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

[I Ratant]

So....

Are we over Macho Grande yet?

.
TMC ran the original of that one recently... "Zero Hour", with Dana Andrews as Ted Stryker.
It was no better.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

There's not even an attempt to analyse the information presented.

This is untrue: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5766064#post5766064

Confirm it, rebuke it, something ? Airplane gags ? Oh.

What we're doing is ridiculing it. Which is what happens when patently silly claims are made. It's up to the originator of the argument to compose something compelling. And given the quote in the OP, the originator failed to do so.

 

[Dave Rogers]

True, or not true ? And why, of course.

Relevant, or not relevant, is the question you should be asking. Apart from an argument from incredulity that's easily refuted by the fact that untrained people have reproduced the crashes on a simulator, the article makes no credible attempt at presenting evidence that the planes were not flown by the people in the cockpits. The rest is worthless speculation; even if the course is compatible with automatic control - and, in fact, it would be impossible to imagine a course that wasn't - it constitutes no evidence whatsoever that automatic control was used. To claim otherwise would be affirming the consequent.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

Two things from that OP.

Aidan is a liar and ignorant of aircraft technicals.

Tony Szamboti is as clueless about aircraft as he is about steel buildings and imaginary documentaries.

Aidan, nice write up.

To add to what you say here, the fact that the airspeeds of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 aircraft were 2.5 times and 3 times normal runway landing speeds means the air pressures on control surfaces and the airframe would have been 625% and 900% greater than that experienced while landing a wide bodied aircraft. This much greater pressure would have greatly exacerbated any errors a pilot would have made.

 

[funk de fino]

This has go to be a Stundie

How many people reading have driven a car, better a motorcycle, at high speeds, above most highway limits, even if only by 10 or 20 mph, and experienced a non-linear, dramatic difference in ability to keep the vehicle on a desired course? This is because of the aerodynamic pressure which becomes more pronounced at higher velocity. You can feel the effects even when riding a bicyle.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Tony Szamboti is as clueless about aircraft as he is about steel buildings and imaginary documentaries.

Damn, that's one heck of a Stundie all by itself. Tony just said that control sensitivity increases as the square of air speed (at least, I think that's what he said; he's made his signature error by assuming that a 900% increase and a 9x increase are the same thing). Any pilots here want to comment on how it's possible to control a plane at all at high speed if that's true?

Dave

 

[sylvan8798]

Well drag is proportional to v^2, and there would be more drag closer to the ground than at higher altitudes, so it would present more of a challenge. One would expect that planes are designed to withstand somewhat more rigorous conditions that they typically fly under as a factor of safety.

Ever notice that the towers get massive alleged factors of safety from truthers while the planes seem to get none at all? I guess whatever is convenient to your case, eh?

 

[AZCat]

Damn, that's one heck of a Stundie all by itself. Tony just said that control sensitivity increases as the square of air speed (at least, I think that's what he said; he's made his signature error by assuming that a 900% increase and a 9x increase are the same thing). Any pilots here want to comment on how it's possible to control a plane at all at high speed if that's true?

Dave

Perhaps that's why control surfaces on aircraft are adjusted in preparation for a landing. It's not like the hijackers had the flaps fully extended before they flew into the towers.

 

[JimBenArm]

Perhaps that's why control surfaces on aircraft are adjusted in preparation for a landing. It's not like the hijackers had the flaps fully extended before they flew into the towers.

Does this make them No Flappers?

 

[AZCat]

Does this make them No Flappers?

Oooh... Way to early for corny humor. I hadn't even finished my coffee, and now I have to clean up the keyboard.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Jacobs, what have you got on Elaine Dickinson?

Well, I'm two inches taller, a better dancer, and much more fun to be with

 

[Wolrab]

I gotta go with the analysis on this one, the planes were definitely going way too fast to land on the Twin Towers.

 

[tfk]

There's not even an attempt to analyse the information presented. Confirm it, rebuke it, something ? Airplane gags ? Oh.

First thing to add would be correction of the impact orientation...

http://www.the911forum.freeforums.org/nist-s-ua175-impact-simulation-wrong-t181-135.html#p9326

That bunch of nonsense is getting ALL the debate & analysis it deserves.

