IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Another Question For Warren Stutt, concerning altitude

Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 3 2009, 02:16 AM
Post #1





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Dec 3 2009, 02:35 AM
Post #2


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



I would also like to hear Mr. Sutt's answer to this question but I might put it differently: Do you feel qualified to answer the question Craig is asking?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trimble
post Dec 3 2009, 06:45 AM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 10-August 09
Member No.: 4,537



Very nice, Craig. Someone on the other thread takes you to task for making demands, so you move elsewhere, and continue to be obnoxious. It makes you look like a fanatical loon and is, in any case, boring to read over and over. But I guess now that its in a thread of its own, we don't have to plough through it when looking for constructive posts.

If someone doesn't want to give their opinion on a particular matter, surely it is their prerogative unless they are clearly trying to disrupt matters.

+1 to painter's rephrase.


edit : my bad ~ for some reason I thought I was reading the final page of that thread (220 appeared to be the final post, but I see there are two more pages). I should not (and would not) have posted here had I known you and others had commented over on that thread.

*goes back to lurking*

This post has been edited by trimble: Dec 3 2009, 06:55 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Dec 3 2009, 09:59 AM
Post #4





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (painter @ Dec 8 2009, 06:35 AM) *
I would also like to hear Mr. Sutt's answer to this question but I might put it differently: Do you feel qualified to answer the question Craig is asking?
Hi All,

The question as expressed by painter is important. What I am quite certain about is that the last recorded ALTITUDE (1013.25mB) (FEET) in the FDR file I have been given is -99 feet (note the minus sign). I appreciate that this figure has to be adjusted to obtain the true altitude, but this adjustment is not something I feel qualified to do.

I realise that Rob has used an online calculator to show that the true altitude is too high to hit the Pentagon, however I have seen arguments on J.R.E.F. saying that the pressure altitudes can not be relied upon since normally the aircraft would not be flying so fast, so low and the correct compensation has not been applied. The issue of how accurate the pressure altitude is has also been raised. Rob and the posters on J.R.E.F. are more qualified on this issue of adjustment than me, so I don't feel I can add anything useful.

As far as Radio Height goes, the only required adjustment I am aware of is that the recorded value is above touchdown. Again I am quite certain that the last recorded RADIO HEIGHT is 4 feet, the question that Rob and the posters on J.R.E.F. differ on is what that is above. Is it the ground in front of the Pentagon, vegetation in front of the Pentagon or the top of the Pentagon?

I know that I said that the question of whether AAL77 was too high to hit the light poles is what prompted me to do write my own decoder. The fact that both Rob and the posters on J.R.E.F. claim that the extra seconds of data I decoded supports their opposing views surprised me. This highlights how the same data can be interpreted differently. I did not fully appreciate this before.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 3 2009, 11:39 AM
Post #5





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 3 2009, 02:59 PM) *
I realise that Rob has used an online calculator to show that the true altitude is too high to hit the Pentagon, however I have seen arguments on J.R.E.F. saying that the pressure altitudes can not be relied upon since normally the aircraft would not be flying so fast, so low and the correct compensation has not been applied. The issue of how accurate the pressure altitude is has also been raised. Rob and the posters on J.R.E.F. are more qualified on this issue of adjustment than me, so I don't feel I can add anything useful.


Uh huh.

So you take no position because you've been told this critical value "can not be relied on".

But that's not the question...

Using the values reported along with said online calculator to adjust for true altitude...do you agree 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?


QUOTE
As far as Radio Height goes, the only required adjustment I am aware of is that the recorded value is above touchdown. Again I am quite certain that the last recorded RADIO HEIGHT is 4 feet, the question that Rob and the posters on J.R.E.F. differ on is what that is above. Is it the ground in front of the Pentagon, vegetation in front of the Pentagon or the top of the Pentagon?


So you agree that RADIO height is more subjective than pressure altitude while you remain uncommitted on both values and never come to any conclusions.

How convenient and predictable.

QUOTE
I know that I said that the question of whether AAL77 was too high to hit the light poles is what prompted me to do write my own decoder. The fact that both Rob and the posters on J.R.E.F. claim that the extra seconds of data I decoded supports their opposing views surprised me. This highlights how the same data can be interpreted differently. I did not fully appreciate this before.

Warren.


They can't both be right.

Your failure to take a position on anything regarding the govt controlled data while refusing to accept the independent eyewitness evidence proving that that the plane did not hit has been noted and documented.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 3 2009, 12:19 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



If this value "cannot be relied on", why does the NTSB list Pressure altitude as a Validated Parameter and why are J.REF members cherry picking a "not working or unconfirmed" parameter as holding more weight when they dont even know the object the Radar Altitude is measuring from?

meh....

yawn.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 3 2009, 12:56 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



the govt loyalist site has not got ther facts straight on the 540+mph speed in the final seconds. They continue to ignore various witnesses who say that the plane took between 10 and 15 seconds to reach the building from the Navy Annex.
The increasing numbers who claim they saw the plane NOC, ´banking´, that place the plane´s arrival on Route 27 nowhere near the lightpoles, that NOBODY apart from Lloyd England has put the plane SOC (he has since backtracked
and even detractors don´t go near him).
Detractors cover their ears regards witness testimony and wave the (undocumented) physical evidence and FDR data, which is now so contradictory that it cannot be looked upon as anything other than forged data. They even messed that up.
It is becoming clear that witness testimony, especially when it is corraborrated from numerous angles and levels, is going to be the only non-biased resolution to this. They can no longer be ´ignored´.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 3 2009, 01:04 PM
Post #8





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 3 2009, 05:56 PM) *
the govt loyalist site has not got ther facts straight on the 540+mph speed in the final seconds. They continue to ignore various witnesses who say that the plane took between 10 and 15 seconds to reach the building from the Navy Annex.


True but when discussing anomalies in the official data you have to reference the speed reported in the official data.

Either way as Rob just pointed out it's a lame excuse and does not change the FACT that the official data has the plane too high to the light poles or building.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 3 2009, 01:10 PM
Post #9





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 3 2009, 05:19 PM) *
If this value "cannot be relied on", why does the NTSB list Pressure altitude as a Validated Parameter and why are J.REF members cherry picking a "not working or unconfirmed" parameter as holding more weight when they dont even know the object the Radar Altitude is measuring from?

meh....

yawn.



We know why j.refers do it.

They are liars.

The more important question is -- why is Warren Stutt allowing j.ref spin to serve as an excuse to refuse to publicly admit the FACT that HIS findings independently confirm YOUR findings concerning altitude?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Dec 3 2009, 04:09 PM
Post #10


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



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¢.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 3 2009, 07:00 PM
Post #11





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (painter @ Dec 3 2009, 09:09 PM) *
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.


Precisely.

QUOTE
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.


Agreed in general and hypothetically.

But not agreed when it comes to a specific individual who has published a website and is positioning himself as an independent researcher who has introduced a layer of obfuscation that only hinders our efforts towards achieving justice.

While I understand there is a big psychological hurdle for most to get over to even consider that 9/11 was an inside job....it is impossible for someone who positions himself as a researcher (and is clearly aware of the evidence that PROVES a deception) to remain entirely neutral and non-committal on EVERYTHING that he has researched or reviewed.

As you said....there comes a point where one must take a stand if for no other reason than the preservation of one's own integrity.

Stutt's public acknowledgment of evidence he has studied closely and/or viewed casually and his stated role of published researcher inextricably puts him in that category and his continued refusal to take a stance on anything whatsoever will fairly increase suspicion against him exponentially with every day.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 3 2009, 11:10 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Dec 6 2009, 10:32 AM
Post #13





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 9 2009, 04:10 AM) *
<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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 6 2009, 12:09 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 6 2009, 09:32 AM) *
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.



I have had a chance this afternoon to look over your data more thoroughly.. .I just opened your "FinalFlightComplete" (i opened your other csv file this morning). Given altitude is recorded once per second, and that the FDR cannot be missing more than 0.5, 'best' case scenario (for the GL "impact" theory in this case)....

-99 PA (174 True) being hypothetically recorded 1.5 seconds west of the wall means based on speed it would need to descend almost 100-120 feet in roughly 0.3 seconds to hit pole 1, and then pull level almost instantaneously...impossible.. or descend 129 in 1.5 seconds to impact the pentagon creating a more than 6 degree slope (86 f/s drop) which clears all the tops of the poles...

