Former Pilot Says 'Jet Blast' Dismissal Doesn't Fly

[pisshead]

Former Pilot Says 'Jet Blast' Dismissal Doesn't Fly
Contradicts facts of previous story about Flight 77 knocking cars off Pentagon highway
[align=left]Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | May 23 2006[/align]

Following the publication of our article questioning claims that wake turbulence or jet blast could have thrown cars around the highway as Flight 77 approached the Pentagon at a reported altitude of 20 feet, a former pilot and aeronautical engineer contacted us to refute the arguments presented in the piece.

It is our intention to explore both sides of the argument and leave the reader to decide for themselves if the Pentagon Flight 77 issue is a genuine smoking gun of 9/11 or an attempt by the government to bait us into a honey pot trap by later releasing crystal clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. At no turn do we doubt the validity of the overwhelming body of evidence proving 9/11 as an inside job. The 9/11 truth movement is currently enjoying its widest exposure ever, and a new Zogby poll which shows half of Americans nationwide (not just New York) want a new independent investigation into 9/11 is proof that this issue is evergreen and growing in popularity.

The pilot, who wishes to remain anonymous, stated that the photos carried showing planes coming in to land at St. Maarten-Princess Juliana Int'l Airport in the Netherlands, and the apparent lack of wake turbulence or jet blast as a result of their low altitude over people on a beach, were misleading. The photos depict slow moving planes at speeds of no more than 100 knots, not 400 knots as reported with Flight 77.

He said that it was key to point out the difference between jet blast and wake turbulence. Wake turbulence is defined as a ,"turbulent air condition caused by small, tornado-like horizontal whirlwinds training an aircraft's wingtips (wingtip vortices)." In contrast, jet blast is described as, "phenomena resulting from the passage of an aircraft through the atmosphere. The term includes vortices, thrust stream turbulence, jet blast, jet wash, propeller wash, and rotor wash both on the ground and in the air."

[align=left]While the Boeing website points out that the direction of the entire envelope of wake turbulence can be directed upwards, sideways or downwards depending on wind conditions, no such deviation is possible with jet blast and that the sheer force of power from the jet blast of a plane traveling at 530 miles per hour would not have been altered whatsoever by wind patterns.[/align]

Therefore the pilot states unequivocally that jet blast would have tossed people and cars around like rag dolls if they were 20 feet or less below a Boeing 757, as is claimed by eyewitness reports.

Regarding the eyewitness report of Pentagon renovation worker and retired Army officer Frank Probst, who claimed that the plane flew so low past him that the engine was six feet away, our source exclaimed that this was a ridiculous impossibility.

The pilot said that Probst would have been sucked into the engine like a bird in a giant vacuum and that he had personally been in the cockpit and seen birds from 100 feet away that almost immediately get sucked into the engines.

Similar devastation would have been wrought on cars 20 feet below the plane according to the pilot, contradicting eyewitness reports describing only light shaking of vehicles.

The pilot also entertained the notion that eyewitnesses had grossly overestimated the altitude of the plane and that it was higher than the reported 20 feet but he was still adamant that those who claimed to have seen the faces of the passengers in the window were living in a fantasy land because the speed of the plane would have meant it appeared as a blur and akin to a bullet flying over their heads.

Our source, having had direct and extensive personal flying experience at low altitudes, also completely dismissed the feasibility that a Boeing 757 could be flown for any significant distance at just 20 feet above ground. He also cited other pilots of large commercial aircraft who concurred.

A phenomenon called 'ground effect' describes the energized cushion of air between the wings and the ground which increases in energy the faster the plane flies. Flight 77 is reported to have whisked up the highway and into the Pentagon at breakneck acceleration, even increasing in speed before it hit, a maneuver described as impossible by the pilot at 20 feet above the ground, due to the reaction of the energized ground effect layer which would simply not have allowed it, even if the pilot was furiously pulling back the throttle which was not the case.

