What about the experts that testified that a 757 could not physically maneuver in the way "witnesses" described at such low altitude. The engines are designed to make full power at cruising altitude. They have very little power at sea level. They would have literally been choking near ground level.
You are basically telling me that airplanes cannot fly near the ground, yet they do this all the time when taking off or landing. The engines are sized for power (thrust) required at takeoff and landing. They do not develop that thrust at cruise condition. You misunderstand airplanes. If they are descending from altitude (diving, in other words), they convert their potential energy of altitude into kinetic energy of speed. (One of the required processes prior to landing is to lower the speed of the airplane.)
It is not clear that the 757 did any "maneuvers" except to approach at a high speed and low altitude. Under those conditions, it would be operating in strong ground effect, which can prevent it from touching ground. (Unexpected problem in early U-2 flights: the pilot could not figure out how to land. The airplane lift was so strong in ground effect, it would just continue to float above the runway. They had to spoil the lift in order to touch down. Lesson learned.)
There was no clearly defined runway, and I don't believe there were any flight-sims back then that would have accurately taken a terrorist into the pentagon. I'd argue that the pilot had to have made some major corrections toward the end. Also, the topography near the Pentagon isn't exactly flat for miles. They would have been dodging obstacles to maintain their flight plan.
We can agree to disagree, but take a look at the testimony of experts on flight characteristics.The planes may have been "floating" above the ground, but the engines would have had little thrust to do much else, other than climb or make micro-corrections.
The pilot did make some major corrections toward the end. Eyewitnesses saw the plane's wing clip off a street lamp pole and the plane was oscillating in roll. The were coming in on a dive. (Interesting that the un-flat approach and obstacles would rule out a ground-hugging cruise missile.) Flight plan? Surely, you jest. They were working from maybe a map and eyeballs. You don't need engines when you already have too much speed (under those conditions, they act as drag reducers). You do realize that one of the major tasks of landing a plane is to reduce speed?
You misunderstand aircraft engines. Their rated maximum thrust is for takeoff conditions, i.e., low altitude. If they were at full throttle, they were at full thrust. Referring to the engines gets you nowhere. The airplane was traveling at the speed it was traveling, easily attained by diving from its operating altitude. And, yes, the plane was in ground effect. This happens when it is within half a wingspan of the ground surface.
What about the experts that testified that a 757 could not physically maneuver in the way "witnesses" described at such low altitude. The engines are designed to make full power at cruising altitude. They have very little power at sea level. They would have literally been choking near ground level.
You are basically telling me that airplanes cannot fly near the ground, yet they do this all the time when taking off or landing. The engines are sized for power (thrust) required at takeoff and landing. They do not develop that thrust at cruise condition. You misunderstand airplanes. If they are descending from altitude (diving, in other words), they convert their potential energy of altitude into kinetic energy of speed. (One of the required processes prior to landing is to lower the speed of the airplane.)
It is not clear that the 757 did any "maneuvers" except to approach at a high speed and low altitude. Under those conditions, it would be operating in strong ground effect, which can prevent it from touching ground. (Unexpected problem in early U-2 flights: the pilot could not figure out how to land. The airplane lift was so strong in ground effect, it would just continue to float above the runway. They had to spoil the lift in order to touch down. Lesson learned.)
There was no clearly defined runway, and I don't believe there were any flight-sims back then that would have accurately taken a terrorist into the pentagon. I'd argue that the pilot had to have made some major corrections toward the end. Also, the topography near the Pentagon isn't exactly flat for miles. They would have been dodging obstacles to maintain their flight plan. We can agree to disagree, but take a look at the testimony of experts on flight characteristics.The planes may have been "floating" above the ground, but the engines would have had little thrust to do much else, other than climb or make micro-corrections.
The pilot did make some major corrections toward the end. Eyewitnesses saw the plane's wing clip off a street lamp pole and the plane was oscillating in roll. The were coming in on a dive. (Interesting that the un-flat approach and obstacles would rule out a ground-hugging cruise missile.) Flight plan? Surely, you jest. They were working from maybe a map and eyeballs. You don't need engines when you already have too much speed (under those conditions, they act as drag reducers). You do realize that one of the major tasks of landing a plane is to reduce speed?
You misunderstand aircraft engines. Their rated maximum thrust is for takeoff conditions, i.e., low altitude. If they were at full throttle, they were at full thrust. Referring to the engines gets you nowhere. The airplane was traveling at the speed it was traveling, easily attained by diving from its operating altitude. And, yes, the plane was in ground effect. This happens when it is within half a wingspan of the ground surface.