Ugh... so stupid. Here's Reheat's latest idiocy over at the govt loyalist site:


No, best and worst cases of the last leg of the attack jet's flightpath that where within a reasonable margin of error of what the witnesses reported were analyzed. No specific flightpath is correct since we are only sure of the general claim that the plane flew north of the citgo.


I'm pretty sure this calculation is wrong, but since I'm not qualified to answer, I'll let Rob reply. Whatever imaginary flightpath Reheat is conjuring up, however, is not the correct flightpath- again, we are testing the general claim that the plane flew north of the citgo.


As shown in the video, the radii were determined by a simple equation and some input variables.


Marie De La Cerda says that she initially thought the plane impacted on the other side of the Pentagon. Boger also places the plane higher in the air relative to the impact hole. Morin, by virtue of the fact that he saw the vertical stabilizer at the time of the explosion, also points to a high altitude. Thus any G increase due to a pull-up is negligible.


You idiot! How can you witness vectored thrust, unconventional wing designs, or any other aircraft modificaton if you don't know they exist!

I'd like to thank PFT for exposing the pseudoskepticism used by so-called "aviation professionals" such as the anonymous "Reheat"!

I posted this in our debate section.. but will cross post it here....

I just had some time to take a gander at their BS replies...

Reheat shows only level flight calculations and agrees more G's will create a climb... Further, the fact that all G loads are less than 2 G, 2 more G to cause the climb is a non-event depending on aircraft type, weight, config.. .etc etc..... even Detractors agree a 757 can pull 4 G. And finally, its impossible for witnesses to determine exact altitude, therefore its impossible to calculate the actual "pull up" needed. Since the Annex is higher than the pentagon, and perspective/lack of precedent of witnesses seeing an aircraft so low on such a path, the "pull up" is highly unlikely to be as extreme as detractors are trying to claim.

Notice they dont complain about the fact we exposed their Stall speed analysis as intellectually dishonest? Either that, or they just dont have a clue of stall speed factors..... I highly doubt Reheat was ever a pilot and is probably another reason he remains anonymous.


I still see Farmer doesnt realize the formula we used is the same one Reheat offered to check his work (pdf). Its a common formula used by Aeronautical Engineers for aircraft maneuverability. Although, Reheat used online calculators as its clear he cant do anything long hand. Pssst, Farmer, the bank angle will be lower at lower speeds, we used the higher speed. I know this may be hard for you to grasp, but let me spell it out. If we calculated based on acceleration, we would start with a lower speed and lower bank, up to the bank we calculated using the final FDR speed as plotted by the NTSB. Your attempt to confuse your audience isnt working, but it sure appears you are thoroughly confused.. as usual. All calculations are based on level flight, and are two dimensional, just like Reheats calculations in which he claimed the path was "aerodynamically impossible". It is very much aerodynamically possible. GL Myth Busted.

Given the fact that the calculations are based on level flight, if you incorporate an initial descent, the G loads required are less, therefore the "pull up" will equal out the reduced G Loading during the descent. Get it? Probably not...

I thought I already [pre-]addressed Reheat's snivelling last night at posts 152-154 very nearby here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10761287

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16635

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16636

Farmer should consult my post #157 in that same thread.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10761294

EDIT: An open challenge to R. Mackey, "Reheat," etc.: quit your anonymous Internet sniping and SHOW ME mathematically where and how our calculations are incorrect, Mr. "Reheat" et alia.

Be sure to take a long look at Figure 2 in that .PDF gang, then compare that 2100 foot radius to "Reheat's" ~2000 foot number from his? masterful "debunk."

They already acknowledged our math is correct. Now they are just moving the goal posts to fit their bias, such as the "pull up". Do they realize the tech paper isnt even released yet? I love watching them speculate and offer theory on what we will do. They're so easy to play... Perhaps they should look at Mackeys theories on the "pull up" as its the same segment. Although Mackey derived his calculations for two dimensions and a higher initial altitude, the G loading will be alot less for the "pull up" on the north path than Mackeys numbers. Think perhaps 0.6 G more than shown for level banks in our analysis.

Im also not surprised Reheat hasnt corrected Farmer on the formula Reheat initially posted for others to cross check his work. They are throwing Reheat and his formulas under the bus and they arent even aware they are doing it...

Psst! "Reheat" and associated OGCT True Believer faithful crew:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/completelyknown/401386819/

EDIT:

BTW stick this in your "cartoon":

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index...&id=2704278

Pssst! Got MATH Wildcat? [No? I'm shocked, shocked, shocked, shocked I tell you.]

de Nile:

http://www.mbarron.net/Nile/

Contrast at:

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionar...al+(psychology)

"denial /de·ni·al/ (di-ni´il) in psychiatry, a defense mechanism in which the existence of unpleasant internal or external realities is kept out of conscious awareness."

"de·ni·al (d-nl)
n.
An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings."

So is it the algebra, analytic geometry, trigonometry, CAD or what that you seem to have trouble coping with exactly?

lol... i see their resident circular logic GL jaduheees cant determine the difference between "equal out" and "cancel out".

Where did these people get their education, from a cracker jack box?

Hey jayduh... "equal out" means to the same level altitude. Since the Annex is higher than the pentagon, the G loads required to pull out of the dive will be equal to (but opposite) the G loads reduced due to the descent from the Annex. Duh...

Take some flying lessons will ya? Its taught in basic airmanship. I dont expect Reheat or any other of your resident anonymous "experts" to understand as its clear they didnt even know the factors of stall speed. Certainly nicepants wont understand as its clear he doesnt even realize he's getting ripped off for his training.

ReTreat calculated level paths and claimed aerodynamic impossibility. We have shown his claims to be bogus and unreasonable.

They now ignore past mistakes and bogus claims made by their cohorts and move the goal post to focus on the "pull up".

Wonder what they're gonna do after the tech paper? lol

Those people just love shooting themselves in the foot.

I can see why many have dubbed their resident "expert", ReTreat.

Although I'm not volunteering here to calculate for the benefit of the dogmatic, irrational OGCT True Believer faithful TF, you've got several very valid points. Let's see... how did the GL's put it, nearly ad infinitum?

http://www.zazzle.com/got_math_shirt-235510272832060072

EDIT: Latitude and longitude out to 5 or 6 decimal places would be maaaahvelous my war-crime-apologist daaaahlings!

It's been so funny watching them scramble like mad the very second their forum came back up on Christmas day!!!




They are so obsessed they sat on their computers waiting on the biggest holiday of the year.

Spend time with their family?

Hell no!

Farmer was the most pathetic of them all too. He was posting until late in the morning last night putting up images of "math" trying to make himself look like he knows what he is talking about without refuting a damn thing!

Now it's the day after and the floodgates are open as they trip all over themselves looking like a bunch of clowns stuffed in a VW bug!



Classic.

What was that saying about rats and a ship again?

[And to clarify Turbofan's post immediately above: I demand latitude and longitude "points," out to at least 5 decimal places, "supported by reason"- then we'll negotiate. I don't want to be bothered with arcminutes and arcseconds, but I could do those too.] Maybe it's a good idea to provide "Pffffft" with both decimal degree coordinates and deg min' sec" coordinates- yeah, do that if you will. We'll wait...

EDIT: To review, from a very nearby thread, post #152:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10761287



Sow... reap... cope.

It is impossible to tell bank angle with any degree of certainty from eyewitnesses.

Only generalized statements like tilted left or tilted right should be considered.

We can't fall into their trap of expecting all the witnesses to be mathematically accurate about ANYTHING.

Witnesses are not computers and they will ALL make mistakes.

The ANC witnesses and Lagasse prove that plane was over the ANC parking lot because they had the best view and opposite perspectives yet they match perfectly.

The flight path in the presentation that considered Roosevelt Roberts is the most accurate.

