Yet another post rejected by 911blogger
This post is mostly a consolidation of other posts. The first video, however is an extra from Loose Change the Final Cut. It discusses the time-line of the hijackings and the conspicuous failure to intercept the aircraft.
I've given this issue considerable thought, and I am convinced that the planes were not under the control of pilots in the cockpits when they hit. Here's some of my reasoning.
First of all, there are several pilots who claim the maneuvers were almost impossible even for an excellent pilots with experience flying that type of plane. This guy, Russ Wittenberg, seems among the most credible:
Pilot who flew UAL 93 & UAL 175 is "absolutely positive they couldn't do it."
Former Air Force fighter pilot Russ Wittenberg, who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam, sat in the cockpit for Pan Am and United for over 30 years, and previously flew two of the actual airplanes that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 (United Airlines Flight 175 & 93), does not believe the government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory...
I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11... Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for... a so-called terrorist to train on a 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns,.. pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's... I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it. ~ Russ Wittenberg
Here's an interview with a professional airline pilot instructor who talks about how he and several other flight instructors tried to reproduce the maneuver in a simulator, and failed to hit the building unless they slowed down to almost landing speed.
The following two videos show the complexity of the final approach of UAL 175. All of the planes descended very rapidly. I'd have to fish the FDR values to give exact figures, but the planes did not line up on their targets from several miles out. They "barnstormed" their targets.
UAL 175 Leveling-out of a Steep Dive
Another Video of UAL 175 Leveling-out of a Steep Dive
Air Traffic Controller Describes UAL 175 "Power-Dive"
I believe Mike Walter is credible
No box-cutters needed to fly "like a cruise missile with wings"
This is the other half of the equation.
Computer simulation of AA77 strike based on physical evidence.
Some people have expressed skepticism as to whether a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. The evidence, however, indicates that this part of the OTC (Official Conspiracy Theory) is probably true. It is not clear what the fate of the wreckage from the pane was. Some critics have asserted that no serial number identification was carried out on parts from the aircraft. Be that as it may, the following video reaffirms my conclusion that the projectile that hit the Pentagon was a Boeing 757. The idea that it was piloted by Hani Hanjour, who two weeks earlier failed a flight test in a Cessna 172, is absurd. The exactness of the final maneuver of the plane suggests, if not proves, that the plane was under automated guidance.
The LC guys are correct, it is not the important question. The important question is why was it hit in the first place? Informed, rational and civil discussion is, of course, welcome.
Notice that the F4 in the video was traveling approximately 40 mph slower than AA77 is believed to have been moving.
Time for a new test using an F-4 Phantom Jet.
The US Government wanted to test what would happen if a plane crashed into the concrete walls of a nuclear power station.
The jet sets off, bolted to a track to prevent takeoff. It's doing 500 miles per hour. The plane atomized with the impact. It just disappeared into dust. Only the tips of the wings [which exceeded the width of the wall] escaped total destruction.
WordNet (r) 2.0
v 1: spray very finely; "atomize perfume" [syn: atomise]
2: strike at with firepower or bombs; "zap the enemy" [syn: nuke,
3: break up into small particles; "the fine powder had been
atomized by air" [syn: atomise]