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?

[rob balsamo]

Warren,

You calculated the margin for error in Groundpseed with groundspeed.

When you calculate the margin of error in altitude, you use altimeter setting?

Not only is that apples and oranges, but its completely and utterly intellectually dishonest Warren and I surprised you even attempted to correlate the two. Do you have an agenda? What is your objective? Truth? Or trying to sell the govt story to yourself and perhaps others. Maybe your correlation of groundspeed to altimeter setting might work with those who blindly support the govt story, but every single one of our pilots will laugh if they heard of such an absurd correlation. The list grows.

Basically, you are trying to say the static pressure at the static port was 29.98, by using a possible (read: not proven) margin for error in groundspeed. Thats absurd. Not only that, but your "margin for error" in groundspeed has the aircraft more than 70 feet underground! And if the static pressure at the port was in error due to high speed, we are back again with the Mackey argument of Mcrit and compressiblity. Do you now think Mcrit for the 757 is .70-72M? Remember, the ADC also starts to make adjustments above .55M that were calibrated during flight testing (according to apathoid, we still have not seen proof of this).

Try correlating apples to apples next time.

For example, 174' is the True altitude as determined by your decode.

40' MSL is required.

Thats an error of almost 77%! Not 0.78%

Conversely,

174 * 0.78% = 1.36 feet.

Warren, your margin of error in groundspeed equates to less than 2 feet in altitude.

What exactly are you trying to pull here?

Shame shame Warren, i expected more from you. Now i really question that new decode of yours. This whole discussion is moot if your decode is inaccurate, or worse, calculated with an agenda.

Warren, again, 3 independent data sets match each other. Airport, FMS and Pitot-Static. The Pitot-Static system was operating flawlessly.

At this point, it appears feasible to me that since the aircraft was overspeed, that the static pressure could have had small errors that would be larger than when the aircraft is flying at normal speeds. However I don't see a way of proving that this was the case.

Warren.

Proving your case is exactly what is required, especially if you want to grab a gun and start killing people in another land over it. All else is an argument based on your beliefs. An argument from incredulity, and is a logical fallacy.