Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Debate _ New Fdr Analysis By Frank Legge - Discussion

Posted by: Decalagon Jan 10 2011, 07:32 AM

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

I'm reading the document and I am still very doubtful about what it says. Someone can give me some information about that?
Thank you.

Posted by: Paul Jan 10 2011, 08:20 AM

QUOTE (Decalagon @ Jan 10 2011, 11:02 PM) *
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

I'm reading the document and I am still very doubtful about what it says. Someone can give me some information about that?
Thank you.


Dont worry i am sure you are not the only one, what a complete crock of bs that's all i have to say i am just waiting for Mr Balsamo and others much more qualified than meto tear the paper apart piece by piece along with any shred of credibility that Mr Frank Legge may have left intact i cant wait for it to begin, i am sure the detractors are having a great time right now running around screaming about how Mr Balsamo is wrong
while at the time attacking Pft & CIT and marching around boasting at the top of their voices how both oraginsations are full of frauds
mean while carrying on with their lame ass usual run of the mill character assasinations and so forth.

Just take this example from one 911blogger poster for starters

QUOTE
This refutes the Pilots for 9/11 Truth conclusion that Flight 77 was too high to have hit the Pentagon.

I commend Frank Legge and Warren Stutt for doing this necessary work. We needed more than a precautionary principle given the stakes-- we needed a scientific analysis of the FDR. Of course this is not a default to the official story-- it is a refutation of false claims. The Pentagon attack was an inside job for various other reasons.


Only in your wet dreams sonny jim, I bet you right now Mr Frank Legge is probably too busy tossing himself off over his newly published paper
along with all the other well known detractors who seem to gather together in massive bunches on certain well sites and enjoy self pleasuring
themselves while they try to make fun of us all and point and laugh and call us nutjobs fruitcakes tin foil hatters and so forth and whatever else they can come up with.

Maybe good old Robby boy can challenge Mr Legge to a real debate and watch him run and hide like a coward, because i am sure by the time they are finished debating Mr Legge would not even have a single Leg left to stand on in which to get up carry his sore away on.

laughing1.gif laughing1.gif whistle.gif whistle.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 10 2011, 08:24 AM

The most apparent error is that they assume Radio Height always measures the height above the ground. Wrong.

Pilots know that you can be flying at 31,000 feet and see a Radio Height of 1000 feet (i'll let that one bake the noodle of Warren and Legge for a bit).

Next, their altitude divergence is completely and utterly deceptive and wrong. First they use averages, then they source wiki under the wrong FAR as it pertains to altimeter errors, and third, they speculate altimeters errors on Transport Category Aircraft calibrated with an Air Data Computer increase at "low altitude".

The paper is loaded with pure speculation, littered with errors and peppered with misleading statements. Also notice that not one verified aviation professional has signed their name to it. Reading through the document, it is clear they didn't consult anyone with an aviation background. The most blatant error (which is essentially the foundation for their whole argument), is sourcing the wrong FAR, combined with the fact that their source (wiki) also quoted the FAR they did source, wrong.

If Legge and Stutt were correct, combined with actual allowable errors, this is a depiction of what would be happening daily around the world.



These are just some of the most glaring errors with the paper. There are many more.

Most of the paper was also debunked before it was even published. See here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10792964

Posted by: Paul Jan 10 2011, 08:35 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2011, 11:54 PM) *
The most apparent error is that they assume Radio Height always measures the height above the ground. Wrong.

Pilots know that you can be flying at 31,000 feet and see a Radio Height of 1000 feet (i'll let that one bake the noodle of Warren and Legge for a bit).

Next, their altitude divergence is completely and utterly deceptive and wrong. First they use averages, then they source wiki under the wrong FAR as it pertains to altimeter errors, and third, they speculate altimeters errors on Transport Category Aircraft calibrated with an Air Data Computer increase at "low altitude".

The paper is loaded with pure speculation, littered with errors and peppered with misleading statements. Also notice that not one verified aviation professional has signed their name to it. Reading through the document, it is clear they didn't consult anyone with an aviation background. The most blatant error (which is essentially the foundation for their whole argument), is sourcing the wrong FAR, combined with the fact that their source (wiki) also quoted the FAR they did source, wrong.

If Legge and Stutt were correct, combined with actual allowable errors, this is a depiction of what would be happening daily around the world.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QkCQ_-Id8zI?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QkCQ_-Id8zI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

These are just some of the most glaring errors with the paper. There are many more.

Most of the paper was also debunked before it was even published. See here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10792964


Just reading you reply already makes me laugh this is great too good, maybe you should publish a rebbutal paper
to his latest paper which claims, oh boy do i have to say it? Maybe i should start believing in fairy dust and fairies
if i am ever going to believe what the paper claims, no i have got a better idea just knock me over the head with a brick.

Dee Bunked already even before the paper is even published, and even just after it has just come out too good lmfao lol.

laughing1.gif laughing1.gif laughing1.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 10 2011, 08:38 AM

QUOTE (Paul @ Jan 10 2011, 08:20 AM) *
Maybe good old Robby boy can challenge Mr Legge to a real debate and watch him run and hide like a coward, because i am sure by the time they are finished debating Mr Legge would not even have a single Leg left to stand on in which to get up carry his sore away on.


Legge has already run from debate, several times.

He has also been informed of blatant errors in his last paper which he refuses to correct. He can now be officially classified as disinformation.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 10 2011, 08:42 AM

QUOTE (Paul @ Jan 10 2011, 08:35 AM) *
Just reading you reply already makes me laugh this is great too good, maybe you should publish a rebbutal paper
to his latest paper ...



There really isnt any need. He discredits himself just by publishing his own paper when real experts read it. Why waste time posting a full rebuttal?

If people ask, i'll point out the errors. I'd rather spend my time doing real research and finishing our next presentation on NORAD, ATC and Radar.

I hear even Tino (who adamantly disagreed with my work on the Flight Deck Door) has already blasted Legge as a "disgrace to the movement" after reading his paper.

Seems Legge is his own worst enemy.

Posted by: Paul Jan 10 2011, 08:59 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2011, 11:08 PM) *
Legge has already run from debate, several times.

He has also been informed of blatant errors in his last paper which he refuses to correct. He can now be officially classified as disinformation.


Thats soo funny several times, gee i wonder why he has refused to debate you several times already? i think the answer to that question is
pretty glaringly obvious dont you? Proves he is complete coward, a blatant shill, i think the only reason Mr Legge wrote this paper using the
decode work and assistance of Mr Stutt is 1.) To try and attack and attempt to discredit Pilotsfor911truth & CIT using a series of blatant lies & mis information 2.) To try and suck people into believing that the FDR data contained on the black box data recorder which is allegedly from AA Flight 77
provided to us by the NTSB supports the official story flight of flight 77 all the way up until impact and the anomalies contained there in are easily explainable and nothing to worry about.

Really on the last one i feel sorry for anyone who is dumb enough to get sucked into that black hole and anyone that does deserves to stay stuck
in their forever along with Mr Legge and all the rest of the idiots, we know who they all are.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 10 2011, 09:01 AM

I did a bit more reading around... even known 'debunkers' who have claimed to be pilots know that Legge's paper is garbage. Too funny.

Posted by: Paul Jan 10 2011, 09:03 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2011, 11:12 PM) *
There really isnt any need. He discredits himself just by publishing his own paper when real experts read it. Why waste time posting a full rebuttal?

If people ask, i'll point out the errors. I'd rather spend my time doing real research and finishing our next presentation on NORAD, ATC and Radar.

I hear even Tino (who adamantly disagreed with my work on the Flight Deck Door) has already blasted Legge as a "disgrace to the movement" after reading his paper.

Seems Legge is his own worst enemy.


You know what your right keep working on what you are doing can wait to see it when it comes out it will give the detractors something else
to chew on and it might even reign in some new support if we are really lucky just ignore the paid shill Mr Legge and sit back and point and laugh.

thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif

Posted by: SanderO Jan 10 2011, 09:11 AM

The problem is not that this is bogus research, but that too many people accept it. Then there is the fact that the site that publishes such bogus research discredits or taints all the other research they publish. If the "peer review" process at J911T is flawed, bogus, incompetent research all published and reviewed by that panel is ALSO suspect. This may be throwing the baby out with the bath water in a sense because there could conceivably be some decent work published by them. We just don't know. But it does undermine the authority of these "papers".

Why would anyone submit a paper to this group?

What say you?

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 10 2011, 09:57 AM

You raise a good point SanderO.

Being that i readily admit i am a layman when it comes to the WTC collapse, combined with the fact i have exposed their rather elementary mistakes and blatant errors in an area with which i do have expertise, one has to wonder what kind of blatant errors and mistakes they have made in their other papers. Especially when there are so many arguments against their theories on the WTC.

The fact that they refuse to consult us (or any aviation professional for that matter, at least, not one willing to put his name on the paper) prior to virtually attacking us and our work, is a blatant slap in the face, especially when their analysis is flat out wrong. When people come to me regarding the WTC, i usually refer them to the JO911S. I may have to rethink that position.

This is the second time Legge has done this. The first time, we had to spank him through 8+ revisions (of which more is needed but he refuses to correct). One would think he would have learned his lesson the first time. Guess not.

Posted by: Decalagon Jan 10 2011, 12:54 PM

Thanks at all for the answers, but I'd like to better understand the technical errors mentioned by Mr. Balsamo. I am aware of the fact that the unidentified flying object has traveled a route to the north of the light poles: for this reason I wanted to understand the bullshits (excuse the term) said by Frank Legge :-)

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 10 2011, 01:38 PM

QUOTE (Decalagon @ Jan 10 2011, 12:54 PM) *
Thanks at all for the answers, but I'd like to better understand the technical errors mentioned by Mr. Balsamo. I am aware of the fact that the unidentified flying object has traveled a route to the north of the light poles: for this reason I wanted to understand the bullshits (excuse the term) said by Frank Legge :-)


Well, you dont have to look very far to see a very clear technical error consisting of several errors. The first one is in their very first paragraph. All you have to do is look at their source.

Legge states 09:37:44 and 09:37:46 as the "[impact time] depending on source", sourcing the first 'impact time' from the NTSB via wiki, the second from the 911 Commission Report.

No one states an "impact" time of 09:37:44. Legge would know this if he actually read his sources.

Attention to detail is not one of Legge's strong suits (nor apparently anyone who "Peer-reviewed" his paper).

First, his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77#Crash as a "crash time" and wiki sources the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77#cite_note-fdr-32. This pdf says the recording ended at 09:37:44. This is true. This is not a time of "impact".

The http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm is the proper source for an "impact" time and the source used by all, this is what it states...



The above was calculated by the NTSB based on this...



Like the 9/11 Commission Report who sourced the NTSB for their "impact time" and got it wrong, Legge also has a problem with attention to detail.

Now, this may seem trivial, but it's not. This is the type of attention to detail that is lacking through every paper i have ever read that has been published by Legge and claimed to have undergone "Peer-Review". If I were to untangle each mangled mess Legge has made in his current paper, i would be typing for perhaps a week straight. I'm not going to waste my time when any real expert reading his paper can see that it is garbage and in fact only discredits the authors. Even those who support the govt story and claim to be pilots understand Legges' claims are bogus.

Again, just check through his sources (and the sources of his sources), especially regarding FAR's for altimeter errors (the crux of his paper), and you'll see where Legge has severely screwed the pooch.

Hope this helps.

Posted by: Decalagon Jan 10 2011, 02:12 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2011, 01:38 PM) *
Hope this helps.


thumbsup.gif

Thanks for the clarification.

However it was obvious that the content of this document was fake, since the facts (north path described by the eyewitnesses, the confession of the taxi driver Lloyd England, etc.) are in sharp contrast to the official version.

Posted by: Ligon Jan 10 2011, 02:17 PM

Over at Blogger Steven Jones, co-editor of The Journal of 9/11 Studies (JO911S), writes:

QUOTE
This research paper has undergone thorough peer-review prior to publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Thank you for this work, Dr. Legge and Warren Stutt.


This same "peer-review" claim was made last time Frank Legge published an article about the Pentagon in the JO911S, even though it contained a considerable amount of false and/or misleading information. After the initial publication of this supposedly "peer-reviewed" paper it subsequently underwent multiple revisions to correct errors, and yet even after those revisions it still contained key misinformation (more properly called disinformation since it was pointed out to him after Version 2, and he is now on Version 8) which remains to this day. Read all about that episode http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1036&view=findpost&p=2376511.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 10 2011, 02:22 PM

QUOTE (Ligon @ Jan 10 2011, 02:17 PM) *
Read all about that episode http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1036&view=findpost&p=2376511.



.... and http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18088&view=findpost&p=10777266.


Well said Ligon.


Decalagon, i also changed the title of this thread to better reflect the content. By the way, thanks for posting this here so we have a link to send others who ask. Welcome to the forum.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jan 10 2011, 03:24 PM

QUOTE (Ligon @ Jan 10 2011, 02:17 PM) *
Over at Blogger Steven Jones, co-editor of The Journal of 9/11 Studies (JO911S), writes:



This same "peer-review" claim was made last time Frank Legge published an article about the Pentagon in the JO911S, even though it contained a considerable amount of false and/or misleading information. After the initial publication of this supposedly "peer-reviewed" paper it subsequently underwent multiple revisions to correct errors, and yet even after those revisions it still contained key misinformation (more properly called disinformation since it was pointed out to him after Version 2, and he is now on Version 8) which remains to this day. Read all about that episode http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1036&view=findpost&p=2376511.

Just because something is peer reviewed, doesn't mean it passed. Besides, peer review doesn't mean much when you're getting your buddy to check your homework and both of you have an agenda.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jan 10 2011, 03:27 PM

QUOTE
I bet you right now Mr Frank Legge is probably too busy tossing himself off over his newly published paper
along with all the other well known detractors who seem to gather together in massive bunches on certain well sites and enjoy self pleasuring
themselves while they try to make fun of us all and point and laugh and call us nutjobs fruitcakes tin foil hatters and so forth and whatever else they can come up with.


In the meantime, they ban anyone that disagrees with them from their forums. It's easy to attack people and their work, when you won't let them defend themselves in an open forum. I guess that's one way to never lose an argument? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: SanderO Jan 10 2011, 03:37 PM

The peer review cited in 9/11 research is pretty pathetic and it makes a mockery of the peer review process.

Posted by: Decalagon Jan 10 2011, 07:00 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2011, 02:22 PM) *
Decalagon, i also changed the title of this thread to better reflect the content.


No problem ;-) thanks for welcome.

About the Legge's paper: I believe this is wrong because of the many eyewitnesses that describe the north path and for other reason. For example, the debris of the alleged American 77 have not been officially identified as belonging to Flight 77 or tail N644AA#, and there has been no attempt to reconstruct the plane as is usually the protocol during aircraft crash investigations. Correct me if I am wrong.
I also find it strange that these data "have been discovered" only now, after 9 years... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Jan 10 2011, 08:07 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2011, 02:38 PM) *
He can now be officially classified as disinformation.


Absolutely.

It's a team out of Australia. Stutt, Legge, and Bursill. Working in conjunction with the American and Canadian (Jeff Hill) counter parts. The movement is infested and they are desperately trying to contain the evidence/analyses from PFT/CIT.

What do we know about Warren Stutt? Absolutely nothing other than he is an identity that is supposed to be a debugger with a degree in computer science that posts on your forum, J.REF (the cesspool of supposed 9/11 Truth debunking), and works with "Dr." "Frank Legge" "PhD" to produce a paper to undermine PFT and their sterling, and truly peer-reviewed, analysis of the alleged Flt77 black box data while attempting to reinforce the official flight path to undermine the smoking gun evidence collected by us, CIT.

What do we know about Frank Legge's background? He's supposed to be a chemist with "Logical Systems Consulting" (alleged experience with Bio-Diesel Energy and Sheep)and has blended in well trying to act like a 9/11 Truth supporter and working with the CD crowd, but yet seems to step out his area of expertise and knowledge to CONTINUALLY AND PERSISTENTLY work to undermine CIT and PFT with (8+) drafts of "peer-reviewed" papers (what kind of peer-review allows for multiple mistakes?) containing overwhelming amounts of disinformation. Is he being influenced? His actions say otherwise.

What do we know about John Bursill? We know he too has tried to blend in with 9/11 Truthers working with the same crowd trying to cast doubt on CIT and PFT. Except he has had the gall to step into the light and debate Craig Ranke, lose the debate, concede he lost and concedes that he will not attack CIT any longer.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=942

Except in true bizarre, infiltrator/provocateur fashion he goes back to attacking us as if nothing he said matters. With bizarre, subversive behavior, one might expect to see some type of connections in his past to military/intelligence, sure enough right in his bio...

