Final Approach Of 175 Options

[dMz]

Hi pinnacle,

Briefly, using my lat/lon spherical solid angle RADES approximation method adjusted for 40.6N latitude, for the primary radar "height," I get -8.046157075 deg for the last min, pitching down to -15.5124315 deg for the last 12.025 seconds of UA175 data.

Using the RADES ModeC (transponder) data, I get -8.418034735 deg for the last minute, pitching down to -13.02340578 deg for the last 12 seconds.

The negative is angle below "horizontal" line of sight [actually tangent to a sphere at the UA175 altitude... ]. Of course, this does not include error analysis, uncertainty, and significant figures (a quick "ball park" analysis, and my calculator pastes that many digits by default). I can elaborate on the calculations later, but I'd rather not interfere with the independence of your research. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

d

This post has been edited by dMole: Dec 19 2007, 06:49 PM

[pinnacle]

My real question is how hard would it be for an amateur pilot to fly a 767 at 500 miles per hour plus at sea level and dive over one hundred feet per second.
Could a 767 even take that kind of flying without breaking up or going out of control?

[CocaineImportAge...]

175 impact

...i`ve never seen this one before!

[SPreston]

Faked Videos and Audios?

(IMG:http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/cnn_v_fairbanks-brookly-data.jpg)
Michael Hezarkhani Video / CNN Best Angle

(IMG:http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/x175.jpg)
The WTC2 Media Hoax

(IMG:http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/ginny_carr_wtc2_synopsis.jpg)
Ginny Carr WTC2 Impact Audio Recording - The Doppler Shift Problem

[SPreston]

Popular Mechanics Fakery? Photo of a child's toy without flaps, ailerons, etc placed into image?

(IMG:http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/gallerize_shadow_comp640.jpg)
Der Spiegel image

This post has been edited by SPreston: Jan 8 2008, 11:40 AM

[Brad]

See also:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/flt175_wtc2_video.html

"The above video footage shows Flight 175 followed a shallow descent path - the plane could easily have been flown into the lower floors of WTC 2, instead it hit the building at floor 78. From an engineering standpoint the towers were more likely to collapse the lower they were struck, so why aim high?

It appears that whoever piloted Flight 175 not only intended to hit the tower but also aimed for a specific level, probably where the collapse was due to initiate."

I like how that website portrays the core of the world trade centre... skinny little hollow thing. Unless I'm not understanding your point, you seem to be using this bogus website as a theory to why the planes aimed the way they did... correct me if I'm wrong or have misunderstood the point you're trying to make.

[pikeaero]

NM

I have read that one of the men leasing office space on the floors hit was none other than Paul Bremer.

There are far more questions than answers.

In NIST NCSTAR 1, pp. 78-79 table 5-3 indicates Mash & McLennan (google finds Paul Bremer as CEO) occupied floor 93-100 WTC 1. I would tend to believe NIST to be accurate on this point, as it would be relatively easy to disprove if they where being deceptive, as they are clearly doing in other areas of the document.

According to the same document, WTC2 floors 77-85 occupied by:
77: Baseline
78: Baseline, Commercial Bank
79: Fuji Bank
80: Fuji Bank
81: Fuji Bank
82: Fuji Bank
83: Chuo Mitsu, IQ Finance
84: EuroBrokers
85: Harris Beach

--pikeaero

[keroseneaddict]

Might have been said before, but my problem (among others) is that that constant of a bank and pitch angle is a major challenge for someone not used to jet aircraft.......

[amazed!]

My opinion is that there was some sort of homing device located in each of the towers. One in Bremer's office and one in the Fuji bank's office. To me, that would possibly explain the bank at the last few seconds.

It appears that if it had NOT banked, it would have mostly missed.

[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

[dMz]

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

Hi guillaumedock,

We have been told that no SSFDR or CVR were recovered for either AA11 or UA175 at WTC. After I have now said that, you may want to read this article about SSFDR and WTC:

"Black Box Survivability" post #5:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10765788

On the speeds, I have used some approximation methods on the USAF 84 RADES data for UA175 to obtain the approximate "instantaneous" speeds between latitude/longitude points. The more "interesting" velocities are covered here at post #6:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10742683

I will need to review and update my UA175 spreadsheet for altitude rate (and convert to meters/sec as the USAF data is in feet, nautical miles, and degrees). I will post a descent rate chart here later, but I have posted about the final pitch angles (according to the RADES data for UA175) above on this thread.

