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.

 

Destruction of Columbia STS-107: A Terrorist Plot, and Cover Up?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I want to write some concluding remarks for this thread.

On February 1st, 2003, at precisely 9:04 AM EST (14:04 GMT), the Mission Status Center logged the following: “We're getting reports from Texas of debris behind the shuttle's plasma trail during reentry.” See here for that report, which chronicles the mundane last hours prior just to the shuttle's fateful disintegration.

Five years later, tomorrow, is the anniversary of this event. I contend that we still don’t know what really happened, or whether we can trust an organization so venerable as NASA. We don’t know whether we can rely on this group, charged with seeking the truth, to actually tell us the truth.

Most of us have accepted the official story. I guess everyone wants to move on. The past is malleable and flexible, changing as our recollection interprets it. That may be best.


#

At the edge of Kennedy Space Center in Florida is a wall of polished black granite slabs, over forty feet tall. The wall is built on massive mechanical gimbals, designed to continuously rotate and tilt the wall so that it always faces directly into the Florida sun.

This is the “Space Mirror Memorial”. It is called this because, behind the black granite wall, is a giant mirror, which reflects the sunlight through the carved names of all the astronauts who have died in service to the US space program. Seven of those names are from STS-107.

There are ninety granite panels in the memorial. Unhappily, twenty-four panels have already been used, each with the name of a departed astronaut. There is room for an additional sixty-six more astronaut fatalities, anticipated in the future.

In a bitter irony, the Space Mirror Memorial broke in 1997, when a slewing ring failed in the sun tracking gimbals. This mechanical failure of the memorial was never fixed. Rather than making the repairs necessary to allow the massive memorial to continuously track the sun, it was decided to lock the memorial gimbals in a single position, facing the highway and the stream of tourists coming to the KSC visitor’s center.

Pictures of this unique memorial are available here.

It seems a sad allegory to the other parts of the USA space program. Once, NASA represented the pinnacle of human achievement, and our dreams of human manifest destiny. It was a brief time in our history.

Now, NASA engenders threads such as this. Something is very dysfunctional. That should be clear from this thread, and many others here on ATS that make allegations about NASA cover-ups. We should always be prepared to be surprised, yet again.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by Buck Division]




posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Yeah, five years later and you all are still taking about foam.

HAARP took down Columbia on that day. It wasn't in operation for two months prior to Feb.1, 2003 or for nearly 1 month after. Just for a period of 6 hours during the timeframe for re-entry. HAARP was initiated because North Korea had tried to hide a ICBM (bound for LA?) in the radar signature of the incoming Columbia. Columbia was caught in the defensive operation of activating HAARP to destroy the incoming nuclear strike. Sad, but maybe reality...who knows...like they would ever reveal that as the truth! Here's the link, it also includes some info on Kennedy, but the infomation I speak of can be found in the second half of the article:

HAARP brought down Columbia



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by percievedreality
 



It was "hiding in the radar shadow?" Are they serious?



[Mod Edit]

No Personal Insults Please

[edit on 31-1-2008 by MemoryShock]

[edit on 31-1-2008 by MemoryShock]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

It was "hiding in the radar shadow?" Are they serious?



Yeah, they and I are serious. Read all you can about anything and everything, 99% of it is BS but that remaining 1% is nearing the truth. Of course, if you believe in the whole 9/11, terrorists are out to get the US, then another theory is that a grad student of Middle Eastern origin (Pakistan, if I recall) was at the HAARP facility (which has been documented, here on a student visa) and facilitated the destruction. I don't really know, but I can tell you without a doubt, someone out there somewhere knows the whole truth.....



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Tomorrow is the fifth year since STS-107 went down. FEB 1 03 MET 15 days 22 hours 20 minutes 22 seconds when the data stream was lost. 8:59AM EST Columbia broke up. Husband, McCool, Anderson, Chawla, Brown, Clark and Ramon were killed. They were a special crew.

If you get the chance say a respectful prayer for them and their families. Moment or two of silence about 8:59AM EST if you think it might help. It must be difficult. It was difficult to look through my videos. I never watch the final video anymore. I can't.

Respect to the 107 crew of the Columbia and all who'd risk all to move our horizons outward, their sacrifices must not be forgotten.

Vic

[edit on 31-1-2008 by V Kaminski]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Many fatal accidents are the result of an unfortunate chain of events. Maybe it wasn't even just one impact in the STS-107 scenario? We can hope, that the investigations teams came to conclusions to help make the live of astronauts , of course not only astronauts, more safe.


www.cnn.com...



