Addressing GL Arguments For North Path, Split from "9/11: The North Flight Path" in Latest News Options

[dMz]

Farmer admits our arithmetic is correct for bank angle, but is apparently confused regarding his G Load calculations based on bank angle. I will set him straight here....

The formula we used in the video presentation (which Farmer thinks solves for G load) is:

Θ = arctan ((V^2/r)/11.26)

The above formula does not solve for G load (as Farmer claims). It solves for bank angle theta (Θ) based on radius and speed. It has nothing to do with G Load.

From there, we can use a simple chart to determine G Load for a given bank..

(IMG:http://www.geocities.com/cfidarren/hz26.jpg)

The above is the same chart used in our presentation.

However, if Farmer wants to use an actual formula for determining G load based on Bank Angle, the proper formula to use is...

n = 1/(cosΘ)

where:

Θ = bank angle
n = G Load

(see, this is how you define variables if you're a real "scientist")

I was going to email the above to Farmer since he is notorious for plugging his ears when proven wrong, but i figured i'd let him bury himself more while the GL cheerleaders gather 'round him. Again, its the same crap we went through when i worked with Farmer. He reminds me of pilots i knew coming through the ranks who used to say "No, the chart is WRONG, I am right!". They are all now smoking holes. Thank god Farmer doesnt fly an airplane.

JayDuhhee's even proves Farmers G Loading for a given bank wrong and they dont even realize it...
...
http://www.coryat.com/faa-pp-written/2.jpg

Keep trying Mr. Farmer. Here is my chart of Load Factor vs. Bank Angle for the 6 (of the many aerodynamically possible) banked turn radii from the presentation in question that I just added to one of my spreadsheets. I've added a polynomial-fit trendline just for Farmer based upon the "tightest" of the presentation radii only.

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16964

Farmer's incorrect calculations:
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myp...rect_GLoads.jpg
(IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/Farmer_Incorrect_GLoads.jpg)

Let's see Farmer recently came up with 4099 foot radius, 78 degrees, and 4.9 g. He may also want to check his [Google Earth distance?] starting numbers for that sagitta calculation again, or else rescale that drawing.

CODE

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4299590&postcount=319

[rob balsamo]

lol... they keep wanting to use the 460 from the FDR as if thats the only speed possible to use. If they use the speed from FDR for that segment as plotted by NTSB, they have to use the altitude, which shows too high.

Again, they're cherry picking to make the turn "impossible",... anyone can do that including my grandma....

We have proven it to be possible... and consistent with witness statments... period.

For example... their radius was already presented in our analysis.. and very much aerodynamically possible... however, they are disregarding Terry Morin with a "4099" as thats no where near parallel to the annex..... and they say we throw him under the bus.... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

By the way GL's, Terry was inside the wings when he saw the belly of the aircraft overhead. Go speak to him.. .we did.

[rob balsamo]

Farmer hasnt even watched the video, because if he had, he would realize we show clip of Lagasse in complete contradiction to what Farmer is claiming Lagasee said.

I see JayDuh finally realized Farmer's math is wrong for G Load after we gave them the proper formula and charts above. Freakin idiots.. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)


Someone needs to tell Farmer that Latex means nothing when you cant do simple arithmetic or determine the proper formula's. Farmer in - Garbage out... lol

[rob balsamo]

Bank Angle

____Radius1 (ft)_ 12,748___ 19,406___ 59,533___ 11,010
Velocity (kts)
460_______________ 55.85_____44.08_____17.52_____59.63
300_______________ 32.09_____22.39_____7.65_____35.98
250_______________ 23.53_____15.96_____5.33_____26.75
200_______________ 15.57_____10.37_____3.41_____17.88

Even ReTreat used several different speeds for his wild flight paths as even he realized no witness can possibly determine speed. Now that his wild turns have been exposed for his obvious intellectual dishonesty, and they realize they cannot use a wild flight path as created by ReTreat... they cherry pick the one speed (which is 110 knots over Max Operating for a 757) to determine an "impossible path".

Too funny...


Dance GL's Dance!

[dMz]

I just glanced over at Randiland and noticed that you appear to have lost at least 2/3 of the insulting "tags" that were originally applied to that thread Rob. What gives? A little "damage control" spin perhaps? Maybe the Goddess of Legaltainment^TM advised them to finally clean up their slander and libel. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif) Don't street gangs use "taggers?"

