# Addendum to the Paper Refuting the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis

A group known as Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) has proposed that the plane that was hijacked and turned back to aim at the Pentagon on 9/11 passed north of the former Citgo service station. From this position, it could not have done the observed damage; hence CIT claims that the damage was faked, using explosives, and that the plane must have flown over the Pentagon to avoid causing damage in the wrong direction.

David Chandler and I prepared a paper proving this flight path to be highly improbable.[1] In calculating the easiest course, the assumption was made that the plane would deviate as early as possible, so as to minimize the bank angle and wing load. The path of the plane is shown in the image below (Fig. 1), copied from the original paper, where the turn-off is at the last radar position. The roll from a left to a right bank was assumed to be completed in 0.5 seconds.  Calculation shows that the plane would have to be banked at 76.5 degrees, with a wing load of 4.3g, to perform the turn at the official speed. If the plane was flying faster, as indicated by the flight data recorder (FDR) file,[2] or if the roll took longer, the bank and wing load would be greater. Even a highly skilled aerobatic pilot would find this turn very difficult, and the survival of the plane would be at least in doubt, as its design load limit is only 2.5g.

We pointed out in the paper that a bank of this order would be so unusual for a passenger plane that it would have astonished observers and would be unforgettable. In support of this opinion, an image of a plane banked at about 70 degrees is shown below (Fig. 2).[3] It is obviously a remarkable sight, yet most witnesses made no comment about bank angle and those that did mention it said the angle was slight.[4] The improbability of the many witnesses failing to comment on this extraordinary bank angle, had it occurred, was the basis for our conclusion that it did not occur and that the claimed north path could not have happened. If a south path is accepted, the observed damage is explained and there is no justification for invoking theories of flyover and faking of damage using explosives.

As stated above, an assumption was made in the previous calculations that the plane could complete its roll from a left to a right bank in 0.5 seconds. This very short period was chosen to avoid criticism that the calculation was biased against the north path. More relevant than roll rate would be the initial behavior of the plane when full control input was applied, as this plane, with its outboard engines and heavy fuel tanks in the wings, would have appreciable inertia. It seemed the initial roll action would be hard to discover, but an estimate may readily be obtained by studying the FDR file from United Airlines flight 93,[5] a portion of which is shown in an a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) animation released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and available on YouTube.[6]

Full application of the control wheel produces no more than about 40 degrees of roll in the first second. A similar period would be required to decelerate the roll as it nears completion. Well over two seconds would thus be required for the complete roll, consuming a considerable portion of the time available for the left and right turns. The values shown above, a bank of 76.5 degrees and a wing loading of 4.3 g, are thus found to be substantial underestimations. This strengthens the claim that the plane would be highly unlikely to survive the maneuver required to pass north of the Citgo service station and still arrive in the vicinity of the impact point.

It seems likely that the north path theory was derived from the faulty recollection of the approach path by a small number of carefully selected witnesses.[7] This is an important issue as many people apparently have not studied the evidence with care or have failed to recognize the implications of the evidence.

Witness Review

We now wish to return to the original discussion and focus attention on the best evidence available regarding the bank angle of the plane as it approached the Pentagon. All reports in which the bank has been described as slight contradict the north path theory as they indicate that the final few seconds of the flight must have been virtually straight, in agreement with the FDR file.[8] All witnesses who report seeing the impact contradict the flyover theory in the most direct way possible.[9] Among the many witnesses to impact are Albert Hemphill and Terry Morin. Hemphill says the plane was always on his right and descended straight to impact with the Pentagon.[10] Morin says he stepped out from between the wings of the Naval Annex and watched the plane descending, going parallel with the Annex, and therefore straight;[11] see their lines of sight in the image above (Fig. 1, more clearly identified in Fig. 7).

Darrell Stafford and Darius Prather provide testimony which is particularly convincing because of the way they illustrate it, using a model plane.[12] They describe the plane as flying with wings level, going over the roof of the Annex (Figs. 3 and 4). Their testimony is well known, but we are not aware of any thorough analysis of the implication of their observations.

## Frank Legge

After obtaining a Diploma of Agriculture (Longerenong, Victoria), Frank Legge spent his early years as an agricultural employee, then a contractor, in Queensland. He then obtained a “conditional purchase” block of virgin bush in Western Australia which he cleared and developed as a sheep and grain farm. On completion of this, he moved to Perth and enrolled at the University of Western Australia. After graduating with a Ph. D. in chemistry, 1983, he worked as a research officer for the Department of Agriculture for a number of years. This included research into the manufacture and use of biodiesel. He was also involved with the Australian Merino Society in development of their sheep breeding index. He and colleague then formed a company, Solar Track Pty Ltd, and embarked on a project manufacturing solar tracking devices, based on a patented concept they developed in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture. Lastly he moved to consulting. His understanding of the events of 9/11 are set out in his website: http://www.scienceof911.com.au/. This includes links to the papers he has written and co-authored. In short, the evidence for explosives in controlled demolition of all three buildings is both compelling and obvious, hence the failure of NIST and the 9/11 Commission to consider this possibility is prima facie evidence of corruption.

• I have always thought, and still do, that the problem of the Pentagon attack would be solved through the release of a number of the videos that must have been taken that day. As the most highly defended air space in the U.S., it is highly unlikely that there is no video record of the plane approaching and hitting the Pentagon. Until I see more than the fuzzy one or two second segment that was released, I will not believe any theory. Arguing about it is useless…demanding that the various tapes be released is where the arguments need to go.

• I don’t think we need to see the tapes to conclude the plane hit the Pentagon, as there is plenty of evidence it did (including plane parts and bodies) and, in my view, none that it didn’t. It would certainly help to have the tapes, but pursuing that is likely futile. Refusing to release the tapes, after all, serves to perpetuate what in my view is a red herring issue that Legge and Chandler argue only serves to harm the credibility of the truth movement.

• Richard Allen

Another day, another attempt to discredit the pentagon research of CIT, this time yet again from some of the usual characters. Frank Legge’s obsession with CIT calls into question his own research claims and methods far more than anything he’s claimed to have successfully challenged regarding the information and conclusions presented by CIT.

Canandian journalist Barry Zwiker said it best:

“Arguably no single group is being targeted more toxically than the honest citizen detectives of CIT. That this disinformation campaign is being waged is a signal tribute to the historic importance of CIT’s work — work that must be supported unflaggingly.”

http://www.citizeninvesti…s/2010_07_23_zwicker.html

The above article, rife with misrepresentations and distortions is pretty much on par with Mr. Legge’s previous attempts at attacking CIT’s research.

I don’t pretend to represent CIT, but I am familiar enough with their research to recognize distortions and misrepresentations when I see them.

First of all it should be noted that neither Mr. Legge nor Mr. Chandler have any expertise or background in aviation. That alone should render their calculations suspect. When it comes to aeronautical engineering and aviation they don’t even know what they don’t know. With regards to this paper’s claim, based on their calculations, that the plane observed at the pentagon by witnesses could not have made the right banking turn described by several, that issue was addressed by real pilots and aeronautical engineers whose conclusions were, not surprisingly different, from what Mr. Legge asserts:

But the misrepresentations of this article go much further than disagreement over aeronautics.

You don’t have to go any further than the opening sentence to find the first one:

“A group known as Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) has proposed that the plane … passed north of the former Citgo service station…”

CIT has “proposed” no such thing. All CIT has done is present the testimony of eye-witnesses who were in the best possible locations to observe the plane’s approach in the final seconds before it reached the pentagon. It is the witnesses, now numbering nearly 20, who unanimously place the plane on the flight path north of the citgo gas station:

The significance of these flight paths, drawn by various witnesses –

cannot be overstated. That’s because for in order for the official story of what happened that morning to be true, the plane that approached the pentagon had to have followed a rather strict flight path in order to line up with a series of 5 light poles leading up to the pentagon, strike a generator trailer, slide into the pentagon between the first and second floor (per the ASCE engineering report), then punch out the final hole in the C-ring of the building. Had the plane varied more than a few feet in any direction it would have missed one or more of the poles. This is the official flight path as delineated by the downed light poles and directional damage within the building:

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/2564/fdrpath1.png

CIT’s approach to investigating what happened at the pentagon was to go to the area, find as many witnesses as they could, and ask them what they saw. Based on those witnesses statements they’ve the conclusion that the official story of what happened cannot be true, and furthermore, since there is no trail of damage leading up to the building from the NoC flight path, or damage inside the building consistent with a plane hitting the building from that direction, the plane could not have hi8t the building.

Mr. Legge has a different approach. Mr. Legge starts with the conclusion that the plane did hit the building. He apparently agrees with CIT that a plane on the NoC approach would have left a different damage pattern both outside the pentagon, and within. Therefore, all the witnesses who think they saw the plane on the north side of the Citgo gas station, and also believe the plane hit the building, are simply wrong about where they think the plane came in, notwithstanding they 100% corroborate each other on that one point, and not one witness has yet been found that describes the official government flight path. It’s not so much science as it is a party trick. They believe the plane hit the building, therefore they saw the plane on the one and only official south side flight path that could create the damages observed at the pentagon.

