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.

 

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

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Some debunkers want to dismiss the fact that NORAD did absolutely nothing into intercepting any of those planes, yet they want to justified this as “excuses” that for the first time in American history, NORAD failed to follow proper protocol, into intercepting those alleged four planes. The few debunkers in here want you all to believe their excuses that the government was “incompetent.”

The fact is we don’t know if the government was incompetent or if they were complicit, the Pentagon has admitted “no” wrong doing of any kind, so how can any of you debunkers say incompetent as you have no proof to whom, what, where, and how.

Backinblack, I do agree with your comment
and that is exactly what the debunkers responses are to the Pentagons’ silence.




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   

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...



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   

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 ?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



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 ?


I am NOT referring to the conclusion...
The "official" flight path is mentioned from the start and they adjust figures to suit..
It's all there and obvious...

Your other statements are irrelevant..
I know or care little about these people's opinions..Only facts...



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
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...



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   

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.



lmao, have you already given up on this new evidence.???

BTW, even weedwhacker had to admit the altitude readings would not be accurate given those conditions..

This thread is a total fail.......



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   

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.


Here's part of WW's post but you know how long they are??


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.


Accurate in good conditions upto 196 knots.??
Less on unlevel ground??

Now what speed was flight 77 traveling at??



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   

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...


You and I seem to be reading a different report. The plane's track prior to the Navy Annexe was 61.3 degrees. The relevance of 61 to 63 degrees is that a Boeing 757 would have clipped all the relevant light poles on those headings. The heading of 61.4 degrees isn't just assumed, it is inferred from the blemish and missing rung of the Vdot pole. It also happens that that ties in with the heading just prior to the Navy Annexe of 61.3 degrees.

How is this a manipulation ? The plane could have been on any heading between 61 and 63 degrees to hit all the right light poles. It didn't have to be 61.4.

Then you lambast the authors for being frank about " limited accuracy of available measurements "relative to this specific issue . Showing bias much ?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



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


Yeah, it didn’t take long for P4T to see through Warren Stutt and his opinionated report.
No wonder P4T treat him like a carrier of the bubonic plague, and I would to after reading his nonsense. P4T are only looking for evidence that support the facts and Warren Stutt opinions are not it.

FYI, P4T are not looking for lies to push to the public. And if there is any truth to your nonsense, you would have gladly posted credible sources to back up your claptrap.

edit on 10-1-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


If this paper is nonsense, perhaps you can point out to us some of the most obvious nonsense points. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

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.


None of them coincide with the FDR data. Strange huh?


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.


Single witness? How about two? Turcios and Rosie Roberts? One saw the plane lift up over the road sign,
and one saw a commerical airliner above the parking lot AFTER the explosion.


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.


I have done that for a reason explained in this post and my other post.

Maybe you can dig around and check some avionics manufacturers to disprove the data I posted.

I have the link and I'll provide it during a debate with Legge, or Bursill (which I'm about to engage on 911Blogger).

Right now you have the data and I'll give you another hint for the source:

The company name has the initials R.C.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


In what way do the factors I mentioned differ from the FDR ?

Your alleged 2 flyover witnesses have never said they saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

I am glad you have brought John Bursill up. He is a member of AE9/11T and a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer is he not ? I see from his post on 9/11 Blogger, ninth one down I think, that he does not share your view about likely inaccuracy of the RADALT :-

911blogger.com...

If you are going to debate him there I shall watch with interest.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
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..



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Well now it seems I'm banned and my last reply to John has not been posted.

I'm not able to login and none of e-mails appear to be in their database.


I will have to contact John via the OZ forum to continue this discussion



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   

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.


That is just a rant .You haven't addressed anything in the paper; have YOU read it ?

You say it was "concocted in support for the OS lies " ( in your usual way ) which shows that you still haven't taken on board that the co-author Dr Frank Legge is a prominent truther and an editor of the Journal of 9/11 studies.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   

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..



I am not getting your point. Are you referring to the aircraft clock and official impact times ?

I don't see what the time has to do with the flightpath can you elaborate please ?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join