TR-3B nuclear powered flying triangle

And some more explanation of the whole silly "TR" designation, and another reason why this whole TR-3B is silly, is that the TR designation was just to give the UK a little less political baggage for basing U-2s there.

Since the name U-2 obviously carries some history and baggage to it, it was easier on the UK to just call it something else, like TR-1, which alot of people had not heard of and was just not as big of a deal as if someone heard U-2. Of course the UK government knew it really was, and so did anyone who really cared.

And besides, IF (and a really big IF) the TR-3A was actually a real, but conventional stealthy tactical aircraft powered by jet engines, then how would the next model of it, the TR-3B end up being some nuclear powered triangular spaceship???

reply to post by neformore, post by Silk, and post by Arbitrageur


The designation TR-3B may or may not be accurate but the existence of a triangular craft with lights in each corner, one in the center, and with maneuvering capabilities unlike any conventional aircraft is virtually undeniable.

Internos had an outstanding post on the Belgium Incident of 1989-1990 in Karl 12's UFO Flight Characteristics ~ Right Angle Turns thread.

...two F-16 aircraft of the Belgian Air Force - registration numbers 349 and 350 = flown by a Captain and a Flight-Lieutenant, both highly qualified pilots, took off from Bevekom.

Within a few minutes - guided by the Glons radar - both pilots had detected a positive oval-shaped object on their on-board radar at a height of 3,000 meters, but in the darkness saw nothing. This oval configuration, however, caused the pilots some concern. It reacted in an intelligent and disturbing way when they attempted to 'lock-on' with their on-board radar.

Changing shape instantly, it assumed a distinct 'diamond image' on their radar screens and - increasing its speed to 1,000km/h - took immediate and violent evasive action.

Photographs of the actual on-board radar of the F-16s recorded a descent of this object from 3,000m to 1,200 in 2 seconds, a descent rate of 1,800km/h. The same photographs show an unbelievable acceleration rate of 280km/h to 1,800km/h in a few seconds. According to Professor Leon Brening - a non-linear dynamic theorist at the Free University of Brussels - this would represent an acceleration of 46g and would be beyond the possibility of any human pilot to endure.

It was noted that in spite of these speeds and acceleration times there was a marked absence of any sonic boom. The movements of this object were described by the pilots and radar operators as 'wildly erratic and step-like', and a zigzag course was taken over the city of Brussels with the two F-16s in pursuit. Visual contact was not possible against the lighting of the city.

This same procedure was repeated several times, with this object - whenever an attempt at radar 'lock-on' was made - pursuing a violently erratic course at impossible speed and losing its pursuers.

What I think happened is that upon being locked on, the TR-3B pilot spun up their Mercury Accelerator Ring, this resulted in the formation of a gravitational dent in spacetime. The oval turning into a diamond is the result of the bending of light waves caused by the artificial gravitational field.

The craft then activates the warp drive by routing electricity into its main capacitor where the center light is creating the hill in spacetime and rapidly propelling the craft at 46g.

The operator then routes electricity out of that main capacitor array dropping the craft out of warp, alters course with one or more of the three corner propulsion systems (visible via the corner lights) and then activates the warp drive again by routing electricity back into the main capacitor array (the center light). This could be why it zig zags. Because of the craft's design, it might only be capable of going straight when pulling the 46g or more of acceleration.

Such an explanation would be consistent with the alcubierre warp drive and extended heim theories, and as I have said before, this is testable.

Something more common like an aluminum flywheel and electromagnetic coil could replace the Mercury Accelerator Ring in order to test this. In fact, an aluminum flywheel and electromagnetic coil were supposedly used in the McCandlish ARV.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by Bobbox1980]

reply to post by firepilot

IF (and a really big IF) the TR-3A was actually a real, but conventional stealthy tactical aircraft powered by jet engines, then how would the next model of it, the TR-3B end up being some nuclear powered triangular spaceship???

The government places SAPs (special access programs) within SAPs. This way if the name or model number of a craft gets out they can use plausible deniability that it is or is related to one of the more secret but conventional aircraft out there.

It also helps in keeping the project hidden from Congress. The gang of 8 gets briefed on some of the SAPs our government has but these briefings often aren't very detailed.

Which would be better from a military prospective?

Go before the Gang of 8 asking them to fund a completely new SAP and have to fight like heck to avoid explaining it and why it is needed.

OR

Go before the Gang of 8 and ask for a budget increase for an existing classified aircraft SAP while creating a SAP within that SAP and having the additional funds applied to the new SAP within the main classified aircraft SAP.


I think the latter would get little to no questions asked by Congress while the former would be a much bigger pain in the neck to get through.

Originally posted by Bobbox1980
What I think happened is that upon being locked on, the TR-3B pilot spun up their Mercury Accelerator Ring, this resulted in the formation of a gravitational dent in spacetime. The oval turning into a diamond is the result of the bending of light waves caused by the artificial gravitational field.

Nice Sci-Fi. I bet Clint Thrust got the girl as well in the end!

