IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Addressing Gl Arguments Regarding Noc Tech Paper

dMz
post Jan 7 2009, 05:03 PM
Post #21



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



You know, there is a good reason that one of the first things DoD and NASA tell their younger engineers is "not to reinvent the wheel." Sometimes you just need to trust that cylindrical is a good shape for wheels, select 4 of them, and move forward...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 7 2009, 05:25 PM
Post #22



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Also, JayDuh is wrong with his claims of Farmer calculating a "lateral" G load. He was calculating the horizontal component (cause of turn) of the Total G Load in the aircraft vertical axis. Actual "lateral" loads experienced on the airframe are based on slip/skid forces. Someone doesnt understand the physics/vectors or the proper application, but its not us...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 7 2009, 06:12 PM
Post #23



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 7 2009, 01:47 PM) *
Twist? Twist? You mean like this "Twist" from your buddy "Reheat"? (who has lived up to his alias "ReTreat" since our release...)



Remember, we put the above ReTreat calcs next to ours and the witness drawings... in our video... and let the viewer decide who "twists" their statements...

Here is my CAD analysis of Reheat's own Google Earth image (scaled to that 921 foot Pentagon wall, with all dimensions in US survey feet and angles in degrees). This was done before the release of the video or the tech note as an independent analysis and not released publicly in order to gauge the [predictable] Randiite reactions.

http://flickcabin.com/public/viewset/5234

As anyone can see the "Reheat radii" are laughably "tight" and inconsistent with anything that the NoC witnesses described (as shown in the above image). He was correct on the "aerodynamically impossible" part for his cherry-picked radii (<= 2000 feet) though, at least for a commercial B757-200 transport that is.

Although I haven't seen any reasonable justification for the "460 kts" figure being thrown around, here is my chart of aircraft bank angle vs. airspeed for the turn radii presented in the video.

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16582
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 7 2009, 07:04 PM
Post #24



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I didnt really cross check JayDuh's actual arithmetic based on proper application before mainly because we were busy with the Tech paper and somewhat due to the fact i wanted them to bury themselves more while we completed the paper... Now that the tech paper is done, the proper formula's and diagrams are offered, and i have a bit of time to cross check the work from the GL's ....

Lets review JayDuh's "math".

Using the same diagram as illustrated in our tech paper,



We can solve for Total G load in the aircraft vertical axis..

Ft = Fv/Cos(theta)

and also for the "Lateral" ("Lateral" according to JayDuh, its actually a horizontal component of the Total G load in the aircraft vertical axis)

Fh = Tan(theta)*Fv

From this post...
CODE
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4298275&postcount=293


We will bold the significant digits from JayDuh's claims...

QUOTE
In level flight a lateral force of 1 g combined with a vertical(due to gravity alone) g force of 1 g will result in the airframe experiencing a 1.41g force in a direction 45 degrees below the horizontal.{ inv_sine(1/1.141)=45 deg} pulling down and to the center of the turn


Applying the proper formula...

n = 1/cos(45)
n = 1.41 G Airframe

JayDuh got that one right...

Although Jayduh uses improper terminology, we'll place his same in quotes and solve.

"lateral G load" = tan(45)*1

= 1G


Very good.. he got that one right too...




QUOTE
A desent [sic] would cause a reduction in the normal 1 g experienced due to gravity. A desent [sic] of half the acelleration [sic] of gravity would result in the airframe experiencing that 1 g lateral force due to the same turn with only 0.5 g vertical and the vector sum would be 1.11 g, 27 degrees below the horizontal.{ inv_sine(0.5/1.11)=27 degrees}pulling down and to the center of the turn


n = .5/cos(27)

n = .56G

Bzzzz... Jayduh got that one wrong...

"lateral" = tan(27)*0.5

= 0.25G

Bzzz.. wrong again JayDuh!

QUOTE
In an ascent of 0.5 g vertical force we now have 1 g lateral and 1.5 g vertical (adding in gravity) we get an total force of 1.8 get an angle of {in_sine(1.5/1.8)=56 degrees above the horizontal. This would be felt as pulling up and to the center of the turn


n = 1.5/cos(56)

n = 2.68G

Bzzz... wrong on that one too Jayduh!

"lateral" = tan(56)*1.5

= 2.22G

Bzzz.. wrong there too JayDuh!

Looks like JayDuh likes to pull numbers out his ass...


Now, what JayDuh was trying to solve was based on my statement that an aircraft G load will "equal out" (JayDuh confused this with "cancel out", not surprisingly) if you reduce total G load in a descent for a specified amount of time it will take the same amount of G Load in the opposite direction for the same duration, to return to same altitude.

Here is the proper way to figure such data..

