Have you studied the G's required to pull out of that 3500FPM descent?
Because of this conversation here, I went back to PFT and reviewed the calculations that I had last seen several years ago, regarding this event.
I knew I had rounded down with the 3500 number--the actual number required to make the government story work is closer to 4500FPM, throttles wide open, airspeed on the redline or over. If you go play with any airplane in a similar maneuver, you will see that such conditions will cause a huge overshoot of the target because of all the energy.
Based on precise mathematical calculations, the pullout would have required something over 4G to terminate over the lawn of the Pentagon. Check you Boeing handbook to see how many Gs the 757 can pull. It ain't 4. I doubt if Hani had pulled over 2 in his entire life. Have you pulled 4 lately? In a Boeing transport?
Q provided us a picture of a full metal jacket bullet penetrating some piece of fruit. His point was the blowback, and I happily accept that. Pieces of the fruit, NOT the penetrating round, blew back. And that is supposed to somehow strengthen his and your contention that the reason for the several pieces of fuselage on the lawn in the opposite direction of travel for this Boeing projectile is this blowback phenomenon. It seems that if that comparison were valid, pieces of the building would have been blown backward, not pieces of the projectile.
In any event, you are defending that the pieces of fuselage on the lawn belonged to an aluminum projectile that had penetrated the building, and that somehow that projectile, after coming apart with pieces of it actually travelling backwards from its direction of travel, still maintained enough structural integrity to leave a perfectly round, fuselage shaped, exit hole after penetrating through several walls.
Sorry sir, no can buy that.
Edited by Babe Ruth, 22 February 2012 - 01:52 PM.