Warren Stutt - Mistaken or Deceptive?, Split from "Duhbunkers..... fail" Options

[rob balsamo]

The guy is like an open book.

He's over at that forum crying about how he was "treated" yet anybody who's been following his "debate" style knows how slippery he is on avoiding all of his errors.

Warren has been completely discredited using his own calculations. He has no choice but to try and spread more disinformation and avoid discussing his past errors. He probably knew his paper was garbage when I was pointing him to his errors last year, this is why he took nearly a year to discuss it, with calculations in hand, only after he was forced to discuss it, and then tucked tail and ran when I reiterated his confirmed disinformation. This is why I won't let him spread more BS here until he man's up and corrects his errors. But then again... once corrected, there won't be much left of his 'paper' and the only place left to file such nonsense is in the trash bin.

[onesliceshort]

None of them can be received at the ranges claimed by 'duhbunkers' for ACARS, and navigation is much more important than receiving an ACARS. Many VOR's are limited to even less than described above due to terrain... etc.... again as described by Dennis.

It's ironic that GLs have been insulting those who question the OCT as believing that the earth is flat when it has to be pointed out to them that it isn't. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

http://www.free-online-private-pilot-groun...ne-of-sight.gif

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljmeveF10t1qf00w4.gif

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljmf28a00Q1qf00w4.jpg

[rob balsamo]

It's ironic that GLs have been insulting those who question the OCT as believing that the earth is flat when it has to be pointed out to them that it isn't. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Not only that, but Warren is specifically deceptive when he claims -

"I got the file from a source who wishes to remain anonymous since he knew P4T would shoot the messenger."

kawika is the "source" of the file (but not the ultimate source) and he uploaded to our server via FTP... after I gave him access to our server via FTP quite a few months ago.

Bottom line... Warren The Weasel will do anything to continue his disinformation campaign, avoiding his past confirmed disinformation.


Those who blindly support the govt story aren't interested in truth. They are only interested in destroying P4T by any means necessary. They will fail.

[rob balsamo]

After all the 'duhbunker' chest thumping over the weekend.... we have this from "booNyzarC" (read: CrazyNoob backward)

"I've removed these attachments for now and will probably be delayed in getting this out in full. Just a general FYI."

"CrazyNoob" couldn't be more appropriate for this issue.

Now, if "CrazyNoob" wants to take me on in Red Dead Redemption, I'll offer my 10 year old nephew. He will be happy to kick the ass of a Crazy Noob.

(for those confused by the above post... 'booNyzarC' thinks such video games targeted for teens are pretty cool)

[kawika]

Not only that, but Warren is specifically deceptive when he claims -

"I got the file from a source who wishes to remain anonymous since he knew P4T would shoot the messenger."

kawika is the "source" of the file (but not the ultimate source) and he uploaded to our server via FTP... after I gave him access to our server via FTP quite a few months ago.

Bottom line... Warren The Weasel will do anything to continue his disinformation campaign, avoiding his past confirmed disinformation.


Those who blindly support the govt story aren't interested in truth. They are only interested in destroying P4T by any means necessary. They will fail.

Yes, I am the conduit through which the FAA files flowed. They are not my files. I did not manipulate them in any way.

I put out a call for experts to review the records that I obtained. I don't have a clue what most of them pertain to. Warren Stutt was one of several researchers who expressed an interest in reviewing the files. I do not withhold records from anyone. How they interpret the records is their business.

I did not even know about the ACARS files until they were identified by Warren. He used a keyword search, (through a finding aid that NARA provided) and identified 14 "ARINC" files. I provided those files to him and to other researchers.

My position has always been neutral. I do not know what the truth is yet. That is why I am still seeking the records to share.

There has been some flak over at another forum. It sounds to me like I am being attacked for wanting to keep my name out of the controversy. There is no quarrel with the messenger. If anyone has a problem with the records, go to NARA and ask them for the same records. Or go to the records' source, whoever they might be.

