IPB




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

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

rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2009, 12:21 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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...

QUOTE
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 -

QUOTE
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".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2009, 02:56 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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

QUOTE
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
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
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.



QUOTE
...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
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.



QUOTE
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.



QUOTE
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2009, 03:27 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



JayDuh once again lives up to the "Duh" in his name...

QUOTE
quick question; the scale listed in the diagrams, this would be dependant upon the size of my 'puter screen so can we assume that each square on the graph paper is 1cm per side?


1cm Box = 100 feet

....as explained in all our video presentations.

Not to mention the first picture in our tech paper shows "R=253.497cm".

Does he really think the "cm" is based on distance along his computer screen? Really?

Another "Senior moment" for JayDuh i guess... rolleyes.gif

Think he will understand the "units" this time around? I doubt it... laughing1.gif

Here JayDuh.. i'll help you a bit. "cm" doesnt necessarily have to mean "centimeter". It can be a variable. Although, it does mean centimeter in terms of the CAD program used, but its not based on distance across your "computer screen".. i suppose JayDuh also thinks an Architect has to have a monitor with a surface area of several hundred feet because he shows a side of a building at x number of feet in his CAD program on his monitor? too funny...lol... aww, the poor ol' timers.. cant even determine scale...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2009, 04:10 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Farmer rant regarding debate...

QUOTE
For the benefit of the govt loyalist site'rs who are not familiar, there has been a call issued by some in the Truth Movement


"Some in the Truth Movement"? Why not say his name? Its Mark Gaffney. You know, the same person Farmer wrote a book with who is confused regarding Farmers' and my claims which is why he offered to moderate a debate?




QUOTE
The debate would be video-taped and posted on the web at some point in the future. I have declined this offer for debate.


We are not surprised as its clear you are the one who doesnt have a clue.


QUOTE
My reasons for declining are simple. I will not give P4T and CIT fantasy's any credibility by "debating" them.


Yet Farmer posts daily on the the govt loyalist site doing just that, as well in the past year on his blog. We would source such a claim rearding Farmer "debating" from the comfort of his blog, but he deleted it, accusing P4T and CIT of "cyber-attacks".



QUOTE
They do not accept FAA and RADES radar data,


The data Farmer admits was "manipulated?



QUOTE
or FAA ATC audio, the NTSB data, or the majority of eyewitness testimony.


P4T accepts all data from the govt. The difference between us and Farmer is that we want answers for the conflicts with such data. Farmer makes excuse based on his inaccurate analysis, and feels all Experts who can be verified as such "dont know what they're talking about.."

QUOTE
Since they do not accept such objective data, there is no basis for debate.


Translation - I'd much rather debate P4T and CIT without an opponent and accept govt data as gospel.



QUOTE
Their entire line of "reasoning" is based on fantasy where the rules of physics do not apply


We are not the people who need a chart due to calculations being more than 10-15% off from known figures and vector analysis. Farmer can scream we "dont know physics", but everyone from a student pilot onward realizes it is Farmer who doesnt understand physics and basic vector analysis. Good thing he deleted his blog or i'd be able to prove more inaccuracies from "Farmer".

QUOTE
I would be better off "debating" the existence of the tooth fairy and I have better things to do with my time.


...and your excuse for your numerous blog entries in the past few years attacking P4T/CIT? Further, your excuse for "debating" our work daily on the comfort of the the govt loyalist site? I think we know why, its because there arent any real pilots there to correct your bogus arithmetic.


QUOTE
However, I do not debate fantasy. Thanks for the laughs Rob.


Seems Farmer already is.. daily. But of course, without an actual opponent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 6 2009, 04:37 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

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



Hi 7 guests!
welcome.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2009, 04:44 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Just want to quickly address this (even though off topic and clear most GL's want to drive this issue off topic)..

QUOTE
everyone knows that Cap'n Bobby harvests IP numbers


Anyone ever try to register for the J.REF? They require your full name. We dont.

Then, when we back such GL's into a corner during debate, we are singled out for "verification" by J.REF staff and suspended till we provide 3 forms of ID verifying our names when registered. The J.REF admin have required utility bills, driver license scans... the list goes on... just to post there if you are a "suspected" sock.

According to GL's, everyone arguing our side on the GL site is either me or Craig. And.. eventually banned or suspended until 3 forms of ID are presented to J.REF staff.

I said it before and will say it again, we dont require any of that. But we will expose such individuals and double standards. Its in our forum rules.

I find it hilarious that while we put our names to our claims, addresses can be verified, etc etc... but at the same time, we are the ones who are "paranoid" according to anonymous GL's. rolleyes.gif

Ok... just wanted to get that addressed, Lets please stick to the topic of the Tech paper here, even if the GL mods let their thread be derailed by their members.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 6 2009, 04:50 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

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



Back on topic, I've got a minor gripe with the NoC Tech Paper Rob:

I prefer the boldface [vector] version, but "G" is usually written in italic lowercase.

