9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph?

[Ron J]

1) One must find the object; 2) One must avoid hitting other things on the way; 3) One then hits the targets 3 for 3 at speeds in excess of any safety standards and at very low altitudes . . . and at a 30 to 45 degree bank at the towers and at 30 feet off the ground at the Pentagon . . .

Finding the Towers was not difficult. They were two fingers that stood tall over anything else on Manhattan. In the case of the Towers, there were not particularly any objects in the way, as surrounding buildings were well below the altitude of the jetliners. The closest tall object would have been the Empire State Building, but that did not have to be evaded in order to hit WTC1 straight on from the north.

Flight 11 was perfectly lined up with the North Tower. I would guess that the bank was simply to slice the wings through multiple floors, causing as much damage as possible. I would guess it was a last second maneuver on Atta's part, which didn't affect the north/south trajectory into the building.

 

[captfitch]

Odds? Sooo many variables. Just on the mechanics of the flying and hitting? Ten out of ten. As far as automation is concerned? Forget about it. Only a poorly trained person could do what they did. It hurts my brain to contemplate what types of theories you have cooking about this George.

Turning and speed? What would you like to know about that one?

 

[captfitch]

Flight 11 was perfectly lined up with the North Tower. I would guess that the bank was simply to slice the wings through multiple floors, causing as much damage as possible. I would guess it was a last second maneuver on Atta's part, which didn't affect the north/south trajectory into the building.

Ooohhh. Hadn't thought of that! I wonder

 

[George B]

Odds? Sooo many variables. Just on the mechanics of the flying and hitting? Ten out of ten. As far as automation is concerned? Forget about it. Only a poorly trained person could do what they did. It hurts my brain to contemplate what types of theories you have cooking about this George.

Turning and speed? What would you like to know about that one?

How difficult is banking at 500 mph 30-45 degrees . . . unless you assume it was to increase the damage to the towers . . .

 

[captfitch]

Easy, turn left, turn right. You are incorrectly assuming they care about g- loads, coordination and comfort. Just point and shoot. Even at 350 kts or whatever they were doing. Autopilot wouldn't do that though.

 

[George B]

Easy, turn left, turn right. You are incorrectly assuming they care about g- loads, coordination and comfort. Just point and shoot. Even at 350 kts or whatever they were doing. Autopilot wouldn't do that though.

So you think it is ten for ten then? Ten tries ten hits?

 

[captfitch]

Yes, remove some important variables of that day, focus on the aiming only and ten for ten.

 

[MikeC]

I thought they were 4/3?

I wonder if the last minute course change was actually a "normal" reaction to being about to hit a large building and die - or even an abnormal one - it is not to difficult to imagine a cry of fanaticism in the last few seconds accompanied by an unbalanced control input.

 

[George B]

I thought they were 4/3?

I wonder if the last minute course change was actually a "normal" reaction to being about to hit a large building and die - or even an abnormal one - it is not to difficult to imagine a cry of fanaticism in the last few seconds accompanied by an unbalanced control input.

Could be or just as likely a last second adjustment to avoid a near miss . . .

 

[captfitch]

Could be or just as likely a last second adjustment to avoid a near miss . . .

Careful now, Technically, a near miss is a hit. You meant near hit. Now where did I put all those hairs I split?

 

[Rico]

How difficult is banking at 500 mph 30-45 degrees . . . unless you assume it was to increase the damage to the towers . . .

Banking is just rolling the aircraft. Little hinges on the wings do that with very little effort so it's easy for any aircraft traveling at virtually any speed short of very slow flight to bank.

What makes a plane turn left and right is diverting lift to a horizontal plane, which is the result of a bank. Generally, a steeper bank creates more 'turn' since more lift is diverted to the horizontal, which pulls the aircraft from it's path. In high speeds, you need a little more bank to create more turn.

I'd be pretty confident in saying that a 30-45 degree bank wasn't there to increase damage to the towers (or at least, it probably never crossed their minds even if that were the end result). For any steep banking action that took place, it's most likely to be a last minute course correction to ensure that they hit the tower.

 

[Pete]

1) One must find the object; 2) One must avoid hitting other things on the way; 3) One then hits the targets 3 for 3 at speeds in excess of any safety standards and at very low altitudes . . . and at a 30 to 45 degree bank at the towers and at 30 feet off the ground at the Pentagon . . .