John has served his country as a member of the Australian Army Reserve over many years and finished up as acting Operations/Intelligence Sargent for 4/3 RNSWR.
Source: visibility911.com/johnbursill/about-john-bursill/

It's interesting Steven Jones steps out to support them and encourage everyone to go there, especially in light of his behavior with us. I will leave it at that.

Right now, it is a game of mental manipulation and they are using 'Appeal to Authority' to cast doubt by using a Phd and computer techno-jargon and a simple confidence by declaring it is proof of the impact on the official path. They are taking flawed, problematic gov't supplied data which does not prove an impact and are trying to use it to prove an impact. They refuse to acknowledge where they are wrong and instead try to use speculation as proof. Furthermore, this data would mean there is a serious Flight Safety issue and yet Stutt and Legge are only targeting 9/11 Truthers in a psyop, and not taking this supposed crucial find of an alleged bug to the aviation authorities. This proves their agenda is not genuine but instead is designed to target a specific audience.

Read Rob's responses and therein lies the truth.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 10 2011, 08:22 PM

QUOTE (Decalagon @ Jan 10 2011, 07:00 PM) *
No problem ;-) thanks for welcome.

About the Legge's paper: I believe this is wrong ....



The main and most glaring reason Legge is wrong, is the fact I am still alive, as well as all our Core members.

If Legge were right, We would have plowed into a runway long ago on a foggy night shooting approaches. And so would every other pilot who shoots those approaches (this is why even debunkers who claim to be pilots understand Legge's paper is garbage).

I remember one particular approach into Roanoke. Boy, I'm so glad Legge wasnt flying that approach. I'm sure my passengers are as well.

Those who think Legge is right, better never get on another airplane if your destination is calling for fog and/or low visibility. You'll die! (according to Legge and Warren Stutt).

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Jan 10 2011, 09:54 PM

It appears all the fake truth sites are deleting comments that support CIT and PFT and show Stutt and Legge are wrong.

Not surprising. There is definitely a campaign going on here.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Jan 10 2011, 10:03 PM

QUOTE (Decalagon @ Jan 10 2011, 05:54 PM) *
Thanks at all for the answers, but I'd like to better understand the technical errors mentioned by Mr. Balsamo. I am aware of the fact that the unidentified flying object has traveled a route to the north of the light poles: for this reason I wanted to understand the bullshits (excuse the term) said by Frank Legge :-)


Legge is trying as hard as he can to simply cast doubt.

He is hoping you will dismiss the witnesses who undeniably contradict the official story in favor of his spin and lies to support the official story based on govt provided evidence.

Yes it's transparent but Legge and his cohorts are desperate.

All they can hope to do at this point is influence the people who prefer to take their word for it instead of investigating for themselves or paying attention to both sides of the discussion.

Legge's deceptive papers really have no effect on anyone who actually views http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html so he is simply hoping that he convinces you to not bother watching it.

Posted by: KP50 Jan 10 2011, 11:02 PM

Legge works hard to link the SoC flightpath to the plane striking - so mathematically he counts everyone who thought the plane hit the Pentagon as a SoC flightpath witness and comes up with a figure greater than the NoC flightpath witness figure.

From a post on 9/11 Blogger (http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-01/joint-statement-pentagon-david-chandler-and-jon-cole)

QUOTE
CIT claims that their witnesses to north path, and therefore to overfly, are infallible because they have them on video. I have found an equal number of witnesses to impact, and therefore to south path, on video.

Legge also states in that same post
QUOTE
Roosevelt Roberts. Saw the plane pass over the light poles then heard impact and screaming. He is a witness to south pass and impact. CIT gives a different impression.

Roberts has clearly stated that explosion came first and then he saw a large plane - and from where he was situated, he would never have been able to see the plane prior to "impact" anyway - and so Legge is obviously believing the charlatans who twist and distort witness evidence while accusing CIT of doing the twisting and distorting.

Whatever his motives, it is a big call for a physics man and a computer geek to interpret FDR data - there are no great programming skills required to decode large amounts of data, just time and patience, but it takes a considerably different expertise to actually know what the data means.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jan 10 2011, 11:36 PM

QUOTE
CIT claims that their witnesses to north path, and therefore to overfly, are infallible because they have them on video. I have found an equal number of witnesses to impact, and therefore to south path, on video.


Man, I haven't even got the appropriate words to describe that "logic".

In a recent exchange between Chris "NOC impact or whatever" Sarns and Frank OCT Legge at 911B, both half-arsedly making their contradictory claims, John schizo Bursill interceded and said, "guys, you're on the same page" (!!!).

Legge also claimed on the same thread that Stutt's "data" showed a smooth descent by the VDOT mast through th lightpoles to the Pentagon. No it doesn't. It shows a path that goes by the Navy Annex, descending to a height of 4ft AGL before reaching Route 27, missing the poles, all the while executing a slight right tilt, completely ignoring the True Altitude and every single witness on record!

That sums up their agenda and "scientific method" right there. But they're going to push it nonetheless.

Posted by: Decalagon Jan 11 2011, 07:39 AM

QUOTE
If Legge were right, We would have plowed into a runway long ago on a foggy night shooting approaches


Understood. So, I will never take a plane piloted by Frank laugh.gif

Posted by: Paul Jan 12 2011, 12:41 AM

QUOTE (Ligon @ Jan 11 2011, 04:47 AM) *
Over at Blogger Steven Jones, co-editor of The Journal of 9/11 Studies (JO911S), writes:



This same "peer-review" claim was made last time Frank Legge published an article about the Pentagon in the JO911S, even though it contained a considerable amount of false and/or misleading information. After the initial publication of this supposedly "peer-reviewed" paper it subsequently underwent multiple revisions to correct errors, and yet even after those revisions it still contained key misinformation (more properly called disinformation since it was pointed out to him after Version 2, and he is now on Version 8) which remains to this day. Read all about that episode http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1036&view=findpost&p=2376511.


http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread648696/pg1

Look at all the replies already looks many have already been sucked into the deep dark black hole from which their is no return created Warren & Legge what a bunch of pathetic loosers, i hope Legge is happy with himself he has acheived what he has wanted to being a shill and a disinfo
agent, i bet he is reading all the replies right now jacking himself off all over his keyboard at the positive response from the all guillable idiots
and f4T & CIT haters his new paper has gotton so far.

blahblah1.gif blahblah1.gif yes1.gif yes1.gif doh1.gif doh1.gif

Posted by: tnemelckram Jan 15 2011, 06:10 PM

Hi All!

Here's three posts saying what I think of the Legge Paper. I haven't bothered to read it so maybe he has revised his approach to avoid some of this, which are broad conceptual problems with his approach, but I'll bet not all.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18088&view=findpost&p=10777284

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18088&view=findpost&p=10777287

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18088&view=findpost&p=10777290

Posted by: onesliceshort Jan 16 2011, 09:43 AM

QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Jan 16 2011, 12:10 AM) *
Hi All!

Here's three posts saying what I think of the Legge Paper. I haven't bothered to read it so maybe he has revised his approach to avoid some of this, which are broad conceptual problems with his approach, but I'll bet not all.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18088&view=findpost&p=10777284

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18088&view=findpost&p=10777287

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18088&view=findpost&p=10777290


Very useful links Mark. Particularly the first one.
I recommend people to refresh their memories of just how illogical and out of his depth Legge actually is.

Posted by: SanderO Jan 16 2011, 10:15 AM

While peer review is a sound approach to having qualified experts in a field review new research, the peer review process at Journal for 911 Studies is not peer review but simply having some other people who are not necessarily experts in the field review the research and pass on it. Not only that the reviewers are all pre disposed to supporting the work of their associates in many cases.

What the truth movement is doing is standing on the shoulders of the peer review concept as providing gravitas or validity to their work. It's really an abuse of the peer review concept... and nothing more than an appeal to authority (which is not there).

Bazant's work has been pretty much debunked at the 911 Free Forums - http://the911forum.freeforums.org - as well as faulty critiques of Bazant by James Gourley in the truth movement from Journal for 911 Studies. False critique of false claims! But that is what results when people who are not experts in one field decide to take on an "analysis" and put forth an hypothesis.

All scientific analysis must employ and obey the basic scientific principles. However, each individual discipline.. aeronautics, structure, engineering etc. has advanced set of principles, rules and so forth most of which have been derived from both theory and empirical data. One needs to have mastered these disciplines before one can argue with credibility any analysis within these disciplines. Much of the truth movement's claims tend to reduce complex esoteric data into broad scientific principles and come up with broad (inaccurate in some cases) conclusions. Why? One could suspect plants who are blowing smoke and confusing the issues. One could also attribute it to big egos. And perhaps it's a little of both.

Posted by: SwingDangler Jan 18 2011, 08:15 AM

Good day all. Nice job Rob on the Jesse show. I'm wondering why he didn't contact Craig or Aldo at CIT? Anyway, I posed some of the more interesting points over at Blogger as I'm not quite banned yet.

The biggest issue I see is that people outside their field of expertise are writing papers, calling it peer reviewed, and claming it as fact. I compared that to experts in their field having a peer reviewed paper published in a mainstream journal. And now more than ever I'm convinced that 9/11 blogger is a blockade to anything but official story regarding the Pentagon. Sure, we all know the air defense should have interecepted whatever was wondering in the skies that morning, and we all know why that part of the Pentagon was attacked, and yet to suggest anything other than the official story, your voted down immeditely. That is too bad because that site use to be a great tool and resource.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 18 2011, 09:58 AM

Hi SD, good to see ya!

Feel free to send an invite to those at Blogger who wish to discuss the paper and its numerous errors, without censorship. None of them are banned here.

Post a link to this thread.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 19 2011, 02:13 AM

I was a bit bored tonight and went over to Blogger to see how they're making out without any real experts, sure enough, Legge continues to make a fool of himself.

Frank says...


"Pilots do not depend on the pressure altimeter as they approach the runway...... Instrument pilots use radio height."


Gotta love it... a Chemist trying to tell a Certified Flight Instructor, Instrument Instructor and Multiengine Instructor, how approaches are flown. I guess all those students i had which passed their Check rides (many now flying for airlines themselves), were taught completely wrong information and should have instead listened to a Chemist.

I then sent this email to Frank, Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones.

QUOTE
Frank,

A Radio Altimeter isnt even required for Instrument Flight. Many planes which are IFR Certified do not have a Radio Altimeter.

If your "altitude divergence" was correct, planes would be plowing into the runway daily on foggy approaches. The Baro Altimeter is required, it is the Primary altimeter for use with Category I ILS Instrument approaches, and is used daily. Radio Altimeters are not used on Category I ILS. They can't be, because they arent accurate, especially with rolling terrain or terrain with building, trees, or other objects along the approach.

You may want to stop telling others how aircraft are flown and let the real pilots handle it before you look more a fool.

Please find the required equipment below for Instrument Flight from the FAR's. Please pay particular attention to number 5. Note, the Baro altimeter is required, a Radio Altimeter not. And you call your paper "peer-reviewed"? Now that's laughable.

The reason you are seeing an "altitude divergence" is because the Radio Altimeter is not measuring from the ground. That was your first major error. And if you had your paper actually "peer-reviewed" by a real pilot, they would have told you that Radio Height does not guarantee your height above ground.

Good luck!

Subpart C—Equipment, Instrument, and Certificate Requirements

(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required:

(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph of this section.

(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.

(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft:

(i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance with the instrument requirements prescribed in 121.305(j) of this chapter; and

(4) Slip-skid indicator.

(5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure.

(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation.

(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.

(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).

(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).



Frank may also want to look at an actual ILS Approach plate.

Here is one from Dulles.

This is the Profile View and Minimums Section of the approach plate. It tells you the altitude you're allowed to descend to before either continuing for landing, or breaking off for a missed approach. You must see at least the "rabbit"(ALSF) to continue another 100 feet below these minimums, you must have the runway environment in sight to land (Full approach lights, runway lights... etc).



(here is the full approach plate - http://www.fltplan.com/AwDisplayAppChart.exe?CRN10=1&CARRYUNAME=PILOT&DEPTARPT=KIAD&ARRARPT=XPTG&TYPECHART=05100IL1R.PDF&END=END&WINDOW=YES)

Look at S-ILS 1R in the left margin.

These are the minimums for a Straight in approach to ILS Runway 1 Right at Dulles.

You'll see a 512/18 followed by a 200 then (200 - 1/2)

The 512 is your "minimums". This is directly referenced from your primary altimeter, the Barometric altimeter and is your height above sea level at Minimums. The 18 means forward visibility in hundreds. 1800 feet is required visibility for Airliners (Part 121/135) to shoot the approach, but not for private/corporate aircraft.. .etc, this is a little over 1/4 mile in fog. This is based on RVR measurements from equipment on the side of the runway (Runway Visual Range). The 200 means this is your height above the Touch Down Zone Elevation (TDZE) at 512 feet MSL (note, this is NOT your height above the ground you are flying over, at that point on the approach). The (200 - 1/2) means it is a standard 200 and 1/2 Category 1 ILS. The Airport could be actually calling "Zero/Zero" in fog (Zero ceiling, Zero visibility) and Corporate Aircraft (Part 91) can shoot the approach to go down and take a "look-see". If they dont see the lights at "Minimums" (512 MSL), they must execute a missed approach.

All altitudes and callouts are referenced from your "Baro Altimeter" during the approach.... (i call it a Baro altimeter here for the layman, it's really referred to as your Primary Altimeter, or just plainly "The Altimeter").

When you get down to 512 MSL, if you see the approach lights, you can continue another 100 feet. If you go down another 100 feet (now 412 MSL... 100 TDZE) and dont see the runway environment, you must execute a missed approach.

If Legge was correct with his "altitude divergence" of more than 80+ feet, up to an error of almost 124 feet, not only would pilots be busting minimums daily... but worse, there would be many crashes. Pilots on approaches in low visibility would be calling "minimums" at 512 feet thinking they were 200 feet above the runway TDZE, but they would really be as low as 120-80 feet above the runway (Minimums Busted, Expect a call from the FAA). If they saw some approach lights, they would continue down another 100 feet hoping to see the runway. Again, all this is based on referencing the Primary Altimeter, the "Baro Altimeter". They would continue down another 100 feet thinking they were 200 feet above the runway, but according to Legge, they would really only be 120-80 feet above the runway. If the visibility were low enough, they would slam into the runway before they even called "Missed Approach" thinking they were almost 100 feet higher.

Now, this is for a Cat I ILS. Cat II makes it worse. Most Cat II approaches do reference the RA when you get that low and there are certain requirements when that low, specifically a runway clearway zone so you know for a fact that the RA is measuring from nothing but grass (and not trees, buildings, etc...), but RA is not required for a Cat II under Part 91. If shooting a Cat II with referencing the Primary Altimeter only, pilots would be calling "minimums" at almost 50-100 feet below the pavement, if Legge were correct.

The only way to tell what the RA is measuring from (a building, trees... other objects...) is to check it against your Primary Altimeter as you have a solid reference for this height, which is from sea level. Final MSL height in the "extra" data Warren decoded shows 174' MSL (above sea level), RA shows 4'. This can only mean the RA was bouncing off an object higher than ground level and the MSL height shows too high to hit the Pentagon.

End of story.

Posted by: SwingDangler Jan 19 2011, 10:14 AM

Long time no chat, gents. As an associate member of PFT and long time supporter, I have yet to be banned at 9/11 Blogger. As a result, I've garnered some attention from Legge over there regarding his perception of flying.

QUOTE
Regarding the question of aviation experts being highly skilled at understanding the arguments, I need only draw your attention to the calculation by Rob Balsamo that g-force would have destroyed the plane on approach to the Pentagon. It only takes high school maths to show that his calculation is so far out as to be laughable.

Equally surprising is Balsamo's comment:
"If Legge were right, We would have plowed into a runway long ago on a foggy night shooting approaches. And so would every other pilot who shoots those approaches (this is why even debunkers who claim to be pilots understand Legge's paper is garbage."

Pilots do not depend on the pressure altimeter as they approach the runway. Visual pilots look at the runway to judge when to commence the flare. The idea of taking your eyes off the runway to look at the altimeter at this critical moment would be absurd! Eyes are better than altimeters for landing. Instrument pilots use radio height or ILS with glide slope. Ground proximity warnings are generated by radio height, not by the altimeter. Automated landings do not depend on the altimeter alone. Nobody cares whether the altimeter is accurate near the ground. There is no need to check it. Everybody knows that radio height, accurate to about 1 foot, is the thing to depend on. The accuracy of the altimeter can never be anything like that.

