Legge and Chandler: a plane hit the pentagon

in a state of delusion, delirious, or just in awe of Chandler at the time. thanks for pointing out. I do not believe a plane hit the pentagon.

I think Mr. Legge was simply saying that when the facts are closely scrutinized...the credible evidence does not truly negate that a plane of that size could have struck the Pentagon in the way it did.

---It depends on what you consider to be credible evidence. There is a fundamental disagreement in the truth movement between those like me who say that a lot of people are in fact lying, are in fact "in on it", and those for whom it is an article of (professed) faith that the actual number of co-conspirators must somehow be so small as to preclude the mass faking of eyewitness testimony.

---The most credible evidence would of course be the assembled totality of the recovered wreckage, which has never been shown publicly.

He does not say that American Airllines Flight 11, piloted by Hans Hanjour struck the Pentagon.

---He doesn't have to since his allies in the movement do (although strictly speaking no one claims "Hans" Hanjour did anything.)

He simply is saying that it is possible that a Boeing 757 could have been the cause of the damage to the Pentagon. If he is wrong, why can't he simply be shown, without rancor, how he is wrong

---It is theoretically possible, but the lack of hard evidence for it and the clear evidence that we have been lied to flagrantly about 9/11 suggest that it is just as, if not more, likely that a Boeing 757 did not crash into the Pentagon. Shouting down questions about this as 'harmful to the movement' is suspicious behavior--no rancor here, just a cold observation of facts.

Go to the 58-59 min mark on the podcast where Legge was interviewed by John Bursill awhile back.

http://visibility911.com/blog/2011/02/05/dr-frank-legge-on-visibility-9-...

The Legge/Chandler paper cites, as a legitimate Pentagon authority, Mr. Michiel de Boer, aka 911blogger's "Snowcrash." What has this 911blogger disinformation darling said about the piloting of AA77?

"You know what I think? I think the American instructors underestimated their student. He sucked, but not enough to fail. A spiraling dead-man’s dive, clipping a VDOT pole, two trees, five lightpoles, a generator fence, a generator and the Pentagon foundation. Hanjour: ace pilot."

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-07-12/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who...

and:

"I am not convinced Hanjour could not have flown AA 77 into the Pentagon; particularly because I think the maneuvering of AA 77 has often been inappropriately described as incredibly skilled. Rather, I would describe the 757?s movements as hazardous and erratic. At this stage, I would await positive evidence of an alternative: e.g. direct evidence for remote control or control by a different pilot. I am still open to the possibility though, and I see this issue as distinct from the question of whether a plane hit."

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-07-12/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who...

Then there's this:

"I was speaking specifically about Hani Hanjour. He flew like the incompetent pilot he was."

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-07-12/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who...

So Legge not only endorses the Hanjour possibility, but also endorses others who do.

... but let's get this straight first... Flight 11 hit the south tower, it's Flight 77 that was supposed to hit the Pentagon.

The lack of debris speaks volumes in this case and that's the strongest evidence available aside from the mounds of circumstantial evidence also surrounding the case (discrepancies in the flight path recordings, reinforcing the ONE wall that was hit, lack of damage to the lawn in front of the impact zone, the size of the actual hole in the wall prior to collapse, witnesses who claimed they saw a SMALL "business type jet" hit the Pentagon, witnesses who said they smelled "cordite-like" explosives, ect. ect. ect.)

The few photos of bodies shown are not in airliner seats, they (three or 4 of them)could easily have been from the 60 or so employees of the Pentagon who died when the building was struck.

The scant photos of the wreckage (and I mean real scant) show things like aluminum sheets (one or two)and a wheel hub (one) and what looks like a lifter hydrolic from one landing gear assembly. NONE of it looks like it matches the size of what exists on a 757-200. Certainly the air intake wheel we have all seen seems WAY to small to be from a 9 ton engine like that on the 757-200.

One thing most don't consider is that if they did hit the Pentagon with something other than Flight 77, then they would damn sure do whatever they could to make it LOOK like Flight 77. The point being there that MANY of the eyewitnesses who claim they saw an American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon, may in fact be telling the truth... they just saw something a bit smaller painted to LOOK like Flight 77 and there is compelling evidence of that not just in the size and relative small amount of wreckage, but also, the famous picture of that piece of fuselage sitting out front... if you look at that piece and compare it to a photo of a 757-200 you will quickly come to realize that the letters on the logo of the real Flight 77 were MUCH larger than that one letter on the piece of wreckage.

The evidence is there. It's obvious. No need for rancor. But Gretavo is correct... the "rancor" has always been directed at us ever since the fake "truthers" started trying to marginalize a rather important line of investigation in our unofficial investigation of what happened on 9/11. That's where the "rancor" that I have seen has been.

Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK