William Seger - Epic Fail

[superbeachnut]

30. pilots for truth expose they lack the expertise to decode the FDR

When does a programmer need fligh experience to decode a FDR? Your FDR expert failed to decode the last 4 or 5 seconds, why did your expert fail? Wait, i know why, at least according to your logic, your experts has less expertise in aviation than Warren- or what.

Programmers decoding a FDR is not an issue you can win by attacking someone who can do what you can't because you are upset you failed to understand 911.

Your experts at pilots for truth failed to decode what Warren Strutt did. Are you attacking Warren to discredit the decode which is correct. Too bad pilots for truth lack the expertise to refute his decode. A good programmer can decode the FDR, he did it; proof he is right? Because his decode matches the NTSB decode exactly, and continues to the damaged frames perfectly; and it matches the g-force rational people can calculate for 77 to hit the Pentagon. oops, physics and math ruin your attack on Warren. ... proof, you can't refute his decode.

And you attack "the chemist" who plotted the numbers. You have to attack both because they refute your failed 11.2g nonsense.

Why can't your experts decode the FDR?

What logic are you using?
Plotting data on a graph is not an agreement when my bias suits me, it is reality, you take numbers and plot them - in this case the numbers are the real g force from 77 decoded by an expert at programming - something all your failed experts at pilots for truth failed to do.

Your attack, shows is failed logic. Your expert decoded one more second than the NTSB (wonder if your guy had the frame wrong... maybe not), and Warren decoded all the data, was it four or five more seconds than your experts. The key here is the overlap second, it matches;;; oops

Warren work is not refuted, it is like math, the decode is as set of equations, and you can't refute his work. Your weak attack failed. You ask the most illogical questions; and those illogical questions seem to be indicative of the skill it took to come up with 11.2g
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html
The same pattern of nonsense seems to be used in your "do you agree with .. this paper" junk and the 11.2g illogical g force which appears from nothing. You are missing some sort of logic skill, a comprehension issue maybe.

Why can't pilots for truth do a decode Warren did? Less expertise in aviation than Warren? Locally it follow, you say Warren has no expertise in aviation, yet you claim to have source with expertise in aviation who can't decode what Warren did, and you can't refute his decode except with real weak attacks on Warren. This is the best pilots for truth can do, weakly attack others who expose their false claims. Or you go all McVeigh like...