He actually expected to get anything other than a runaround? My high school couldn't even get the bureaucracy for the fucking school district to get hot water to their cooking classes. Of course there's going to be a runaround. Nice that he kept at it, though.
Quote:
|
480 feet above sea level when corrected for DCA local pressure of 30.22
|
Okay, what does this mean? I understand the bit about being too high to have hit the light poles, but I don't know jack shit about planes and that sentence is all greek to me. I haven't heard this argument yet, and I'd like to understand it.
On the first half of the video:
Other than that, why exactly is this damning evidence? The caller keeps repeating the fact that there are "all these questions" and yet he only speaks of one. Furthermore, the bureaucracy minion that he talked to was obviously a clueless schmuck who doesn't read what he signs. The content wasn't enough for a whole video, it should have been cut down and had more relevant information replacing the "Oh I'm sorry, could you repeat what you just said and let me think of something" bits.
Furthermore, the pics of the burning pentagon is pure sensationalism. They were just put in to appeal to emotions and disquise the fact that the video was lacking in actual content. Beyond that, the simulation only needed to be shown once. The point was made, it was a good point, every repetition of it was pointless distraction.
On the second half:
More bureaucratic bullshit, only damning evidence to those with an axe to grind. What was the agency that the NTSB did it for? Could they have elaborated or answered some of the discrepencies? A call to that agency (with the inevitable runaround) would have been more damning in conjunction with the NTSB runaround. The caller made lame questions, he needed to be more pointed. "No Comment!" on unnamed discrepencies as well as one named problem with altitude doesn't impress me.
And the caller keeps saying "Well, uh, I was told to get a hold of Jim Ritter 'cause he signed it". What the fuck? Tell me this asshat isn't part of pilotsfor911truth.org. If so, they need to get their asses in gear if they want to prove anything.
The pictures of the poles don't add anything. Distraction. The question about "personal feelings" is bullshit, of course he's not going to answer it, bureaucratic minion or not. So is the "are you yourself aware of the discrepency" bullshit. Keep it professional.
So, basically, the video is useless. By itself, the argument is far more compelling than this amature video. I'm not in a position to argue the facts of it, I am not experienced in the aviation field whatsoever. In fact, I'm actually quite curious as to a factual debate, because the evidence at hand does seem peculiar.
However, the video is making me extremely skeptical of pilotsfor911truth.