You say low altitude fly overs, however where is it ever DOCUMENTED that the ground speed of said aircraft was >500 mph?
That was definitely NOT a Boeing airliner, and sure you can find videos of military aircraft going supersonic 50ft off the deck, great but that sez nothing about large airliner performance under the same conditions.
itty bitty tid-bit of physics here, the air pressure on the aircraft including control surfaces goes up by the cube ( that is x^3 ) of the velocity. so why should you expect the aircraft to be controllable at more than 100 mph over VNE? The proof of an airliner being flown at >500 mph & low enough to hit the WTC towers, is simply not there, & Iike I have said before, the silence from BOEING is deafening!
and the video of the alleged "FLT175" shows a run-up to the crash that is controlled level flight before the crash, my question is how is it known if it can be known at all, that the hijackers were able to maintain control over an aircraft that was flying at least 100mph over VNE?
so you totally ignore/dismiss the fact that air pressure on the aircraft ( including control surfaces ) goes up by the cube ( that is X^3 ) of the velocity, therefore an aircraft attempting to fly at >100mph of VNE would experience significant stress to the control surfaces, most likely making the aircraft at the very least, extremely difficult to control.
How long did they have to control the plane? Witnesses heard the planes powering up just before impact, and at least one of them came in at a dive.
Shortly after 9-11 there was a student pilot ( I think he was still in his teens) here in Tampa who rented a plane and flew it into the Bank of America building in downtown Tampa. I am no truther I must add. This little plane did penetrate the walls of the building but fortunately there was no fire and the only injury (death) was the idiot pilot. It was first reported to be an accident but later sources were quoted saying that investigators found that the pilot purposely flew the plane into one of Tampa's tallest buildings trying to "copycat" the 9-11 hijackers. There is a pic in the newspaper article which shows no wings on the plane and no "hole" where the wings would have penetrated. However, the mass and energy between this little popcorn fart of an airplane and the 9-11 jets are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Most of the wreckage dropped to the street below and I do remember pics where the wing was laying on a street corner somewhere. My point of this is to parallel your story about some of the plane did actually enter the building, some fell to the ground and there certainly was no "plane shaped entry" either on the Tampa incident and most likely on the Milan incident as well. The Tampa plane was even smaller the your Milan plane. I do not know what the stupid kid was thinking. Chances are he was a Bush hater and wanted to punish Tampa in a similar way as the 19 radical mooslims carried out. http://www.sptimes.com/2002/01/06/TampaBay/Plane_hits_skyscraper.shtml
does the run-up to the crash of FLT175 show any dive? at least one of the videos shows a nice run of level flight, and rather controlled flight at that. Also the "power up" bit, please do think about this, to accelerate anything of the mass of an airliner, it takes energy, the thrust of the jet engines is a finite source of energy and in normal operation it takes a matter of several miles to accelerate to cruising speed. Remember air resistance goes up as the cube of the velocity, so as the aircraft is accelerating, it is encountering ever more resistance from the air. not to mention the fact that the jet engines work best at higher altitudes, note that on take-off from an airport the airliner is expected to be traveling <250 mph and must climb to above 20,000 ft to accelerate to cruising speed. The people who are promoting the idea that an airliner can fly at >500 mph as well at 1000 ft as it does at 30,000 ft are completely wrong!
Flight 11 did not exceed dive speed. Flight 175 was in a dive all the way to the WTC, he impacted at 590 mph. He crashed, not much control in crashing.
The real pilots had already done one of the hard parts of flying,and since they had no intention of landing...
Please check this out: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=360526&page=12&p=1064008054#post1064008054
If that's true then, why don't the pilots just cozy up in the back of the plane and take a nap? (I've heard much about pilots not getting enough sleep between shifts so, wouldn't this be an opportune time for them to lay down, take an Ambien, and catch up on their sleep?)
They sometimes get in trouble for sleeping during flight. Pilot admits that he and his co-pilot were both asleep just minutes before they were due to land their freight flight Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...inutes-land-freight-flight.html#ixzz35UMqQz9L Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
While you were hanging out at the airport, right boss? - - - Updated - - - While you were hanging out at the airport, right boss?
This would point to incompetence, rather than intent to commit fraud. problem, major significant facets of the events of 9/11/2001 are of such a nature, that total incompetence can not account for what happened. The obvious controlled demolition of WTC7 & for that matter the towers also. The lack of evidence that there were any airliners at any of the 4 alleged crash sites. The total fraud that is the "FLT77" story. and some people still defend the crazy Arab hijackers story.
Well, you seem to represent that any idiot could have done those maneuvers so, why not let them sleep? Next revision in the 'omission report' will probably say that an infant child flew the course over Washington and you'd probably salute, then say it's 100% accurate.
