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?

[onesliceshort]

I personally had been a lurker here for a long time. i became disillusioned and impatient with
the progress in the Manhattan attacks while avoiding the Pentagon and Pennsylvania attacks like
the plague mainly due to, on hindsight, a very well planned disinfo campaign (missile, no plane, etc)
To this day, having combed through his site and watching their video presentations (which are far
more useful to a layman like myself), I am still pretty naieve on the technobabble and specifics of
aeronautical dataframes, calculations and general language.

Warren has been a member since 2007. He (to his credit) admits that he is as naieve as the next
person on aviation and has never been a pilot. But one thing he does have in his favour is his grasp
on mathematics and data translation and can actually design programs.
He, in all likelihood understands Rob and the guys´ translation of the FDR data and its ramifications
more than most. He acknowledges that his 4´ altitude frame has no bearing on whether the plane was
too high to hit the lightpoles.
Those data bits must be burned into his brain by now. Add to that Rob´s help on the data that can only
be gleaned from an experienced pilot (surrouded by other aviation experts) and I am pretty sure that
Warren has a VERY good idea of the path and manouevres which this data relays. And I´m SURE it does
not correspond with the official story/path.
He says that he has received help from the govt loyalist site members on ´other issues´. the govt loyalist site has been publically outed
on numerous occasions in the form of Farmer and his ilk as being dishonest, manipulative and downright
liars in order to confuse and uphold the official line.
They have been constantly called out, but hey, it doesn´t matter. They can delete their links, deny and ignore
questions and turn the debate to a brand of insults and childish rants that even this hairy arsed man is taken
aback by.
Anybody questioning the official story to any degree makes an honest mistake at their peril. They clingggg
onto inoccuous mistakes like flies round....
Rob´s 11.2 g mistake which he publically and on numerous occasions
has admitted BUT rectified.
So, I don´t see how these two sites can be seen on an even par for a researcher. You KNOW where professional,
untainted advice and pointers can be found. It´s not over there.
You MUST know every detail of that plane´s final moments in the basin of land on the west face of the Pentagon.
You MUST know having talked to Rob et al that the consequent damage is irreconcilable with it.
One thing is to be a ´neutral researcher´ but you must have drawn conclusions by now. I´m a layman on the subject
and I already have just by some cursory study on the subject.
What I DO know quite a lot about is the only mainly non-biased volume of corraborrative eyewitness testimony that says
that the FDR data is fake.
I will send you details if you like.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by ´researcher´. Into your program and how to perfect it? Or getting to the truth of what happened at the Pentagon that morning?
Sorry if this sounds like a ´witchhunt´ but your program has raised tensions (unnecessary ones IMO) and people are genuinely confused as to your real intentions. Don´t be afraid to offend anyone. The truth is the truth.

[wstutt]

<snip>
I suppose it depends on what you mean by ´researcher´. Into your program and how to perfect it? Or getting to the truth of what happened at the Pentagon that morning?
<snip>

I created that web page and used the term independent researcher to answer the question posed in this post on ATS. I meant I was not an official investigator in any form.

I intended all my work to be independently verifiable so it would not matter what I thought. I am not aware of any independent verification at this point, although that could well change. I would certainly welcome it.

Here's a question for Rob:

If an an aircraft like N644AA was flying over level ground with a descent rate the same as calculated from the last pressure altitudes in my decode and at the last true altitude as calculated from the last pressure altitude in my decode for the conditions at the Pentagon on 9/11, would it be able to pull up in time to avoid crashing?

Warren.