Warren has been completely discredited using his own calculations. He has no choice but to try and spread more disinformation and avoid discussing his past errors. He probably knew his paper was garbage when I was pointing him to his errors last year, this is why he took nearly a year to discuss it, with calculations in hand, only after he was forced to discuss it, and then tucked tail and ran when I reiterated his confirmed disinformation. This is why I won't let him spread more BS here until he man's up and corrects his errors. But then again... once corrected, there won't be much left of his 'paper' and the only place left to file such nonsense is in the trash bin.

It's ironic that GLs have been insulting those who question the OCT as believing that the earth is flat when it has to be pointed out to them that it isn't.

http://www.free-online-private-pilot-groun...ne-of-sight.gif

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljmeveF10t1qf00w4.gif

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljmf28a00Q1qf00w4.jpg

Not only that, but Warren is specifically deceptive when he claims -

"I got the file from a source who wishes to remain anonymous since he knew P4T would shoot the messenger."

kawika is the "source" of the file (but not the ultimate source) and he uploaded to our server via FTP... after I gave him access to our server via FTP quite a few months ago.

Bottom line... Warren The Weasel will do anything to continue his disinformation campaign, avoiding his past confirmed disinformation.


Those who blindly support the govt story aren't interested in truth. They are only interested in destroying P4T by any means necessary. They will fail.

After all the 'duhbunker' chest thumping over the weekend.... we have this from "booNyzarC" (read: CrazyNoob backward)

"I've removed these attachments for now and will probably be delayed in getting this out in full. Just a general FYI."

"CrazyNoob" couldn't be more appropriate for this issue.

Now, if "CrazyNoob" wants to take me on in Red Dead Redemption, I'll offer my 10 year old nephew. He will be happy to kick the ass of a Crazy Noob.

(for those confused by the above post... 'booNyzarC' thinks such video games targeted for teens are pretty cool)

Yes, I am the conduit through which the FAA files flowed. They are not my files. I did not manipulate them in any way.

I put out a call for experts to review the records that I obtained. I don't have a clue what most of them pertain to. Warren Stutt was one of several researchers who expressed an interest in reviewing the files. I do not withhold records from anyone. How they interpret the records is their business.

I did not even know about the ACARS files until they were identified by Warren. He used a keyword search, (through a finding aid that NARA provided) and identified 14 "ARINC" files. I provided those files to him and to other researchers.

My position has always been neutral. I do not know what the truth is yet. That is why I am still seeking the records to share.

There has been some flak over at another forum. It sounds to me like I am being attacked for wanting to keep my name out of the controversy. There is no quarrel with the messenger. If anyone has a problem with the records, go to NARA and ask them for the same records. Or go to the records' source, whoever they might be.

I obtained the FAA records from NARA right after SEP 30, 2011. The FOIA reference number is 36411.

Anyone wishing to have a copy of the records or the finding aids provided by NARA, please contact me for assistance.

Thank you very much.

Thank you kawika, we never claimed that you manipulated the file.

But did you prompt Warren Stutt to state the following?

"I got the file from a source who wishes to remain anonymous since he [kawika] knew P4T would shoot the messenger."

A simple yes or no will do.

No, I did not knowingly prompt anyone to say anything. I was engaged in a conversation for the sole purpose of sharing the records and hopefully learning something about them in the process.

So would you say in your opinion that Warren Stutt is intentionally being deceptive when he states....

"I got the file from a source who wishes to remain anonymous since he [kawika] knew P4T would shoot the messenger."

Especially considering the fact that I gave you FTP access to our server several months ago?

For the record, kawika did read the above nearly an hour ago.

I have no intention of "shooting the messenger" in this case.

But I will have no problem exposing the truth.

It appears some people would rather avoid the truth... while others make up the truth.

kawika.. answer my question please.