If trends are continued as shown in your data from last interval (59 f/s drop) and considering the descent would be less than 59 f/s based on positive G's over 1 for that segment, but, lets just do 1 G linear trend.. 59*1.5 = 88.5... 174 - 88.5 = 85.5. Still too high for the impact hole. Again, this is at 1 G linear descent rate using 'best' case scenario for an impact based on your data. If we incorporate the increase in positive G loads, whoosh... right over the top... and would be consistent with the radalt bouncing off the top of the pentagon and Turcious statements of "pulling up to clear...". wink.gif

Do the GL's now realize the FDR is not missing 6 seconds from the pentagon wall due to a "bird strike", compressor stall or some mysterious corruption due to "impact"? And that Ed Santana was correct when he stated FDR's cannot be missing any more than 0.5 seconds? Looks like an FDR "salesman" (as Beachy likes to marginalize Ed..) knows more than Beachy... smile.gif

Again, assuming you are correct, you might want to alert the NTSB their Flight Path Study, Time Correlation, "Impact time"... etc etc.. in the National Archives is wrong and the data they are distributing to the American Public through the FOIA is wrong. This has major ramifications for flight safety. We have tried to inform them, but they turned a blind eye.


Once again, no matter how you slice it, the data does not support the govt story of AA77 impact with the Pentagon as reported.



http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10778248
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 6 2009, 12:36 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 6 2009, 03:32 PM) *
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.


Fair enough. Hopefully Rob will receive a reply soon from the appropriate authorities on the validity
of your program.

Rob answered your question regarding the descent rate. Mind posting the response of the person
who has obviously suggested to you that it IS possible? I mean, what were the calculations that they
deduced (which can be everchanging lol)?
That´s the problem Warren. I´m a layman and I can understand Rob´s calculations on this point.
What are ´they´ actually conveying to you that could make you sit on the fence regarding this fact?
The official data from the FDR makes the descent to strike the lightpoles an impossibility. The additional
(yet to be verified) data from your program hasn´t changed this conclusion.
Again, not having a go at you. Just trying to understand the stalling.

Peace

OSS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 6 2009, 01:05 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Keep in mind folks, the descent rate from the top of the VDOT Antenna to pole 1 is roughly 6 times less than the new data provided by Warren, if you hypothetically tried to descend from the last altitude point in Warrens data to the top of pole 1, based on the last altitude point being 1.5 seconds west of the wall, base on speed data.

The VDOT "pull up" was 10.14 G's as demonstrated in "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon".

Warrens data would require more..

a = 2 s / t^2

a = 2(100)/0.3^2

a = 200/.09

2222 G's

Add 1 G for earth

2223 G's

Nothing this planet could perform or survive such a maneuver.

smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Dec 6 2009, 01:37 PM
Post #17





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



QUOTE
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 6 2009, 08:00 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Dec 9 2009, 11:57 PM
Post #19





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



Hi OSS,

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 11 2009, 05:36 PM) *
<snip>

Rob answered your question regarding the descent rate. Mind posting the response of the person
who has obviously suggested to you that it IS possible? I mean, what were the calculations that they
deduced (which can be everchanging lol)?
<snip>
I came up with the idea that since an aircraft needs to be a certain height above the ground to pull out of a given dive without crashing, that perhaps the if an aircraft had a vertical speed as indicated by the last pressure altitudes and was at a true altitude indicated by the last pressure altitude, that it would it may be too low to avoid crashing in to hypothetical level ground at the height of the ground in front of the Pentagon, never mind how much horizontal distance it needed or having to also hit light poles. I hadn't run any calculations on it. I just thought I'd get Rob's opinion from his knowledge and experience as a pilot. However, Rob appears to happy with using calculations, so I'll do the same. Nobody prompted me to ask this question. I'll look in to this after I get the program updated and get the new program out for the raw 12-bit words.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Dec 10 2009, 12:02 AM
Post #20





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



Hi Rob,

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 11 2009, 06:05 PM) *
<snip>

a = 2 s / t^2

<snip>
I believe the correct formula is a = 2 (s - u t) / t^2, where u is initial velocity. Feel free to check whether I am correct.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st July 2014 - 07:40 PM