There is however one situation in which radio height would not be safe to use by itself until the plane was over the runway. That would be the case if the ground sloped upward steeply before the runway. ILS with glide slope could still be used. This would be specified in the landing procedures for that airport.

It is also important to note that our paper does not say that all aircraft suffer divergence between pressure altitude and radio altitude as they descend to land. Perhaps it is only Boeing 757s. Perhaps it is only the particular plane that hit the Pentagon. We found the divergence in all the 12 flights of that plane on the file. 12 out of 12 seems pretty consistent.


I'd like your response to his comment above. Thanks all and great job on Ventura's show!

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 19 2011, 10:30 AM

It appears Frank made some edits to that post after i sent him the email and made my post above yours, clearly he is now trying to weasel his way out of his mistakes. He's only made it worse... wish i took a screenshot.

Here's an example. It looks like he added the bold here....

"Instrument pilots use radio height or ILS with glide slope."


The sentence stopped at "Instrument pilots use radio height" in his original post (see my post above yours). It appears Frank added - "... or ILS with glide slope." Clearly he added this in an attempt to weasel his way out of looking like a fool after I posted the approach plate above and notified him that a Radio Altimeter is not required for Instrument flight, but it only made him look more like a fool.

Basically, Frank is now saying Instrument pilots can use Radio Height alone to shoot Instrument approaches, OR an ILS with Glide slope [and a "Baro Altimeter"].

So, i guess if an aircraft is equipped with a Radio Altimeter, an Instrument pilot can just barrel his way on down into the soup without any vertical or lateral guidance whatsoever? Wow! I'd like to see you try that Frank.

Frank, the only time RA is used on an approach, is WITH an ILS, if you're so equipped. There is no "or" about it.

Most of Legge's BS was addressed in the post above yours, but thanks for posting it as i forgot to address this.... (well, I already addressed it with Legge, many times, but he still doesnt get it....).

Frank says...

"I need only draw your attention to the calculation by Rob Balsamo that g-force would have destroyed the plane on approach to the Pentagon. It only takes high school maths to show that his calculation is so far out as to be laughable."


That is exactly the problem with Frank. He is using High School math, not aerodynamics.



The above is for a 767, reduce the speeds by 10 knots for a 757.

Frank, what does it say all the way to the right at 1 G? That's right grasshopper, it says "Structural Failure". Very good!

Frank, can you guess what that big Yellow "Caution" zone is? Do you know how it is derived? After reading your paper, clearly you don't.

This is the best part....

Nobody cares whether the altimeter is accurate near the ground. There is no need to check it.


Quick, someone alert the FAA to re-write every approach plate Missed Approach Point that has ever been made! While you're at it, alert every Airline, Regional, LCC, National, Military, Corporate, Charter, Flight School, to Private Pilot... to change their Standard Operating Procedures for checking altimeter accuracy on the ground, prior to each departure.

Frank Legge is his own worst enemy.... too funny.

Posted by: SwingDangler Jan 19 2011, 02:14 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 17 2011, 02:30 PM) *
It appears Frank made some edits to that post after i sent him the email and made my post above yours, clearly he is now trying to weasel his way out of his mistakes. He's only made it worse... wish i took a screenshot.

Here's an example. It looks like he added the bold here....

"Instrument pilots use radio height or ILS with glide slope."


The sentence stopped at "Instrument pilots use radio height" in his original post (see my post above yours). It appears Frank added - "... or ILS with glide slope." Clearly he added this in an attempt to weasel his way out of looking like a fool after I posted the approach plate above and notified him that a Radio Altimeter is not required for Instrument flight, but it only made him look more like a fool.

Basically, Frank is now saying Instrument pilots can use Radio Height alone to shoot Instrument approaches, OR an ILS with Glide slope [and a "Baro Altimeter"].

So, i guess if an aircraft is equipped with a Radio Altimeter, an Instrument pilot can just barrel his way on down into the soup without any vertical or lateral guidance whatsoever? Wow! I'd like to see you try that Frank.

Frank, the only time RA is used on an approach, is WITH an ILS, if you're so equipped. There is no "or" about it.

Most of Legge's BS was addressed in the post above yours, but thanks for posting it as i forgot to address this.... (well, I already addressed it with Legge, many times, but he still doesnt get it....).

Frank says...

"I need only draw your attention to the calculation by Rob Balsamo that g-force would have destroyed the plane on approach to the Pentagon. It only takes high school maths to show that his calculation is so far out as to be laughable."


That is exactly the problem with Frank. He is using High School math, not aerodynamics.



The above is for a 767, reduce the speeds by 10 knots for a 757.

Frank, what does it say all the way to the right at 1 G? That's right grasshopper, it says "Structural Failure". Very good!

Frank, can you guess what that big Yellow "Caution" zone is? Do you know how it is derived? After reading your paper, clearly you don't.

This is the best part....

Nobody cares whether the altimeter is accurate near the ground. There is no need to check it.


Quick, someone alert the FAA to re-write every approach plate Missed Approach Point that has ever been made! While you're at it, alert every Airline, Regional, LCC, National, Military, Corporate, Charter, Flight School, to Private Pilot... to change their Standard Operating Procedures for checking altimeter accuracy on the ground, prior to each departure.

Frank Legge is his own worst enemy.... too funny.


Thanks Rob, I appreciate. My deceased grandfather who was a AT-6 Texan pilot trainer for WW2 pilots and an FAA Flight Examiner for the State of Indiana would be laughing in his grave. Nevermind, he has been laughing since the first revision.

I fully expect to be banned over there very soon. smile.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 19 2011, 03:06 PM

QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Jan 19 2011, 02:14 PM) *
I fully expect to be banned over there very soon. smile.gif



It's a badge of honor nowadays. The list gets longer by the day.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20721&view=findpost&p=10790766

I wouldnt be surprised if they have banned more "Truthers" than JREF by now. lol.

I heard they recently banned Tino as well, for attempting to correct and explain the Radio Altimeter to John Bursill. What a joke.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jan 19 2011, 03:34 PM

QUOTE
That's right grasshopper...


laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Sometimes I feel like I'm in The Twilight Zone when I see Leggy making assertions with no knowledge at all.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 19 2011, 03:43 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 19 2011, 03:34 PM) *
laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Sometimes I feel like I'm in The Twilight Zone when I see Leggy making assertions with no knowledge at all.


As I said, Legge is his own worst enemy. Although, he has been a great help in providing comic relief for my phone calls with people like Capt Ralph Kolstad, Capt Rusty Aimer... Capt Jeff Latas.

With that said, i forgot to address this part of Legge's rant....


It is also important to note that our paper does not say that all aircraft suffer divergence between pressure altitude and radio altitude as they descend to land. Perhaps it is only Boeing 757s. Perhaps it is only the particular plane that hit the Pentagon. We found the divergence in all the 12 flights of that plane on the file. 12 out of 12 seems pretty consistent.


Seems Legge missed this part in the email I sent to him....

QUOTE
The reason you are seeing an "altitude divergence" is because the Radio Altimeter is not measuring from the ground. That was your first major error. And if you had your paper actually "peer-reviewed" by a real pilot, they would have told you that Radio Height does not guarantee your height above ground.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 20 2011, 11:40 AM

I briefly went over to Blogger today to see if they corrected any of their mistakes and/or finally got some actual "peer-review" from a real expert. As expected, zero, zilch, nada.

But i did find some questions raised by some anonymous idiot who doesnt have a clue or the courage to come here and "debate" (although mostly he just offers personal attacks) face to face.

I'll just go over these quickly.

* Does the fact that the FDR was found inside the Pentagon support Legge's analysis?


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/FDR_location_091607.html

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/location_2

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=11066

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10792933



* Does it confirm the height reported in the now recovered missing frames?


No.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10778240

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20960&view=findpost&p=10793490

* That catastrophic deceleration seen in the FDR data, what's it for? To surf the fireball?


1 G is "catastrophic"? Really now... You better not hit your brakes too hard in your car or you might crush your delicate body.

A -1 G acceleration can be caused by many things. Including speed brakes and pulling the Thrust Lever's to idle. You know... ummm.. to perhaps tighten your turn radius? Actually, you wouldn't know this, as you are not a real pilot nor have any real or veified aviation expert on your side. Keep an eye on our http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core, I have another major update coming i just havent had time yet to publish.

* When will you, CIT and P4T stop this insanity?


When are you, Legge and the JO911S going to get a real and verified expert to "peer-review" your "work"? Beachnut is your "expert"?? Really? A guy who can't distinguish between a http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20979&view=findpost&p=10793515? (By the way, I'm still very current and qualified. You should really stop listening to and quoting anonymous JREFer's. But as the old saying goes, "... if it quacks like a duck..."... you must be a duck...)


When is Legge going to correct his numerous errors and logical fallacies? He should start with correcting his last paper first.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18088&view=findpost&p=10777266

His new paper is just piling on the errors and mistakes as pointed out and well sourced right here in this thread.

I said it before but it needs repeating.

It is interesting that a person like Frank Legge, someone who is highly critical and skeptical of the NIST data and reports, is now attempting to use unverified data from another govt agency to support the govt story regarding a Pentagon impact. Legge's motives are even more puzzling especially when that data in fact conflicts with an impact, performance limitations set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing, and precedent.

Again... ".. if it quacks like a duck..."

Posted by: SwingDangler Jan 20 2011, 01:25 PM

Thanks, Rob. His latest logic...

QUOTE
After quoting my website you say:

"If I follow your logic correctly, you suggest the authorities decided long ago to withold evidence, not follow proper procedures, etc. to cause in fighting among truthers within a movement that did not exist until years after the event. Great forsight on behalf of the perps or an illogical squence to cast doubt on anything other than the official story?"
Do you not think that the perpetraters, who spent millions of dollars on 9/11, would not have done some forward planning? It makes perfect sense to conclude that they would have given thought to the fact that many people would become suspicious. They were right. What better way to weaken the arguments of those who were suspicious than by having them argue against one another.


He literral things the authoriteis did not follow proper protocol, withheld evidence, etc. to prove infighting among truthers today. My gawd...I could just as easily say they faked the entire FDR to cause infighting among truthers. Geez and this guy has a Phd. I have a feeling they are going to ban me soon after I address the rest of the attacks after work.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 20 2011, 02:16 PM

lol.... I see Legge is claiming Steven Jones tried to email about my calculations. Well, no he hasnt.


Matter of fact, i sent this email to Steven over a week ago, no reply yet...

QUOTE
From:
"Pilots For Truth" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>
View contact details
To:
"Steven Jones" <hardevidence@gmail.com>


Hi Steven,

I was sent a link to Kevin's post at 911Blogger regarding Legge's latest paper. You had commented that the paper was "Peer Reviewed".


May I ask who "Peer reviewed" the paper?

The reason I ask is that clearly they are not well versed on Federal Aviation Regulations nor Altimeter Errors, nor everyday arrivals. This is just one example and a gross error, considering the foundation of the paper. We may cover more blatant errors if Frank ever learns of his gross error. Although I doubt he will as his last paper still argues the "hijackers" could have used CWS to aid in control, after already being informed CWS can do no such thing, not to mention it wasn't even installed on the aircraft reported.

Sourcing wiki with an incorrect quote, combined with the incorrect FAR, as the basis for their whole theory, will only serve to discredit yourself for any real aviator who looks at the paper.

Just a heads up because I still respect you and I would hate to see your work be questioned by those who once supported it.

Legge and Ryan have lost my respect and the respect of many of my peers long ago. Hopefully you will reconsider.

Feel free to call anytime if you would like a more thorough explanation.

xxx-xxx-xxxx

Rob

BCC:

P4T Core members


If Steven does contact me, I'll be happy to explain to him our calculations. Just as I did with Dwain Deets and others. They get it. I'm sure Steven will too, once explained.

I tried to explain it to Legge many times, he doesnt get it. He never will.

(By the way, they arent just "my calculations", they were done in consultation with Aeronautical Engineer Capt Jeff Latas).

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Jan 20 2011, 03:40 PM

QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Jan 20 2011, 07:25 PM) *
Thanks, Rob. His latest logic...

QUOTE

After quoting my website you say:

"If I follow your logic correctly, you suggest the authorities decided long ago to withold evidence, not follow proper procedures, etc. to cause in fighting among truthers within a movement that did not exist until years after the event. Great forsight on behalf of the perps or an illogical squence to cast doubt on anything other than the official story?"

Do you not think that the perpetraters, who spent millions of dollars on 9/11, would not have done some forward planning? It makes perfect sense to conclude that they would have given thought to the fact that many people would become suspicious. They were right. What better way to weaken the arguments of those who were suspicious than by having them argue against one another.


He literral things the authoriteis did not follow proper protocol, withheld evidence, etc. to prove infighting among truthers today. My gawd...I could just as easily say they faked the entire FDR to cause infighting among truthers. Geez and this guy has a Phd. I have a feeling they are going to ban me soon after I address the rest of the attacks after work.


Wow. So they created problems in their FDR, created fake witnesses or a "citizen" investigation team to somehow fake or force a faking of testimony all of which points to or proves an inside job so astute "PhD's", not in anything aviation related mind you, can come about years later and say that the the gov't supplied data which was problematic to begin with now proves an impact( which it obviously doesn't) and that they did all this so we can sit around and argue.

No, what I think is Frank Legge "Phd" and Warren Stutt "Phd" are part of the same Australian intelligence team that John Bursill is a part of that have infiltrated the truth movement. They think because they have a PhD after their name, are from Australia, and work with other supposed "truthers" that you will believe the "disagreement". There is no disagreement. There is no doubt. There is no controversy. It is all manufactured to give the "impression".

Take John Bursill for instance, he helps put on the Australian "Hard Evidence Tour". Not for the truth movement. But for credibility. Of course who do we see on their panel, sockmaster and anonymous bearded infiltrator "Cosmos" one of the many caretakers at 911blogger, Frank Legge, Visibility 9/11. Same people attacking and spreading ABSOLUTE DISINFORMATION about CIT and PFT, the same people who have been running from discussions with us. Of course, Bursill was used to attack PFT because he is an "aircraft mechanic" and of course he was also used to attack CIT except he was bold enough to take on Craig Ranke in a phone debate in which he made many, many concessions going so far as to even admitting he lost the debate...

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=942

Sure enough he goes right back to attacking us in some bizarre twilight zone move only an operative set on subversive behavior and confusing and confounding would do. Sure, you say, but he is an aircraft mechanic! Do you have any proof that he has any military or intelligence ties, Aldo?! In fact I do...

QUOTE
About John Bursill

John Bursill (Born 1968) is a Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer based in Sydney Australia working on Boeing Aircraft and is qualified in Avionics (Elect/Inst/Radio) on the 767, 747 and 737 series aircraft. He is a family man and involved with numerous community events and organisations. John has served his country as a member of the Australian Army Reserve over many years and finished up as acting Operations/Intelligence Sargent for 4/3 RNSWR. John considers himself a true patriot of his country and a supporter of the US alliance in the sense of us together supporting national security, freedom and justice throughout the world.

visibility911.com/johnbursill/about-john-bursill/


It's the exact reason why they won't let PFT/CIT respond on 911blogger and elsewhere and why they all refuse to come here on our forum.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 20 2011, 04:08 PM

New article just published in part as a response to Legge and Stutts paper.

Now available here....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20999

It's also running front page.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org

Spread it everywhere!

Posted by: SwingDangler Jan 21 2011, 01:43 PM

Hey where do I get my official "Banned From 9/11 Blogger" Uniform at? I just spent the last 30 minutes shredding Frank's stupid logic and correcting Loose_Nuke's Roberts account. And tada, none of my comments show up.

Oh well, they have really showed their cards surrounding the Pentagon event. I didn't want to believe the Mods over there were gate keepers, but that is exactly what they are. I suspect that is why there is such a disconnect there between the WTC event and the Pentagon event over there.

Posted by: SwingDangler Jan 21 2011, 01:46 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Jan 18 2011, 07:40 PM) *
He literral things the authoriteis did not follow proper protocol, withheld evidence, etc. to prove infighting among truthers today. My gawd...I could just as easily say they faked the entire FDR to cause infighting among truthers. Geez and this guy has a Phd. I have a feeling they are going to ban me soon after I address the rest of the attacks after work.


Wow. So they created problems in their FDR, created fake witnesses or a "citizen" investigation team to somehow fake or force a faking of testimony all of which points to or proves an inside job so astute "PhD's", not in anything aviation related mind you, can come about years later and say that the the gov't supplied data which was problematic to begin with now proves an impact( which it obviously doesn't) and that they did all this so we can sit around and argue.

