Flight AA77 on 9/11: Real FDR Analysis: Frank Legge / Warren Stutt

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon -
Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)
journalof911studies.com... January 2011

P4T / CIT being exposed once again by evidence and data!

Pdf link -

journalof911studies.com...


.

For some strange reason this analysis is consistent with the witness testimony -
www.pumpitout.com...

reply to post by shure


ALL witnesses or just the ones that don't contradict your theory??
HUGE difference but nice try

I posted at 4:42am, you posted at 4:47am

That means you didn't even have enough time to look at the evidence before you left your ignorant comment!

Originally posted by shure
I posted at 4:42am, you posted at 4:47am

That means you didn't even have enough time to look at the evidence before you left your ignorant comment!

Do I really need to see the selected witnesses give their view to know what they say??
Naive if you think so..

Originally posted by shure
I posted at 4:42am, you posted at 4:47am

That means you didn't even have enough time to look at the evidence before you left your ignorant comment!

OK, I watched it..All interviews were from this year except one from 2009..
There is no detail as to where these witnesses viewed the incident from and ONE says it was a JUMBO jet..

If you have anymore credible evidence I will again waste my time looking at it...

Warren Stutt said recently on the " New FDR Decode " thread that a paper he had co-authored was shortly to be published. He said he would provide a link when it was published. He hasn't done that yet but this paper in the Journal of 9/11 studies looks like what I was expecting to see.

I do know that Warren Stutt has spent a huge amount of time on decoding the FDR of AA 77 with particular reference to the last few seconds. He has an honours degree in computer science and if truthers mean anything at all when claiming they want to pursue truth then this paper deserves very careful consideration.

For me, this is the final nail in the coffin for " no plane " at the Pentagon or CIT's flyover idea .

Someone might want to tell Stutt, Legge and the pilot organization that RADAR ALT.'s are not accurate above 400 Knots. That's why you have to consider pressure altitude, and otheer systems.

Yeah, you read it here first. I'll take the credit for this info when it hits the mainstream. I'll go and find that link for you now...

Found it:

Tracking Capability: Up to 100.5 meters per sec., or 330 feet per sec.

Boeing 747, 757, 767, 777, 737x

Let's see who can find the link first. 10 bonus points if Stutt, P4T, or Legge can post within a few hours.

reply to post by Alfie1

I do know that Warren Stutt has spent a huge amount of time on decoding the FDR of AA 77 with particular reference to the last few seconds. He has an honours degree in computer science and if truthers mean anything at all when claiming they want to pursue truth then this paper deserves very careful consideration.

For me, this is the final nail in the coffin for " no plane " at the Pentagon or CIT's flyover idea .

Why has it taken almost 10 years for this info.??
Seems a long time...And still not released yet?

The problem debunkers have is the flight path of flight 77 and the government claims does not support the impact damaged at the Pentagon. Anyone can cook up a report. It is a known fact that science can be bought for a price. And for an example to this, is look at all the fraudulent science that was proven, done on global warming.

The impact of flight 77 (the government story) doesn’t stand up to no damage to the Pentagons foundation and no damaged done on Pentagon lawns and lacked very little debris.
Another fact here is, the windows on each side of the impact holes were not broken as well as the upper windows where the tail section would have smashed through.

We have no proof a plane crash into the Pentagon only “hearsay information,” however we do have visual damaged that we can apply science to, to compare the damage and the government story, and the government story of flight 77 does not stand up to the damage at the Pentagon.

reply to post by impressme


Not only that, but I've just shown the RAD ALT system is not accurate, or able to properly track over 330 feet per second!

Now that Legge put all of his eggs in one basket (RADAR Altitude), I guess we can consider his paper junk?

reply to post by turbofan


No, he simply observed the behavior of the various of the various altitude measurement systems and how they performed on previous flights as a benchmark. Using that benchmark he was able to conclude that for that particular system, it was 'normal' for barometric altitude to read high at lower altitudes and that radar altitude was a more consistent measure.

reply to post by 911files


How many of those other flights were moving faster than 330 feet per second?

Originally posted by impressme
We have no proof a plane crash into the Pentagon only “hearsay information,”

Are you trying to be purposely deceitful?

Or is it you just don't understand what hearsay actually means?

We have plenty of firsthand accounts of the plane crashing into the Pentagon, and nothing that states otherwise.

reply to post by Soloist

Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by impressme
We have no proof a plane crash into the Pentagon only “hearsay information,”

Are you trying to be purposely deceitful?

Or is it you just don't understand what hearsay actually means?

We have plenty of firsthand accounts of the plane crashing into the Pentagon, and nothing that states otherwise.

Are you trying to be purposely deceitful?

How was I deceitful?

Fact: your hearsay information does not stand up to the damaged done to the Pentagon.

Originally posted by shure
Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon -
Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)
journalof911studies.com... January 2011

P4T / CIT being exposed once again by evidence and data!

Pdf link -

journalof911studies.com...

edit on 9-1-2011 by shure because: spelling

c&p

where exactly have you disproved or exposed CIT/P4T or their evidence as fallacious? and are you saying the FDR is proof that the NOC path and witnesses are wrong?

if you are, you would be wrong,,, if not only due to the fact that the FDR cannot be used as proof or evidence when its been in possession and under the control of the perps and those controlled by the perps.

oh well

reply to post by Soloist

Are you trying to be purposely deceitful?

Or is it you just don't understand what hearsay actually means?

We have plenty of firsthand accounts of the plane crashing into the Pentagon, and nothing that states otherwise.

It's hard to prove one way or the other due to the fact all 3 crime scenes on 9/11 collapsed before any investigation could take place..

Also, at all 3 scenes evidence was removed very quickly..

The collapses were unfortunate coincidences.
The removal of evidence probaby criminal....

Originally posted by shure


For some strange reason this analysis is consistent with the witness testimony -
www.pumpitout.com...

many if not most of the witnesses on that list are tainted and have been PROVEN suspect, lack credibility and have been exposed as liars

thus the implication that the OS in regards to the Pentagon is validated and these witnesses are evidence of it, is a false premise.... but then one need only to present evidence that just ONE of those witnesses is suspect, lying or contradictory in order to disprove your premise; which has been done.

so again, what might be the reason you've suddenly/recently changed your stance/position on your former support of NRPT?

you or your family had a visit from the perps, errr i mean, government lately?

Originally posted by impressme
How was I deceitful?

Fact: your hearsay information does not stand up to the damaged done to the Pentagon.

Ok, that answers it.

If you're not being purposely deceitful then you obviously don't know what hearsay even means.

Maybe check that out before saying things are "facts", hmm?