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2009, 05:03 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 6 2009, 03:50 PM) *
Back on topic, I've got a minor gripe with the NoC Tech Paper Rob:

I prefer the boldface [vector] version, but "G" is usually written in italic lowercase.


laughing1.gif


Tino gave me the same gripe... smile.gif

But not in terms of Load Factor, aerodynamics and aircraft maneuverability.....

see here... http://tscm.com/maneuver.pdf

wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2009, 05:15 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



laughing1.gif

Beachnut is imploding.... again.

"but.. .but... but.... Balsamo showed 11.2 G!"

laughing1.gif

Its clear why Beachy refuses to sign up here as he will be exposed in less than 3 posts. Guaranteed.

His own peers dont even take him seriously anymore... and the J.REF staff have deleted his incoherent and repetitive posts... Beachy himself even feels all his posts should deleted. What is it with these people who make excuses for the govt story and deleting posts? A trend certainly....

J.REF staff would be better off to ban such an idiot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2009, 05:40 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I see the infamous "Gravy" - NYC Tour Guide Extraordinaire (who will never amount to anything more), is back. Did they have to call in "reinforcements" to drive the thread further off topic regarding heated internet exchanges from two years ago?

CODE
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4326118&postcount=46


The actual fact is that "Mark Roberts" has refused to debate P4T or CIT and cries for years over a heated internet exchange...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=14438


Ok... back on topic... smile.gif

ETA: Since i didnt feel this needed a new post, but wanted to acknowledge Gravy is still trying to derail the thread at the J.REF with lies and unsourced claims.
CODE
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4327055&postcount=59


What a desperate little bugger that NYC Tour Guide is.. huh? I dont blame him, since everyone knows his resume aspires to work at "Its A Small World". laughing1.gif

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Jan 6 2009, 11:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2009, 06:25 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



ok.. wont spend too much time on this... but

CurtC rants

QUOTE
I just now watched the video linked in the OP, and here are my observations:


The link in the OP is to a pdf technical paper. Not a video. Wake up!



QUOTE
* I does not touch the objections we skeptics had with their NoC flight path, how it's aerodynamically impossible.


Obviously this person is not up to speed as we "touched" the ground in our tech paper and its still aerodynamically possible.



QUOTE
* It is a re-hash of PfT's failed paper from last year showing that a straight-line descent from the top of the tower to the light poles, then a sudden pull-up to level flight, would not be possible because the sudden pull-up would be too much g-loading.


Yes, it was based on plotted data by the NTSB. We have been asking for flight data for the aircraft independently witnessed and corroborated for the north approach, but GL's always dismissed the point with personal attack posts, personal attack pictures and noise.



QUOTE
* If you recall, this paper was trashed because their assumption of a straight-line descent followed by a sudden pull-up is not reasonable - it's the problem of the hockey-stick path.


We dont "recall" such "trashing". Matter of fact, Ryan Mackeys paper is wrong with respect to vertical acceleration components. But you'll never know the difference.. .we do. Does "CurtC" recall the path as plotted by the NTSB? Apparently not.




QUOTE
* After much confusing (intentional I think) talk about different paths, including parabolic, the video simply goes straight back to their hockey-stick scenario, and here's the big innovation:


The "parabolic" scenario was offered by Ryan Mackey. And we agree, he has successfully confused "CurtC" and the rest of the GL's based on bias.




QUOTE
* They used a computer tool to measure the little arc at the elbow of their hockey stick. They think that since a computer was involved, their calculations must be right, even though they went back to their infantile hockey stick shaped flight path.


Many aircraft were designed with the same type of computer "program" we used. Looks like its the train for you if you are unable to determine scale based on such CAD programs. But then again, trains are designed with the same type of software... looks like it sneakers for you on your next trip. Well wait.. sneakers are designed with the same type of software... barefoot for you?



QUOTE
I think they could benefit by understanding the abbreviation "GIGO."


I think "CurtC", Ryan Mackey, John Farmer et al... could benefit from the abbreviation "CAD", Since they probably dont know what it means.. its stands for "Computer Aided Design".


Anyone else find it strange how GL's used to tout a "cartoons" not based on any flight data whatsoever?

- Purdue, failed to even animate engines for impact, "disappeared" Vertical stab on "impact"
- "Integrated Consultants", failed to incorporate flight data as plotted by NTSB

GL's claim to be "critical thinkers"? I think not...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2009, 07:58 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



JayDuh says...

QUOTE
As I said before.... it seems that PfT actually got the math correct and applied it properly.


Yeah.. after we showed him how to actually apply such math and formula's.

The rest of his post i didnt bother to read as its clear he didnt even know how to apply "units" before, nor was able to understand scale.

JayDuh... i rarely ever use this term often used by your cohort Beachnut... but you're a freakin dolt.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jan 6 2009, 09:59 PM
Post #13





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



So apparently the all agree that your math is accurate!
thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2009, 10:11 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jan 6 2009, 08:59 PM) *
So apparently the all agree that your math is accurate!
thumbsup.gif


lol.. they have no choice but to agree with the "math". Its tight. We also helped them to do their "math". Although... they really should stick with charts as its clear they didnt have a clue till the tech paper...

too funny..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2009, 11:07 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Beachnut claims -

QUOTE
You posted an idiotic paper.... with bad math



Fellow GL JayDuh disagrees with Beachnut...

