It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 "white jet"/PAX naval air base "white jet" possible link?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I am still not good at this computer fad stuff and not to good at posting links. There is an article on the Patuxent Naval Air Station "PAX" in the Washington post around December I believe. It was a front page article in the Buisness section. It was an article on local farmers had been given tens of acres of land directly on the Patuxent Naval Air Base pretty darn close to the runways. They were given the land in order to plant bird resistant crops to keep birds from going through canopies and multi million dollar jet engines. Its worked perfectly. The DoD instead of spending millions to come up w/some high tech way to keep birds off the runways came up with the idea of having local farmers grow crops birds dont eat to keep them off and its cost them next to nothing.

Text

Towards the end of the article the farmers talk about how they arent allowed to go past a certain point on the base. Makes sense of course. But the farmers also note how they frequently see a "mysterious white jet" doing test flights at the far end of the base. They have asked what it was but been threatened with losing their very lucrative free farmland if they inquire further. They have also said how the "mysterious white jet" makes no sound.

Text

Pretty spooky eh? I personally think this is a modified version of the navy F117 that was supposedly axed. Its just a thought but this could have very easily been the jet that brought down the flight over Pennsylvania. PAX to there would have been a very short flight for a scrambled interceptor. This is the only "link" Ive ever found between the military and what the "mysterous white jet" actually could have been. Popular Mechanics said it was a civilian private jet that just happened to be in the area. Could have been. They make a stone solid case for all the other cases of fringe theories being easily debunked and they are. But the Pennsylvania incident is probably the only case of there being no known photos unlike all the other horrors of 9/11.

Text

I still dont buy that the wreckage spread that far from a ground impact. And in their own admission the plane went straight down into the ground nose first. Quite a horrible crash impact yes but looking at PMs wreckage map it sure looks like it broke up in mid air for some reason and spread itself about accordingly. I really dont see why the govt would be so secretive about having to make the gut wrenching decision to shoot down a civilian airliner that was the second jet headed towards far greater catastrophie wich was supposed to have been the capital building itself. The only thing I can think of is that its the plane that brought it down thats so secret not the bringing down of the plane itself. Thats the real coverup. Why? Nuclear powered military aircraft thats why.

Text

I strongly believe that the B-2 has a reactor which is why its so unstoppable and also why it costs so damn much. The jet engines get it to cruising altitude and then the reactor comes online. I also believe that the B-2 can easily achieve low orbit maybe a bit higher and through atomic trickery truly become invisible to any and all radar even our own. Now compact that package to the size of an F117 with near the same abilities and you have a secret as big as the Manhatten project itself if not bigger. The B-2 is truly the "Beast". We will not truly know what its capable of until its retired. I dont think even the Russians truly know what it can do and has kept them on their heels ever since we unveiled it. Compact it into a sea worthy package thats faster flies higher and is even more invisible and has air to air capability and can take off and land on a carrier? You wonder why the US is so stunningly dominant? Thoughts please, thank you. SoS...




posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Excellent post, good ideas. I like to believe in all the anti grav and plasma stealth possibility of the B2 however, I find it hard to believe that it contains a reactor and achives low earth orbit. Theres really no point. If the goal was low earth orbit, a hypersonic vehivle would be needed, not a sub sonic wing, not enough lift for such a heavy bomber. The B2 is the most sophisticated plane ever built that is declassified, but i dont think it goes sub orbital.

Train



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   
What altitude was it flying at?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   
At least 2000 feet. Id like to say 1000-1500 but I just cant think of why itd be flying that low. I could still make out its rather stark shape. It was definetly an F117. In the book "Dark Eagles; A History of Scret US Stealth Planes" the author says that the stealth coatings/paint on th F117 are so good that flight crews have to wipe off dead bats cause they fly right into it! Absolutely astounding tech. And this thing was developed in the seventies!



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Hmmmmm...I've never heard of a "black" white jet. There is a F-117 that is grey, the same color as the raptor, the USAF wanted to see how well it would work for daylight bombings.

Are you certain it was a F-117? Or was it a flying wing or delta wing, size?