BTW- where the hell has Mr. Mackey been lately? He certainly didn't show up on that freshly-name-tag-sanitized "Pilots'" thread...

[rob balsamo]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

I didnt notice... and it appears they're "tweaking the site" right now...

That must really put Wildcat's panties in a bind... lol

I guess they realized that being obsessed with someone they feel is "nuts", makes them more of a nut. I know they have been served many lawsuits for their double standard in forum rules (attacking the person instead of the argument), so perhaps they got tired of spending money defending their immature and libelous forum members and decided to clean up their act.

I said it before and will say it again, its only a matter of time before they piss someone off with the resources to clean their bank accounts. Perhaps that time has come and that is why they are doing some house cleaning.

[dMz]

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16964

HINT for "jaydehess:" g is a unit- of ACCELERATION!!! [You've been feeling it most of your life BTW. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force

Criminy! I might be a "kid" compared to some, but do I need to do the reading for the Randiite "geezers" after I plot our hypothetical test data points and label a chart for them, too? I wonder if we ought to drop another .JPG on these propagandist fools yet... I see ReTreat is slowly crawling out from under his? rock. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) A couple of them look almost caught up to the material we covered before/on Xmas day.

Let's see Rob, if that chart is my 5th cross-check on my own analysis and calculations, would that make it the 7th or 8th on yours and TF's? I find it interesting that I can jot a few notes from the video presentation and plot the velocity vs. bank angle for a range of airspeeds all by my lonesome, yet Club Randi can only marginally follow when explicitly given the equations and charts to use.

BTW Farmer- the chart(s) didn't come from Google. I think your arc might be a little "saggy" too from my analysis of it this morning- for the 2nd time, you might want to check those numbers again.

[rob balsamo]

I like how Farmer has now edited his chart in his original post to include the true G loading for a given bank... of course this is after we had explained his calculations were wrong. Although he still doesnt define all his variables and thinks the Load Factor chart we used is "our little chart". No Farmer, its not "ours", its the one used in every book on aerodynamics. Same as the formula(s) we provided.

Now you see why Farmer is still confused regarding DME, slant range, "errors" in altitude differences.. etc etc. and the reason he thinks all the experts he spoke to in the past are wrong. He has a habit of garbage in - garbage out..

He wasnt able to just "plug" his ears and delete his garbage this time around, so he had no choice but to correct his work regarding G loading. And as usual, he finds out we are correct.

Dance Farmer, Dance!

[rob balsamo]

Reheat contradicts himself more than Farmer...

Since our release of The North Flight Path -

ReTreat now claims he never said it was impossible for the aircraft to fly North Of The Citgo...

no one ever said that flying North of the Citgo was impossible - ReTreat, Dec. 27, 2008

but, when looking through his past statements....

it is aerodynamically proven to be impossible to accomplish by anything other than an alien flying saucer. - ReTreat, April 3, 2008

[CIT North Of Citgo] fantasy was shown to be aerodynamically impossible. - ReTreat, April 4, 2008

There are a ton just like it all over ATS, LCF and the govt loyalist site.


ReTreat is also now claiming that he never said anything about his placement of his turns as "reasonable" based on witness statements. Accusing us of lying regarding his statements.

the flight paths depicted in my paper are not reasonable at all - ReTreat Dec. 25, 2008

Looking over his past statements...

This one covers all reasonable speeds and all reasonable locations North of the Citgo Station corresponding to the various witnesses' testimony. - ReTreat, June 10, 2008

Bolding above mine...

ReTreat expose once again as a liar... either that or a very senile old man... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Now that ReTreat realizes his paths were unreasonable... I wonder why they dont use all of Reheat "resonable speeds" and just cherry pick 460 for their new paths? We know why... dont we.. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

ReTreat. Morin was inside the wings when he saw the belly of the aircraft. He says "NO FLIPPIN' WAY!" when asked if it was on the south path. Morin further says he would have immediately been able to tell if it was a 757 (and not a 737 as he initially claimed) if it were on the south path because he would have seen the side of it and not the belly, as shown in our last film Attack On The Pentagon. He also says he could have been a few feet off (just as Lagasse states), but further states no way was the aircraft south of the VDOT/on the south path (just as Lagasse states) as required by the NTSB headings and physical damage. We spoke to Morin. Why havent you? Why havent you confronted any North side witness? We know why... dont we... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[dMz]

...Besides, someone needs to let 911files know he blew nearly everything on that 4099 foot "radius" and sagitta "calculation" if he worked from the image that he posted.