We will use 45 deg bank for all calculations and reduce/increase vertical G loads by .5

First we need a base line during level turning flight.....

Ft = 1/Cos (45)

= 1.41G

Now for descent, we reduce vertical accel by 0.5G

Ft = .5/Cos(45)

= .71G

Climb we increase vertical accel by .5

Ft = 1.5/Cos(45)

= 2.12

2.12 climb - 1.41 level = .71
1.41 level - .71 descent = .70

They "equal out".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 7 2009, 08:32 PM
Post #25



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Farmer rants...

"I can't help it if P4T can't tell centripetal "g-force" from "g-load"". - John Farmer Jan 7, 2009, after he was shown how to calculate the proper vectors through our tech paper.

"I came up with the same values for bank angle [as P4T], but slightly lower g-force values. I suspect it is in the conversion factors used. I used 6076.1 feet per nautical mile and 32.2 ft/s2 for g." - John Farmer, Dec 26, 2008

bolding above mine.

It is clear Farmer didnt have a clue to what he was doing till we released our tech paper with a drawn diagram and vectors. Now, he back-peddles since he realized he was solving for the wrong vector. And he still dosent realize the difference..

If it werent for this thread, the other thread in this section, our tech paper and diagrams, Farmer would still be confused why his G Force/Load calculations came up short... What a dumbass...

Now people know why he "severed all ties" with the "truth movement" (twice) and would much rather debate the "Tooth Fairy" than P4T. He cant take being corrected nor does he have confidence in his work.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 7 2009, 09:02 PM
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



HINT for J. Farmer: The US Navy and "old time" USAAF navigators used to do graphical vector analysis- it is much quicker at times, plus all the signs, sines, and cosines can introduce many places to make mistakes. (That's kind of why I [and industry] have been using CAD software for the last 2 decades or so, and it can be a pretty handy method to cross-check all the trigonometry).

I also wouldn't have used a Cartesian coordinate system for radial geometries, but I digress.

Oh well, I'm sure it will look "pretty" in LaTeX though...

J. Farmer may also want to take a look at his sagitta "maths" again- my graphical analysis of his "radius" image was not very reassuring...

http://flickcabin.com/public/viewset/5321

EDIT: My spreadsheet and I also used the NIST standard accepted value for g:

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?gn

9.80665 m/s^2(exact) 32.17404856 ft/sec^2

I didn't convert nautical miles at all, but I calculated both velocity in knots airspeed and feet per second. I got very close results using 2 different formulas.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 8 2009, 09:02 PM
Post #27



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



JayDuh still living up to his name....

QUOTE
I believe that in one of the threads on PfT Balsamo or one of the others states that it was sent to dozens(hundreds?) of gov't and media outlets.


That is correct. And the correct number is well over 100, not "dozens" Duh..., (probably close to 1,000 when all said and done).

QUOTE
I would be interesting to have a comment from someone in the media as to why this is not news worthy.


As would we, but its probably for the same reason the animation and flight data provided by the NTSB for the Sept 11 aircraft is also not "news worthy" (unprecedented). But a cartoon which supports the govt story, while not based on any flight data whatsoever, fails to demonstrate scale... etc etc..., makes CNN (Integrated Consultants).

Here are just some of the contacts which receive our articles when published.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=3478

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=3477

We also distribute to several Airline Pilot Unions and organizations/media. Which is one of the reasons our core member list continues to grow...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 14 2009, 10:06 AM
Post #28



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



rolleyes.gif Although I already posted this information long ago at post #7 on this thread, apparently we need to define some science/engineering terms again for the benefit of a couple of "semantical Simons" of the illusionist cult persuasion (although they keep telling us how easy the "math" is and asking for "math").

Here's a bit on g from that post #7 again:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10762031

http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictG.html

"g
a symbol for the average acceleration produced by gravity at the Earth's surface (sea level). The actual acceleration of gravity varies from place to place, depending on latitude, altitude, and local geology. The symbol g is often used informally as a unit of acceleration. By agreement among physicists, the standard acceleration of gravity gn is defined to be exactly 9.806 65 meters per second per second (m/s2), or about 32.174 05 feet per second per second. At latitude p, a conventional value of the acceleration of gravity at sea level is given by the International Gravity Formula,
g(p)=9.7803267714(1+0.00193185138639sin2(p))/√(1-0.0069437999013sin2(p)). The variation, caused by the oblateness of the Earth and the accleration we experience due to the rotation of the Earth, is about half a percent, from 9.780 327 m/s2 at the Equator to 9.833 421 m/s2 at the poles.
The symbol g was used as a unit first in aeronautical and space engineering, where it is important to limit the accelerations experienced by the crew members of aircraft and spaceships: the "g forces," as they are called. This use became familiar through the space programs, and now a variety of accelerations are measured in g's. The names gee and grav is also used for this unit. Note that g is also the symbol for the gram.
------------------
http://www.convertworld.com/en/acceleration/g-unit.html

