The International Center for 9/11 Justice has published in its Debated Topics Forum two new papers that examine the findings and conclusions of IC911’s recently completed flight simulator study.
In the first paper, researcher David Chandler challenges the study’s conclusion that the flight paths of the aircraft reported to have struck the Twin Towers and Pentagon are more consistent with automated control than manual control. He argues that the key finding should be that manual control was not ruled out, and he questions the study’s emphasis on the simulator pilots’ first attempts at completing the maneuvers in question as well as the study’s wider analysis of the reported flight paths.
In the second paper, study author Dr. Piers Robinson and contributor Ted Walter respond point by point, defending the study’s methodology, findings, and ultimate conclusion that the evidence better supports the automated control hypothesis.
We invite readers to carefully review both papers and the original study.
Discussion of “Manual or Automated? A Flight Simulation Study and Analysis of Reported Aircraft Maneuvers on September 11, 2001”
By David Chandler
Closure to “Manual or Automated? A Flight Simulation Study and Analysis of Reported Aircraft Maneuvers on September 11, 2001”
By Dr. Piers Robinson and Ted Walter
Original Study: “Manual or Automated? A Flight Simulation Study and Analysis of Reported Aircraft Maneuvers on September 11, 2001”
