What Are These Triangle Planes Flying Over East Syria

a reply to: worldstarcountry

She claims to have found this footage from ISIS-daesh positions that have been captured. Quite clearly someone in ISIS-daesh for whatever reason was copying videos from the likes of You Tube. None of them have anything to do with Syria but just a mish mash of non-sense.

I had a quick search around and found some of the clips where the snippets have come from.

For example the following is just an airliner that is producing a contrail and reflecting light. Filmed with a poor camera.



The white triangle footage is from this video



It is silly hoax footage from 2008 made in the US.

The "black craft" at 0:05 in her video is simply footage created back in 2008. See following.

www.ufosnw.com...

www.ufosnw.com...

All she has done is assumed that the footage was filmed in Syria by ISIS-daesh. I have discussed it with her via the comments YT section and she is still in denial claiming that the night scope triangle footage was filmed near Homs, Syria. That was even after I linked her to the exact snippet from the 2008 Fremont, US footage.

NVM
those are know fake videos that have been in the internet for a while

a reply to: tommyjo

I had a feeling that was contrails from four engines. Those things do fly over Syrian skies as well though. The triangle being a development craft is not out of the realm of possibility.

a reply to: worldstarcountry
well there we have it. The triangles are likely development craft over test areas, the commuter jet with contrails, the distress beacon in the desert, and likely an F-117 at night.

Thanks for the ID's guys! Although I do wonder that maybe her word structure was simply a bit off in English and she was trying to say "anomalies like this" are what they see over the Rojava skies when she uploaded this montage video.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Those aren't development craft. Those shapes are actually not very good for aircraft designed.

a reply to: [post=23726048]Zaphod58[/]
Hey man their not aliens. Im just going to believe they are flying really high watching over us and the sky plays tricks with my eyes to make them seem triangular.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I didn't say they were. I said those shapes are bad for aircraft. The F-117 was horribly inefficient and so unstable that many people said they'd never fly because of that shape. They're not true flying wings or blended designs. They're not good for high altitude, or efficient long range.

a reply to: Zaphod58
would you, as well as avionics I assume, agree that the flying wing has a significant advantage for efficiency over any triangular shaped craft ??

I always thought of the wing as a triangular shape myself anyways.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

It's the most efficient design. Some of the other designs that have been tried had interesting results in the modeling stage.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Those aren't development craft. Those shapes are actually not very good for aircraft designed.

I'm told that many modern jet aircraft (esp military) are just manned rockets with steering panels.

thrust and lift are all motor, no aerodynamics.

a reply to: ElGoobero

No, they're actually fairly efficient in terms of lift. Not as efficient as say an F-15, but they generate quite a bit of lift.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ElGoobero

No, they're actually fairly efficient in terms of lift. Not as efficient as say an F-15, but they generate quite a bit of lift.

maybe I'm thinking of Vietnam-era stuff like the century series and the F4

a reply to: ElGoobero

Some of those had worse aerodynamics than a DC-10, which is saying a lot.

originally posted by: ElGoobero

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ElGoobero

No, they're actually fairly efficient in terms of lift. Not as efficient as say an F-15, but they generate quite a bit of lift.

maybe I'm thinking of Vietnam-era stuff like the century series and the F4

You thinking of the F-104 being dubbed “the missile with the man in it”? Also I suspect part of what you heard was from the X-15 at ultra high altitude using vernier thrusters instead of control surfaces due to the scarcity of atmosphere.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: worldstarcountry

I didn't say they were. I said those shapes are bad for aircraft. The F-117 was horribly inefficient and so unstable that many people said they'd never fly because of that shape. They're not true flying wings or blended designs. They're not good for high altitude, or efficient long range.

Wasn’t that part of what lender it the hopeless diamond moniker?

a reply to: Zaphod58

But Wichita was daylight right? Not sure if we ever found out that was. Have any of those craft in the best thread ever came to light yet?

a reply to: mzinga

And was relatively high altitude, and seen at an angle that led the majority of people talking about it to say it was a B-2.

a reply to: Zaphod58

zaphod is right here, the black triangles aren't our's, despite what a certain defouche and a certain ASTR0 may tell you

a reply to: Zaphod58

Despite it being the wrong wing-sweep angle to be a B-2

a reply to: hawkguy

Yes. The argument is that it's at an angle so you can't tell the actual angle.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It's flying the entire very obvious portion of its flight over the mainland USA in a bank?


Yeahhhhhhh I don't know.