A Response To Frank Legge And Warren Stutt, P4T rebuttal to Legge/Stutt "Paper" and "Rebuttal"
Jan 25 2011, 06:07 AM
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044
This has been released by Frank Legge recently.
As the paper on the data file from the Flight Data Recorder by Warren Stutt and myself has been attacked severely we have prepared a rebuttal to the issues raised in these attacks.
A Response to Pilots for 9/11 Truth
Frank Legge and Warren Stutt
Pilots for 9/11 Truth is a group which has supported the work of many other groups and individual researchers who present evidence that the destruction of the three buildings at the World Trade Centre on 11 September, 2001, was brought about by controlled demolition, and not by fire and impact damage, as asserted in official reports.
One of the useful and important actions of Pilots for 9/11 Truth (PFT) was to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to call for release of the data files from the Flight Data Recorders (FDR) of the planes involved in the attack. In the case of the flight which hit the Pentagon, reportedly American Airlines flight 77 (AA77), the data was released in two forms. One was a comma separated values (CSV) file, easily read. The other appeared to be a raw file copied direct from the original file from the FDR, which needed special software, and data frame layout information, in order to reveal its contents. The CSV file showed the flight terminating at a point far higher than the Pentagon. Eventually the raw file was decoded and again it appeared to show the flight finished too high.
Some of the people who studied this file compared the course shown with the course as shown by radar reports and concluded that the data had been truncated. One researcher, John Farmer, concluded that 4 to 8 seconds of data was missing. In this view there was no reason to doubt that the plane could have descended safely, during those missing seconds, and hit the Pentagon in the manner described by the many eyewitnesses. Unfortunately PFT carried out an incorrect calculation which purported to show that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon, as the wing loading in pulling out of the dive would have been too great. They calculated the force to be 10.14g, far above the plane’s legal limit of 2.5g and well above any reasonable safety margin. Their calculation was shown to be incorrect by several researchers who found various paths were possible, with forces ranging from 1.6g to about 2g, depending on factors such as the assumed height the plane passed above the VDOT antenna tower.
It appears PFT has become attached to this notion that the plane could not have survived the approach and has not, to this day, admitted that its calculation is incorrect. They continue to maintain that the topography would prevent the observed approach. They further assert that the FDR data proves the official account of the path of the plane false. This argument has had the unfortunate effect of giving support to those who say the plane could not have hit the Pentagon on the basis of an improperly conducted survey of eyewitnesses who say the plane approached from a more northerly angle. If true, the plane could not have done the observed long line of damage outside and inside the Pentagon and therefore must have flown over, the damage being done by other means. There are good reasons to believe the reported northerly path resulted from poor recollection of an unimportant detail which preceded a traumatic observation, as all these witnesses who were in a position to see the Pentagon reported that the plane hit the Pentagon, as have many other people.
The FDR file has now been fully decoded by Warren Stutt who has shown it contains 4 seconds more data than previously believed and that it records a path that fully corresponds with the official account of the flight. This proves the PFT claim that the data proves the official account false is unfounded. To maintain their position that the flight could not have hit the Pentagon, apparently unwilling to admit their calculation error, they now must resort to various strategies to denigrate the new decoding and to attempt to undermine the many researchers who contradict them. Their strategies are dealt with below.
Complaints and responses
1. There is no proof the FDR file is genuine. This is an illogical claim as it is the only FDR file available. It is the very file which PFT said proved the official account false. If it is not genuine, how can it prove the official account false?
2. The data file is missing crucial information (aircraft ID). Is this true and does it matter? Warren Stutt has files from a number of authentic flights, none of which contain the aircraft ID in the preamble. Apparently it is not crucial and does not matter.
3. Radio height marked “not working or unconfirmed”. Apparently it was working perfectly well. The file contains data from all four radio height systems, which are in agreement with one another. Furthermore, the Ground Proximity Warning and Pull Up signal were both recorded in the file. How can that be explained if the radio height system was not working? We note that PFT was perfectly happy to use the radio height to confirm the “too high to hit the Pentagon” theory when it appeared to do so, while the last five readings were still missing. Quoting PFT: “A radar altimeter presents no lag. The 273 feet you see above is a hard number above the ground.”
4. There hasn’t been any reply confirming a “bug”. Warren had found that the FDR file had not previously been fully decoded because there was a deficiency in the decoding software. Its error checking system was not able to handle a particular type of missing information. He succeeded initially in decoding the final frame by using his own software without this error checking function. Then he inserted the missing information into the file and found the standard software was able to decode the final frame. He has thereby achieved the final decoding in two distinctly different ways, getting the same result. As the radio heights match the observed impact damage it is hard to see how his results could be wrong. It is true that the NTSB has been informed of this software problem and has not yet replied. Does that prove there is no problem with the software they used or that Warren’s decode is flawed?
5. The Radio Altimeter was measuring from an object above ground level. Think about this for a moment. The only object near the last radio height recording was the Pentagon itself, 77 feet high. The last height measured was 4 feet. If the plane, descending rapidly, passed close over the Pentagon, where would it have been one second earlier? According to the pressure altimeter, which PFT trusts, it was 59 feet higher. We would therefore expect the radio height there to be 77 + 4 + 59 = 140 feet. It was 57 feet. Was there a building there which was 140 – 57 = 83 feet high? There was no building there at all. How about two seconds earlier? At this point, near the Citgo service station, it was 134 feet higher by the altimeter, 77 + 4 + 134 = 215 feet. It was 89 feet. Was the service station 215 – 89 = 126 feet high? It looks about 12 feet high. This is proof that the final reading is not from the top of the Pentagon.