Boger, Morin, and Middleton are the most accurate data points to determine speed due to their perspectives and they all describe it as relatively slow.

I think the 200 knots estimate is absolutely fair considering this.

So what did you guys figure the bank was for the Roosevelt path at that speed?

35 degree bank right?

There is nothing unreasonable about this and we must never forget that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for any of these guys to accurately recognize, remember, and report the difference between a 22 or 35 degree bank during such a harrowing event or ever for that matter.

It's ok if the witnesses aren't completely accurate about little details like this.

It is unreasonable to expect them to be.

But the GENERAL corroborated claim of a right bank AT ALL is very strong further confirmation that the plane flew on the north side.

Furthermore the plane DOES NOT have to pass exactly over the alleged impact point.

That is a myth that they made up.

Sure we initially hypothesized that this is what happened but now that we have the ANC witnesses and Roosevelt's account we don't think this is what happened.

The deception would be effective no matter how you slice it since the massive fireball and smoke plume would naturally divert attention regardless of the exact location of the plane in relation to the exact location of the fireball.

Everybody has a different perspective anyway.

But again...WE HAVE NEVER DENIED THAT PEOPLE SAW THE FLYOVER.

That is what the 2nd plane cover story was all about.

The decoy jet was alternately meant to fool some people into thinking it hit the building while fooling most others that it was a 2nd plane that didn't hit the building.

Roosevelt Roberts proves how effective this was since he fully believed the commercial airliner with jet engines that he saw banking away immediately after the explosion at less than 100 feet AGL was a "2nd plane".

Exactly.

You nailed them from all angles.

They will ALWAYS move the goal posts.


So even though ANY of these variations are possible we can never forget that Roosevelt Roberts saw that plane banking over the south parking lot after the explosion.





Now we have the math and video example proving this entirely possible and reconcilable with a north side approach.

Oh and they can cry all they want about this "throwing Morin under the bus" because Morin had THE WORST perspective from between the wings of the Navy Annex!

It would have been a split second.

But of course that perspective is PERFECT to tell whether or not it was directly over the Navy Annex as opposed to SOUTH of Columbia Pike.

Sure enough he confirmed this perfectly and even scoffed at the possibility that it could have been completely south of Columbia Pike.

But the ANC witnesses all SAW IT APPROACH unlike Morin and therefore had a much better judge of it's exact location and heading.

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for Middleton to see the plane at all on the south side but this Roosevelt path works perfectly with his "southgate road" path.

It's not surprising that Middleton and Morin as well as others might have perceived it or remembered it as traveling straight when it wasn't when considering the POV's.

There is so much to consider with every witness but they all have a margin of error and only the general details can be definitively confirmed.

North or south of citgo.

Over Navy Annex or south of Columbia Pike.

Awww yeaaah! 15:15 "credulity" points for "Wildcat!" Hey, we should turn this into a drinking game!

And just for Farmer:

in lieu of mathematical content, and since you appear to have such an obsession with "latex:"

http://www.printfection.com/shop/funny+tsh...w_sideid.278154

http://img.printfection.com/1/584/278154/zJlJd.jpg



Lat/lon... 5 decimal places... still waiting...

EDIT: I believe that "spcengineer" still has a valid account here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showuser=717

EDIT2: And yes Mr. Farmer, I learned at University that it is pronounced "lay-tek..." B)

Farmer still doesnt even realize from where the formula came. Looks like he is going to try to "disprove it" with his "Newtonian Physics" when all he has to do is ask Reheat to show him the pdf and that the formula is based off same, but specifically tailored for aircraft maneuverability. Whatever... let him waste his time i suppose... its the same BS we went through when working together. When proven wrong, he claims we didnt know what we're talking about. Seems he did that wth every Expert he comes across, except of course the anoynmous "experts" on J.REF. Give it time, Famer is a creature of habit.


Farmer will never come here to debate, just like he refused debate when asked by Mark Gaffney. He is completely lost.

Ummm.... didn't that v²/(r*11.26) formula (with v in knots and r in feet, and yes I took a "shortcut" but "check my math") come from Newtonian physics?!?!?!

http://www.mill-creek-systems.com/se/SEGravity.htm

Exaclty... and of course Reheat doesnt even realize he offered the same formula to check his work. Probably because he doesnt even know how to use it and instead used online calculators. This is why Reheat hasnt even bothered to let Farmer in on the fact he is wasting his time by checking the formula and doesnt realize to give him the applicable pdf which lays out the formula in Newtonian terms. lol.. Its fun watching them chase their tails.


by the way.. check your PM's dMole.

Although a decent hypothetical plane could in theory make a reasonable descent, I like to think of my hypothetical plane as having an accent much like the fictional character "Tony Montana"- I blame that on the DoD...

[metaphor][fictional plane]:"Say hello..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scarfaceinthefall.jpg


[/metaphor]

[Aside: it gives the farmers bad nameses it does. ]

Personally, I would have expected an engineer to know and remember this [very simplified case of] "scientific method-esque" information already, but OK??

http://www.mrmartinweb.com/wp.htm

"General Method to Solve

First, read the problem carefully. Decide what information you are given and what is being asked. Draw a diagram if applicable. Remember, there is more than one piece of information missing in all these problems. After you have done this, do the following:

1. Define only one variable. Let n = (describe in English what n equals)

2. Using the same variable, define the other unknowns.

3. Using the information given, write an equation.

4. Solve the equation for the variable.

5. Find the other answers by going back to the definitions you made."

Farmer has a problem of not defining his variables. Anti-Sophist picked up on it when Farmer was calculating the csv file being altered to show a south approach. A-S called his math "pseudo-science". A-S also thinks there can only be up to 2 seconds missing from the FDR (which still places the aircraft too high). Notice you dont see him around much anymore and all the rest of the GL's now embrace Farmer's "pseudo-science". Its the most attention he has gotten since he started researching 9/11 im sure...


Its fun watching Farmer trying to prove wrong a formula used in the pdf originally linked by Reheat to check his work, but since we now used it to expose ReTreat's bogus claims, it might be wrong... lol

Because I'm so f#cking sick of hearing the OGCT True Believer faithful cock-knockers drone on about average vs. instantaneous velocity:

Hey NWO "kitties-" you aren't the ones who invented differential calculus. I believe that would be Newton and Liebniz, although I find the German notation to be vastly superior IMHO.

Funny they extremely rarely seem to have sources for their assertions I have noticed though. Here's one.

http://www.stkate.edu/physics/phys111/curr...stvelocity.html

I often wonder if they've ever heard the words purpose, target audience, and scope though...

Surprise! That thread with the now somewhat less fraudulent title over in Randiland has now devolved into "kitty pile on SPreston" banal metachatter drivel.

e^n did however make a brief appearance at #263 that was about the only noteworthy occurence:



On Farmer AKA "911files" and his degree in mathematics, is this the same John Farmer that had negative (read backwards, below zero) aircraft velocities when he graphed the USAF 84 RADES data derived velocities with his "error bars" around November 2007? This is of course not long before his entire RADES forum mysteriously "disappeared" after our forum member Tume pointed this out to Farmer. I've still got my now-archived PM to Tume about this one. Perhaps Tume will make an appearance here eventually and sound off.

Helicopters flying backwards- well yes, but not necessarily recommended, especially at high velocities. B757 and B767 flying backwards- well frankly good luck with that.
----------------------
"Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose." ~Albert Einstein

http://www.quotegarden.com/math.html

""Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things, you just get used to them."
John von Neumann.

http://martin.winkler.net/maths_quotes.html

I've got a really off-color joke about a mathematician and a pencil, but I'll be "nice" here today and not relate it. Farmer was saying something about P4T "cheating" on #2 radius? but I didn't see what/where that business was about. Perhaps a messenger RandiTroll will bring us his shiny new "treasure" and "show and tell" post it here today for us to review...

