ong ago, we discussed in detail kinetic energy. 100 tons of metal impcting at 800 feet per second. It's unimaginable almost, how much energy is liberated there.
Ever read about a piece of straw being embedded in a tree trunk, having been propelled by tornadic winds, and never even being broken...simply penetrating the wood by a couple inches? That kind of phenomenon you should think about...
A good pilot couldn't have done it (it just doesn't fit the mindset...).
And you are of course an experienced heavy-iron pilot and know what lousy and adequately trained to fly straight and level, or even to fly straight at all is?
Oh, and that 1% tolerance you speak of as if it means something.
Quantify that 1%. 1% of what?
How many do they have?
Where are they?
Have you asked?
You see, we understand the different perspective.
I do, at least.
There's something lacking in the total perspective's logical / rational modality.
Glad you mentioned that 1% MID.
By that I mean the alignment of the airplane, according to the official story and pictures provided here by Sky, relative to the building it supposedly struck. Sky provided a picture with the outline of the airplane superimposed over the building at that magical moment it struck the building.
If the airplane had been a foot or 2 higher, part of the vertical tail would have missed, and ended up probably partially intact a few hundred feet beyond. If it had been a foot or 2 lower, the engine cowlings would have struck the ground and left their marks.
The left-right alignment is also very close. Considering the dimensions of the airplane and the building, it was a perfect strike, and I'm just guessing the actual strike alignment was within 1% of where it positively had to be.
Now I don't really care what other folks believe in. I am always happy to agree to disagree, and can speak only for myself.
That said, I know very well that me and a handful of Boeing pilots are right in calling out the very high improbability of the Hani maneuver.
Further, kinetic energy or not, aluminum airframes will not penetrate through six walls, or whatever the number is, and leave a perfect exit hole as we are told to believe.
Wrecking balls and hammers are not made out of aluminum for a very good reason--aluminum is far too soft and light a metal to act in that capacity. Maybe a jeweler's small hammer, but not something to crush concrete with.
But a man is entitled, if he wishes to, to believe any group of pathological liars he sees fit. I'll pass.