I obtained the FAA records from NARA right after SEP 30, 2011. The FOIA reference number is 36411.

Anyone wishing to have a copy of the records or the finding aids provided by NARA, please contact me for assistance.

Thank you very much.

[rob balsamo]

Yes, I am the conduit through which the FAA files flowed. They are not my files. I did not manipulate them in any way.

Thank you kawika, we never claimed that you manipulated the file.

But did you prompt Warren Stutt to state the following?

"I got the file from a source who wishes to remain anonymous since he [kawika] knew P4T would shoot the messenger."

A simple yes or no will do.

[kawika]

Thank you kawika, we never claimed that you manipulated the file.

But did you prompt Warren Stutt to state the following?

"I got the file from a source who wishes to remain anonymous since he [kawika] knew P4T would shoot the messenger."

A simple yes or no will do.

No, I did not knowingly prompt anyone to say anything. I was engaged in a conversation for the sole purpose of sharing the records and hopefully learning something about them in the process.

[rob balsamo]

No

So would you say in your opinion that Warren Stutt is intentionally being deceptive when he states....

"I got the file from a source who wishes to remain anonymous since he [kawika] knew P4T would shoot the messenger."

Especially considering the fact that I gave you FTP access to our server several months ago?

[rob balsamo]

For the record, kawika did read the above nearly an hour ago.

I have no intention of "shooting the messenger" in this case.

But I will have no problem exposing the truth.

It appears some people would rather avoid the truth... while others make up the truth.

kawika.. answer my question please.

[scott75]

For the record, kawika did read the above nearly an hour ago.

I have no intention of "shooting the messenger" in this case.

But I will have no problem exposing the truth.

It appears some people would rather avoid the truth... while others make up the truth.

kawika.. answer my question please.

I'm not kawika, but judging from Warren's recent message over at UM, perhaps the issue here is that kawika was afraid that you might, in fact, have shot the messenger. Speaking from experience, I know that you're not always kind to people who generally support your views regarding 9/11 but don't always agree with your views on those who disagree with you.

This post has been edited by scott75: Dec 20 2011, 07:12 AM

[rob balsamo]

I'm not kawika, but judging from Warren's recent message over at UM, perhaps the issue here is that kawika was afraid that you might, in fact, have shot the messenger.

Warren is a deceptive weasel as kawika above explained (and explained to me in more detail via PM) he never said anything of the sort to Warren.

Warren took it upon himself to claim what kawika allegedly "knew", in order to attack our organization and me personally. In other words, Warren will deceive in an attempt to discredit P4T.

scott, have you asked Warren why he ran from his own calculations which confirm his own paper as disinformation?

You may also want to tell booNy that i gave kawika FTP access months ago for many different types of files, not that kawika uploaded the file in question months ago. Kawika uploaded the file provided by Warren on the same day Warren got the file. Once again boony makes an interpretation/assumption based on his confirmation bias and gets it completely wrong.....

[scott75]

Warren is a deceptive weasel as kawika above explained (and explained to me in more detail via PM) he never said anything of the sort to Warren. Warren took it upon himself to claim what kawika allegedly "knew", in order to attack our organization and me personally. In other words, Warren will deceive in an attempt to discredit P4T.

It's good to know that kawika has now explained things. Admittedly, Warren had begun to persuade me of what I said in my previous post. I see no evidence that Warren himself didn't believe it to be true, but it seems clear now that he was mistaken.

scott, have you asked Warren why he ran from his own calculations which confirm his own paper as disinformation?

You may also want to tell booNy that i gave kawika FTP access months ago for many different types of files, not that kawika uploaded the file in question months ago. Kawika uploaded the file provided by Warren on the same day Warren got the file. Once again boony makes an interpretation/assumption based on his confirmation bias and gets it completely wrong.....

I have now quoted your post over at UM, along with the dialogue leading up to it for those at UM (like Czero) who don't come here often.

