We must be smarter because I've already listed qualifications at least four times.
Is everyone on this forum blind, and/or illiterate?
One piece of evidence huh? Blind again? You obviously skipped over the
lists of questions and anomalies in my replies a dozen times
BTW; Do you see how I wrecked Beachnut and his understanding of
DME about three times already? I sure hope Reheat and Anti can do better!
No you did not. You simply listed the general qualifications for the members. Maybe you should learn to read before you call people blind dumb and illiterate. Let me post the question in capitol letters for you:
WHAT EXPERIENCE DO THE MEMBERS OF PFT HAVE IN REGARDS TO FDR RECORDERS.
Now read VERY carefully. Because the question does not stop at asking what their qualifications are in general. Notice the ending of the sentence. You might have to look VERY carefully. Try to take it one word at a time if the entire sentence is too much to manage. Notice the part being specific about FDR recorders? OK, that means that the question is referring to FDR recorders, hence using the term FDR recorders. It does not ask if the members are pilots or mechanics, or cheerleaders. Now, if you have to read the sentence several times before you understand it, that it sinfe. We will wait. I do recommend however that maybe you should share the question with all the members of PFT and that way maybe between all of you, you will be able to understand the question. It seems that on your own you just aren't able to understand the question. And this is probably about the 16th time you have been asked and still fail to answer the question.
Turbo, is this whole tough guy cute routine a coping mechanism to make up for your inability to read a simple question and provide an answer. I mean not just an answer, but an answer to the actual question? If you need a tutor, we can help, don't be afraid kiddo.
And no brainiac, I did NOT skip over your anaomilies. BUT you probably didn't stop to think about them and notice they are all confined to one small area and they are all dependent on some MAJOR assumptions. A perfect example is your claim that the light poles could not have been knowked down because of the data on the FDR. But what you don't relaize is that the lightpoles being knocked down by the plane prove that your interpretation of the data i wrong. And all the experts agree on this. Yet you don't have a single expert on your team. Which is pretty funny considering how your only real argument is calling the experts incompitent.
And wow, look at you. A network engineer. WOOOPPATEEEDOOOO!!!!. Yeah, we're goign to go by what a little networking engineer with absolutely ***NO*** experience in FDRs and who is intentionally dismissing ALL other evidence, over REAL experts who do this for a living and know what they are talking about.
You see little tough guy, this is what REAL investigators do. They look at ALL the evidence. They don't start with a pre-determined conclusion and work backwards like the clowns over at PFT. You know the clowns who leave it at "hey man, we're just asking questions and we just want a new investigation. Pass the weed man". We rely on real investigations that actually follow through and look at all the data and put it all together because they know each piece of data on its own may not be reliable.
Just like the loons over at CIT, this is just another way of taking one portion of evidence and using it to dismiss all the rest. And the fact that some of your arguments are simply the ones from CIT is WHY you and your brain trust are NOT taken seriously.
Answer this in addition to my original question. What did the media and the authorities say when you showed them your presentation? Forget about pretending you "wrecked' other people's demonstration when they continually prove you wrong. What did the experts say when you presented your little findings?
rolleyes