Not sure if you were around in 1989/90 or not but there was this thing coming to an end called the Cold War. The whole worlds eyes were on The Soviet Union as it was falling to pieces while at the same time having somewhere in the region of 10,000 nuclear warheads in its inventory - think of the current situation in Pakistan but enough nukes to finish the world off by itself.

Now forgive my cynicism but if someone from the USAF decided to test their top secret prototype over Western Europe at that time, then they risked it being in harms way - shot down by the Beligian Airforce maybe, or maybe some kind of malfunction/interpretation of a hostile act then they ran the risk of ending the cold war by heating several places on earth up by a few thousand degrees in a fireworks display that made the millenium look like a sparkler.

What I'm saying is that you don't flight test your billion dollar baby over some of the most densely populated parts of Western Europe during a crisis flashpoint.

And if someone did do that, they need to be placed in some kind of insane asylum, or preferably be removed from the gene pool completely.



[edit on 11/3/10 by neformore]

Ok... I see what the problem here is now. This thread was started 7 years ago with this OP:

Originally posted by M43
Does anyone know if the the TR-3B is an actual functioning AF aircraft, a real working jet not just a plan or a skematic?

So... there is no point to attempt to discuss how a 'something' works, in a thread that questions the very existence of that 'something'. That material would be non-sensible and 'off topic'. And since this thread began in January 2003, and is now 11 pages in length... I believe it is time for a new TR-3B thread. One that questions 'it's means of operation', not 'it's existence'. And this time the thread should be placed into the 'space exploration' forum - given it's use of anti-gravity levitation, which makes it space-flight capable. Even though the TR-3B is seen in atmospheric flight, it should be considered a space craft - not an air craft. Just as the STS Shuttle is not considered an air craft - even if seen in atmospheric flight - the Shuttle is a space craft.



[edit on 3/11/2010 by Larryman]

I think the question of this crafts existence is far from settled. I am one of those firmly in the 'NO' camp, but this is one of those rare subjects where someone being able to come back and rub your nose in it for being completely wrong would be a great experience

I await the day.

reply to post by neformore

What I'm saying is that you don't flight test your billion dollar baby over some of the most densely populated parts of Western Europe during a crisis flashpoint.

Are you going on record then that the Belgium Incident of 1989-1990 was an alien spaceship?

The radar data seen in Internos' post makes it pretty unequivocal that an aircraft, possibly a space worthy craft, was over Belgium that night.

If it wasn't "Clint Thrust" was it "Thor" Supreme Commander of the Asgard fleet?

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Bobbox1980]

Originally posted by Bobbox1980
Are you going on record then that the Belgium Incident of 1989-1990 was an alien spaceship?

Given that we don't have the technology to make craft that manoeuver that way now, let alone back in 1989, and given the actions and characteristics of the object itself, I draw the same conclusions that the Belgian Airforce did, namely;

12. The Belgian Air Force was unable to identify neither the nature nor the origin of the phenomena. However, it had sufficient elements to exclude following assumptions:

a. Balloons. Impossible due to the highly variable speeds (confirmed visually and by radar).

b. ULM. Same as for balloons.

c. RPV. Impossible due to the hovering characteristics.

d. Aircraft (including Stealth). Same as for RPV. No noise.

e. Laser projections or Mirages. Unlikely due to lack of projection surface (no clouds). Light spots have been observed from different locations. Light spots moved over distance of more than 15 NM. Form of inlighted part of spots has been observed with spectacles. Laser projections or mirages can not be detected by radar.

Summary Report by Col. Wilfried de Brouwer, the Chief of Operations of the Belgian Air Force

You make of that what you will. I think you can figure out where I think it came from....

The Propulsion system includes a large area inside the ship, where ionized particles and isotopes revolve around the center, at a good 60,000 RPM. This is enough to provide a Magnetic Field Distortion, this is very impractical propulsion, because it is very difficult to produce. The system is highly advanced, and I can barely understand it's workings, so I may be wrong on some information.

Some info can be found here regarding plasma based magnetic vortex's.

They are actually called toroidal plasma magnetic confinement devices or RFP's.
Some of the most expensive r&d projects in the world, many billions of dollars.

en.wikipedia.org...

List of current projects related to Tokamak ( plasma torus machine)
en.wikipedia.org...

Pic of the ITER, currently being build to the tune of 7.5+ billion dollars.
sourisdudesert.free.fr...

[edit on 11-5-2010 by wtfhuh]

I must have missed it, how does the pilot/operator survive 46g's?
or are these vehicles in fact drones?

www.thatsgoodtoknow.com...

reply to post by M43
I know for a fact that the TR3A black manta has been around for awhile, maybe an upgrade?

reply to post by Just Wondering


They could be drones, that is a possibility.

If you read up on the alcubierre warp drive idea on wikipedia it mentions that the craft would sit inside a bubble in flat spacetime while the spacetime in front of the craft is contracted and the spacetime at the back of the craft is expanded.

Theoretically this should make the craft and its occupants immune from inertial forces when accelerating.

I think that "the craft would sit inside a bubble in flat spacetime" also applies to the hyperspace drive of the extended Burkhard Heim's FTL physics.