This post has been edited by scott75: Dec 20 2011, 08:51 AM

[rob balsamo]

...but it seems clear now that he was mistaken.

"Mistaken"?

You don't find it particularly deceptive on Warrens part when he states....


"I got the file from a source who wishes to remain anonymous since he [kawika] knew P4T would shoot the messenger."

... and yet kawika never said anything of the sort nor would give that impression as kawika himself uploaded the file to our FTP on the same day Warren got the file. Not only that, but kawika sent me a PM (with a few in cc) on the same day as well... saying he uploaded that particular file, along with others, packaged in a rar file. I figured they were more of the same he posted here, so I continued with other priorities until I had time to look over the files. Warren clearly jumped on it, made his interpretations based on his confirmation bias, and posted it just a few hours later to our forum linked from his website.

kawika would have never given Warren the impression he "wishes to remain anonymous since he [kawika] knew P4T would shoot the messenger." as kawika knows I would eventually know the source of the file.

Warren wasn't 'mistaken'. He fabricated a statement in order to take a dig at P4T.

Plain and simple.

[scott75]

It's good to know that kawika has now explained things. Admittedly, Warren had begun to persuade me of what I said in my previous post. I see no evidence that Warren himself didn't believe it to be true, but it seems clear now that he was mistaken.

"Mistaken"?

You don't find it particularly deceptive on Warrens part when he states....


"I got the file from a source who wishes to remain anonymous since he [kawika] knew P4T would shoot the messenger."

... and yet kawika never said anything of the sort nor would give that impression as kawika himself uploaded the file to our FTP on the same day Warren got the file. Not only that, but kawika sent me a PM (with a few in cc) on the same day as well... saying he uploaded that particular file, along with others, packaged in a rar file. I figured they were more of the same he posted here, so I continued with other priorities until I had time to look over the files. Warren clearly jumped on it, made his interpretations based on his confirmation bias, and posted it just a few hours later to our forum linked from his website.

kawika would have never given Warren the impression he "wishes to remain anonymous since he [kawika] knew P4T would shoot the messenger." as kawika knows I would eventually know the source of the file.

Warren wasn't 'mistaken'. He fabricated a statement in order to take a dig at P4T.

Plain and simple.

I held off from responding to this post all day in the hopes that Warren would say something over at UM concerning this. Since he hasn't, I've decided to just go ahead anyway. I know of one time where you thought that something was "plain and simple", when it wasn't. You once assumed that I had lied about something and suspended my account here for 3 months, but I had only made a mistake. While kawika may not have tried to give the impression that he wished to remain anonymous, Warren may have misinterpreted something he said and assumed that kawika wished to remain anonymous. I think that Warren's relationship with you may have contributed in him coming to this conclusion.

[rob balsamo]

Scott, this isn't about you nor is it the same. I let you back here to ask questions you may have regarding our work, not to speculate on individual behavior, especially when you clearly are not familiar with the precedent and reasoning behind the motive. I know you like to try to be the go-between and would rather everyone sitting down singing kumbaya, but it doesn't work that way in the real world. The information is there, kawika responded, Warren attempted to portray what kawika "knew" implying he was told such a statement by kawika, he wasn't, no one was suspended over it... readers can decide for themselves. We are demonstrating a pattern here....

If Warren had said something like -

"I got the file from a source who wishes to remain anonymous since he [kawika] probably thinks P4T would shoot the messenger."

Then I can see your point and we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.

But the fact of the matter is... Warren said this...
"I got the file from a source who wishes to remain anonymous since he [kawika] knew P4T would shoot the messenger."

Do ya see the difference Scott? Perhaps not....

Again, readers can decide for themselves.

And by the way, kawika is still anonymous to the public, but not because "he knew P4T would shoot the messenger".. that's absurd given the fact I do know his real name and have his number. We've even spoken on the phone. I don't give just anyone access to our server via FTP.

As to the pattern of Warren attempting to discredit P4T. through his own deception.... try to stick to reasons behind his proven deceptive tactics instead of High School drama...

Have you asked Warren why he ran away from his own calculations which confirm his last paper as disinformation?

Second time asked.

He will no doubt tell you that he wanted to discuss ACARS, rather than his own paper (which is mostly an attack on our organization and our work). In that case, do you feel we should let him discuss ACARS here when it is proven fact, even using his own calculations, that his last paper is confirmed disinformation combined with the fact (for anyone who has followed our debates) that Warren has a notorious habit of avoiding questions which destroy his theories? Should we just ignore his past confirmed disinformation he has spread and let him spread more? I'm sure Warren would like that as he has been evasive for nearly a year, but it doesn't work that way for anyone who values accountability. Especially given the fact his last paper was an all out assault on our organization, his 'paper' has been proven completely false... and is now considered confirmed disinformation since he is aware of his errors yet refuses to fix such 'mistakes'.

But perhaps you feel he "may be mistaken" on his 'mistakes', on top of more "mistakes". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[scott75]

Scott, this isn't about you nor is it the same.

I'm aware it isn't about me. I just used my own experience with you to explain why Warren may have genuinely been afraid that kawika would get in trouble with you if he was revealed as the source of his information.

I know you like to try to be the go-between and would rather everyone sitting down singing kumbaya, but it doesn't work that way in the real world.

Not yet, no. "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Maybe someday you'll join us, and the world shall be as one" -John Lennon
I think that John Lennon meant everyone by his "you"; it's certainly what I mean. It'll take time ofcourse.

The information is there, kawika responded, Warren attempted to portray what kawika "knew" implying he was told such a statement by kawika, he wasn't, no one was suspended over it... readers can decide for themselves. We are demonstrating a pattern here....

Why is it impossible for Warren to have misinterpreted what kawika has said?

If Warren had said something like -
"I got the file from a source who wishes to remain anonymous since he [kawika] probably thinks P4T would shoot the messenger."

Then I can see your point and we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.

But the fact of the matter is... Warren said this...
"I got the file from a source who wishes to remain anonymous since he [kawika] knew P4T would shoot the messenger."

Do ya see the difference Scott? Perhaps not....

Ofcourse I see the difference. But people can misinterpret what someone said slightly and this can lead to consequences that are much bigger then the original problem. I draw your attention to a certain passage in your first ACARS article that we both agreed should be removed.

Again, readers can decide for themselves.

Indeed.

And by the way, kawika is still anonymous to the public, but not because "he knew P4T would shoot the messenger".. that's absurd given the fact I do know his real name and have his number. We've even spoken on the phone. I don't give just anyone access to our server via FTP.

Ok.

As to the pattern of Warren attempting to discredit P4T. through his own deception.... try to stick to reasons behind his proven deceptive tactics instead of High School drama...

Have you asked Warren why he ran away from his own calculations which confirm his last paper as disinformation?

Second time asked.

I quoted you word for word on that the last time you brought it up and linked the post where I quoted you in a previous message here. The post I linked to is here.

He will no doubt tell you that he wanted to discuss ACARS, rather than his own paper (which is mostly an attack on our organization and our work).

So far, he hasn't responded at all to your question.

In that case, do you feel we should let him discuss ACARS here when it is proven fact, even using his own calculations, that his last paper is confirmed disinformation combined with the fact (for anyone who has followed our debates) that Warren has a notorious habit of avoiding questions which destroy his theories? Should we just ignore his past confirmed disinformation he has spread and let him spread more? I'm sure Warren would like that as he has been evasive for nearly a year, but it doesn't work that way for anyone who values accountability.

I think the question of who Warren is accountable to is more important. I would say the answer is that he is accountable to his audience; but his audience isn't a singular entity. Warren is clearly someone who many people have listened to in the past and I imagine that many people will continue to do so. He is someone that various members over at UM respect, I know that. I personally don't agree with his theories regarding the 9/11 planes; I agree with yours. Nevertheless, I admit that I haven't really gone into his arguments as of yet. I think it's clear that the situation is different with you; I believe you've debunked all of his arguments of note, but I admit that I'm going on faith here; I couldn't list how you've debunked his various points at present. I frequently rely on intuition when I don't have all the answers, and for a long time, based on what I do know, your logic has made sense in so many points regarding the 9/11 planes and the pentagon attack that it stands to reason that even your arguments that I'm not familiar with would be the same. This being said, there are many people who aren't as familiar with your arguments as I am and so may doubt them more. To me, you and PFT have always worked best as something like an Oracle; when I can't figure something out, I'll ask you guys to help me out. I think this is a great advantage for you as well; having debated a fair amount of issues in my day, I'm all too aware that repeating the same answers again and again can get pretty dull. Articles explaining various aspects regarding the 9/11 planes can provide a welcome relief from such endeavours, and you've done a fair amount of this. I ask if you could forget about Warren to some extent; clearly you 2 don't get along very well. I ask that you simply help me and others who believe your theories but don't understand all of them on certain points from time to time and perhaps things would go better for all involved.

Especially given the fact his last paper was an all out assault on our organization, his 'paper' has been proven completely false... and is now considered confirmed disinformation since he is aware of his errors yet refuses to fix such 'mistakes'.

I can easily believe that his paper has been proven false; but I think it's much harder to prove that he himself realizes this.

But perhaps you feel he "may be mistaken" on his 'mistakes', on top of more "mistakes". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Why not? People frequently build mistakes on top of their mistakes. What I admire about Warren is that he's willing to go out there and talk about his theories. The fact of the matter is that not many people are willing to do this; in time, I think that any mistakes that he's made will be more fully understood, not just by you and various members of PFT, but by the 9/11 Truth movement as a whole. I hope you agree that there is still a major rift within the truth movement regarding the Pentagon attack; and, judging by Q24's remarks, there's also some disagreement on what happened to the official 9/11 planes. By people talking about it, I believe that we can clear things up. But I'm not asking you to do this by yourself; as a matter of fact, I'm happy if you'd just stay here and I could consult with you in times when I and others who believe your theories aren't sure about an issue.

This post has been edited by scott75: Dec 21 2011, 09:59 AM

[rob balsamo]

Scott,

Going around in circles with you based on your speculation of individual behavior is getting tiresome, again, readers can decide for themselves.

So lets just get to the crux of the issue.

I can easily believe that his paper has been proven false; but I think it's much harder to prove that he himself realizes this.

So, you now think Warren doesn't understand basic math?

Scott, you don't need faith, all you have to do is read (and perhaps get out a calculator).

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10803075

Click the link Scott. Try to understand it. You can do it. I have faith in ya.. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

If there is something you don't understand, I'll be happy to walk you through it. That is why I let you back here, no offense, but you serve as an excellent lowest common denominator for other layman readers.

What I admire about Warren is that he's willing to go out there and talk about his theories.

And yet you say this in your same post...

"So far, he hasn't responded at all to your question."

Yes, I know, he's been avoiding them for nearly a year. The answers to my questions destroy the very foundation of his own paper.... using his own calculations no less...

Hmm.... imagine that.

The reason he is "out there" discussing his "theories" (yet still avoiding my questions), is because we won't let him spread further disinformation here until he addresses and takes accountability for his past confirmed disinformation.

[onesliceshort]

Here we go. Another thread being hijacked by Scott's departmentalized bullshit.

I think that John Lennon meant everyone by his "you"; it's certainly what I mean. It'll take time ofcourse.

Funny Scott how every single disinfobot is defended by you in what they "may" mean or why they "may" be lying, yet when the same unfounded and usually thoroughly refuted accusations are aimed at Pilotsfor911truth or CIT, you are as tightlipped as a camel's asshole in a desert storm. In fact you actually chime in with the "I'm a victim too of these people" every chance you get.

