Don't worry Jay, I will never back down or want to be banned. I'm just
playing like everyone else except certain moderators have favourites it seems.
I'm supposed to attack the argument, not the person however the same
does not hold true for other members.
Nice.
Well if that is what is occuring then it would behoove you to be a prime example of strict adherence to the rules here. When I was suspended at PfT I admit I had made some mild expressions of dismay at what some posters had said. I had my posts deleted, moved or edited by the mods(RB himself IIRC)
So, when I later started posting again I made absolutly sure that I followed never made mention of what I thought about any poster. I posted strictly on the topics. yet I still got banned. You probably know what exchange took place that prompted that ban. I implored PfT to write up a technical paper and submit it to various organizations and media. I explained my position. I was told bluntly that it would not be done and when I tried to explain the value of such a paper I was banned. When I asked RB why I was banned the answer was , in short, that I was a "government loyalist".
Seems to me you get treated quite well here in comparison.
PFT has contacted every FDR company worldwide, Boeing, the NTSB, ALPA,
APA, the list goes on. When trying to decode the raw file, many companies
were willing to help for a fee in the thousands. Once they realized where the
file originated, they declined to help even if they were paid, which includes Boeing.
With a DVD and the above mentioned press release. That this is insufficient has been pointed out many times here.
PFT was later able to get the raw file decoded for free. How do you think
that happened? This is the same raw file Beachnut and Anti-Sophist couldn’t
get decoded nor could they get their own data frame layout. It is clear who
has the experts on their side. It is clear that Beachnut nor Anti-Sophist
are "experts" or they would be decoding their own raw file obtained from the
NTSB and comparing it, instead of using PFT's decode.
Whether or not anyone else can get the decoded data is immaterial in preparing a paper based on the information you say you have and submitting that to publications such as AW. They publish information that the companies and the NTSB don't want spread around fairly often. I already mentioned the article in which they speak of the friction between NTSB and FBI in the TWA800 incident. What AW will not consider is investigating crackpot accusations of high treason.
We will give the names of our FDR Experts, who are currently working in the field,
the day Anti, Beachnut and Reheat offer their name and verifiable
credentials.
Immaterial to creating a technical paper. Immaterial to submitting such for publication or comment by organizations with an interest in this. You can still prepare such a paper while not revealing your source of propietray info.
Here is one link to Boeing Refusing to help decode raw file once they realized where the file originated.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=435
Yes, and quite the display of paranoia it is.
You do understand why the pilot's unions would be interested in keeping FDR data under wraps don't you?
OR
Why Boeing customers would not want FDR data freely available?
OR
Why, if Boeing were to change their policy those organizations would hold Boeing responsible for any fall out that impacts them?
However I have not asked you to request an organization to decode the raw data. I have asked you to prepare a docuement based on the decode you did of the raw data and on the CSV file and contrast the path they illustrate the plane took with the path demonstrated by the ground damage and send that out for perusal and publication.
IF, (if,if,if) any magazine ever does publish a story based on Pandora's Box or its sequel, it will be as an opinion, an editorial on the video. It will NOT be a technical discussion. It will concentrate on what PB concentrates on, the supposed government conspiracy.
So once again (again and again and again) I implore you/PfT to create , from the work you have already done, a comprehensive paper on the purely technical details that illustrate that the FDR flight path is grossly different than the path shown by the physical evidence of damage on the ground.
until then you have little technical credibility, instead you are, at best, videographers, its that simple.