"In physics or physical science, acceleration (symbol: a) is defined as the rate of change (or derivative with respect to time) of velocity. It is thus a vector quantity with dimension length/timeČ. In SI units, acceleration is measured in meters/secondČ using an accelerometer."
---------------
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861699182/load.html

load [ lōd ]

noun (plural loads)

"7. electricity amount of drawn electrical power: the amount of electrical power that is drawn from a line or source

8. electrical engineering device drawing electrical power: any device to which electrical power is delivered

9. mechanical engineering force and weight on structure: the total force and weight that a structure such as a bridge is designed to withstand. For a bridge, this includes the dynamic loads of traffic, wind, snow, and ice and the static load of the bridge's own weight.

10. mechanical engineering work required of mechanical device: the work required of or placed on an engine or machine, measured in kilowatts or horsepower."
-------------------------------
http://www.answers.com/topic/design-load

"In a general sense, the design load is the maximum amount of something a system is designed to handle or the maximum amount of something that the system can produce, which are very different meanings. For example, a crane with a design load of 20 tons is designed to be able to lift loads that weigh 20 tons or less."
------------------------------
Did anyone else notice that I [and common scientific/engineering industry defintions] have been discussing forces, weights, and loads fairly interchangeably so far (and these are directly proportional to accelerations by Newton's Second Law). Also, accelerations are often measured in g-units.

I don't think we want to get into pressure, stress, or strain so as not to confuse some (but it is a very small leap from here). Let's really not get into inertial reference frames...

EDIT: And like Punksawtawnnie Phil:
http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread421811/pg10

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 09:23 PM by 911files [about 2/3 of the way down, and argumentum ad fantasia or something like that...]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 15 2009, 02:35 AM
Post #29



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Well, it looks like ol' "nicepants" is leading a new diversionary charge using the P4T name over in Randiland (most of the usual suspects are on that thread if anyone cares to look, although some of the more "intellectual" illusionist acolytes are strangely silent so far).

If anyone actually cares, and so that the reader doesn't need to sort through all the silly, illusionist "NWOise" of these junior Bildo O'Really-wannabes,

CODE
http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showthread.php?t=132951


I wouldn't have noticed except "nicepants" put a big green & black arrow on the OP next to the "Pft members" part. Apparently "nicepants" likes green round things, if the "Darth Shrub" avatar is any indicator.

It would appear that "nicepants" has now graduated from trolling/dodging questions/"JAQ'ing off" (b )j[e]thomas style to this now... Isn't he precocious?rolleyes.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

"An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names[1], including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious and anti-religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger"."

----------------------------------------
OK Randiite kiddies- who's up for the next well-earned "bitch-slap?" The question was "maths" I thought??? dunno.gif rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 15 2009, 08:07 PM
Post #30



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Turbofan @ Jan 15 2009, 04:18 PM) *
Does anyone know of an organization that supports the NTSB data?

IIRC, the FBI/NTSB (and I think that would include the FAA) have recused themselves from "supporting" further "AA77" SSFDR inquiry after this forum got involved. (I'm sure that Rob and/or Aidan Monaghan can provide a link or 5 here).

I wish I had the luxury of defining all my own terms like William Baconspeare and J. Farmer, but there are certain technical terms that have very specific meanings in science, engineering, and industry.

I do know better than to dismiss AutoCAD as "some software package" however, as I am quite familiar with its mathematical and LISP internal routines and modules. (I personally and professionally have found it to be much more utilitarian than LaTeX, but much of my professional work wasn't exactly geared toward academia, or any other public "audience").
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 18 2009, 01:06 AM
Post #31



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I see now the idiots over there think we get our roster from "mental hospitals". LMAO! Its clear their self-proclaimed anonymous "pilots" dont have a clue when it comes to pilot medical certification as mental health is questioned.

Some of them even wish "cancer" upon those who they are obsessed with... lol.

