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...



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 -



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".

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



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...





See above reply.






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





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.





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





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.





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.

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



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...

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

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...

Farmer rant regarding debate...



"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?






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




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".





The data Farmer admits was "manipulated?





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.."



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





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".



...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.




Seems Farmer already is.. daily. But of course, without an actual opponent.

Hi 7 guests!

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



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.

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.

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.

Tino gave me the same gripe...

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

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

Beachnut is imploding.... again.

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



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.

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?



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...

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.


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".

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

CurtC rants



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





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





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.





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.






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.






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?





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...

JayDuh says...



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.

So apparently the all agree that your math is accurate!

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..

Beachnut claims -




Fellow GL JayDuh disagrees with Beachnut...



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...

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.

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



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!

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...



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?

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.

JayDuh continuing to live up to his Duh...



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.



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..





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.




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





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"?

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.

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...

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...

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

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...


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



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...






n = .5/cos(27)

n = .56G

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

"lateral" = tan(27)*0.5

= 0.25G

Bzzz.. wrong again JayDuh!



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".

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.

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.

JayDuh still living up to his name....



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



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...

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/time². In SI units, acceleration is measured in meters/second² 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...]

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,



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?

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???

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").

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.

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

(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)... ]

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 - the "maths" didn't come from Google...

I suppose that's Monday Morning Quarterbacks and internet LaTeX SPC "mathematicians" for you.

What's so funny? I'll never forget the day the PFT Annual Recruiting Tour came to Torrance State Hospital. The doctors were glad to see me go . Providing opportunities for people like me is a serious matter . And thanks for the whiskey when I signed up.

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...

Related to the very "foxy" thread at:

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