QUOTE
As I said before.... it seems that PfT actually got the math correct and applied it properly.


It appears the GL's cant even get their own claims straight regarding our "math".

Although JayDuh is an idiot, it appears Beachy is more of an idiot. Its no surprise Beachy wants most of his own posts deleted... laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jan 6 2009, 11:11 PM
Post #16





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 7 2009, 02:11 AM) *
lol.. they have no choice but to agree with the "math". Its tight. We also helped them to do their "math". Although... they really should stick with charts as its clear they didnt have a clue till the tech paper...

too funny..



What's even better is that your tech paper got the cynical smarmy tour guide to come out of retirement!

He saw how the place is constantly in a tizzy over CIT and P4T and simply could not ignore us any longer.

Someone should pull up his "last post" where he says there is nothing worth discussing anymore.

laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2009, 11:14 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



The NYC Tour Guide Mark "Gravy" Roberts claims...

QUOTE
According to Balsamo's scenario, the minimum turn radius of flight 77 at 2.5 g and 60-degree bank, beginning at 460 kts


Gravy's "math" is about as good as Farmers as a 60 deg bank is 2.0 G.. .not 2.5.

Gravy will never make it to "Its a Small World". Keep your day job Mark!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jan 7 2009, 02:11 PM
Post #18


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



Mod Edit: The following twwo posts were split from "North Approach" thread in Latest News section and merged here...

Nice job Rob. Thanks for all your hard work man. I think this will always be an evolving flight path since we really don't the exact north of Citgo/over ANC path.

BTW, looks like you hit a nerve at the chimp cage. The Gravester came out from under his rock and has made some appearances on the NoC tech paper thread. Gotta love this piece of disinfo...

QUOTE
Frustrated? Let's remember that Rob Balsamo is the one who, after scrupulously reviewing the FDR data, posited that the Pentagon was attacked by a MOAB dropped from a C-130 overhead, while flight 77 skimmed over the Pentagon, made a "hard left," and "escaped" up the Potomac!

According to Balsamo's scenario, the minimum turn radius of flight 77 at 2.5 g and 60-degree bank, beginning at 460 kts, would have put it directly over downtown Washington, D.C., the Washington Mall, and the White House.




Rob Balsamo was frustrated enough to call for the death of rational people who he's too cowardly to debate. He is a pathetic, severely disturbed person. Your support of this "Judy Wood of the air" speaks poorly of your reasoning abilities, TheLoneBedouin.

Please stop this sad charade, which is an insult to thinking people and to the victims and witnesses of the 9/11 attacks.


He also made some comments about YOU of all people fleeing from a debate with him. What a transparent traitor this guy or "guys" is/are lol. Is/are he/they for real?

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Jan 7 2009, 02:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 7 2009, 02:40 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Thanks Aldo. Good to see you back posting... guess you been busy...

Yeah.. .we know about "Gravy" and his cohort's claims... all of it is addressed in the debate section. I'll probably split out our posts here and merge them there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 7 2009, 04:47 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



JayDuh continuing to live up to his Duh...

QUOTE
It is also quite apparent that some who read these threads concerning the math do not understand that Farmer was calculating the lateral g load


Apparently, as many of the GL's bought his numbers hook, line and sinker. Even Farmer himself didnt understand it and thought his numbers were off due to NM length and "conversion factor". What an idiot. Its about time you realized your errors and that you and Farmer were wrong! It only took our release of the tech paper and diagram for JayDuh and Farmer to understand the vectors.

QUOTE
These same persons seem to not actually fully understand how the formulae they used are derived, thus their confusion.


Agreed, GL's dont have a clue when it comes to properly applying vector analysis for the proper vector. That is until we drew a diagram for Farmer and JayDuh..


QUOTE
It is one thing to apply a formula, it is another entirely to fully comprehend how that formula is derived and when, and when not, to apply it.



Agreed, thats why we found it so hilarious Farmer numbers we so far off and he kept thinking he was applying his derived formula's properly. When obviously, he was not. We just sat back and let you bury yourself more. But you got it eventualy. After we drew a diagram for you.


QUOTE
This time they managed to apply the physics correctly despite not fully comprehending the principles


It is JayDuh and Farmer who didnt fully understand the "principles" until we had to draw a diagram for them.


QUOTE
but had to twist the statements of the CiT witnesses in order to produce a flyable flight path.



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...

Witness Drawings based on their observations



Who exactly is "twisting" here?

JayDuh, you live up to the "Duh" in your name every time you post. Either that, or your initial intellectual dishonesty is so blatant you have no choice but to go full blown "Duh".

Its good you guys figured it out finally.. Glad to be of service... So i take it Farmer no longer thinks his numbers were off due to NM distance or "conversion factor"? laughing1.gif

Now Farmer just has to understand how to apply Sag properly and come up with proper radii and you'll all be up to speed. smile.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 August 2014 - 05:48 AM