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
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."
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.
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.