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?

[painter]

I just want to note that I'm very appreciative of Warren's work and his honesty (however much it irks Craig's sensibilities). I'm not qualified to verify anything having to do with the FDR, its decoding or the significance that might be drawn from various parameters (although the 'too fast' and 'too high' to hit the light poles and level off at exactly ground level intuitively seems accurate -- we're not talking about a versatile fighter jet here).

However, what I do feel qualified to assess is the veracity of the eye-witnesses made public by CIT. They can't all be lying or confused about their observations which match in the most profound (NOC approach) way. That several also mention a relatively slow approach and a right bank only underscore the point that THE PLANE THE WITNESSES SAW CAN NOT BE THE SOURCE OF THE FDR FROM WHICH THE DATA BEING ANALYZED CAME. In other words, based on the veracity of these witness accounts, this data is fraudulent. The ONLY value analyzing this data has is to further underscore its fraudulent nature. It is hard evidence of a cover-up by agencies of the US Government of what actually happened at the Pentagon.

What I see repeatedly is the attempt to focus in on this or that almost invariably 'contradictory' detail when what has to be looked at simultaneously is the whole 'gestalt' of 9/11. I've said repeatedly, a commercial airliner crash and impact at the Pentagon ought to be as obvious as a heard of elephants stampeding through a china shop, leaving multiple droppings in their wake. Not something easily covered up. That this is not at all obvious and especially not obvious when the details are investigated and found to be 'contradictory' only makes me all the more certain that what we are dealing with here is a deliberate attempt to confuse and deceive: A genuine conspiracy to defraud the American public and the world. That these multiple 'inner contradictions' are ignored by government, military and the corporate media alike, only further cement my contention that what we're dealing with here has been constrained under the COG umbrella of "matters of national security" which can not be publicly broached except in easily contained and marginalized forums such as this. They (meaning the perpetrators of this crime against humanity) do not care what we find or what we say so long as the prevailing narrative is sustained in the hearts and minds of the (mostly dis-informed and/or apathetic) masses. So long as all this can be kept in the arena of "well, nothing is certain, even experts disagree" there can be no fulcrum upon which to leverage a genuine challenge to the structures of power that have now institutionalized treason, mass murder, war crimes and crimes against humanity (just off the top of my head).

I think this is what is driving Craig's near insistence that Mr. Stutt take a public position on this matter. This isn't a game or a mere puzzle or problem to solve; 9/11 exists as a defining moment in American and, indeed, human history -- the meaning of which is now having and will continue to have a profound impact on all our lives whether we have the eyes to see it as such or not. To not have an opinion about it, especially given ALL the evidence now accumulated, is like choosing to not confront evidence of rape and incest within one's own family. In a very real sense, it enables crimes that are not past tense but on going and, thus, calls into question the moral and ethical fiber of one's being. Certainly caution can be a virtue and should not be cast to the wind but when dealing with matters of such gravity for our human present and future, there comes a point where one must take a stand if for no other reason than the preservation of one's own integrity.

Still, though, the fact is, each of us has to come to this understanding on our own terms. No one can, or should, insist that another adopt a moral or ethical position they are not inwardly ready to embrace. Such things are not trivial and have an impact on one's life well beyond the immediate concern.

My 3¢.