OK one more question and 2 editorial comments- why doesn't Farmer take all his LaTeX and do something useful, like write a math textbook?

I wonder if it has occurred to Mr. Farmer that much more efficient means of typing equations have been developed over the last 10-15 years. Oh well, let's not begrudge him his [clerical, "AR" IMHO] "specialty" then.

He would fit in really well in the "appearance over substance/content" Los Angeles/Hollywood "scene" though IMHO.

I havent had a chance to look over there yet today... but as we stated in our presentation...


"Anyone can cherry pick witneses statements to suit their bias making a flight path impossible"....

Going by your replies above, that is exactly what they are doing it seems... again.

So predictable...

We can go in circles all day every day, but at the end of the day, its going to be up to the viewer to decide which is more "reasonable".

Bottom line, all paths are aerodynamically possible, the math is correct, there wasnt any "cheating" as its all laid out and explained how to cross check, many paths are witness compatible, the GL myth is busted.

Have they figured out how to work a Sagitta formula yet? lol

Agreed... we'll button it up when we get a chance and send it out.

I took a gander over there... lol.. too funny.

Farmer is way off with his G Loads for a given bank angle and its not due to a "conversion factor". Its due to the fact he doesnt have a clue and his math is wrong. Perhaps Farmer should use a cheat sheet. Im not surprised Reheat didnt correct him with a simple Load Factor chart. But any student or private pilot can...

Seems Farmer is more adept in posting LaTeX figures than doing actual arithmetic. Same sh*t we went through last year...

This is why they will never debate us, or even go to a flight school and ask. They hate to be proven wrong. When proven wrong, they go in their room, slam the door and plug their ears...

It appears they still dont realize "radius #2" is reduced from radius #1 when adjusted to the impact point. We even extended the pass at the citgo further north for "Radius #2". They have no idea how to calculate a Sagitta yet... They're clueless....

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



http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16709

They said "impossible flightpath," and Rob & Tino demonstrated 4 (+2 "slower") flightpath possibilites that I independently verified using a CAD program and 2 concurring Excel spreadsheets for the "math." We showed the error and cherry-picked bias of "Reheat's 911 myths debunk." Why did we even expect anything better (as in integrity and intellectual honesty) from those Illusionist-following J-Cult clowns?

EDIT: Let me guess- CAD programs and Microsoft Excel have gone "twoofy" now...

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?

Someone needs to tell Jayduhees to go take a lesson at a flight school and ask for Steep Turn instruction. He is completely lost....lol

circular indeed Jayduh.


Anyone notice a pattern with most of the GL "experts"? Old timers, half senile, some may be stroke victims. Many admit to having "senior moments". It appears Jayduh is no exception.


Now, dont get me wrong, im not trying to bust on people due to their age, i love my grandpa too, but now he lets me fly the plane and for good reason.

Jaduhees math...

First conclusion... note the bold...



Not really sure what he means by "below the horizontal". But he is correct a level 45 degree bank will produce 1.41 G.

http://www.coryat.com/faa-pp-written/2.jpg


His descent case reduces G loading to 1.11



1.41 - 1.11 = 0.3 G difference

Then he pulls G load back to same level altitude as the initial 45 deg bank...



1.8 - 1.41 = 0.39 G

0.3 is near equal to 0.39 G. Although not exactly equal, Possible errors due to JayDuh rounding, arithmetic, inconsistent decimal placing and typo (he used 1.141 in his initial calculation instead of 1.41 as he correctly used for 45 deg level bank).

Then in his conclusion, he completely confuses his own typing...



No JayDuh! You correctly calculated 1.41 initially, not 1.141 as you state in your conclusion. Senior moment perhaps?

Conclusion, Jayduh, although he had his senior moment with an obvious typo (and thought his typo proved me wrong..lol), confirmed the training and basic airmanship every pilot goes through. The G Loads reduced by descending from a level turn will equal (but be opposite to), the G loads needed to return to level alitude for same duration.