Maybe it's because of your double standards and microanalyzing of possible excuses for blatant lies and disinformation?

Scott thinks that people like Stutt and Brian Good are on the same wavelength or have the same standards as the majority of members of this or CIT's forum when it comes to finding the truth and arguing from fact based evidence. Newsflash Scott. They don't. They are manipulative, agenda-driven cowards.

If you're not directly quoting these people, that is, Warren Stutt, do us all a favur and keep your opinions on what they "may" be thinking to yourself?

[rob balsamo]

Funny Scott how every single disinfobot is defended by you in what they "may" mean or why they "may" be lying, yet when the same unfounded and usually thoroughly refuted accusations are aimed at Pilotsfor911truth or CIT, you are as tightlipped as a camel's asshole in a desert storm. In fact you actually chime in with the "I'm a victim too of these people" every chance you get.

lol.... yeah.. good point and well stated.

I let Scott back on here so he would be able to ask us questions regarding our work that may arise on other forums. so he can better understand the work without having to reply on "faith". Instead, he is back to his old canard of speculation based on individual behavior and motives trying to play the role of a quasi-matchmaker, attempting to rail into me because he once was suspended, for yes, lying. And Scott, if you would like to discuss the reasons why you were suspended, please start another thread.... do not do it here.

Hey Scott, can these same people who you feel "may be mistaken"... might rather be "deceptive" with an agenda?

Might that be a possibility to you as well?

Or perhaps you do not wish to discuss that possibility.

[scott75]

Scott,

Going around in circles with you based on your speculation of individual behavior is getting tiresome, again, readers can decide for themselves.

Seems to me you were speculating on his motives as well, but like you said, let's get to the crux of the issue.

I can easily believe that his paper has been proven false; but I think it's much harder to prove that he himself realizes this.

So, you now think Warren doesn't understand basic math?

Scott, you don't need faith, all you have to do is read (and perhaps get out a calculator).

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10803075

Click the link Scott. Try to understand it. You can do it. I have faith in ya.. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I clicked. I don't think it's as simple to ascertain the truth of what you post to someone who hasn't studied it a while as you seem to believe. This in and of itself lends credence to my view that Warren may not be aware of his mistakes. But more importantly, I don't want to get into this issue right now. I have my hands full just trying to get my head around all of the ACARS stuff, and have agreed with Q24 to go into the eyewitnesses of the pentagon attack.

If there is something you don't understand, I'll be happy to walk you through it. That is why I let you back here, no offense, but you serve as an excellent lowest common denominator for other layman readers.

-.-. I disagree with you there, but I certainly would agree that there are many people here who know more on these things then I do. I did notice a post from Dennis Cimino regarding the pentagon attack, for instance. Clearly, he's not impressed with Warren's work. Based on your previous recounting of Dennis' expertise, I'd think that's a pretty big indictment of Warren's work. That being said, I still need time before I can take Warren on directly.

What I admire about Warren is that he's willing to go out there and talk about his theories.

And yet you say this in your same post...

"So far, he hasn't responded at all to your question."

Well, I didn't say he responded to everything that was asked of him...

Yes, I know, he's been avoiding them for nearly a year. The answers to my questions destroy the very foundation of his own paper.... using his own calculations no less...

Hmm.... imagine that.

The reason he is "out there" discussing his "theories" (yet still avoiding my questions), is because we won't let him spread further disinformation here until he addresses and takes accountability for his past confirmed disinformation.

So he spreads his theories elsewhere, and that's where I and others come in. Rob, I'm well aware that you and many others here are avionics experts. The thing is, most people aren't. The technical aspects of these things that you think are trivial are anything but for many. Despite this, some of us keep on trying to comprehend them. I thank you for the help you have given me in the past to understand these points and hope you will continue to help me to some extent in the future.