Odds of finding the objects are rather high, they were very obvious features on NYC skyline, and even easier once the first was on fire.
Chance-wise, what else would there be to hit on the way? They were the tallest buildings...
Their goal was to hit them, not score it like a bulls-eye.
Safety standards do not mean something is not possible, it just means it wasn't designed to do that, or do it regularly... And did they want to fly within limits? No.

 

[George B]

Banking is just rolling the aircraft. Little hinges on the wings do that with very little effort so it's easy for any aircraft traveling at virtually any speed short of very slow flight to bank.

What makes a plane turn left and right is diverting lift to a horizontal plane, which is the result of a bank. Generally, a steeper bank creates more 'turn' since more lift is diverted to the horizontal, which pulls the aircraft from it's path. In high speeds, you need a little more bank to create more turn.

I'd be pretty confident in saying that a 30-45 degree bank wasn't there to increase damage to the towers (or at least, it probably never crossed their minds even if that were the end result). For any steep banking action that took place, it's most likely to be a last minute course correction to ensure that they hit the tower.

So how far from towers did each pilot make their correction? How much time probably elapsed between the realization they needed to make a correction and a pilots ability to make such a correction at 500 mph?

 

[Pete]

So how far from towers did each pilot make their correction? How much time probably elapsed between the realization they needed to make a correction and a pilots ability to make such a correction at 500 mph?

I genuinely don't think they were traveling at 500 mph, don't quote me on why, and I haven't researched it. But from what I have seen, and the few things I do know about aircraft and operating altitude, I'd be very surprised if those jets were doing 500 mph! Logic being, if they could get to 500 mph via thrust alone at effectively sea level, then surely they'd have a much higher cruising speed at 35000 feet?

 

[George B]

I genuinely don't think they were traveling at 500 mph, don't quote me on why, and I haven't researched it. But from what I have seen, and the few things I do know about aircraft and operating altitude, I'd be very surprised if those jets were doing 500 mph! Logic being, if they could get to 500 mph via thrust alone at effectively sea level, then surely they'd have a much higher cruising speed at 35000 feet?

Source of information NIST, FAA, Etc. . .

 

[Pete]

Source of information NIST, FAA, Etc. . .

I stand corrected, possibly. As I've said, don't quote me on my comment. Something erks me somewhere regarding these figures... But as with Woody, I've forgotten your point, as you're arguing that its not possible for a plane to do this, for a pilot to do this, for a terrorist to do this? What exactly?

I say its still possible for a nutjob terrorist to do this, even at your '500 mph'.

 

[George B]

I stand corrected, possibly. As I've said, don't quote me on my comment. Something erks me somewhere regarding these figures... But as with Woody, I've forgotten your point, as you arguing that its not possible for a plane to do this, for a pilot to do this, for a terrorist to do this? What exactly?

I say its still possible for a nutjob terrorist to do this, even at your '500 mph'.

As the title states. . . how hard was it to hit the towers and Pentagon at those speeds by relatively inexperienced pilots. . . There are well publicized pilots that say it is difficult or not possible. . . . and the Pilots on MetaBunk state it is no problem. . . so this Thread was created to investigate those issues. . .

Here is a Poll from a Conspiracy Forum. . . .I would like it to be duplicated on an aviation forum. . . . http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2141354/pg1

Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11?

POLL: Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the sp
7) No	26.9% (75)
6) Probably not, it would be very hard to do	13.6% (38)
8) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed	10.8% (30)
1) Yes	10.4% (29)
11) I don't know	10.4% (29)
2) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward	9.3% (26)
10) No, the plane could never even reach that speed.	5.7% (16)
9) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed	5.0% (14)
4) Yes, but it would have been very difficult	3.9% (11)
3) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration	2.5% (7)
5) Probably, but they were pretty lucky	1.4% (4)
Blank (View Results)	(72)
Non-Blank Votes: 279

Q) Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11? (the pilots were assumed to have earned a commercial license within the previous year) (Tower #1 = 473 - 510 Knots Groundspeed, Tower#2 = 430 Knots Groundspeed, Pentagon = 460 Knots Groundspeed)

