Final Approach Of 175 Options

[NightMage]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/pilotfly.gif) First post!

Hello everyone. I did a quick search and read the topics in the 175 forum to see if anyone had mentioned this before and it didnt seem like it so here goes.

I'm not a pilot, nor do I know much about plane physics and flight dynamics beyond the average layman. However I have some issues with the approach flight 175 took to the south tower.

At first I had searched for a black box NTSB animation of the sort we have for the pentagon for flight 175, then I remembered that the black boxes of this flight were 'destroyed'.

On some videos and in particular this one, this one, it appears that flight 175 approaches the south tower at a certain height but continues/starts to drop in altitude and then levels off, but the manoeuvre causes the plane to drift and it has to roll before hitting the tower.

I'd be interested to hear what commercial pilots in this forum have to say about this approach. For a start does anyone know of a longer video of that clip? And preferably a higher quality version to see the plane coming from further away.

To me it appears as though the plane was on target to hit the top of the tower (similar to the north tower collision) but for whatever reason the pilot decided to drop and hit the tower half way. Does anyone else see it this way?

A question to pilots here, how difficult is it to drop that 300-400ft in a couple of seconds and still maintain your course? Is this something that a shaky cessna pilot would just have absolutely no hope doing?

I was trying to put my mind in the position of one of the supposed 'arab hijackers'. If you are flying to the towers, and you see the towers you have already accomplished many difficult tasks, for one you've successfully hijacked a plane and subdued your passengers into leaving you alone; you've dodged/tricked the US air force and successfully navigated your way to New York with no help from outside; and you've also found the towers in New York on your first go. You also find yourself flying towards the tower, and you're about to hit it bang on centre, maybe a little higher than planned, but it would be the same height as your buddy in the North Tower and would still achieve the effect of flying into a WTC tower for the world to see. Given that you are rubbish at flying a cessna, do you risk everything at this point and (im guessing here) drop the thurst/flaps to shed some altitude for a slightly better 'effect' given you probably dont have a degree in engineering and dont know if that would make any difference? Or do you stay on course and try and hit the tower in any which way you can?

Just as a side note, I personally don't think the 9/11 conspiracy theory community has to prove beyond doubt what happened at every stage of the plot. I think it's enough to find a single flaw in the official line in order to show there is foul play at work. If just one part doesn't add up (i.e. it couldn't have been the arabs flying the planes) then the government needs to be held to account for the story they are putting out.

Anyway, thoughts much appreciated.

NM

P.S. I don't believe in the ghost plane theories, I have no comment on the pod theory, and I am less and less convinced that a passenger Jet crashed in Pennsylvania.

[guillaumedock]

Hello,

I'm new here so forgive me if this is not the correct thread for this.

I've been analyzing the CBS "divebomber" video (just type
CBS divebomber on Youtube)
(IMG:http://gravitydidntdoit.nfshost.com/tv/divebomber.png)
and I extracted the vertical speed of the "craft" from the video.
(Vertical speed is easy to extract, I'm working on other components
as well.)

(IMG:http://gravitydidntdoit.nfshost.com/tv/divebomb-fit.png)

The vertical reference is arbitrary, and explosion becomes visible at
t=7.27s (but the plane is not visible for the last two seconds).

The least-squares fit -40.0150+24.3703*t-1.7230*t^2 is in red,
which basically shows a constant vertical deceleration of
3.44 m/s^2.

I know the major problem is with the total speed, but you might want
to cross-check this with FDR data, etc.

Edit: deceleration instead of acceleration.

This post has been edited by guillaumedock: Mar 9 2009, 03:42 AM