I've been generating .PDF's of our [fraudulently posted] namesake thread over in Randiland periodically for posterity every once in a while. As far as where we should store the Randiite "computations," from what I've seen so far this is the most apt location for their "math:"

http://www.wpclipart.com/buildings/outhouse.png



It would also appear that Mr. Farmer has evolved Ryan Mackey's old SOP:

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with [TiNRAT] bullshit" ever so slightly into "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then gloss it over with LaTeX." Wasn't Reheat the one harping on "razzle dazzle?"

I just hopped over to ATS for a quick peek around. How's "pinch" treating you TF? He's a real firecracker! I haven't seen our justifiable OGCT True Believer faithful-provided "pull up" coordinates/altitudes posted anywhere, but I've had my fill of the Illusionist latrine for quite a while and didn't look very hard over there. I'm starting to get that nasty "funk" up in my sinuses from that place.

EDIT: Has anyone know of any "elevation" photos of the Navy Annex that I could use to estimate the building height (or even better- know the building height)? The Pentagon is 77 feet 3.5 inches high, and ground level at the Pentagon is 36 feet high (from memory without looking it up, but I've been looking at a lot of topography lately, and this should give ~113 feet 3.5 inches aMSL for the Pentagon roof). I'll edit in the Navy Annex ground elevations here shortly.

Farmer thinks the formula we used was used for G Load . Did he even watch the video?

Psst.. Farmer, the formula is used for determining bank angle theta, from there you can determine G Load usig a simple load factor chart. Your G loads are wrong for your given bank angles. Its clear you need a cheat sheet. Use it before you look more a fool.

Thanks TF- that first link ought to do nicely. 5 stories at 10 feet/story would be 50 feet high. 5 stories at 12 feet/story (that's the WTC number) would be 60 feet, and that roof is flat rather than gabled isn't it? Does anyone have a preference? I'm guessing that would be the "eastern" side sloping down towards the Pentagon then?

http://randybaxter.net/Documents/001%20nav...%20entrance.JPG

Your 2nd link was 404-busted for me BTW, TF.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_Wh1tPKSKtCU/SFrgg8Mb...YYID4mw/671.JPG

Would that new-ish Google maps street view give us anything here? I haven't used it.

EDIT: I edited the elevations from Google Earth into this "Key Coordinates" post #8:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10760963

For convenvience, here they are again:

I get the northernmost corner of the Navy Annex complex at:

N 38.869108°, -77.067104° [W], elev=113 feet aMSL

Working clockwise from above location, Google Earth places the following:

SE Annex corner: N 38.868040°, -77.066669° [W], elev = 124 ft aMSL
SW Annex corner: N 38.867237°, -77.069819° [W], elev = 148 ft aMSL
NW Annex corner: N 38.868345°, -77.070264° [W], elev = 144 ft aMSL

The first of TF's photo links above actually looks to me like the NW Annex corner (although the caption indicates "Air Force Memorial" which is on the East "Pentagon" side of the Navy Annex). If we go with the 60 foot building height (and let's do since it is very close to 20m for our metric-speaking friends), and "ballpark" average the east Annex elevation as 120 feet, this would be ~180 feet aMSL.

With that Pentagon roof at ~113 feet 3.5 inches aMSL, and the alleged impact hole at ~52 feet aMSL, why would a plane be pulling up in this scenario? In other words, Pentagon's 113.3 feet - Annex's 180 feet ~= -66.7 feet. That would be a descent for the errr... more sluggish readers.
http://randybaxter.net/Documents/001%20nav...%20entrance.JPG

I'll expand on the above a bit more...

Here are Farmers numbers for a given bank angle...



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..

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...

Fun fun fun....


Perhaps one of the lurking GL's will provide Farmer with this chart as its clear he doesnt have a clue...

http://www.coryat.com/faa-pp-written/2.jpg


Nah.. they much rather think our posts are filled with "blah blah blah". Be sure to gather 'round Farmer, GL cheerleaders, and watch your ship go down hard.

