The plane that launched the cruise missile as it climbs away?

Lots of websites out there on how the Twin Towers couldn’t possibly have been brought down the officially described way, but not as much attention is paid to the Pentagon attack on 9/11. This website has more photos than written stuff, so quicker to get a rundown on this theory. Have to say that if the video which replays the impact over and over is unretouched or otherwise tampered with, it doesn’t look like a a plane going in. The last item on the page about the wall symbol is a bit much, however.

So, on this 4th of July weekend when we celebrate what this nation is supposed to be, time to get your conspiracy tin foil hat on and discuss what it’s become!




  1. MikeN says:

    Bobbo, here’s a thought. Maybe the Air Force was trying to shoot down the plane, and hit the Pentagon instead.

  2. NiktheElectrician says:

    Bobbo said –

    “but going to that link shows a reporter/witness saying “It was like a cruise missile with wings.” === ie==eye witness testimony reported exactly oppositely from what was said. Is the entire theory built on ass backwardness like this? Sue?

    What is that thing that looks like a missile with wings? Hmmmm. An airplane????”

    No, actually a missile with wings is a more accurate description of a cruise missile. Look up some photos of cruise missiles if you don’t believe me. The difference between a regular and cruise missile is these wings and their relative speed. Regular missiles are launched up and drop down, while cruise missles fly just like aircraft.

    Every time I check comments Bobbo is always accusing people of not responding to his arguments and spouting the same facts over and over. Perhaps Bobbo has difficulty reading, because I constantly see people responding and refuting all your arguments time and time again. But I’m sure he’ll disagree.

  3. bobbo, words have meaning says:

    Nik–I take your critique to heart: “Oh to see ourselves as others do.” Always good to take a fact check.

    And what you say is true and funny: What looks like a missle with wings?==a Cruise Missle. ((and an airplane?))

    I will affirm that too many people do not respond to direct questions posed. If Sue above had said her quotes were from her link I would not have criticized her for not providing a link. You are probably think that is an example of my being answered and not seeing it but I think “technically” you are wrong. Probably much the same for most, but not all, of your other examples you might produce. There is disagreement, different definitions, faulty memory, bad communications all intertwined.

    but in the main, I will affirm==dolts, shills, and the maniacally obsessed will “tend” (if you must) to not answer direct questions, not provide links, and merely repeat ad naseum whatever their issue is. Like, but not exactly like, I just have. Ha. ha. Oh–and few laugh at themselves.

    I specifically respond to other peoples’ posts more than anyone here except for Guyver. Irritating such a rigorous mind can still be right wing. Ha, ha.

    It is said all too often: poking holes in one theory does not support any other theory. The mundane is more often the case than not–allowing only for the rare exception. Not every freaking time.

  4. bobbo, words have meaning says:

    My impression is that a cruise missle is many times smaller than a passenger aircraft of the 757 variety. Not too much room for confusion unless it was only the briefest of glances.

    Another impression: complaint that the hole in the Pentagon was only 65 feet wide and they show the aircraft superimposed in the hole. Perfectly fits the position of the engines==as if the wings distal to the engines were too flimsy to cause damage to a reinforced building.

    Imagine that.

  5. bobbo, words have meaning says:

    I also have an impression that the damage caused by a missle, cruise missle, planted explosives or anything other than a heavy a/c at high speed would leave a hole(s) quite different than what was produced.

    I say “impression” because unlike conspiracy theorists, I admit I have no expertise on the subject at hand. TV monitor and an open book at the edge of the damaged building and yet no fire/smoke damage at all. VERY SUSPICIOUS–except I have no experience/training at all and no common sense either. And couldn’t the same complaint be made about the blast/damage from a missle? NO–the plane had gasoline/av gas that should have splattered the whole area and burned and smoke damaged everything. === Well, “obviously not.”

    But its just my impression.

  6. sargasso_c says:

    These are not theories unless equally plausible counter arguements exist. Until they do, let’s call them classified.

  7. bbjester says:

    HEADLINE:

    String of Bizarre Incidents Involving Planes Colliding With Buildings.

    A spokesman for AA has linked Micro$haft’s removal of the ability to crash planes into buildings in its popular flight simulation software, to recent increased incidents of planes crashing into buildings.

    The spokesman goes on record stating ” Many of these fine pilots have received their 60 day sobriety coins. But thanks to Micro$haft’s removal of this key feature, many fail to realize the danger that inanimate objects pose to aircraft…

    ;)

  8. Skeptic says:

    Well Sue, I think after you view the evidence in the video link, post #50, you’ll feel pretty silly, eh?

  9. Sue says:

    #68. Skepdick – Oh you mean that cartoon…? Oh yeah, a cartoon is real evidence. I am totally conviced a cartoon can’t be faked.

    How’s that lobotomy working out for ya?

  10. Mikey Likey says:

    #68. Are you an idiot or was that just a joke? It must have been a joke, because that’s about the stupidest comment I have seen yet.

    Animation is hard evidence. LMAO!!!!

  11. Skeptic says:

    Sorry, I didn’t realize you were mentally challenged. There was plenty of actual security footage and photographs from the site. If you look again real carefully and try to distinguish the real photographs and video from the illustrations, you’ll earn a silver star.

  12. bobbo, words have meaning says:

    The cartoon was representational of the hard evidence that is known. A guided missle doesn’t have the dimensions to take out the lamp posts for instance.

    My god==I guess it comes down to someone who’s authority you respect has to say: “I can’t believe it was done by a missle?” or what “evidence” would sastify you one way or the other?

    You do know it is also cartoon basic that reliance on authority is one of many classic logic errors?

    Silly. And that was the point after all.

    Thank you Uncle Dave. I’m finally up to speed.

  13. Animby says:

    I strongly suggest you 9/11 doubters take a look at this page http://bit.ly/eyRjWd

    BYW – for those of you who like the witness’s description of “like a cruise missile with wings” try listening to the entire statement not just the words that support your false hypothesis. (He described the airplane he saw as coming in like a cruise missile.) You know, the Pentagon does not exist in isolation. It’s a busy area. Hundreds of people saw an aircraft hit the building. Many are on record.

  14. MikeN says:

    Hundreds of people saw a missile hit TWA 800. Many are on record. Yet the FBI made up a second interview of one eyewitness to try and conclude the plane had a fuel tank explosion.

  15. Marsh says:

    #74. Yep, tis true. People believe what they want to believe.

    Hundreds of cameras recorded this event (Pentagon), and all we got was a lousy T-shirt.

  16. Animby says:

    The truth is seldom as interesting as a good conspiracy. And never as much fun.

  17. foobar says:

    It really takes a special kind of prick to think this stuff up.

  18. Ralph, the Bus Driver says:

    #42, bobbo
    In his own words: “I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.”

    No, I don’t believe him. He ascribes a situation that didn’t exist. Rule number 1 in flying, especially at high speeds; NO SUDDEN MANEUVERS. Yes, I know military planes do it all the time, but they and stunt planes are purpose built, airliners and pleasure aircraft aren’t.

    A 757 can take a 4 or 5G turn safely. But you wouldn’t want to do it. There would be no need. It could glide in from 20 miles out starting at 30,000 and no one in the plane would even realize you were descending.

    A brief search turned up this information:

    The hijackers on American Airlines Flight 77 were led by Hani Hanjour, who piloted the aircraft into the Pentagon.[1] Hanjour first came to the United States in 1990.[2] He trained at the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Arizona, earning his FAA commercial pilot’s certificate in April 1999.[3] He had wanted to be a commercial pilot for the Saudi national airline but was rejected when he applied to the civil aviation school in Jeddah in 1999.

    … Hani Hanjour received ground instruction and did practice flights at Air Fleet Training Systems in Teterboro, New Jersey, and at Caldwell Flight Academy in Fairfield, New Jersey.[5] Hanjour moved out of the room in Paterson and arrived at the Valencia Motel in Laurel, Maryland, on September 2, 2001.[9] While in Maryland, Hanjour and fellow hijackers trained at the Gold’s Gym in Greenbelt.[10] On September 10, he completed a certification flight, using a terrain recognition system for navigation, at Congressional Air Charters in Gaithersburg, Maryland.[11][12]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

    In other words, he was no rookie Cessna 172 pilot. He would have known you don’t make 5G turns in a 757.

  19. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Ralph–still digging at this stuff? Well–thanks for posting what you found. Adds a whole different angle of FUD to the discussion.

    “Somewhere” I had the impression these high time pilots were incredulous because the flight path of the a/c that hit the pentagon had done some tight maneuvers as in losing a lot of altitude in very little space. Thats the only reason I see to stress the need for high g high banked turns.

    In normal private pilot training you don’t pull more than 2 g’s–a level 60 degree banked turn. I forget what commercial pilots experience but no real reason to pull more than 2 again although I would think any certificated commercial pilot could do it fairly comfortably. Now–to pull that many g’s, while making a high rate descent? That can be tricky the first time without experience for some people, nothing to it for others.

    But the point you bring out is…..the quoted pilot is staking his expertise and authority to make a point that is purely irrelevant and inapplicable. Makes me wonder what altitude/distance change that pilot thinks the 757 made on its approach to the Pentagon?

    Gliding 30K feet from 20 miles out? I bet you’d have to bring the engines to near idle to get that performance. We used to do that out of boredom but one day on fairly long final the engines were “way slow” to spool back up. Never went full idle again after that.

    Surviving the pucker factor—-what fun.

  20. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Note on the gliding–I was assuming one complied with the air speed restrictions/profiles on descent==something Hanjour didn’t care about. He could of course just point the nose down and gain airspeed. He probably did a little of both?

    I thought the comment about exceeding the design airspeed by 100 knots was irrelevant and most probably wrong?

    I did some performance testing on military aircraft but in fact we never went beyond rated speeds within the envelope. I don’t know why any jet aircraft couldn’t go supersonic (sic!) without damage unless you lowered the flaps at the same time?===drag probably buffeting an airliner enough to cause one to raise the nose anyway? And I’m assuming 100 knots over design limits is in the supersonic range?

    Ha, ha. I’ll bet Hanjour wasn’t interested enough in a/c performance/aerodynamics/design to check that issue out.

  21. GregAllen says:

    I looked at the original site.

    What a bunch of jumbled garbage.

  22. Ralph, the Bus Driver says:

    #79, bobbo,

    The point is you don’t fly an airliner the same as you would a fighter or even a stunt plane. I watched an air show over the weekend and reflected at how slow the stunt planes really go.

    As you are most likely aware, high speeds at low altitude create control issues. From the same Wikipedia link in #78, the hijacker had full throttle and the air craft was traveling at about 850 km/h (530 mph) when it crashed. The craft was apparently wobbling much of the way on approach.

    The points remain, the “facts” posted by Sue are bull. As are most of the 911 conspiracy theories. Just because someone repeats a lie enough times, has never bestowed validity on that lie. That is the problem with the Republicans at the moment.