How stupid can GL's be? The mod's over there must be even more stupid to let it happen in full view of the public. Good on you J.REF mods. You live up to your romper room name daily.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 18 2009, 02:18 AM
Post #32



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



On things technical, the Farmer recently claimed (off-topic I think):

QUOTE
Unfortunately, it is like talking to a brick wall. These guys don't even understand the definitions they google! I'm not going to put down the pilots who belong to P4T. I learned very quickly that flying is not my talent and I have respect for anyone who does it for a living. But as math and/or science literacy goes, they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about. They keep talking about how the RADES data is altered because at some point the plane goes supersonic. Of course it could not be that they calculated something wrong, or maybe used a data point that was not the plane. And they wonder why no one takes them seriously. 911files, 15th January 2009, 12:37 AM, #26
(on percentage thread)

Well, there were also the ModeC altitudes above Boeing service ceiling specs, (also at and below MSL for Mode C values) in the "all 4 flights" spreadsheet provided by USAF 84 RADES. This is the same Farmer of the "negative" aircraft velocity, and who started talking about "Law of Cosines" to obtain distance from lat/lon coordinates about 5 months after I did here. [Perhaps J. Farmer no ready so quicky (nor carefully)... rolleyes.gif]

On "incorrect" [approximate] velocity calculations, see my post #6 from 31 May 2008 here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10742683

"To get independent verification of my results, I would like to post the following "interesting" portions of the USAF 84 RADES data for UA175 (from the .XLS spreadsheet, not the RS3 Software)."- dMole

Also see posts #24, 26, 28, and 29 on this thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10759547

Yeah sure Farmer, "incorrect calculation" is why I provided the spreadsheet data, several calculators, the "curious" lat/lon coordinates and timestamps in question, and specifically requested independent verification back in May 2008. I believe that tume concurred, then Farmer deleted the entire RADES forum from his website, and has done nothing but grouse and handwave since (other than posting some LaTeX over in Randiland of equations that Rob and we had already provided those fools and slapping the acolytes' backs).

These illusionite "critical thinkers" have already had 7+ months to "correct" me- why haven't they??? I think that TF is still waiting for some coordinate parameters (with justified altitudes in addition to 5 decimals' worth of lat/lon) to be provided by the Randiites for "reasonable flightpath" several weeks later, too. Did they ever properly justify the 460 kts velocity for 1 of n NoC flightpaths? I must have missed it.

Tume's brief description of the RADES circus can be found on this thread:

"aa77" Final Approach Ground Speed Determination From The 84rades Radar Data, 84Rades and FDR data mutually INCONSISTENT?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15913

More on John Farmer(s) at post #19:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10762234

Yet again- for the benefit of the "slower" Randiites wink.gif - the "maths" didn't come from Google... rolleyes.gif

I suppose that's Monday Morning Quarterbacks and internet LaTeX SPC "mathematicians" for you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jan 18 2009, 03:32 AM
Post #33





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



QUOTE
I see now the idiots over there think we get our roster from "mental hospitals". LMAO!


What's so funny? I'll silly.gif never forget the day the PFT Annual Recruiting Tour spinhalo.gif came to Torrance State Hospital. The doctors were glad to see me go shake.gif . Providing opportunities for people like me is a serious matter teach.gif . And thanks for the whiskey when I signed up. toke.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 18 2009, 03:34 AM
Post #34



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Dont waste your time dMole. It is clear Farmer is the type who slams doors and plugs his ears when anyone comes along with more knowledge on topic.

It wont be long before Farmer himself realizes even the J.REf no longer give his ego attention due to his numerous inaccuracies and Farmer goes ballistic once again. Notcie even JayDuh doesnt speak much anymore. Its clear why Farmer will never debate any real professional. He cant even determine proper vector analysis. His focus is on LaTex and pretty pictures the layman cannot understand let alone determine his inaccurate calculations. And now that i've shown him (Farmer and JayDuh both) to be incompetent regarding CAD/Vector analysis (he actually uploaded the program intially because he didnt have a clue how to use it), he is a bit bitter at our progress... (to be polite).

I'll eventually sit down with Farmer recorded. But for now, he isnt worth the bandwidth than already given imo. Your mileage may vary...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 22 2009, 07:06 PM
Post #35



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 7 2009, 03:12 PM) *
Here is my CAD analysis of Reheat's own Google Earth image (scaled to that 921 foot Pentagon wall, with all dimensions in US survey feet and angles in degrees). This was done before the release of the video or the tech note as an independent analysis and not released publicly in order to gauge the [predictable] Randiite reactions.

http://flickcabin.com/public/viewset/5234

As anyone can see the "Reheat radii" are laughably "tight" and inconsistent with anything that the NoC witnesses described (as shown in the above image). He was correct on the "aerodynamically impossible" part for his cherry-picked radii (<= 2000 feet) though, at least for a commercial B757-200 transport that is.

Although I haven't seen any reasonable justification for the "460 kts" figure being thrown around, here is my chart of aircraft bank angle vs. airspeed for the turn radii presented in the video.

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16582

Related to the very "foxy" thread at:

Technical Aviation Related Questions, Descents and Turns
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=11756

whistle.gif rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st December 2021 - 12:26 PM