Does it not occur to you that a person can put a plane into a 10°, 20°, 30°, 70° or even 80° bank and fly a straight ground track? As planes do down the flight lines at air shows all the time. (These make great photo ops.)

Or even make a turn in the OPPOSITE direction, with proper use of elevator & ailerons. If you do it in the vertical plane, it's called an "outside loop".

I'm not suggesting that he pulled any of these maneuvers. He did not. He did exactly what pilots do. He was drifting to the right, banked left and pulled back on the yoke to compensate. I'm saying that, without knowing how much he pulled back as a function of time (because you can bet it was not a constant amount), the author of this paper can not calculate the radius of curvature.

As a result, you can NOT determine a planes ground track from it bank angle alone.

Now, you CAN calculate the ground track (if you neglect the wind, reasonable on with a very fast plane & light air day) if you make the standard assumption that the plane maintains constant altitude. To do this, he has to use a very specific amount of elevator for each bank angle. The higher the bank, the more elevator & the more g's.

Now, I just did a search for the word "elevator" in that post. Guess what: No occurrence.

Guess how good that analysis is.

Now, back to your in-flight movie ...
___
___

"Ladies and Gentlemen, we've just received word that some truthers have decided to do another analysis.
__

"Miss, are you telling us absolutely everything..?!"
__

"Not exactly... They are also going to try to do some math again."
__

"Ayeiiieeee!!!"
__

"PLEASE, there's no reason to panic."
__

"AAAYYYEEEEE..!!!"
__

__

"AYEEEIIEEEE!!!
__

__

__

"PLEASE, they are trained professionals who are capable of doing calculations."
__

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of Rule 10

__

"PLEASE, PLEASE, They are JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!!"
__

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of Rule 10

__

"Okay, everybody. Calm down, calm down. We have their results ..."
...

[Pause. Scans results.] " ... oh,oh ..."

...

"EVERYBODY, ASSUME THE CRASH POSITIONS!!!"
__

".. shoulda known ... "
__

We hope you enjoyed the movie.

 

[carlitos]

OK, not always when I type LOL, did I really LOL. This is one of those times.

 

[tfk]

Aidan, nice write up.

To add to what you say here, the fact that the airspeeds of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 aircraft were 2.5 times and 3 times normal runway landing speeds means the air pressures on control surfaces and the airframe would have been 625% and 900% greater than that experienced while landing a wide bodied aircraft. This much greater pressure would have greatly exacerbated any errors a pilot would have made.

Well, I guess that it's a good thing that those planes have hydraulic assist and computer controlled adjustment of control input gains, isn't it, Tony?

Oh, wait... would that really be a "good thing" in this case?

Tom

 

[tfk]

OK, not always when I type LOL, did I really LOL. This is one of those times.

Thanks. Happy to bring a little sunshine into your day.

That movie is the mother lode of one-liners. (Along with any Mel Brooks movie.)

Just copying the dialog tells me that it must have been one hell of a good time writing it.

Tom

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Oh, wait... would that really be a "good thing" in this case?

Ah ha! Boeing designed the aircraft to make it possible for reasonably competent if inexperienced pilots be able to fly then into the towers, the conspiracy deepens.....anyone want to bet that someone in Bush or Cheney extended families once owned shares or, gasp, even worked for Boeing. Perhaps they knew which aircraft were planned for use in the attack and built extra explosives and armour plating into the nose when they were being built because its ":commonsense" that the huge KE and fuel energy was not enough to damage the towers at all!

 

[TruthersLie]

So....

Are we over Macho Grande yet?

I'll never be over Macho Grande... some wounds run pretty deep.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Thanks. Happy to bring a little sunshine into your day.

That movie is the mother lode of one-liners. (Along with any Mel Brooks movie.)
Just copying the dialog tells me that it must have been one hell of a good time writing it.

Tom

No!

 

[tfk]

No!

Always one in the crowd.

Okay. N - 1


Tom


PS. "Vat a meshugenah...!"



PPS. Su-weet self-reference.