The final seconds of flight exhibited extraordinarily precise maneuvering.
Hetware, this doesn't make any sense to me. Any guidance system apart from an optical one, would be following either an inertial guidance or a GPS track which would automatically negate the need for last minute manoeuvring.
Example: When I fly on an air route at at altitude, my groundspeed is generally around the speed observed by this aircraft. The Flight management system, which uses GPS as the primary means of navigation with inertial guidance mixed in, tracks to a waypoint whilst compensating for changes in magnetic variation and drift encountered along the way. The waypoint can be considered the target. Never, EVER do we get last minute jinking to pass over the waypoint, even at 600 knots groundspeed.
We also do GPS approaches which are hooked up to the autopilot. They happen at much slower speed but the result is the same; smooth approaches, which includes a vertical profile, that automatically adjusts for wind gusts. This in a system first certified in 1994.
To my mind, this last minute manoeuvring conclusively points to a human pilot with a Mark One brain whose attention was fully outside the cockpit and unable to register the changes in wind speed or his own aiming point quickly enough to fly in the same way that computer guidance can.
UA175 did exactly the same thing when the hijacker became aware of the drift from the crosswind with less than a mile to go before impact. A computer guidance system would have smoothly compensated for the crosswind much earlier, avoiding the need for a last second 38 degree turn to even hit the South Tower.
Regarding the altitude over the lawn, have you factored in "
ground effect?"
