Addendum to the Paper Refuting the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis

BCR

Master Poster
BCR
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Messages
2,278
Dr. Frank Legge and David Chandler have completed an Addendum to their September, 2011 paper, "The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path". The Addendum appears in the January 8, 2012 edition of the Foreign Policy Journal.

As calculation shows the flight path proposed by CIT to be impossible, the north path claim must be seen to be based on nothing more than a few faulty recollections of the approach path. Without the north path claim, the flight path is in accord with the path set out in the official account. There is thus no reason to doubt that the flight terminated by collision with the Pentagon, as reported by the majority of witnesses and as seen in the FDR file, where the low level approach and impact is recorded. The north path is refuted and must be abandoned. This removes the need for explosives to create the illusion of impact and also removes the need for the flyover theory. Nothing has been found to disprove the official description of the final seconds of the flight and the impact.
Click to expand...

Yawn, same thing we tried to tell them years ago.
 
Not that they will take any notice of this either.
 
BCR said:
Dr. Frank Legge and David Chandler have completed an Addendum to their September, 2011 paper, "The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path". The Addendum appears in the January 8, 2012 edition of the Foreign Policy Journal.



Yawn, same thing we tried to tell them years ago.
Click to expand...


an analysis of Mr Morins testimony alone showed that CIT were (let be generous here) "mistaken" about the NOC flightpath.

Now perhaps they can turn their attention on to how ludecrous the other twoofer claims are:D
 
We see here a continuation of the war between two rival denominations in the Church of Truth: Gage and his A&E vs. the CIT and P4T. We all remember how Gage recently disavowed the CIT and their fly-over crap.


The paper and its addendum show at least that some leading truthers in the Gage camp are fully able to assess existing evidence, compile valid conclusions and present them in an orderly, objective fashion.

Then again, Legge is one of the co-authors of "Active Thermitic Material ..." by Harrit. e.al., the infamous Bentham-publishers piece of chaotic garbage that passes in the same denomination as "peer-reviewed science".


<snip>

Seems like we are now in the fun position to watch these two truther camps debunk each other. After 10 years, they are finally doing productive things!


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rule 11
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BCR said:
Dr. Frank Legge and David Chandler have completed an Addendum to their September, 2011 paper, "The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path". The Addendum appears in the January 8, 2012 edition of the Foreign Policy Journal.



Yawn, same thing we tried to tell them years ago.
Click to expand...

Yup, it is like they cut and pasted a JREF thread from about three years ago.

By the way, did Shaky and the Buffet Slayer ever release their raw video like they promised several years ago?
 
David chandler is a nwo shill!!!

PS: GO WATCH DAVID CHANDLER ON YOUTUBE AT AE911TRUTH AND LEARN THE TRUTH!!!!
 
There is nothing substantially wrong with this addendum. If anything it is overly generous to the CIT crap. A B-757 can not roll into or out of those extreme bank angles in 1 second. There is simply not enough roll authority to do that. Therefore, the bank and G's would be even greater than they show for the path they depict.

In addition, they don't need to speculate about airframe integrity at those speeds/g forces. It would STALL, crash and burn prior to reaching the Citgo station as I vividly showed 3 years ago. Then, it would STALL, crash, and burn again in the turn toward the building even if CIT were able to resurrect it again. :D:D

I've lost count of how many times CIT's garbage has been annihilated, but it doesn't matter because they are a cult and will persist in spreading their dogma just as they've done in the past.
 
Last edited:
BCR said:
Dr. Frank Legge and David Chandler have completed an Addendum to their September, 2011 paper, "The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path". The Addendum appears in the January 8, 2012 edition of the Foreign Policy Journal.

Yawn, same thing we tried to tell them years ago.
Click to expand...
Why can't David "Pull It Inside Job Thermite" Chandler apply the same rational logical thinking to his woo? I know CIT can't refute thermite or do math and physics, but why are math and physics majors unable to refute their delusions on 911?

Is this the same David Chandler? http://911speakout.org/WhyIAmConvinced.pdf
Amazing.
 
beachnut said:
Is this the same David Chandler? http://911speakout.org/WhyIAmConvinced.pdf
Amazing.
Click to expand...

I had to stop reading after about three pages. The stupid was hurting my eyes.

Chandler may know how to crunch numbers well enough to teach high school physics, but the boy is no chemist.

He may not be the best to have done this refutation of the tree fort boys' papers and videos, but he still seems to have a better grasp of aerodynamics than they have.

(Chandler still needs to learn the difference between the aerodynamic characteristics of steel perimeter columns and aluminum cladding. and how fires propogate through a building when it involves a Class B accelerant.)
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
I had to stop reading after about three pages. The stupid was hurting my eyes.

Chandler may know how to crunch numbers well enough to teach high school physics, but the boy is no chemist.

He may not be the best to have done this refutation of the tree fort boys' papers and videos, but he still seems to have a better grasp of aerodynamics than they have.

