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 CFerguson
So, I'm off my meds...
How many transcontinental flights did that airplane have in the weeks prior to 9/11 where you claim the cockpit door *never ever* opened? How long does it take to fly from Newark or Dulles or Kennedy or Logan to SFO or LAX? How long did your ACARS sMoKinG gUn!!!11! last before you took it down because you admited you had no clue whatsoever as to what was really going on? At what speed will an aircraft "break"? What altitude will a departing KADW aircraft be when it crosses KDCA on a Camp Springs 1 departure? What altuitude will KDCA approach aircraft be in the airfield environment when in the terminal phase of their arrival procedures? What does the "P" in P-56 mean and why would a controller vector an aircraft (Gopher 06) toward and along the very edge of a "P" area?
Anyhow, I hope you jump on this generator trailer thread and explain to all of us (before you are banned again, of course), in your inimicable way, how a 757 can create that sort of damage from a north of the Citgo service station flight path. Or how it can fly over. Or fly by. Or disappear.
Originally posted by CFerguson
/pg6#pid13690607]Warren Stutt[/url]? A man who would be laughed off the stand if called as an expert witness? (if he ever made it into a court room).
Originally posted by Reheat
Originally posted by CFerguson
/pg6#pid13690607]Warren Stutt[/url]? A man who would be laughed off the stand if called as an expert witness? (if he ever made it into a court room).
IF, if..... Since you already have experience with some of your garbage in a Court Room tell us how that April Gallop affidavit you submitted work out?
ETA: "Truthers" meet P4T - The epitome of failure.edit on 16-3-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Morg234
Error after error in the FDR....
What "errors"??
..... missing final points....
Already addressed. Here, knock yourself out:
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.)
January 2011)
Warren Stutt's AAL 77 FDR Decoder
This program decodes the raw Flight Data Recorder (FDR commonly called "black box") file for American Airlines Flight 77 (AAL77) included by the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) on CDROMs provided in response to FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests for information regarding the events of September 11th 2001.
The program allows you to selectively decode parts of the FDR file and generate a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file containing the selected information. The first line of the CSV file contains the parameter names and it can be opened by various programs including Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access.
This is a call for volunteers to review the papers. If anyone is interested a response would be greatly appreciated. You won't find the papers boring. Contact me by posting here or by email to [email protected].
Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Wow, again Proudbird??
Notwithstanding that this "decode" is irrelevant in that it's contained nowhere, absolutely nowhere within the official narrative, nor has it been verified or even acknowledged by the mouthpieces of the official narrative, you and the usual suspect "pilots" at this forum haven't stepped forward to even endorse it at the request of the authors who you're quoting in this thread!
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
Huh?
Warren Stutt's teasing out of the CV values filled in the parts that are missing from the oft-cited NYSB video re-creation of the American Airlines flight 77 FDR.
"Nuff said.
One day you, like the other ATS members who also were sent here to ATS to do the "P4T"'s "wet work" will realize that you've been conned.
I wonder where turbofan is? What a great screen name! I think it eventually sunk in, with him.
Toodles!
Originally posted by CFerguson
Originally posted by ProudBird
Delve into the Warren Stutt and Frank Legge work more deeply.
I have, and it appears they do not have a clue as to FDR analysis.
See more here -
Warren Stutt Decode Shows Altitude too high to Impact Pentagon
Click
Vertical and Lateral Acceleration do not shows signs of "impact", proving Longitudinal Deceleration was not due to "impact" as speculated by Legge/Stutt
Click
Warren Stutt's admitted lack of expertise with respect to FDR Investigation
Click
RA - PA Correlation, proving the "Altitude Divergence" calculated by Legge/Stutt was due to RA measuring from an object higher than ground level. Fatal to the Legge/Stutt argument.
Click
If Legge/Stutt "Altitude Divergence" calculations were correct, Aircraft would be slamming into the ground. IAD ILS RWY 01R Approach Analysis, Instruments required for IFR Flight Based on Regulation.
Click
Calculations based on Stutt Theory with respect to RA Tracking Capability, proving Stutt's theory false.
Click
More confirmation supporting RA Tracking Capability referenced is in fact a longitudinal velocity, and not the vertical velocity as speculated by Legge/Stutt
Click
Explains Lack Of Attention To Detail in the very first paragraph of the Legge/Stutt "Paper"
Click
Proof of Legge trying to weasel his way out of mis/disinformation he has presented
Click
A Response To Frank Legge And Warren Stutt, P4T rebuttal to Legge/Stutt "Paper" and "Rebuttal"
Click
Warren Stutt Refuses to Address the tough questions
Click
Legge/Stutt Admit to Leaving Erroneous References in their paper as a "Honey Pot" trap for readers
Click
More statements from FDR Expert Dennis Ciminio
Click
Click
Source
Proudbird, why hasn't the NTSB claimed that such information is missing from their decode, and more importantly, why have they not acknowledged such a "corrupt bug" in their industry leading software in which Warren Stutt claims exists?
Secondly, why hasn't one pilot been willing to endorse the Legge/Stutt analysis? Why haven't you endorsed their work?
edit on 16-3-2012 by CFerguson because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by trebor451
Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Wow, again Proudbird??
Notwithstanding that this "decode" is irrelevant in that it's contained nowhere, absolutely nowhere within the official narrative, nor has it been verified or even acknowledged by the mouthpieces of the official narrative, you and the usual suspect "pilots" at this forum haven't stepped forward to even endorse it at the request of the authors who you're quoting in this thread!
Funny...remembering how Cap't Bob welcomed Warren Stutt and his research to PfT - until Stutt started to produce data that contradicted Balsamo's paranoid Bush-Derangement-Syndrome-take on the day. Add in how Stutt's joining and posting at JREF - the government loyalist site, even! - torqued his insecure ego off even more!
Faster and Funnier! Not quite as fast as how fast that latest Balsamo sock was banned, though.
And it may be irrelevant - like icing on an already iced cake - but how do you know Warren Stutt wasn't simply sent out here with his "data" to rile up an already paranoid and increasingly unstable Balsamo? All part of the Master Plan? Its worked....we have Balsamo creating sock after sock after sock here, coming back like clockwork, talk about obsessed!...*still* badmouthing Stutt months and months and months after Warren Stuff has left the stage on this issue.
Paranoid and unstable...yeah, that's Cap't Bob pretty much to a "t".edit on 16-3-2012 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by trebor451
All fair and well.....I hate former President Bush (who was never legally elected, but leave that for another thread discussion) as much as the next guy!!!
I mean....GWB, "President Number 43" of the USA was NOT a person to admire, on any level....ever!
However, he was ALSO not "smart" enough....nor were any of his minions (Dick Cheney, I'm looking at YOU!) smart enough to "Pull Off" a "false flag" to this extent.
Those who gravitate to that sort of thinking are woefully ignorant of the many aspects that could have "gone wrong" in such a "plan" (and, no such "plan" existed, let me make that clear!!)
The TRUE failure of the Bush administration (did I MENTION, yet, THAT BUSH WAS NEVER"elected"??).....the TRUE failure of Bush was the bumbling of the Intel......THEY &%#$&ed it up...BIG TIME!!!
Read between the lines.......and, the IRONY is, each and every time a so-called "Truther" posts a bit of crap on the Internet (as in this thread's OP), the ones who are responsible for the Intellignece failures remain un-touched
Your focus (and I'm talking to YOU. "truthers"!!!
Your focus is "off target"....
GET IT TOGETHER!!!! And, stop you internal squabbling!!!!!!
The "plan" wasn't the work of a genius.
Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Read the links quoted in my post. Warren discredited himself and still refuses to answer basic questions. And when he does, he puts himself more in a muddle.
pilotsfor911truth.org...
Are you a "pilot" too?
Warren tried to reply again... once again, avoiding the questions and the fact that his whole paper has now fell apart, using his own calculations.
Warren, I will not approve anymore of your posts/rants until you answer the questions and correct the confirmed disinformation you have presented in your paper.
Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Sure you read that link sigma six?
If you had you'd have seen that Warren tried to change the subject back to ACARS having made a half arsed reply to questions regarding his "data" that have been left hanging for over a year, and still are. Genius. Take back the "lie" accusation.
Unfortunately, I can't check your true altitudes because you did not state what altimeter settings and temperatures you used.
I used the Baro Cor column altimeter settings you provided and this... www.luizmonteiro.com...
Your calculations are wrong. However, for arguments sake... lets say your calculations are accurate... .even your own calculations do not merit the 50-120+ foot "altitude divergence" "...increasing as the plane descends" claimed in your paper. Your own calculations are 10-20 foot difference when compared to TDZE+RA.
Are you willing to concede that the "altitude divergence"... "Thus even at normal speeds a significant error, increasing as the plane descends, is consistently found." claimed in your paper is...
1. Wrong and ...
2. due to the fact that the RA is measuring from an object higher than the ground during the approach?
In my opinion, the true altitudes I calculated are not necessarily the ones displayed to the pilots and this is why I found an altitude divergence while pilots do not experience this problem. In my opinion the pressure altitudes are raw data which is corrected by the Flight Data Computer using not only the altimeter setting and temperature, but other factors as well. Therefore where you calculate a true altitude of 174 feet at the end of the flight in this post, the altitude displayed to the pilot would be less than that, since that true altitude calculation has been corrected only for altimeter setting and temperature and not the other factors that the Flight Data Computer also corrects for
"Other factors"? What other factors Warren? Why do you just make stuff up? The altitude read by pilots on the altimeter is the height above sea level when adjusted for local pressure using the Kollsman window.
This is known as True Altitude. Period. If the local pressure is 29.92, True Altitude equals Pressure altitude. Period.
The only benefit the pilots have when advancing to a more sophisticated jet, is that the Air Data Computer (ADC... there is no such thing as a "Flight Data Computer") removes any possible lag and error found in smaller cockpits such as a 172. Unfortunately for you, this doesn't help your theory as the FDR gets it's data from the ADC, just like the pilots. The FDR doesn't have it's own separate static system...lol. Although some have tried to use the "lag" excuse... but failed miserably. Just like the pilots have to adjust their altimeters to local pressure to get a True Altitude readout, we have to adjust the FDR Data to determine the same True Altitude. Adjusting Pressure altitude to determine True altitude is straight forward, unambiguous and taught to every student pilot on this planet.
Click and learn. Not only does your opinion mean nothing, especially considering the fact that you admit you have no experience whatsoever in aviation. but your opinion is wrong. Stop making # up to suit your theories.
OK, I agree a radio altitude system that only looks down from the aircraft is useless in detecting that the aircraft is about to fly in to a vertical cliff
"Vertical cliff"? Did I calculate 90 degrees based on your theory? No Warren, I didn't.
There isn't a GPWS in this world which will warn you if you are about to hit a 90 degree brick wall from level flight. EGPWS does have a terrain database, yes, but it doesn't map buildings and obstacles in front of the flight path.
According to your theory regarding Radio Altimeter Tracking capability, the terrain will 'outrun' the Radio Altimeter capabilities on a mere 27 degree slope. This is far less than a "vertical cliff".
Considering all the buildings and obstacles on the approach to the Pentagon, and the 90 degree sides of those obstacles, if your theory were correct, the RA would be FAR behind the airplane. Your theory weakens your argument. "Vertical cliff"? Why are you so intellectually dishonest? Are you able to concede that your theory is wrong? This is where practical experience trumps your admitted amateur "opinion".