6. The plane was travelling too fast for the capability of the Radio Height system. Certainly it was travelling faster than the manufacturer’s certified operating speed but to say it was outside the capability of the device is an unfounded assertion. What proof is there of that? It certainly appeared to be operating satisfactorily. In the specific case of the flights which landed normally, the data shows that the pressure altimeter was diverging from the altitude calculated from radio height and ground elevation. This is proof that the pressure altimeter in this plane was giving misleading information even at normal landing speed. Clearly we should not trust the altimeter but there is no evidence to suggest the radio height was flawed.
7. The NTSB data in fact does not support an impact. There may be a grain of logic in the claim the data cannot be relied upon because the supplier cannot be trusted, but there is no logic whatsoever in the claim the data does not support an impact. The pressure altimeter is proven untrustworthy in that particular aircraft and radio height leads inevitably to impact at the level observed, close to the ground. Note, we only say that a divergence is found between radio height and altimeter in the particular aircraft which produced the file. It is indisputable that there is a divergence.
8. Exceeding the performance limitations and capabilities of a standard 757. This is the “shifting the goal posts” argument. Worried that people might be waking up to the fact that the PFT calculation of g-force is grossly wrong, they search for another means to discredit those who say the plane hit the Pentagon. That is a lot of people they set out to discredit. The first falsity in their argument is the assertion that there is no safety margin in the published maximum safe speed data. This is absurd. Can you imagine the scandal that would arise if a pilot inadvertently strayed one or two knots above the stipulated maximum speed and the plane was destroyed! The second falsity is the assumption that the destruction of the plane would be virtually instantaneous. Excessive speed will produce fluttering. Fluttering will cause excessive loads to be imposed in a pulsating manner. This will cause fatigue. Fatigue can cause failure, but it takes time. From the time the plane reached its maximum operating speed until impact was 14 or 15 seconds. Even if there was no safety margin, could the plane be destroyed by fatigue in 15 seconds? The FDR file gives a hint that fluttering occurred but it did not commence until about 4 seconds from impact, suggesting a safety margin exists. We have no way of knowing what was fluttering. There is no proof here that the plane could not have withstood the observed and recorded flight path for the brief period involved.
9. It is littered with speculation and gross errors. Certainly there is some speculation in the paper, as is usual when discussing an intriguing subject. Such speculation is clearly identifiable by context. I do not think the keen student of the 9/11 event would want it removed. There may well be minor errors which we would appreciate having drawn to our attention. The charge of gross errors is another matter. So far I have seen only snide comments, trivial complaints and false assertions, as demonstrated above. I have seen no willingness to engage in civilized debate, as would be appropriate for this very serious matter. There is a complete failure to address their own gross error in calculation of the g-force involved in the final seconds of flight.
 Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice: http://stj911.org/
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth: http://www.ae911truth.org/
Journal of 9/11 Studies: http://www.journalof911studies.com/
The Science of 9/11: http://www.scienceof911.com.au/
 Farmer, J. Direct links are no longer available. Some people have tried to discredit Farmer’s work because he presented a theory that 2 planes were involved. There appears to be no doubt however that he believed a plane came up Columbia Pike, did the observed damage to the light poles and hit the Pentagon : “The FDR file positional data ends 6 ± 2 seconds prior to the reported impact location.” Quoted in a study by W. Clinger: http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sep...ml#finalseconds
 Legge, F. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...nDrLeggeAug.pdf
 Sarns, C. http://csarnsblog.blogspot.com/
 Eye witnesses. One estimate is that there are about 89 published reports of witnesses who state that they saw something hit the Pentagon, many stating that it was a plane.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html. Here is another with 104 saying they saw a plane hit the Pentagon: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentago...evidencesummary
 Legge F. and W. Stutt, Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...ltimeter_92.pdf
Jan 25 2011, 12:21 PM
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1
At least Warren has the guts to come here and debate the information. Cant say as much for Legge.
I sent this email to Legge, Jones and Ryan last night after being informed of the above "rebuttal".
From: Pilots For Truth <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:16:44 -0800 (PST)
To: Frank Legge; Steven Jones; Kevin Ryan
Subject: Ready for revision 1 yet?
I have just been sent your latest BS "rebuttal". Whats the matter, dont want to take me on directly?
Its no surprise you still have yet to sign a real and verified aviation expert to your claims.
Here is the information for your first revision.
FAR Part 23 is for planes like a Cessna 172, an Extra 300, a Beech 1900, not a 757.
It is also not for the full speed range of the aircraft as Wiki has erroneously quoted.
You need to fix your footnote for "Altimeter errors" before you look more a fool.
Then we will teach you about FAR part 25 (Transport Category Aircraft), and Air Data Computers.
BCC: Core members
What was once their whole foundation for their paper, now Warren claims to be "trivial".
So, they've been corrected on CWS for their last paper. They leave it in thinking it's "trivial".
Now they have been corrected on the FAR in their latest paper. If they leave in it, it is further confirmation they are pushing disinformation.
Guys, if this information is so "trivial", why is it in your "Scientific" paper? Why did you source an FAR written for a static system in an aircraft such as a Cessna 172 if your paper is claimed to be "peer-reviewed"?
I'll tell you why, because when you first put it in, you thought it pertinent. Now that you have been corrected by an actual real life pilot, you don't want to look like a fool coming out with revisions. Too late, you look like a fool either way, to any real pilot reading your BS.
Anyone else find it odd that Legge, Ryan, and Steven Jones source Mark Roberts and Mackey when arguing the Pentagon, but fail to source such individuals when arguing the WTC collapse?
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 24th May 2013 - 09:16 PM|