Originally Posted by SUPERMNNN
OK, I'll bite.
Assuming that the aircraft location data is accurate, which is as previousl;y stated not a given, there is no way to state that a particular set of locations at such a distance from the airfield are or are not consistent with an emergency landing.
If the aircraft is assumed to be in a state of dire distress - fire, structural damage, etc. - then the chances that the pilots will be worrying about the niceties of the approach plate and the transponder is zero. Priority #1 is to fly the plane. The flightpath may not be fully under control, etc. Look at some of the reconstructed flightpaths for accidents where aircraft have sustained major structural damage and tried to make a landing - the 747 in Japan that had a rear pressure bulkhead failure followed a 'drunken' path around the sky as the crew tried to keep it under control. If all you had was a few spot points of that path to work from I guarantee you'd have NO IDEA what the crew were doing.
if the aircraft is assumed NOT to be in such a state of distress then it's highly unlikely the pilots would elect to conduct an immediate emergency landing at an airfield such as the one shown. You stay airborne and assess the situation and make an appropriate decision as to when and where to land. And Im 99.9% sure they'd have tried to get to a decent sized airport.
In other words, the only circumstances under which a notional pilot would try to get an airliner down on such a runway are such that you can't conclude anything by comparing a reconstructed flightpath against the nominal approach plate.
You've set yourself up for an impossible task. Neither you nor the "loose changers" have anything like all the data. But you're approaching this from the position that you need to prove what happened was not consistent with their theory, which with the limited data you have is next-to-impossible. Instead the onus should be on the conspiracyists to prove THEIR ideas - and any missing data is THEIR problem, not yours.
Anyway, even supposing you did manage to somehow disprove (part of) the theory, they'd just say you were using planted data or something. You can't win.
And, getting back to the track reconstruction, I'll say it again. I've been involved in attempts to reconstruct the final flightpath of an aircraft where we had actual FDR data from the accident aircraft, and we STILL couldn't absolutely determine the flightpath to an accuracy close enough to conclude what had happened. To attempt to make an even further step and try to deduce from the data you have what the crew were thinking is futile. "Why did they do X?" is a question we have difficulty answering even if the crew are sat in front of us.