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.

[justa-hairyape]

Those clouds are moving at about 25-30 mph, (visual estimate) yet the contrail stay lined up perfect with a plane flying at 500-600 mph in the animated gif on contrailscience. Yeah. Sure.

[justa-hairyape]

Dark blue, black, or gray aircraft still reflect sunlight, even more so at a shallow angle.

Do you know how difficult it is for an airplane to reflect sunlight from a setting sun to a viewer located to the east of the plane ? Would call that refraction actually, not reflection.

[justa-hairyape]

And you'd probably be surprised to learn that most of those folks neither call in to talk shows, post on the internet, or demand coverage from the local news station.

Been on some of those docks and on some of those boats. They are some tough characters. Just as likely to steal your wallet, as tell you the time of day.

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

Odd, isn’t it ... that you answer yes to all those questions ... and you think it was a missile! ;^) I’ll be interested in how many “yes” answers come from people who think it was an airliner.

Let’s wait and see ...

(They were good questions)

---

Still waiting ...

[TigersEye]

I still think if you're looking for anti-FReeper trolls the one/s who keep spamming these threads with keywords like this are prime candidates.

2manykooks;dailynutjobthread; freerepublickooks; freerepublickooksite;

[editor-surveyor]

Most of the Contrail Conmen are frequent shills here on other topics too.

Their arguments on those threads are just as crazy as their arguments here. Don’t be too bothered by it. You can judge the importance attached to FR by the intensity of the shilling activity.

Its become a tradition here. They made complete fools of themselves with their “center tank explosion” theory for TWA 800.

[editor-surveyor]

The Contrail Conmen are going to go down in FR lore!

You’ll be able to tell your grandchildren that you were here ;o)
.

[TigersEye]

LOL You made a good point in #906 BTW.

[TigersEye]

I wonder how many of them are the same ones who couldn’t tolerate any suggestion that the OKC Murrah bombing might have involved some Iraqis?

[Sto Zvirat]

“Contrail Conmen?”

I prefer “Reasoned thinkers who rely on actual data and don’t go believing in kooky paranoia”

One week later and still NO proof for a missile, no data, nothing, just a bunch of hyperactive panic.

[lbahneman]

I've been living under the glide path for KPAE, KSEA as well as KBFI for the past 11 years. I'm an aviation photographer, so I am intimately familiar with flight tracking and understanding of flight plans in order to allow myself to be positioned properly for the arrival of inbound aircraft, whether it is to photograph it landing, taxiing, or while it is in the air. Hardly a week goes by where I haven't stepped on to my back deck to snap a few photos of an interesting international livery as a new Boeing jet out of PAE or RNT makes a round-robin test flight between PAE/RNT/BFI/MWH, depending on which test flight it might be. As for your strange, qualifying questions, that range from observing actual missiles, to having viewed youtube videos: 1) no 2) I believe answering #1 makes this redundant 3) no 4) both? missiles: no, aircraft: on a weekly basis. 5) of course I know you're not a mathematician, but here's some basic math (using speed and distance calculations that you might use, say, to drive to a relative's house) If the object in flight left the surface of the earth 35 miles away from the observer, and was observed for 10 minutes, heading toward the viewer, elementary math, says that this object would be travelling, with relation to the ground, no more than 210 miles per hour. The object was never viewed directly overhead or to pass the viewer with relation to the origin, so this speed would actually be lower. If the object in question left the surface of the earth beyond the horizon, the speed in relation to the ground would also be lower. So, if the cameraman, who you seem to hold in such high esteem, was correct in saying this object was traveling toward his camera, west to east, why was it traveling so slow? Which of the stated facts by the cameraman are you NOT accepting to support your theory? I really, really must say how impressed I am that you feel no need to provide scientific data to support your argument under the guise that it, too, could be faked to support your own theory, so why bother, because no one would believe you anyways? The fact that you may or may not be more qualified than me is not the point here. I make it very clear that I am not a pilot, I am not a meteorologist nor have had anything to do with missile or rocket launching. What I do make clear is that all of my data comes from publicly available information using off-the-shelf tools that have resulted in what I believe to be clear-cut evidence of my theory. I am also aware that there are margins of error in all of my calculations. Hell, I was even wrong on the first airplane I called out. However, I believe my methods are sound, reproducible and independently verifiable. That's all I ask of you. Provide sound, reproducible and independently verifiable scientific data to support your theory. It is not a lot to ask.

