New FDR Decode

page: 105
12
<< 102  103  104   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Why do you protect the lies of weedwhacker et al when it's directed towards Rob Balsamo?

Ego?


I'm here to discuss 9/11, not Balsamo's issues; I'm not his maid.
I don't give a flying F-_- about what people say about him Ro...err..."Tiffany"

Why do you put up fake pics of yourself ?




posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I asked earlier in the thread and got no answers... why did the NTSB fail to do what Warren Stutt did?

I realise this question was asked more than a year ago, however I now have the answer.

Warren.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by wstutt

Originally posted by tezzajw
I asked earlier in the thread and got no answers... why did the NTSB fail to do what Warren Stutt did?

I realise this question was asked more than a year ago, however I now have the answer.

Warren.


Now that you have resolved that problem is it possible for you to broadly describe what you conclude happened to the aircraft in the final 4 seconds please ?

Is the final radar altitude still 4' accompanied by off the scale deceleration ?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Now that you have resolved that problem is it possible for you to broadly describe what you conclude happened to the aircraft in the final 4 seconds please ?

Is the final radar altitude still 4' accompanied by off the scale deceleration ?
Yes, the final recorded radio height was 4 feet and the final recorded longitudinal acceleration was the most negative value the FDR could record.

Was there anything else you specifically wanted to know about the final four seconds?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by wstutt
 


Thank you for the response. As you know there is endless debate about those final seconds. Was the aircraft too high to strike the light poles ? Did it even come from the right direction to strike the light poles ? Did it fly right over the Pentagon ? And I was wondering what further light on those questions your research could throw ?

I suppose I am asking basically is it possible to plot a precise flightpath for the final 4 seconds including altitude and speed ?.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 

I am co-author of a paper which should be published soon which will answer those questions. I'll post a link here when it is published.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by wstutt
 


I look forward to that very much. Do you mind telling me who the co-author is ?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by wstutt
 


I look forward to that very much. Do you mind telling me who the co-author is ?

Not at the moment, sorry. However, I do expect the paper will be published shortly.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by wstutt
 


Will definitely look forward to reading that paper. No question the information in the paper would be worthy of it's own thread here in the forum, at least that way it doesn't get missed here in this thread amongst all the chatter. IMHO anyways, will stay tuned.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by wstutt
 


Can you leak one small detail of that paper ? cause waiting is beat.. any detail of your choice.. do you come to a conclusion?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by wstutt
 


Can you leak one small detail of that paper ? cause waiting is beat.. any detail of your choice.. do you come to a conclusion?
Yes, a conclusion is reached.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by wstutt
 


Just throwing this out there for future reference...

You know that if the conclusion != flyover there are going to be truthers exploding all over the place. I predict one of 2 things; they either try to blast you as being in on it all, or they will make some new excuse up on why it cannot be correct.

Or maybe even a totally new "hybrid fly-over but still crashed" theory that makes as much sense as all the others. Which is zero.


We live in such exciting times!



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


they either try to blast you as being in on it all, or they will make some new excuse up on why it cannot be correct.


Perhaps some might, however your analogy also applies to many debunkers, as we see demonstrated in this thread. I see very few truthers assuming their “excuses” are the facts. Credible Truthers don’t have to assume, or create excuses, the facts stand on their own merit.


Or maybe even a totally new "hybrid fly-over but still crashed" theory that makes as much sense as all the others. Which is zero.


"hybrid fly-over but still crashed"? Truther don’t need to lie in supporting the truth. My opinion is only people, who have other agendas besides supporting truth, will dream up the nonsense you speak of.


We live in such exciting times!


I wouldn’t call it exciting, perhaps more extraordinary times.
What I think is wonderful is the invention of the global internet, where we have the whole world at our finger tips, where the truth can be found and backed by credible sources and science. This alone makes it hard for disinformation and propagandas to accomplish their goal, people are not as stupid as some think.

My opinion is, the OP on this thread proved absolutely nothing in supporting the OS of flight 77 and lacked any credible sources into supporting the OP claims.





edit on 9-1-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Credible Truthers...


Oxymoron.


Truther don’t need to lie in supporting the truth. My opinion is only people, who have other agendas besides supporting truth, will dream up the nonsense you speak of.


One only needs to take a look at CIT, P4T, AE911, and whatever Scholars* is calling themselves these days to see that "nonsense".





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 102  103  104   >>

log in

join