Amazing Interview: Air Force General says "Sub Launched Missile, 100% Certain"

Fox News Interview with Air Force General Tom McInerney | November 14th 2010 | Fox News Hannity Interview

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

Hannity was surprised to hear a famous ex Air Force General tell him “That Is A Missile, Shot From A Submarine!” I quote retired Air Force Lieutenant General Tom McInerney (ex commander of 11th Air Force in Alaska) “I spent 35 years flying fighters, and you can see the guidance system kick in, I have watched that film 10 times, I am absolutely certain that that is not an aircraft, but a sub launch ICBM missile!!!” See the video and judge his words for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LivRJOWrcpA&feature=player_embedded#! I will next post a clickable link.

[TigersEye]

But I guess that isn't important if you don't think contrails are...

Still can't post without being a jerk, eh?

[TXnMA]

The contrail you see drifting is 'way off in the distance and 30k+ft up. The plane is somewhat lower, in warmer, dryer air, no longer making anything but a short contrail "fan". The drift of the "plume" and the path of the A/C on approach have next to nothing to do with each other.

BTW, did you ever think to ask yourself why that "plume" is still brightly lighted?

[TXnMA]

The contrail you see drifting is 'way off in the distance and 30k+ft up. The plane is somewhat lower, in warmer, dryer air, no longer making anything but a short contrail "fan". The drift of the "plume" and the path of the A/C on approach have next to nothing to do with each other.

BTW, did you ever think to ask yourself why that "plume" is still brightly lighted?

[TigersEye]

That is without any doubt video of a missile.

[TXnMA]

Heck, look at the video. The ground is in deep shadow. That often happens after sunset... ;-}

[Tolsti2]

Embarrassing that this took so long. There was more than enough evidence that was just an impressive looking contrail right away.. Lets finally get some sanity back on this site.

[TXnMA]

"Still can't post without being a jerk, eh?"

Thank you for supporting my monopoly... '-)

[TXnMA]

See #1304. What can I say... :-(

[exit82]

Heck, look at the video. The ground is in deep shadow. That often happens after sunset... ;-}

The video was taken about 4:45 pm that afternoon. Sunset was at 4:54 pm.

That means there is still daylight, does it not?

The long shadows and darkness come later. Why are lights on in the picture?

The time stamp, even with the ridiculous explanation that the daylight savings time had not been corrected over a week later, is still one half hour off.

If you are going to insult people, at least do it with facts.

[Tolsti2]

Some won’t accept it, it’s just how it is.

[TigersEye]

The camera and/or server did not account for daylight savings to standard time. (The switch only a week earlier). They have since corrected it:

One of the biggest airports in the world doesn't get around to changing their clocks for over a week? Their server doesn't automatically change from Daylight Savings to Standard Time? Even my lousy computer with Windows does that.

[TXnMA]

"The long shadows and darkness come later. Why are lights on in the picture?"

The lights are on in the first frames of the CBS "raw" video. What time was that?

No doubt, you have looked up the sunset time, but where did you get "The video was taken about 4:45 pm that afternoon."?

Facts... pesky things...

(But -- if it was still daylight and the lights were on, that could explain some of CA's energy problems... ) '-)

[TigersEye]

The contrail you see drifting is 'way off in the distance and 30k+ft up. The plane is somewhat lower, in warmer, dryer air, no longer making anything but a short contrail "fan".

The "plane" is at a lower altitude than the contrail it is making?

[Niteflyr]

Parsimony clearly and largely favors a rocket explanation. A contrail explanation needs to invoke rare weather to explain why contrails like it aren’t regularly seen by the massive number of aircraft transiting that area and it also requires a number of optical illusions being invoked to explain the appearance of it. On the other hand a rocket requires no special circumstances to explain the observation and rockets are known to launch in the vicinity on rare occassions which explains why it isn’t an everyday observation.

I would agree if one applies Occam's Razor...the missile explanation is the most simple therefore the most likely. ;o)

[lbahneman]

For a moment, lets just say this photo was indeed taken around 5:20pm on November 8.

It clearly does not match the flight path of a missile with a northwest bearing. This is taken from a point in Long Beach which can triangulated using the foreground buildings and cargo cranes. (or by using whitepages.com and searching for Mr. Warren's 10th floor address, which puts him on the waterfront along the beach). The location of the foreground clouds looks much like the ones in the KCBS footage as if viewed from a slightly more southern vantage point, which it was. The helicopter was a few miles farther north. (Based on its angle of view of the very same Long Beach terminal visible in this photo).

When you line up Long Beach terminal and the building in the foreground in an application such as Google Earth, which has a built-in function just for this purpose under the "Add" -> "Photo" menu, you will be able to lock in the direction in which the picture was taken, which will most likely corroborate the KCBS footage.

My question to you is this. If this is not an airplane but a missile, why does it line up precisely with the Nov. 8 UPS902 flight path? (You can import this data into Google Earth in KML/KMZ format from multiple aviation tracking service sites). This isn't voodoo, this isn't making the data fit the theory. This isn't a stretch by any means, technologically or perpsectively. The KCBS video (as I have shown) has legitimate positioning landmarks visible, as does this composite photo.

What are the odds of that?

The first image used in the composite above, if that were the only photo released in the series, would be an excellent photograph to support the northwest missile theory, as it matches up quite well, the lighting and such could arguably support a northwest missile. However, the latter, superimposed images (they are aligned by using the same foreground buildings and background) clearly do not support that trajectory, as it now suddenly veers to the apparent south east ?

S 1) if this is not a plane, what is it?
2) if this is not a plane, why does it follow UPS902's flight path
3) if this is not a plane, but it is the same object as gil Leyvas recorded, why does the apparent flight path disagree with a missile fired to the west? And if it was not fired to the west, what kind of wonky direction is it? (was it tracking UPS902?)

[lbahneman]

The camera is a service provided by Countryman & McDaniel law firm, not LAX. I would imagine updating a free webcam they operate is not exactly high on their IT laundry list.

[Tommyjo]

I agree :)

[exit82]

To: justa-hairyape
I’m not convinced the missile was launched at 5:00-5:15 as has been widely reported. That time frame fits well into the Flight 808 theory, since we know Flt 808 was over Catalina at 5:00pm. However, in an interview with the man who shot the video, he said it was around 4:45. The helicopter shown on the Bob Hope monitor was there at 4:45, but disappeared prior to 5:00pm. I was also reading viewer comments at the KCBS/KCAL website. One man said he and his wife were walking along Venice Beach at 4:45 and saw it.

147 posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:23:07 AM by Jess79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

Here’s is where I got the 4:45 pm timeframe.

[TigersEye]

The contrail you see drifting is 'way off in the distance and 30k+ft up. The plane is somewhat lower, in warmer, dryer air, no longer making anything but a short contrail "fan". The drift of the "plume" and the path of the A/C on approach have next to nothing to do with each other.

Another problem with that is that the plane was not lower while it was still off of the coast.

post #792

UPS902 was over Catalina Island at 17:31:33. Its altitude was ~ 30,000 feet. It was 35 miles south of Long Beach at 17:33:01. Altitude ~ 29,000 feet. It was then 20 miles south of Costa Mesa at 17:34:29 at ~ 29,000 feet. At that altitude should have been contrailing the whole way. Never got close to Long Beach. Traveled south of FallBrook and started major descent then. Turned north and was at 11,100 feet over Hemet heading north.

[TigersEye]

If it is a plane why does it travel sideways faster than it travels forward? Avoiding that question doesn’t make it go away.