Flight path of the plane that approached the pentagon

reply to Q24-7's post #60

Originally posted by Q24-7

Originally posted by scott3x
Balsamo makes the rules there, and the rule he made was that you had to address all the points they'd already made against your witnesses. As I mentioned to you previously, I wish they'd let you continue with your witness list, as I believe every single one of them would thus have been discredited. But you could certainly continue your list here if you like.

I could spend forever going in circles without ever addressing all the points to the satisfaction of people like you and those at P4T.

Probably because, as you said, you'd be going in circles, without ever addressing a host of points against your arguments.

Originally posted by Q24-7
That is the reason I spelt out in the opening post of that thread that I would follow a certain format – present witness, note all concerns against the account, move on to the next witness.

Yes, I know. The main problem is that you seemed to be overly dismissive of their points against your arguments, but as I've already mentioned, I was fine with you continuing on with your list. Rob wasn't though, and as we know, he makes the rules there.

Originally posted by Q24-7
By the end we would have had all witnesses supporting a south flight path

Or atleast all the witnesses who you believed supported a south flight path, which is quite a different story than the reality in my view.

Originally posted by Q24-7
and all arguments against them, ie an informative thread with all of the evidence and arguments for/against. I managed to present only 6 out of approximately 40 witnesses before being censored. Balsamo could not allow such an open exchange of information to take place on his forum because upon viewing by most people it would crush the idea of a Pentagon flyover and discredit many P4T members.

Balsamo himself had a different take on it; he stated that he felt it would confuse people. People do -so- much better in places where he and most other PFT members aren't around to correct erroneous evidence, ofcourse :-p.

Originally posted by Q24-7
Anyhow, I made Balsamo a promise in my last post and that is in part what I’m here for… just have to reach 20 posts so that I can start a topic. It’s going to be interesting to see how the various forums react.

That's great Q. As you know, I have always admired the fact that you are fairly civil under fire. This is the main reason that I spent so much time countering your arguments over at Unexplained Mysteries and is also the reason I didn't favour you getting banned at PFT and CIT.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by scott3x]

Scott,
you certainly know aircraft and calculus/trigonometry

Originally posted by weedwhackerYou conveniently ignore the fact that I wrote about and addressed the inconcistency in altitude specifics, when you respond in this manner AGAIN!!!!

YOu have absolutely no right speaking on this issue as you have not even
looked at the data. You're talking from an ignorant stand point which has
no weight in this discussion.

ALSO....we have already some doubts as to the veracity of the CSV file, compared to RAW data....and the misuse of all of this by PFT to confuse the issue. This was described at great lengths in the JREF link, above.

Once again proving your ignorance. The NSTB provided the altitude
information. It's wrong. The last recorded altitude does not account
for local pressure for PA.

It has been exposed and corrected.

You still can't even tell me which the "terrorist" set the PA for his
final approach!

Maybe if you had some smarts you'd download the file and observe the
error for yourself. Try to explain how this error happened if you can.

The rest of your post is garbage along with the JREF link. Those idiots
are so confused, they changed their theory about six times within that
thread and most recenlty got slammed down by Warren Stutt.

Sorry to say but your anonymous friends at JREF are clueless, and like
yourself talk about NTSB data they haven't even looked at!

Pretty wild if you ask me.

Why don't you go read about Mackey's idiot excuse about bird strikes
messing up the NTSB data!

LMAO!

The latest P4T presentation broke that dumb theory apart pretty quick.

You'd rather listen to a bunch of clowns that can't be verified as per FAA
data base, than a panel of experts?



Sorry kid, go copy and paste some more information so your buddies
can star your posts for being a nice guy.

Nice doesn't get you far when you try to cover up the truth. I have no
patience for people like you who make up excuses rather than studying
the information.

Do yourself a favour and download some P4T videos. It's all pilot tech
and aero tech. You should understand it if you're a real pilot...

[edit on 4-10-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by fmcanarney

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Scott,
you certainly know aircraft and calculus/trigonometry

I wish that were true. The truth of the matter, however, is that while I can certainly plug in numbers to the formulae that Rob Balsamo brought up in his video, my knowledge of trigonometry isn't profound and my knowledge of calculus is virtually if not actually non existent :-p. When a person lacks knowledge concerning something they find to be important, they try to make up for it as best they can. I have done so, and have personally -asked- experts such as Rob Balsamo and weedwalker, both former pilots, as well as others who clearly know a fair amount, such as turbofan, concerning many issues. But I'm not sure that I'll ever attain their level of proficiency with the material.

