Another Question For Warren Stutt, concerning altitude Options

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Warren Stutt,

You must be aware that people are referencing you to suggest that your findings contradict the statements by P4T that the last reported altitude in the NTSB data shows a value too high to hit the light poles and the building.

Are you willing to set the record straight here and at j.ref by publicly agreeing that your findings in the data concerning altitude CONFIRM the findings of P4T that it shows the plane too high to hit the light poles and the building?

[JFK]

From where I sit he appears to be concentrating on the pitot system rather than the AoA system at the moment.

It looks to me like he is trying to figure an unstandard way to gauge groundspeed, which would by it's nature require a complex equasion.

The groundspeed does however match the 84 RADES data fairly close though.
( which reminds me that I still need to plot the FDR data for that spiral for myself, like I did with the 84 RADES data. )

Edit to add - What is there to correct ?

The FDR data does say -15.6 after the multiplication...

Or if you are referring to Apathiciod's error, I don't know.

[rob balsamo]

From where I sit he appears to be concentrating on the pitot system rather than the AoA system at the moment.

This is known as focus and is based on bias.

For example, my focus and the focus of our organization is clearly spelled out in our mission statement and has been there since 2006. This is our "bias", our "objective", if you will.

It is further spelled out here... on a personal level.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots#Balsamo

Clearly the cesspool, based not only on precedent, is engaged in defamation and libel. They do this not only through anonymous internet UserID's, but also through BS which can be simply refuted (if there were such opposition allowed), strawmans, blatant lies.. the list goes on....

One sentence from Warren could end it, such as "Guy's, the AOA data shows negative and was already converted using the DFL formula's".

Instead Warren elected to post this as a follow up of his previous failed attempts at correlating data to form an impact hypothesis which he readily admits he cannot prove.

It is clear the bias and focus of Warren Stutt.