No, what I think is Frank Legge "Phd" and Warren Stutt "Phd" are part of the same Australian intelligence team that John Bursill is a part of that have infiltrated the truth movement. They think because they have a PhD after their name, are from Australia, and work with other supposed "truthers" that you will believe the "disagreement". There is no disagreement. There is no doubt. There is no controversy. It is all manufactured to give the "impression".

Take John Bursill for instance, he helps put on the Australian "Hard Evidence Tour". Not for the truth movement. But for credibility. Of course who do we see on their panel, sockmaster and anonymous bearded infiltrator "Cosmos" one of the many caretakers at 911blogger, Frank Legge, Visibility 9/11. Same people attacking and spreading ABSOLUTE DISINFORMATION about CIT and PFT, the same people who have been running from discussions with us. Of course, Bursill was used to attack PFT because he is an "aircraft mechanic" and of course he was also used to attack CIT except he was bold enough to take on Craig Ranke in a phone debate in which he made many, many concessions going so far as to even admitting he lost the debate...

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=942

Sure enough he goes right back to attacking us in some bizarre twilight zone move only an operative set on subversive behavior and confusing and confounding would do. Sure, you say, but he is an aircraft mechanic! Do you have any proof that he has any military or intelligence ties, Aldo?! In fact I do...



It's the exact reason why they won't let PFT/CIT respond on 911blogger and elsewhere and why they all refuse to come here on our forum.


Can you believe that??! They use the exact same logic that debunkers do to support the official Pentagon story. It was all planned to be faked long ago to cause disruption in the truth movement. CIT. Faked. Anamolies at the crash scene. Faked. FDR. Faked.
It is the grand conspiracy in reverse. So many were in on it can't be believed. Instead of the logical they are covering up the truth.

Gate Keepers anyone?? thumbdown.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 21 2011, 02:46 PM

QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Jan 21 2011, 01:43 PM) *
Hey where do I get my official "Banned From 9/11 Blogger" Uniform at? I just spent the last 30 minutes shredding Frank's stupid logic and correcting Loose_Nuke's Roberts account. And tada, none of my comments show up.

Oh well, they have really showed their cards surrounding the Pentagon event. I didn't want to believe the Mods over there were gate keepers, but that is exactly what they are. I suspect that is why there is such a disconnect there between the WTC event and the Pentagon event over there.



lol... they're so predictable.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jan 21 2011, 03:49 PM

QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Jan 21 2011, 07:43 PM) *
Hey where do I get my official "Banned From 9/11 Blogger" Uniform at? I just spent the last 30 minutes shredding Frank's stupid logic and correcting Loose_Nuke's Roberts account. And tada, none of my comments show up.

Oh well, they have really showed their cards surrounding the Pentagon event. I didn't want to believe the Mods over there were gate keepers, but that is exactly what they are. I suspect that is why there is such a disconnect there between the WTC event and the Pentagon event over there.


Here ya go mate..



cheers.gif

Posted by: wstutt Jan 25 2011, 08:59 AM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Jan 16 2011, 02:07 AM) *
<snip>
Furthermore, this data would mean there is a serious Flight Safety issue and yet Stutt and Legge are only targeting 9/11 Truthers in a psyop, and not taking this supposed crucial find of an alleged bug to the aviation authorities. This proves their agenda is not genuine but instead is designed to target a specific audience.

<snip>
That's incorrect Aldo. Read http://www.warrenstutt.com/NTSBUpdateLetter29-12-10/index.html. An earlier letter I wrote to the NTSB was referenced in the paper.

Warren.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jan 25 2011, 09:52 AM

Warren, have any of the following been made "redundant" from the last time we spoke?






Posted by: wstutt Jan 25 2011, 08:17 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 30 2011, 03:52 PM) *
Warren, have any of the following been made "redundant" from the last time we spoke?

<snip images>
No, I don't think so OSS. Why would they?

Warren.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jan 25 2011, 09:54 PM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 26 2011, 02:17 AM) *
No, I don't think so OSS. Why would they?

Warren.


Ah, just that Frank Legge claims that your data show the aircraft descending smoothly by the VDOT Tower, through the lightpoles and towards "impact" (words to that affect).

I see a plotted path in your own images, running from south to north of Columbia Pike, just past the Annex and the data finishing (0.7 secs prior to) before reaching Route 27, missing the necessary directional damage path, with the last RADALT reading at 4ft and no left bank recorded.

I remember you once acknowledged that (sorry if it's not word for word), your own data had no bearing on the lightpoles or "impact".

Have I missed where these circumstances have now changed?

OSS

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jan 25 2011, 11:15 PM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 25 2011, 02:59 AM) *
That's incorrect Aldo. Read http://www.warrenstutt.com/NTSBUpdateLetter29-12-10/index.html. An earlier letter I wrote to the NTSB was referenced in the paper.

Warren.

Thank's for posting the link.

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 25 2011, 03:54 PM) *
Ah, just that Frank Legge claims that your data show the aircraft descending smoothly by the VDOT Tower, through the lightpoles and towards "impact" (words to that affect).

I see a plotted path in your own images, running from south to north of Columbia Pike, just past the Annex and the data finishing (0.7 secs prior to) before reaching Route 27, missing the necessary directional damage path, with the last RADALT reading at 4ft and no left bank recorded.

I remember you once acknowledged that (sorry if it's not word for word), your own data had no bearing on the lightpoles or "impact".

Have I missed where these circumstances have now changed?

OSS

Sorry for intervening into this.

But doesn't it look a bit
like Mr. Legge directs this "5gon hit"
piece/show
and Mr. Stutt is in tow?

Posted by: onesliceshort Jan 25 2011, 11:31 PM

QUOTE
Sorry for intervening into this.

But doesn't it look a bit
like Mr. Legge directs this "5gon hit"
piece/show
and Mr. Stutt is in tow?


I'm just genuinely confused as to why the sudden change in Warren's stance.
He had always proclaimed himself to be "neutral" regarding impact/flyover and that he was just showing what he had found on the FDR dataset regardless of what conclusions may be reached. Rob has for years imparted his aviation knowledge on any question Warren asked him.
Now, Frank Legge has claimed that the data demonstrates the official path and "impact" to a tee and Warren has signed onto Legge's paper.

I'd like to know why the dramatic change in stance by Warren given that his data doesn't show what Legge claims and his previous statements on this.

Posted by: wstutt Jan 26 2011, 01:05 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 31 2011, 03:54 AM) *
Ah, just that Frank Legge claims that your data show the aircraft descending smoothly by the VDOT Tower, through the lightpoles and towards "impact" (words to that affect).

I see a plotted path in your own images, running from south to north of Columbia Pike, just past the Annex and the data finishing (0.7 secs prior to) before reaching Route 27, missing the necessary directional damage path, with the last RADALT reading at 4ft and no left bank recorded.

<snip>

OSS,

That earlier plotted path was from the positions as recorded in the FDR file. As the paper explains, we adjusted the positions to match the time and position of impact. Many positions recorded in the FDR file are offset from their true positions. The positions recorded for the takeoff from Dulles are not even on a runway. As explained in the paper, we also adjusted the positions for the landings so that they would show the aircraft turning off on to a taxiway rather than on to grass.

Warren.

Posted by: wstutt Jan 26 2011, 01:37 AM

OSS,

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 31 2011, 05:31 AM) *
I'm just genuinely confused as to why the sudden change in Warren's stance.
He had always proclaimed himself to be "neutral" regarding impact/flyover and that he was just showing what he had found on the FDR dataset regardless of what conclusions may be reached. Rob has for years imparted his aviation knowledge on any question Warren asked him.
Now, Frank Legge has claimed that the data demonstrates the official path and "impact" to a tee and Warren has signed onto Legge's paper.
Well, remaining neutral http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18453, so when Frank Legge asked me if I wanted to be listed as a co-author on the paper I had been helping him with, I agreed.

QUOTE
I'd like to know why the dramatic change in stance by Warren given that his data doesn't show what Legge claims and his previous statements on this.
If you are referring to the corrected positions, then see my previous post.

Warren.

Posted by: albertchampion Jan 26 2011, 02:51 AM

frank legge is a paraplegic in a sense. he hasn't any legs to stand on.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jan 26 2011, 07:59 AM

QUOTE
OSS,

That earlier plotted path was from the positions as recorded in the FDR file. As the paper explains, we adjusted the positions to match the time and position of impact. Many positions recorded in the FDR file are offset from their true positions. The positions recorded for the takeoff from Dulles are not even on a runway. As explained in the paper, we also adjusted the positions for the landings so that they would show the aircraft turning off on to a taxiway rather than on to grass.

Warren.


It sounds like you took the original data and manipulated it until you got the results you wanted. That's not how good science is done.

If you used the original data, it seems it would be easy to prove that something is seriously wrong with the FDR file from the government. But is seems you'd rather waste your time tearing down the work of PFT by trying to put lipstick on pig, in order to prove the government's version of events.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jan 26 2011, 09:33 AM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 26 2011, 07:05 AM) *
OSS,

That earlier plotted path was from the positions as recorded in the FDR file.


Right, the officially released NTSB data as it stood before your program didn't add up to "impact".

Even when "the extra 4 seconds" were "found". It still didn't add up to "impact" as could be seen in your plotted paths and acknowledged by you.

QUOTE (wstutt)
As the paper explains, we adjusted the positions to match the time and position of impact.


To the point where the sircraft lines up exactly at the correct angle and height of a very specific directional damage path?
Whatever happened to the Randikids claims that there was a "margin of error" (particularly John Farmer) that would explain the discrepancy in your plotted path?

Given that the claim is that the aircraft lines up with the directional damage, you must know exactly
what point the now highly questionable RADALT reading of "4ft" was recorded?

The "right tilt data" through the last 7 seconds still adds up to a "straight line", (which interestingly enough you previously claimed "windspeeds" may explain the "discrepancy" - is that out the window too?) which raises serious issues throughout the entire witness pool in that NOBODY saw this path.

Is the claim now that the "0.7 before end of data" point on your plotted path has been resolved and you now have all of the data right up to the facade?

Note: John Farmer also refused to acknowledge that the "margin of error" does not cover the aircraft "straying" into the multi witnessed NOC path - a purely "one-sided" margin of error..

QUOTE (wstutt)
Many positions recorded in the FDR file are offset from their true positions. The positions recorded for the takeoff from Dulles are not even on a runway. As explained in the paper, we also adjusted the positions for the landings so that they would show the aircraft turning off on to a taxiway rather than on to grass.

Warren.


I'm sure I've seen this point argued before (Beachnut?)

The main points that don't square with me is that with so much "tweaking", alleged grave discrepancies (the major one being that there were allegedly 4 extra seconds on a dataset designed to record accidents) and now the the govt loyalist site "margin of error" argument has been turned on its head (along with "windspeed")
Just to make the aircraft "fit"? It seems to me that you've worked backwards from a desired conclusion ( la NIST) whether intentionally or not and are now just ploughing on regardless of what legitimate points Rob and Dennis Cimino have raised.

OSS

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 26 2011, 11:04 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 26 2011, 09:33 AM) *
Given that the claim is that the aircraft lines up with the directional damage, you must know exactly
what point the now highly questionable RADALT reading of "4ft" was recorded?


This is nearly impossible to determine the exact point given the speed data and the varying heights of objects along the path.

Again, from Dennis....

Q - The 757 LRRA has a 330 fps tracking capability. What exactly happens when the aircraft is flying faster than the tracking capability of the LRRA?

A - it gets behind and doesn't provide real time altimetry.


Let me see if i can expand a bit further after speaking with Dennis... take a look at this picture again.. along the approach to CRW Runway 23.



Along the approach, the Radio waves are bouncing off the hills and valleys at the speed of light. At approach speeds, you will see these changes in real time because that is the speed the processor can handle to produce those values and display them on the device.



http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/LRA-900.html

Now imagine you are traveling 2 times faster. The radio waves are still bouncing off the hills and valleys at the speed of light, but the processor cannot handle the increased forward speed, so it will only display hits from perhaps all the valleys and not the tops of the hills. Or vice versa, or maybe a sporadic combination/average. You will not get a display of real time mapping of the entire path. Your display will be a a series of sporadic hits outside the tracking capability of the device.

When you add objects such as trees, buildings, light poles, road signs, trucks, whatever.. .along the path of rolling terrain, it is impossible to determine exactly from what object the RA is measuring.

The LRRA built for civil aircraft is not meant for precise terrain mapping at high speed nor is it forward looking. It is highly accurate during the approach within the tracking capability of the device, but even then it cannot be used for determining your True Altitude, that is why a Sensitive Altimeter which can be adjusted for Pressure is required for instrument flight.

The only way to tell if the RA is measuring from the ground (and not from a building, trees... etc), is to cross check it with your Primary Altimeter. You can be flying at 31,000 feet, and see the RA displaying 1000 feet. This is because an aircraft below is overtaking you. I see it all the time...

The definition of RA is Absolute Altitude. It shows your absolute altitude above whatever object you are flying within the tracking capability of the device. In order to determine your True Altitude from a known reference (sea level), you must look at your Primary altimeter, that is why it is located directly in front of the eyes of the pilot, on all aircraft.

Now lets take a similar scenario but using GPWS.

If you were heading into the ground on the above approach at approach speed, it will give you the warning.

If you were heading into the ground beyond the tracking capability, it will still give you the warning as the sporadic hits will be showing a high rate of change, reducing in height.

If you were on the glide slope at approach speed, you will get a GPWS as the earth is rising to meet you at the runway. This is considered a false warning.

If you were on the glide slope at a high rate of speed, you will get a GPWS because higher forward speed means increased rate of descent, and even though you are getting sporadic averages outside the tracking capability of the device, the change in rate is great enough to give you a warning, but still you wont hit anything (if you level across the runway).

This is why GPWS still "works" even outside the tracking capability of the RA. But it can also give false warnings.

Clear as mud? smile.gif

Posted by: onesliceshort Jan 27 2011, 10:38 AM

From your paper Warren:

QUOTE
There have, however, been other interested parties who looked at the available data and
came to different conclusions. Researcher John Farmer concluded that there was indeed a
defect in the file and that about 4 to 6 seconds of data was missing from the end.

If this is true it would be easy to find a flight path which would permit the plane to descend and pull
up safely.


Do you agree that the directional damage could have been caused from an "easier" flightpath?

If so, "easier" in what way exactly? Trajectory? Altitude?

Were there any g-forces found on the "extra data" that correspond with the math J.REF have used to counter Rob's?

Do you agree with Frank Legge in that Rob's calculations were "way off", given that he used the proper formula and data from the NTSB released data? Or that Legge's and J.REF's are based on your "extra 4 (or is it 6?) seconds?

QUOTE
They continue to maintain that the official account of the path of the plane, which
necessarily includes impact with the Pentagon, is false. A number of analyses have been
presented which indicate that there are elements of the official account of the attack on the
Pentagon which are false but it is our purpose to show that the FDR data is not one of them.


Did Frank Legge ever elaborate on which "elements of the official account" are "false"?

If certain elements are claimed by Frank Legge to be "false", why should we accept selective information released by the same people based solely on the word of these same people?

Was the FDR ever identified through documentation, serial number or even recorded electronically on the FDR itself?

Was any part of "Flight 77" ever documented and released?

If there in fact are "4 seconds of extra data" contained on the FDR, which the NTSB nor FBI has ever commented on or verified, should this dataset be accepted at face value or would it be true to say that we have been presented with a "dataset" and nothing more?

Do you not find this process counterproductive in that it should have been left to the NTSB and FBI to explain the discrepancies/anomalies?

QUOTE
The course of the plane as determined by radar and the course calculated from the FDR
are strikingly similar. This supports the view that these are reporting the same plane.
Both
sources indicate that the plane was approaching from a direction which would make the
observed damage possible. Radar, however, is unable to provide accurate information when
a plane is close to the ground and the FDR data apparently had the final section of data
missing, thus the opportunity for controversy arose.


This image relating to the RADAR was linked to by Frank Legge in the paper:

http://i27.tinypic.com/1zgrimq.png

Given his assertion that the radar and FDR are "strikingly similar", what does he say about the last reported timeframe in the same image?



Now, Frank ha claimed later in the paper the "clock on the plane may be wrong", but how likely is this given the official "impact time" claimed by the NTSB?



Does the timeframe of the anomalous two last points correlate with the data?

I know that this RADAR system has inherent problems at low altitude when there are many objects interfering with the signal but given the separate datapoints within the Pentagon basin, do you believe that this data is conclusive of anything? Especially considering that one of them was recorded NOC?

(FTR I would not use this data to prove anything regarding NOC)

Apparently you both have no problem accepting that this RADAR is directly affected by interference in this system at low altitude, yet refuse to acknowledge the documented limitations of the RA at low altitude (330fps) on the aircraft, from which Frank Legge has based many assertions on in your paper.
You don't see this as contradictory?