[lbahneman]

I believe if UPS902 continues its current daily flight time +/- 20 minutes for variations in the arrival (wx, winds, delays at PNHL) the window of observation for a smliar contrail decrease on a daily basis as the sun sets a few minutes earlier each day. Throw in the variability of weather conditions at cruising altitude, and the ground (for observation) and I think it would be prett difficult to observe the same effect. Not out of the question, but more difficult as the days go by.

So, to answer your question: no, I personally do not plan to make further observations of that particular flight. However, I do plane to make future observations in the Seattle area of incoming flights around sunset that match this flight path. We get daily overflights by Fedex MD-11 or 777F flights from Japan to memphis that often occur around sunset, again depending on many conditions. The downer is getting a clear horizon in Seattle in November.

[TigersEye]

Unreadable wall of text. Paragraphs are your friend.

[lbahneman]

I don't mean to get all high-horse and mathematical but here's a simple illustration of what a east to west rocket launch should have looked like, both from the ground and from a telephoto lens/binocular using observer. The inset "binocular view" is what an observer should have seen approximately 2 minutes after a ballistic launch. However, also inset is the actual KCBS view of the alleged missile, ~10 minutes after "launch".

Can you provide what bearing a ballistic missile would have taken to create the plume observed in the original KCBS footage?

Actually, here's a mathematics-free challenge for you:

Find me footage of a rocket or ballistic missile launched from the surface of the earth that matches the alignment of the plume and object in any of the KBCS footage, 10 minutes after launch. Hell, to make it interesting, 3 minutes.

This, literally, is not rocket science:

[lbahneman]

Why not just view the google earth track of UPS902 yourself its right on that page. Put the google earth “camera” in long beach approximately where the alleged observer was (there are buildings and hills to use as a point of reference), adjust the time of day to match, and see for yourself, just where UPS902 was. It’ll take you 3 minutes, max, do accomplish this.

Unless you suspect FlightAware.com’s historical UPS902 tracking data is altered in cahoots with the airplane theorists...

Just take a moment and try it.

[Ramius]

So, you won't at least attempt an answer as to why your bizarre conspiracy theory makes even a lick of sense. Shouldn't you be able to propose at least a possible theory on why it might make some kind of sense?

But hey, to answer your question:

1. Have you ever watched a missile launch live?

Yes. Many times. At sea, even.

2. Have you watched more than five missile launches live from a range of 160 miles or less?

I've watched many more missiles than that, launched at sea right over my head, and at distances of 20 or more miles.

3. Have you lived for a year or more in the greater L.A. area from Malibu to Newport Beach within 25 or 30 miles of the coast?

No, but I served at sea for four years, off the coast of California, Mexico, Oregon and Washington and Alaska.

4. Have you watched both airplanes and missile launches with the aid of binoculars?

Yes. Even with "bigeyes" (80x200 pedestal mounted binocs). Back in the Cold War days, it was important to be able to tell the difference.

5. Have you watched this video?

Yes.

Any further questions?

[TigersEye]

...~10 minutes after "launch".

How did you establish that fact?

[kanawa]

Based on cameraman’s estimate of the time he viewed it.
Launch was a minimum 10 minutes prior to his end of observation

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your posts and work on this and for getting the research and results out.

That’s about all that can be done now and there’ll always be a few that won’t accept evidence contrary to the conclusion they’re prejudiced toward.

[TigersEye]

The cameraman never said that. He said he “observed” it for ten minutes. He never specified (anywhere that I have seen or heard) what part of the video began at what time in relation to when he first observed it. The video itself records the frame in question occurring less than a minute and forty seconds from his earliest recording.