My CAD program indicates that Farmer's curve as shown in his post #319 at 01:19 this morning is not a circular arc, hence the formula used is not valid. Here is a red, circular 3-point arc of radius 3804.1 feet, CAD-overlaid on Farmer's "curve:"

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16950

[For reference, that blue arc is one of many possible "tight" 11,010 foot radius arcs from the presentaion being discussed.]

It might be easier to look at the dimensions with Farmer's image turned off:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16951

Further, Farmer blew the ~3876 foot chord length "l" by nearly 100 feet, "his" 527 foot sagitta distance "s," and slightly missed the midpoint of the chord "l:"

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16952

Again, with Farmer's own image turned off:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16953

Lastly, the Farmer drawing has the "impact" location 375.6 feet north of the SW corner of that 921-foot Pentagon wall (which determined the technical drawing scale, as always). Although this helps the NoC case, most sources place "impact" at ~330 feet north of the SW Pentagon corner. All the Google Earth markings make it difficult to ascertain the "north" edge of the Citgo station in Farmer's image, so I left some margin south of the blue 11,010 foot arc (one of 6 radii from the presentation) between the blue arc and the approximate "north" Citgo canopy boundary.

FWIW, the gray line (on a 61.2 degree bearing relative to GeoN, going into Farmer's "impact" location) would correspond to the OGCT flightpath, and the Navy Annex is roughly depicted as a brown rectangle.

[dMz]

Hey TF, do you recall who first started harping on "got maths" during your Adventures in Randiland? My money is on Beachy and/or Reheat, but I assume that you were there when whoever (or whatever "committee") did. (Although they have been known to make claims and posts by/for unauthorized proxy for third, fourth, etc. parties.)

[rob balsamo]

Yeah... it doesnt surprise me Farmer's sagitta calculations are less than accurate. He didnt even know how to compute such a formula till we pointed it out here... (nor did any of his cohorts...). Farmer claims he refuses to read this site, but looking at his numerous corrections to his work and after we have pointed it out... and overall chasing our coat tails.... he is reading here... one thing i learned about Farmer when working with him.. he likes to lie alot.

[rob balsamo]

I see JayDuh is living up to the Duh in his name.

Hey Duh, we dont start to stamp the calculations as "Witness Incompatible - Bank Too Shallow" till the banks get below 10 degrees. Check the video again.. duh...

22, 18, 16, we stamp as all witness compatibile since its impossible for any witness to determine such a bank to the degree.

Another Senior moments perhaps?

Also, Terry specifically says he "ran out from in between the wings after seeing the belly overhead and started running backwards uphill to try and keep the aircraft in sight". He also says he lost it below the tree line and then saw the explosion... as demonstrated in Attack On The Pentagon. He also says he saw the aircraft for about 12 seconds. Thats roughly 280 f/s from his position to the pentagon impact hole. Care to guess what that is in knots? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

When will you people stop reading unverified statements on the web and go to Arlington to actually talk to these people? We know why.. dont we.. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Janusaur]

Speaking of throwing Morin under the bus, Reheat says in post #235:

If you take Terry Morin's flightpath literally and ignore the inconvenient "FOB flyover" part, the plane will impact on the wrong side of the building.

Don't tell me where the aircraft would have impacted. I know where it impacted. You don't have a clue.

The "FOB flyover part" is your tale, I sit on mine.

But today he quotes Morin saying the exact phrase he previously denied:

Here's Morin's original statement again:

The Reaction
Many of the FOB people had been looking at the news reports flowing out of the attack on the World Trade Center Towers, going about their normal work routine as they watched. Maybe half or a bit more already knew of the New York attacks. However, within seconds of the impact -- less than a minute after the FOB flyover-- several thousand people started exiting the FOB.”

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[dMz]

Reheat contradicts himself more than Farmer...
...
but, when looking through his past statements....
...
There are a ton just like it all over ATS, LCF and the govt loyalist site.

