Dr. Legge,

Thank you very much for your efforts in regards to the Truth Movement. I have a couple questions about your paper. I just spoke with John Bursill via email about this. He didn’t answer my questions, but he gave you his highest recommendation. I’m asking you this privately instead of on 911blogger.com because of my great respect, admiration, and affection for John.

“The paper has in fact a major and a minor hypothesis. The major hypothesis is that various groups within the 9/11 truth movement are strongly asserting contradictory views and thereby weakening the credibility of the movement as a whole.”

Where in your paper do your address your major hypothesis, sir?

Also, how can you present this:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123859

as a proper reference supporting your work?

This is appears to me to be a link to an anonymous person’s work on an internet forum that has strenuously opposed the 9/11 Truth Movement and it’s supporters for years now.

In Gratitude and Respect,
Paul Tassopulos
911artists.org
911truther.org

p.s. I’m sending this to you only, but I hope that you’ll forward this email to John so that he can see how I approached this matter with you. Also, we can make this exchange public or private. It’s up to you.

———————

From: Frank Legge – flegge@iinet.net.au
Subject: Re: Dr. Legge, My name is Paul Tassopulos….
To: “Paul Tassopulos” – pau@tassopulosyoga.com
Cc: “John Bursill” – johnbursill@gmail.com
Date: Sunday, March 28, 2010, 1:50 AM

Hi Paul

Thanks for your thoughts. I will deal with your second question first as it illustrates my general position, which is to be strictly scientific. You want to know why I use references to the JREF forum. Note that I do not use these references to determine the correctness of my calculations. I use the references to point out that Pilots for 9/11 Truth had been negligent in not addressing the possibility that there were errors in their g-force calculations. They have clearly had ample opportunity to examine their calculations and would have found the errors if they had made an effort. I sent them emails to suggest that they should check their calculations. Also, if you had followed the several versions of the paper, you would have seen that I tried very hard to help Pilots for 9/11 Truth to correct their work so that they would not lose face. In early versions I hinted that paths might exist which would not over-stress the aircraft. When that failed to produce a response I showed that a straight line path, passing the antenna 30ft above the ground to the south of the antenna with a 2 degree slope, would hit the poles and the impact point at the Pentagon. This was a simple calculation, easy to check, and should have convinced Pilots that they should review their calculations, as a straight-line path adds no g-force whatsoever. All they did during this period was to abuse me and insist that their work was not faulty. I eventually had no option but to include correct calculations in a postscript to the paper. I think this was most regrettable – it would have been much better for the truth movement if Pilots had fixed their work but they stubbornly refused to do so. They say on their website that they are calling for a new independent investigation so they are trying to do the right thing but leaving errors in place does not help.

Regarding the calculations themselves, I had independently found the correct values and was surprised to find that others had done so when I tried a Google search. It is common courtesy to acknowledge prior work and in scientific circles it is essential. If one does not do so one can be accused of plagiarism and also of attempting to big-note oneself. I was not able to find any other reference with correct values. If you know of one I will be happy to include it if a new version of the paper becomes necessary for any reason. It is a simple scientific fact that paths exist which would enable the plane to hit the poles and the Pentagon and do the observed damage without excessive g-force, as the two people I referred to point out in 2008. The references re the calculations are to R Mackey and Myriad. The fact that one of these people chooses to remain anonymous is obviously not scientific proof that what he says is incorrect. Truth of a statement is found by studying it, which I did.

Regarding the hypotheses of the paper, initially there was no preface. I had thought that the hypotheses were self-evident and did not state them. I was attacked by people who called the paper an opinion piece so decided it would be a good idea to spell the purpose of the paper out in such detail that no-one could use this attack, so I added the preface. I am not altogether happy with the terms major and minor hypotheses. I thought later that it would have been better to call them a social hypothesis and a physical or scientific hypothesis, as which one is more important depends on the position of the reader.

The major or social hypothesis is stated and dealt with in the preface. The flurry of attacks I have received from those who are sure, or pretend to be sure, that no 757 hit the Pentagon is ample evidence that contradictory views and hostility exist. The idea that no 757 hit the Pentagon is being publicized ever more widely with two web sites now using the controversy to expand their influence. I claimed in the preface that the hypothesis stands, and I still believe it does.

Regards
Frank
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/

———————

Thanks, Frank. I really appreciate your effort on this. I’m happy just to leave it at that and tell you that I’m very glad to have met you. However, my original concept for the 9/11 Truther Cyberzine project was short text interviews very similar to what we have done here so far. Everybody wanted to do audio though, so I’ve made that my current emphasis.

http://www.911truther.com/dillan1.html (text interview done 06/19/08)
http://www.911truther.org/ (current effort)

I think we have a beautiful, interesting, and important presentation here. If you’d like, I want to publish this conversation with 2 more questions included. First, do you have anything to add to your statement now that we’ve decided to show this on the e-zine? And second, what can anyone reading this do to support your efforts in regards to 9/11 Truth, sir?

