IPBFacebook




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 )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New Fdr Analysis By Frank Legge - Discussion, What do you think?

rob balsamo
post Jan 20 2011, 11:40 AM
Post #41



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I briefly went over to Blogger today to see if they corrected any of their mistakes and/or finally got some actual "peer-review" from a real expert. As expected, zero, zilch, nada.

But i did find some questions raised by some anonymous idiot who doesnt have a clue or the courage to come here and "debate" (although mostly he just offers personal attacks) face to face.

I'll just go over these quickly.

* Does the fact that the FDR was found inside the Pentagon support Legge's analysis?


Can The Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location Of Flight Data Recorder

Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's - Location of American 77 Flight Data Recorder - Part II

9/11 Aircraft 'black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

FDR Expert Confirms No Evidence Linking FDR Data to N644AA



* Does it confirm the height reported in the now recovered missing frames?


No.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10778240

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793490

* That catastrophic deceleration seen in the FDR data, what's it for? To surf the fireball?


1 G is "catastrophic"? Really now... You better not hit your brakes too hard in your car or you might crush your delicate body.

A -1 G acceleration can be caused by many things. Including speed brakes and pulling the Thrust Lever's to idle. You know... ummm.. to perhaps tighten your turn radius? Actually, you wouldn't know this, as you are not a real pilot nor have any real or veified aviation expert on your side. Keep an eye on our list, I have another major update coming i just havent had time yet to publish.

* When will you, CIT and P4T stop this insanity?


When are you, Legge and the JO911S going to get a real and verified expert to "peer-review" your "work"? Beachnut is your "expert"?? Really? A guy who can't distinguish between a Boeing 757 and an Airbus A320? (By the way, I'm still very current and qualified. You should really stop listening to and quoting anonymous JREFer's. But as the old saying goes, "... if it quacks like a duck..."... you must be a duck...)


When is Legge going to correct his numerous errors and logical fallacies? He should start with correcting his last paper first.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777266

His new paper is just piling on the errors and mistakes as pointed out and well sourced right here in this thread.

I said it before but it needs repeating.

It is interesting that a person like Frank Legge, someone who is highly critical and skeptical of the NIST data and reports, is now attempting to use unverified data from another govt agency to support the govt story regarding a Pentagon impact. Legge's motives are even more puzzling especially when that data in fact conflicts with an impact, performance limitations set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing, and precedent.

Again... ".. if it quacks like a duck..."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Jan 20 2011, 01:25 PM
Post #42





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



Thanks, Rob. His latest logic...

QUOTE
After quoting my website you say:

"If I follow your logic correctly, you suggest the authorities decided long ago to withold evidence, not follow proper procedures, etc. to cause in fighting among truthers within a movement that did not exist until years after the event. Great forsight on behalf of the perps or an illogical squence to cast doubt on anything other than the official story?"
Do you not think that the perpetraters, who spent millions of dollars on 9/11, would not have done some forward planning? It makes perfect sense to conclude that they would have given thought to the fact that many people would become suspicious. They were right. What better way to weaken the arguments of those who were suspicious than by having them argue against one another.


He literral things the authoriteis did not follow proper protocol, withheld evidence, etc. to prove infighting among truthers today. My gawd...I could just as easily say they faked the entire FDR to cause infighting among truthers. Geez and this guy has a Phd. I have a feeling they are going to ban me soon after I address the rest of the attacks after work.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 20 2011, 02:16 PM
Post #43



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



lol.... I see Legge is claiming Steven Jones tried to email about my calculations. Well, no he hasnt.


Matter of fact, i sent this email to Steven over a week ago, no reply yet...

QUOTE
From:
"Pilots For Truth" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>
View contact details
To:
"Steven Jones" <hardevidence@gmail.com>


Hi Steven,

I was sent a link to Kevin's post at 911Blogger regarding Legge's latest paper. You had commented that the paper was "Peer Reviewed".


May I ask who "Peer reviewed" the paper?

The reason I ask is that clearly they are not well versed on Federal Aviation Regulations nor Altimeter Errors, nor everyday arrivals. This is just one example and a gross error, considering the foundation of the paper. We may cover more blatant errors if Frank ever learns of his gross error. Although I doubt he will as his last paper still argues the "hijackers" could have used CWS to aid in control, after already being informed CWS can do no such thing, not to mention it wasn't even installed on the aircraft reported.

Sourcing wiki with an incorrect quote, combined with the incorrect FAR, as the basis for their whole theory, will only serve to discredit yourself for any real aviator who looks at the paper.

Just a heads up because I still respect you and I would hate to see your work be questioned by those who once supported it.

Legge and Ryan have lost my respect and the respect of many of my peers long ago. Hopefully you will reconsider.

Feel free to call anytime if you would like a more thorough explanation.

xxx-xxx-xxxx

Rob

BCC:

P4T Core members


If Steven does contact me, I'll be happy to explain to him our calculations. Just as I did with Dwain Deets and others. They get it. I'm sure Steven will too, once explained.

I tried to explain it to Legge many times, he doesnt get it. He never will.

(By the way, they arent just "my calculations", they were done in consultation with Aeronautical Engineer Capt Jeff Latas).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jan 20 2011, 03:40 PM
Post #44


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Jan 20 2011, 07:25 PM) *
Thanks, Rob. His latest logic...

QUOTE

After quoting my website you say:

"If I follow your logic correctly, you suggest the authorities decided long ago to withold evidence, not follow proper procedures, etc. to cause in fighting among truthers within a movement that did not exist until years after the event. Great forsight on behalf of the perps or an illogical squence to cast doubt on anything other than the official story?"

Do you not think that the perpetraters, who spent millions of dollars on 9/11, would not have done some forward planning? It makes perfect sense to conclude that they would have given thought to the fact that many people would become suspicious. They were right. What better way to weaken the arguments of those who were suspicious than by having them argue against one another.


He literral things the authoriteis did not follow proper protocol, withheld evidence, etc. to prove infighting among truthers today. My gawd...I could just as easily say they faked the entire FDR to cause infighting among truthers. Geez and this guy has a Phd. I have a feeling they are going to ban me soon after I address the rest of the attacks after work.


Wow. So they created problems in their FDR, created fake witnesses or a "citizen" investigation team to somehow fake or force a faking of testimony all of which points to or proves an inside job so astute "PhD's", not in anything aviation related mind you, can come about years later and say that the the gov't supplied data which was problematic to begin with now proves an impact( which it obviously doesn't) and that they did all this so we can sit around and argue.

No, what I think is Frank Legge "Phd" and Warren Stutt "Phd" are part of the same Australian intelligence team that John Bursill is a part of that have infiltrated the truth movement. They think because they have a PhD after their name, are from Australia, and work with other supposed "truthers" that you will believe the "disagreement". There is no disagreement. There is no doubt. There is no controversy. It is all manufactured to give the "impression".

Take John Bursill for instance, he helps put on the Australian "Hard Evidence Tour". Not for the truth movement. But for credibility. Of course who do we see on their panel, sockmaster and anonymous bearded infiltrator "Cosmos" one of the many caretakers at 911blogger, Frank Legge, Visibility 9/11. Same people attacking and spreading ABSOLUTE DISINFORMATION about CIT and PFT, the same people who have been running from discussions with us. Of course, Bursill was used to attack PFT because he is an "aircraft mechanic" and of course he was also used to attack CIT except he was bold enough to take on Craig Ranke in a phone debate in which he made many, many concessions going so far as to even admitting he lost the debate...

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=942

Sure enough he goes right back to attacking us in some bizarre twilight zone move only an operative set on subversive behavior and confusing and confounding would do. Sure, you say, but he is an aircraft mechanic! Do you have any proof that he has any military or intelligence ties, Aldo?! In fact I do...

QUOTE
About John Bursill

John Bursill (Born 1968) is a Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer based in Sydney Australia working on Boeing Aircraft and is qualified in Avionics (Elect/Inst/Radio) on the 767, 747 and 737 series aircraft. He is a family man and involved with numerous community events and organisations. John has served his country as a member of the Australian Army Reserve over many years and finished up as acting Operations/Intelligence Sargent for 4/3 RNSWR. John considers himself a true patriot of his country and a supporter of the US alliance in the sense of us together supporting national security, freedom and justice throughout the world.

visibility911.com/johnbursill/about-john-bursill/


It's the exact reason why they won't let PFT/CIT respond on 911blogger and elsewhere and why they all refuse to come here on our forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 20 2011, 04:08 PM
Post #45



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



New article just published in part as a response to Legge and Stutts paper.

Now available here....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20999

It's also running front page.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org

Spread it everywhere!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Jan 21 2011, 01:43 PM
Post #46





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



Hey where do I get my official "Banned From 9/11 Blogger" Uniform at? I just spent the last 30 minutes shredding Frank's stupid logic and correcting Loose_Nuke's Roberts account. And tada, none of my comments show up.

Oh well, they have really showed their cards surrounding the Pentagon event. I didn't want to believe the Mods over there were gate keepers, but that is exactly what they are. I suspect that is why there is such a disconnect there between the WTC event and the Pentagon event over there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Jan 21 2011, 01:46 PM
Post #47





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Jan 18 2011, 07:40 PM) *
He literral things the authoriteis did not follow proper protocol, withheld evidence, etc. to prove infighting among truthers today. My gawd...I could just as easily say they faked the entire FDR to cause infighting among truthers. Geez and this guy has a Phd. I have a feeling they are going to ban me soon after I address the rest of the attacks after work.


Wow. So they created problems in their FDR, created fake witnesses or a "citizen" investigation team to somehow fake or force a faking of testimony all of which points to or proves an inside job so astute "PhD's", not in anything aviation related mind you, can come about years later and say that the the gov't supplied data which was problematic to begin with now proves an impact( which it obviously doesn't) and that they did all this so we can sit around and argue.

No, what I think is Frank Legge "Phd" and Warren Stutt "Phd" are part of the same Australian intelligence team that John Bursill is a part of that have infiltrated the truth movement. They think because they have a PhD after their name, are from Australia, and work with other supposed "truthers" that you will believe the "disagreement". There is no disagreement. There is no doubt. There is no controversy. It is all manufactured to give the "impression".

Take John Bursill for instance, he helps put on the Australian "Hard Evidence Tour". Not for the truth movement. But for credibility. Of course who do we see on their panel, sockmaster and anonymous bearded infiltrator "Cosmos" one of the many caretakers at 911blogger, Frank Legge, Visibility 9/11. Same people attacking and spreading ABSOLUTE DISINFORMATION about CIT and PFT, the same people who have been running from discussions with us. Of course, Bursill was used to attack PFT because he is an "aircraft mechanic" and of course he was also used to attack CIT except he was bold enough to take on Craig Ranke in a phone debate in which he made many, many concessions going so far as to even admitting he lost the debate...

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=942

Sure enough he goes right back to attacking us in some bizarre twilight zone move only an operative set on subversive behavior and confusing and confounding would do. Sure, you say, but he is an aircraft mechanic! Do you have any proof that he has any military or intelligence ties, Aldo?! In fact I do...



It's the exact reason why they won't let PFT/CIT respond on 911blogger and elsewhere and why they all refuse to come here on our forum.


Can you believe that??! They use the exact same logic that debunkers do to support the official Pentagon story. It was all planned to be faked long ago to cause disruption in the truth movement. CIT. Faked. Anamolies at the crash scene. Faked. FDR. Faked.
It is the grand conspiracy in reverse. So many were in on it can't be believed. Instead of the logical they are covering up the truth.

Gate Keepers anyone?? thumbdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 21 2011, 02:46 PM
Post #48



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Jan 21 2011, 01:43 PM) *
Hey where do I get my official "Banned From 9/11 Blogger" Uniform at? I just spent the last 30 minutes shredding Frank's stupid logic and correcting Loose_Nuke's Roberts account. And tada, none of my comments show up.

Oh well, they have really showed their cards surrounding the Pentagon event. I didn't want to believe the Mods over there were gate keepers, but that is exactly what they are. I suspect that is why there is such a disconnect there between the WTC event and the Pentagon event over there.



lol... they're so predictable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 21 2011, 03:49 PM
Post #49



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Jan 21 2011, 07:43 PM) *
Hey where do I get my official "Banned From 9/11 Blogger" Uniform at? I just spent the last 30 minutes shredding Frank's stupid logic and correcting Loose_Nuke's Roberts account. And tada, none of my comments show up.

Oh well, they have really showed their cards surrounding the Pentagon event. I didn't want to believe the Mods over there were gate keepers, but that is exactly what they are. I suspect that is why there is such a disconnect there between the WTC event and the Pentagon event over there.


Here ya go mate..



cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Jan 25 2011, 08:59 AM
Post #50





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



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Jan 16 2011, 02:07 AM) *
<snip>
Furthermore, this data would mean there is a serious Flight Safety issue and yet Stutt and Legge are only targeting 9/11 Truthers in a psyop, and not taking this supposed crucial find of an alleged bug to the aviation authorities. This proves their agenda is not genuine but instead is designed to target a specific audience.

<snip>
That's incorrect Aldo. Read my letter to the NTSB about the problem with their decode. An earlier letter I wrote to the NTSB was referenced in the paper.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 25 2011, 09:52 AM
Post #51



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Warren, have any of the following been made "redundant" from the last time we spoke?





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Jan 25 2011, 08:17 PM
Post #52





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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 30 2011, 03:52 PM) *
Warren, have any of the following been made "redundant" from the last time we spoke?

<snip images>
No, I don't think so OSS. Why would they?

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 25 2011, 09:54 PM
Post #53



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 26 2011, 02:17 AM) *
No, I don't think so OSS. Why would they?

Warren.


Ah, just that Frank Legge claims that your data show the aircraft descending smoothly by the VDOT Tower, through the lightpoles and towards "impact" (words to that affect).

I see a plotted path in your own images, running from south to north of Columbia Pike, just past the Annex and the data finishing (0.7 secs prior to) before reaching Route 27, missing the necessary directional damage path, with the last RADALT reading at 4ft and no left bank recorded.

I remember you once acknowledged that (sorry if it's not word for word), your own data had no bearing on the lightpoles or "impact".

Have I missed where these circumstances have now changed?

OSS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 25 2011, 11:15 PM
Post #54





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,125
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 25 2011, 02:59 AM) *
That's incorrect Aldo. Read my letter to the NTSB about the problem with their decode. An earlier letter I wrote to the NTSB was referenced in the paper.

Warren.

Thank's for posting the link.

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 25 2011, 03:54 PM) *
Ah, just that Frank Legge claims that your data show the aircraft descending smoothly by the VDOT Tower, through the lightpoles and towards "impact" (words to that affect).

I see a plotted path in your own images, running from south to north of Columbia Pike, just past the Annex and the data finishing (0.7 secs prior to) before reaching Route 27, missing the necessary directional damage path, with the last RADALT reading at 4ft and no left bank recorded.

I remember you once acknowledged that (sorry if it's not word for word), your own data had no bearing on the lightpoles or "impact".

Have I missed where these circumstances have now changed?

OSS

Sorry for intervening into this.

But doesn't it look a bit
like Mr. Legge directs this "5gon hit"
piece/show
and Mr. Stutt is in tow?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 25 2011, 11:31 PM
Post #55



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
Sorry for intervening into this.

But doesn't it look a bit
like Mr. Legge directs this "5gon hit"
piece/show
and Mr. Stutt is in tow?


I'm just genuinely confused as to why the sudden change in Warren's stance.
He had always proclaimed himself to be "neutral" regarding impact/flyover and that he was just showing what he had found on the FDR dataset regardless of what conclusions may be reached. Rob has for years imparted his aviation knowledge on any question Warren asked him.
Now, Frank Legge has claimed that the data demonstrates the official path and "impact" to a tee and Warren has signed onto Legge's paper.

I'd like to know why the dramatic change in stance by Warren given that his data doesn't show what Legge claims and his previous statements on this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Jan 26 2011, 01:05 AM
Post #56





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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 31 2011, 03:54 AM) *
Ah, just that Frank Legge claims that your data show the aircraft descending smoothly by the VDOT Tower, through the lightpoles and towards "impact" (words to that affect).

I see a plotted path in your own images, running from south to north of Columbia Pike, just past the Annex and the data finishing (0.7 secs prior to) before reaching Route 27, missing the necessary directional damage path, with the last RADALT reading at 4ft and no left bank recorded.

<snip>

OSS,

That earlier plotted path was from the positions as recorded in the FDR file. As the paper explains, we adjusted the positions to match the time and position of impact. Many positions recorded in the FDR file are offset from their true positions. The positions recorded for the takeoff from Dulles are not even on a runway. As explained in the paper, we also adjusted the positions for the landings so that they would show the aircraft turning off on to a taxiway rather than on to grass.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Jan 26 2011, 01:37 AM
Post #57





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



OSS,

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 31 2011, 05:31 AM) *
I'm just genuinely confused as to why the sudden change in Warren's stance.
He had always proclaimed himself to be "neutral" regarding impact/flyover and that he was just showing what he had found on the FDR dataset regardless of what conclusions may be reached. Rob has for years imparted his aviation knowledge on any question Warren asked him.
Now, Frank Legge has claimed that the data demonstrates the official path and "impact" to a tee and Warren has signed onto Legge's paper.
Well, remaining neutral wasn't acceptable to Craig Ranke, so when Frank Legge asked me if I wanted to be listed as a co-author on the paper I had been helping him with, I agreed.

QUOTE
I'd like to know why the dramatic change in stance by Warren given that his data doesn't show what Legge claims and his previous statements on this.
If you are referring to the corrected positions, then see my previous post.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Jan 26 2011, 02:51 AM
Post #58





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



frank legge is a paraplegic in a sense. he hasn't any legs to stand on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jan 26 2011, 07:59 AM
Post #59





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE
OSS,

That earlier plotted path was from the positions as recorded in the FDR file. As the paper explains, we adjusted the positions to match the time and position of impact. Many positions recorded in the FDR file are offset from their true positions. The positions recorded for the takeoff from Dulles are not even on a runway. As explained in the paper, we also adjusted the positions for the landings so that they would show the aircraft turning off on to a taxiway rather than on to grass.

Warren.


It sounds like you took the original data and manipulated it until you got the results you wanted. That's not how good science is done.

If you used the original data, it seems it would be easy to prove that something is seriously wrong with the FDR file from the government. But is seems you'd rather waste your time tearing down the work of PFT by trying to put lipstick on pig, in order to prove the government's version of events.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 26 2011, 09:33 AM
Post #60



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 26 2011, 07:05 AM) *
OSS,

That earlier plotted path was from the positions as recorded in the FDR file.


Right, the officially released NTSB data as it stood before your program didn't add up to "impact".

Even when "the extra 4 seconds" were "found". It still didn't add up to "impact" as could be seen in your plotted paths and acknowledged by you.

QUOTE (wstutt)
As the paper explains, we adjusted the positions to match the time and position of impact.


To the point where the sircraft lines up exactly at the correct angle and height of a very specific directional damage path?
Whatever happened to the Randikids claims that there was a "margin of error" (particularly John Farmer) that would explain the discrepancy in your plotted path?

Given that the claim is that the aircraft lines up with the directional damage, you must know exactly
what point the now highly questionable RADALT reading of "4ft" was recorded?

The "right tilt data" through the last 7 seconds still adds up to a "straight line", (which interestingly enough you previously claimed "windspeeds" may explain the "discrepancy" - is that out the window too?) which raises serious issues throughout the entire witness pool in that NOBODY saw this path.

Is the claim now that the "0.7 before end of data" point on your plotted path has been resolved and you now have all of the data right up to the facade?

Note: John Farmer also refused to acknowledge that the "margin of error" does not cover the aircraft "straying" into the multi witnessed NOC path - a purely "one-sided" margin of error..

QUOTE (wstutt)
Many positions recorded in the FDR file are offset from their true positions. The positions recorded for the takeoff from Dulles are not even on a runway. As explained in the paper, we also adjusted the positions for the landings so that they would show the aircraft turning off on to a taxiway rather than on to grass.

Warren.


I'm sure I've seen this point argued before (Beachnut?)

The main points that don't square with me is that with so much "tweaking", alleged grave discrepancies (the major one being that there were allegedly 4 extra seconds on a dataset designed to record accidents) and now the the govt loyalist site "margin of error" argument has been turned on its head (along with "windspeed")
Just to make the aircraft "fit"? It seems to me that you've worked backwards from a desired conclusion ( la NIST) whether intentionally or not and are now just ploughing on regardless of what legitimate points Rob and Dennis Cimino have raised.

OSS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
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: 12th December 2017 - 01:33 AM