4 pages' worth, or 486 "googles" for me this morning, to be exact.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Reheat+aero...=utf-8&aq=t

[dMz]

Hey "kitties"- pull this- and talk to "Reheat"- he offered to do your precious "pull up" calculation on your forum already BTW, but buyer beware of "Reheat's" math from what I have found...

My post #154 in a related thread:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10761291
...
EDIT2: Let's review the Randiite "Reheat" turn radii one more time.

My post #152:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10761287

"Reheat" tells us these are the NoC turn radii (with 2000 US feet being the largest blue one):
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16635

Underlaid with "Reheat's" very own Google Earth image, that defined my drawing scale with that 921-foot Pentagon wall:
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16636

Now who exactly "cheated" again?

Reviewing a little more on this "Reheat" character:

CODE

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=3777683&postcount=96

http://wwwDOTrandi.org/forumlive/showpost....mp;postcount=96

14th June 2008, 12:33 PM , It's been a few days since the paper was posted and the personal attacks have died down to a dull roar, so I'll make a few comments on some things I'll change in a revised version next week.

First of all, I am not about to waste my time in coming up with a flight path or flight paths that pleases everyone. I just interpreted the witnesses' testimony and formulated flight paths that roughly correlate to their descriptions. As has been pointed out at least a hundred times, CIT or pffft has had nearly two years to demonstrate a flight path USING THEIR NUMBERS to support their theory. The fact that this hasn't been done should be VERY TELLING to bystanders and supporters alike.

There are a few things I will change in the first revision. As has been pointed out, the statements that "The calculations are aircraft type independent. Since all fixed wing aircraft are subject to the same forces in turns, the specific type of aircraft does not matter for the numbers posted in the chart below" will be changed to the following type of wording.

"Within the large transport category of aircraft that witnesses described, the calculations are specific aircraft type independent. Since ALL fixed wing aircraft are subject to the same bank angle and G forces in turns, the specific type of aircraft does not matter for the those numbers posted in the chart. Only the stall speed would be significantly different for different categories of aircraft."

I will also include a link to an Aerospace Web Site to help those who want to better understand the physics involved. It is better than the site I originally linked to in the article.

If anyone has further suggestions, I will consider them.

- "Reheat" [bold emphasis mine, UPPERCASE is the original author's]

[rob balsamo]

"Roughly", "Reasonable", "Unreasonable", "Possible", "Impossible" - ReTreat describing the same topic in 5 words. lol

Only the stall speed would be significantly different for different categories of aircraft.

... and weight, and aircraft configuration and CG and thrust (if we really want to get technical), but its not important, but may be important, but shouldnt matter, but maybe it does.... right Retreat?

Notice how they completely ignore the fact we also exposed ReTreats intellectual dishonesty regarding Stall Speed Analysis...

Well, this specific issue may not be "intellectual dishonesty", he probably just doesnt know factors which effect stall speed... because he isnt a pilot...

[tumetuestumefais...]

That was my "loose" understanding of the RADES event(s) and I respect private communications, but I had no direct contact with Mr. Farmer, just the "FOIA released RADES data" itself. I readily noticed the disappearance of the RADES forum, as I was watching those developments quite closely (being one of the "primaries" in that RADES data analysis here).
(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

Hi dMole, because I had a bit of time, here I wrote something more about the 84Rades and what can be derived from it in connection to the context of this thread. ...And maybe not just it...

"AA77" final approach ground speed range determination from the 84Rades radar data

(+another indicia for "northern path")

Although I'm not fully convinced about the 84Rades data credibility I would like to contribute here an analysis of the last one and half minute of the USAF radar data record.
The purpose of this analysis is solely to determine the range of possible speeds the "AA77" could fly during its final approach to the Pentagon. For the analysis I've used the last 8 blips on The Plains ARSR-3 radar (PLA) which is located approximately 30 nmi northwest from the Pentagon - well in the range of the radar [- which - in the direction the "AA77" was flyiing from - was empiricaly - derived from how far the PLA radar have "seen" other planes in that westward direction - approx. 190 nmi. - Although the "AA77" reappears (after a period of ~19 minutes of "invisibility") on the PLA radar at the range of 147 nmi.]