1) Yes
2) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward
3) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration
4) Yes, but it would have been very difficult
5) Probably, but they were pretty lucky
6) Probably not, it would be very hard to do
7) No
8) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed
9) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed
10) No, the plane could never even reach that speed.
11) I don't know
Flight 77. . . Pentagon source

[link to en.m.wikipedia.org]

NTSB sources

[link to www.documentingreality.com]

[link to pilotsfor911truth.org]

Flight experience source

[link to www.911myths.com]

Last Edited by George B on 02/16/2013 08:39 AM
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . Georg B

Content from External Source

 

[Pete]

As the title states. . . how hard was it to hit the towers and Pentagon at those speeds by relatively inexperienced pilots. . . There are well publicized pilots that say it is difficult or not possible. . . . and the Pilots on MetaBunk state it is no problem. . . so this Thread was created to investigate those issues. . .

So you believe that its not possible, hence? It wasn't a plane, or it wasn't flown by a human?

Do you see what I'm getting at? What is it you are hoping to achieve?

 

[George B]

So you believe that its not possible, hence? It wasn't a plane, or it wasn't flown by a human?

Do you see what I'm getting at? What is it you are hoping to achieve?

I hope to achieve the Truth . . . whatever that may be . . . we have supposed experienced pilots that disagree . . . I am not a pilot so I am trying to understand why the disagreement . . . do I have a theory myself? I kicked around the possibility of laser or microwave targeting with autopilot or remote control of the aircraft prior to impact . . . I do believe these would be very difficult to pull off but I also believe the possibility of the Official Story is as difficult to have been pulled off as well . . . I do believe the entire 911 investigation was poor, incomplete and not transparent . . . so there are many questions that need further investigation . . .

 

[FreiZeitGeist]

Some related Videos from big Aircraft flying Highspeed at low altitude

The 9/11 Truth Movement believes THIS is impossible.
Royal New Zealand airshow.
Ground speed, 500 mph

​

From the same airshow:

The RNZAF brought down one of its two 757's for the airshow, and it put on a great display. When the 757 completes a low pass at high speed, it is easy to hear the difference in the sound of the engines. It is a really wonderful sound to go with a wonderful aeroplane.

​


and a 3rd one, speed not mentioned

​

Seems they flied all over the runway. If you can fly directly over the runway, you should also possible targeting a building that width is compareable

 

[George B]

Some related Videos from big Aircraft flying Highspeed at low altitude


From the same airshow:

and a 3rd one, speed not mentioned


Seems they flied all over the runway. If you can fly directly over the runway, you should also possible targeting a building that width is compareable

Can you validate the air speeds . . . ?

 

[FreiZeitGeist]

Can you validate the air speeds . . . ?

Good Question, seems the video-uploader was a little bit to euphoric. It´s the same Airshow-Flight discussed here: https://www.metabunk.org/posts/13376

It was 350 knots (around 400 mph) and this limit is given through legal issues. By exceeding this limit the plane would lost it´s license and must be maintenanced after the rules of the FAA, as you mentioned here:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/13398

 

[Rico]

I hope to achieve the Truth . . . whatever that may be . . . we have supposed experienced pilots that disagree . . . I am not a pilot so I am trying to understand why the disagreement . . . do I have a theory myself? I kicked around the possibility of laser or microwave targeting with autopilot or remote control of the aircraft prior to impact . . . I do believe these would be very difficult to pull off but I also believe the possibility of the Official Story is as difficult to have been pulled off as well . . . I do believe the entire 911 investigation was poor, incomplete and not transparent . . . so there are many questions that need further investigation . . .

I'd fathom the theory, personally, that these certain experienced pilots either encountered some external influence that makes them disagree (a simulator limitation, for instance, that does not allow a simulated flight beyond a certain airspeed without losing control), have a personal gain, have a disposition for conspiracies in general, or simply lack knowledge in certain areas. That's just my opinion though, so agree/disagree as you will.

I don't know these pilots, but I've met pilots of all types throughout the years. If you ever read crash investigations, or even watch Mayday on television, you'd see even experienced pilots making critical rookie mistakes or being wrong about something important. And when it comes down to it, experienced or not, these pilots are still just people with different personalities and knowledge. I've met ATP level line pilots of who are great pilots I am sure, but struggle with certain basics like understanding the lift formula. I've also met pilots who don't quite understand their aircraft as well as they should. So, opinions can come from all types, experienced or not.

