Nilla Sagadevan speaks on the Power Hour

[MrSammo1]

And puts a few more nails in the government (neo-con) 911 story!

Listen and enjoy!

2005-06-06_Dave_vonKleist_Interviews_Nila_Sagadevan.MP3

[undeterred]

1. Find the link here:

http://911verses.com/underground/

[philb]

7. This is similar to what Col de Grand-pre and the Pilots who did the

conference said(unanamously). The other pilots add credibility to what he says.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. Great link! Thank you! n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

18. I would just like to add that the interview with Whitley Streiber

and David Ray Griffin is interestingm as Streiber often collaborates with Art Bell, who has tried to debunk conspiracy theories by having the author of the Popular Mechanics article on. Streiber is now a believer that there was much more to the events of 9/11 that we have been fed. I hope that he wakes up Bell. Streiber is asking Griffin Great Questions!


http://911verses.com/underground/2005-06-18_Whitley_Strieber_Interviews_David_Ray_Griffin.MP3

[undeterred]

2. my notes from listening to this...

Nila Sagadevan has a degree in aeronautical engineering and has been a commercial airline pilot for 30 years. He believes beyond the shadow of a doubt that what we've been told is complete nonsense.

The Pentagon attack. Ground effect causes ballooning- plane is riding a cushion of air on which the plane rises suddenly and significantly.
At the speed this 757 was supposedly going (500mph 10 ft above the ground), there would be a sheet vortex or downwash which comes off the wings and would be equal to the weight of the entire plane. 100 tons of lift would have been generated. Everything on the freeway should have been flipped over by this force. It is impossible for a large commercial airliner to do what this plane supposedly did. Not even possible for a highly trained pilot to land the plane this way - it is simply aerodynamically impossible. It must have been a "very high speed, small, highly wing loaded plane". Something like a global hawk or a high speed fighter. It is impossible for a 757 to make such a small hole- it would have taken out the entire east wing of the building. The Pentagon is supposed to be the most highly defended space in the world. 8 cameras on each of the 5 faces of the building- and none worked on September 11.

The flight manifests have no Arab names on any of the four planes. The names MUST BE on the manifests if the people are on the planes. None of the supposed hijackers could solo an airplane. The commercial airliner cockpit is infinitely more complex than that of the small planes they were learning to fly. They would not have been able to do this. The problem is not hitting the target building, its finding the target.

Flights 11 and 175 each have a pod/flash- there is a pod on each plane. Footage came from "America Remembers" DVD. These buildings could not have been brought down by the impact of these airliners. These buildings were designed to withstand it. Aviation fuel burns at 1000C. There is no hydrocarbon on earth that can melt steel. The fuel exhausted itself quickly. Buckling collapse does not pulverize concrete. "Pancaking" would have taken much much longer. Kerosene could not melt a steel core and produce 5 weeks of 2000 degree fires.

Bush's own brother (Marvin Bush) was responsible for security in some of these buildings.

Crime scenes were meticulously destroyed. Footage of UBL was ready at news stations and his denial was never shown.

Remote control technology exists and was probably used on these planes.

[philb]

4. Experts on such say that most of the fuel fire would have been exhausted

in less than 10 minutes; so most of any fire after 5 or 10 minutes would have been a regular building fire.

[MrSammo1]

11. You may be interested

in the link below.

At about the 9:00 minute mark of the video you will see another of the 911 smoking guns.

http://911busters.com/video/IQ1_08_MARK_TAYLOR_34.34_.asx

(the whole video is great and also shows JFK being set up for the kill)

[LARED]

14. Mr. Sagadevan does not say he has been a commercial

pilot for 30 years. He say he's been in the aeronautical field for 30 years.

Also based on his theory I am going to steal a large aircraft and fly it low and fast as according to him it seems impossible to crash.

I can hardly wait to be "floating" around town at 400 or 500 miles per hour with no concerns about crashing.


Weeeeeeeeee!!!!!!

[undeterred]

15. Commercial or not- he is an engineer and a pilot and

he's obviously very well qualified to comment on the subject.

His technical comments on the aerodynamics of a 757 being steered into the Pentagon in a controlled manner at 500mph 10 ft above the ground were the most persuasive part of this interview.

It is not that it is impossible for a 757 to crash at this speed and height, but that the effects of these aerodynamic forces would have been massive and violent- everything on the freeway would have been overturned and the entire wing of the Pentagon would have been destroyed.

The suggestion of a smaller lighter plane with different aerodynamics fits with the evidence of more limited damage on the ground and to the building.

[LARED]

19. An excellent point

His technical comments on the aerodynamics of a 757 being steered into the Pentagon in a controlled manner at 500mph 10 ft above the ground were the most persuasive part of this interview.