———————

Paul,

All I will say in addition is that I recommend to anyone who is of the opinion that there is proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon that they carefully examine the case made in my paper:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf

I show that there is doubt and that it would therefore be wise to follow the precautionary principle, especially as it appears that the confusion arises because we have been deliberately given contradictory evidence. We should suspect that there is a sinister reason for this. Re the Pentagon, we should just talk about Norman Mineta and Dick Cheney, as described in my Introduction.

There is so much good material we can use to prove that 9/11 was an inside job that it is a great pity to muddy the waters by publicly raising arguments about what hit the Pentagon. When we look at the success that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is having by focusing on the destruction of all three towers we see what works and what should be done:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Also we can see the success that David Chandler is having with his very simple but strictly scientific videos that the towers and building 7 all came down too fast:
http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidChandler911#p/u/19/ZjSd9wB55zk

David has recently published a paper which explains in more detail what his videos show of the collapse of WTC 1.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf

Lest anyone feel that it is reasonable to trust the NIST report, there is a new paper out which shows that it is shot full of holes:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Falsifiability.pdf

In short my advice is to stick with what we know for sure, and get it out to the public.

Regards
Frank Legge
31 Mar, 2010

Douglas Interview 17 min. at 9.8 MB – Get .mp3

A message to the Choir from Jon Gold
about Disinfo and Coming Together

Roberts/Gold Conference Call 25 min. at 14.9 MB – Get .mp3

Celebrating the 5 year anniversary of his Blog YBBS activist writer Jon Gold joined me today on the Roberts Report. After years of diligent effort Mr. Gold reaches out to the 9/11 Truth movement as a whole and calls for fellow activists to step up to the plate. The Truth is we want a new investigation, other than that, we don’t know the Truth and Jon Gold would like us to remember that.

We discussed debunker sites, dis-info participants, and their followers- who may genuinely be misinformed or fooled while agreeing it is important to know what your adversaries have to say in order to overcome their damage. Listing ways we can approach them, Jon believes we could gradually bring them into the fold without allowing a platform for disinformation.

Best known for his article The Facts Speak for Themselves, Gold details 50 irrefutable facts for Truthers to utilize in their everyday arsenal. These facts such, no theory needs to be endorsed nor discussed when talking to people about the unTruths of what happened that day and what to do about it.

Mr. Gold is a huge supporter of the Jersey Girls and the Kyle Hence documentary 911 Press for Truth. Additionally he is a strong voice in support of all the Responders of September 11th at the FealGood Foundation who have been left behind in their struggle with life and death.

Cheri Roberts

Ranke Interview 12/12/09 15 min. at 14 MB – Get .mp3

Bursill Interview 12/17/09 17 min. at 15.9 MB- Get .mp3

Ranke/Bursill Conference Call 12/19/09 2.5 hrs. at 25.5 MB – Get .mp3

To better understand what these two are talking about you might want to watch National Security Alert and listen to [editors note: removed content at author's request on 01/21/10]. I’ve embedded both beneath.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

[editors note: removed content at author's request on 01/21/10]

Many events leading up to the conference call and after took place on a few of my wild and beloved 9/11 Truth Forums. There are actually a number of others, but here are a few of the most notable threads to better understand the situation.

Threads started before conference call:
[editors note: removed content at involved person's request on 01/21/10]
Craig Ranke challenges John Bursill – 911 Artists Interactive
Jesus and the Pentagon Flyover – 911oz Forum

Threads started after conference call:
The First Step or Just a Mess? Ranke and Bursill – Pod Cast – truthaction.org Forum
John Bursill – Craig Ranke Conference Call – 911oz Forum
John Bursill – Craig Ranke Debate – Loose Change Forums

I was very impressed with both of both John and Craig. Both strike me as being authentic human beings. Neither has the appearance to me of being “disinfo”, “gatekeeper”, or “shill”. The combination that both men are showing of research, activism, and courageously reaching out to others in the Truth Movement I believe will be the victory for us all. My thanks and respect go out to Craig, John, [editors note: removed name at the individual's request on 01/21/10], and Jim Hoffman.

Roberts Interview 9 min. at 8.5 MB – Get .mp3

Beneath is an excerpt from Cheri’s Circle of Truth Facebook Page.

“Do you belong to a 9/11 Truth group or organization? Or maybe, you are an individual with questions about what happened on that day or even one who has come to their own conclusions and are seeking justice after all these years? This event is for you! It doesn’t matter what “Truth” group you belong to or whether you belong to any at all … this is purely a September 11th, 2001 Truth visibility event. No theories are endorsed by Circle of Truth, all people seeking Truth are encouraged and welcome to attend. ALL other issues must be set aside for a single day so that Truth can mesh into one united front across the globe. Come out of the shadows, ask the hard questions and stand up for the truth in a way like never before … We CAN stand as one if we allow ourselves to let go of theories, partisan issues, and general ill will toward one another and do it.” – Cheri Roberts

Thanks, Cheri.