With regards to 9/11, at the end of the day, you have to look at the evidence available and ask if it makes sense. Just using newtons law, and the fact that by the time a student pilot takes his 5th or so lesson and should be able to line up with a runway, it just seems perfectly reasonable to me that indeed terrorists could have planted a plane into a 207 feet wide skyscraper. Yes, they were flying beyond safety limitations, yes they weren't type-checked pilots, and yes, it'd be nice to see those black boxes in NY, but in the end, those things don't seem as relevant in comparison given other alternatives and what people saw.

Just my opinion.

 

[George B]

I'd fathom the theory, personally, that these certain experienced pilots either encountered some external influence that makes them disagree (a simulator limitation, for instance, that does not allow a simulated flight beyond a certain airspeed without losing control), have a personal gain, have a disposition for conspiracies in general, or simply lack knowledge in certain areas. That's just my opinion though, so agree/disagree as you will.

I don't know these pilots, but I've met pilots of all types throughout the years. If you ever read crash investigations, or even watch Mayday on television, you'd see even experienced pilots making critical rookie mistakes or being wrong about something important. And when it comes down to it, experienced or not, these pilots are still just people with different personalities and knowledge. I've met ATP level line pilots of who are great pilots I am sure, but struggle with certain basics like understanding the lift formula. I've also met pilots who don't quite understand their aircraft as well as they should. So, opinions can come from all types, experienced or not.

With regards to 9/11, at the end of the day, you have to look at the evidence available and ask if it makes sense. Just using newtons law, and the fact that by the time a student pilot takes his 5th or so lesson and should be able to line up with a runway, it just seems perfectly reasonable to me that indeed terrorists could have planted a plane into a 207 feet wide skyscraper. Yes, they were flying beyond safety limitations, yes they weren't type-checked pilots, and yes, it'd be nice to see those black boxes in NY, but in the end, those things don't seem as relevant in comparison given other alternatives and what people saw.

Just my opinion.

Rico, I appreciate your opinion and take on this issue . . . and you are one of the people I accept as being totally rational and convincing; however, I am not convinced the official story is correct . . . and still feel demonstrations are possible and should be attempted to put any remaining questions to rest . . .

 

[MikeC]

It was 350 knots (around 400 mph) and this limit is given through legal issues. By exceeding this limit the plane would lost it´s license and must be maintenanced after the rules of the FAA, as you mentioned here:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/13398

Strictly speaking the FAA is irrelevant - the RNZAF is, like most air forces around the world, its own airworthiness authority - ie it is not obligated to follow civilian practices and rules.

In practice some do for civilian-built aircraft, in order to be able to sell them back to the civilian market - military maintenance and modifications are NOT allowed on normal civilian aircraft. I believe the RNZAF maintains the 2 757's to a Boeing-generated maintenance programme and uses civil qualified military personnel to sign off the airworthiness - so it is fully "back compatible" with the civilian market.

Any inspection due to possible over-stressing would be pat of that maintenance programme, but the RNZAF does not have an airworthiness certificate issued by the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority - so it can choose whether or not to fly in circumstances where a civilian operator would not have any choice.

 

[Ron J]

Banking is just rolling the aircraft. Little hinges on the wings do that with very little effort so it's easy for any aircraft traveling at virtually any speed short of very slow flight to bank.

What makes a plane turn left and right is diverting lift to a horizontal plane, which is the result of a bank. Generally, a steeper bank creates more 'turn' since more lift is diverted to the horizontal, which pulls the aircraft from it's path. In high speeds, you need a little more bank to create more turn.

I'd be pretty confident in saying that a 30-45 degree bank wasn't there to increase damage to the towers (or at least, it probably never crossed their minds even if that were the end result). For any steep banking action that took place, it's most likely to be a last minute course correction to ensure that they hit the tower.

From the video, short as it was, it seemed as if flight 11 flew straight at the North Tower. I would think that Atta was lined up on the building before the sound of the jet was heard and the camera operator turned toward the towers in response. I would think that the wings would have been pretty much level, instead of banked 30 degrees.