I believe SPreston posted this image analysis of the UA175 video already on this thread:

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/hezarkhani/

[guillaumedock]

Hi guillaumedock,

We have been told that no SSFDR or CVR were recovered for either AA11 or UA175 at WTC. After I have now said that, you may want to read this article about SSFDR and WTC:

Of course not finding those boxes doesn't seem to make much sense, but anyway.

I've also analyzed the live footage from the NY1 channel.

2nd WTC Attack: NY1 LIVE (high quality)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM_fMrIARoA

The plane is difficult to see, but it's not impossible. Except that it seems to suddenly appear at t-12.5 s
(where t=explosion) and has some weirdness in its trajectory. Either that's due to MPEG funkiness
(an effect of motion estimation, or of block update thresholds), or something else is involved.

(IMG:http://gravitydidntdoit.nfshost.com/tv/ny1.png)

This post has been edited by dMole: Mar 10 2009, 05:49 AM

Reason for edit: Added video embed codes

[dMz]

Here is the altitude profile for UA175 according to USAF 84 RADES:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/24739 [altitude in feet]

It can be compared to page 4 of the NTSB UA175 flight report:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf

If I zoom in from about 09:00 EDT afterward and add trendlines to that data subset, you will see that the rate of descent is not exactly linear- a 2nd order polynomial (quadratic or inverted parabola) fits the data points better. The huge coefficients are due to the way that Excel handles time, but can be adjusted for too:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/24740 [altitude in feet]

Figuring the rates of descent from the transponder-reported Mode C altitude and the time intervals between RADES radar returns for the last portion of the UA175 RADES data, I obtain the following. A constant rate of descent would be horizontal on this chart, and a gravitational "free fall" should show up as linear on this chart until "terminal velocity" is reached. As you can see, a 3rd order polynomial was better than 2nd order (for descent rate dH/dt) for this RADES data, and the fit was marginally better up through 6th degree polynomials:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/24741 [descent rate expressed in meters/second]

EDIT: There is only a RADES return approximately every 12.0 seconds.

[guillaumedock]

Here is the altitude profile for UA175 according to USAF 84 RADES:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/24739 [altitude in feet]

Hi,

Is there a source for this data in numerical format, or is everyone
tracing some chart available somewhere?

The problem is that the various footage shows only the last few seconds of
the plane (the videos show about 10-15 seconds from "impact").
But you say that

EDIT: There is only a RADES return approximately every 12.0 seconds.

which means that we only have at most one radar point plus video
for the last few seconds. Also synchronizing the radar timestamps
with the videos is not necessarily easy.

If I zoom in from about 09:00 EDT afterward and add trendlines to that data
subset, you will see that the rate of descent is not exactly linear- a 2nd
order polynomial (quadratic or inverted parabola) fits the data points better.

That's also what I found for the CBS divebomb trajectory. A 2nd order poly
fits quite well. I've extrapolated the CBS divebomb descent curve back in time
(IMG:http://gravitydidntdoit.nfshost.com/tv/divebomb-extrapolate.png) (the
altitude is from the point of impact) and it seems in line with the RADAR data.

Figuring the rates of descent from the transponder-reported Mode C altitude and
the time intervals between RADES radar returns for the last portion of the
UA175 RADES data, I obtain the following.

Your last point for speed is at about -50 m/s, at approx. 30 seconds from impact.
If we extrapolate roughly from the CBS divebomb, the descent rate is estimated
to be about 50 m/s 20 seconds from impact, which fits with your data.
OTOH your speed estimate curve is a bit noisy.

[dMz]

Hello guillaumedock,

From this post #349 on another thread here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10499572

Here is the original MS Excel 97? .XLS spreadsheet released by USAF 84 RADES on the the CD (or so we were told). There are many anomalies to be found, but you may download a zipped version of that .XLS file directly from this server:

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2392699235.html

That is the original file as received, without my speed approximations and without the altitude rate. All altitudes will be in feet, with lat/lon in degrees (and deg min sec), and the times are Zulu and EDT.

I have found many anomalies in the .XLS data, and I also have the USAF 84 RADES RS3 software, which I could query for various aircraft in the Sep. 11 dataset. It helps to have a rough lat/lon location, a transponder code, and the Zulu timeframe in question. I have found that it is best to sort that data by the radar location(s) first, then by timestamp before charting anything.