I'm not kawika, but judging from Warren's recent message over at UM, perhaps the issue here is that kawika was afraid that you might, in fact, have shot the messenger. Speaking from experience, I know that you're not always kind to people who generally support your views regarding 9/11 but don't always agree with your views on those who disagree with you.

Warren is a deceptive weasel as kawika above explained (and explained to me in more detail via PM) he never said anything of the sort to Warren.

Warren took it upon himself to claim what kawika allegedly "knew", in order to attack our organization and me personally. In other words, Warren will deceive in an attempt to discredit P4T.

scott, have you asked Warren why he ran from his own calculations which confirm his own paper as disinformation?

You may also want to tell booNy that i gave kawika FTP access months ago for many different types of files, not that kawika uploaded the file in question months ago. Kawika uploaded the file provided by Warren on the same day Warren got the file. Once again boony makes an interpretation/assumption based on his confirmation bias and gets it completely wrong.....

It's good to know that kawika has now explained things. Admittedly, Warren had begun to persuade me of what I said in my previous post. I see no evidence that Warren himself didn't believe it to be true, but it seems clear now that he was mistaken.



I have now quoted your post over at UM, along with the dialogue leading up to it for those at UM (like Czero) who don't come here often.

"Mistaken"?

You don't find it particularly deceptive on Warrens part when he states....


"I got the file from a source who wishes to remain anonymous since he [kawika] knew P4T would shoot the messenger."

... and yet kawika never said anything of the sort nor would give that impression as kawika himself uploaded the file to our FTP on the same day Warren got the file. Not only that, but kawika sent me a PM (with a few in cc) on the same day as well... saying he uploaded that particular file, along with others, packaged in a rar file. I figured they were more of the same he posted here, so I continued with other priorities until I had time to look over the files. Warren clearly jumped on it, made his interpretations based on his confirmation bias, and posted it just a few hours later to our forum linked from his website.

kawika would have never given Warren the impression he "wishes to remain anonymous since he [kawika] knew P4T would shoot the messenger." as kawika knows I would eventually know the source of the file.

Warren wasn't 'mistaken'. He fabricated a statement in order to take a dig at P4T.

Plain and simple.

I held off from responding to this post all day in the hopes that Warren would say something over at UM concerning this. Since he hasn't, I've decided to just go ahead anyway. I know of one time where you thought that something was "plain and simple", when it wasn't. You once assumed that I had lied about something and suspended my account here for 3 months, but I had only made a mistake. While kawika may not have tried to give the impression that he wished to remain anonymous, Warren may have misinterpreted something he said and assumed that kawika wished to remain anonymous. I think that Warren's relationship with you may have contributed in him coming to this conclusion.

Scott, this isn't about you nor is it the same. I let you back here to ask questions you may have regarding our work, not to speculate on individual behavior, especially when you clearly are not familiar with the precedent and reasoning behind the motive. I know you like to try to be the go-between and would rather everyone sitting down singing kumbaya, but it doesn't work that way in the real world. The information is there, kawika responded, Warren attempted to portray what kawika "knew" implying he was told such a statement by kawika, he wasn't, no one was suspended over it... readers can decide for themselves. We are demonstrating a pattern here....

If Warren had said something like -

"I got the file from a source who wishes to remain anonymous since he [kawika] probably thinks P4T would shoot the messenger."

Then I can see your point and we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.

But the fact of the matter is... Warren said this...
"I got the file from a source who wishes to remain anonymous since he [kawika] knew P4T would shoot the messenger."

Do ya see the difference Scott? Perhaps not....

Again, readers can decide for themselves.

And by the way, kawika is still anonymous to the public, but not because "he knew P4T would shoot the messenger".. that's absurd given the fact I do know his real name and have his number. We've even spoken on the phone. I don't give just anyone access to our server via FTP.

As to the pattern of Warren attempting to discredit P4T. through his own deception.... try to stick to reasons behind his proven deceptive tactics instead of High School drama...

Have you asked Warren why he ran away from his own calculations which confirm his last paper as disinformation?