But the article’s misrepresentations don’t stop there. For example, Mr. Legge cites ANC employee William Middleton to support his contention the plane flew straight into the pentagon without observing a bank. What he doesn’t tell you, is Mr. Middleton’s location at the ANC was such that had the plane actually flown the official SoC path promoted by Mr. Legge, William Middleton wouldn’t have seen the plane at all. He described it coming down the road along the north side of the navy annex, next to where he was standing.

Also curious is the screen shot Mr. Legge selected of Darrel Stafford holding the little ME-262 level as he described how it came over the annex to prove his point the plane came in straight and level. The most notable part of that segment of video is how Mr. Stafford uses the plane to show how it banked to the right after it cleared the annex roof top. Mr. Legge left that part out.

Likewise, Mr. Legge’s description of witness Terry Morin. What Mr. Legge failed to mention was the statements Mr. Morin made to CIT in an interview conducted with them. He clearly said he was standing inside the wings of the navy annex, a few steps from the southern edge, when the plane passed directly over the top of him. The significance is, once again, the official story requires the plane to have been on a more southern flight path, south of the annex and the road Columbia Pike running along next to it, to have flown straight in, as proposed by Mr. Legge, and cause the observed damage leading up to, and inside the pentagon. The plane cannot be over the navy annex at this point and still line up to hit the 5 light poles and cause the directional damage within the building without a sharp left banking turn. And to date not one witness has reported anything remotely similar to what would have been required.

There are many more points that can be made to debunk this latest attack on CIT’s research, but the above should be enough to call into question the conclusions drawn here by Mr. Legge and Mr. Chandler. Genuine critique of CIT’s research, based on facts, not misrepresentations, would be a welcome change. They’re not infallible in their interpretations of their data, but the witness testimony they present is what it is.

• 1) Barry Zwicker is entitled to his opinion.

2) 2:14 into the first video it becomes apparent it’s not serious. It certainly doesn’t address Legge and Chandler’s papers or calculations.

3) “CIT has “proposed” no such thing.” CIT proposed the hypothesis based on witness statements. Semantics.

4) “Mr. Legge starts with the conclusion that the plane did hit the building.” False.

5) “Mr. Middleton’s location at the ANC was such that had the plane actually flown the official SoC path promoted by Mr. Legge, William Middleton wouldn’t have seen the plane at all.” Prove it.

6) “The most notable part of that segment of video is how Mr. Stafford uses the plane to show how it banked to the right after it cleared the annex roof top. Mr. Legge left that part out.” What’s the time mark in the video where we can see this?

7) “What Mr. Legge failed to mention was the statements Mr. Morin made to CIT in an interview conducted with them. He clearly said he was standing inside the wings of the navy annex, a few steps from the southern edge, when the plane passed directly over the top of him.” No. Morin said, “The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me” (emphasis added), which logically means it was not precisely directly over the top of him. He’s being dramatic.

• Richard Allen

2) 2:14 into the first video it becomes apparent it’s not serious. It certainly doesn’t address Legge and Chandler’s papers or calculations.

This most recent Legge paper is dated December 27, 2011. The youtube video was uploaded in April 2011. Legge is repeating claims made by others in prior years about the plane not being able to make the right bank described by several witnesses, including Darrel Stafford. The video shows that claim is false, using the witnesses’ own statements of where they saw the plane. Mr. Legge’s computation is not based on witness statements, the official flight data from the FDR, or anything else. He simply had the a/c turn over the navy annex from an arbitrary point on the south side, and made an arbitrary arc.

The 2:14 mark in the video shows 3 thick lines proposed by other debunkers, whom Legge seems to be following, and demonstrates how deliberately artificial, and non-witness compatible they are. There is nothing there to support your statement the “it becomes apparent it’s not serious”

3) “CIT has “proposed” no such thing.” CIT proposed the hypothesis based on witness statements. Semantics.

CIT’s theory is the plane that approached the pentagon on 9/11 came in on a flight path that is inconsistent with the official story version of events. In support of that theory they offer a group of nearly 20 eye-witnesses, who were in the best possible positions around the pentagon to see the approach of the plane in the final seconds, who unanimously report seeing the plane fly into the pentagon basin on the north side of the citgo gas station. They have also observed that there is no required damage trail leading up to the pentagon from the direction the witnesses say the plane came in, nor inside the building consistent with the north side approach. Based on those facts supporting that theory, they have concluded the plane could not have hit the building. Rather, they believe the logical conclusion is that controlled explosives were set off in the building, timed with the plane flying over, to stage a terrorist attack on the pentagon.

“When you eliminate the impossible, what’s left is the truth, no matter how improbable”

– Sherlock Holmes

All of the witnesses they interviewed believe the plane struck the building. But they are also certain about the plane’s flight path. Thus, they believe 2 things:

A. The plane hit the building
B. The plane flew on the north side of the gas station.

The problem is these beliefs are mutually exclusive. They can’t both be right. Which one were they more likely to get wrong – watching a plane fly towards them for several seconds while they stood outside, calmly going about their business, or the detail of a fraction of a second, at a moment of shock and the “fight or flight” defensive mechanism is kicking in, of the plane hitting the side building in a huge fireball, while they were running the opposite direction, and ducking for cover.

4) “Mr. Legge starts with the conclusion that the plane did hit the building.” False.

False? Really? Maybe you’re not familiar with Mr. Legge’s blog page:

http://scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebutting-cit/

I’m thinking of this particular passage here –

“As the plane flew virtually straight, it follows that any person who saw the impact is a witness to the south path. South path witnesses therefore outnumber north path witnesses by a factor of about 10 to 1.”

He even bolded it on his blog.

Anyone who thinks they saw the impact is, by default, a south path witness. So says Frank Legge. Therefore, all witnesses interviewed on camera, in the locations they were at when they saw the plane approach on 9/11, and are certain of where they saw the plane, are wrong. Simple as that. Again, a nice party trick.

5) “Mr. Middleton’s location at the ANC was such that had the plane actually flown the official SoC path promoted by Mr. Legge, William Middleton wouldn’t have seen the plane at all.” Prove it.

Did you not bother to follow the links. Here’s the flight path drawing Mr. Middleton made –

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/northside%20flyover/middletonpath1.jpg

Unlike the other ANC employee’s he wasn’t at the maintenance buildings, but rather on the north side of the navy annex, across Southgate Road, with the elevated 4 story navy annex between him and the official flight path that runs along the south side of Columbia Pike, on the other side of the building.

Here’s his interview. He starts talking around the 0:50 mark. You’ll want to pay particular attention to his statement at 1:45 where he says the plane was so close he could feel the heat.

6) “The most notable part of that segment of video is how Mr. Stafford uses the plane to show how it banked to the right after it cleared the annex roof top. Mr. Legge left that part out.” What’s the time mark in the video where we can see this?

You know, this took about all of five seconds to find on Youtube. You really need to make a little more effort.

The entire video, with introduction, is only 3 minutes long. His actual interview starts at around the 0:50 mark. The segment with the plane prop starts at around the 2 minute mark.

Also, I don’t know if was simply an oversight, or Mr. Legge didn’t want to call attention to it, but the fact these witnesses are describing the plane coming over the top of the annex means it is impossible for the official story to be true. A plane over the annex at this point, allegedly traveling at over 500mph so close to the beginning of the destruction path, cannot turn to line up with the official path with the 5 downed light poles.

7) “What Mr. Legge failed to mention was the statements Mr. Morin made to CIT in an interview conducted with them. He clearly said he was standing inside the wings of the navy annex, a few steps from the southern edge, when the plane passed directly over the top of him.” No. Morin said, “The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me” (emphasis added), which logically means it was not precisely directly over the top of him. He’s being dramatic.

Talk about “semantics”. Terry Morin was inside the wings of the navy annex when the plane passed over him. That puts the plane on the north side of Columbia Pike at a time it had to be on the south side to line up with the damage path leading to the pentagon. Readers (assuming there are any) can decide for themselves what Morin said. Here’s his entire recorded interview with CIT:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-ona.html

I was going to get into more of Legge’s misrepresentations, but I don’t have time at the moment. Instead, I’ll just leave a link to an in depth discussion of Albert Hemphill, that started as a sort of open letter addressed to Frank Legge.

I’ll just point out that here, in this paper, Legge describes Hemphill as saying the plane he saw came in to the “right” of him. (He was in his office in the 8th wing of the annex at the time, looking out towards the pentagon). In point of fact, Hemphill said it came in over his “right shoulder”, and even Frank described it that way in the past, as is evident in the discussion at the link above. Frank appears to have put this thumb on the scale for this paper to make it sound like the plane was further to the south to fit his theory the plane really did fly the official path. Fudging data. Not a good sign.

• 2) The video does not address Legge and Chandler’s argument or their calculations. Period.

3) Legge and Chandler address the eyewitness statements.