I can't comment on his technical expertize other than to say he seems to be swinging a mighty broad brush regarding the intricacies of aerodynamics, but your point about steering in controlled manner is important

To be brief, what makes you think the aircraft was flown in a controlled manner into the Pentagon?

[undeterred]

27. I think its pretty clear they intended to hit the Pentagon

and they managed to avoid traffic and the whole lawn. Doesn't get much more controlled than that.

[LARED]

31. The Pentagon is an enormous building

hitting a target that large does not mean the plane was under control of the pilot, Not hitting traffic or the lawn may have been just luck.

[undeterred]

32. I never said it was under control of the pilot.

:shrug:

[LARED]

33. So who do you think was flying the aircraft? (n/t)

[undeterred]

34. Dick Cheney. n/t

[LARED]

39. I was not aware Cheney was a pilot (nt)

[StrafingMoose]

44. According the OCT, it was.

[Dancing_Dave]

20. What an honest intelligent guy!

And notice how many more courageous and intelligent citizens like this have been coming forward lately! Including also a former Bush Administration insider (Morgan Reynolds) who made extremely intelligent remarks about the WTC demolition as an inside job.
:yourock:

[spooked911]

41. Great summary-- that was exactly what I got from it.

[MercutioATC]

47. Not the "pods" again....

:eyes:

In the "pod" pictures, notice its location. It's exactly where the landing gear retracts. The very location proves that it's a shadow, not a physical structure.

Only one of them could be there - the pod or the landing gear. I'm betting on the gear.

[undeterred]

3. Global Hawk

[philb]

5. Schultz says that this remote control equipment was put on A-3 s

which looks more like an airliner

[undeterred]

8. Do you have a picture or dimensions for an A-3?

Edit: I found both

[Dancing_Dave]

21. Karl Schwarz identified a turbofan as A-3

There's a picture of just one engine part supposedly found inside the Pentagon. But it is definately not part of a Boeing 757. Karl Schwarz noticed it looks a whole lot like a part from a military plane that's been around a while, an A-3. And Schwarz does know a lot about planes.

He's been able to talk to some military and aviation people in Colorado Springs, and claims to have found some additional evidence that a decommissioned A-3 was indeed used. We'll see what more he comes up with.

[hack89]

48. And our course there are eye witness accounts of this?

I mean, with all the active and prior military that witnessed flt 77, it wouldn't be to hard to find someone who saw an A-3.

And why didn't they just use an airliner - there are hundreds of older 737 lying around the world unused. Why use a distinctive military plane?

[undeterred]

6. Global Hawk is much smaller in length & height, but wingspan is similar

RQ-4 Global Hawk dimensions
Length: 44.4 feet
Wingspan: 116.2 feet
Height: 15.2 feet

757 dimensions
overall length 155 ft 3 in
wing span 124 ft 10 in
tail height 44 ft 6 in
fuselage width 12 ft 4 in

A-3 dimensions
Length: 76 ft. 4 in
Wingspan: 72 ft. 6 in
Height: 22 ft. 9.5 in

Actual maximal impact damage:
Width of broken-away walls at ground level 90'
Maximum height of broken-away walls 26'

The A-3 fits!

[undeterred]

9. Next question: could this wreckage have come from this plane?

[MrSammo1]

12. I personally believe

That it is nothing but a plant. A ruse. I say this because it seems to have been posed for the camera. (as if videos of the scene wouldn't be found everywhere?)

[undeterred]

13. You're probably right

I don't remember seeing it in any other pictures of the lawn and because it is the only large piece it would draw your attention. It looks torn or mangled rather than as if its been through a high impact crash/ explosion.

Possibly photoshopped.

[MrSammo1]

23. There are plenty

of photos that had to be photo shopped by the government to hide the lie.

Here is an interesting mistake that is never talked about. In the link below click on "JACK WHITE'S PENTAGON STUDIES" Don't click "RUN" but do click "SAVE." Notice the walkway is missing the "fence" along with the other problems. It's a perfect example of the government's photo shopping.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/911links.html

I'm including some of the best below!

http://www.msnbc.com/c/0/24/9/ssMain.asp?fmt=child&sld=10&res=8x6&0ss=N1b1124009
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/911/showcase/chi-sept11pentagonphotos-photogallery,0,4668432.photogallery?index=12

[philb]

10. Karl said the A-3s were adapted some also;

But it wasn't clear what all adaptations might have been made other than the remote control technology. I think they can also shoot missiles. Has there been anything more on Karl's story?

[undeterred]

16. Is it Karl Schwarz or Karl Schultz?

I don't know who you're referring to.

[spooked911]

25. must be Schwarz he's talking about

[k-robjoe]

22. Question

If you´re piloting a 757 and you want to give more speed, what do you do? I take it that there´s not a pedal that you operate with your foot?

I´m asking because there´s eyewitnesses saying that the plane sped up from the point where it hit the first lamp-posts.