QUOTE
The series of position reports, however, provides the track angle with considerable accuracy. Inspection of the last 20 reported positions prior to the Navy Annex, shows a track of about 61.3 degrees. The possible range of track just prior to impact is limited to about 61 to 63 degrees to ensure that all the correct light poles, and only the correct light poles, will be hit, and that the impact with the Pentagon will occur in the right place.


Tell Frank that the directional damage through the lightpoles is very specific. 61.5.
You claim that the original course has been altered to correlate with the aircraft's position on the runway before take-off. Could you draw the revised plotted path accordingly as per the data from the Annex through to the Pentagon?

Was there a change in the data regarding the Pressure Altitude altered or affected in any way around Route 27? Given the claims by Frank (and okayed presumably by you Warren) that the data now extends to the Pentagon facade, it's not just the lat/long that has been changed but also the entire dataset for each second that has been moved?

QUOTE
The roll (bank) recorded in the data file at impact is zero, hence either the right wing, or portion of it, was severed or buckled and projected upwards, or there is some lag in recording the bank
angle, or some combination of both.


Ignoring the unfounded speculation by Frank on the fate of the wing, is the claim that the "4ft RADALT reading" was recorded at "impact"? I understood it that the course of the aircraft was recorded minus 0.7 seconds.



That the right bank data was found to level out at the point shown in your image:



Did you find "more seconds" or were the recorded datasets moved forward?

Does that mean that the Pressure Altitude recorded an even higher value at the lightpoles? The Pentagon facade?

Cheers

OSS

ETA: Please remember that many of us are laymen on this subject, so linking to a set of data isn't going to answer anything Warren. That's why I've asked questions on layman's terms.

Posted by: wstutt Jan 27 2011, 12:21 PM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jan 31 2011, 01:59 PM) *
It sounds like you took the original data and manipulated it until you got the results you wanted. That's not how good science is done.
Exactly which data are you referring to. Do you mean the positions?

QUOTE
If you used the original data, it seems it would be easy to prove that something is seriously wrong with the FDR file from the government. But is seems you'd rather waste your time tearing down the work of PFT by trying to put lipstick on pig, in order to prove the government's version of events.
I disagree. If the time recorded in the FDR file was wrong by a few seconds would that mean there is something seriously wrong with the FDR file or that the clock that the time was recorded from was wrong?

Warren.

Posted by: wstutt Jan 27 2011, 01:05 PM

OSS,

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 31 2011, 03:33 PM) *
Right, the officially released NTSB data as it stood before your program didn't add up to "impact".

Even when "the extra 4 seconds" were "found". It still didn't add up to "impact" as could be seen in your plotted paths and acknowledged by you.
Have you proved that the extra 4 seconds are not in the FDR file?

QUOTE
To the point where the sircraft lines up exactly at the correct angle and height of a very specific directional damage path?
We adjusted all the positions from when the radio altimeter came on by the same distance in the same direction.

It is reasonable to do this because the inertial navigation system which works out the positions, works them out cumulatively. For example, if the plane moves north by 1 mile, then it changes its recorded position to be 1 mile further north. If the previous recorded position was wrong then so will the changed recorded position.

This is the same way a clock works. A clock does not know the time. It just adds one second to its record of the time every second. If the clock has the wrong time, then one second later the time on the clock will still be wrong.

QUOTE
Whatever happened to the Randikids claims that there was a "margin of error" (particularly John Farmer) that would explain the discrepancy in your plotted path?
Can you provide a link?

QUOTE
Given that the claim is that the aircraft lines up with the directional damage, you must know exactly what point the now highly questionable RADALT reading of "4ft" was recorded?
We calculated that the impact point on the wing for the 3rd light pole was 696 feet from the impact point on the Pentagon when the 4 ft was recorded which is very close to where the 3rd light pole was. See the paragraph split between pages 6 and 7.

QUOTE
The "right tilt data" through the last 7 seconds still adds up to a "straight line", (which interestingly enough you previously claimed "windspeeds" may explain the "discrepancy" - is that out the window too?) which raises serious issues throughout the entire witness pool in that NOBODY saw this path.
Didn't some witnesses describe the plane as banking to the right?

QUOTE
Is the claim now that the "0.7 before end of data" point on your plotted path has been resolved and you now have all of the data right up to the facade?
That's correct. See the paragraph I referred to above. The longitudinal acceleration went from slightly positive (since the plane was accelerating) to the most negative value (deceleration) that the FDR could record. We took the time of the deceleration as the time of impact.

QUOTE
<snip>

I'm sure I've seen this point argued before (Beachnut?)

The main points that don't square with me is that with so much "tweaking", alleged grave discrepancies (the major one being that there were allegedly 4 extra seconds on a dataset designed to record accidents) and now the the govt loyalist site "margin of error" argument has been turned on its head (along with "windspeed")
Just to make the aircraft "fit"? It seems to me that you've worked backwards from a desired conclusion ( la NIST) whether intentionally or not and are now just ploughing on regardless of what legitimate points Rob and Dennis Cimino have raised.

OSS
Adjusting all the positions by a constant distance in a constant direction will not change the track angle. If the track angle was incorrect to hit the correct light poles and impact the Pentagon, then the way we adjusted the positions wouldn't have changed that.

Warren.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 27 2011, 01:32 PM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jan 31 2011, 01:59 PM) *
It sounds like you took the original data and manipulated it until you got the results you wanted. That's not how good science is done.


That is exactly what they did, mixed in with tons of errors, lots of speculation, and a poor understanding of aeronautical knowledge in general.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 27 2011, 03:04 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 26 2011, 11:04 AM) *


http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/LRA-900.html


I just been informed the above url is now 404. Wow. It cannot even be found in the wayback machine.

This one works,
http://211.232.57.48/Documents/docu/EN/COMMUNICATION/radio%20altimeter/HTML/LRA-900.html

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mtMK6opXeqAJ:www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/LRA-900.html+site:http://www.rockwellcollins.com+radio+altimeter+tracking+capability&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com it is cached from Google.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mtMK6opXeqAJ:www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/LRA-900.html+site:http://www.rockwellcollins.com+radio+altimeter+tracking+capability&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com


I've also attached the html pages if the above links go dead as well.

 LRA_900.html ( 21.26K ) : 563
 LRA_900_Google_Cache.htm ( 23.38K ) : 301
 

Posted by: onesliceshort Jan 27 2011, 05:32 PM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 27 2011, 07:05 PM) *
OSS,

Have you proved that the extra 4 seconds are not in the FDR file?


That wasn't what I was referring to. I was saying that both the officially released data and your data didn't add up to "impact".
You claim that now it does. What drove you to devote 4 years of your time to ignore all of the pointers Rob gave to you? I propose that you were determined to line the data up with the directional damage no matter how much the data had to be tweaked and legitimate points raised by experienced pilots/FDR experts then and apparently at this moment. As I said. " la NIST". Work backwrds from a desired conclusion.

Bad scientific method.


QUOTE
We adjusted all the positions from when the radio altimeter came on by the same distance in the same direction.
It is reasonable to do this because the inertial navigation system which works out the positions, works them out cumulatively. For example, if the plane moves north by 1 mile, then it changes its recorded position to be 1 mile further north. If the previous recorded position was wrong then so will the changed recorded position.


My point is, the entire flightpath has gone from being claimed to be prone to "margin of error", ignoring the L3 Communications maximum 0.5 second lag, ignoring the 330fps limitation of the RA, ignoring the fact that there are no g's recorded anywhere on the NTSB data or your data (AFAIK) that correspond with the necessary manouevre to pull up at the lightpoles, to being an "end all and be all" precision plotted course to within feet of a highly defined directional damage path from lightpole 1 through to C Ring.

Is it that accurate?

QUOTE
Can you provide a link?


I'll have to search for Farmer's repeated "margin of error" claims but trust me, he said it.

QUOTE
We calculated that the impact point on the wing for the 3rd light pole was 696 feet from the impact point on the Pentagon when the 4 ft was recorded which is very close to where the 3rd light pole was. See the paragraph split between pages 6 and 7.


Even if your original course is moved laterally to line up ith the damage en bloque, how does it reach lightpole 3?
I've looked through the paper and can't find this lateral displacement from it's original path to that specific lat/long point.

Has the PA reading changed at that point too or is it still 174ft MSL?

Given Rob and Dennis' clarification on the fallibility of RA at low altitude (330fps), how can you place all of your faith in this reading?


QUOTE
Didn't some witnesses describe the plane as banking to the right?


Sorry,I worded that badly. I meant to ask if it didn't ring alarm bells that nobody described the path or manouevre to line up with the directional damage path.
Yes, many people described a "right bank". The majority of these witnesses also claimed to see the aircraft on the NOC flightpath.

QUOTE
That's correct. See the paragraph I referred to above. The longitudinal acceleration went from slightly positive (since the plane was accelerating) to the most negative value (deceleration) that the FDR could record. We took the time of the deceleration as the time of impact.


So this is out the window then?




QUOTE
Adjusting all the positions by a constant distance in a constant direction will not change the track angle. If the track angle was incorrect to hit the correct light poles and impact the Pentagon, then the way we adjusted the positions wouldn't have changed that.

Warren.


I'd like to see the revised plotted path Warren if you don't mind.
If the "4ft RADALT reading" is now at lightpole 3, doesn't that mean that the entire dataset is moved as well? PA, etc?

Cheers
OSS

Posted by: onesliceshort Jan 27 2011, 11:01 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort)
I'll have to search for Farmer's repeated "margin of error" claims but trust me, he said it.


Okay, had a wade through the swamp tonight...

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p=5639785&postcount=849

QUOTE
That little 'bell shape' is what I am talking about in regards to 'error'. It is normal and it did not exist then one might think someone was making something up (pulling numbers out of their a%!). So if someone disputes the error band in the correlation of multiple measurement systems, then the dispute would only be to the variance of the band, not whether it exists or not. I have already pointed out that there are issues with both the accuracy and precision of the model. However, I understand those issues and have offered a data based adjustment to compensate for them. Sadly for P4T, the adjustment is still well SoC


I posted your path warren to gauge a response without telling them it wasn't mine:

AWSmith piped in here:

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?p=5639675#post5639675

QUOTE
What did I ask you a few days ago about the accuracy of the google earth overlays? and if the pin locations were verified via GPS on site? The physical evidence of the flight path trumps all mudlark.


I replied here:

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p=5642168&postcount=880

AWSmith piped in again:

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p=5642212&postcount=890

QUOTE
And there you go with your push pins again, Are you that stupid? Did you not read where I asked you TWICE if the locations of your pins was verified with GPS on site? Did you not remember the problems with accuracy Google Earth has with overlays?


And here:

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p=5642298&postcount=902

Beachnut had a pop here:

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p=5642248&postcount=895

and here:

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p=5646543&postcount=947

QUOTE
Farmer is right, there are errors,.....

Too bad the air was moving on 911. Farmer is right because the air moves, the compass is not exact,


Farmer discussed "margin of error" here: (and has since removed an image)

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p=5644776&postcount=923

QUOTE
Mudlark, you have no idea what you just posted do you? Take the Warren decode and plot it at take-off at Dulles, then come back and we'll talk INS drift and measurement system error.

Oh never mind, I've already done it for you

...

Don't tell him there are errors on google earth, then he might understand the "error band" and have to learn math.


http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p=5651048&postcount=988

QUOTE
Get the claims straight mudlap. BCR claims that the MEASURED path by the various instruments has an error range associated with it. The actual flight path does not have a "margin of error", only the techniques used to measure it.


All of this started because I called them out on their insistence that the aircraft could fly parallel to the Nvy Annex, North of columbia Pike and still line up with the damage. This is false.
I asked them for the "SOC path" according to the FDR data and none f them would pin their colours to the official path. That there was a margin of error in the flightpath and that unless the plotted points are done with GPS, they will also have a margin of error.

How is your path plotted Warren? I ask because i genuinely don't know.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 28 2011, 01:12 PM

OSS,

There are all kinds of problems with the positional data in the files. This is another major problem Stutt and Legge have with their paper, especially since it is clear they do not understand how an INS works. But we're taking this one step at a time... first they need to correct their error sourcing an FAR for a Cessna 172 to support their argument, then i'll move onto their other gross errors.

Those who have said Legge and Stutt worked backwards from a conclusion and then fit the pieces to their bias are exactly right. Stutt admits it himself above.


QUOTE
We took the time of the deceleration as the time of impact.


They assume a deceleration of 1 G is an "impact", and then worked backwards from there. Unfortunately for them, the "impact" happened above the Pentagon and a 1 G deceleration can be caused by a multitude of reasons, especially if the pilot wanted to decrease his turning radius.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jan 28 2011, 05:17 PM

Cheers Rob,

I just don't understand how Warren can listen to the J.REF forum when they constantly move the goalposts and contradict themselves to suit each individual argument.

If we are looking at a "peer review" mark 10, 11, 12.. Legge needs to take a good hard look at himself (as should everybody else take a good hard look at him) and ask if this data was designed to drag on for years.
It's a Nirvana for disinfo.

There are a couple of ways of looking at this. Either they messed up big time with the data or the op itself. They have been sewing doubt and intermingling NOC "evidence" through the NTSB animation, NORAD animation and RADES last two data points.

What wasn't fabricated are the growing number of confirmed NOC witnesses who funnily enough certain "imaginative" bloggers have been throwing shit at for years.

First we had Arabesque - blatant disinfo blogger.

Then we had Russell Pickering who denied his own research and immediately jumped on the Pentagon OCT bandwagon when Craig and Aldo began digging in the right places.

Then we had Adam Larson - the "NOC witnesses are COINTEL" blogger.

Then we had (and still have) Eric Larson, Ashley and Hoffman influencing an entire "Truth" Forum to propogate these same lies and censor researchers who have constantly rebuked any accusations against them (and anybody who sees through the crap used against them and the evidence)

Then we had John Farmer who tried to infiltrate both P4T and CIT,pushed the "two plane theory" and strangely enough provided the FOIA for the RADES "North of Citgo datapoint".

Now we have Frank "gammy" Legge, aided by a notorious NPT "advocate" (7 YEARS!) who just saw the light and is a fully confirmed OCT/LIHOPPER and his dishonest cohorts, poisoning the entire witness pool against CIT's investigation.

I believe this whole episode has the dual purpose of discrediting P4T and CIT while at the same time burying us all in never ending disinfo and waste all of our time. "Run the clock down", so to speak.

I'm not accusing Warren Stutt of being an op, maybe he's been caught in the tide, but I can't wait to see this phase of disinfo (the "extra data" , that is) to be killed off so we can get back to the job at hand.

Don't be too surprised at the next phase or who takes the reins. CIT and P4T have survived this long because they deal in facts and aren't afraid to follow them.

Rant over..

Posted by: wstutt Jan 29 2011, 02:20 PM

OSS,

I've split this reply up, since I exceeded the limit on quote blocks.

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 1 2011, 04:38 PM) *
From your paper Warren:



Do you agree that the directional damage could have been caused from an "easier" flightpath?
Yes.

QUOTE
If so, "easier" in what way exactly? Trajectory? Altitude?
Easier as in lower g-forces that the plane could withstand.

QUOTE
Were there any g-forces found on the "extra data" that correspond with the math J.REF have used to counter Rob's?
There are g-forces in the extra data. You can see them plotted in Figure 14 in the paper at the top of page 12. As to whether the correspond "with the math J.REF have used", could you be more specific? There are many individuals that post in the J.REF forums. Do you have a link to the math that you are referring to?

QUOTE
Do you agree with Frank Legge in that Rob's calculations were "way off", given that he used the proper formula and data from the NTSB released data?
I agree with Frank Legge that the the calculated value of 10.14G shown in the Attack On The Pentagon video is much too high.

Consider the following frame from the video where a straight red line is drawn from the top of the VDOT antenna to the light poles:

Notice that the slope of the straight red line is about 11 horizontal squares to 1 vertical square.

Now consider the following frame from the video which shows the segment of the circle in purple from which the radius is calculated. I have added a straight black line with the same slope as the red line in the previous picture and which goes through the start point of the segment of the circle which would be the point where the pull up commenced:


Notice how the purple curve dips beneath the straight black line. This means that the slope of the purple curve is greater than the slope of the straight black line at the point where the pull up commenced. This means that the purple curve is showing a steeper dive at the beginning of the pull up than it should and therefore will require a higher number of Gs to pull out of than it should. The segment of the circle in purple should have a larger radius so it does not dip below the straight black line. A larger radius produces a smaller number of Gs using the formulas shown in the video.