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Management knew the day after it went up it wouldn't make it back. Radar picked up the carbon from the wing drifting away and it's fate was settled. I also have a friend at NASA and I watched the news.

mikell



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
In case one accepts the sabotage theory, the next logic conclusion seems to simple. It smells like a joe job to put someone else in scapegoat position. What might a reason to do it? I have no idea.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I'd buy intentional sabotage before I'd ever buy the terrorist theory, and if intentional sabotage was the case then I would surmise that the astronauts may have seen something they weren't supposed to or they were sacrificed after performing a covert mission.

Peace



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Buck , I’m going to have to disagree with much of your speculations on the fact that you believe that Columbia was destroyed by terrorists. First of all, terrorists like to announce when they have done something evil. They like that sort of thing, gives them a nice stiffy. What they don’t seem to do is take credit for things that they don’t do. I actually have a theory as to why they don’t. Terrorist groups know when they are planning something, so I am going to guess that they film a lot of their praises to Allah before the event occurs. If the event goes off, even differing from what they proclaim, as long as its credit for that action, the video hits YouTube and ATSers claim it’s a CIA hoax. Terrorists don’t care about taking out a space shuttle since the impact of such an act on the grand scheme of things is small. 7 people and a 25 year old space frame that was due to be retired with the decade was lost. Sure, the shuttle might have been valued at 2 billion dollars, but the impact of 7 people dying is fairly low on the terrorist to-do list.
As far as security being superficial at Kennedy, I would have to disagree with this one. Back in 2000, I was at Moffett Federal Field for some military training. I got some time off and wondered to the other side of the base where they have two huge hangers. I knew that the 747 Shuttle carrier was there from reading the newspaper and actually seeing it land a few days prior. I like planes and anything with NASA on it is pretty neat too, so why not. I managed to get to the hanger, and actually saw the plane. Needless to say, the security detachment at the hanger made me eat a bit of concrete with 9mils and M16s pointed at my head. I got too close and I got my ass kicked. Luckily for me the airmen working the detail understood my fascination and didn’t report this to my superiors (which is nice since a court martial would have sucked). My point here is, this was just a 747 before 9/11 and security was pretty serious. I’m betting no one gets close to the shuttle without authorization.
I agree that the bigger conspiracy here is the fact that NASA knew while Columbia was in orbit that there was a problem. The ultimate destruction of Columbia might not have been prevented, but I don’t think they could have known that at the time. There’s a reason the saying hindsight is 20/20 exists. Now when any of the shuttles launch, there are entire armies of people watching every single frame of launch to make sure everything is kosher. And even then, the shuttle does ‘back-flips’ so the crew at the ISS can get images of the underside of the shuttle. If there is even a shadow of a doubt, they do a spacewalk and take a look. I think in a lot of ways, NASA is being overly cautious, but I guess I would too after 7 people burned up over Texas.
Back to your tampering idea: You suggest that all these parts from sub-contractors are not completely disassembled and inspected, I would have to disagree. Everything has to be checked to make sure its within tolerances. I mean, its rocket science for God’s sake. If something is a bit off, it could have drastic and devastating consequences. And if NASA suspected a contractor of tampering with something, even accidentally, there would be hell to pay. That contractor would be under so much government scrutiny that it would be intolerable.
I see in another post you go off saying that terrorists did claim responsibility, but it was dismissed. Remember, we were poised to go into Iraq that year. If it would have helped Bush invade sooner, I might buy it, but it was simply not terrorism or a plot by the government to burn up a Jew astronaut. Another post you suggest that a ground based SAM cannot hit the space shuttle. We know this to not be true. This year, a missile was launched from a US Navy ship to take out that dead satellite.
Columbia is just an example of how difficult it really is to run a space program with reusable craft.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
I'd buy intentional sabotage before I'd ever buy the terrorist theory, and if intentional sabotage was the case then I would surmise that the astronauts may have seen something they weren't supposed to or they were sacrificed after performing a covert mission.

Peace


Why would they be doing a covert mission with a foregin national onboard?

You need to come up with a better theory than that.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


Two ways, foreign governments in bed with the U.S. on a space based weapons system or they were working on something which they weren't sure exactly what it was, but they just knew existed. Loose lips sink ships.

Peace



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
reply to post by COOL HAND
 

Two ways, foreign governments in bed with the U.S. on a space based weapons system or they were working on something which they weren't sure exactly what it was, but they just knew existed. Loose lips sink ships.


You are assuming that we would share this kind of information with other countries?

Your second theory makes no sense.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


And I wouldn't expect them to make any sense to you. Par for the course.


Peace



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr Love
 


It wouldn't make sense to anyone. How could the crew have worked on something which they weren't sure exactly what it was, but they just knew existed?

Do you have any idea how much time the crew spends going over every piece of equipment that they will be taking with them? Don't you think one of them would have raised the flag if they were working with something that they weren't familiar with?


But hey, if it is too difficult for you to try to explain then I understand.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join