So would the pilot need to let go of the steeringwheel with one hand to do the speeding up? (whilst the plane is knocking down lampposts...)

[spooked911]

24. The speeding up is in the 9/11 CR and always made me suspicious

because it seems to me that the natural tendency for a plane is if you accelerate, you start rising up-- you get more lift.

But the thing that hit the Pentagon was going only inches off the ground. I submit it is IMPOSSIBLE that the thing that hit the Pentagon was an accelerating 757.

Not to mention the problem with the cable spools...

[undeterred]

26. Is there any possibility the cable spools are photoshopped?

I don't see them in every picture, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place. I don't know why they would be added though.

Is there any possibility they are spools of fire hose brought along by the fire department?

I don't see them in this picture but maybe they are beyond it to the right:

[MrSammo1]

29. It's more likely

that the foam that was supposed used to put out the fire was photo shopped. That stuff tends to hang around for a while. But there are plenty of photos right after the collapse that show no sign of the stuff.

[k-robjoe]

36. They would be

more to the right. (Out of this picture.)

[spooked911]

40. Yes. That's right.

[MrSammo1]

30. don't forget the fact

that the "whatsit" appears to be traveling horizontal to the ground and below the horizon?

If something was in fact flying that low it would of had to go through the overpass..........which would have been an even stranger trick than what already happened?

[k-robjoe]

37. Comment

to the flightpath picture :

There are to big "trafficsigns" that the plane passed right in between. On this picture the line is drawn in such a way that if the plane went along it, it would crash into the first of these. But it didn´t. So the line must be corrected, so that the plane came over the annex. ( Or made an incredible left-right turn, so as to not crash into the trafficsign. )

( See my next post about passing over the Annex. )

[MrSammo1]

45. RE: so that the plane came over the annex.

The physical evidence bears out nothing in the way of a 757.

[k-robjoe]

38. Over the Annex

Passing just meters over the Annex. I would think that would give it quite a lift. But - instead of being lifted, it does an incredible dive down to hit the lampposts...

( Or, if it passed on the side of the Annex, the left-right turn to avoid hitting the trafficsign is incredible. )

How does it do such a dive? Flaps down? Must be? But flaps down is increasing the groundeffect?

[MrSammo1]

28. How

could a person perceive a change of speed?

that makes no sense!

[k-robjoe]

35. What they said

was that they heard the engines "roaring up" (Don´t remember the correct term.)

[Ezlivin]

42. Adjusting Speed

You move both engine throttles forward simultaneously (usually they are linked to make this easier).

Although witnesses may have heard the engines rev, they could not have perceived any acceleration. The aircraft could not have visibly accelerated during that phase of its flight.

[k-robjoe]

43. Passenger lists

Is he saying that he got passenger lists through the freedom of information act(?), and there were no arab names on them?

One could argue that the names of the hijackers were removed when dealing with the media, but why would they be removed if he got hold of the lists through the freedom of information act?

On edit : Think it was about 15-20 minutes out that he mentions this.

[philb]

46. The original passenger lists released before they knew the hijackers had n

no Arab names. So there would have been no reason to remove any names. The passenger lists were in the news and are still available. Have been posted before. By me and others.

Also there are real computer generated boarding time lists that include the time that all passengers loaded. The official boarding list at Boston shows some of the passengers loading after the time the flight tracked by FAA to New York left Boston. The 9/11 Commission Report tried unsuccessfully to deal with this discrepiency. Ends up without explaining the discrepiency.

Remember that for Flight 11, the version of the flight(Gate 26) that the passengers loaded on was delayed, and 2 passengers and one flight attendant called relatives and told them the flight was delayed. Amy Sweeney was the flight attendant who called to indicate the flight had been delayed.

But the plane the FAA tracked to New York came out of gate 32 in another wing of Logan Airport. And there was no indication that any of the passengers loaded on that flight, which left on time, leaving dock at 7:45.

http://www.flcv.com/offcom11.html

[MercutioATC]

49. Sagadevan was a bush pilot in Alaska.

I find nothing that implies he would have ANY knowledge of the workings of large commercial jets.

[MrSammo1]

50. When in doubt?

Rely on the physical evidence!

[MercutioATC]

51. Yes, but use REAL physical evidence:

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

[philb]

52. apparently he is an aeronautical engineer; &

and apparently they would know something about commercial planes.

but do you know what he did before becoming a bush pilot in Alaska.

And any professional pilot has an understanding of planes and piloting beyond that of the average person.

but other pilots and engineers had similar opinions to those he expressed, adding additional credibility:

Desmoulins(Engineer/pilot)
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/dam-inside.html

Group of commercial and military pilots
http://www.geocities.com/mknemesis/colonels.html

[MercutioATC]

53. I'm just saying he was a bush pilot, he didn't fly commercial jets.

That's not what most people think of when they hear the phrase "commercial pilot".