 

[Ron J]

Source of information NIST, FAA, Etc. . .

Speaking of speed, we know the approximate speed the jetliners struck the Towers, but did they accelerate to ramming speed or were they flying at these speeds pretty much throughout the time they had control?

 

[TWCobra]

Bringing up this thread again, I was thumbing through the A330/A340 flight crew training manual today, as is my wont, and the following passage stood out to me. It details at what parameters the flight control system will revert to lower levels of control, known in Airbus parlance as the flight control "laws"' which detail what level of flight envelope protection you have at any given time.

Bear in mind as you read this that VMO/MMO for both aircraft is 330 knots/M0.86.


What it is saying is that at speeds greater than 110 knots above VMO and .1 Mach above MMO, you still have enough control to get the aircraft back to straight and level, and back under control if you have a "jet upset" ...... Pilot parlance for a massive loss of control, usually at high altitude. (think Air France 447).

None of my research has so far uncovered a requirement for an aircraft manufacturer to do more than a statistical analysis of an over speed of 120% of VMO/MMO but here is an acknowledgement from Airbus that a pilot should be able to control the aircraft at values a lot higher than that.

This is Airbus of course and different from a Boeing, but such an airspeed over VMO is a structural consideration more than a flight control law consideration.

It proves that Airbus has at least looked at the extreme range of the the flight envelope and seems to have no concerns as to the flyability of the designs.

440 knots it 506 mph.

 

[Jazzy]

Hang on there... ...I think I'd prefer 30 deg up and 15 deg down. Or my stomach would...

I would have thought >.96 Mach was optimistic. But it sounds comforting.

What isn't is the extreme disorientation one might feel as a pilot, when flying at night without any external visual clues, if a barometric fault occurs for some reason, like icing, or wiring failure, and your instruments stop working or disagree. These control systems start lying, too, for the same reasons, and there is no longer anything to compare them with.

 

[TWCobra]

Hang on there... ...I think I'd prefer 30 deg up and 15 deg down. Or my stomach would...

I would have thought >.96 Mach was optimistic. But it sounds comforting.

What isn't is the extreme disorientation one might feel as a pilot, when flying at night without any external visual clues, if a barometric fault occurs for some reason, like icing, or wiring failure, and your instruments stop working or disagree. These control systems start lying, too, for the same reasons, and there is no longer anything to compare them with.

It's very unlikely that all your references will fail at once. The drill is to fall back to first principles... Set a representative cruise thrust and pitch value and sort it out once the flight path is under control.
There was nothing wrong with the Air France A330 when it hit the water.

 

[Jazzy]

It's very unlikely that all your references will fail at once.

But if an incident occurs it may distract you from noticing or believing the correct reference.

The drill is to fall back to first principles... Set a representative cruise thrust and pitch value and sort it out once the flight path is under control.
There was nothing wrong with the Air France A330 when it hit the water.

I'm sure you're correct. The plane would have self-corrected if its controls were centralized, due to its physical flight stability: dihedral, CG just ahead of CP, elevators trimmed slightly against that.

Whatever the pilots were doing interfered with this natural response. That's not comforting. I would tend to avoid night-time flights...

 

[Jazzy]

From the video, short as it was, it seemed as if flight 11 flew straight at the North Tower. I would think that Atta was lined up on the building before the sound of the jet was heard and the camera operator turned toward the towers in response. I would think that the wings would have been pretty much level, instead of banked 30 degrees.

Videos taken from a POV almost in line with the aircraft show it descending rapidly and banking. Videos taken inside the turn radius are going to show almost no bank at all.

 

[TEEJ]

Interesting thread over on Above Top Secret. The OP is certainly deluding himself. Probably requires a bit of reality brought into the thread from the likes of TWCobra and others?

'9/11 Truth: An UNMODIFIED Boeing 767 cannot fly @ 510 knots @ Sea Level'

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread990280/pg1

 

[Alienentity]

Interesting thread over on Above Top Secret. The OP is certainly deluding himself. Probably requires a bit of reality brought into the thread from the likes of TWCobra and others?

'9/11 Truth: An UNMODIFIED Boeing 767 cannot fly @ 510 knots @ Sea Level'

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread990280/pg1

Read thru this and link them to it. It's been confirmed by someone flying an FAA accredited flight simulator.