4) Yes, false. You quote him out of context. This is not a predetermined conclusion. He is referring to what the FDR and radar data show.

5) Mr. Middleton’s testimony actually reinforces Legge and Chandler’s conclusion. Rather than describing the steep bank that would have been required, he says the pilot was “fighting” and motions that it was pitching side to side.

6) Mr. Stafford’s drawn flight path and testimony also reinforce Legge and Chandler’s conclusion. He clearly says it was flying “flat” as it flew over (from his perspective) the Navy Annex, and then said it started to bank as it approached his position. He tilts the plane to show a shallow bank.

7) Yes, it is a matter of semantics. Indeed! He said, “The aircraft was ESSENTIALLY right over the top of me”. Which logically means it was not directly over the top of him, the same way when I say, “There was essentially nobody on the street,” what that means is that there were very few people, not zero.

Fudging data? Over his right shoulder. Hence to the right of him. Obviously.

• Richard Allen

2) The video does not address Legge and Chandler’s argument or their calculations. Period.

This paper was posted here now, 7 days ago. That particular video was uploaded 9 months ago, although in point of fact, I believe it may have been created in 2009. If I have to explain it to you, the video doesn’t address the calculations in this particular paper because they didn’t exist when the video was made. What the video shows is the plane observed approaching the pentagon definitely could have made the right bank described by several of the witness, including the ones included in this article, if one starts with the descriptions of the flight paths made by the witnesses, not some artificial path made up to suite some preferred conclusion.

Here’s an addendum to the video that goes through the calculations based on range of assumptions about the aircraft speed, and the witnesses’ description of where they saw the plane.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=122

As noted previously, there is nothing to support the hypothetical turn Mr. Legge has in his diagram that sends the plane over the navy annex. It is curious Mr. Legge mentions Ed Paik in the paper, but didn’t bother to include his description of the flight path he drew. Here, let me help –

This should have been the basis for calculating the bank angle, not the arbitrary turn proposed in the paper. Also from that same section about Ed Paik is this additional suggestion that misrepresents the now known facts in favor of Mr. Legge’s proposed official southern flight path –

The plane passed very close to the VDOT antenna tower, so may have damaged it, as the Paiks speculated, after noticing an aerial appeared to be bent and seeing some repairs being done the next day.

The question of whether these repairs were a result of the plane hitting the VDOT tower was cleared up years ago by contacting the Virgina Dept of Transportation. The repairs had nothing to do with the 9/11 plane striking the antennae. If Frank Legge wasn’t aware of this, why wasn’t he if he holds himself out to be a pentagon researcher? If he was aware of it, why is this section in the paper with no mention that the VDOT denied it had anything to do with the 9/11 plane?

Here’s Ed Paik’s CIT interview –

As with the other clips posted to this Youtube page, the interview starts at the 0:50 mark.

3) Legge and Chandler address the eyewitness statements.

Right. Let’s see how they addressed these eye-witness statements:

It is now apparent that the testimony of Stafford and Prather contains self-contradictory information. On the one hand they say the plane passed over the Naval Annex and some distance beyond, flying wings level, and on the other hand they say it passed north of the Citgo service station on its way to the impact region on the Pentagon. These concepts cannot both be right. It appears they misjudged the position of the plane and did not realize that it was south of the Naval Annex.

The witnesses (all of the witnesses)are simply wrong about what they think they saw with respect to the location of the plane. We know this because Mr. Legge’s calculations say so. (Bazant anyone?) But as noted above, even if Mr. Legge’s calculations are technically correct (and that’s a big “If”), they are based on an artificial flight path that he made up.

4) Yes, false. You quote him out of context. This is not a predetermined conclusion. He is referring to what the FDR and radar data show.

Is this out of context, too?

“They gloss over the fact that all their witnesses who were in a position to see the Pentagon say they saw the plane hit[1] and they gloss over the fact that every witness to impact is a witness to a straight path south of the service station, and there are many of them.”
– Frank Legge

According to Frank, anyone who thinks they saw the plane hit the pentagon is automatically a witness to the one and only official south side flight path. We can conclude this because the plane hit the building. The fact the witnesses say they saw the plane hit proves it did, notwithstanding other details of their statements makes this impossible. Just throw out the inconvenient parts of the testimony. After all, we have some calculations, though not based on the witness statements, arrive at the right conclusion.

5) Mr. Middleton’s testimony actually reinforces Legge and Chandler’s conclusion. Rather than describing the steep bank that would have been required, he says the pilot was “fighting” and motions that it was pitching side to side.

You must have missed that part where he said the plane was so close he could “feel the heat”. You might also want to go back and look at the 2:20 mark where he describes the plane flying over the ANC parking lot.

And speaking of the plane banking, are you familiar with the interview he did with the Center for Military History (CMH) back in 2001? Here’s a quote:

William Middleton: As I made a turn to come back I heard this whistling noise as if it was coming behind me. So when I turned to look, I seen this big large airplane beside me.

CMH officer: Where were you at?

Middleton: Uh Patton Drive. …And he glazed over like our parking lot here and made a turn toward the Pentagon

There is nothing in Mr. Middleton’s statements that in any way support the south side flight path.

6) Mr. Stafford’s drawn flight path and testimony also reinforce Legge and Chandler’s conclusion. He clearly says it was flying “flat” as it flew over (from his perspective) the Navy Annex, and then said it started to bank as it approached his position. He tilts the plane to show a shallow bank.

Of course it was flat over the navy annex. As low as it was it would have hit the annex with a wing if it had been in any kind of bank. It’s what happened next that tells us the plane came in NoC. Speaking of CMH interviews, here’s a quote from Darrell Stafford’s –

Stafford: Yeah , it over the Navy Annex. It was flat. It was just like it was on top of the roof. Landing on the roof. And just like it barely made it over the roof. And then, when it got beyond that point, and we started to scatter, it started to bank to the right, still coming forward. And that’s when I, myself, and Donald Carter, decided, hey, let’s get away from it. And, by then, it banked and it was kinda over the cemetery and probably crossed over Columbia Pike more on this side, then. And when it banked like that, we ran toward it and ran up the hill

It was coming right at them where they were in the ANC parking lot, so they ran toward it. Oh, and check out this quote where Darrell was interviewed for a 2009 CNN special –

He said that “9/11 was quite a day. I saw the plane approach the Pentagon, coming over the Naval Annex. We were kind of mesmerized by it, but we knew we wanted to get out of the way. I and one guy ran toward the plane as it went toward the Pentagon, and we actually went under the wing of it as it passed over. In a matter of seconds, we ducked for cover. I peeked over my shoulder, and moments later, I saw the big old ball of fire and heard the explosion, and it was unreal. It was like somebody turned on a gigantic heat lamp on the back of your neck.

There is no way Darrell Stafford is describing a plane coming up the south side of Columbia Pike, which is the one and only SoC flight path consistent with the pentagon damage.

7) Yes, it is a matter of semantics. Indeed! He said, “The aircraft was ESSENTIALLY right over the top of me”. Which logically means it was not directly over the top of him, the same way when I say, “There was essentially nobody on the street,” what that means is that there were very few people, not zero.

Ed Paik illustrated the plane heading over the annex from the SW corner. It then passed over Terry Morin, who was between the 4th and 5th wings. His vantage point was such he only saw the underbelly. He could not see the markings on the side. He clearly stated the plane was absolutely on the north side of Columbia Pike. Though Mr. Legge doesn’t seem to understand this, the plane had to be on the south side of Columbia Pike at this point for the official straight flight path to be true. A plane over the annex at this point would have to first make a right bank, followed quickly by a sharp left bank to get onto the one and only flight path that goes through all 5 light poles.

All witnesses reporting having seen the plane over the navy annex disprove the official flight path Mr. Legge is promoting in this paper.

Fudging data? Over his right shoulder. Hence to the right of him. Obviously.

The difference is significant because of Albert Hemphill’s location in the annex –

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/albert-hemphill-locaiton-vs-north-s.jpg

“Over his right shoulder” implies the plane came over the annex near it’s center. Indeed, that’s what he described in his CIT interview –

Ranke: are you saying he was off to the side of the Navy Annex, or …
Hemphill: yeah, he would have been over my right shoulder
Ranke: but you saw the fuselage appear, was it directly over the top of the Navy Annex or …
Hemphill: right over the top

Again, a plane over the navy annex cannot hit all of the 5 light poles without performing a significant left bank. And as the FDR data decode conducted by another of Mr. Legge’s associates shows, (data upon which Mr. Legge is basing his analysis, notwithstanding how questionable it is), there was no left bank in the final seconds of the recorded data.

• 2) “…the video doesn’t address the calculations in this particular paper because they didn’t exist when the video was made.”

Yes, that’s right.

“What the video shows is the plane observed approaching the pentagon definitely could have made the right bank described by several of the witness…”

What this paper shows is that that is false. And the video doesn’t address the arguments or calculations in this paper. Period.