When I first came across CIT's work, I believed it. Then debunkers had me doubting for a time, but after checking it out more thoroughly, I became persuaded. I firmly belief that frequently, beliefs are formed based on a 'best guess' type of logic. Theories work the same way; you have so much evidence that would seem to support a certain point of view, so you go with it. A good scientist, however, isn't satisfied with best guesses and tries very hard to not fall into the trap of assuming that his evidence shouldn't be questioned, or in looking into evidence that would appear to contradict one's theories. This is the model I strive for.

Put another way; intuition can give you a direction for which to search for knowledge, but don't stop there. When faced with things that would appear to contradict one's theories, don't run away from them or fall back on other arguments that you believe to be "fool proof" unless the whole issue doesn't interest you. Only do so if, after putting in the effort, you simply can't find a way to counter the anomaly or anomalies. If that's the case, file it away, and yes, at that point you must fall back on your other evidence.

Many people have given me the opportunity to make arguments that I would not have otherwise been able to make. Furthermore, weedwhacker and turbofan are still doing it. I wish they'd give each other more of a break though; to make an analogy, it's like 2 titans mocking each other's prowess, while scores of others only -wish- they could be so 'dumb' on the subject :-p.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by turbofan

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by weedwhackerYou conveniently ignore the fact that I wrote about and addressed the inconcistency in altitude specifics, when you respond in this manner AGAIN!!!!

YOu have absolutely no right speaking on this issue as you have not even
looked at the data. You're talking from an ignorant stand point which has
no weight in this discussion.

ALSO....we have already some doubts as to the veracity of the CSV file, compared to RAW data....and the misuse of all of this by PFT to confuse the issue. This was described at great lengths in the JREF link, above.

Once again proving your ignorance. The NSTB provided the altitude
information. It's wrong. The last recorded altitude does not account
for local pressure for PA.

It has been exposed and corrected.

Weedwhacker, I'd just like to say these points of turbo's do sound rather compelling. I believe Rob Balsamo was saying the same thing; all that issue with 'snap back'...

reply to post by turbofan

YOu have absolutely no right speaking on this issue as you have not even looked at the data.

Oh. My studies of the data count for nothing? NOR, my many years of experience actually FLYING the airplanes....not just looking at 'data' from a computer creen, but real-world hands-on knowledge???

OK, I see....I have no rights, according to you. YOU'RE THE BOSS!!!! Have you been crowned 'King'???

You're talking from an ignorant stand point which has
no weight in this discussion.

I have no specific response to this sentence. I include it only because of its humor factor......



But, as the unravelling continues....

Originally posted by weedwhackerALSO....we have already some doubts as to the veracity of the CSV file, compared to RAW data....and the misuse of all of this by PFT to confuse the issue. This was described at great lengths in the JREF link, above.

Once again proving your ignorance. The NSTB provided the altitude information. It's wrong. The last recorded altitude does not account for local pressure for PA.

MY ignorance??!!?? Welll......

The NTSB gave an altitude, used in the video animation that we're talking about here. IT IS the PA, as recorded. All of the misdirecton about the altimeter settings, and whether or not the altimeters ONBOARD were actually re-set (manually) or not....didit EVER OCCUR to any of you that the NTSB made the animationa nd ACCOUNTED for the local altimeter setting variation??? No? WHY NOT??????

Because, to ignore that possibility plays too well into the fantasy scenario that MUST be adhered to, no matter what cost.

THAT is a major difference. I WILL accept VALID information, if presented in a fair manner, to alter my opinion and understanding of the events. SO FAR? i don't see any fairnesscoming from the PFT...nor the CIT.

You still can't even tell me which the "terrorist" set the PA for his final approach!

Now, THIS is a new and very funny tactic...once again. Keep mistaking, and messing up the facts....cloud them, it's a great strategy...

Maybe if you had some smarts you'd download the file and observe the error for yourself. Try to explain how this error happened if you can.

See the JREF analysis. the 'CSV' file is NOT...I repeat, is NOT a valid data set tomake the conclusions your group has made. UNLESS you are a computer builtintoyour brain...and can read bytes of data, and then magically convert them to data understandable by normal Humans....

Sorry kid,

"kid"????? Nice try.....

go copy and paste some more information...

Sorry, that is YOUR turf....

...so your buddies can star your posts for being a nice guy.

MY 'buddies'??? LOL! LOL! LOL! I HAVE NO 'BUDDIES' !!!! .......Khan!!!!!!!!!! ((vague Star Trek reference, in case you missedit...))

Do yourself a favour and download some P4T videos. It's all pilot tech and aero tech. You should understand it if you're a real pilot...

Oh...my......

I HAVE seen the "P4T" videos....and I laugh at them, mostly.

When I'm NOT YELLING at the incredible stupidity displayed, and in ways to fool the non-pilots in the targeted audience!!!!

BUT, keep your cheerleading outfits, 'cause you're gonna need 'em!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yawwwn,

Once again Weedwacker is speaking from his/her rear end.

He/she still has not been able to quote the CSV file...therefore it proves
he/she has not studied the data.

When you can tell me at what point in flight the "terrorist" set the PA
value, we can continue this discussion.

Until then, you're just another guy/girl with an uneducated opinion.

Do yourself a favour and at least download the data so you can look
somewhat smart when I ask you to reference a cell location.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by turbofan

 

OK, I see....I have no rights, according to you. YOU'RE THE BOSS!!!! Have you been crowned 'King'???

Yes weedwhacker, that’s the impression I also have of turbofan. Being an admin at P4T he seems to forget that he doesn’t carry the same authority on other forums. Over there if you disagree with him he will call you a “******* idiot” – I just thought everyone should know the type of person we are dealing with here.


pilotsfor911truth.org...

reply to post by Q24-7
Something similar happened to me when I still had posting privileges over there, Q24-7. I was called a racist because I didn't believe what some of the NOC/ONA eyewitnesses claim they saw. And then I was put on moderated response by the Grand Poobah himself.

The concept of free speech eludes that bunch. You'll find that the moderators here at ATS are much fairer.

reply to post by Q24-7


When Weed, or any of you GL's have studied the data well enough to
debate, I'll give you some respect.

Right now, you're all just blowing smoke and making excuses about a
topic you have no idea about. That's the reason you were temp. banned/
banned from P4T.

THey already have their homework complete and checked; they don't
need a bunch of trolls coming into the debate with half-thought opinions.

It gets old after a few, or more times.

Weed, do you have the NTSB data downloaded yet, or are you afraid to face
what you might find?

EDIT: replace words with proper words

[edit on 4-10-2009 by turbofan]

Perhaps I'll get OTed for writing this... on the subject of OTs, I really disagree with these OTs sometimes; sometimes, you have to deal with interpersonal issues just so you can get them out of the way and then refocus on the specific subject at hand. As long as you can do it without using base language (you know, the usual insults that generally seem to be used just for the sake of putting someone else down), I think that relatively brief forays into such things can actually be quite beneficial to a discussion.

Alright, well we'll see if that saves this post from getting OTed...

I think a lot of people agree that PFT's bedside manner isn't exactly charming for the debutante who likes to ask questions (I include myself here) or, worse, who dares to disagree with them without having a pilot's knowledge to do it with. Even one of the longtime posters at PFT admitted that Rob can be prickly at times. Rob Balsamo put it this way:

Guys... im tough to deal with at times.. i agree.. i will never change.... i can be your most loyal friend or your worst enemy. The choice is yours... literally. Respect is earned around here and many of us have a low tolerance for slackers. If we had the resources for a PR dept to coddle the lowest common denominator, we would employ as such. We just do not have the man power nor the resources. Feel free to donate.... step up to the plate.. whatever...

We disagree on what one should have to do to earn "respect", and I know for a fact that he can jump to false conclusions regarding people's actions and motives, but his knowledge of what happened with the 9/11 planes is hard to beat.

It's for this reason that I have never personally doubted that he and others at his site know a fair amount, especially those like Rob Balsamo who are pilots (yes, I know, he can no longer fly a plane due to a medical condition, but his expertise doesn't just dissapear). I personally feel that turbofan isn't quite at weedwhacker's level (I think that AF's pilot friend about summed things up in a similar manner), but he's drawing on the knowledge of bona fide pilots and I think that this will ultimately more than make up for any minor technical errors he may make.

reply to post by turbofan

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by Q24-7

 

When Weed, or any of you GL's have studied the data well enough to
debate, I'll give you some respect.

GLs? I agree that Weed should study the data, although.. it seems he's saying he has? Am I right there Weed?

Originally posted by turbofan
RIght now, you're all just blowing smoke and making excuses about a
topic you have no idea about. That's the reason you were temp. banned/
banned for P4T.

I personally feel that Q's primary mistake was in not responding, and quite possibly not even reading a fair amount of what was sent his way. I think he's done the same with me, but I'm somewhat more tolerant of that type of thing :-p. My own ban, however, can't be so easily explained. Put simply, Rob made a mistake. He accused me of lying, when all I'd done was make a false assumption.

Originally posted by turbofan
THey already have their homework complete and checked; they don't
need a bunch of trolls coming into the debate with half-thought opinions.

What you see as trolls, I see as potential students. I argued then, and I still argue now, that Rob asks that the students learn far too much alone. In this forum, atleast, we can ask a pilot questions without having him sending us to some ponderous thread or other to figure out the answers for ourselves.

Originally posted by turbofan
Weed, do you have the NTSB data downloaded yet...?

That's a question I too would like to know the answer to.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Q24-7

 

Something similar happened to me when I still had posting privileges over there, Q24-7. I was called a racist because I didn't believe what some of the NOC/ONA eyewitnesses claim they saw. And then I was put on moderated response by the Grand Poobah himself.

The concept of free speech eludes that bunch. You'll find that the moderators here at ATS are much fairer.

If I were an ATS moderator on these threads there are several people posting here who would be on probation. It gets so snarky and mean sometimes that it is painful to read.

Yeh Yeh...off topic post...

reply to post by A Fortiori

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Q24-7

 

Something similar happened to me when I still had posting privileges over there, Q24-7. I was called a racist because I didn't believe what some of the NOC/ONA eyewitnesses claim they saw. And then I was put on moderated response by the Grand Poobah himself.

The concept of free speech eludes that bunch. You'll find that the moderators here at ATS are much fairer.

If I were an ATS moderator on these threads there are several people posting here who would be on probation. It gets so snarky and mean sometimes that it is painful to read.

Yeh Yeh...off topic post...

I made a -thread- where such posts would be -on- topic. It was called "Caricaturizing one's opponent's doesn't help 9/11 discussions" and had 60+ posts. Shortly before 5pm today, Mirthful Me deleted it. No explanation given, other than the automatic one:
[Your thread has been removed because it contained information already posted to ATS, or there may have been offensive content in your post.
Please review our Terms and Conditions:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Or actions for for general abuse:
www.abovetopsecret.com... ].

I've asked eir to explain why they did it in a forum, but the same admin moved it to the complaints section, which I don't think is visible.

After looking at the Dealing with 9/11 Madness thread, I'm thinking that maybe it should go there. I actually see that someone who might have actually instigated the push to get the thread deleted there....

reply to post by scott3x


See, my friend doesn't (or didn't) have a dog in the fight. Yes, he has opinions on 9-11 but not the argument turbo and Weed were making. So he looked at what they were posting and gave me the opinion I asked for--incidentally, what I thought was cool was that he said he enjoyed reading both posts. He said that they both brought their A game and that Weed had more experience. He didn't say that turbo had none, just that Weed seemed to know more of what he was talking about regarding the faster than safe speed.

The point was that he enjoyed himself while reading the posts. I know that I love to read their back and forths. What would be lovelier is if they enjoyed themselves. It feels like they are angry (I could be wrong) and if they are not angry then maybe they could read their own writing and see the level of disdain and pull it back a notch.

Weed and I disagree on some things but we get along in U2Us, where I am sure we still don't agree, but we can be civil. I like that.

Why can't we enjoy ourselves on here without tarnishing the debate with snark? Yes, snark is fun and I have been guilty of it from time to time, but what I guess they could or should understand is that they are now "google-able". People will google 9-11 and end up reading their posts. Why not pull it back a notch and have a little fun with each other while educating the masses?

reply to post by A Fortiori

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by scott3x

 

See, my friend doesn't (or didn't) have a dog in the fight. Yes, he has opinions on 9-11 but not the argument turbo and Weed were making.

Nods...

Originally posted by A Fortiori
So he looked at what they were posting and gave me the opinion I asked for--incidentally, what I thought was cool was that he said he enjoyed reading both posts. He said that they both brought their A game and that Weed had more experience. He didn't say that turbo had none, just that Weed seemed to know more of what he was talking about regarding the faster than safe speed.

Yeah, I kind of felt that way myself. I still personally feel that one of the best arguments regarding the plane's flight path only happened near the end; that is, the 10-34 G pull up from the dive that the plane would have had to have made. I don't think I've ever seen weedwhacker debunk it...

Originally posted by A Fortiori
The point was that he enjoyed himself while reading the posts. I know that I love to read their back and forths.

I confess that I frequently skip a lot of it; I just can't understand so much of it :-/

Originally posted by A Fortiori
What would be lovelier is if they enjoyed themselves. It feels like they are angry (I could be wrong) and if they are not angry then maybe they could read their own writing and see the level of disdain and pull it back a notch.

I go with your first assumption; that is, the angry bit :-p. Honestly, I tend to think that weedwhacker is actually a bit nicer about things, which puts me in a somewhat difficult position, since I in essence agree with turbofan's position.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Weed and I disagree on some things but we get along in U2Us, where I am sure we still don't agree, but we can be civil. I like that.

Cool- I just sent him my first U2U myself, laugh ;-).

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Why can't we enjoy ourselves on here without tarnishing the debate with snark? Yes, snark is fun and I have been guilty of it from time to time, but what I guess they could or should understand is that they are now "google-able". People will google 9-11 and end up reading their posts. Why not pull it back a notch and have a little fun with each other while educating the masses?

Honestly, I don't really see anything fun in snark. I at times retaliate (though always in a civil manner), but I never have "fun" doing it (it's more of a release). I agree with what you're saying... I mean seriously, I think the very fact that I (and I suspect many many others) don't understand a lot of what they're saying points something out; it's -easy- for people to get confused regarding the facts and how they are voiced; yes, even them. Perhaps if it were 2 pilots going at each other (Rob Balsamo vs. Weedwhacker, say), it would be better, since they might both be familiar with certain concepts or what not. However, I think turbofan is -way- better than anything that I and any other poster that I've seen here can come up with in regards to all those aircraft details I think.

I just read through your posts, and would like to comment on a few things:

- Yes, I will agree that Mr. Balsamo can be tough at times; he admits it,
and I'll admit it. We spent three months together while co-producing a
presentation so I think it's safe to say I know him fairly well.

In person, he's not as 'short' as he comes across on the forums. You have
to understand, P4T gets hundreds of visitors, some of which are there to
cause trouble or just spout off without having any background. It's a
slap in the face when an anonymous internet personality comes
along and slams work which you [they] jumped through hoops to bring
forward.

Many of you probably don't know, but there were some insiders from
Boeign and ARINC that helped to crack the raw file. There were meetings
off site at the risk of losing jobs to those who attended.

As for me, I'm not at all offended by A.F.'s friend observing my sub-par
"pilot speak". Afterall, he did say that he thought "Weed" may not have
been a pilot and could have grabbed his reply from the internet.

I'll admit my posts are sometimes sarcastic, but you should notice that
my first few exchanges with a new 'opponent' is normally very polite.
Only when repeated acts of ignorance occur will I become aggressive.

I'm sorry but I have no tolerance for someone who will speak as "matter
of fact" without knowing the facts...

Finally, I don't know anything about particular bannings at P4T, but i know
reasons for most. If Rob mixed up one of your posts [Scott], I'd like to have
a read through and see what happened. Most of the time we'll link a new
user to resources for research. If they need help with explanations, one
of the forum members is there to help.

reply to post by turbofan

Originally posted by turbofan
I just read through your posts, and would like to comment on a few things:

- Yes, I will agree that Mr. Balsamo can be tough at times; he admits it,
and I'll admit it. We spent three months together while co-producing a
presentation so I think it's safe to say I know him fairly well.

In person, he's not as 'short' as he comes across on the forums. You have
to understand, P4T gets hundreds of visitors, some of which are there to
cause trouble or just spout off without having any background. It's a
slap in the face when an anonymous internet personality comes
along and slams work which you [they] jumped through hoops to bring
forward.

I agree that Q24 was... sorry Q, but I just saw you as fairly arrogant over there. But I definitely don't think Rob treated me fairly. I understand what you're saying about anonymous personalities and such. I think what happened is Rob decided I wasn't what I claimed, that is, someone who did, actually, believe in the foundations of what PFT believes in, even if I didn't always agree with how prickly he and a few others there could be. Based on this erroneous view, other things happened, culminating in him believing I'd lied about something that I had in fact only made an erroneous assumption on. I spell it out here:
www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

As you can see, I made a mistake in my summary; I say that I had stated that Rob had deleted a post whereas in the original post, I had said posts. I think I had meant to say post there as well but it's been a while and I can't be sure.

Originally posted by turbofan
Many of you probably don't know, but there were some insiders from
Boeing and ARINC that helped to crack the raw file.

ARINC? And can you explain what this raw file thing is? I've heard it before but really don't understand it too well...

Originally posted by turbofan
There were meetings off site at the risk of losing jobs to those who attended.

Cool (for discovering the truth that is).

Originally posted by turbofan
As for me, I'm not at all offended by A.F.'s friend observing my sub-par
"pilot speak". Afterall, he did say that he thought "Weed" may not have
been a pilot and could have grabbed his reply from the internet.

Which is why I think he's a bit too hard on both of you guys. It's easy to make mistakes when you're emotionally involved I think; I think that goes for both you and weedwhacker. Not that I'm really in a great position to even know when a mistake has actually been made considering all the technical speak; I know that you once pointed out a mistake that I made anyway, laugh :-p.

Originally posted by turbofan
I'll admit my posts are sometimes sarcastic, but you should notice that
my first few exchanges with a new 'opponent' is normally very polite.
Only when repeated acts of ignorance occur will I become aggressive.

turbofan, it's exactly this type of thing that makes many think you guys are prickly. Put simply, while you call weedwhacker ignorant, most of us can't even understand the stuff he's saying. Which brings me to another point; I, for one, believe that weedwhacker is indeed a former pilot. Has he made any mistakes in what he's said? I'd certainly consider it to be possible but I'm just not in a position to judge. Regardless of the technical details, however, I support PFT's position, and I still haven't seen him or anyone else debunk Rob Balsamo's impossible 10-34 G pull up that would have been required to hit the light poles and hit the pentagon low and level. And then, ofcourse, there are all those North Side witnesses.

Originally posted by turbofan
I'm sorry but I have no tolerance for someone who will speak as "matter
of fact" without knowing the facts...

Why though? Q did it all the time, but he never got a rise out of me. I suggest you just focus on where you believe he's wrong and leave it at that. What good does it do to get upset about it?

Originally posted by turbofan
Finally, I don't know anything about particular bannings at P4T, but i know
reasons for most. If Rob mixed up one of your posts [Scott], I'd like to have
a read through and see what happened. Most of the time we'll link a new
user to resources for research. If they need help with explanations, one
of the forum members is there to help.

Initially, they did help with questions, but then Balsamo decided I had to read some rather ponderous and hard to understand threads. I finally started a few, but I couldn't even understand the -beginning- of the threads. His solution was that I just keep on reading. Now if this were mayan hyeroglyphs and no one knew how to decipher them, ofcourse that's what would have to be done. But clearly you guys understood that stuff. It was poor form on his part, plain and simple.

Originally posted by scott3xAs you can see, I made a mistake in my summary; I say that I had stated that Rob had deleted a post whereas in the original post, I had said posts.

I'll have a read through your link when I have a minute. Are you still suspended at P4T?

ARINC? And can you explain what this raw file thing is? I've heard it before but really don't understand it too well...

ARINC is a company that deals with airplane electronics (avionics).

The "raw" file that you keep reading about is the pure data that is
extracted from the Flight Data Recorder [FDR].

We call it "raw" because once you download this file from the FDR, it
cannot be interpretted without other software and tools.

Originally posted by turbofan
Which is why I think he's a bit too hard on both of you guys. It's easy to make mistakes when you're emotionally involved I think

Fact will always rule over emotion/opinion. The reason I'm so hard on
"Weedwacker" is because he's speaking from emotion and hasn't taken
the time to research. It would be great for him to download the NTSB
file so we can step through it.

Originally posted by turbofan Which brings me to another point; I, for one, believe that weedwhacker is indeed a former pilot. Has he made any mistakes in what he's said?

With respect to the NTSB data yes.

From the aviation terms he's put forward no; but he's not applying them
in the context that I'd like him to observe (IE: the mach, EAS, dynamic pressure).

Initially, they did help with questions, but then Balsamo decided I had to read some rather ponderous and hard to understand threads. I finally started a few, but I couldn't even understand the -beginning- of the threads.

Send me a U2U and I'll try to explain in detail. If I can't answer, I'll
refer you to another source.