For the final UA175 return in the .XLS, I get:

RIV, 09:02:23.660 EDT, Height 2800 ft, Mode C alt- 2200 ft, N40.6874 W-74.0379, GS 471.34 kts [542.41mph, 0.7176 Mach], dH/dt ~=-166.32 ft/sec [-50.694 m/sec]

On the speed calculations, I have posted much on that on other threads here (mainly in the UA175 sub-forum), but it is derived from the lat/lon values. I can convert that .XLS to .CSV (comma separated) if anyone doesn't have Excel and needs that instead.

EDIT: I was interpreting the 3rd order polynomial as aircraft pitch (and possibly bank) control inputs, as it shows up in an external, redundant system (Mode C transponder altitude with less-accurate "Height" data from primary radar) in the data set, but I didn't examine the "Height" rates yet. Data from an SSFDR would tell a lot here, but I'm unaware of any of that for "UA175."

[JackD]

Thanks, dMole. People need to see just how steep that dive was that the WTC2 plane did.

It took some ace piloting not to miss the rather narrow target completely.

[Paul]

Thanks, dMole. People need to see just how steep that dive was that the WTC2 plane did.

It took some ace piloting not to miss the rather narrow target completely.

Here is something you guys might want to consider looking at.

UAL 175 did NOT crash into WTC 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UuH6D4pob8

This post has been edited by Paul: Mar 16 2009, 12:44 PM

[JCLoophole]

I've been learning alot since I found this site! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

First off, I didn't know that the speed of flight 175 has been pegged at near Mach1! UFB! Has anyone looked into the control problems that would arise for a low time pilot trying to control a large aircraft at such speeds. I remember reading that as Chuck Yeager approached Mach 1 in the X-1, the elevator became ineffective due to the shock wave which developed on the leading edge of the horizontal stab. In the end, he ended up controlling the aircraft by using the stab trim rather than the elevator. I understand that that is why all aircraft which are designed for supersonic flight have all flying stab/elevator combinations.

Also, from my own experience trying to duplicate the attacks in MSFS, I find the most logical way to perform the attacks is once control of the aircraft is achieved by the "hijackers" I use the MCP to fly to my target. I have used both a linked GPS and simply tuning into a nearby VOR. Both work well to get me in the vicinity of the targets. It is also easy to control my descent and airspeed by using the MCP and changing the altitude to, say 2000 ft, and entering a rate of descent of 2000 fpm or so.

These are things that anyone sophisticated enough to plan the hijacking of 4 aircraft on the same day and use them as weapons to attack specific targets should have been able to figure out! And yet, the more I find out about the "hijackers" and their flight paths, I find it more than amazing that they were able to hit anything at all (other than the ground itself!).

Another thing that bothers me is why attack both WTC1 and WTC2. Assuming that Al Quaida and bin Laden were behind the attacks (and the more I read the larger that assumption becomes!) and that his objective was to "bring down the tower(s)", shouldn't he have had both aircraft hit the same tower to increase his chances of brining at least one tower down. He knew they were well constructed and could stand up to a lot of damage (as exemplified by the 1993 attacks), so to my way of thinking, wouldn't it be more prudent to use both aircraft to attack one tower? Thus improving his chance of "success"! He must have been pretty sure both towers would fall (that is IF he was behind it at all!)

-JC

This post has been edited by JCLoophole: Apr 3 2009, 04:12 PM

[Freedomlover911]

NM

Some theorize that the airplanes were drone, and thus controlled remotely. Others suggest some sort of laser targeting as what drove the homing "instinct", and others note that the floors hit might have contained some sort of precision homing device.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....;#entry10769974

Good analysis my friend!
Freedomlover911

[BaNoyes]

Interestingly, both aircraft flew directly into secure computer rooms in both buildings. Now, is that simply a coincidence or were the computer rooms equipped to play a role in the crime?

http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html

I personally believe that the impact zones had been carefully pre-planned prior to rigging the buildings with explosives. For the sake of precision, the most likely scenario is that both aircraft were flying under the FMC.

No doubt... this is the area where pre planted explosives were set- the computer rooms.
(CGI planes need an entrance-watch it glide inside with out a scratch)
Check you will find extensive work being done to run fiber cable , two weeks prior 9/11
They also pull out the bomb dogs
gee ain't that co-incidental