The Truth Version 4.0
Geez, the troofers have more bug fixes than Microsoft. Frank Legge, one of the editors of the supposedly peer-reviewed Journal of 9/11 Studies, has now published the 4th version of his paper on the Pentagon, and says he might come out with a 5th. Now wasn't this paper supposed to be peer-reviewed before the first version? The thing is, it is still stupid.
Version 4. This version further developed some issues and corrected some errors. It also added thepreface to clarify the purpose of the paper and to answer some unfounded criticisms. Version 3 expanded the implications of publicly accepting or rejecting the official position that a 757 hit the Pentagon. I am very grateful for the help provided. All significant alterations have been identified and discussed in footnotes.Update: I figured I should throw this in, as it is related to this paper. After the first version came out, I e-mailed Legge asking him a question about a statement he had made. Here is part of the exchange:
Are you familiar with the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy?
"Why did the plane aim for the reinforced section, which still had few occupants due to the recent renovation? Would al Qaeda have wanted to minimize casualties? Why did it not hit the relatively weak roof? There were auditors in the damaged section who were investigating the loss of trillions of military dollars. Most of the auditors died, which has led to considerable speculation regarding motive. Who would wish to kill auditors?"
I am not asserting that this event is proof, but that it relates to the probability of foul play. So there is no fallacy.
It is just one more element in the list of odd things. The one I am most interested in is the use of explosives in the towers and WTC7. One could assert that al Qaeda placed the explosives so even that is not proof, but it relates to probability.
That is not what you said. You claimed that they aimed for that particular spot because of an importance that you placed on it after the fact. In fact the most probable explanation is simply because that is the side of the Pentagon the plane happened to be flying in from. Your argument is so incoherent even you cannot follow it.
Incidentally this whole "missing" $2.3 trillion thing has been widely misrepesented. It has nothing to do with Bush or Rumsfeld, and in fact was first mentioned in the press in March 2000, during the Clinton administration. You would think a peer-review would catch things like that.
Before going into any further details I have a couple of questions for you. What is your opinion about the twin towers? Were they brought down by explosives? If so, is that not rather odd, given that the NIST report denied the use of explosives?
I thought we were talking about the Pentagon. You can't defend your paper from more than 2 questions without having to switch to an entirely different subject? Some peer-review.
And no. I do not believe the towers were brought down with supermagicinvisiblesilentnanotherm*te. The truth burn guys couldn't even figure out how to bring down a 6 foot tall sign with thermite.
Glad I asked you that. Saves me a lot of time. Pointless to defend the Pentagon paper.
The section of his paper that I quoted at the beginning is actually no longer in the paper, it having disappeared somewhere in the last 3 versions. Legge gives no explanation for this. The conversation, unbelievably goes on from there and his logic gets even more strained.