The pilot and aeronautical expert said that the evidence suggests a Global Hawk was used to attack the Pentagon, citing alleged Flight 77 pilot Hani Hanjour's complete lack of flight skills and the incredulous story that he and four other conspirators overpowered two burly 185lbs aircraft veterans and pulled off military class flight maneuvers to attack what was virtually an invisible target.

Despite this, the pilot, who first approached Flight 77 questions in an effort to disprove them, was adamant that the government would soon release a "fantastic clear shot of Flight 77 coming in and close the book." He points out that modern technology and computer generated graphics can accurately forge any event and make it appear completely seamless and fears the entire Pentagon issue is a trap to distract researchers and eventually will be used to discredit the entire 9/11 truth movement.

Our source pleads with people to focus on the real hardcore smoking guns of 9/11, in particular the unexplained collapse of Building 7 and clear evidence that the twin towers were brought down by a controlled demolition. As an experienced aeronautical engineer, the pilot was stunned that he too bought the official version of events at first glance and believed that a giant modern day steel building could completely collapse from limited fire damage. Our source is now working behind the scenes to aid others in the 9/11 truth movement help educate the world on the reality behind the monumental scam perpetrated on September 11 2001.

pisshead Reviewed by pisshead on 05-23-2006. Former Pilot Says 'Jet Blast' Dismissal Doesn't Fly Former Pilot Says 'Jet Blast' Dismissal Doesn't Fly Contradicts facts of previous story about Flight 77 knocking cars off Pentagon highway Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | May 23 2006 Following the publication of our article questioning claims that wake turbulence or jet blast could have thrown cars around the highway as Flight 77 approached the Pentagon at a reported altitude of 20 feet, a former pilot and aeronautical engineer contacted us to refute the arguments presented in the Rating: 5

[pisshead]

lots of really cool pictures that don't show up here...

Would Flight 77 Have Really Thrown Cars & People Off The Highway?
Wake turbulence argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | May 22 2006

One of the pieces of evidence skeptics cite to claim that Flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon is that the plane's incredibly low altitude would have thrown people and cars around the highway on the approach path like rag dolls by means of wake turbulence. How accurate is this assumption?

The scope of this short article is to raise questions, not debunk either side of the argument.

Wake turbulence is a problem for air traffic controllers and they have to schedule landings and take-offs carefully to ensure that planes do not adversely affect each other's balance by means of vortices created by wake turbulence. Wake turbulence takes around two minutes to clear.

Photographs and eyewitness accounts are consistent with the plane having an altitude of around 20 feet and traveling at 530 miles an hour, clipping lamp posts as it descended towards the Pentagon.



Many skeptics point to the 1999 movie Pushing Tin as an example of the effects of wake turbulence. At the end of the film, the main characters, played by Billy Bob Thornton and John Cusack, stand beneath a large commercial airliner as it comes in to land. The plane passes overhead and then lands on the runway, at which point both men are lifted up into the air and tossed a significant distance off to the side of the runway.

While a movie scene created by special effects can by no means be held up as empirical scientific evidence of the effects of wake turbulence it can at least be accepted that such a big budget production would go to great lengths to accurately portray what would happen.

Therefore it's salient to note that the two men are only thrown off the runway when they are in direct line of sight with the engines of the plane (after or just as the plane is landing) and are not affected when the plane is overhead.

So is it reasonable to conclude that wake turbulence is not going to cause significant problems for any object or person standing a reasonable distance below a jetliner?



Many point to the clipping and downing of lamp posts as evidence of the object's incredulous altitude. The damage of the lamp posts is consistent with a jetliner having a wingspan of over 100 feet, as can be seen in this illustration. A Boeing 757 has a wingspan of 125 feet.

Should cars and people have been tossed around the highway if a large commercial airliner whizzed by 20 feet above their heads?



