image that he believes he "recovered" or whatever of the plane bouncing on the lawn. Compare his vivid account of the windows blowing out with his statement that he saw the plane disappear... er, go into the building.
When I was transcribing this interview, I was actually a little irked by some of the editorial remarks made by CIT. Sure, maybe he's Opus Dei, maybe he got roped into something because of his Justice Department background -- the significance of those connections is not clear but the actual verbal ambiguities in his account are highly significant in themselves.
This is the account I would expect from someone who actually saw a plane hit the Pentagon for a few reasons which I'll address in the transcript thread, but I think setting aside issues of deliberate deceit is a good policy.
Dr. Frank Legge and his strange case of incongruity
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?".
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 now 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, 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:
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 college Jim Hoffman's claims and conclusions on faith without examining any of the source material for himself.
What a huge waste of a potential. Imagine if Dr. Frank Legge could put a fraction of his thoroughness and mental acuity he has shown in research on controlled demolition towards research on "What really happened at the Pentagon?"
Huge waste of potential... and also weird
If you're going to produce a shoddy piece of crap, why not just take a pass altogether? Why is he even bothering to address the issue if he's not going to bother to put the same kind of scholarly effort into it as he does the other subjects (and that fact is so transparent)?