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!
“Well Sue–where are the links?”
I provided the link and spoon fed you the info from the link, and implored you to go back and read some more.
And you say I’m stupid? Heres a litle trick for the computer illiterates, take just about any piece of one of the statements, googleize it, and voila! It automagically will lead you to the source. It’s fucking amazing!
http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html
Now seriously, I have work to do, you are free to play with yourself.
Sue, you crack me up! Well you and your ilk that is. It really wouldn’t be that hard to crash a plane into a building like the Pentagon. Eight hours of real flight time was probably all that was necessary to learn enough to crash one.
I remember hearing somewhere some of the instructors thought something was odd about these terrorist guys. That odd thing was that they did not care about learning how to land a plane correctly.
So really 8 hours real world, and plenty of sim time was likely all that was needed. In fact some of these flight simulator games even allow you to pilot a jumbo jet; go figure.
The USAF fighters likely didn’t go supersonic because the FAA prohibits such things over populated areas. Sonic booms tend to break stuff like windows & eardrums. Anyway they was likely still awaiting orders from a confused chain of command. It’s not everyday that $hit like that happens after all. Tough calls had to be made for sure.
Besides there was a whole lot of chaos going on at the time. They may have been still deciding whether or not to shoot it down. The thought that someone could survive the crash may also have influenced that decision. I am sure there was a debate about the ramifications of killing the civilians on board. Anyway by the time they realized what was going on there wasn’t much time to react anyway.
Also this is real life not RAMBO part III! No one is going to run heroically onto the Pentagon’s lawn with a rocket launcher and save the day. That $hit only happens in the movies, maybe you are watching too many.
And as far as the wreckage goes…well that much mass traveling at that velocity tends to pulverize things. Especially when some of that mass is filled to the brim with jet fuel. I am sure there wasn’t a whole lot of recognizable plane debris to pick up. And that’s just it too… Plane to pick up. Did you not see with your own eyes 2 planes crash into the WTC. So why is it so hard to believe a third crashing into the Pentagon. We already know 4 planes were hijacked that day. If our government wanted to spread panic there are far easier ways I am sure.
I am sorry because I don’t really know you Sue, but I am going to say this. If you want to spew that crap and get someone to believe it; maybe the message boards over at InfoWars would be better suited for you. I agree with bobbo on this one; Sue, you are full of crap. Sorry but it’s true. Better luck next time spreading your FUD.
#32–Ah Sue==right you are. Sorry I was so slow on the pick up. “I can’t believe that happened.”
Opinion testimony?
Perhaps the very best reason to follow conspiracy theories like this one is to identify just how faulty the “logic” is. As in totally faulty.
There are a number of qualified pilots saying they don’t believe an arab could fly an airplane. and there alternate theory to be held to the same standard of proof is what?
All manner of people testifying they “can’t believe it” amounts to no evidence at all. No facts. No alternative theory.
I quickly googled Rob Balsamo and see there are a number of other bloggers immediately listed taking on Rob Balsamo g force theories. I assume they are correct.
What I/you/anyone else “can believe” or “not believe” is the argument of an idiot. Avoid it. Look for facts.
Sue–I apologize for not recognizing your link. Still==what is your alternative theory? No one should care what you can or can’t believe. What is your alternative theory/facts?
jester–I read at the time that $Microsoft took their Flight Simulator Program off the market to repackage it. Seems there was a picture of a 747 flying over the WTC on the cover of the software. I was going to shop for it immediately, but then had a beer instead. My life is like that.
Looks photoshop to me. But then again I don’t buy into the whole conspiracy theories.
Going to the link in the provided OP–the first item posted is:
A Cruise Missile slammed into the Pentagon on 911
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WWj-dUOWNzI
Reporter says a cruise missile struck the building!
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????
Ha, ha. More stupid than I would offer up when just being stupid for kicks.
A theory is a set of facts establishing a credible/possible alternative. It is not made up by people cherry picking what they can believe and not believe. It is not made up by citing evidence exactly opposite to what it clearly says. It is not made up by ignoring the dead passengers on the ground and the families morning their passage.
This stupidity doesn’t even amount to FUD.
When will this end
The Berkeley left wing view of life “What did I do to cause you to be so angry that you came over and hit me”
This is only one small step removed
What is so hard to understand and appreciate that a group of people – with a medieval culture hate us and did this to us ?
Women libbers how would you like to live under Shariah law ?
Bobbo- It’s true that following “issues” will sometimes get in the way of preconceived truth. It’s much easier to just exclaim that you believe what you believe and the rest is not interesting. However, a couple of “issues” concern me. First the Pentagon is probably the most heavily defended building in this country but with even ample notice not a single defensive strike taken. It also must be one of the most heavily surveiled buildings in the country but we a only allowed to see about 5 seconds of blurry parking lot video. Walmart would provide better coverage of a car break-in. The government not only refuses to show their own tapes but confiscated surrounding businesses tapes. Please provide an explanation for both of these transgressions. Something beyond, well they have their reasons.
By the way, a CNN reporter on the scene just minutes after the hit reported seeing no wreckage. I saw it on You Tube right after the event. He even made a point of saying that he could see no bodies or even airplane parts in the area. Days later I heard the same reporter claiming that he saw some of the parts of wreckage at the scene.
I don’t worry too much on whether students could actually complete the dirty deeds that have been placed on them, or if buildings could be brought down by jet fuel, or if cell phones connected above a certain altitude, but rather the reaction of our government and officials before and after. Finding one pilots intact drivers license in the rubble just hours after the attack, no high jacked planes being confronted while in the air, crime scene evidence being almost immediately moved or destroyed and the ruble removed in record time but ten years later nothing erected in that spot, no video of the Pentagon attack.
bobkat–your tone is reasonable, but what is your point?
I also saw the bit about the reporter saying there was no wreckage BUT WHAT HE CLEARLY ACTUALLY SAID WAS: there are no wreckage pieces larger than a few inches.
What in our own life experiences tells us what should be left after an airplane flies into a building at 600 mph? I’ve never done that myself. the only info I have is that there are few pieces larger than a few inches.
But Bobkat–I agree. Release all the info we have. Failure to do that is not proof of anything though other than our overlords are asshats.
You recall the reporter saying he could see no bodies. What is the mystery there? Smoke and fire–airplane deep within the building. In your life experience, how many bodies should have been seen?
One thing I have been involved in is accident drills. They always show small minor inconveniences of no consequence–everything under control. Come the day of a real incident: all shit flies loose. As Rumsfield so elegant said: Who knows what we don’t know?
Bobkat–the propensity of our government keeping secrets they don’t need to and even shouldn’t doesn’t tell us anything about what really happened.
What is your theory as to what really happened?
What happened to the scheduled flight and all the people that were on it?–oops==thought I read a few passenger bodies were actually found after the crash? I assume that is so.
If the government is not releasing information on this crash you think they should, does that mean we didn’t land on the moon? If not, why not? Apply to any other alternative theory.
Sue,
I’m licensed to fly Airbus 319/320/321. (318s are for newbies) I also flew 727s, 737s, and KC-135s (707s) when I wore a shinier pair of shoes. I own a Beechcraft Queen Air and a Cessna 210. I talk to 747, 757, and 767 pilots all the time. I have almost 10,000 hours under my belt including 9,500 in multiple engine craft. Add to that my M.E. in Aeronautical Engineering. I like to think I know a bit about flying.
Flying a plane is not that difficult when you know what you are doing. If the terrorists passed the control threshold of the air craft, they would have spun out and tumbled. That would have caused them to break up. That they retained control is testament that the pilots were well inside the limits of performance.
The hardest part is landing; often referred to as a controlled crash. With all due respect to everyone who lost their life, the terrorists weren’t too interested in the “controlled” part of the landing.
Your “commercial” pilots seem to be nutballs who know nothing about flying. Others would refer to them as posers.
Ralph–from Sue’s link above we have reference to Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force. I googled him and got:
http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/im-in-excellent-company-meet-capt-russ-wittenberg-us-air-force-2/
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.”
When a man of such experience says something like this I tend to believe him, don’t you?
//////////
From there, I tried to google the flight profile of the airplane in question–how much altitude was lost in what airspace. Not in general, but specifically, I don’t see any high speed high g spirals needed to descend 7000 feet.
Hmmmm….I probably would not have been impressed by a single qualified statement of opinion but I have to say a page full of them did pull me back a bit.
Why would “any” high time pilot claim near impossibility for anything–especially after combat???? Shell shock? It is to wonder.
Thanks for your input. anymore?
PS–“controlled crash” only describes Navy Pilots–even when on land.
#41. Sure Ralphie, all these nutballs on Sue’s link state their resume, and a photo and their expert opinion. In other words brave enough to put their reputation, possibly their life on the line for something they feel strongly about.
For all I know, you’re a 16 year old kid in you parents basement with a Red Baron’s uniform on and a copy of Flight Sim. Who the fuck are you to call these vets nutballs?
Maybe you really are a pilot, who knows…I sure don’t.
Gorsh! I feels just like a ping pong ball–not knowing what to think.
Can high time qualified pilots hold an opinion that goes against my own?—Yes.
Would they also join a group called “Pilots for 911 Truth”?—None that I know of.
Still—what is the alternate theory? The one that tells what really happened and how the supposed evidence is wrong==like all the missing people?
Dick Cheney remote-piloted each plane into the twin towers. Bush remote-piloted Flight 93 – which is why it crashed. Obama piloted Flight 77 into the Pentagon because he wanted to be the anti-war President.
chuck–thank you. Best alternate theory I have read. Very believable given how secondary personality characteristics are linked to the very events of the day.
So–you have one alternate theory but what happened to all the people on the scheduled/hijacked flight? I see Bob Olsen still saying he lost his wife on that flight. Is he in this too?
#25. Wow you read the first one and you look no further. Pilot after pilot on that page, with their resumes and photos of them. Here are a couple since you suffer from laziness.
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force- ”
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.”
#2. Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy – “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.
I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!”
#3. Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, U.S. Air Force – “The things that really got my attention were the amount of descent rate that you had to have at the end of the flight, of Flight 77, that would have made it practically impossible to hit the light poles. [Editor’s note: Destruction of the light poles near the Pentagon by Flight 77 was stated in the 9/11 Commission Report.] Essentially it would have been too high at that point to the point of impact where the main body of the airplane was hitting between the first and second floor of the Pentagon. …”
#4. Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy – “Commander Muga: The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it’s not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. …
and on and on and on…man you fail miserably at this game. Maybe you should revisit that page and quit playing video fantasy games.
And that’s all folks!
Watch what REALLY happened, based on scientific analysis and FACTS rather than the ideas of a bunch of yahoo wackos who still live in their parents’ basements:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&feature=related
I seen something in the comments earlier that I omitted from my last post. Mainly because it was already long winded enough 😉
But it seems some people have been talking about the angle of approach needed to strike the building. Basically they are claiming it as impossible to do. I don’t think so, a little math goes a long way. I am pretty sure you could stretch the grade of decent over a longer distance. This especially holds true when you don’t have to worry about what else you might clip along the way. Just saying.
As far as the bodies go, well I am not surprised they didn’t find much. With enough energy released to pulverize all that aluminum, the human body’s soft tissues wouldn’t fair so well either.
Plus that video clip looks like it was taken from a mile away with 0.3 mp camera or something. Not great quality footage for sure, and just who’s hands had it passed through before making it online? So the chain of custody could be pretty sketchy here. And it makes me wonder what if anything did someone do to the footage along the way?
Also I would not be shocked that it is hard to see the wings from the side of something travelling at well over 100mph.That footage like I said is not exactly HD. And that’s assuming that nothing on the film was doctored in the first place.
Lastly (I promise!.), bobbo, I saw that same M$ Flight Simulator box once at a friends house. I almost asked if he was getting rid of it. He has this kick a$$ WWII dogfighting sim too. Can’t remember what it’s called though.
I joined the AOPA once myself. They kept sending me cool magazines about flying and a DVD called “Your First Few Hours” by sportys.com. If I remember correctly it was all free but they were always try to up-sell stuff to me. I will post the links below if anyone is interested. I actually hope I still have the mags laying around somewhere honestly.
So in closing, have a few beers for me bobbo, and enjoy your weekend everyone.
http://aopa.org/
http://sportys.com/pilotshop
#49–Jonesy the Shill==you are remarkably consistent with every other shill posting here on every other subject they post on: never responsive to any question, merely repeating the same arguments already made and countered.
Prove you are not a liar and a shill by never posting here again.
#50–photopete==good stuff. “But I didn’t see any dead bodies.” Ha, ha.
Jester–I don’t know but I got the impression there was some issue about the plane passing from North to South over the pentagon and then having to descend rapidly, I assume a high g high banked turn or a “spiral” in order to be on a South to North track to hit the Pentagon. A high g turn does have to be high banked otherwise you will gain altitude, so a 5-6-7 g turn would require just about a 90 degree bank and most people would surely lose control of the a/c after 10 seconds or so. Thats why I’d like to see the radar track of the a/c on its approach to the penagon. Navigation is tricky in strange terrain such as the arabs had, but on a clear day and a building like the Pentagon, I’m thinking it can be done.
Now jester–should I believe the highly unlikely story you saw the MS software I referred to? Whatever would the odds be of that??? But in fact, yes I do. Why not? Its an ordinary claim requiring only ordinary evidence such as your first person account.
Now to those few beers.
The parking lot NTSC camera at the Pentagon would have shown only a blur lasting a few frames of an incoming plane. It was not a high speed camera.
If you look at the Pentagon from the air the logical target would be the center courtyard. Trying to hit an outside wall would be foolish(er). The fact is not that he managed to hit the Pentagon. The fact is he almost missed. So much for skillful flying.
Obviously the lead shot is a fake. The dark parts of the boiling cloud of fire is darker than the nearer deep window shadows of the Pentagon. That doesn’t happen in atmospheric perspective.
As for the reversed ebuT uoY scene a few frames before impact:
The image of the incoming plane is blurred with a good amount of motion blur. That would tend to do two things to a light object over dark lawn: It would make the object look shorter and wings to not register visually as well due to the fact that they cover several wing widths (not spans) per frame. A common, repeatable trick of light and imaging systems.
At impact the very next frame spreads the explosion out to the left side of the central impact point. That would confirm that a large wing had impacted to that side, something no cruise missile has. The other wing and any symmetrical impact there is masked by the central impact explosion.
The “laser spot” alluded to is a normal ground feature. Another not involved shows up slightly in the foreground of the impact point, and it exhibits the same sort of look.
Nobody uses white lasers for ordinance targeting, so the laser targeting spot theory is pure junk.
My bullshitometer says “11.”
FYI, I have in my hands a copy of MS Flight Sim 2000. It has a Concorde on the cover, that’s all. This was the last version that allowed a user to fly into a building IIRC.
According to this site WTC was never on the cover.
Take that back…a stylized version of WTC was on the version 3 cover….from 1988….the first DOS version.
For the love of dog, just google “Pentagon debris”, and you’ll get pictures.
Conspiracy loons take missing gaps in reality to justify their alternative and deranged version, even if they have absolutely nothing to support it.
The gaps are not in reality, the gaps are in the minds of the conspiracy nuts. Next they will tell you that the Kennedy shootings were conspiracies as well.
#50 FTW !!!
Bobbo, here’s a thought. Maybe the Air Force was trying to shoot down the plane, and hit the Pentagon instead.
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.