QUOTE
Or that Legge's and J.REF's are based on your "extra 4 (or is it 6?) seconds?
The calculations in the paper are based on the extra seconds. John Farmer calculated that there was 4 to 6 seconds of FDR data missing based on correlating radar data with the FDR. I subsequently found 4 seconds of extra data which was within the range that he predicted.

QUOTE
Did Frank Legge ever elaborate on which "elements of the official account" are "false"?
Not in the paper no. You can read about his views on http://www.scienceof911.com.au/

QUOTE
If certain elements are claimed by Frank Legge to be "false", why should we accept selective information released by the same people based solely on the word of these same people?
You'd need to ask him that.

QUOTE
Was the FDR ever identified through documentation, serial number or even recorded electronically on the FDR itself?
I have found the following parameter values with the following values in the FDR file that may lead to the identification of the FDR, aircraft or parts
CODE
A/C NUMBER = 35
EICAS OPC PART NUM = 221305
EICAS OPS PART NUM = 199731
EICAS SELECT SW = LEFT
ENGINE IDENT = 3204
FLEET IDENT = 1
Dennis Cimino http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20999&view=findpost&p=10793580 that
QUOTE
... the AC ID FIELD number is directly traceable to an N-Number in the F.A.A. registry, and the FLEET ID shows which carrier it went to
so it should be possible to identify the aircraft.

QUOTE
Was any part of "Flight 77" ever documented and released?
Do you mean parts of the plane? If so, then I don't know.

QUOTE
If there in fact are "4 seconds of extra data" contained on the FDR, which the NTSB nor FBI has ever commented on or verified, should this dataset be accepted at face value or would it be true to say that we have been presented with a "dataset" and nothing more?
Definitely not. You can install and run the decoder program yourself http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/download/publish.htm using Internet Explorer. The source code of the decoder program is available http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/Source/AAL77FDRDecoder.zip.
I have discussed http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10792712.

QUOTE
Do you not find this process counterproductive in that it should have been left to the NTSB and FBI to explain the discrepancies/anomalies?
I was http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18453, so now I have.

Part 2 follows

Posted by: wstutt Jan 29 2011, 02:39 PM

Part 2

QUOTE
This image relating to the RADAR was linked to by Frank Legge in the paper:

http://i27.tinypic.com/1zgrimq.png

Given his assertion that the radar and FDR are "strikingly similar", what does he say about the last reported timeframe in the same image?

I don't know why you're asking this, since you later acknowledged that the radar has problems at low altitudes.

QUOTE
Now, Frank ha claimed later in the paper the "clock on the plane may be wrong", but how likely is this given the official "impact time" claimed by the NTSB?

The NTSB used other sources to obtain the time. See Section II - Time Correlation of http://ntsb.gov/info/Rec_Radar_%20Data_%20Study_all%20_aircraft.pdf

QUOTE
Does the timeframe of the anomalous two last points correlate with the data?
I don't know what those two last points are. The purpose of including the image was to show that the radar path was similar to the one in the FDR.

QUOTE
I know that this RADAR system has inherent problems at low altitude when there are many objects interfering with the signal but given the separate datapoints within the Pentagon basin, do you believe that this data is conclusive of anything? Especially considering that one of them was recorded NOC?
The last two points appear to be inconclusive. I don't know enough about the RADAR system to say why.

QUOTE
(FTR I would not use this data to prove anything regarding NOC) Apparently you both have no problem accepting that this RADAR is directly affected by interference in this system at low altitude, yet refuse to acknowledge the documented limitations of the RA at low altitude (330fps) on the aircraft, from which Frank Legge has based many assertions on in your paper. You don't see this as contradictory?
I have not seen satisfactory evidence that the tracking capability of 330 fps is the speed of the aircraft and not the rate of change of distance between the aircraft and the ground. I can see that the Doppler effect could potentially be an issue with a rapid change in distance between the aircraft and the ground. If the aircraft is flying level over a level surface, why would it matter how fast the aircraft is moving?

QUOTE
Tell Frank that the directional damage through the lightpoles is very specific. 61.5.
Why not tell him yourself? He can be http://www.scienceof911.com.au/contact-us

QUOTE
You claim that the original course has been altered to correlate with the aircraft's position on the runway before take-off. Could you draw the revised plotted path accordingly as per the data from the Annex through to the Pentagon?
The course was actually altered to correlate with the impact as described in the paper. I may be able to provide a drawing.

QUOTE
Was there a change in the data regarding the Pressure Altitude altered or affected in any way around Route 27?
It doesn't appear so. The pressure altitude is plotted in Figure 13 in the paper.

QUOTE
Given the claims by Frank (and okayed presumably by you Warren) that the data now extends to the Pentagon facade, it's not just the lat/long that has been changed but also the entire dataset for each second that has been moved?
I don't know what you're getting at here. The purpose of adjusting the lat/long was to get the correct elevations.

QUOTE
Ignoring the unfounded speculation by Frank on the fate of the wing, is the claim that the "4ft RADALT reading" was recorded at "impact"?
The paper says it was recorded 0.758 seconds before impact

QUOTE
I understood it that the course of the aircraft was recorded minus 0.7 seconds.

It was recorded about 0.7 seconds before end of data. The longitudinal deceleration indicating impact was recorded about 0.07 seconds before end of data.

QUOTE
That the right bank data was found to level out at the point shown in your image:



Did you find "more seconds" or were the recorded datasets moved forward?
The roll angle would have gone to 0 about the time of impact.

I have not decoded any more data than what I use to create those images. Although subframes are recorded once per second, different data within the subframe is recorded at different times throughout that second.

QUOTE
Does that mean that the Pressure Altitude recorded an even higher value at the lightpoles? The Pentagon facade?
The pressure altitude is recorded once per second but at a different time than any other parameter since only one parameter can be recorded at a time. My decode shows the pressure altitude that was recorded in the FDR file for each subframe.

QUOTE
Cheers

OSS

ETA: Please remember that many of us are laymen on this subject, so linking to a set of data isn't going to answer anything Warren. That's why I've asked questions on layman's terms.


Regards,
Warren.

Posted by: 9elevened Jan 29 2011, 06:30 PM

As a complete layman bewildered by all the (to me) almost impenetrable technical issues,

(tho I do thank Mr. Balsamo for his short video on the Flight 175-EgyptAir comparison, after giving up early the first couple tries I finally perservered and "got it")

and so primarily an interested observer going back and forth between "Pilots" and 911Blogger, I think Pilots winning the debate on Legge's paper.

Pilots techs seem better credentialed, and if only because 911Blogger is now essentially blocking debate, allowing Legge, Bursill etc to comment freely and blocking anyone attempting to refute them (including myself, apparently, my first comment went through but all since then a message comes up saying it has to be vetted first and then nada).

Blocking debate seems one-sided, unfair and (dare I say it) un-American, especially when 911Blogger posted the other paper by Chandler and his co-author that at least first graciously lists the various Pentagon concerns before it goes on to attack CIT.

Plus some at 911blogger are arguing the Pentagon issue based on long outdated/debunked information. One basically insulted me on two issues, one being research (and so far after a number of days 911Blogger has not given me the opportunity to publicly respond).

Then he points me to HIS research, which with just one glance I noticed he was still quoting the Cissell "faces in window" quote as fact even though Cissell himself contacted prisonplanet in 2006 and said he never saw any such thing (physically impossible at the stated speed of the plane)

that he was drastically misquoted, and that the plane went over so fast he did not even see what airline it was from

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/300606flight77.htm

Personally I lean toward Honegger over CIT. One of the survivors interviewed by Honegger is now suing Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.

Bombs at 9:32 destroying comptrollers office (INSIDE explosions), the fighter pilot sent to investigate reports no observable outside damage (THIS is the "high speed turn and dive plane" observed by ATC), leaves, something hits at just after 9:40 (OUTSIDE explosions) as reported by outside witnesses.

The witnesses with the best viewpoint were all the apt window witnesses who observed the small plane. Khavkin posting on the BBC comment board on 911 said the small plane first swung around and took out the lightpole(s?). What if the Boeing E4 sent up by Cheney/Rumsfeld was actually controlling the smaller plane, arrived first at a much slower speed ("loitering in the air"), descended to 100 feet above the Pentagon (with its blue stripes along the side doubling for Flight 77 whether they meant it to or not) and guided it in?

The outside explosions thus covering for the earlier inside explosions, the actual plane possibly arriving late, or even sent in after they made sure the comptrollers offices were destroyed.

Did 911blogger mainly post Legge's paper because Dr. Jones has "approved" it? I don't really understand the antipathy the WTC crowd has for the Pentagon crowd. I don't think it will ever really happen, but if the general public ever does come to understand/accept the problems with NIST/WTC basic physics, they would become even more open to the same physics problems at the Pentagon. I think though a great portion of the public questions how the Pentagon could have been allowed to be hit at all, and also questions the absence of crystal clear security footage.

At least one videographer examining the footage released (sadly I no longer have the links) says the Pentagon frames are "enhanced" by someone with no idea of how to create "3D" effects (plane's tail drawn on, exhaust must penetrate the ground, at least two frames have to be missing before the explosion)

The obvious problems with the Pentagon witnesses are the numerous discrepancies, which itself illustrates why in the U.S. judicial system judges routinely instruct jurors that circumstantial evidence is to be given greater weight than eyewitness testimony.

Most of these witnesses barely had a glimpse of what happened, especially (as is demonstrated in the case of Cissill) with something that was going over their heads at nearly the speed of a bullet. We also cannot rule out that some witnesses are lying or deliberately obfuscating the issue (one has admitted he lied to draw attention to himself), or planted Operation Northwoods style witnesses (Probst being a prime candidate for that).

Once a body like the NIST says we must ignore basic physics, a LOT becomes "possible" (tho I personally draw the line at "holograms"). Especially when you then go on and read the Operation Northwoods plot, which the major media was willing to report on BEFORE 911 but nothing since.

thanks for the forum (in which at least Pilots allows the posting of dissenting views!)

Posted by: paranoia Jan 29 2011, 07:24 PM

QUOTE (9elevened @ Jan 29 2011, 06:30 PM) *
The witnesses with the best viewpoint were all the apt window witnesses who observed the small plane. Khavkin posting on the BBC comment board on 911 said the small plane first swung around and took out the lightpole(s?).


about khavkin's pov:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/69071/5/
(scroll down thru the page)

Posted by: 9elevened Jan 29 2011, 07:52 PM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Jan 29 2011, 07:24 PM) *
about khavkin's pov:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/69071/5/
(scroll down thru the page)


thanks for the link.

I also saw in another post that Khavkin has refused to return CIT calls and refuses to be interviewed. That's not necessarily a problem with her statement, it's possible that she just does not want to be involved.

I wasn't aware of the POV problem but it does limit her statement. She could have seen the flight line of the small plane until it was out of view and then the explosion (much like the C-130 pilot's first description, until his story changed in 2004), and watching the rest of it on TV based on that assumption.

I think it's exceedingly strange tho to suggest that the govt was planting witness stories about a SMALL plane hitting the Pentagon on the day of 911. The same sort of thing has been accused of apartment window witness Steve Patterson (I think CIT has even said, "for our purposes he never existed!"). From what I remember, Patterson was interviewed before it was announced it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

Tho I do think somebody at the Pentagon who has crystal clear footage of whatever hit it is having quite the giggle watching us all debate it. Remember, the gas station owner said the FBI was there within MINUTES to gather up all the security footage, before he and his employees even thought to look at it. That completely smacks of foreknowledge/foreplanning.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 29 2011, 08:49 PM

QUOTE (9elevened @ Jan 29 2011, 06:30 PM) *
As a complete layman bewildered by all the (to me) almost impenetrable technical issues,

(tho I do thank Mr. Balsamo for his short video on the Flight 175-EgyptAir comparison, after giving up early the first couple tries I finally perservered and "got it")

and so primarily an interested observer going back and forth between "Pilots" and 911Blogger, I think Pilots winning the debate on Legge's paper.


Exactly.

All this posturing doesnt mean anything to the laymen unless Legge and Stutt can convince at least one verified aviation professional, then they may have an argument with someone who at least can speak the language. All of those who i have talked to, just laugh at what is offered by Legge and Stutt.

I invite anyone who is an aviation professional to look over Legge and Stutts paper, then talk to us.

Legge and Stutt still have yet to find one verified aviation professional to sign their name to their paper, while our lists grows based on our work.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

This is also the reason 911Blogger bans anyone who challenges Legge, Stutt or Bursill, while we give them all the rope they need and let them post freely here (although Legge and Bursill refuse to post here, they apparently dont like direct debate).


Warren, why do you think modern Jets have an AOA vane on both sides of the fuselage? You think it's there for looks? For pilots to play with during pre-flight walk-arounds?

I've asked you these type of questions numerous times, as well as the numerous questions you tap dance around... while you refuse to answer others.

Tell us Warren, where is your last data point represented in the below diagram?



(even the average layman can figure it out.. remember to reduce V-speeds by 10 knots for 757)

Do you think the above diagram is "fake"? Have you and Legge figured out the "Safety Margin" yet? You dont even need to speculate (as you did in your paper), its right there above, and well defined.

In retrospect, I can only laugh that Legge claimed his http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18088 (which needed 8+ revisions, and needs more), was written to "unite the movement". Yet all Legge has done is drive a wedge into a crack and pry it open further. What's worse, is he has done it with pure speculation, gross errors, and arguments he once used to support his theories, but now feels they are "trivial" when proven wrong (and leaving such errors in his papers confirming he is spreading disinformation). Freakin joke...

"If it quacks like a duck..."

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Jan 30 2011, 12:57 AM

QUOTE (9elevened @ Jan 29 2011, 11:30 PM) *
Personally I lean toward Honegger over CIT. One of the survivors interviewed by Honegger is now suing Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.

Bombs at 9:32 destroying comptrollers office (INSIDE explosions), the fighter pilot sent to investigate reports no observable outside damage (THIS is the "high speed turn and dive plane" observed by ATC), leaves, something hits at just after 9:40 (OUTSIDE explosions) as reported by outside witnesses.

Most of these witnesses barely had a glimpse of what happened, especially (as is demonstrated in the case of Cissill) with something that was going over their heads at nearly the speed of a bullet. We also cannot rule out that some witnesses are lying or deliberately obfuscating the issue (one has admitted he lied to draw attention to himself), or planted Operation Northwoods style witnesses (Probst being a prime candidate for that).


I am sorry, but that is a faulty argument.

Honegger is simply mistaken. Clocks don't run at the same time.

You are talking about a difference of 8 minutes. No officers were called there, no 9/11 calls or emergency transmissions indicate anything.

Can you explain how the officers we interviewed were standing there for 8 minutes until the plane went by on the north side and the explosion went off and THEN they went to the Pentagon, NEVER getting a single call about explosions inside?

14+ witnesses at opposing vantage points all describing a plane on the north side of the gas station, some even being able to see the required right hand bank to aim toward the explosion site is what I would lean towards over clocks all running a different times.

Posted by: paranoia Jan 30 2011, 04:34 AM

in response to 9elevened:


I also saw in another post that Khavkin has refused to return CIT calls and refuses to be interviewed. That's not necessarily a problem with her statement, it's possible that she just does not want to be involved.

if she didnt want to be involved then she should have known better to sign her name to an online posting about the event (if it was indeed she who posted it). granted she may not have realized how scrutinized her account would be later, but no one forced her to go online and make specific assertions about events and to sign her name to them.

regardless - the "probelm with her account" is khavkin allegedly claiming she saw a plane hitting light poles, which came AFTER the fact, and thus such details may have found their way into her alleged story after she heard of it in the news. given her physical pov, whats clear is that she could not have seen that happen, so why she allegedly claimed it is anyone's guess. note i say "allegedly" cuz its unclear if khavkin herself actually wrote and posted that comment in the comments section of the ukguardian or if someone else did. unlike some of the video "news" reports which contained actual accounts recorded by reporters on air, the comments section of an online site is open to whoever and without any sort of verification. so if an entity was indeed planting witness accounts, the easier place to get away with it would be semi-anonymous unverified online posts - like khavkin's.


I wasn't aware of the POV problem but it does limit her statement.

it more than limits it, it negates at least a key part of it - the claim about witnessing the light poles being hit.


She could have seen the flight line of the small plane until it was out of view and then the explosion...

what small plane? isnt she contradicted by her own statement? a small plane would not have shaken her apartment with the force and velocity of a commercial-sized jet airliner (which is what supposedly drew her attention to it in the first place). so no matter how small the plane may have visually appeared to her, her own account actually indicates the presence of what all the VERIFIED witnesses described: a 2 engined commercial sized airplane that was extremely loud and low.