Here are the last "AA77" radar data decoded by USAF rs3 software:

(IMG:http://sweb.cz/xmarinx/84RadesAA77lastblipsml.JPG)
[click the upper right corner to enlarge...or SOURCE]

On the screenshot from rs3 software you can see the data of the last 8 blips recorded from PLA. In fact there should be not 8, but 9 blips - the sweeping period of the radar is approx. 11.9 seconds - so there is one blip missing - which one can expect, because the plane was probably already in a very low altitude above terrain. We don't see any radar height in the data, because ARSR-3 radars don't read it, and we also don't see any Mode C altitude either, because the PLA radar didn't read any, most probably because the "AA77" didn't transmit any from the transponder.

Now we can project the Lat/Lon blip data into GoogleEarth to measure the distance between them, which will help us to determine the range of speeds the "AA77" could fly at its final approach. ( Blips are numbered with the red numbers, the long numbers are the timestamps of each blip):

(IMG:http://sweb.cz/xmarinx/GE84RadesAA77lastblips.JPG)
[click the upper right corner to enlarge...or SOURCE]

The projection of the blips beggins with the No.8 - it is the end of the big ~300° turn the "AA77" did while descending. Then it continues with 7. and from 6. is the trajectory already quite very straight towards the Pentagon. I used the Google Earth measurement tool to determine the distances between the projections of the blips. From it and the exact radar timestamps I was able to count the possible ground speeds estimations:

distance blip 7. - 1. = 6.83 mi
timestamps:
7. 13:36:24.715
1. 13:37:35.890
6.83 mi in 71.175 sec. = 345.4 mph

distance blip 6. - 1. = 5,68 mi
timestamps:
6. 13:36:36.555
1. 13:37:35.890
5.68 mi in 59.335 sec. = 344.6 mph

distance blip 5. - 1. = 4.60 mi
timestamps:
5. 13:36:48.395
1. 13:37:35.890
4.60 mi in 47.495 sec. = 348,7 mph

distance blip 4. - 1. = 3.14 mi
timestamps:
4. 13:37:00.275
1. 13:37:35.890
3.14 mi in 35.615 sec. = 317,4 mph

distance blip 3. - 1. = 1.90 mi
timestamps:
3. 13:37:12.190
1. 13:37:35.890
1.90 mi in 23.7 sec. = 288,6 mph

distance blips 8. - 6. - 1. = 1.98 + 5.68 = 7.66 mi
timestamps:
8. 13:36:12.875
1. 13:37:35.890
7.66 mi in 83.015 sec. = 332.2 mph

distance blips 8. - 7. - 6. - 5. - 4. - 3. - 1. = 0.75+1.22+1.07+1.50+1.26+1.90 = 7.7 mi
timestamps:
8. 13:36:12.875
1. 13:37:35.890
7.7 mi in 83.015 sec. = 333.9 mph

distance blips 6. - 3. = 3.76 mi
timestamps:
6. 13:36:36.555
3. 13:37:12.190
3.76 mi in 35.635 sec. = 379,9 mph

The blip X. is quite weird, although included in the 84Rades "AA77" flightpath study. The timestamp is again the increase of ~11.9 sec. - so if we count then the speed drops considerably.

distance blips 6. - X. = 5.7 mi
timestamps:
6. 13:36:36.555
X. 13:37:47.810
5.7 mi in 71.255 sec. = 288 mph

I call this blip X. - because its position is quite inconsistent with the other blips (which look quite consistent with each other). Some say it's the radar echo not from the "AA77" itself, but of the fireball or smoke from the Pentagon explosion.


Conclusions:

The ground speeds counted from the 84Rades are in the range from 288 to 380 mph - or between ~245 to ~330 knots.

The average ground speed for the last 6 sweep periods of the PLA radar is 335,8 mph or ~295 knots.

Although we can't be exactly sure about the Lat/Lon positions derived - because the exactitude of the radar positioning is according to 84Rades cover letter within range of ±1/8nmi (0.14385 mi) - we can be anyway sure, that if we derive the ground speed from the distances of ~5 nmi then the distance error range is just ±2.9% and on the shortest distance I measured (1.65 nmi) then ±8.7%.

We can therefore conclude that - if the 84Rades data are real - then the ground speed of the "AA77" during the last 1.5 minutes of the flight didn't surely exceeded ~365 knots and most probably not even ~330 knots.