As for the B-2.....I've always questioned that plane, I mean 2 billion per plane...come on. Although its stealth and all, That price is pretty extreme, which makes me think that plane is hiding a few big secrets.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I believe the Pax river facility is used in part for naval test and evaluation flights. Don't know how the navy paints new types. As to the idea of the B2 having a nuclear reactor it seems pretty unlikely. Reactors give off heat, radiation in the form of x and gamma rays that shielding against would be extraordinarily difficult and heavy. In short it would be the worst possible stealth powerplant.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   
The B-2 has a lot of range for a bomber, the military wont give out its exact rage but it is listed as Intercontinental unrefueled, its propulsion system must be high tech but I don't think its nuclear.
And as advanced as the Raptor is, it only costs 100Mil what does the B-2 have to make it cost 20x more. I think it is hiding some secrets.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
pretty much if it's white and at pax river then it was the navy's E-6 TACAMO which is highly classified in terms of missions it flies and what it can do so any questions directed in regards to it would be met with some type of response like that "you dont need to know so don't ask" www.globalsecurity.org...

As far as a nuclear reactor on the B-2, there is no way in hell. Even without all the mechanics you would need for such a system why would you fly nuclear material right to an enemy base. no matter how stealthy you make it how invisible you make it there is still a chance some stray flak or other AA device could take it down in which case you either caused a nuclear accident or just handed over some nice weapons grade material.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jodokas
still a chance some stray flak or other AA device could take it down in which case you either caused a nuclear accident or just handed over some nice weapons grade material.



Most reactors dont use weapons grade material, so you will just be handing them a bunch of radioactive material, thats it. Other than that, I agree with you entirely on the reactor subject - extremely doubtful.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Interesting theory but again I don't buy it. Am I just an old stick in the mud or what?

Thinking in terms of logistics, bearing in mind that the B-2 is a relatively flat and short flying wing and that the bomb load is located in the 'body' behind the crew, where would a nuclear reactor be located? Its not as if they are small, ever seen a picture of the reactor being raised into (or lowered from) the fuselage of the Tupolev Bear test bed? It was HUGE. I know modern technology miniaturises things but a nuclear reactor is not like a DVD player or a laptop computer.

Having said all that I'm sure there must be plenty of hidden tech in there for that price, as many have said, but I couldn't begin to guess what the nature of those secrets are.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   
You can hide alot of things, but hiding a nuke power plant is something too big for a plane, I'm sure
It's already hard to put one in a 120m long Submarine like a 688 or Piranha class... How would you put one in a slim, long winged, short tailed B-2? A Nuke reactor demands constant attention, a good shielding against radiation and gamma rays, Ku and Km controls, control bars, cooling system and so on... feel pretty doubtfull aswell!



[Edit for spelling]

[edit on 13-4-2005 by Element]



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   
The price of a B2 is VERY misleading. The figure is a tally of every penny spent on the project beginning when someone first said "Stealth Bomber" and divided by the number of aircraft produced. Each copy of the aircraft doesn't cost half a billion or so dollars. That's the cost of years of R&D added in there.

The F-22 is cheaper for a number of reasons. A lot of the stealth work has already been done, so there is no huge R&D spending there. Computer drafting and testing provided a huge cost savings. That technology was in it's infancy when the B2 was designed. A lot of the avionics is the F-22 are COTS technology, which reduces cost. I'm pretty sure the F-22 uses a commercially-available operating system for it's on-board computers. The B-2 would have required a specialized, unique OS. The F-22 is smaller, so the savings there go without saying. Finally, the sheer number of F-22's ordered all share the development cost.

As far as nuclear powered aircraft, I don't think that will ever happen. No one want's to have a plane crash end up in another Chernobyl incident.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
No nuclear reactor in the B-2. Spent my life in the first 11 of them at Pico Rivera and Edwards air force base. It is subsonic and has no Space flight capabilities.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Finally! No name calling. It sounds like many of you still think of an atomic reactor as taking up hundereds of square feet. Im sticking to my guns on the atomic B-2. It is very interesting to hear from someone who has been in 11 of them and his experiences are respected by me. Still kind of vague though. I believe that US military tech is so far ahead of its time that we have been able to make some kind of atomic power supply compact enough to hide very neatly in plain sight say about the size of a breifcase. Atomic power production has been around for over half a century now. If the B-2 is atomic its reactor is of a type thats gamma power specifically. The PM article really demonstrates very well how far we have come in making an incredibly compact atomic power source. "White" experiments will be made with Global Hawks according to PM. If its a reactor compact enough to store aboard a Global Hawk then its definetly compact enough to store aboard a B-2 with room to spare. Sheilding for the crew no longer has to be so extreme since its a gamma type reactor only. Not to say that it still requires some very good sheilding the sheilding it does have also keeps it invisible to any sensor system.

Text

The B-2 was designed for one purpose only..to be the ultimate doomsday machine. Like an atomic carrier can go for 15 years without refueling the B-2 may be able to fly for months maybe years before requiring refueling. I know I know it just sounds to sci fi to be true. I believe it is though. Flying above fallout for as long as it takes to survive.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join