Conclusion - Farmer proven wrong once again, and we didnt even need 'Latex'. Farmer likes to get fu*ked hard...

Well with LaTeX and all that mathematical knowledge, Farmer is bound to know more than all those charts, flight and wind tunnel test data, books, SOP's, flight instructors, test and combat pilots, etc. compiled over the decades by USAAF, USAF, NASA, USSR (mainly Migoyan and Sukhoi), Lockheed, Boeing, Hughes, Douglas, etc. right? [/sarcasm]

According to Farmer, the FDR Experts he spoke to, "didnt make sense" and Farmer had to "Sever all ties" and climb in bed with anonymous "experts" in order to stroke his ego based on his obvious incredulity. When Farmer hears something he doesnt like... he goes ballistic as seen. Farmer has never had this much attention. Im sure he's enjoying it...

I wonder if Farmer knows the credentials and real name of "Reheat" and other GL "experts" since they're slipping each other the tongue.


It'll be fun to watch Farmer "flip flop" again (again, Farmer is a creature of habit and precedent)... and eventually give us all the juicy details of the anonymous "experts", including skeletons. But, i dont think they trust Farmer that much to expose themselves even more... despite their obvious public back slapping.


Bottom line, they will never debate real experts who can be verified. But they will spend every day in their "room" obsessed with us.


Kinda sad actually...

Hi dMole, I'm back from christmas and I see you've fun here with the Farmer and comp. again. Funny stuff
It looks like it is the very same Farmer (the former 911Omission member?!) who claimed he obtained the 84Rades data on FOIA and then have found the forum about 84Rades research - where he first posted quite valuable statistical analyses of the USAF radars visibility (obtained from all 911 traffic in 84Rades) and then, when I was extensively researching that and posting my doubts about the 84Rades data credibility on his forum - casting a real shadow especially on the probability the "AA77" data are real (because of the improbable radar invisibility periods on multiple radars), and you've also brilliantly pointed out then his "backward planes" - when there was the talk about the speed profiles. (there are numerous really weird anomalies in 84Rades, see e.g here) He simply deleted not just my posts, or the thread, but he deleted the whole forum! - Just wiped it from the internet.
And when I asked him then via email (it's almost exactly one year ago), where the forum is (I naively thought he moved it somewhere), he just laconically replied: "It no longer exists...." (I still keep his email ) and when I was asking him then to share with me at least his statistical analyses, he never replied again.
This guy doesn't look credible to me at all...
Just for others> In fact I was up on the 84Rades analysis for several months (since the release of 84Rades till ~february 2008 - and we consulted it with dMole on several occasions), but then I was more and more convinced, that without the corroboration from FAA data (if published) I would be really reluctant to publish more about 84Rades. - Because the whole thing more and more looked to me as a psyop. (especially when I consider the really weird behaviour of the "source" of the 84Rades data John Farmer) -The more I was digging into the 84Rades I was more and more convinced, the data could be at least partially a fake or a result of injects, and definitely I've found several indicies the data are at least partially manipulated - so if I can't be convinced about its credibility - then I concluded it's a nonsense to 1. waste more time with it if it can't be used as a credible proof 2. to attract attention to it from the side of the honest researchers and waste their time with it too.
The same I would recommend with John Farmer.
Anyway I wish you happy new year dMole and to all you guys. I'm not much posting on P4T last couple of months, because I'm still in the tough struggle against the Lisbon Treaty here - so I've not much time left. But I still have enough to look at P4T regularly and appreciate your work guys. It's quite needed indeed.

Thanks Tume and Best Wishes for the New Year to you as well. Good Luck on the EU/Lisbon thing.

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).

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


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.

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....

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.

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..


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

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!

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. 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...

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.

HINT for "jaydehess:" g is a unit- of ACCELERATION!!! [You've been feeling it most of your life BTW. ]

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. 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.

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!

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...



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





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.



Looking over his past statements...



Bolding above mine...

ReTreat expose once again as a liar... either that or a very senile old man...

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..

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...

...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.