3) “But as noted above, even if Mr. Legge’s calculations are technically correct (and that’s a big “If”), they are based on an artificial flight path that he made up.” If you find an error in their calculations, show it. And the flight path is CIT’s, so if it’s “made up”, so be it.

4) You are arguing this conclusion of Legge’s was predetermined. On the contrary, he has made his argument for how he arrived at that conclusion based on the facts and using logic, which you ignore in favor of this ad hominem argument.

5) It wouldn’t surprise me that he could feel the heat from the plane. And I repeat, Mr. Middleton’s testimony actually reinforces Legge and Chandler’s conclusion. Rather than describing the steep bank that would have been required, he says the pilot was “fighting” and motions that it was pitching side to side.

You provide a quote of him saying the plane “made a turn toward the Pentagon”. This actually proves that his eyes deceived him in terms of where the plane was, as this paper explains. IF the plane HAD been on the flight path he described, coming towards him, it would HAD TO HAVE made a steep banking turn to have hit the Pentagon. Yet he doesn’t describe that occurring. And as Legge and Chandler show, that would have not been possible.

6) Re Darrell’s quote you provided and bolded. Huh? If they “wanted to get out of the way”, why would they run “toward the plane”? Distances can be deceiving to the eye.

7) Re Hemphill, you focus on “right over the top” yet ignore “yeah [‘he was off to the side of the Navy Annex’ ‘over my right shoulder’]. He contradicts himself, making his testimony worthless on this point.

• Richard Allen

2) “…the video doesn’t address the calculations in this particular paper because they didn’t exist when the video was made.”

Yes, that’s right.

“What the video shows is the plane observed approaching the pentagon definitely could have made the right bank described by several of the witness…”

What this paper shows is that that is false. And the video doesn’t address the arguments or calculations in this paper. Period.

The paper shows no such thing. The calculations in this paper are irrelevant, as they are not based on anything resembling the flight paths described by the witnesses.

The calculations presented in this paper have not been addressed yet, because first of all, it has only recently been published. But more importantly, the original paper by Legge and Chandler, upon which this addendum is based, including the calculations about the impossible bank angle, was previously peer reviewed prior to that paper’s original publication by aviation professional Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, USMC (Ret.).

The most salient comment by Lt. Col. Lankford regarding the original paper, and foundation for this addendum, was the following –

“There is nothing wrong with this paper that a trip through a shredder, and a sincere apology to CIT and the 9/11 Truth community could not cure.” Shelton F. Lankford, M. S., Systems Managment, LtCol. USMC (Ret.) Combat Pilot, Vietnam, 10,000+ flight hours, Distinguished Flying Cross, Air Medal (32 Awards) Reviewer.

An excerpt of some of the problems Lt. Col Lankford had with the Legge/Chandler paper follows:

The Legge paper has an unusually high number of false statements and allegations, particularly for one which has been in the works for the amount of time that this one has, in its several editions. It is filled with straw-man arguments, unsupported and doubtful opinion, selective use of witnesses, appeals to non-authoritative authority, and the ignoring of “best evidence” in favor of non-conclusive speculations. Data obtained from government sources is accepted unquestioned and deferred to especially when it helps bolster the case against CIT.
Examples of the foregoing include:
1. Failure to examine the strongest NOC witnesses.
2. Inclusion of witnesses who were not in a position to see the reference points – aircraft and Citgo station as refuting those who were.
3. Reference to a blog entry “suggesting” accumulated evidence of impact is so substantial that an assertion of impact is somehow evidence.
4. Use of an egregious and irrelevant straw man to provide a patina of scientific gloss by calculating g-forces on an aircraft attempting to perform an impossible task – squaring the aircraft position North of the Citgo with the damage path at the Pentagon, which is exactly the point demonstrated by CIT and several analyses by P49T. An aircraft from that position cannot maneuver to achieve the required flight path to conform to the damage path. Neither CIT nor Legge/Chandler, nor anyone else among the well-placed witnesses has alleged that the aircraft attempted any such thing. (1)
5. Use of Fig. 5 (Hoffman’s illustration of the Pentagon sticking up in the otherwise flat landscape, with an oversize aircraft flying over) to illustrate visibility of an overflight by omitting the many obstructions to vision from various vantage points in the Pentagon area.
6. Use of Flight Data Recorder data when it supports a claim but disregarding it when it conflicts with the official story.
7. Reliance on a missing 4 seconds of data from the FDR when no such data has been recognized or credited by other researchers or FDR experts and has been discredited by FDR experts.

Here’s a link to both the preliminary, and 2nd set of review comments Lt. Col. Langford provided after looking at the paper –

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21569&st=20&start=20

Entries #30 and #31 to the thread are the relevant reviews.

Under the circumstances, it is unlikely any aviation professionals would spend any more time responding to an addendum to this already seriously debunked paper.

3) “But as noted above, even if Mr. Legge’s calculations are technically correct (and that’s a big “If”), they are based on an artificial flight path that he made up.” If you find an error in their calculations, show it. And the flight path is CIT’s, so if it’s “made up”, so be it.

See above.

One note – CIT does not have a “flight path”. They reported what independent witnesses described as the flight paths they saw and illustrated. The flight path used by Mr. Legge in this paper is not based on any of those witnesses’ illustrations.

4) You are arguing this conclusion of Legge’s was predetermined. On the contrary, he has made his argument for how he arrived at that conclusion based on the facts and using logic, which you ignore in favor of this ad hominem argument.

Mr. Legge’s logic is clear. Witnesses have said they saw the plane hit the building, therefore the plane hit the building. That’s all the proof needed. Since it is now established the plane hit the building, anyone who says he saw the plane hit the building saw the plane approach on the one and only official south side flight path that could have produced the observed damage. Any statements to the contrary can be dismissed as the witnesses being mistaken. And to bolster that contention, the authors concocted an artificial flight path and hard banking right turn to “prove” the witnesses couldn’t have seen what they also said they saw.

You don’t know the meaning of an ad hominem attack until you’ve read the aspersions and vitriol hurled at CIT and their supporters on a regular basis by Frank Legge’s friends and collaborators, beginning almost as soon as CIT published the first few witness accounts.

See Barry Zwiker above.

5) It wouldn’t surprise me that he could feel the heat from the plane. And I repeat, Mr. Middleton’s testimony actually reinforces Legge and Chandler’s conclusion. Rather than describing the steep bank that would have been required, he says the pilot was “fighting” and motions that it was pitching side to side.

Why am I not surprised you wouldn’t be surprised. If you want to stick with the explanation Mr. Middleton had x-ray vision to see the plane through the walls of the navy annex on the far side of the building, you go right ahead.

Once again, the bank described in this paper is made up. There was only a slight bank to the right, not the extreme bank alleged by Mr.Legge. Mr. Middleton described and illustrated the aircraft coming down Southgate Rd, along the north side of the navey annex, passing over the parking lot at the ANC maintenance buildings, then turning slightly right towards the pentagon. It was not an extreme bank, and his description is consistent with what was described by the other witnesses cited in this artice.

You provide a quote of him saying the plane “made a turn toward the Pentagon”. This actually proves that his eyes deceived him in terms of where the plane was, as this paper explains. IF the plane HAD been on the flight path he described, coming towards him, it would HAD TO HAVE made a steep banking turn to have hit the Pentagon. Yet he doesn’t describe that occurring. And as Legge and Chandler show, that would have not been possible.

Mr. Middleton did not describe the plane as coming towards him. He said he saw it come down Southgate Rd along side him. It was Darrel Stafford, at the ANC parking lot, who described the plane as at first coming towards him. That was very clear in the drawing he provided, and his interview.

6) Re Darrell’s quote you provided and bolded. Huh? If they “wanted to get out of the way”, why would they run “toward the plane”? Distances can be deceiving to the eye.

It’s a fairly recognized fact that a man on foot cannot out run a B757. His escape path was blocked to his right by the maintenance buildings, and to his left by parked cars, machinery, and eventually the wall along the side of the cemetery. Running forward to get under the plane and back behind it, would have put them at the furthest distance possible from the impending crash and explosion. That would be an altogether rational thing to do.

7) Re Hemphill, you focus on “right over the top” yet ignore “yeah [‘he was off to the side of the Navy Annex’ ‘over my right shoulder’]. He contradicts himself, making his testimony worthless on this point.

Don’t be to quick to throw out Albert Hemphill’s testimony. It has been one of the founding, and often misquoted accounts, supporting Mr. Legge’s theory that the plane passed on the south side of the annex, just like the official 9/11 reports say it did. That he inconveniently made known his location in the annex, toward the north side, can still be glossed over by dropping the reference to the “right shoulder” and just saying the plane was to the right of him.

One last thing –

That was a pretty good article on Ron Paul you wrote. I’m not a major fan, and he does have some issues I have problems with. But I don’t accept false accusations being leveled at him for telling the truth.

• 2) “The calculations in this paper are irrelevant, as they are not based on anything resembling the flight paths described by the witnesses.”

