Dr. Frank Legge Interview
Interview conducted March 1st, 2014
MP3 and Link to Show Notes: http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2014/484-int-49
What was it that blew a hole in the Pentagon on 9/11? Was it really American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757? Or was it a much smaller aircraft? A missile, perhaps? Or just pre-planted explosives?
Joining us to discuss these questions is Dr. Frank Legge, PhD chemist and long-standing researcher into 9/11, who shares with us from his research the many reasons why he believes it is now established beyond reasonable doubt that AA Flight 77 did in fact hit the Pentagon that day.
Insisting nevertheless that the overall evidence of 9/11 unambiguously speaks of an "inside job", Dr. Legge warns of the dangers of dogmatism within the 9/11 Truth Movement, and explains why he sees 9/11 as a transnational elitist crime aimed ultimately at authoritarian One-World Government.
The Pentagon Attack: Eyewitnesses, Debris Flow and Other Issues – A Reply to Fletcher and Eastman, by John D. Wyndham.
This paper deals with issues raised in a November, 2012 letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies by Tod Fletcher and Timothy E. Eastman. These involve eyewitness testimonies as analyzed by Jerry Russell and by David Ray Griffin in his book, “9/11 Ten Years Later,” together with other topics that include debris flow through the Pentagon interior, energy considerations, and questions previously unaddressed by the author.
Four appendices focus on inaccuracies in the Fletcher and Eastman letter; on David Griffin’s list of physical evidence items that, in his view, weigh against the 757 impact theory; on the testimony of the unfairly-maligned taxi driver, Lloyde England; and on Jerry Russell’s and David Griffin’s analyses of Pentagon eyewitnesses.
You can read the paper and submit comments for moderated discussion at:
John D. Wyndham
April 12, 2013
"The Pentagon announced it is boosting "cybersecurity" personnel to 4,900. Is this really a move for defense, or to ramp up efforts to spy on Americans?".
"The Pentagon has approved plans for a five-fold increase in its cyberwar fighting force. The U.S. Cyber Command would see its ranks jump from 900 to 4,900, including both uniformed and civilian personnel. Defense officials say the boost in the cybersecurity force is necessary because of the nation's growing vulnerability to cyber attacks and also the need to prepare for more offensive cyber combat operations. But there is already a shortage of cyber specialists, and the new recruitment effort would increase the competition for skilled personnel within the government and the private sector. Audie Cornish talks to Tom Gjelten".
Black 9/11: Money, Motive, Technology, and Plausible Deniability
Published on Nov 21, 2012
Special thanks to Michael C. Ruppert, Mark H. Gaffney, and Kevin Ryan for their dedicated research in bringing this information out of the shadowy black operations underworld from which it came. This video is a compilation of evidence they have uncovered.
"Inside Job" Documentary on the Financial "Crisis" of 2008
"Crossing the Rubicon" - The Decline of American Empire at the end of the age of oil
"Black 911" by Mark H. Gaffney:
Was 9/11 an Inside Job?
A guide to 9/11 Whistleblowers
SEC Act Section 12(k)2:
Richard Grove's testimony (complete transcript)
On September 10, 2001, $2.3 trillion were announced to have gone missing from the Pentagon. Radio Host Barry Shainbaum will be interviewing Jim Minnery, a military accountant, Elyria, OH., and Dina Rasor, investigative journalist, San Francisco, CA.
Upcoming Radio Show: Jan. 13, 2013, Sundays 12:30 pm to 1:30 pm. EST. Topic: Pentagon spending & accounting
“I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it. We need to save it from itself.” Donald Rumsfeld, September 10, 2001
The official account of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 leaves many questions unanswered. The work of independent investigators has also failed to address those questions. In an attempt to find answers, an alternative account of the Pentagon attack is considered.
An alternative account would be more compelling than the official account if it explained more of the evidence without adding unnecessary complications. Considering means, motive and opportunity might allow us to propose a possible “insider conspiracy” while maintaining much of the official account as well.
A few of the more compelling unanswered questions are as follows.
- How could American Airlines Flight 77 have hit the building as it did, considering that the evidence shows the alleged hijacker pilot, Hani Hanjour, was a very poor pilot?
- Why did the aircraft make a 330-degree turn just minutes before hitting the building?
- Why did the aircraft hit the least occupied one-fifth of the building that was the focus of a renovation plan and how was it that the construction in that exact spot just happened to be for the purpose of minimizing the damage from a terrorist explosion?
- Why was the company that performed the renovation work, just for that one-fifth of the building, immediately hired in a no bid contract to clean-up the damage and reconstruct that area of the building? (Note: The same company was also immediately hired to clean-up the WTC site within hours of the destruction there.)
- What can explain the damage to the building and the aircraft debris or lack thereof?
- Why were the tapes from the surveillance videos in the area immediately confiscated by the FBI and never released?
These questions should be considered along with the fact that U.S military and “Homeland Security” expenditures since the 9/11 attacks have totaled approximately $8 trillion. This paints a picture that calls for an in-depth investigation into the people running the Pentagon, to see if they might have had the motivation and ability to plan and execute the attack.
When involved with the topic of 9/11, it becomes by default that we look at non-mainstream sources that most of the general public tend not to read, and because 9/11 was such a gnarly event, the type of news that runs parallel to it can often be tough going. Well, this following topic really takes the proverbial biscuit.
