The Ground Effect: Why a 757 Going 500 mph Could Not Have Hit the Pentagon A Few Feet Off the Ground
The basic idea is a Boeing 757 is simply not designed to fly so fast so close to the ground and simply can't do it. This is because of the huge lift created under this huge plane going so fast. Not to mention there is an effect called "downwash", where the plane creates a huge suction under it as it flies. This would have picked up everything that was under a 757 and thrown it in all directions-- for instance cable spools and electrical generators.
This basically demolishes the official Pentagon story.
Listen to the 6-6-2005 interview with Nila Sagdevan here for details.
Interestingly, a military plane or a global hawk COULD travel so fast that low to the ground.
This basically demolishes the official Pentagon story.
Listen to the 6-6-2005 interview with Nila Sagdevan here for details.
Interestingly, a military plane or a global hawk COULD travel so fast that low to the ground.
posted by spooked at 10:19 AM
3 Comments:
This whole missile hitting the pentagon stuff is perpetuated by people who have absolutely no idea about radar, tracking contacts and the infastructure that is necassary to launch such and attack.
"The cruise missile idea also explains why there were no air defenses around Washington DC to defend against a hijacked airliner-- because there was no hijacked airliner! A cruise missile fired from inside the US would likely have evaded NORAD radar."
Wrong.
What is so painfully obvious about the abouve eroneous assumption is that it pretends to know the exact capabilities of our theater tactical and national defense grid.
Ask you yourself- have you ever heard of OTICIX? TADIX? TIBS? GCCS?
FOTC? Thats just to name a few.
There's no way a cruise missle would "evade" radar. The notion is rediculuous. First of all, there's an entire joint based database system that all it does it is look for missles 24 hours a day 365 days a year. One particular facet is called the TBMD Theater Balistic Missle Defense System, which includes but is not limited to Nuclear missiles. This database correlates the performance and characteristic of an "inflight" to even identify what type of missile it could be by using speed, size, point of origin etc etc......
And this database is networked around the world. So where as someone in the caspain sea may not see a missile in flight because that's not their AOR (Area Of Responsibility) NORAD definately would. And if not NORAD, there more than one local command track information site in that AOR, so someone would have seen it. Period.
Secondly, you need an infrastructure to fire a cruise missle, satalite or laser to guid it to its target. You have to give it coordinates....All of these tasks require that someone put the corridinates in, and essentially aim it. And well, who do you think in the military is just going to input coordinates that are for the Pentagon? You might say that they couldn't know...that a piece of paper just spits out a bunch of numbers and viola you just input them and press go. Whoever fires that missile, as an operator, knows exactly where that missile is going, even more so if its just one.
Lastly, why on earth would planes get close enough to the pentagon to evade NORAD. Well that's exactly why they were commercial aircraft and that's exactly what hit the Pentagon.
When you're using a system like GCCS (Global Command and Control Systems) you have to filter out certain track types.
Why? Do you know how many commercial aircraft there are in the sky at any one moment of the day? Thousands! Can you imagine as a radar operator trying to track each and every one as a hostile threat before 9/11?
NORADS' failure came in the form that the threat was camouflauged and before they could respond and cut through all the military red tape and communicate to the president the damage was already done.
No one really knew what to do and by the time they did, they could not have known what to do about it right away.
Think about it this way, commercial air traffic has a prespecified flight plans, however, these plans are not absolute and sometimes they need to be changed, because of weather etc...it happens everyday to one if not several of those thousands of planes up there right now. So you're going to tell me that once a commercial airliner devates from a flight plan that NORAD or whoever is to just shoot it down right away? Hell no. There's a process that takes time to find out what and why the plane is doing what it is.... communicating with the pilot is one way, but what if his comms are down, then what? Shoot it down!...What all these cruise missile-pentagon lunatics fails to realize is that diseminating an airliner that's been hijacked, when you don't even know in the first place that it even was hijacked, took a long enough time for the plot to work. You don't just shoot them out of the sky just like that because you don't know what its doing, especially before 911.
Commercial Aircraft were brilliant in evading detection and that's exactly why they were used...Missiles on the other hand are just plain stupid. If you want to make sure that the American people think that our military was a part of a coup, yeah, then you definately use a cruise missile.
Oh and one last thing about a global hawk hitting the pentagon.
That's even dumber than the Cruise Missile idea?
Those are remotely controlled by an operator who sees everything he/she is doing..
Your ignorant assumptions are so insulting to the military personell who operate these platforms. Cruise missiles-Global Hawks-and the diverse and plentiful radar stations ashore and afloat that we operate....that we would just indiscriminately participate in a plot to kill our own just because we we're ordered to or something.
As military service member, you essentially call us mindless idiots.
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them really and I mean no offense to the good people of the military.
I'm just trying to figure out things here, because a lot of things don't make sense.
I was wrong to say NORAD radar wouldn't have picked up a cruise missile. What I meant was that air traffic controllers wouldn't have seen a missile and wouldn't have alerted NORAD, whereas I believe NORAD is supposed to be alerted if a plane is off course.
I am surprised how there are so many systems to track a missile yet NORAD can't find and track an off-course plane that is heading for the capital? Do you ignore commerical jets then, (especially if they have their transponders off) and only pay attention to missiles?
Like I said, I'm just trying to learn about all these things. And I never said I thought for sure a cruise missile, global hawk or military jet hit the Pentagon. The problem is that there are oddities not consistent with a 757 hitting the Pentagon and I'm trying to find alternative explanations.
Post a Comment
<< Home