What a strange statement. In fact, they were quite a bit more conservative in their flight path, so as to give the CIT hypothesis every benefit of the doubt. Yet you argue this makes their work “irrelevant”? As for Langford, I disagree with his opinions.

3) CIT does have a flight path. It’s the North of Citgo path, which is the path Legge and Chandler address and show to have been impossible in this paper.

4) “Witnesses have said they saw the plane hit the building, therefore the plane hit the building. That’s all the proof needed.”
Hardly. There is a great deal more evidence than that, including the argument he presents in this paper, which is not based on a predetermined conclusion, as you falsely assert. Yes, it’s ad hominem argumentation. Appealing to supposed prejudice rather than addressing the substance of an argument is the definition of ad hominem.

5) “If you want to stick with the explanation Mr. Middleton had x-ray vision to see the plane through the walls of the navy annex on the far side of the building, you go right ahead.”

“Once again, the bank described in this paper is made up. There was only a slight bank to the right, not the extreme bank alleged by Mr.Legge.”

That’s not possible, as Legge and Chandler show in this paper. Perhaps you should actually read it. It’s becoming increasingly clear you didn’t actually do so.

“Mr. Middleton did not describe the plane as coming towards him. He said he saw it come down Southgate Rd along side him.” I’m not interested in a semantics debate. Again, he said the plane “made a turn toward the Pentagon”, which proves that his eyes deceived him, as this paper explains.

7) Hemphill’s testimony is quite worthless as he contradicts himself.

Glad you enjoyed the article on Ron Paul.

• Richard Allen

2) “The calculations in this paper are irrelevant, as they are not based on anything resembling the flight paths described by the witnesses.”

What a strange statement. In fact, they were quite a bit more conservative in their flight path, so as to give the CIT hypothesis every benefit of the doubt. Yet you argue this makes their work “irrelevant”? As for Lankford, I disagree with his opinions.

Strange statement? No, there’s nothing strange about it. Every bit of the analysis made, and conclusions reached by Mr. Legge in this paper is based on a hypothetical flight path that he made up out of thin air. Your statement that “In fact, they were quite a bit more conservative in their flight path, so as to give the CIT hypothesis every benefit of the doubt.” is equally meaningless. It is not the flight path described by the witnesses. If Mr. Legge’s calculations aren’t based on Ed Paik’s description of where the plane flew partially over his shop, then over the navy annex beginning at its SW corner and into the pentagon basin on that track (and they absolutely are not) his calculations of bank angle and wing loads are are nothing more than a math exercise because they don’t describe what the plane really did or where it came from. His analysis is based on fiction.

Once again, this is the flight path the plane came into the area on, as illustrated by Ed Paik –

With regards to LtCol Lankford, yes, you are entitled to your opinion, as he is his. But in this case, where he was specifically requested by a representative of the authors of the original paper to serve as a reviewer, based on his expertise in aviation (10,000+ hours flight time), I’m more inclined to give his opinion a little more weight than yours.

3) CIT does have a flight path. It’s the North of Citgo path, which is the path Legge and Chandler address and show to have been impossible in this paper.

They’ve shown no such thing. As noted above, every conclusion reached in this paper is based on a fictional flight path that never happened. The plane flew north of the Citgo gas station, as proven by the multiple eyewitnesses that placed it there.

Speaking of which, there are several other eye-witnesses to the northern approach Mr. Legge left out of his paper, and understandably so. The most notable would be Sgt William Lagasse. Sgt Lagasse was also interviewed on location where he was when he saw the aircraft that morning; on the property of the Citgo gas station itself. In fact, he was one of two pentagon police officers on the Citgo station property that morning. If you go to the 2:25 mark in the Middleton interview above (here it is again)

you can see Sgt Lagasse as he points to the area he saw the plane; between where he was standing under the north side canopy of the Citgo station and the Arlington National Cemetery. Here’s the flight path illustration he drew – http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/911-5.jpg

In fact, here’s his entire interview – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE&feature=bf_next&list=PL86FC9425AB2D5F73&lf=results_main

What’s particularly important about Sgt Lagasse’s interview is where he was; under the north side canopy. If the plane had flown the southern flight path as claimed by Mr. Legge, on the south side of the Citgo station, Sgt Lagasse wouldn’t have been able to see it at all. The canopy and gas station office area would have blocked his view.

Oh, and the other police officer, Sgt Brooks, he also drew a flight path – http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/911-4.jpg

So we have eye-witnesses at the gas station saying it passed by them to the north of their position, between the station and the ANC, ANC workers at the maintenance building parking lot saying it came over the annex straight at them before banking slightly to the right, Hemphill in his office looking down and describing the plane heading almost straight over the Citgo, maybe slightly towards the north side, and (though not included in Frank’s paper) the air traffic controller in the pentagon heliport control tower looking back the other direction at the plane approaching, describing the plane coming in to the right (north side) of the Citgo station, heading almost directly at him.

I’d say they had that plane’s position pretty well triangulated. But according to Frank, all these witnesses are wrong. He has a formula to prove it.

Witnesses may not have photographic memories, and there are some slight variations in the recollections between the descriptions made by the witnesses. But they aren’t idiots either. All of these witnesses (and more) who were in the best positions to see where the plane flew in, 100% corroborate each other on the one simple question of which side of the gas station the plane came in on. The north side.

4) “Witnesses have said they saw the plane hit the building, therefore the plane hit the building. That’s all the proof needed.”
Hardly. There is a great deal more evidence than that, including the argument he presents in this paper, which is not based on a predetermined conclusion, as you falsely assert.

Frank’s Legge’s position stands on it’s own. The entire premise of this paper is to try to call into question the very solid evidence of these witnesses’ testimony by introducing a mathematical model made up based on a fictional flight path. He has to do that to manipulate their statements to make it seem they support his conclusion the events at the pentagon happened just as the government said they did; that the plane came in and hit the building on the one and only south side flight path that could have caused the observed damages.

And there is a great deal more evidence not discussed in this paper that indicates the official story is false, and a cover up, including a witness to a plane flying away immediately after the explosion. But I’m trying to stick to the subject matter of this paper, and not introduce other information not directly related to where eye-witnesses saw the plane fly into the pentagon basin.

“Once again, the bank described in this paper is made up. There was only a slight bank to the right, not the extreme bank alleged by Mr.Legge.”

That’s not possible, as Legge and Chandler show in this paper. Perhaps you should actually read it. It’s becoming increasingly clear you didn’t actually do so.

I have read the paper, and others with similar problems as this one produced by Mr. Legge. Of course it’s possible. Multiple witnesses saw it happen. The calculations in this paper, and the conclusions drawn by Mr. Legge, are based on a fictional flight path the plane did not follow. Mr. Legge is trying to discredit this group of eye-witness by making it look like there exists some scientific basis to say they’re mistaken. There is none. Garbage in, garbage out, as the saying goes. And the garbage in this set of data is the fictional flight path created to arrive at Frank Legge’s conclusions. If the flight path isn’t based on what the witnesses saw and confirmed among themselves with 100% multiple collaboration, it’s wrong.

And the Wyndham article? Don’t go there. This is long enough just with the information in this addendum article. I have no intention of spending the next week dissecting and debunking elements of that article. There are massive threads on many boards and blogs that have gotten into what Mr. Wyndham has written, and in more detail than he has provided. Some other time.

• Anyone may read the paper for themselves if they want to understand why the north of Citgo flight path could not have occurred, and why your arguments that it did are fallacious.

• Richard Allen

Anyone may read the paper for themselves if they want to understand why the north of Citgo flight path could not have occurred, and why your arguments that it did are fallacious.

Yes, by all means, readers should look at the paper. As they do though, they’ll want to take note of the co-editors of the board where it’s posted; a Mr. Kevin Ryan (who incidentally has a good article well worth the read posted here at FPJ right now,

The Small World of 9/11 Players: LS2, Vidient and AMEC)

and a Mr. Frank Legge. In fact, it appears much of Mr. Wyndham’s research is drawn from papers authored by Mr. Legge and his associates, including the original paper for this addendum reviewed by LtCol Frankford. It is also interesting to note Mr. Wyndham references articles and research done by a Ms. Victoria Ashley and Jim Hoffman. As many familiar with this seemingly manufactured controversy over CIT’s research are aware, these individuals are, along with a small group of other online entities and personae, are at the epicenter of the campaign launched against the CIT pentagon research referenced by Barry Zwiker above. Not surprisingly, Mr. Wyndham’s paper, reviewed by an anonymous reviewer I see, appears to be not much more than an echo chamber for the information Frank Legge has presented in this original Legge/Chandler paper, and others he and/or Mr. Chandler have written on the subject of the pentagon, which have been equally challenged for factual misrepresentations.