(Chandler still needs to learn the difference between the aerodynamic characteristics of steel perimeter columns and aluminum cladding. and how fires propogate through a building when it involves a Class B accelerant.)
Click to expand...
Ironic, his paper is fine for destroying CIT claims, but he can't apply the same logic to his claims. He has the the training to debunk his own claims, but he can't.
 
shure said:
beachnut,

... made a call to the NTSB many years ago because "Tiffany in LA", I mean Balsamo approached me to do so.

I don't have a problem admitting I was conned ...

I was wrong about many things, but I've learned from my mistakes ;)

Although, you, beachnut, are still conned by some of the best con artists!

.. You will never be able to admit you're wrong and will even lie to yourself and others to avoid having to face that fac
t!
:cool:
Click to expand...
Learned?:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: The evidence says otherwise, the illogical "stand-down" Cheney junk. And other claims are the stuff of fiction. Your future Pulitzer will prove me wrong; good luck.

Never fell for Balsamo, never knew fellow pilots could be that stupid. Lucky they are a fringe few who fail to use sound judgement and knowledge. Your crank phone calls reminded me of kids making crank calls, but your calls were based on delusions from Balsamo, leading to his moronic claims. One day you will learn what evidence is, and why your new delusions have no evidence. It would be hard to fall for CIT claims, but they are Balsamo's crack investigators. Your past support for Balsamo, was support for his entire Crack Idiot Team.

Wrong?
There are no best con artist if you figured them out - do you see the logic.
CIT, always wrong - I got that right, they are worse con failed artist.
Balsamo fooled you - but the "best con artist" did not? I smell some irony...

You could start a thread on the "best con artist", and how they fooled me, or whatever your claims is.

Chandler is able to debunk the parts of the massive 911 cover-up he doesn't like, but he can't cure his paranoia on 911.
 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
There is nothing substantially wrong with this addendum. If anything it is overly generous to the CIT crap. A B-757 can not roll into or out of those extreme bank angles in 1 second. There is simply not enough roll authority to do that. Therefore, the bank and G's would be even greater than they show for the path they depict.
Click to expand...

Stalling in steep turns demonstrates just what happens when you try that particular maneuver ....
Obviously none of those claimants have ever flown any sort of aircraft
 
shure said:
Blow all the hot air you want, but that will NEVER change the facts!

You have something in common with Balsamo and his entire Crack Idiot Team...

You're all liars!

;)
Click to expand...
;););) you had it right, I am not as smart as I think I am; then failed logic took over, an edit.
How is the "stand-down" stuff coming, it sounds like a CIT invention, with some 11.2 Balsamo logic thrown in for good measure.

... you were fooled by the worse con artist, Balsamo, but you are not fooled by the best con artist, the MIB. That makes Balsamo a better worse con artist than the "un-named bad guys", the best con artist, who are not as good in fooling you as Balsamo was.
add some of those silly faces here, Balsamo like them too...

Hard to fooled by CIT/Balsamo; CIT video show "CIT" witnesses pointing south. Will there be a "Best Con Artist" thread?

From the OP paper... http://stj911.org/legge/Legge_Chandler_NOC_Refutation.html
The last measured speed in the FDR file was 556 mi/hr. This is recorded in word 94. The impact is recorded in word 225, thus 131 words later. Each word is 1/256th of a second hence 0.51 seconds elapsed prior to impact. If the calculated acceleration was maintained during this period the final speed would be 559 mi/hr. The radar data thus lead to a final estimated speed which corresponds well with the FDR file.
Click to expand...
Yes, the FDR says 488 knots as the last entry, which is 560.7 mph. Did they use 6067 feet per NM, or 6000 feet per NM? Why can't Chandler use reality based evidence to correct his failed claims on 911, like he applies to his fellow paranoid CTers? He was trained in physics in math, why have does he fail to use math and physics to take skeptical look at his failed claims? Do you support Chandler's WTC7 nonsense? Funny seeing Chandler apply logic and reality based evidence to debunk CIT, but fail to do the same with his claims.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Why can't David "Pull It Inside Job Thermite" Chandler apply the same rational logical thinking to his woo? I know CIT can't refute thermite or do math and physics, but why are math and physics majors unable to refute their delusions on 911?

Is this the same David Chandler? http://911speakout.org/WhyIAmConvinced.pdf
Amazing.
Click to expand...


The religious only ever try to prove that they are right and others wrong. They never try to prove that they themselves are wrong.:boggled:
 
shure said:
I'm not a pilot like you are beachnut. If I was, I probably would have seen through Balsamo's BS right from the start.
:p
Click to expand...

Balsammos is based on CITs BS and that is transparent as glass. All you have to do is go to google earth and see that claims are bogus unless people can see through buildings or judge exactly how far away an aircraft is with no frame of reference.

Balsammo uses 911 as a cash cow and anything that keeps that cow fed is OK with him.
 
Off-topic posts removed in an attempt to restore the thread to working order. Please discuss other aspects of a 9/11 Conspiracy in appropriate existing or new threads.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader
 
shure said:
An addendum to the addendum...

In ongoing research into the Pentagon attack the following peer-reviewed paper has now been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:

“The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact” by John D. Wyndham.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Wyndham1.pdf
Click to expand...


hahahaha peer review!!!

Darling, peer review doesnt mean have your fellow conspiracy theorists have a read of it before you post it on your website.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom