Talk:AGM-86 ALCM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion met Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

[edit] Useage

Should it mention that conspiracy theorists belive that a AGM 86 cruise missile hit the pentagon rather than a plane? Or should that be left out compleatly 203.173.209.180 08:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

-- People will give your claim more consideration once you learn how to spell "completely." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.77.96 (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Those theorists needs to take a little time and study and understand the characteristics of how objects like aircraft, vehicles, trains etc. impact other objects, buildings, ground, or mountain-side and the results. Wings tend to either shear off or fold back, and disintegrate by burning faster than the fuselage. Wings are designed to hold FUEL!!... geee, wonder what happens to the fuel and the aluminium during an extreme impact!?! Enough said. LanceBarber 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be picky but wings are designed to provide the lift that keeps the aircraft off the ground. Fuel storage is at best a secondary consideration.Es330td (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)