At least that’s how I wanted to read it; someone making a sincere effort to provide a rational scientific basis for understanding the event at the pentagon. But now that I went through it again, as you suggested, I see there are many flippant dismissals of challenges to Mr. Legge’s work by appeals to non-authoritative authorities (I’m thinking the of the section in the paper with the list of challenges to the FDR data made by FDR experts in favor of a computer programmer with no expertise in FDR analysis whatsoever), and unsupported assertions about the C-130, the flyaway witness Roosevelt Roberts, (who is introduced as “questionable” and summarily dismissed), and statements about the damages within the building which the author simply says are consistent with a plane hitting, but supported by not much more than his say so. In fact, other than the format, I see little in the Wyndham paper that impresses me as a scientific publication written by a physicist. Maybe that was the intent; just an opinion piece on observations and claims made by researchers, and not a detailed scientific analysis of the physics of a plane striking the reinforced bomb resistant side of the building, and the effects that would have on a large aircraft. Other than saying the small shredded pieces would surge forward like a “liquid jet”, I don’t see any math or analysis one would expect from a physicist. In fact, there are several statements in this paper that jump out, even on just a casual skimming, that appear not just prejudiced, but inaccurate. For example, that the debris that spilled out in to A&E drive through the C-ring hole did so at an angle consistent with the direction of the aircraft penetration. No it didn’t. It blew straight out from the wall. Or that the C-130 pilot saw the airplane hit the pentagon. No he didn’t. He said so. He saw the smoke on from a distance but couldn’t tell where it was coming from until he arrived on the scene a few minutes later. The accusation that Craig Ranke of CIT “led the witness” Albert Hemphill in his interview? Mr. Wyndham must be thinking of the second interview conducted by Mr. Jeff Hill (aka Shure – a reference source for some of Mr. Wyndham’s data in this paper), who, during the middle of his interview, sent Mr. Hemphill a picture of the pentagon (taken from what appears to be a helicopter from a position near the navy annex) complete with a diagram of the official flight path and downed light poles to help him remember what he really saw; this after he had said in an interview with CIT that the plane seemed to him to have gone straight from the annex over the Citgo, maybe a little to the north side. Damage control. I suspect Mr. Wyndham is just repeating what others told him about the interviews, not making the claim himself. But the hypocrisy of some of CIT’s detractors knows no bounds.

That’s it. Is said I wouldn’t get into the details of the Wyndham paper, so I’ll drop it there.

Lastly, my arguments fallacious? I’ve haven’t done much more than point out what the witnesses said about what they saw, and linked to the illustrations they made. You, on the other hand, have offered not much more than your opinion the witnesses can’t be right because Mr. Legge says so, and expressed your seemingly blind faith in the information presented in his paper, not withstanding it has been pointed out the flight paths he’s assuming in his calculations are not compatible with where the witnesses said the plane came from.

Anyway, thanks for letting me post. I’ll try not to “spam” the board any further.

• “You, on the other hand, have offered not much more than your opinion the witnesses can’t be right because Mr. Legge says so…” The fact that you seem to feel it necessary to resort to stupid strawman arguments says everything that needs to be said.

• Thanks for the above effort Jeremy. Of course Richard Allen is right about one thing – we “made up” the flight path we used to calculate the bank angle. We made it up in such a way as to provide the easiest possible path for the plane. We had it pass right at the north corner of the Citgo gas station to minimize the bank angle. We used the last known position of the plane as determined by radar. We used the testimony of CIT’s witnesses to determine the bank angle as the plane passed the Naval Annex, zero bank.

Of course if people don’t accept the evidence of Stafford and Prather that the plane was wings-level at the Annex, they can go back to the previous paper where we allowed the bank to start at the last radar position. The bank required is still 77 degrees. Nobody reported that bank angle. It is safe to say it didn’t happen. Any bank less than 77 degrees and the plane would not have passed through the explosion smoke, as required by CIT’s overfly theory.

• I did point out to Richard that the flight path you used gave the NOC path every benefit of the doubt.

• Okay, back to my original point. Accepted that a plane did hit the Pentagon, then the videos are still a valuable reference as the back and forth arguments indicate. Once again, the videos from the Pentagon and surrounding area need to be released, they will help answer a lot of questions, in this case, concerning the flight path.

• Yes, I agree they should be released. I just don’t think we need them in order to know a plane hit the building.

• Jim, you make a good point above. The failure of the authorities to release proof of what happened is the real story. Why don’t they provide proof? Surely it is because uncertainty breeds dispute. You only have to look at this thread to see how much energy goes into the dispute.

Your first post however misses a point. You say: “Until I see more than the fuzzy one or two second segment that was released, I will not believe any theory. Arguing about it is useless…”

I agree that arguing is useless. That is why we wrote the paper. We have provided proof in the paper that the plane must have flown virtually straight and could not have deviated round the gas station. There is thus no possible grounds for arguing that anything other than a large commercial plane hit the Pentagon. So you don’t neeed to have the videos released. In the absence of witnesses to a flyover, and with multiple witnesses to impact, the straight path ends the argument.

• TokJin

David Chandelr’s works on the destruction of the north tower is the best in my opinion on that subject, he’s skill and he’s always been cristal clear in his demonstrations.
I’ll always respect him from what he’s done for us.

Im sorry to say that when he (and Legge)is talking about the pentagon and the witnesses… he is years away from what CIT discovered over the years.

Chandler and Legge totally missed the point on the pentagon matter.

I hope one day CIT maybe will get the attention they deserve.

Cheers from Italy.
(sorry for my English)

• TokJin, would you care to present an argument to support your opinion?

• sharky

i would also like to see the pentagon tapes. not only for the alleged impact but for the activities and condition of the area in question, in the hours beforehand. the argument that these tapes are being held to foment conspiracy theories is in itself a wildly speculative theory.
overall i am inclined to side with cit and p4t.
frankly frank, you and your cohorts have marred my view of 911 truth as a whole. if that is your intention then congratulations.

• It’s groups like CIT and P4T that mar the public’s view in general of the 9/11 truth movement with their red herrings that serve only to discredit the truth movement. Serious 9/11 researchers owe a debt of gratitude to people like Frank Legge and David Chandler, who have done a service to the movement by acting to try to undo some of the damage and restore credibility to the movement. But people who have come to believe something as a matter of faith and don’t care about the evidence will continue to believe, choosing religion over science.

• onesliceshort

Read these rebuttals to Chandler and Legge:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1646

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7163&view=findpost&p=10798304

There’s more if you bother yourself to read them.

• sharky

Serious 9/11 researchers would focus their energy on their own work. Legge and co have engaged in an obsessive, slanderous and manipulative campaign against honest reaearchers. This action has caused the current rift and brought disrepute on the 911 truth community. They published their attack articles without even consulting cit and p4t and have made sure that they can’t even respond. They have refused to debate cit numerous times.
These are not the actions of honest truth activists.

• sharky, if you have an argument to make, you are welcome to do so. Comments consisting entirely of ad hominem arguments will not be tolerated here.

• onesliceshort

Frank, the reason the “debate” deteriorates is because of the provenly inaccurate claims you make and your total obstinance in correcting the false information eve when it’s lain out for you.

I mean, two claims made here (among many) are totally wrong.

1. The bank angles you spun from the witnesses that CIT interviewed. You left one out. Ed Paik.

2. Terry Morin is not a “witness to the impact”. He couldn’t physically see the “impact area”. In fact he couldn’t see the lightpole or lawn area either.

Even this foreshortened image from a higher vantage point than Morin’s POV shows the kind of view he had. None.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/ingersolnavyannex-2.jpg

He places the aircraft unquestionably over the Navy Annex.

So which sceario is he describing? Over the Navy Annex or was the aircraft actually 300ft across the road. Opposite to what he was describing?

http://imageshack.us/f/88/navyannexmorin2paths.jpg/

3. You actually used William Middleton to back up the directional damage path? Seriously?

How so if he couldn’t physically see the “SOC path”?

How could he be describing the “SOC path” in any way whatsoever given his description of the aircraft “banking over the ANC carpark”??

His POV (next image):

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5305/middletonpov.jpg

The ANC carpark is in the area where the bus is parked in the following image.

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/9835/middletonpovpentagon.png

The “SOC path” is waaaay to the right.

You need to start clearing up the mess you’ve left all over the net Frank. People are starting to notice.

• onesliceshort,

1) You don’t actually make an argument here.
2) You said Terry Morin “couldn’t see the lightpole or lawn area” and was not a witness to the impact. In fact, Terry said he saw the plane strike a light pole and said the tail was visible when he saw the explosion from impact with the Pentagon.
3) “You actually used William Middleton to back up the directional damage path? Seriously?” Yes, seriously. My suggestion to you is that you actually read the paper.

• onesliceshort

Excuse me?

1. Frank Legge claimed that Morin was an “impact witness”.
I pointed out that Morin had no view of the “impact area”

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/9945/morinlineofsightsocfdr.jpg

Morin claimed to see a “flash”. That’s it.
Morin claimed to see the fireball. That’s it.
He couldn’t physically see any “impact”.
Morin claimed to see the aircraft “over his head” while within the Navy Annex wings.
Morin said “no frickin way” when asked if the aircraft was south of Columbia Pike!

