To afraid to give a straight in perspective. lol, even your data is a straight in approach, too bad you have no flying background.
What the hell is a "straight in perspective". To bad you have no idea of the meaning of perspective. lol
Drift, oops, the path was caused by drift, you can't rule out drift because there was drift; double failure, bad data and zero knowledge on flying. Good job, you photo shows effects of drift and poor airmanship, if it is relatively correct, but your data is bad and you can't fix it.
Taxas Shooter?
I don't need to rule out drift because the drift do not account for the flight path. The drift you are allege to see requires a wind of 25m/s (12.5knots) to bow the path lateral and no wind in the world could account for the vertical component. Hence, it's not caused by drift. I'm right and you are wrong.
And since leveling in the very moment of impact is mot a sign of poor flying skill it is a sign of purpose. I'm right and you are wrong.
But that's just the mathematical part of your lie because if you have knowledge on flying then it is a lie.
As long as you have no crosshair on the windshield of a 767 you need to rely on what? Your eyes? The only thing that tells you the direction of your aiming is "perspective" or better the change of perspective over time.
You don't see the wind, do you? In other words, the wind would cause the airplane to fly a little sideways, the change of perspective would tell you that you do not fly straight ahead, you would turn your control wheel to reach the desired direction and finally the nose wouldn't point exactly towards your goal but the airplane would go that way.
Hence, you always would instinctively nullify the drift when flying by sight and hand.
Some electronical aiming that do not calculate wind direction and velocity would steer for some point in the meaning of coordinates. The effect of wind would still be small at high speed but the plane would drift - aim - drift - aim - drift ...
In other words, as long as you are somewhere in the clouds staring at your instruments you will heading in the desired direction but you track will drift with the wind. The same might be the case for aiming at some very distant goal but if you are aiming at something you see including surrounding structures then you will instinctively nullify the drift and the nose will point somewhere between your goal and the wind.
You have no other chance to aim that's why you are telling BS.
We could even ask the simple question: Do the impact angle becomes increasingly better and better in the sense of penetration and destruction? How much? Is the vertical impact angle about 9° "better" than the trajectory 12 seconds before? How much of that angle change was caused by wind?
Is the lateral impact angle about 6° "better" than the lateral angle 12 seconds before impact? How much of that angle change was caused by drift?
Is an increasingly "better" angle vertical and lateral in a single maneuver especially at overspeed a sign of poor skill and sloppy approach?
He is using his 4.33g and -2g failed data to make up pretty pictures. Wow. Your data is big time wrong. Your failed data is showing, ... Blah blah blah...
I love that 3rd person talk of liars when agitating the bystanders. As you can see in the pretty pictures the flight path is pretty smooth and even without math and brain use it should tell you that the failure cannot be very big.
You either know what you are doing and used math for lying or you have no clue.
The final bank was a 10 mile wide turn. So?
Well pooped. ...and the angle became better and better.
You show the terrorist pilot being blow off course...
...and the angle became better and better.
and he is correcting because he lacks experience to maintain a coursewith a crosswind.
...and the angle became better and better.
Good job, your 4.33g/-2g data shows an inexperience pilot
...lying by numbers ...and the angle became better and better.
who rolled into 38 degree of bank and did not pull the required g to make a 10 mile wide turn.
...and the angle became better and better for about 1.6° lateral during the final second. BANG!
The terrorist was lined up 40 miles out.
...just 7500m too high and at an 12° angle. He corrected both. He dived at 10000fpm and turned into "almost perpendicular" during the last 12 seconds at 600mph. Only beginners do
because at 750m altitude a sinkrate of 5000fps would cause an "Excessive Descent Rate" warning and "Pull up" warning besides overspeed warnings and so on...
...and the angle became better and better.
Your photo shows effects of your failed data and extreme zoom lens.
Can you show me your nonsense in the photo? What's the effct of "extreme zoom lens" on crossing lines of sight from different angles and different lenses?
Little hint: It's the same effect like crossing two VOR or using VOR/DME. The result is a position in 3D space no matter what focal length you use.
You have no clue, right?
The terrorist was stuck with high speed because his descent angle was high.
Yeehaa
His high speed was a product of gravity.
Wow, did I elaborate on kerosene expense or something?
Are you sure about the gravity? It is possible to descent slower if you like.
At least at the Pentagon 10-20 witnesses describe "full throttle".
Atta in 11 was down low early and had to use engines to speed up. If you don't know it a Boeing jet loves 300 knots, at 3 degree of descent a Boeing jet should be able to glide at 300 knots, no engines.
I guess 4° vertical at 430 knots must be a sign of poor flying skill even at 0° lateral, right?
The Boeing jet is super clean, it can reach MACH with little effort, the 510 knots at impact is not an anomalies, and not impossible.
...just the angle became better and better.
If you start with the Vmo stuff, you can stuff it with me; I have flown over Vmo, and I know planes and crews who exceeded Vmo.
Now you are talking about the 250kts birdstrike windshield limitation?
...or about 350KIAS?
... All Boeing airplanes are certified to this rule. Therefore, intentional exceedance of Vmo/Mmo is not permitted in normal operations. Exceeding Vmo/Mmo can pose a threat to exceeding design structural integrity and design stability & control criteria of the airplane. At speeds less than Vmo/Mmo the airplane’s flight characteristics have been confirmed by flight testing to meet FAR requirements. At speeds in excess of Vmo/Mmo, however, normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured.
Boeing Flight Operations Review 757-27, 8th January 1999
The worse damage I have seen for flying over Vmo is lost skin under the wing, and a gear door was ripped off by the high pressure flying fast low. We would all be at risk if airliners fell apart when flying over Vmo.
That's why it is prohibited even if the airplane just lose a door or the skin. A hijacker obviously get into dilemma. He has JUST ONE TRY! He wants to hit at max speed but cannot be sure if the plane will make it or if he probably might lost control and a door or windshield.
...while hitting at 350KIAS is still pretty destructive, isn't it?
Hence, the big question is, why did 3 hijackers risk their mission by excessively exceeding that limit? Where did these beginners get their information?
WTC7 used for your failed 4.33/-2g data? lol, you have lost your BS edge, you are no in the Bigfoot years of 911 truth, total nonsense, technobabble claptrap analysis. What is next? Did you find the right data yet?
Are you suggesting that the NIST data are "good enough" for the desired purpose? (purpose "downward velocity") Simple answer YES/NO?
Would you say that my data are "good enough" for the desired purpose? (purpose "final flight path") Simple answer WHY NOT?
Would you expect some strange inconsistancy in the acceleration of WTC7 when using the speed dots to calculate the acceleration? Simple answer YES/NO?
Would you expect some strange inconsistancy in the acceleration when using the positional data to calculate speed and that speed (without averaging whatsoever) to calculate acceleration? Simple answer WHY NOT?
No inside job, just some bad data which you make up bad conclusions from; you can't explain what you think you discovered.
I guess the NIST data are - according to that 1000times repeated nonsense - better and therefore the conclusions are better.