Genocidal war is not as out of fashion as perhaps most people think. Wired.com has just broke the news that the US-military is teaching its top cadres that Islam+is+the+enemy+and+total+war+necessary:
"The U.S. military taught its future leaders that a “total war” against the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims would be necessary to protect America from Islamic terrorists, according to documents... Among the options considered for that conflict: using the lessons of “Hiroshima” to wipe out whole cities at once, targeting the “civilian population wherever necessary.”
TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: //www.corbettreport.com/?p=4050
By Craig Whitlock
Some human remains recovered from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pa., were incinerated and dumped in a landfill, the Defense Department said Tuesday in the latest revelation about mishandled body parts at the Dover Air Force Base mortuary.
A new Pentagon review of the troubled mortuary disclosed several other problems — including fresh allegations of fraud and misplaced remains — over the past decade despite previous assurances by Air Force officials that they had adequately investigated operations at the base.
In ongoing research into the Pentagon attack the following peer-reviewed paper has now been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
“The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact” by John D. Wyndham.
As stated in the abstract, this paper shows that, of all the theories about what caused the damage and debris at the Pentagon on 9/11, a large plane impacting the Pentagon is in best accord with the majority eye witness testimony and main physical evidence, and is by far the most plausible theory. The failure of the 9/11 truth movement to reach consensus on this issue after almost a decade is largely due to a failure to rigorously apply the scientific method to each proposed theory.
This work is supported by recent papers by Frank Legge and David Chandler:
David Chandler and I have now published an Addendum to our paper "The Pentagon Attack on 9/11:
A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path"
The Addendum draws on two additional pieces of evidence to revise the calculations of bank angle and wing loading which would be required if the plane followed the curved path north of the Citgo service station. This strengthens the previous conclusions set out in the original paper. Previously the failure of the many witnesses to mention a steep bank was taken as proof that the curved path did not happen, while the survival of the aircraft, if it deviated round the service station, was regarded as unlikely. With this new analysis of the witness testimony, showing the plane was flying wings level near the Naval Annex, survival of the plane is now found to be absolutely impossible. There is thus no rational explanation of the event other than that the plane flew virtually straight past the Naval Annex and the service station to the impact point.
From Kevin Ryan's Blog:
Gofer and Trout: Questions on Two Flights Out of Andrews AFB on 9/11
Due to the incredible number of coincidences proposed by the official reports on the events of September 11, 2001, it makes good sense for citizens to question any improbable claims related to that day. We have been given at least two such odd stories about flights that left Andrews Air Force Base that morning. One represents a highly improbable flight path and the other has produced a contradiction in official accounts.
The first of these flights concerns a large military cargo plane, a C-130H, called Gofer 06. This plane was from the 133rd airlift wing of the Minnesota Air National Guard. The 9/11 Commission Report claims that the Gofer 06 pilot and crew were first-hand witnesses to the demise of both Flight 77 and Flight 93.
It was said that the C-130H pilot, Lt. Col Steve O’Brien, was returning from delivering supplies to the Carribean, which more specifically meant the U.S. Virgin Islands. Air Force Magazine recently reported that seven other crew members were on board, including copilot Maj. Robert Schumacher and flight engineer MSgt Jeff Rosenthal.[i]
The official timeline of this improbable flight begins as follows: Just after 09:30, Gofer 06 took off from Andrews AFB and Flight 77 flew “right in front of [it], a mile and a half, two miles away.”[ii] Air traffic controllers (ATCs) from Reagan National Airport (in Arlington, VA) asked the C-130H pilot to identify and follow the “suspicious aircraft.”[iii] According to the Commission report, Gofer 06 identified the aircraft as a Boeing 757 and, seconds after impact, Lt. Col. O’Brien said — “it looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.” In the recent Air Force Magazine article, Rosenthal claims that – ”We saw it crash into the Pentagon.”
"Do the orders still stand?" -- Military aide to Vice President Navy Capt. Douglas Cochrane
Was there a stand down on 9-11? In a sense yes, but there is no evidence that a stand down order was issued. There would be no reason for VP Cheney to issue a stand down order, since he issuing a shoot down order, would have the same effect. I will proceed to show this as a fact along with the disturbing fact that the President of the United States, and the Secretary of Defense, both deserted their posts in a time of war. These two individuals who are the only ones authorized to issue shoot down orders of civilian aircraft, created the stand down, by deserting their posts, and then further disgraced themselves, and their offices, by lying to the American people.
"On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country." - Pres G Bush
First - the players involved:
Condoleezza Rice -- National Security Adviser
Dick Cheney -- Vice President of the United States
Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense
George W Bush - President of the United States
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals imposed sanctions and penalties against attorneys involved in bringing forward a 9/11 Truther lawsuit, specifically for frivolous and vexatious appeals and motions. The suit, originally filed by a survivor of the Pentagon attack, accuses various U.S. leaders of conspiring to arrange the September 11 attacks. In addition to learning how hard it can be to convince a court of controversial subject matter, the lawyers discovered something more fundamental: If you’re upset that the judges on a federal circuit panel aren’t buying into your conspiracy theories, it might be wise to refrain from making bold accusations regarding their professionalism in your subsequent submissions—as it turns out, judges do read them and can be rather unamused.