So in the case the 84Rades data for the "AA77" final approach are real, then the speed of "420 knots" - proposed by some ignorants - is really an utter nonsense.

Moreover the overall consistent tendency of the flight vector derived from the last 8 blips from the 84Rades data would suggest the "northern path" being more probable than the south - which is consistent with the witness accounts.
The final approach trajectory of "AA77" I would from 84Rades data estimate somehow like this - there wouldn't be need for any steep turning just in the case of the "northern path":
(IMG:http://sweb.cz/xmarinx/Projectedtrajectory.JPG)
[click the upper right corner to enlarge...or SOURCE]

The public Google maps source for my private Google Earth research and subsequent drawings

NOTE: The 84Rades data originated from NORAD-USAF radars (and subsequently were reported about by 84 Radar Evaluation Squadron at Hill AFB in Utah - to FBI - already on September 13 2001 - and then to NTSB) were obtained on FOIA request last year by John Farmer aka BCR-bluecollarrepublican, former 911Ommissioner, and subsequently published. John Farmer then shortly after even established the public forum dedicated solely to the research of the 84Rades data.
But when I posted there last autumn serious posts discussing the numerous anomalies in the data (and also my doubts about the overall credibility of the data - arising from the numerous weird issues in it) the forum was almost immediately after my postings deleted as a whole - not just my posts or the respective thread - the whole forum was wiped from the internet. To this day I don§t know if by the John Farmer himself or by somebody else. When I'd then asked John Farmer via email what happened with the 84Rades forum (I naively thought it was moved somewhere) I've received just a laconical reply: "It no longer exists...." After it I didn't get any further communication from him anymore, even I've tryied it several times.
Fortunately I still keep the backup copies of the whole data sets - in the state as it was first published - in the original ISO rar archives - which can prove the authenticity with numerous timestamps in the many files contained.

My favorite game when I was teenager was The Kennedy Approach and I must also add that I'm not completely unqualified to read the radar data - I studied at the top Czech IT college, where one of the classes were also about the radar technology, data processing and output reading - and I was at the time quite interrested in it - because I was considering to become an air traffic controller before I decided to study the psychology and history of terrorism.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Dec 29 2008, 03:44 PM

[rob balsamo]

Caught up on my work for today. .took a gander at the tree fort..

lol... i see the backpeddle machine is in full motion over there.

Hey JayDuh, when are you going to tell Farmer that we gave you n = 1/cos(theta)? (its a lower case n by the way...).


Bottom line, Farmers numbers were wrong (and are still wrong since they seem to have an error between the two "researchers" who admit having "senior moments"), Farmer thought his inaccurate numbers were due to conversion factor and distance for NM.. wrong... , he used the wrong formula, and he is wrong about the formula coming from JayDuh which corrected his garbage...

Again, these old timers remind me of the "math geeks" who used to say, "The Chart is wrong, the formula in the book is wrong!, I am right!". And as i said, they are all smoking holes in the ground.. .the rest never passed a flight test. Hmmm.. is this why Farmer never went past solo? His CFI probably told him to pound sand and saved his life... Farmers initial calculations for G load were off by 15%! Until we gave the idiots the correct formula and charts.


Geeeze, does Farmer ever get anything right? Not that i've seen. I bet his J.REF cohorts really get turned on by his latex though... (pun intended) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

[rob balsamo]

I love how they claim we dont know math, but at the same time admit our math is correct... while we also correct their math by providing the correct formula's, charts.. .etc (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

I'll be the first to admit im not a math geek, nor did i major in mathematics, and the last time i used Calculus was more than 15 years ago.. Math is certainly not my "life" as it is for others. I also dont have an ego based on math where i think it will seperate the "men from the boys" as Farmer claims. But, i do know what K.I.S.S. is, and the audience... yet we still keep up with, and have to correct, self proclaimed Math Majors....

... and this is why they have lost alot of the arguments regarding their anal and inaccurate arithmetic... and is also the reason they will only sit behind their screens in their tree fort obsessed with proving us wrong, while never growing the nads for a formal debate.


Hey guys, how does it feel being corrected by someone who is not a math major? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

A "Math Geek"... will always be a geek. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)