From the chans via X. Dont know if it is true..but SOMETHING happened.
(media.greatawakening.win)
✈️ Planefags ✈️
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (194)
sorted by:
Your video showed a vehicle much too long to be a cruise missile, and too big in diameter, where a cruise missile would be imperceptible at distance.
Air to surface cruise missiles always dive on their target, in order to reduce the miss distance due to altitude error. They do not fly nap of the Earth, because they cannot respond to obstacles, such as lamp standards. And if they clipped a lamp standard, to the point of breaking it off (which happened), the wing would also have broken off, causing a missile to fly out of control.
There is ample evidence for the airplane hit and continuous air traffic radar tracking from take-off to crash. I don't know why you say the event doesn't "add up." All the claims for a cruise missile are unsubstantiated.
As for Pennsylvania, I don't make a profession of all this. Why don't you take it up with the families of those who died? I recall reading of tests conducted with rocket sleds throwing fuselages at high speed into reinforced concrete walls (e.g., solid ground) and the fuselages were practically atomized by the energy of the crash. It seems like everyone has a cartoon conception of how airplanes crash. Reality is often different. I have seen photos of crash scenes where the fuselage is practically gone from melting.
Like I said: Dunning Kruger syndrome.
I get so tired of you arm-chair fuckin morons who spout horseshit they saw on Wikipedia.
You're wrong on all counts. Example: if you just take 5 minutes to YouTube cruise missile hits, arm-chair experts like you can easily see they attack from ALL angles depending on target proximity to other obstacles. This means from fully flat trajectories to straight down. I saw this first hand several times while serving, not to mention being AT ACTUAL AIRCRAFT CRASH SITES investigating for the Air Force.
Let's not even bring in the equation sites have been intentionally doctored by gov agencies to mask true incidents and that they've been doing it for decades.
Fuck you and your narcissism, troll.
I worked in the business of engineering such things. The factory for the AGM-86 was in the next building over from my office. I worked with ex-military experts all the time on subjects like this. You may view horseshit on Wikipedia, but I am relying on my experience and professional training.
It depends on what you want to call a cruise missile, but self-navigating long-distance missiles need to avoid ground clutter and typically travel at least tens of feet above the ground, if not hundreds. Yes, they can close on the target when they are close enough not to risk a collision with the ground clutter. Usually in a dive in order to suppress the effect of altitude error on the projection of the ground error. Vertical dive is best, but you can't go through a window without some slant angle (I've seen that done).
A battlefield missile like a Javelin does not fit the definition of a cruise missile.
But the size of the object in the video is not compatible with cruise missile dimensions. Nor was the resulting wreckage. Nor was the fact that clipping the light standard would have been fatal for the missile (which is why they don't fly that low). You want to focus on the most slender evidence and disregard all the other evidence and disconfirming circumstances. Sorry. That doesn't much solve real problems.
Now, if you can recount examples of site doctoring to accomplish a cover-up, that would be of interest. All I can say is that the 1976 mid-air breakup of the Canadian CF-101 resulted in a crash that was not covered up. Visible as hell. International incident.
No one cares anymore. GFY.