That alone is fatal to the OCT directional damage path.

What are you not getting?

2. Hopefully you’ll also respond as to why Frank Legge omitted the testimony of Ed Paik who makes the “bank angle” quoted by Frank Legge far narrower.

3. As for William Middleton, did you watch the video? Did you see his field of vision recorded from his stated POV?

He could not see the OCT path! In his narrowed down POV towards the Pentagon, how on earth could he see the OCT path and the aircraft banking over the ANC carpark?

• 1) I repeat: Terry said he saw the plane strike a light pole and said the tail was visible when he saw the explosion from impact with the Pentagon.

2) Wronga again. Why does CIT interview him outside his shop when he was inside at the time the plane passed overhead?

And if he could SEE it through the window to the south, it must have BEEN to the south of his shop, and thus south of the Navy Annex.

3) Middleton says he saw it between the Navy Annex and the Sheraton. The Sheraton was not visible to him. He meant that from his point of view, that was the direction in which he saw the plane. So he is describing having seen it well to the southwest, coming in, and as he said, it started to drop as it came in. As for your comment that he saw it “banking over the ANC carpark”, that seems to be your own addition to this invention. Nowhere did he say it was banking. But that is immaterial. Whether he did or didn’t, he couldn’t have seen the plane on a NOC path, as shown in this paper.

• onesliceshort

Frank says..

“the straight path ends the argument”

WILLIAM MIDDLETON (in his CMH interview, 2001)

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/middletoncmh-1.jpg

SEAN BOGER

http://thepentacon.com/Topic11.htm

¨As he was coming towards me it just seemed like he was tilting the aircraft to his right…almost like an angle¨

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/SeanBogersPOV.jpg

DARRELL STAFFORD

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/StaffordBankToTheRight.jpg

DARIUS PRATHER

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/dariusangling.jpg

DONALD CARTER

¨coasted over the Navy Annex into a bank before gunning its engines..¨

GEORGE AMAN

http://www.thepentacon.com/neit419

His office:

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/AMANWINDS-1.jpg

¨When I seen he was kind of turning and gliding when he came across here, across the parking lot..¨

ROBERT A. LEONARD

“The aircraft, so close to the ground, was banked skillfully to the right..¨

DON SCOTT

Driving eastward past the Pentagon on his way to Walter Reed Army Medical Center; just passed the Pentagon and was near the Macy’s store in Crystal City

“I noticed a plane making a sharp turn from north of the Pentagon. I had to look back at the road and then back to the plane as it sort of leveled off.”

STEVE STORTI

On the balcony of his apartment building which is less than a mile away from the Pentagon in Crystal City

“Time seemed to slip into slow motion as he watched the plane cross over Route 395, tip its left wing as it passed the Navy annex, veer sharply and then slice into the Pentagon.”

GARY BAUER

“And it VEERED TO THE RIGHT into the Pentagon.”

MIKE WALTER

“It seemed like it was a slow, graceful bank and then once it straightened out, that’s when it sped up.”

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/walter-NoC.gif

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/walterbankgif.gif

• onesliceshort, it’s enough to point out you don’t make an argument here.

• onesliceshort

“onesliceshort, it’s enough to point out you don’t make an argument here.”

Umm..I’ve posted multiple testimonies to people who describe anything but a “straight path”

Please Jeremy, explain where I “don’t make an argument” when Frank Legge’s “straight line” claim is countered by the people quoted…

• sharky

All those witnesses must be mistaken oss. but there is a lot of corroboration between them so they must have got together to construct this noc fabrication.
It’s a conspiracy I tells ya.
So, Frank and Jeremy. When are you going to start calling witnesses and telling them that they were lying / mistaken?

• You are forgetting the far number of witnesses who corroborate the SOC flight path and plane impact into the Pentagon.

• Explain where you made an argument, because I still don’t see one. I also suggest you actually read the paper, which fully address that.

• onesliceshort

“You are forgetting the far number of witnesses who corroborate the SOC flight path and plane impact into the Pentagon.”

Mind naming a few of those “SOC witnesses”?

And Frank has suggested that there are up to “104 impact witnesses. A gross exaggeration.
Mindnumbingly gross.

Where is it addressed in Frank’s paper why Ed Paik was omitted from the witnesses interviewed by CIT and in doing so exaggerates the bank angle he is suggesting?

Where is it addressed in Frank’s paper that Terry Morin could physically see the “impact site” and why he ignored Morin’s description of the flightpath as being over the Navy Annex (he’s corroborrated too)?

Where is it addressed in Frank’s paper how his field of vision and description of the aircraft “banking over the ANC carpark” (corroborated by 4 people actually in the ANC carpark area, 2 at Citgo and one in the Navy Annex, possibly be construed into an “OCT flightpath” testimony?

Where are all of those “right bank” witness testimonies addressed in Frank’s paper?

Come on Jeremy, stop being cryptic. This is getting tedious. My “argument” is that Frank has been deceptive and wrong given the points repeatedly lain out for you.

This is the main problem with the Pentagon “argument”. People who don’t bother to actually read the research and details available and instead point to Legge’s and Stutt’s erroneous 10 times “peer reviewed papers” which still contain ADMITTED errors and blatant dis/misinfo.

Just like Chandler. Just like yourself.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1646

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7163&view=findpost&p=10798304

There’s far more.

• onesliceshort,

2) On Ed Paik, see me previous remarks on CIT’s dishonesty.

3) On Terry Morin, see my previous remarks on your false statements about his testimony.

You’re right about one thing: this is getting tedious.

• onesliceshort

Point 1…wow…you link me to an outdated site with no specifics whatsoever bar the unfounded, UNTRUE claim that there are “104 impact witnesses”. No names, just numbers. Come on Jeremy, you can do better than that(?).

People like myself and CIT have actually gone through this alleged list and can prove that this statement is entirely false. I’ll go through the witnesses one by one if you want. See how this number actually stands up to scrutiny. Your call.

As for point 2.

“2) On Ed Paik, see me previous remarks on CIT’s dishonesty.”

Did you know that the first interview with Ed Paik was in the presence of Russell Pickering, no friend of CIT and an avid “impact” theorist? They ALL believed that Ed Paik was outside his shop.

http://youtu.be/-SeOa6AQyt0

CIT answered Erik Larson’s unfounded accusations here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1013

And how could CIT have been “deceitful” when Ed Paik repeated the same testimony??

Here are two stills from the Larson interview:

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/PaikLarsonBodyOverShopNOC.jpg

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/PaikLarsonBodyOverShopNOCoutside.jpg
And one of multiple overhead maps with Paik’s description of the flightpath:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/CITGO2.jpg

It was even worked out what sort of view he would have had had the aircraft flew where Frank says. Not the witnesses.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/POV_Cams/Paik_POV_North_South_Sun720x480_EST_TEXT.jpg

Even his brother Shinki Paik’s testimony regarding a “shadow” was taken into account!

Discussed here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19556&st=0&p=10782468&#entry10782468

Frank’s ommission of this guy’s testimony is dishonest and is a major flaw to his entire “addendum”.

• 1) You are wasting my time. No names? You call yourself a researcher, but didn’t check the spreadsheet from which the number came from?

2) I’ve nothing to add to my previous comments. Ed Paik was inside. CIT wilfully attempts to deceive people about that. You accuse Legge of dishonesty by ommission (i.e., not discussing Paik’s testimony), yet give CIT a pass on Ed Paik? That says it all.

• onesliceshort

“3) On Terry Morin, see my previous remarks on your false statements about his testimony.”

What? This one?

“I repeat: Terry said he saw the plane strike a light pole and said the tail was visible when he saw the explosion from impact with the Pentagon.”

And I again refer you to this overhead:

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/9945/morinlineofsightsocfdr.jpg

Can Morin physically see the lightpole area or “impact area”?

Yes or No?

• 3) Did Terry Morin say he saw the plane hit a light pole? Yes or no? Did he say he could see the tail of the plane as it impacted the Pentagon? Yes or no?

• onesliceshort

“3) Did Terry Morin say he saw the plane hit a light pole? Yes or no? Did he say he could see the tail of the plane as it impacted the Pentagon? Yes or no?”

a) No, he said he saw a “flash” and was later TOLD that it was a lightpole”.
Can Morin physically see any of the lightpoles?

b) He says that “the tail was barely visible” Now tell me, COULD he physically see this section of the OCT path?

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/9945/morinlineofsightsocfdr.jpg

Morin also said

“Craig: 13 – 18 seconds? That much?

Morin: Well yeah, he’s flying 350-400 knots..from here, all the way down, so maybe that’s the time and phase of not knowing much..of reacting at the time.”

Is there a “time and phase of not knowing much” within the 3 second timeframe Frank’s claiming?