Look at this photograph of a KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Boeing 747 (click to enlarge) coming in to land at St. Maarten-Princess Juliana Int'l Airport in the Netherlands. The photographer claims the plane only cleared the fence by about 10 feet and we can estimate that it is not more than 30 feet above the people stood on the beach, yet there is no sign of waves or even sand plumes being lifted off the ground by any wake turbulence caused by the aircraft.



This is a photograph of an American Airlines 757-200, the exact same model as Flight 77, flying over the same beach. Though the aircraft appears slightly higher than the KLM jet, one would expect air traffic controllers would compensate for an unusually low approach angle and be satisfied that any wake turbulence would not under any circumstance throw people around the beach.



Here is another shot of a Boeing 757. Again, not even grains of sand are affected by the low approach. Click any of these photos for enlargements.



Here is another example.

One eyewitness claims that the object that hit the Pentagon was just six feet off the ground as it clipped a generator and even a car antenna before impacting on the building. In this instance one would surely expect the wake turbulence to have some affect and photographs do show the damaged generator immediately in front of the building.

While further confirmation will obviously be necessary in closing the case, it appears the argument that the lack of damage from wake turbulence does not prove that anything other than a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon on September 11 2001.

[Bong30]

i saw the Myth busters and i was super hard for them to get the car to move. It can happen. Just think a jet under almost no power coasting into its target...... Nope, dont see it........ I use logic. Not Prison planet.

It did hit light poles though....

[Psycho4Bud]

LOL...I saw the same episode....that vehicle hardly even budged when they had the turbine at full open.

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

[Bong30]

LOL...I saw the same episode....that vehicle hardly even budged when they had the turbine at full open.

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

MYTH BUSTED!!!!!!!!

[Psycho4Bud]

Episode 13
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/my...pisode_09.html

[pisshead]

that plane in the video is traveling slower than the pentagon plane, and i'm supposed to believe someone could have seen people on the plane? i don't think so.

there's video of it at the site, unless someone's too scared to watch it.

What Would Flight 77 Eyewitnesses Have Actually Seen?
Video suggests 'passengers in windows' comment is a fraud

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | May 23 2006

What would eyewitnesses to whatever crashed into the Pentagon have actually seen? Our video analysis shows it's plausible they could have identified the jet as a large American Airlines Boeing 757, but comments about seeing intricate details of the plane as it zoomed past at over 500 MPH are outside the realm of possibility.

Here we have taken a video of an American Airliners Boeing 757-200 coming in to land at around 100 knots and speeded it up four times to represent the reported 400 knots speed of Flight 77. The altitude is slightly higher than Flight 77's reported 20-30 feet, a fact disputed by former pilots who contend that flying at high speeds 20 feet above the ground is impossible.


James R. Cissell told the Cincinnati Post that he saw faces of the passengers in the windows as the plane hurtled past at 530 miles an hour.

''Out of my peripheral vision,'' Cissell said, ''I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower.

''If you couldn't touch it from standing on the highway, you could by standing on your car.''

''I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said.

The video and any degree of common sense suggests that Cissell could not possibly have seen the faces of the passengers on board. Watch the video in normal speed, at least four times slower than Flight 77 would have appeared. Even at this low altitude and significantly reduced speed you can't see passengers in the windows.


"It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing, " said another eyewitness Christine Peterson. Is this just a turn of phrase? Can you read a message written on a bullet as flies past you?

While it can be accepted that eyewitnesses saw the large AA painted on the tail section of the plane, it is incomprehensible to suggest they saw intricate details of the aircraft. Many Pentagon skeptics have pointed to these accounts as evidence of the government planted false eyewitnesses to back up their official story.

While there is no real evidence of this, it is necessary to question how an event that would have appeared somewhat similarly to what is seen in the first video has been misrepresented by many eyewitnesses, including ones who said they saw the plane pass overhead "in slow motion." Either they are embellishing their accounts or the testimony has holes that you can fly a Boeing 757 through

[pisshead]

747 Jet Crosswinds Top Gear Test

Dump a link | May 23 2006

From BBC Television's Top Gear.


58000 pounds of thrust blows a car off the runway.