I don’t think the hijackers had a clue as to where they wanted to strike to bring the buildings down, nor did the second pilot have much time to adjust his shot based on the first. Any hit that started a large enough fire to start bringing the floors down is going to bring the building down. A lower hit would have trapped more people, but go too low and the firemen have a better chance to put out the flames before the steel softened to the point of collapse. In the end, the second hit was marginally more effective than the first, but certainly due to blind luck and not by design.
Was US Air Flight 1549 taken down by a golden goose? 
I think McMurphy was referring to the 1993 truck-bombing in the basement garage of the WTC as the first attempt, and the 2001 two plane crash as the second.
The interesting thing about the Hood is it used to be talked about more as a ‘lucky shot’ and over time has become less so. I remember it being written about as if there was a small gap in the funnel and only by sheer bad luck did it hit that point. I suspect this was mostly to preserve the pride of the UK, rather than admit it was really a disaster waiting to happen and pretty close to a straight repeat of Jutland battlecruisers.
Which kind of shows how attractive the achilles heel story is, theres a tendency to try and fit reality into it, to make outcomes seem more mythic than they really are.
Otara
He is SO grounded.
We may never know if the total destruction of the buildings was by design unless there is something in the documents confiscated during the bin Laden killing. My point was that after-the-fact a design flaw was recognized. In the documentary the architect admitted it and said it haunts him although I doubt that there are many people who blame him.
That was exactly my point. The 1993 truck bombing was obviously designed to bring down a tower. They thought they had the weak point. bin Laden’s family is in the major construction business. Again, we may never know if he discovered the design weakness ahead of the event but it is not impossible.
I’ve got a bad feeling about this thread.
The only guns that were in range and she was firing were her 8 15" main guns. ‘Guns’ or ‘main guns’ are interchangeable for this purpose, and you said over three dozen guns were firing.
As noted, Prinz Eugen was a heavy cruiser, not a battleship. The Hood wasn’t sunk by a final straw breaking her back; the one shell hitting the magazine sunk her. The damage from other hits in no way contributed to her sinking, had those shells missed as well, the one shell in the magazine would have sunk her just the same.
The sinking of the Hood was an inside job!
Never underestimate the power of good story telling.
If it worked for David (1 Sam 17) it can work for you too! 
The first hit on Hood, which started a fire in her above (armored) deck rocket magazine was from Prinz Eugen’s 8" guns, as they were her main armament and was in the van leading Bismarck at the time since Bismarck’s radar was inoperative. The shot that penetrated her armor and caused the magazine conflagration that sank her was undoubtedly from one of Bismarck’s eight 15" guns, all of which were in action.
Well put. I’d like to add a word about “lucky shot.” I think the term “unlikely shot” is a little more descriptive and accurate, since you are trying to hit the damned ship anyway possible.
Nitpick: strait.
TheLusitaniawas sunk by a single torpedo.
And the Shuttle Columbia was brought down by a piece of foam insulation.
I don’t think either of those count as examples of what the OP is requesting.
Everything else was just support fire. They made it pretty clear that the fighters couldn’t anything agianst the Death Star, and they didn’t show any larger ships attacking.
Ironically up until the 2nd world war, there were a lot of folks who still thought that battleships were pretty much invulnerable to air craft, even though demonstrations had been made of successful attacks by air craft against battleships in the late 20’s or early 30’s (IIRC). I think this perception started to change when the Brits attacked an Italian battle fleet in (again, from memory 1940) and damaged or destroyed like half the fleet using obsolete bi-planes equipped with torpedoes. IIRC, this is what really got the Japanese thinking about such tactics that later came together in their Pearl Harbor attack.
So, it wasn’t just the Empire who thought that they were invulnerable to small attack aircraft. 
-XT
There doesn’t have to be just one weak point. There has to be at least one weak point, one of which is found.
Maybe the Deathstar would have blown up if women on decks 5, 8, 44 and 167 all simultaniously flushed tampons down the toilets at the same time that someone lit a cigarette in the sanitation deparment. Maybe Goliath would have fallen if David has stepped on his ingrown toenail. Maybe tha tank can be disabled by a number 2 wooden pencil jammed between the second and third (from the left) switches. Maybe a Bic pencan be used to pick a bicycle lock.
The closest real life example I can think of is the WW2 Elefant tank destroyer. Hugely armoured and almost invulnerable to other tanks frontally, but they didnt give it any ability to defend itself from infantry, making it far more vulnerable to them than it had to be. So the little guys could take out something that larger vehicles couldnt.
But it is a bit of a reach in that tanks generally are vulnerable to close attacks by infantry, and comparatively few were actually lost to infantry action, it was more a vulnerability in theory than in practise.
Otara
Also there was a bad habit if by passing safty measures to increase the rate of fire in British warships. Charges were piled up in the turret rather than being brought up as needed from the magazine one by one and the protective doors between the turret and the lift to the magazine were left open to speed up bringing up shells. A hit on a turret would ignite the charges and the flash would travel straight down to the magazine.
That is true, I have done it. It’s hilarious.