Second time asked.

He will no doubt tell you that he wanted to discuss ACARS, rather than his own paper (which is mostly an attack on our organization and our work). In that case, do you feel we should let him discuss ACARS here when it is proven fact, even using his own calculations, that his last paper is confirmed disinformation combined with the fact (for anyone who has followed our debates) that Warren has a notorious habit of avoiding questions which destroy his theories? Should we just ignore his past confirmed disinformation he has spread and let him spread more? I'm sure Warren would like that as he has been evasive for nearly a year, but it doesn't work that way for anyone who values accountability. Especially given the fact his last paper was an all out assault on our organization, his 'paper' has been proven completely false... and is now considered confirmed disinformation since he is aware of his errors yet refuses to fix such 'mistakes'.

But perhaps you feel he "may be mistaken" on his 'mistakes', on top of more "mistakes".

I'm aware it isn't about me. I just used my own experience with you to explain why Warren may have genuinely been afraid that kawika would get in trouble with you if he was revealed as the source of his information.



Not yet, no. "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Maybe someday you'll join us, and the world shall be as one" -John Lennon
I think that John Lennon meant everyone by his "you"; it's certainly what I mean. It'll take time ofcourse.



Why is it impossible for Warren to have misinterpreted what kawika has said?




Ofcourse I see the difference. But people can misinterpret what someone said slightly and this can lead to consequences that are much bigger then the original problem. I draw your attention to a certain passage in your first ACARS article that we both agreed should be removed.



Indeed.



Ok.



I quoted you word for word on that the last time you brought it up and linked the post where I quoted you in a previous message here. The post I linked to is here.



So far, he hasn't responded at all to your question.



I think the question of who Warren is accountable to is more important. I would say the answer is that he is accountable to his audience; but his audience isn't a singular entity. Warren is clearly someone who many people have listened to in the past and I imagine that many people will continue to do so. He is someone that various members over at UM respect, I know that. I personally don't agree with his theories regarding the 9/11 planes; I agree with yours. Nevertheless, I admit that I haven't really gone into his arguments as of yet. I think it's clear that the situation is different with you; I believe you've debunked all of his arguments of note, but I admit that I'm going on faith here; I couldn't list how you've debunked his various points at present. I frequently rely on intuition when I don't have all the answers, and for a long time, based on what I do know, your logic has made sense in so many points regarding the 9/11 planes and the pentagon attack that it stands to reason that even your arguments that I'm not familiar with would be the same. This being said, there are many people who aren't as familiar with your arguments as I am and so may doubt them more. To me, you and PFT have always worked best as something like an Oracle; when I can't figure something out, I'll ask you guys to help me out. I think this is a great advantage for you as well; having debated a fair amount of issues in my day, I'm all too aware that repeating the same answers again and again can get pretty dull. Articles explaining various aspects regarding the 9/11 planes can provide a welcome relief from such endeavours, and you've done a fair amount of this. I ask if you could forget about Warren to some extent; clearly you 2 don't get along very well. I ask that you simply help me and others who believe your theories but don't understand all of them on certain points from time to time and perhaps things would go better for all involved.



I can easily believe that his paper has been proven false; but I think it's much harder to prove that he himself realizes this.



Why not? People frequently build mistakes on top of their mistakes. What I admire about Warren is that he's willing to go out there and talk about his theories. The fact of the matter is that not many people are willing to do this; in time, I think that any mistakes that he's made will be more fully understood, not just by you and various members of PFT, but by the 9/11 Truth movement as a whole. I hope you agree that there is still a major rift within the truth movement regarding the Pentagon attack; and, judging by Q24's remarks, there's also some disagreement on what happened to the official 9/11 planes. By people talking about it, I believe that we can clear things up. But I'm not asking you to do this by yourself; as a matter of fact, I'm happy if you'd just stay here and I could consult with you in times when I and others who believe your theories aren't sure about an issue.

