• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Discussion: Vector And Turn Analysis Of Observed And Measured Flight Paths

sheeplesnshills

Illuminator
S
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
3,706
Is this really a new analysis?
http://911blogger.com/node/23046

Abstract

The observed speeds of the attack aircraft of September 11, 2001 in New York City were extreme by comparison to the typical speeds of similar aircraft traveling at similar altitudes. The calculated speed for United Airlines Flight 175 (UA 175) is three times greater than the speed recommended for landing approaches of such wide-body airliners toward airport runways that are comparable in width to each World Trade Center tower. The calculated speed for American Airlines Flight 11 (AA 11) was two and one half times greater than the speed recommended for landing approaches of such wide-body airliners. While creating significantly less response time for possible human hijacker pilot course corrections during final target approaches that would demand superior control surface operation, a general vector analysis of the course and speed for these two aircraft demonstrate that the unusually high speeds observed generated greater accuracy of the aircraft while enroute to their targets, as a result of smaller deflection angles and ground track displacements in feet per second, created by existing crosswinds and potential wind shear. A coupling of these two factors suggests superior navigation of AA 11 and UA 175, consistent with an unreported use augmented GPS guided aircraft autopilot systems available circa 2001, which also seem to be in evidence during analysis of UA 175's final turning approach toward WTC 2[1].
Click to expand...

It seem counter intuitive to me to say that the higher speed made hitting the towers harder if you have a clear view of the target from a long distance away as they had on 911.:confused:
 
sheeplesnshills said:
It seem counter intuitive to me to say that the higher speed made hitting the towers harder if you have a clear view of the target from a long distance away as they had on 911.:confused:
Click to expand...

It would all depend on how good/bad of a pilot they were.:D
 
Last edited:
The last minute bank of the second plane at the WTC was done because it was going to miss the building.
The first plane flew straight into the building, but the second plane was on a curving flight path.
None of the pilots on any of the planes were the least bit concerned about the speeds being too fast for the usual approach and landing, they were interested in murdering as many people as possible, and doing the most damage possible, which was achieved by the high speed impacts, but none of them were given much practice in low-level high speed flight.
 
Typical troofer lack of falsifiability. If the planes would have flown straight in without any course corrections, then they would have argued that no human pilot could fly that well and it must be computer controlled. Because it swung erratically and almost missed, just like you would expect an inexperienced human pilot to do, they argue... well it must have been computer controlled, no human could do that!
 
The conclusions are typical truther made up crap. There is no way to determine the difference between an aircraft being guided by a GPS controlled autopilot as opposed to a Mk 1 eyeball and hands from an external position of observation.

As stated earlier the guy was going to miss the building, but corrected in the final seconds.

As far as increased difficulty at higher speed.... perhaps, for some pilots. An aircraft actually responds better at the higher speed, but there is less time to make corrections to the alignment. I think the differences just about cancel out one another making the degree of difficulty about the same. It is not a difficult achievement at all.

Although GPS systems were available in 2001. the were not in use with the Commercial Airlines.
 
Last edited:
There's no evidence to show that the planes couldn't have been piloted by hand into their targets.

The hijacker pilots had enough training to get certified, they boarded the planes and took them over.

Occam's razor blows every truther theory into oblivion.
 
Well the only reason commercial aircraft dont come in to land at full stick is they have to stop when they get on the ground.

That and expecting the tires to go from zero to 500 miles an hour is going to put a lot of pressure on the mechanisms that just doesn't need to happen
 
What's your vector, Victor?

Hey, someone had to, might as well be me.
 
OK, I'll try to be serious, but it's difficult. The article (I refuse to dignify it with the word 'paper') is a piece of outright speculation that tries to make the argument that flight 175's approach was consistent with GPS-based automatic guidance. It makes no attempt to determine whether it's inconsistent with manual guidance, nor to identify aspects of the course for which GPS guidance is a necessary condition. About the best it does is to claim that the continuous curve resulting in impact is rather too difficult a course for manual guidance, a point it immediately weakens by suggesting that the hypothetical GPS system would nevertheless have included a last-moment correction seen in the course; if it was always going to hit, it's GPS, but if a last-moment correction was needed, then it's also GPS. It seems a case of trying to construct a line of argument in which any course is seen as consistent with GPS guidance, which is in effect an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

I'd recommend a quick read of the Karl Popper speech that Cavemonster posted a link to yesterday; see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171233 for the thread. Then go to the 9/11 blogger article, and see which side of the fence it lies. As far as I can see, it makes no attempt to identify conditions for the falsification of the hypothesis; rather, it simply constructs a chain of argument from hypothesis to conclusion, and makes no attempt at demonstrating that falsification conditions either are not met for the hypothesis suggested, or are met for any alternative hypothesis. In other words, it's a piece of pseudoscience, albeit written in the language of science; truther SOP.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
I'd recommend a quick read of the Karl Popper speech that Cavemonster posted a link to yesterday; see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171233 for the thread.
Click to expand...

And this is why I dig Popper: He not only gets his point across loud and clear, but he shows that pseudoscientific myth generation is nothing new, and was doing back in his day exactly the same thing it does today.
"I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analyzed" and crying aloud for treatment."
Click to expand...
Too bad people don't take in that much history and philosophy of science. If you subtract the names Marx, Freud, and Alder, doesn't this paragraph read as though it was written in recently in response to some trutheristic article? Or indeed, any other pseudoscientific claim, like those the anti-vaccination sympathizers write? I can substitute DRG's name in there without the paragraph missing a beat until the very last sentence about class. I could also sub in "whale.to articles" or any antivax site. We don't stop and think about it that much, but 9/11 myth making by the conspiracy peddlers is really nothing new at all. It's the same old shamanism cloaking itself in a skin of pseudoscientific artifice that extends back decades, not mere years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom