It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by impressme
You said on page 1 " Anyone can cook up a report. It is a known fact that science can be bought at a price."
If you are referring to the authors of this FDR paper you obviously don't know anything about them. I understand that Warren Stutt started his research thinking he might throw up anomalies. He was welcome for a long time at P4T when they thought his research might provide support for CIT's flyover theory. Now, of course, they treat him like a carrier of bubonic plague. I think he has behaved like a true truther and just followed the facts where they led.
And it seems you don't realise Dr Legge is a prominent truther. His position is that the " no AA 77 impacted the Pentagon " story is so unsustainable that it is reinforcing the general public's view that you are all nutters.
Originally posted by backinblack
Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by impressme
You said on page 1 " Anyone can cook up a report. It is a known fact that science can be bought at a price."
If you are referring to the authors of this FDR paper you obviously don't know anything about them. I understand that Warren Stutt started his research thinking he might throw up anomalies. He was welcome for a long time at P4T when they thought his research might provide support for CIT's flyover theory. Now, of course, they treat him like a carrier of bubonic plague. I think he has behaved like a true truther and just followed the facts where they led.
And it seems you don't realise Dr Legge is a prominent truther. His position is that the " no AA 77 impacted the Pentagon " story is so unsustainable that it is reinforcing the general public's view that you are all nutters.
Have you fully read the report?
It starts with the assumption of the official flight path and proceeds to allow for errors to fit that path..
Doesn't look like a truther by any standard of imagination...
Yes, I have fully read it and you are referring to the conclusion after long research.
Are you disputing that P4T were happy to have Warren Stutt on their forum while they thought he might come up with something to support " flyover " ?
Are you disputing that Frank Legge is a prominent truther ?
This pole is close to the light coloured mark near the two blue dots in the lower left corner
of the image of the track (Fig. 1), where its position may be located by its shadow. If this
contact did occur, the final track angle would be established at about 61.4 degrees, close to
the lower end of the range determined by the light poles, and indistinguishable, given the
limited accuracy of available measurements, from the track angle prior to the Navy Annex.
The possible range of track just prior to impact is limited to
about 61 to 63 degrees to ensure that all the correct light poles, and only the correct light
poles, will be hit, and that the impact with the Pentagon will occur in the right place.
Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by turbofan
turbofan
There is other evidence to support the final radio heights. Eyewitnesses, the security camera frames, the progressive clipping of the light poles, damage to retaining wall/ generator/Pentagon.
Do you support the radio heights being wrong because you believe in the " flyover " ? But there is not a single witness to that which is incredible.
I cannot see that you have yet posted a source supporting your claim that the FDR cannot record accurate radio heights when the aircraft's speed is in excess of 330 fps.
Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by backinblack
I cannot see where Weedwhacker agreed that radio heights would be innacurate above 330 fps but perhaps he can clarify later.
In the meantime, Turbofan hasn't given us a source for his claim.
It will depend on the nature of the terrain underneath.....as I said, they are certified to be accurate (per what turbofan has researched, so we'll go with that) UP TO 300 fps or ~196 knots ground-speed.
However, irrespective of those specifications, IF the ground is very irregular, then they will NOT be "accurate" even at 135 knots. I can think of at least one excellent airport example....Seattle. Landing on Runway 16R.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1
From page 4..
This pole is close to the light coloured mark near the two blue dots in the lower left corner
of the image of the track (Fig. 1), where its position may be located by its shadow. If this
contact did occur, the final track angle would be established at about 61.4 degrees, close to
the lower end of the range determined by the light poles, and indistinguishable, given the
limited accuracy of available measurements, from the track angle prior to the Navy Annex.
Note the "limited accuracy" part..
An earlier part.
The possible range of track just prior to impact is limited to
about 61 to 63 degrees to ensure that all the correct light poles, and only the correct light
poles, will be hit, and that the impact with the Pentagon will occur in the right place.
Note the "possible range of track 61 to 63 degrees"
But as you see above they decided to ASSUME the track at 61.4 degrees simply because that fits with clipping that lightpole..
No set agenda?? ppfffttttt...
If you are referring to the authors of this FDR paper you obviously don't know anything about them. I understand that Warren Stutt started his research thinking he might throw up anomalies. He was welcome for a long time at P4T when they thought his research might provide support for CIT's flyover theory. Now, of course, they treat him like a carrier of bubonic plague. I think he has behaved like a true truther and just followed the facts where they led
Originally posted by Alfie1
There is other evidence to support the final radio heights. Eyewitnesses, the security camera frames, the progressive clipping of the light poles, damage to retaining wall/ generator/Pentagon.
Do you support the radio heights being wrong because you believe in the " flyover " ? But there is not a single witness to that which is incredible.
I cannot see that you have yet posted a source supporting your claim that the FDR cannot record accurate radio heights when the aircraft's speed is in excess of 330 fps.
Then you lambast the authors for being frank about " limited accuracy of available measurements "relative to this specific issue . Showing bias much ?
If this paper is nonsense, perhaps you can point out to us some of the most obvious nonsense points. Thanks.
Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Alfie1
If this paper is nonsense, perhaps you can point out to us some of the most obvious nonsense points. Thanks.
Had you bothered to read the report you would have seen the obvious nonsense points.
Can you prove to me that Warren Stutt didn’t give only his opinions and assumptions?
This report was concocted in support for the OS lies and is mostly opinionated. This report lacks any “credible evidence” and sources that are not government related. This report is completely one sided and prejudice. Only someone ignorant to the known facts would gravitate to this nonsense.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1
Then you lambast the authors for being frank about " limited accuracy of available measurements "relative to this specific issue . Showing bias much ?
Bias?
The FIRST thing the report does is ASSUME an error in the data regarding the time..
They adjust the time to suit the flight path..Then work on from there..