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?

[tnemelckram]

The official data from the FDR makes the descent to strike the light poles an impossibility. The additional (yet to be verified) data from your program hasn´t changed this conclusion.

I agree. In addition IMHO the positional data from Warren's program positions the plane so it misses the poles with a final position showing that it has already missed Pole 1. See these Posts:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10779716
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10779856

So we have all three spatial dimensions covered with timed events showing too high, too late and too far north, too late. Basically from a physics perspective Warren's data allows us to cover all of the relevant spacetime.

On the thread that this was split from I posted in Warren's defense that he has no obligation to take any position and did so in a way that was deferential to Warren. Now being a little rude to Warren as a rhetorical device only (because I actually appreciate his work and think he deserves nice treatment and deference) here's some more reasons why he shouldn't be asked or required to take a position:

1. Given all the above support that can be found in his data, why should we care what he thinks aside from saying that we are not using the numbers provided in his data? By that I do not mean interpreting what the numbers mean such as "to high", but simply Warren saying my data shows a "2" where you are using a "4". So quite frankly I really don't give a s h i t what Warren thinks! I already got what I want out of him!

2. Let's assume Warren succumbs to the pressure and just lies and says he agrees with all of your conclusions. His false opinion is worthless and we are in a worse position because now we are being deceived.

3. What if Warren says his data supports the GL opinion? We are in a worse position than we are now, because now it's just a question of others interpreting his data and drawing conclusions from it that we don't like without Warren's support. FWIW, this is what I'd do whether it was my true opinion or not because it's the best way to be a prick to those who make unreasonable demands on you in the first place. In other words, a stupid question deserves a stupid answer.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Dec 6 2009, 01:42 PM

[onesliceshort]

In other words, a stupid question deserves a stupid answer.

I read your post and took in everything you were saying.
I made a post earlier that was more of a rant borne out of the frustration that this site has come so close to actually providing physical evidence of an inside job.
No theory, no speculation , no possibility of twisting evidence. Cold hard proof.
We HAVE to be careful when an investigation gets to this stage.
Nefarious elements will be scurrying like rats to disprove this information and will do whatever it takes to
blacken and undermine it. Maybe I´m paranoid. But that´s me.
I HAVE stepped back lately to watch developments and keep my trap shut as ´infighting´ is a distraction.
I HAVE accepted that Rob has a rapport with Warren and that he would be the better judge.
The problem I DO have is that detractors don´t play nice. They lie. They brazenly involve themselves in
disinfo campaigns.
They will TRY to find a chink in this info that may muddy the waters and draw the veil of inconclusiveness and doubt that they have done for years over any evidence uncovered, no matter how damning it is.
That is their art.

I saw a previous post where Warren had cited Wheelhouse to support an SOC approach. And his insistence and reasoning on this was VERY reminiscent , to anybody who has debated these guys on witnesses, of ´Caustic Logic´. An expert on twisting words (or so HE thinks)
I saw in this last post a question that has obviously been raised by a comment from a detractor.
I asked what the detractor had said as regards calculations proposed.
It has nothing to do with making Warren state his position on the overall citizens investigation into 9/11. I´d just like to hear what his position is on the facts presented to him from both camps on this specific matter given that it is HIS program that they are in all likelihood using to make said calculations.

This IS a debate forum.