It’s funny how you cling to him actually being able to see the tip of the tail, below and out of the way of his field of vision yet ignore the his claims that the aircraft flew OVER HIS HEAD!
Which path was he describing Jeremy?

http://imageshack.us/f/88/navyannexmorin2paths.jpg/

• Terry’s testimony is that he saw the plane hit a light pole. That is his own deduction, yes, but that doesn’t change the fact that that is his testimony. You think that couldn’t have been possible. Yet Terry obviously thinks it was possible, since that is his testimony. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make about the seconds. You can’t possibly seriously be arguing that it really took 13-18 seconds for a plane flying at 400 knots (actually, over 500 mph) to go from the Annex to the Pentagon. Correct me if I’m wrong. Finally, we’ve been over that before; he said it was “essentially” over his head, which, of course, means that it wasn’t directly over his head, the same way if I say that that jerk driver essentially ran me over, it means he was close, but obviously didn’t run me over.

• onesliceshort

Playing catch-up here with your posts Jeremy. I hadn’t noticed this claim by you:

“As for your comment that he saw it “banking over the ANC carpark”, that seems to be your own addition to this invention. Nowhere did he say it was banking. But that is immaterial. Whether he did or didn’t, he couldn’t have seen the plane on a NOC path, as shown in this paper.”

My own invention? Have you even watched his interview??

Here’s his original CMH interview:

http://www.thepentacon.com/WMiddleton.mp3

“…And he glazed over like our parking lot here and MADE A TURN toward the Pentagon….”

Here’s the path he drew and what he described as he drew it:

http://i40.tinypic.com/2d9eijt.jpg

@37mins into this video:

http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm

“A: When I seen him, if this is it here, I would say… [William Middleton draws flight path]

Q: Ok, so…

A: Well, this is our parking lot, right here.

Q: Yeah, so…

A: That’s— It came right over the parking lot.

Q: Oh, it looked like it came right over the parking lot like that. Ok.”

Again, his view:

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5305/middletonpov.jpg

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/9835/middletonpovpentagon.png

HE HAD NO VIEW OF THE OCT PATH!

• It’s funny how you just tacitly admitted that your “banking over the ANC carpark” quote was your own fabrication, your words, not Middleton’s. The point is irrelevant anyhow. You REALLY should read the paper.

As for the rest, as I said, “Middleton says he saw it between the Navy Annex and the Sheraton. The Sheraton was not visible to him. He meant that from his point of view, that was the direction in which he saw the plane. So he is describing having seen it well to the southwest, coming in, and as he said, it started to drop as it came in.”

• onesliceshort

“It’s funny how you just tacitly admitted that your “banking over the ANC carpark” quote was your own fabrication, your words, not Middleton’s.”

Mybad. He didn’t actually use the word “banking” but he said “It came right over the parking lot.” and ” MADE A TURN toward the Pentagon…” and made this gesture in the same CMH interview:

http://i40.tinypic.com/2ik88ip.jpg

and of course the path he himself drew to describe the flightpath:

http://i40.tinypic.com/2d9eijt.jpg

• He said the plane hit the Pentagon! And Legge and Chandler show how he couldn’t have seen the plane on a NOC path.

• onesliceshort

“Middleton says he saw it between the Navy Annex and the Sheraton. The Sheraton was not visible to him. He meant that from his point of view, that was the direction in which he saw the plane. So he is describing having seen it well to the southwest, coming in, and as he said, it started to drop as it came in.”

Haha. Seriously Jeremy?

Do I have to link to the video of his POV again? Please watch it this time.

How could he have seen it “to the southwest”?
I mean, we’re talking basics here. Was he looking across the face of the Annex to see the partial descent, or was he looking East towards the Pentagon?
How could he have “really” been describing the “southwest path” when he places it over the ANC carpark?

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/9835/middletonpovpentagon.png

Why not flip that statement when considering his testimony as a whole? That he culdn’t see the Sheraton and adjudged where the plane flew in from by where he eventually saw it? Over the ANC carpark.

Until you rationally explain how Middleton saw the aircraft over the ANC carpark AND “southwest”, you’re blowing hot air my friend.

• Once again, Middleton says he saw the plane between the Navy Annex and the Sheraton. That would be to the SOUTHWEST of his position. Talk about BASIC. He saw the plane coming in at altitude, and watched it descend as it flew towards the Pentagon. CIT infers the rest.

• onesliceshort

The path Frank drew to “represent” the NOC witness flightpaths were decribed by nobody.

How can this..

possibly be addressing these maps drawn by the witneses themselves?

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/AllGroupsMap-3.jpg

Add Ed Paik’s description of the flight of the aircraft (again repeated in Erik Larson’s interview) and you’ll see why Frank purposely omitted him.

“All I saw was the wing…
If I could see the left hand side then I could see the body..NO..all I could see was triangle (right wing)”

http://i45.tinypic.com/oqbxgy.jpg

• “The links address the fatal flaws of the previous papers of this “Addendum”.” No, they don’t.

Look, it’s clear you aren’t interested in having a reasoned and honest discussion. If you wish to do so, you are welcome to comment here. But if you continue to refuse to, I’m inclined to revoke that privilege. My suggestion is that you begin by actually reading the 2 papers by Legge and Chandler, which you apparently STILL have not yet done.

• Djeminy

@Legge (Quoted from another forum):
“5. Is the curved path from the last known position of the plane round the Citgo service station to the point of impact physically possible?”

No Legge, your invented arbitrary flight path is not physically possible.
It’s just as ridiculous, ludicrous and downright silly as the ‘snake-like yaw yaw flight path’ Broken Sticks came up with some time back.

What is of particular concern is, that you and Chandler have spend a considerable amount of time to calculate G loads and bank angles to a flight path that makes no sense at all, and in fact is inane in the extreme – just as BS’s childish flight path was.

I would suggest that before you get too serious about your “findings”, that you instead set out to prove without the slightest room for doubt that “the last known radar position” you’re using, is absolutely true and correct to the absolutely smallest detail.

In passing, i’ll briefly remind you of your own words:

Legge: “The 9/11 Truth movement must respond by policing itself and holding itself to the highest standards of intellectual rigor…”

Legge: “The wisest policy is to avoid foolish theories altogether.”

So unless you give absolute proof that your ‘last known position’ is completely in accordance with the whole Truth, i’ll keep on considering your ‘addendum’ to be a futile waste of time, and to be a ‘paper’ that for me too, should be shredded the sooner the better!

Cheers

• Well, you can simply reject evidence that doesn’t conform to your belief. Or you can deal with it, as Legge has dealt with the last known position of the plane as per the FDR and radar data.

• onesliceshort

“Look, it’s clear you aren’t interested in having a reasoned and honest discussion.”

That’s rich Jeremy. Any honest skeptic reading this “debate” will see just who’s playing smoke and mirrors.

Bottom line is that we have corroborated eyewitness testimony that throws a spanner in the works of the Pentagon OCT and no amount of bluster and shimmying from you, Frank, Chandler or anybody can change that.

As for the links to the alleged “104 impact witnesses”, the majority of which are online/media unverified quotemines, further research has been done on them. Found here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=959

The “104 witnesses” mantra made by Frank, Hoffman and Larson is a lie.

Have a go at listing those “104 witnesses”. See how you go.

• So two sources say two different things. The only way to resolve that would be to examine each and every witness statement to see which source is more accurate. I would simply point out that according to your source, “Seeing plane + smoke/fireball DOES NOT equal actually witnessing an impact.” Well, if seeing a plane and a fireball is not witnessing impact, then what is? I don’t have a lot of time to go through every single witness statement for myself, but I looked at just the first one that your source doesn’t count as a witness to impact, and yet Susan Carrol did in fact say “I saw the plane hit”.

• aussie

The more important question (rather than WHAT hit the Pentagon) is HOW did it get hit at all, given red lights had been flashing for well over an hour after two iconic structures were hit by rogue planes in NY?

Let’s do a little thought experiment and imagine this whole scenario took place in another country, say Russia or China.

Let’s say two iconic structures in Moscow or Beijing are hit by two hijacked planes and then over an hour later another plane expertly takes out a reinforced section of the military HQ while the entire military hierarchy is at a prayer breakfast or simply asleep at the wheel – no jets scrambled, no defensive posture, nada, nothing. I wonder how Western sceptics would greet that?

Especially if a passport was to survive that hypothetical plane fireball in Moscow proving the hijackers were Americans or, in the case of Beijing, the hijackers were Taiwanese.

Especially if government insiders headed up in-house investigations (Nist? Kean Report?) and their establishment media lapped up these official narratives, smearing questioners and forensic analysts as heretics/conspiracy psychiatric cases.

Especially if grand plans then rapidly unrolled; plans for Shock And Awe bombing campaigns and immediate invasion of America/Taiwan or whichever enemy designate du jour/desired geo-strategic area.

I dunno. I’m guessing some scepticism would surface in western media.

I’m guessing a lot of obfuscation and wordy explanations would float around. At the end of the day, I think people would realise that hard facts are usually simpler to grasp and less labyrinthine than some like to make them out to be.

• “HOW did it get hit at all, given red lights had been flashing for well over an hour after two iconic structures were hit by rogue planes in NY?” Agreed that is the more important question.