Originally posted by Bobbox1980
reply to post by neformore

 

What I'm saying is that you don't flight test your billion dollar baby over some of the most densely populated parts of Western Europe during a crisis flashpoint.

Are you going on record then that the Belgium Incident of 1989-1990 was an alien spaceship?

The radar data seen in Internos' post makes it pretty unequivocal that an aircraft, possibly a space worthy craft, was over Belgium that night.

If it wasn't "Clint Thrust" was it "Thor" Supreme Commander of the Asgard fleet?

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Bobbox1980]

Being unable to explain 'A' doesnt mean 'B' exists - I will also stand by Waynos's opinion that the TR3B doesn't exist.

I like the idea of TR-3b, it's kind of cool if it's real then that means the military has a means to at the very least defend itself from hostile ufos, should s*** hit the fan.

Although to be honest there's alot of contradictory evidence and information, 'triangles chased by usaf craft', and doing some rather strange behavior that is not typical of military craft, like hovering randomely over populated urban areas. No military worth their salt would let secret projects fly right out in to the public.

It sounds more consistent in regards to typical UFO sightings and behavior associated with them than secret project material.

I think the tr-3b in all probability, is intentionally leaked propaganda by a deniable source, something of a bluff to unnerve foreign rivals and also to function further as standard disinformation.

I think in reality the USAF does not have that ability, the TR-3B is just something they wish they had, because spending on the X-37 And wasting billions of dollars on researching liquid fuel rockets doesn't add up.

I find it unlikely that the TR3-B is real, but unlike others I'm still open-minded enough to consider that despite my analysis it's still possible that the military could do the impossible, manufacture said craft and go through great lengths to cover it up somehow.






[edit on 22-5-2010 by redrezo]

Why can none of the hicks and cretins here spell "its" and "you're"? and a great deal of other words?

Kelvins are not degrees. Fast is not a speed; glue is fast.

Gravitomagnetism is a known theory, but in a closed system the mass stays the same, and a relativistic mass would be too heavy. Any tub of mercury is a piffle.

My newly guess for the workings behind flying triangles (not the TR-3s) is--wherefore their flatness, broadness, glowiness, swiftness, fleetness, deftness, and squatness--thas they are laser kites, seen in the Lightcraft project. Each glowy ball would be the cup where the plasma propelland sits. Mach 6, 9, 12, 28 would not be a problem for lasers and plasmas on a sailboard.

If there is no outbord laser, what happens if you mount three jet engines gainsward on a platform with even sides so all thrust is inward and downward? It would be a hovercraft with no stall speed. If all engines run coherent soundwaves, their loud whoosh may cancel.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by lysdexia]

Originally posted by lysdexia
Why can none of the hicks and cretins here spell "its" and "you're"? and a great deal of other words?

Words like 'that' perhaps?

Plus, one cannot criticise spellings and ignore grammar.

"My newly guess for the workings " is one of the worst attempts to construct a sentence or statement I have ever seen. If your attack on the way other members write was an attempt to gain the intellectual highground, then you should at least try not to undermine yourself by following it with complete babble.

I normally would not comment on such matters, but as you chose to take that stance for your opening gambit, you asked for it.

As for the 'flying triangles', they are jet propelled unmanned LO aircraft.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by waynos]

Originally posted by lysdexia
Why can none of the hicks and cretins here spell "its" and "you're"? and a great deal of other words?

Do you mean other words like propellant?

Each glowy ball would be the cup where the plasma propelland sits.

I admit I have a problem with "its" versus "it's", sometimes I use it correctly but sometimes I accidentally use "it's" instead of "its", I try to catch my typos but moreso on important writings than on ATS which I admittedly don't proofread as closely. Sorry about that, I know what the correct spelling is, so I'm not sure why I accidentally add the apostrophe at times?

And which of the three engine types in the lightcraft uses plasma propellant?

www.lightcrafttechnologies.com...

There are three types of propulsion modes available to the lightcraft. These are ion-propulsion mode, Magnetohydro Dynamic (MHD) propulsion mode, and Pulsed Detonation Engine mode (PDE).

The only propellant they mention is water converted to steam for the MHD.

The ion engine probably uses Xenon www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by waynos
As for the 'flying triangles', they are jet propelled unmanned LO aircraft.

What does LO stand for?

I suppose some of them might be lighter than air or neutral buoyancy rigid airframe craft as mentioned by aviation writer Bill Scott:



Of course that wouldn't apply to the craft in Belgium that flew underground, even SOBEPs had a problem with that.

The TR-3B is more fantasy than fact, but that doesn't mean there aren't other triangle shaped mystery craft.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by Arbitrageur]

LO stands for 'Low Observable', an 'official' term for what we amateurs call 'stealth'.

It is my belief that the oft reported flying triangles are unmanned drones, be they prototypes for such as X-47 or Polecat etc, or even hitherto unannounced but operational types and that the stories of mysterious propulsion systems and magical properties are just additional layers of mythology that get added in the telling and retelling.