Scott,

Going around in circles with you based on your speculation of individual behavior is getting tiresome, again, readers can decide for themselves.

So lets just get to the crux of the issue.



So, you now think Warren doesn't understand basic math?

Scott, you don't need faith, all you have to do is read (and perhaps get out a calculator).

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10803075

Click the link Scott. Try to understand it. You can do it. I have faith in ya..

If there is something you don't understand, I'll be happy to walk you through it. That is why I let you back here, no offense, but you serve as an excellent lowest common denominator for other layman readers.




And yet you say this in your same post...

"So far, he hasn't responded at all to your question."

Yes, I know, he's been avoiding them for nearly a year. The answers to my questions destroy the very foundation of his own paper.... using his own calculations no less...

Hmm.... imagine that.

The reason he is "out there" discussing his "theories" (yet still avoiding my questions), is because we won't let him spread further disinformation here until he addresses and takes accountability for his past confirmed disinformation.

Here we go. Another thread being hijacked by Scott's departmentalized bullshit.



Funny Scott how every single disinfobot is defended by you in what they "may" mean or why they "may" be lying, yet when the same unfounded and usually thoroughly refuted accusations are aimed at Pilotsfor911truth or CIT, you are as tightlipped as a camel's asshole in a desert storm. In fact you actually chime in with the "I'm a victim too of these people" every chance you get.

Maybe it's because of your double standards and microanalyzing of possible excuses for blatant lies and disinformation?

Scott thinks that people like Stutt and Brian Good are on the same wavelength or have the same standards as the majority of members of this or CIT's forum when it comes to finding the truth and arguing from fact based evidence. Newsflash Scott. They don't. They are manipulative, agenda-driven cowards.

If you're not directly quoting these people, that is, Warren Stutt, do us all a favur and keep your opinions on what they "may" be thinking to yourself?

lol.... yeah.. good point and well stated.

I let Scott back on here so he would be able to ask us questions regarding our work that may arise on other forums. so he can better understand the work without having to reply on "faith". Instead, he is back to his old canard of speculation based on individual behavior and motives trying to play the role of a quasi-matchmaker, attempting to rail into me because he once was suspended, for yes, lying. And Scott, if you would like to discuss the reasons why you were suspended, please start another thread.... do not do it here.

Hey Scott, can these same people who you feel "may be mistaken"... might rather be "deceptive" with an agenda?

Might that be a possibility to you as well?

Or perhaps you do not wish to discuss that possibility.

Seems to me you were speculating on his motives as well, but like you said, let's get to the crux of the issue.



I clicked. I don't think it's as simple to ascertain the truth of what you post to someone who hasn't studied it a while as you seem to believe. This in and of itself lends credence to my view that Warren may not be aware of his mistakes. But more importantly, I don't want to get into this issue right now. I have my hands full just trying to get my head around all of the ACARS stuff, and have agreed with Q24 to go into the eyewitnesses of the pentagon attack.



-.-. I disagree with you there, but I certainly would agree that there are many people here who know more on these things then I do. I did notice a post from Dennis Cimino regarding the pentagon attack, for instance. Clearly, he's not impressed with Warren's work. Based on your previous recounting of Dennis' expertise, I'd think that's a pretty big indictment of Warren's work. That being said, I still need time before I can take Warren on directly.



Well, I didn't say he responded to everything that was asked of him...



So he spreads his theories elsewhere, and that's where I and others come in. Rob, I'm well aware that you and many others here are avionics experts. The thing is, most people aren't. The technical aspects of these things that you think are trivial are anything but for many. Despite this, some of us keep on trying to comprehend them. I thank you for the help you have given me in the past to understand these points and hope you will continue to help me to some extent in the future.

uh huh. so the witnesses interviewed by CIT aren't enough for you? what, is seven a bad number for you? what is it with you and this q24 anyway? like what, if he fails, you fail?

I vote deceptive.


He hasn't corrected any of his "mistakes" and that makes him deceptive.

Whoever "Scott75" is, he certainly seemed bent on creating a scenario that focused on "kawika" feeling a certain way about Rob. You can look at "Scott75" as a "go-between" or "peace-maker", but the other side of the coin is he gives "Warren Stutt" legitimacy by humoring the notion that he doesn't realize he is mistaken. If their disinformation is left unchecked then it just floats online waiting to be grabbed by desperate deniers. Furthermore, "Scott75" continues to refer to "Warren Stutt's" disinformation as "theories". The trick there being a "theory" can be true. This we are talking about, is proven disinformation. It's the same reason why whoever "Scott75" is reduces the flyover evidence to a "theory", because I would assume the point is to make it seem unproven, when it is completely proven.

I see "Scott75" constantly playing the victim and making others seem irrational for not dealing with the incessant and blatant disinformation. If he were really trying to find resolution he would hold their feet to the fire on the issues they are very clearly avoiding.

Whoever "Scott75" is, they are shady as hell IMO.

As for "kawika", I have no idea why he is working with the likes of John Farmer and Warren Stutt. He must not be on the same page. All he is doing is creating a giant "cluster****" workin with these guys. He must not realize who the bad guys are yet. Which is pretty ridiculous considering where we are at.

agreed. it's the end of 2011, basically, ten years after the fact, none of the oct talking points stand up to scrutiny. anybody supporting any aspect of the oct anymore is gladio imho.

It's not enough for Q24.



If he fails in what? I've known Q24 for a few years now. I think that he isn't as thorough in reviewing the evidence as I am, but then, he's certainly not the only person in that category, or there wouldn't be a rift in the 9/11 Truth movement regarding the pentagon attack and other issues. This being said, he is fairly civilized, and he holds a fair amount of influence over at Unexplained Mysteries, a forum with 100,000 members. If I could simply persuade him that, despite his dislike of PFT and CIT, their theories regarding the pentagon attack and the 9/11 planes make sense, I think it could be helpful in persuading others of the merits of their theories.

It's this type of language that gets big names like founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Richard Gage to tune out from what you guys have to say.

Richard may not want to get too close to a flight deck nor a flight school then... his virgin ears may not be able to take it. You may also want to inform him that he is promoting confirmed disinformation. I and other pilots within our organization attempted to inform him, but apparently he tuned out anyway without anyone insulting him or anyone else.

Some people may be better at sugar coating and blowing smoke up others asses but a sugar coated turd is still a turd. Perhaps Richard likes taking a big bite since it is wrapped in sugar.

Scott, I let you back on this forum so you could ask questions regarding our work which may arise on other forums. All you have done is cause disruption once again without the willingness to learn when I offered my time to walk you through the information. Don't bother asking to come back. You're done.

Feel free to listen to what Warren has to say, but when it comes down to the final subpoenas and expert witness lists, Warren won't even make it into a court room, let alone to the stand, considering his admitted lack of expertise on the matter.

If you have questions, email me. Other than that, expect to be ignored. You are no longer welcome here.

people used to put stalin, hitler etc on a pedestal.
in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. "i've known gw bush for years..", "i've known obama for years..." that means nothing. civilized...next. influence..next... 100,000 idiots...next. supposedly, 69M idiots voted for obama. you don't make sense.

So not only is Warren spreading disinfo, but he "might not" be aware of it??

Scott, I'm no aviation expert but I try to dig for and study as far as I'm capable of. And Rob has explained many of his errors in layman terms for the benefit of us noobs. Now if I can understand (the majority of) them, do you honestly believe that Warren can't? Wise up.

Rob explained the errors in detail to Warren. He instead listened to "advice" from people who want anything but the truth to be in the public domain.

Rob pointed out the errors to Warren and he simply ignored them and went ahead and co-penned the Legge bs paper. And those alleged "pilots" at J.REF refused to endorse it!

Rob pointed out the errors to Warren and he simply decided not to respond. Duhbunker tactics.

Again making excuses...

Has he responded to your post at UM yet?

Maybe that. Or maybe listening to the likes of Chris "NOC impact" Sarns and Brian "I don't care about the Pentagon" Good.

okay, gosh. having one of those warm and fuzzy moments..q24 gets his head out of his ass, scott75 follows suit. miraculously we are all on the same page. acars, noc, controlled demo, stand-down, etc etc etc.

seriously..seriously? wtf? q24 believes..wah wah, give it a rest. you know what scott75, i hope you and q24 are happy in never never land doing whatever together. wow, what a graphic.

edit: in retrospect, what a waste of clock cycles.

Scott blew it guys.

He had his chance, I pointed him the right direction and was willing to take the time to explain anything he didn't understand. He didn't even bother to read the full exchange because if he did, Scott would immediately realize Warren has admitted errors but refuses to fix them....

Case in point...




...albeit Warren feels such errors are "trivial"... the fact that Scott thinks Warren is unaware of any of his errors just demonstrates that Scott isn't willing to review any of the dialogue at all, and would rather debate on faith. This is not a cult... if people aren't willing to learn the information, they should not attempt to argue the information, especially if they don't even take the time to simply read through the matter in which they attempt to argue and make excuses.

Scott is a huge waste of time and I would personally rather Scott not argue in favor of any of our work until he thoroughly understands it.

If anyone else has any questions with respect to the above linked exchange, feel free to ask. But it seems those who take the time to actually read and learn the information are already aware that not many questions remain, and Warren is in fact pushing disinformation, by definition.

When Sunstein came out with his diabolic plan to infiltrate Truth movements, i remember at the time thinking about

what "kind" of people he might be able to find who would be willing to participate in such a nasty scheme!

Now that i have had a look over at UM, and experienced the "works" by people like 'cracynoob' and 'czero' (being

already familiar with the 'works' by 'snowcrash', 'stutt' and others), all this came back to me rather quickly.

You've mentioned that these people got an 'agenda', but i think this could be expanded, as it also looks to me that

they are on a sustained "mission".

People on a "mission" are normally rewarded in one way or another, but mostly financially i suppose!


I'm of course only 'speculating' here, but my feeling is that these speculations of mine would be anything but 'idle'.

Far too many 'things' about these people, makes it more than plausible, me think!

(I seem to recall that stutt and bursill has been in contact with each other! Can this be seconded by anyone?)


My point is, remaining on the safe side, that perhaps it would be much better to completely ignore these people,

as i can see nothing good coming from further contact with these "kind of missionaries" - as this being the case!


From Wikipedia:
".....
Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting "nongovernmental officials"; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed."^[23] Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts." This position has been criticized by some commentators,^[24][25] who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens.^[26] Sunstein and Vermeule's proposed infiltrations have also been met by sharply critical scholarly critiques.
....."


Cheers

Well, I hope at least some of them are on the payroll, if not, they lead pretty sad lives when they are obsessed with people they think are fools. lol

But to further your point, some have claimed I am on the COINTEL payroll.


To that I say....

How exactly am I able to grow a list of my peers, many of which have more experience than me, if I am pushing "disinformation"?

Are they all COINTELPRO? lol... well... keep an eye on the list as more are coming.. I have another update to do....

While people like Warren cannot even get a .J.REF alleged "pilot" to endorse his bullshit.

(whoops, I said 'bullshit', now people may "tune out" as their virgin ears just can't take such language.. oh the horror! .lol)

Well, that's their infuriatingly mean, dirty and vile trick: To accuse others for what obviously and transparently they themselves are.

These people live in the gutter, and thus would be completely without a conscience, and completely devoid of self-awareness.

Hence they only appeal to the lower and lowest section of society, and are too dumb and gone to even realize this themselves.


Anyway, i feel sorry for the 'bastards', for they are their own worst enemy. They have to live with themselves for the rest of their

lives.

I visited .J.REF over a year ago. Smelled the stench, and have never been back since.

Clearly there's only so much one can take, before it becomes "unbearable"!


Cheers

and merry merry Christmas and happy happy new year to all!

Well they could be on the COINTEL payroll but I think it is more likely to be the case of (as one of our former politicians described) "A Conga Line of Suckholes*"

*Australian slang for sycophant, ass-licker etc.

I took a short stroll over at UM.

Warren has replied...

"At least here, we'll be able to have a discussion without me being suspended and then told that I'm avoiding the issue by the very person who suspended me.

Warren. "

For the record Warren is not suspended here. He is on moderator preview and his posts have been approved and will continue to be approved when he addresses the questions he continues to avoid.

As stated in the title of this thread.. "Warren Stutt - Mistaken or Deceptive"?

He is being deceptive once again as he is not suspended. Perhaps Scott thinks Warren is unaware of this.... lol

But yet Warren already knows he wasn't "suspended".

"Rob has put my account on moderate, so he has to approve my posts before they appear." - Warren Stutt, Dec 14, 2011, JREF Forum

I wonder when Warren The Weasel will ever get tired of being caught in his lies.

"At least here, we'll be able to have a discussion without me being suspended and then told that I'm avoiding the issue by the very person who suspended me.

Warren. " - Warren Stutt, 11:03PM Eastern, Dec 21, 2011

Less than a few hours later....

"It is true that I am not currently suspended. " - Warren Stutt, 3:24AM Eastern, Dec 22, 2011

I suppose Warren can now only hope to convince the lowest common denominator. I wish him luck with that as I don't even think Scott will now buy into his bullshit, but I could be "mistaken".


Seriously though.. does anyone have any doubts as to why Warren Stutt cannot get any verified aviation professional to support his 'theories'?

I'd like to address this here for any possible future questions (although I have addressed this on air many times), but since I am following closely the deception of Warren Stutt tonight/this morning on UM.... I came across this from "Q24"




You are absolutely right "Q24". We are not part of any "Truth Movement" that you are a part of....


We are part of a "Movement" who actually place our names, faces and professional reputations on the line. "We" spend thousands to interview witnesses in person and bring them to people like you. We are not part of the "black shirts" who go marching down through NYC screaming "911 Was An Inside job!", nor are we any part of Richard Gage's AE911Truth who earns nearly a half a million dollars per year to travel the world.... yet hasnt so much as filled out an affidavit into a court of law.

So, if you are part of that "Truth Movement", you are right "Q24", we are no part of you. We actually put our names behind our claims... for starters...


(and for the record "Q24" is able to post here... but he also tucked tail and ran when forced to address the facts)

Just to jog Warren Stutt's memory..

Stutt's data still shows too high to hit the Pentagon

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10778248



Warren's response? Nothing.


Warren's acknowledging that his "bank data" doesn't correlate with the ASCE Report's claim that the aircraft was in at least a 5º left roll to match the facade damage (by my reckoning it actually had to be 8-9º bank). There are no left banks recorded throughout his "bank roll data" in the last 6 seconds of flight.

ASCE Impact Summary Image

Warren and Legge's excuse in their paper?



I'll let that one sink in...just suffice to say all photographic evidence available to us shows no "wing" on the lawn on the OCT path across the lawn and that the alleged damage to the trailer required the aircraft to already be banking.


Stutt denying the documented limitations of RADALT for commercial aircraft and ultimately his "altitude divergence claims"


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794072



Even his friend at J.REF, "apathoid" dismissed his claims:



Explained in layman terms here (Scott):

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793876

and here (I actually found this easier to take in personally)

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794159

My personal favourite:

The "reason" why Stutt dismissed the Pressure Altitude readings that show the aircraft too high to hit the Pentagon. Both in the NTSB released data and Stutt's own "extra seconds"

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10794139

Read through the three or four posts after...

There's more (far more), but it's a start.