...(much like the C-130 pilot's first description, until his story changed in 2004), and watching the rest of it on TV based on that assumption.

please elaborate further; im not sure exactly what you're proposing.


I think it's exceedingly strange tho to suggest that the govt was planting witness stories about a SMALL plane hitting the Pentagon on the day of 911. The same sort of thing has been accused of apartment window witness Steve Patterson (I think CIT has even said, "for our purposes he never existed!").

i think to a large degree what you see in unverified witness accounts is not "government planted" so much as it is folklore and embellishment (that itself may have been borne from intentionally planted govt rumors/lies). officially - these are the asssertions allegedly attributed to patterson:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html

QUOTE
Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said.

He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side.

The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said.

"At first I thought 'Oh my God, there's a plane truly misrouted from National,'" Patterson said. "Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon ... I was watching the World Trade Center go and then this. It was like Oh my God, what's next?"

He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.

"It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional."


i dont think patterson was lying, but his perception of the size of craft may simply have been mistaken. unlike other witnesses, he was at an uncomfirmed location somewhere in pentagon city (anywhere from a 1/2 a mile or more away from the scene - google pentagon city map), while other witnesses like the anc workers were privy to a more complete view of both the plane and its path, since they were under it as opposed to being in some distant building somewhere.

but i'd like to highlight a contradiction in his alleged assertions:

QUOTE
"...a plane truly misrouted from National,'" Patterson said. "Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon...."


but here:

QUOTE
"...seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low..."


so did it appear to be "truly misrouted" or was it "flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing? it cant be both.


The same sort of thing has been accused of apartment window witness Steve Patterson (I think CIT has even said, "for our purposes he never existed!".

without confirmation of him and his account, basically all we have are words, not facts. so in essence he may as well not have existed at all. so i would agree with cit on that.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1577
(link to the thread in question - please 9elevened try to cite your sources)

From what I remember, Patterson was interviewed before it was announced it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

this is the byline of the washington post article that is the source for patterson's alleged quote:

QUOTE
By Barbara Vobejda
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 11, 2001; 4:59 PM


-almost 5pm that day, so it would be more likely that he had indeed already heard about "flight 77" and its alleged "impact into the pentagon". perhaps semtantically at least - i partially agree with you btw - he may not have know that "flight 77" was alleged to have hit the pentagon, BUT he beyond any logical doubt was aware that the general claim floating around was that A PLANE had hit the pentagon. in other words he may not have known what flight number it was but he did know that the story that was widely being reported had one main element: that a plane hit and penetrated the building. and even if he hadnt heard it elsewhere, if he had seen a plane fly by and then a giant explosion, his natural inclination would be to ASSUME that the plane he saw did in fact hit/penetrate the building. actually to be exact these are the phrases he allegedly uses:

QUOTE
"Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon..."


QUOTE
"...he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out ..."


-as with almost all (if not all) the other supposed impact witnesses, the actual penetration is not described. there is no solid object meeting solid object and pushing its way through, there is simply a plane there one second, then a giant explosion, and then no further recollection of the plane. its not that it wasnt there, people like roosevelt roberts whose focus and sight was not blinded by the explosion managed to catch a glimpse of it on its exit path, but the majority of people in a position to see the explosion seem to have been deceived or distracted by its awe-inspiring visual display by becing fixated on it (at least momentarily - who wouldnt be?). even people inside the building - NONE of them (those that lived) describe a plane crashing through, all they remember is a massive explosion rocking them. no fuselage, no giant mass, just boom! heat and concussion. but anyway, without confirmation of patterson's exact location and his labeling of what he saw, it would unwise to draw any solid conclusions with regard to the veracity of his alleged claims.


since you seem at least somewhat familiar with the evidence cit has presented 9elevened, im wondering, what say you about the fact that none of the VERIFIED witnesses describe a "small jet"? and aside from steve patterson, who else thought they saw a small jet?

there is steve gerard who (like patterson) was probably at least some distance away, and saw the event from a building in pentagon city somewhere:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTpd9NbLN0U&feature=player_embedded

and don chauncey (another small jet witness) who was roughly 10 miles away:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=442&view=findpost&p=2084127

-i dont think these people are lying, they are very likely unintentionally mistaken. imo seeing an object at a distance, with nothing in the air (other than empty blue skies) to use as a frame of reference for size, might make it hard to distinguish what size plane they were seeing.


Tho I do think somebody at the Pentagon who has crystal clear footage of whatever hit it is having quite the giggle watching us all debate it.

while i get your point, i disagree about the state of such a person. i imagine that anyone in possession of a tape of the actual incident (which would show a plane NOT hitting the pentagon) would be afraid for their lives, as would any witnesses to the event who saw what actually happened (even if they didnt videotape it). but being in possession of a smoking gun video (or memory) would make its owner a HUGE liability to alot of things and no one (dumb or smart) would be unaware of the implications. that is unless of course whoever does have such a tape is soo high up and soo involved that they needn't worry about being neutralized. but even then i doubt they are laughing - at least not at those of us who have realized what happened, for they must appreciate the gravity of the actual truth and how vulnerable that truth is to being exposed wider and further everyday (even without video of the event). but my guess is that the only people they are probably amused by are the one's who are trying so hard to establish/prove that a plane did hit that building, so if thats what you're suggesting i would agree.


Remember, the gas station owner said the FBI was there within MINUTES to gather up all the security footage, before he and his employees even thought to look at it. That completely smacks of foreknowledge/foreplanning.

indeed it does. in fact, i believe the planners must have taken inventory of ALL the available cameras in and around the area, a considerable length of time before 9/11 (how long would depend on logistics). given the location it would have been highly unlikely for anyone to be walking around with a camera so i dont think they had much to worry about in that way. a few key security cameras at the navy annex location would belong to sources they controlled, so no worries there either. all that would be left would be businesses or commercial buildings, places like the gas station or the buildings on army navy drive (some of them also belonging to the government - like the one next to the doubletree which has cameras but belong to the GAO). since we know the citgo's tapes were taken minutes after the event, its likely the other potential videotapes of the event were also confiscated very quickly after the event. how quickly doesnt really matter for we know that to this day, we have NOT seen one actual picture of the plane while flying over this area, nor have we seen any video that actually shows it in any sort of conclusive way. (anyone who thinks they see a plane in those 5 frames they did release is projecting it there with their imagination - cuz there is no plane there and the frames are at the very least tampered with).


most importantly with regard to would-be footage of the plane that day:


source: http://www.511va.org/Cameras.aspx?r=1

the KEY camera of them all, the vdot washington blvd traffic camera (#740 - circled in red above) which would have had a prime view of things:



- was allegedly (and very conveniently) not operating that day (at least not at the time in question). if it was, no footage of what it saw has ever been released or found anywhere. and if you think a plane hit the pole this camera was on top of - rendering said camera inoperable, and then this plane managed to keep flying (only 4 or less feet above the ground) and then disappeared into that building, when its been verified and repeatedly corroborated that the plane flew north of this pole, then you suffer a confirmation bias which cant be overcome by logic and or facts. not you personally 9elevened, but anyone who denies the truth and its implications regarding this incident, is going out of their way to do so. normal people who can get past the shock and awe of an inside job, can examine all the pieces and come to a simple no-rocket-science-required conclusion that the plane (a big loud one with 2 jet engines) flew by but did not hit that building.






***

eta:
http://mouv4x8.perso.neuf.fr/11Sept01/A0082_b_They%20saw%20the%20aircraft.htm

QUOTE
However, Joel Skousen reported that:

"I have, so far, been unable to locate a Steven Patterson in the Pentagon City area of Arlington, Va. None of the graphic design firms in the area that I called have heard of him. Barbara Vobejda told me she didn’t have a contact number for him either since his testimony was picked up by one of the dozens of "stringers" they had out in the field that day interviewing people on the ground.

WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF / March 8, 2002 (link below)

http://www.centrexnews.com/columnists/skousen/2002/0308.html
(dead link not available at waybackmachine either)

Posted by: mrodway Jan 30 2011, 08:01 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 24 2011, 03:31 AM) *
I'm just genuinely confused as to why the sudden change in Warren's stance.
He had always proclaimed himself to be "neutral" regarding impact/flyover and that he was just showing what he had found on the FDR dataset regardless of what conclusions may be reached. Rob has for years imparted his aviation knowledge on any question Warren asked him.


I'd like to know just how "neutral" he was as well.

He was obviously familiar with the work of J.REF six months before he started posting to this site (See email below). As you say, Rob responded to his questions in good faith. Ironically probably the only real pilot they ever consulted for their paper - I think the circular logic in that escapes them!

QUOTE
From: Warren Stutt <wstutt@xtra.co.nz.NOSPAM>
> Date: May 27, 2007 1:12 AM
> Subject: Question for The J.R.E.F. Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
FAQ
> To: challenge@randi.org.NOSPAM
> Hi,
>
> Here is a question that you may like to include in the updated J.R.E.F.
> Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge "FAQ":
...
> "scientific advancement" and therefore ineligible for The J.R.E.F. Million
> Dollar Paranormal Challenge?
>
> Regards,
> Warren Stutt.
from http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/message/28681?o=1&d=-1

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jan 30 2011, 08:44 AM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 27 2011, 12:21 PM) *
Exactly which data are you referring to. Do you mean the positions?

I disagree. If the time recorded in the FDR file was wrong by a few seconds would that mean there is something seriously wrong with the FDR file or that the clock that the time was recorded from was wrong?

Warren.


I'm referring to the quote in my original response. I'll requote it again here.

QUOTE
OSS,

That earlier plotted path was from the positions as recorded in the FDR file. As the paper explains, we adjusted the positions to match the time and position of impact. Many positions recorded in the FDR file are offset from their true positions. The positions recorded for the takeoff from Dulles are not even on a runway. As explained in the paper, we also adjusted the positions for the landings so that they would show the aircraft turning off on to a taxiway rather than on to grass.

Warren.


You admit that you had to adjust the positions of the plotted path to match the time and position of impact.

You admit that the positions recorded for the takeoff from Dulles are not even on the runway.

You admit that you had to adjust the positions for the landing so they would show the aircraft turning off the onto the runway.

And we're not even off the ground yet!

Like they say, garbage in = garbage out.

So if the data was so screwed up to begin with, why even bother to continue using data you already know is bad?

Here's a layman's example of what I mean:

Many years ago I went to the dentist to have my wisdom teeth pulled. On my follow up visit, the dentist came in the room and started asking me about my crowns and dentures. Since I didn't have any crowns or dentures, I asked him what the heck was he talking about. Then he looked at my chart again and said, "You're not 84 years old either, are you?" It turned out he had another patient who had the same name as me.

Now at that point he had two choices:

1: He could correct the chart and change the birth date to match mine and then continue the exam, marveling at what a good job he did on those crowns because they looked just like my real teeth. So good, that even he couldn't tell the difference or

2: He could give the chart back to his office assistant and ask her to find the correct chart.

When you found out the data you received was so screwed up that the plane wasn't even on the runway, shouldn't you have just gone back to the source of the data (ie the government) and tell them that there was a serious problem with the data and it couldn't possibly come from the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon or anything else that day? Instead you've wasted years of your time and a lot of other people's time trying to prove the official myth using data you know is bad to begin with.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jan 30 2011, 08:47 AM

There are more contradictory statements that stand out like a sore thumb which shows why it's important to get first hand interviews with alleged witnesses.

Patterson was allegedly in a 14th floor apartment and described the aircraft as being "20ft" AGL, then the report goes on to say that it held "8 to 12 people". Looking down from his alleged POV, he could tell this?

The aircraft was allegedly 150ft from his apartment yet it "flew over Arlington Cemetery"? 2000ft away?

Finally..

QUOTE
Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.


huh.gif

This smacks of a reporter or "stringer" making a deadline.

ETA: Cissell is also on record as not only rejecting what the media attributed to him but also states..

QUOTE
"Looking at the trajectories in the diagrams they have online seems off to me. I remember the plane
coming in more directly at the side of the building than at an angle," said Cissell."


http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2...606flight77.htm


I agree though that witness links posted at 911Blogger are outdated, debunked and can be classified as disinformation.

Peace
OSS

Posted by: wstutt Jan 30 2011, 10:54 AM

OSS,

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 2 2011, 05:01 AM) *
<snip>

How is your path plotted Warren? I ask because i genuinely don't know.
For the image with the numbered yellow pins, I wrote a program to read through the data and output the positions in to a Google Earth file. I then opened the file in Google Earth and took a screen shot.

Warren.

Posted by: Atomicbomb Jan 31 2011, 05:48 AM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jan 30 2011, 05:44 AM) *
You admit that you had to adjust the positions of the plotted path to match the time and position of impact.

You admit that the positions recorded for the takeoff from Dulles are not even on the runway.

You admit that you had to adjust the positions for the landing so they would show the aircraft turning off the onto the runway.

And we're not even off the ground yet!

Like they say, garbage in = garbage out.

So if the data was so screwed up to begin with, why even bother to continue using data you already know is bad?

Here's a layman's example of what I mean:

Many years ago I went to the dentist to have my wisdom teeth pulled. On my follow up visit, the dentist came in the room and started asking me about my crowns and dentures. Since I didn't have any crowns or dentures, I asked him what the heck was he talking about. Then he looked at my chart again and said, "You're not 84 years old either, are you?" It turned out he had another patient who had the same name as me.

Now at that point he had two choices:

1: He could correct the chart and change the birth date to match mine and then continue the exam, marveling at what a good job he did on those crowns because they looked just like my real teeth. So good, that even he couldn't tell the difference or

2: He could give the chart back to his office assistant and ask her to find the correct chart.

When you found out the data you received was so screwed up that the plane wasn't even on the runway, shouldn't you have just gone back to the source of the data (ie the government) and tell them that there was a serious problem with the data and it couldn't possibly come from the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon or anything else that day? Instead you've wasted years of your time and a lot of other people's time trying to prove the official myth using data you know is bad to begin with.

Outstanding post DYEW. Garbage in = garbage out, exactly right! I want to point out another obvious and major issue with Stutt and Legge's paper that people rarely talk about (except Rob and a few others) but is so crystal clear to me that I am amazed more people don't point it out. Stutt and Legge are not experts in this field and therefore are NOT qualified to render an expert opinion on it. Their opinion is no more valuable or trustworthy then any layman's opinion who has looked at the issue. This is a fundamental and foundational problem for their research and their paper. They have no verified aviation experts who confirm or support their work, period. Their paper is therefore NOT peer reviewed and should not be considered anything more then an opinion piece. This glaring problem would be illustrated perfectly if Rob Balsamo and the P4T started arguing physics and chemistry issues surrounding the nano-thermite evidence with Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. Rob would be laughed out of the room and rightly so.

In the final analysis the question you have to ask yourself is "who am I going to rely upon as the experts on the pentagon aviation issues? A chemist? A software engineer? Or pilots, aircraft crash investigators, and NASA engineers?" The fact that the 911Blogger disinformation hub relies upon the chemists and software engineers while censoring the pilots, NASA engineers, and anyone who supports them should speak volumes to us all about what is really going on here. Think about it people, what is really going on at Blogger and what is REALLY going on with Stutt and Legge?

Posted by: onesliceshort Jan 31 2011, 08:43 AM

Hi Warren,
I've a breakdown of your responses to my posts but I've been waiting for a response or two to Rob's pertinent posts regarding PA readings which you apparently disregarded because of what you thought showed a "reasonable" explanation to question the PA's reliability at low altitude taken from an FDR file:


QUOTE
How then can a plane taking off from the runway, before it starts to pitch upwards, have a true altitude of 349 feet? Just as in this example, I usually find when the true altitude is calculated this way when the plane is at low altitudes, that the result is higher than it should be.

Regards,
Warren.


To which Rob replied...

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 30 2011, 11:19 AM) *
Because of change in AOA in a 'dirty' configuration while the aircraft is on the ground. I http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20999&view=findpost&p=10793744, but it seems to either have gone in one ear and out the other, or you are just intellectually dishonest.

Now lets see what happens a few seconds later when the aircraft breaks ground and is truly at a "low altitude" (roughly 10 feet above the runway according to RA).



Hmmm, 320 feet? Runway departure end is at 309 feet? 309+10 = 319... Pretty damn accurate.

(by the way, IAD was calling 30.21. Check the Baro Cor column)


Have you posted a response to this?

Also..

Where do these readings fall wihin the Vg Diagram?



ETA: If you felt the need to "calibrate" with the data in certain areas, why didn't you "calibrate" the g force data which was very eratic and speculated on as "flutter"?

