Addressing Gl Arguments Regarding Noc Tech Paper Options

[rob balsamo]

Looks like there is only one reply so far, out of much noise being generated at the GL site... so we'll address the first "legit" reply to our NoC paper...

Didn't 911files show that the radii PfT was using in their last video were fudged? Looks like they're still using those same radii in this paper.

ETA: Why, yes, he did...

CODE

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4324901&postcount=8

Actually, no, he didnt.

1. It appears Farmer cherry picked one "radius" for his claim, not "radii". Yet refuses to show exactly which "radius" he feel is "fudged".

2. Based on Farmers final arithmetic for our alleged "fudged" radius, Farmer calculated his alleged G Load based on bank angle which Farmer claims is accurate -

Farmer calculates G load for given bank...

Banking angle = 62 degrees
g-force = 1.9

Its far from accurate...

First, Farmer doesnt specify speed to obtain such a bank angle.

Second, Farmer's arithmetic is wrong regarding G load for a given bank angle.

Every pilot from a student onward knows the rule of thumb that a 60 deg bank is 2.0G. How does Farmer calculate less G load for a higher bank? I'll tell you why, its because Farmer doesnt understand basic vector analysis as outlined in the paper, doesnt understand how to calculate a sag of an arc, nor is he able to determine a proper radii.

Looks like Farmer needs the chart as his "maths" is pathetic.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10761451

Or perhaps he will actually learn something from the tech paper regarding vector analysis.

n = 1/cos(62)

n = 2.13 G's

Farmer is more than 10% off with his "maths".

[rob balsamo]

Initial thoughts from Farmer: bolding excerpts from our paper quoted by Farmer. Farmer replies in normal quoted font.

Quote:
- Aircraft type is unknown

Let me help you out. It was a Boeing 757-200 described by many trained observers as an American Airlines plane.

Exactly who are the "trained" observers? As usual, Farmer fails to provide source. The most "trained" was Terry Morin and he thought the aircraft to be a 737.

Its clear Farmer knows nothing about positive identification through aircraft accident investigation. Its also clear Farmer has already forgotten the details of the video presentation which this paper is based on. Consider Farmer admits to having "Senior Moments", perhaps this is another...

Quote:
- Stall Speed impossible to determine as outlined in the film.

I would think this to be easy since the specs for a 757 are readily available.

See above reply.

Quote:
- “Bank Angle” analysis based on level flight.

This makes the analysis a little easier, so I'll go with that,....

All initial analysis including those of "Reheat" were based on Level Flight. We are not surprised Farmer was unable to grasp such a fact.

...as long as it is understood that witnesses describe the plane as descending and accelerating...

It appears Farmer missed the part where we describe the "Pull Out" calculations in our intro. It was the next bullet point under "Bank Angle". Perhaps the "Monkey" needs to put actual lenses in those glass frames.

Quote:
- Speed: Flight Data Recorder (FDR) information not available for airborne vehicle witnessed on North Approach. Exact speed is impossible to determine based on witness statements. Several speeds are offered in this analysis including that of the Flight Data Recorder information plotted by the NTSB for this segment of flight in which many parameters conflict with a Pentagon “Impact”. When using FDR information as plotted by the NTSB it would be technically inaccurate to focus on one parameter and ignore the rest for such a segment. Therefore, the reader must also understand FDR altitude as plotted by the NTSB for this segment has to be taken into consideration which shows too high to hit the Pentagon*.

Utter nonsense.

"Utter nonsense" due to the fact Farmer fails to comprehend FDR analysis, while also refusing to debate such a topic.

The only other comment I have to make is that they have used invalid radii

See OP to this thread. Farmer once again fails to provide adequate source for his claims. derives inaccurate formula(s) and demonstrates calculations which are wrong.

Better go back and calculate using the sagitta (math), not some fictitious line drawn in 3D software

You mean the same 3D software you stole and uploaded in which you claimed to be building the same model?

The same 3D software shown with a grid and scale in our presentations/analysis which can be easily cross checked by anyone?

We cross checked our radii with several different individuals, formula's and programs. It is clear Farmer is unable to determine scale by the grid and data offered, so perhaps Farmer should ask e^n how accurate our "3D software" is as we calculated and corrected e^n's "fudged" arc (of which was still aerodynamically possible).


It is clear why Farmer makes excuse to avoid direct debate with P4T.