UFO Destroyed the Falcon-9 Rocket /SpaceX/Facebook & Israeli Aerospace Industries

a reply to: boncho

Musk "not ruling out a UFO"

Keep in mind Musk is not ruling out anything at this point, even a nefarious Tinkerbell fly-by, because if he can prove it was caused by an external force, there are surely contract and insurance implications that would save him some cash.

Notice that he did not call it an 'explosion' but rather a 'fast fire' and did call it an 'anomaly'. He's not spitting those words out at random. They have contractual importance.

originally posted by: Flanker86
UFO my ass. As promised a few days ago, considering the balanced behavior of the US in recent days, here's and answer to Elon Musk's quest. Let's see how many similar answers he gets from his twitter investigation!!!

The culprit of such explosion is either one of these:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...


These are the main suspects of being able to conduct such activity as covert coastal approach and missile launch against ground targets using different kind of missiles.

So you think it's a flying submarine?

a reply to: boncho

SpaceX Anomaly update; September 23, 2016; 1 PM

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: boncho

SpaceX Anomaly update; September 23, 2016; 1 PM

LOL ....so Nothing.

a reply to: boncho
doesnt even really matter..space-x is a distraction..a side show.

originally posted by: autopat51
a reply to: boncho
doesnt even really matter..space-x is a distraction..a side show.

I agree, but that payload wasn't. I think they purposely launched it in public because they didn't think it would be attacked. neither side is allowed to break the 5th wall. Not yet.

It's not time.

a reply to: boncho
the waters are being tested..pushed..everywhere.

a reply to: tweetie

Thank you, I was checking every freaking day, the one day I didn't there comes an update! Not huge, but it confirms two things, it happened at the liquid oxygen tank and the engineering data doesn't seem to show why.
A hint between the lines.

a reply to: Peeple

When it comes to a lot of things one has to read between the lines.

When the investigation is concluded my guess will be it's inconclusive because they won't be able to give any other reason publicly.

Something urged me to check last night (I was checking every day, too) and I was surprised to see the update.

a reply to: boncho

Yes, it was the payload. It was a big deal. A very expensive big deal.

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: boncho

Yes, it was the payload. It was a big deal. A very expensive big deal.

Yes, but it had nothing to do with African Kids getting internet, as the media would have yu believe.

a reply to: boncho

My snail mail Aviation Week & Space Technology today covered this incident but did not a word about the approaching object seen in the video frames. not a word about any connection between lithium, helium and x-ray

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: boncho

Yes, it was the payload. It was a big deal. A very expensive big deal.

Yes, but it had nothing to do with African Kids getting internet, as the media would have yu believe.

The media said it was an Israeli satellite -- which it was. The Facebook for Africa was only being piggy-backed on the Israeli satellite, which is also what the media said.

The failure in 2014 of a Falcon 9 that exploded during launch was also due to a helium tank failure (due to a failure of a support strut for the helium tank).

That 2014 explosion also occurred in the same part of the rocket -- beneath the payload near the second stage.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: boncho

Yes, it was the payload. It was a big deal. A very expensive big deal.

Yes, but it had nothing to do with African Kids getting internet, as the media would have yu believe.

The media said it was an Israeli satellite -- which it was. The Facebook for Africa was only being piggy-backed on the Israeli satellite, which is also what the media said.

Yes, they sure focused on that didn't they? Kids getting internet.

Mark Zuckerburg & Facebook's plan to wire the world. Not important to focus instead on the fact it's spot coverage (which is already available in Africa) and the primary Ku Band is just redundancy, in Europe & the ME.

Totall coincidence the company in question, through a few subsidiaries is connected to the head of the IDF, that the builder of the satellite is the official, Israel (state) defense contractor, and just recently they released a SATCOM device that works of Ku band SATs, identical to this one, for ground warfare comms.

Now, why would they need that in the Middle East & Europe....hmmm....I wonder.....

Even the official stories stink.

a reply to: boncho
What "official" story would that be?

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: boncho

Yes, it was the payload. It was a big deal. A very expensive big deal.

Yes, but it had nothing to do with African Kids getting internet, as the media would have yu believe.

The media said it was an Israeli satellite -- which it was. The Facebook for Africa was only being piggy-backed on the Israeli satellite, which is also what the media said.

Yes, they sure focused on that didn't they? Kids getting internet.

Did they?

I saw quite a few stories about the Israeli satellite, too.

Facebook wasn't mentioned until the end of the article:
SpaceX rocket and Israeli satellite destroyed in launch pad explosion

Facebook wasn't mentioned at all in this article:
SpaceX Falcon 9 Blows Up During Launch Pad Test with Israeli Comsat

Another article, this from the new York Times, that identifies the payload as an Israeli satellite, and doesn't mention Facebook until the end:
SpaceX’s Explosion Reverberates Across Space, Satellite and Telecom Industries

Here's one from the NY Post that mentions both -- Facebook using space aboard the Israeli Communications Satellite:
SpaceX blast destroys Facebook’s first satellite

Granted, to think that it was destroyed because Israel could have used the communications satellite for covert reasons is more interesting among the conspiracy people (and I think that it is possible that Israel WOULD have used it for covert reasons)...

...but seriously -- a far greater number of average people find the "Facebook for Africa" thing to be more interesting than "an Israeli company loses a satellite", and the media knows people would find that more interesting, so there would be more stories written from the Facebook angle.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

You are posting articles from AFTER, I posted an article from BEFORE.

There absolutely was a media campaign to push the idea Mark Zuckerberg was giving kids internet in Africa for that Satellite. The majority of (public) reactions the day it happened referenced precisely that....

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

You are posting articles from AFTER, I posted an article from BEFORE.

There absolutely was a media campaign to push the idea Mark Zuckerberg was giving kids internet in Africa for that Satellite. The majority of (public) reactions the day it happened referenced precisely that....

Well, again -- that's more exciting than "Israeli company 'Spacecom' will be replacing its Amos-2 satellite with a new one named Amos-6". Hardly anyone has heard of Spacecom or cares about their satellites, but everyone has heard of Facebook....

...So, yeah, the media will be keying on the Facebook part of the payload rather than the boring idea of a satellite designed for TV, radio, and internet providers.

I just don't understand why you feel it is meaningful that the media would be more interested in Facebook than in just another generic communications satellite. I mean, of course they would be.

Like I said above, is it possible that Israel would use the satellite for covert reasons? Sure. However, I would think that if the really needed a spy satellite, they would just launch a spy satellite (and I'm sure they have) rather than relying on Spacecom -- which is in talks to sell its satellite business to China.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Without a doubt, it was not a bird. It would be dead.

Hell, every year come 4th of July, we have birds all over the roads the morning after. The concussion kills them.

You know those "Birds dropping dead" stories, they theorize those are caused similarly.

Now, in the video, it took a couple seconds to hit camera (the sound), and it was still a huge boom!

Any bird, would be dead.

Video is since deleted, so I can't see the UFO, unless someone has a link - but I watched it originally, and without a doubt, a bird would be dead, and in an extreme case where it doesn't die, it would be in a flail, followed by flying as fast as possible away or towards the ground to take cover.