 

[TWCobra]

Hi TEEJ. I can't post in that forum because I don't have enough WATS points.. whatever that is. If I could, this is what I would say. Feel free to cut and paste this in if you like.

The OP says that the design dive speed, VD is the maximum that an aircraft can fly and therefore any speed above it will cause structural failure. That is not true. The aircraft I fly (A330) has a VD of 365K/M0.93 yet the operations manual has references to reversions of control laws at speeds exceeding 440 knots, 75 knots (approx 20%) above VD and and 25% above VMO. Certification requirements require that aircraft must be able sustain the designed manoeuvring loads, 2.5G, at VD. That means that this 767 could be pulling 2.5G at Max weight at VD and still fly and recover. That implies a large inbuilt safety margin. This aircraft was nowhere near max weight BTW. The 767 airframe is certified to 185 tonnes, UA175 was nearer to 130 tonnes when it hit the WTC.

An aircraft travelling at those speeds is most like likely to be destroyed by aeroelastic flutter of the wings. Aircraft manufacturers are also required to do a statistical analysis to clear the aircraft for flutter at speeds up to 120% VD. So we can assume that the analysis Boeing did a study for allowable flutter of 504 knots. This aircraft did have aileron flutter in the last couple of seconds of its flight. It can be seen on some videos from the condensation patterns coming from the outer left aileron as the aircraft manoeuvred under G to correct for the crosswind before impact.

Boeing design strong aircraft. In 1985 a China Airlines 747-SP went through mach 1.0 and pulled over 5g as it recovered from a mishandled high altitude engine flameout.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19850219-0

While I have doubts that aircraft got to 510 knots, other scientific analysis put it at 473 knots, I have no doubt the aircraft would not have broken up at 420 knots.

Finally, someone actually tested this scenario in a 767 simulator; coincidentally one that I used to fly when I flew the 767 (6000 hrs on type). This is a category D simulator, therefore it can train a pilot in all phases of flight to the standard where a pilots first flight on the actual aircraft can have paying passengers aboard. I did most of my 767 command training in this very simulator. The test was done by a sim technician who was not a pilot. Please read the results, it is pretty unequivocal.

http://911blogger.com/node/20232

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Something I don't see being considered here is dynamic air pressure and its effect on control. Air pressure is a function of the velocity squared, and a given control surface movement at higher pressure will cause a greater movement of the aircraft than it will at a lower pressure. The dynamic air pressure at sea level at 500 mph is 10 times what it is at normal landing speeds of 160 mph, so the same control surface movement at 500 mph will cause 10 times the movement it would at 160 mph.

I have read where airline pilots tried to hit the twin towers at 500 mph at sea level pressures in flight simulators. The article said they were not able to, and were only able to do so once they slowed down to normal landing speeds.

 

[Landru]

Something I don't see being considered here is dynamic air pressure and its effect on control. Air pressure is a function of the velocity squared, and a given control surface movement at higher pressure will cause a greater movement of the aircraft than it will at a lower pressure. The dynamic air pressure at sea level at 500 mph is 10 times what it is at normal landing speeds of 160 mph.

I have read where airline pilots tried to hit the twin towers at 500 mph at sea level pressures in flight simulators. The article said they were not able to, and were only able to do so once they slowed down to normal landing speeds.

A link to the article would be helpful.

 

[TWCobra]

.

I have read where airline pilots tried to hit the twin towers at 500 mph at sea level pressures in flight simulators. The article said they were not able to, and were only able to do so once they slowed down to normal landing speeds.

An experienced pilot could do it at any speed the aircraft can reach. It isn't difficult.

Pilots routinely do high speed passes at airshows in large jets, as shown in this thread. The lateral target there is about 1/3 the size of the WTC buildings.

 

[Pete Tar]

Sea level versus 700 metres above sea level - is there any difference in performance?

 

[George B]

An experienced pilot could do it at any speed the aircraft can reach. It isn't difficult.

Pilots routinely do high speed passes at airshows in large jets, as shown in this thread. The lateral target there is about 1/3 the size of the WTC buildings.

I would imagine air show pilots are rather expert . . . is it fair to compare them to the hijackers?