Can Dr. Frank Legge, PhD, Really Be This Stupid? More Evidence Legge is a Fraud

Keenan's picture

A recent posting on the LIHOP disinfo site 911Blogger, titled Dr Frank Legge on Visibility 9-11: Mounting Evidence Shows Boeing 757-200 Impact with Pentagon Probable, discusses LIHOP fraudster Dr. Franke Legge's latest junk science paper published in the now completely discredited Journal of 9/11 Studies, and links to an interview Frank Legge did with fellow fake truther and fellow Australian John Bursill.

The paper, [Edit: co-written by 4 year JREF member Warren Stutt], titled, "Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon", which pretends to accept the government-supplied flight recorder data as credible and completely ignores the fact that it is missing crucial information that should be present in order to link the data to a specific aircraft and fleet, also erroneously claims that the missing 4 seconds at the end supports an impact with the Pentagon. They base this claim on a Radio Altimeter parameter in which the NTSB has listed as "Not Working or Unconfirmed" in the NTSB FDR Report, yet, when cross-checked with the "Working and Confirmed" Primary Altimeter True Altitude data, the aircraft is still too high to hit the Pentagon.

According to Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth:

It is interesting that the authors, editors and Journal in which the above mentioned paper is published is highly critical and skeptical of the National Institute Of Standards And Technology (NIST) data and reports with respect to the collapse of the World Trade Center, yet is now attempting to use unverified data from another government agency to support the government story regarding a Pentagon impact. Motives are even more puzzling especially when the NTSB data in fact does not support an impact while exceeding the performance limitations and capabilities of a standard 757 as set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing, by a wide margin. This is also corroborated by precedent. It is also clear the paper was not reviewed by any aviation expert prior to publish, as it is littered with speculation and gross errors.

But we're just getting started with this crank scientist Dr. Legge. In his interview with Bursill, Legge actually argues that it is perfectly believable that Hani Hanjour could have piloted AA77 into the Pentagon through all those tricky maneuvers, I kid you not! Even fellow disinfo agent Bursill is taken aback by this hilarity.

Some of Legge's comments in the discussion thread on 911Blogger, however, are so laughable that one really has to wonder how someone this stupid could have obtained a "PhD" after their name:

__________________________

[referring to "9-11 Joe" who just quit 911Blogger in disgust with all this BS]
Another one hits the dust.

and another one gone. How's the pup-tent tactic going? Yes a 757 may have hit the pentagon, I don't feel comfortable that the hole in the C-ring was caused by the vortex of the debris material as sometimes used as an theory here. I really don't trust any Govt. data at this point, pictures, FDR, why should we? Joe is a patriotic 911 truth activist who is now upset because of your small tent attitudes, go ahead and vote me down, bury the comment in censorship, it's just what we do. Peace
Submitted by peacefulwarrior on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 7:27am.
»

I have been very polite with you but

your sneering comments don't make it easy. I will just ask you one question. You are in the Pentagon near the C-ring in Wedge 1. You have heard that two planes have hit the Twin Towers and have seen one on TV, hitting the South Tower. You noticed that parts of the plane went right through the tower and came out at high velocity.

Now you hear that another plane is headed for Wedge 1 of the Pentagon. Can you honestly say that you will stay near the C-ring or will you find some way to put some distance between you and the path of the approaching plane?

While you are thinking about that, note that none of us trusts the govt data.
Submitted by Frank Legge on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 8:25am.
»

"Now you hear that another

"Now you hear that another plane is headed for Wedge 1 of the Pentagon. Can you honestly say that you will stay near the C-ring or will you find some way to put some distance between you and the path of the approaching plane?"[QUOTE]

Except no one knew the Pentagon was the target much less wedge 1 or C ring. It's well established that it was believed that the White House was the target. Even it they had known the Pentagon was the target,they had no way of knowing where it would strike the Pentagon. It could just have easily smashed down through the roof of any wedge or ring! Had you been inside the Pentagon & known a plane was going to crash into it but NOT WHERE all you would know is to get the hell out of that building! You could not say,"get away from this ring or that ring". The information simply wasn't available. In fact, if anyone did know what area of the Pentagon to stay away from,I'd view that as evidence of foreknowledge/inside job in & of itself.
Submitted by waitew on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 2:27pm.
»

Yeah

How about answering Frank's question directly instead of beating around the bush?
Submitted by SnowCrash on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 2:32pm.
»

"Now you hear that another

"Now you hear that another plane is headed for Wedge 1 of the Pentagon. Can you honestly say that you will stay near the C-ring or will you find some way to put some distance between you and the path of the approaching plane?"[QUOTE]
Is this Frank's question you are referring to? I understand the question,but I don't understand why he ask it or see how it's relevant. He's basically asking would you dodge a bullet if you knew when & where it was coming. Well,yes,I would. I don't understand what this has to do with the question at hand. Is Frank implying there weren't more causualties because people knew exactly where the object would strike? According to the OCT that isn't possible because they at believed the WH was the target & when it first approached the Pentagon it was far too high (7-8,000' if memory serves) which it why it had to make that spirling,descending turn.
Submitted by waitew on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 9:11pm.

[...]

I don't know why you are so diametrically opposed to AA7 having not hit the Pentagon. Other than the gov't telling us that's what hit there is no other evidence. If there were they'd be ALL OVER the news with things like: actual pictures of ANYTHING identifying the plane as AA77, a reconstruction of the plane from available parts, Black box info confirming said flight path. Why hasn't there been any official investigation of the flight path via the same FDR info that PFT used? Isn't this just common sense?
Submitted by 911truther on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 3:43pm.
»

you give yourself away

911truther. The idea that the perpetrators would deliberately conceal evidence about what hit the Pentagon in order to keep good people arguing has been covered many times. Your failure to acknowlege this work, but merely assert that evidence would be ALL OVER the news shows you have not done your homework. You could start here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug...
Submitted by Frank Legge on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:42am.

____________________

Cass Sunstein's agents John Bursill and Jimd3100 are becoming even more unabashedly blatant OCT suporters in this thread.

John Bursill: "...the most powerful position to take is the reasonable one of supporting the official account until proven otherwise. This is now my view."

And here's this little gem by agent Jimd3100:

Why I "Support" the Official Story
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-09/why-i-support-official-story

Conspiracy theories? No
Truth and accountability? Yes

BTW- The anthrax attacks are part of 9-11 as well. A lone nut scientist named Ivins made the anthrax by himself and then mailed it from a box 3 1/2 hours from his work/home? The problem with that is there is no evidence he made it, nor is there evidence he mailed it. There is lots of evidence that the highest levels of the Gov used it as an excuse to expand the "War on Terror".
Saying "The anthrax was fake" probably not a good idea either.

Submitted by jimd3100 on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 10:34am

With Eric Larson unabashedly utilizing JREF and 911Myths arguments in the David Ray Griffin attack thread, and now most of the rest of the LIHOP cabal's coming out of the closet even more blatantly as OCT supporters, one really has to wonder if they have completely lost touch with just how completely out of step their tiny little echo chamber is now with the rest of the 9/11 Truth Movement.