Cheers
OSS

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 31 2011, 09:31 AM

Warren ignores the information which destroys his arguments, and cherry picks quotes of those where he feels he may have some argument left. He does this constantly. It is known as trolling.

If he did the same thing at Blogger or JREF, he would have been toast long ago. Due to his repeated trolling, i've sent him on a vacation so he can gather his thoughts and perhaps come back addressing the information that has destroyed his arguments. Let him go play in the cesspool for awhile.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 31 2011, 09:47 AM

QUOTE (Atomicbomb @ Jan 31 2011, 05:48 AM) *
This glaring problem would be illustrated perfectly if Rob Balsamo and the P4T started arguing physics and chemistry issues surrounding the nano-thermite evidence with Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. Rob would be laughed out of the room and rightly so.


Perhaps for Legge's next paper, he should write up a "Nano-Thermite" analysis sourcing Mackey and Mark Roberts as he did for his Pentagon piece(s), claiming the "Nano-Thermite" are nothing more than paint chips.

Hmmm... think it will get 'published'?

laughing1.gif

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jan 31 2011, 10:51 AM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 25 2011, 01:17 PM) *
No, I don't think so OSS. Why would they?

Warren.

OSS linked this image, you say is not redundant:

Besides the 0.7 secconds point is nowhere at the pathway required to kick down all the poles, the point drawed in GE is about 280 meters from the point of impact. So the plane would need to fly 650 knots to make it with its nose to the impact point in 0.7 seconds. You still believe the image is not redundant?

Posted by: 9elevened Jan 31 2011, 03:10 PM

<14+ witnesses at opposing vantage points all describing a plane on the north side of the gas station,>

but we also have about 10 witnesses to a smaller plane and several to two planes flying low. Not only the Boeing E-4, but also the C-130 could have been guiding a smaller plane.

as for the noise of the plane re Khavkin, do we really think in that case they would have used a simple commercial commuter plane mocked up with AA logo? it would have been souped up to become "the missile" described by Rumsfeld

the photos we've been shown of engines, especially the one where it is not even as large as the nearby worker's leg, show these cannot be the rolls royce engines used on the 757

the unburned, umarked scrap of the American Airlines "N" laying well away from the Pentagon, how did it get there when the fuselage supposedly penetrated all the way to the third ring and the wings folded back on top of it?

If the plane was banking to the left when it hit as NIST claims, how does the engine (much less the right wing; NIST says wing not engine) strike the generator?

how is the tree left intact (tho burning) when it should have been bisected by the wings of a 757?

It's simply bizarre to state Khavkin/Patterson are "planted" reports on the day of 911 itself and that's what the link I was referred to was straight out saying.

as for clocks time provides a timeline all its own

there were early reports of truck bombs

Honegger's witness (now suing Rumsfeld/Cheney) whose watch was broken at 9:32 (not "just" Pentagon clocks and other witnesses including vistiros saying it was just after 9:30)

witnesses and those injured inside did not know what hit them at first (reported smell of cordite)

the early report of a fighter jet dispatched to the Pentagon and reported no outside damage (this HAS to be the high speed turn and dive jet observed by ATC)

after this pilot leaves, at just after 9:40, something hits the Pentagon (note that NORAD maintained for two years that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:45)

but over and above all, it's just too convenient that the hijackers (assuming they could determine a blind target in the first place) wouldn't just simply dump the plane on top of the Pentagon instead of passing all the way over it, executing a manouver that tested the tolerances of the plane, for a pinpoint hit on the comptrollers offices that were attempting to determine where the $2.3 trillion went, killing most of them

and the head comptroller of the time was Dov "RoboZionist" Zakheim, yet another PNAC/Zionist a la Cheney/Rumsfeld, whose previous gig was as CEO of a company that sold pilotless flight software.

Posted by: 9elevened Jan 31 2011, 05:07 PM

<and the head comptroller of the time was Dov "RoboZionist" Zakheim, yet another PNAC/Zionist a la Cheney/Rumsfeld, whose previous gig was as CEO of a company that sold pilotless flight software.>

If people are offended by the use of the "Z" word henceforth I can limit the descriptions to PNACers and others aligned with those interests. Also it appears a single use of the "Z" word has gotten me banned over at 911blogger.com hahaha

but if you're gonna talk about plots how are you leaving out perps and their motives?

and this is not just just limited to PNACers Cheney (personally chose the brand name date of 911 for his personally devised and scheduled war games),

Rumsfeld (June 2001 stand-down order had the effect of blocking jet fighters being sent up to even observe planes before impact),

or Zakheim (after most of his original comptrollers were killed at the Pentagon, personally assured Congress that the $2.3 trillion was accounted for)

A Washington Post reporter recently published a biography of Colin Powell, in which Powell is quoted referring to Cheney/Rumsfeld crew as "the JINSA crowd" and that JINSA convinced Cheney to invade the Middle East. Cheney along with Perle, Feith and others headed up JINSA before entering the Bush admin (Perle went to Pentagon's Advisory Board)

PNAC issued its "we sure could use a New Pearl Harbor" manifesto in September 2000. This having evolved from Oded Yinon's Kivunim piece (break up the largest Arab countries into more "manageable" smaller units) in 1982, and the proto-PNAC "Clean Break" paper in 1996 (remove Saddam Hussein)

In October 2000 Barbara Bodine former Kissinger aide/associate, as ambassador to Yemen, ignored repeated FBI warnings and allowed the USS Cole to dock (positioned for "terror attack" with explosives used famously traced to Israel). Bodine was later "head of security" for Baghdad for a brief period, during and after which all the bombs started going off. Based on the attack of the Cole, the plans for the invasion of Afghanistan landed on Bush's desk on Sept. 10, 2001

June 2001, Joint Chiefs implement Rumsfeld's "stand-down" order which reverses decades of NORAD SOP. Now only Rumsfeld can authorize any military response to terrorist hijackings, including merely sending up planes to observe.

also in 2001, the Silverstein family takes over the WTC (controls the WTC on 911). According to a pre-911 Ha'aretz article, Silverstein speaks to Netanyahu every Sunday by phone. Netanyahu would have been warned of any plot uncovered against the United States. After the invasion of Iraq, Netanyahu touted a Mosul-Haifa pipeline to Brit investors. Netanyahu HAS to know this is impossible unless Iraq is broken up and Kurds gain independence.

CIA agent Steele says Silversteins brought down the WTC on their own, making sure of solving their asbestos problem. Newsday reported on Sept. 12 that bomb-sniffing dogs were ordered out the thursday before the attack. South Tower witness Fiduciary Trust employee to complete powerdown of South Tower for 48 hours over the weekend before the attack, disabling security cameras/locks/doors. Observed "recabling" crew that carried no identifying information such as security badges, etc.

ICTS, the Israeli-owned security company which invented profiling, controls all three 911 airports, yet allows red-flagged hijackers to board (there should be departure lounge security footage of both hijackers and identifiable passengers; the footage of Hanjour and crew at Dulles is highly suspicious as it contains no date or time stamp, and was ordered publicly released by a judge in a civil suit over the objections of the govt)

Chertoff (who is currently making a personal fortune off airport body scanners) named to head the 911 investigation. 911 Commission asked for the actual impounded 911 plane/passenger phone records. Chertoff refuses, instead providing his own written "summary" of the calls. Chertoff cousin at Hearst Publishing oversees the Popular Mechanics 911 hit piece, which as it turned out the NIST didn't even agree with. Still no retraction from PM.

The warning text message that went out over Jerusalem-based Odigo hours before the attack on the WTC, warning people to stay away (confirmed by FBI and Odigo's manager). Bush and Washington Post report hundreds of Israeli fatalities at the WTC, but by October 2001 New York Times reports that of the 4000 Israelis that the Jerusalem Post itself reported could have been harmed in the attack, only two were killed. One on a plane and one that was visiting did not work there.

Feith at the Pentagon created the OSP to get past the CIA (disinvited to briefings) and get the phony Iraq intelligence to Bush. Washington Post called PNACer Michael Ledeen "Bush's only foreign policy adviser." Antiwar.com has linked Ledeen to the forged Niger docs.

Over at the DOJ, John "Israel First" Ashcroft was advised against flying commercial and rebuffed Clinton impeachment lawyer David Schippers trying to get around the "firewall" at the top of the FBI's counterterror unit (FBI agents attempted warnings about what came to be 911 hijackers). After leaving the govt, Ashcroft became a highly paid lobbyist for the Israeli defense industry.

NY Times and others reported the Dancing Israelis set up their cameras before the WTC was hit. One of the Dancing Israelis told the Jerusalem Post they were there to document the event. Who likes to document their having brought down buildings with bombs? Check out the Irgun's official website. Bomb-sniffing dogs reacted positively to Israeli-driven van near the Lincoln Tunnel, they were arrested and eventually deported (Urban Moving systems owner fled to Israel). Recent Israeli PM Olmert paid a visit to Irgun-linked offices in lower Manhattan on Sept. 10, not on his public schedule. Anthrax attacker Bruce Ivins was another Israel-firster. Even some in govt doubt FBI insistence he could have acted alone. The anthrax was mailed just a few miles away from Urban Moving Systems.

Tony Blair for one has said the invasion of Afghanistan was impossible without 911. So we got the invasion of Afghanistan and the "sideshow" in Iraq. Four countries have just now signed the final agreement for TAPI (Trans-Afghanistan pipeline) which will send trillions of dollars worth of Israeli-owned natural gas from Turkmenistan to the Indian Ocean.

If Iraq breaks up or is broken up and some agreement with Jordan, Netanyahu gets his Mosul-Haifa pipeline which would reduce Israel's energy costs by 25 percent. Iraq can be broken up simply by telling the Kurds to secede and seize Kirkuk and that they will be protected from invasion by Turkey/Iran (UN troops have been discussed to replace US troops but only in Northern Iraq). Kurds control Kirkuk's water supply via dam and want to add Kirkuk to "their region."

Bush oil buddies like the Hunts have been making deals with the Kurds outside the purview of Iraq's central govt. Not just limited to Republicans however. One of Hillary Clinton's first campaign promises was to leave behind enough troops to protect the Kurds (northern Iraq's oil) and what if Obama ends up doing that, erasing yet another dividing line between himself and "Bush." Joe Biden in 2006 introduced the CFR's plan to "balkanize" Iraq as a nonbinding Senate resolution, which passed overwhelmingly.

If Iraq breaks up northern Iraq's oil takes the first hidden steps to Haifa, but who takes the fall for southern Iraq "merging" with the already demonized Iran? Why the Bush placemarker Obama of course! In Dec. 2004 I began predicting a Dem president "allowed" in 2008 on this basis alone. It couldn't be Clinton because of her husband signing the CFMA (it would have instantly become the Clinton recession, even with her as running mate), so we got what turned out to be a Clinton-clone, Obama (tho his voting record actually suggested he was going to be no "change" whatsoever).

Then the AIPAC-occupied media will start hyping the resulting "threat" to Saudi Arabia and calling Jeb Bush with the Bush-Saudi ties the best candidate to deal with it. We already see this past year the media resurrecting the Bush brand just as it did in 2000. Instead, PNACer Jeb as president will take Saudi Arabia down the same road as Iraq.

And finally there are the recent events in Egypt, where the Obama administration will not save Mubarak who will be replaced just like in Iraq with "Islamist democracy," after which the Sunni-Shia tensions will again be heightened all across the Middle East (note the recent revelation that after Iraq's first election Egypt asked the Bush admin to stage a coup and install another Sunni strongman; the Bush admin refused).

Ralph Schoenman (1988):

"In this regard the desire to destabilize the Arab regimes and fragment their countries, while not unwelcome to the United States, is met by Pentagon caution as to timing and implementation."

fast forward to:

The PowerPoint That Rocked the Pentagon (2002)

"Iraq (breakup) is the tactical pivot
Saudi Arabia (breakup) the strategic pivot
Egypt (breakup) the prize"

http://www.slate.com/id/2069119

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 31 2011, 05:47 PM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 27 2011, 01:05 PM) *
The longitudinal acceleration went from slightly positive (since the plane was accelerating) to the most negative value (deceleration) that the FDR could record. We took the time of the deceleration as the time of impact.


I'd like to expand on the above a bit as some detractors are attempting to use the above as "proof" of impact. It isnt, and here's why.

First, the Longitudinal deceleration recorded which Legge and Stutt believe represents the "impact" and others have called "severe" is roughly 1 G. This is basically equivalent to hard braking in your car, or deploying speed brakes and moving the thrust levers to idle in a jet, especially at a high speed, high drag phase of flight.



The last Longitudinal acceleration data point is recorded at Word position 225. Vertical Acceleration is recorded at Word 226, and Lateral Accel is recorded at Word 227.

Vertical acceleration doesnt show any signs of an "impact". It shows small changes... no "spikes".

Vert Accel - Last Second - 8 hz
1.68
1.74
1.65
1.5
1.79
1.66
1.86
1.95



How could Vertical accel not show any signs of "impact" when it is recorded after the alleged "spike" in Long Acceleration, if in fact an impact occurred? There isnt any major change recorded in Vertical Accel, because the Long Accel is not recording an "impact".

Lateral accel is not a full scale deflection (or 'spiked out' like John Farmer prefers to use) at 0.564. Lateral Accel limits are the same as Long.

Name: LONGITUDINAL ACCEL
Units: G's
Minimum Value: -1.08333
Maximum Value: 0.999498

Name: LATERAL ACCELERATION
Units: G's
Minimum Value: -1.08333
Maximum Value: 0.999498

As we already know, Farmer is an idiot.. i digress.

If the aircraft impacted on an angle at almost 500 knots, why didnt the Lateral acceleration "spike" to max value? It's because no impact occurred according to the data.

Basically, the above data shows that no such "impact" took place, rather it appears (if the data is authentic), the aircraft is initiating rapid deceleration to decrease turn radius. It possible there are many more "seconds" missing from this data, perhaps many minutes, maybe even another hour... again, if the data is authentic. However, no evidence has been presented thus far to indicate it is authentic.


There isnt any change/"spike" in pitch either, which is also recorded after the alleged "impact" at Word 228... (according to Warren's Notes on Parameters).

Pitch Angle - Last Second of Data, 4 hz.
-2.3
-2.1
-1.8
-1.2

Pitch shows a downward angle. Vertical Accel should have "spiked". It didn't. Lateral Accel should have "spiked" to max if impacting on the angle alleged. It didnt.. Because no such "impact" occurred according to the data.


There is no indication of "impact", but there is indication the aircraft was too high to hit the Pentagon, pulling up from a descent... and perhaps reconfiguring to leave the area, if the data is authentic.

The "additional" data Warren has claimed to decoded is exactly what one would expect to see if the aircraft flew over the pentagon. This is not to be equated/confused with the Witnesses interviewed by CIT, as they place the aircraft on a path opposite the physical damage.

Read more here...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15930

Posted by: 9elevened Jan 31 2011, 06:15 PM

one of Legge's latest over at 911 blogger is that the ground effect would have aided not hindered the pilot

In my 911 travels I have not seen even one other trained pilot say this, in fact completely the opposite

that the ground effect would have made it harder to hit the Pentagon (some say impossible even by remote control/autopilot), or even reach the Pentagon, as is suggested by the sim on the Ventura show

the next time you watch a commercial airliner come in for a landing and think to yourself "that's what Flight 77 must've looked like coming into the Pentagon" you must first:

A) increase the speed by 5x to 6x

B) lower it to moving horizontally 25 feet above the ground

which would for all practical purposes be like a bullet going over the heads of those on the ground

and in fact Cissell the "faces in windows" witness came forward in 2006 to say he was grievously misquoted, that it happened so fast he could not even tell what airline it was from, tho he still says "big plane"

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/300606flight77.htm

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 31 2011, 06:29 PM

QUOTE (9elevened @ Jan 31 2011, 06:15 PM) *
one of Legge's latest over at 911 blogger is that the ground effect would have aided not hindered the pilot


Legge has also stated pilots never check their Primary Altimeter near the ground as Radio altitude is much more accurate below 2500 Feet AGL.

Legge says many absurd things. As i've said before, he is his own worst enemy.

He also thinks a device called CWS also may have aided in "hijacker control". When we told him that CWS was removed from the aircraft reported because the pilots hated them as they didnt help with anything (this coming from Capt Ralph Kolstad, a 757/767 Capt from American Airlines and has flight time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11), Legge then claimed "the govt must have reinstalled the CWS to help out the "hijackers".

Legge should take up Comedy, people will then probably take him more seriously and gain some respect.

Alot of this is actually not Legge's fault. He is an old timer and gets fed this stuff from a supposed Avionics Tech, one would think an Avionics Tech would know better. All he is doing is making Legge look like a jackass.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)