TR-3B nuclear powered flying triangle

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   


Above is the drawing of a TR-3A. Below is a TR-3B:



I don't know what you all think, but I say they are MUCH TOO Different to be the same aircraft. The basic shape and layout are distinctly different. The Designations A and B indicate that both aircraft are supposed to be different versions of the same model/aircraft.
Below I'll show you some REAL A/B pairs:

F-14:
A:


and B:




B-1:
A:



and B:



See? A and models of a plane look very simular. The two TR-3's are TOO different to be the same plane.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance




posted on May, 9 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Ghost, that's the same as when I asked, "If Strategic means high flying, would tactical mean that it can fight back?"

Same thing man, o and it's not TR-3, it's TR3-B.

They both serve for the same purpose, are both highly advanced, are both triangular shaped. Ok maybe the TR3-B is made as a test platform, but it still serves for reconaissance.

Just because it has A or B in it, does not mean it has to be the same model.

And! According to your assumption, the TR3-B would not be real, because A comes before B. Which would mean that the Black Manta came before the TR3-B.

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Ghost, that's the same as when I asked, "If Strategic means high flying, would tactical mean that it can fight back?"

Same thing man, o and it's not TR-3, it's TR3-B.

They both serve for the same purpose, are both highly advanced, are both triangular shaped. Ok maybe the TR3-B is made as a test platform, but it still serves for reconaissance.

Just because it has A or B in it, does not mean it has to be the same model.

And! According to your assumption, the TR3-B would not be real, because A comes before B. Which would mean that the Black Manta came before the TR3-B.

Shattered OUT...


NO,No! You Missed my Point COMPLETELY! I never said that both of these planes don't exist. They could both be VERY Real for all I know. I am trying to tell you that Both of these planes can NOT be TR-3's. Either the first one is a TR-3 OR the Second one is a TR-3, but NOT both!

Here is an Explaination of the designation system:

Let's use the F-15C Eagle

F = Mission of the aircraft (in this case a fighter)
15 = Model number, this is the 15th fighter design appoved by the Defense Department in the current series
C= The is the third Version of the basic F-15 to be built. It has some diferences from earilyer versions, but it still has the same basic airframe design.

Do you see my point? Look back at my earilier post, you will see that the two aircraft loo competely different!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
POSTING ERROR - MODS Please delete

[edit on 10-5-2005 by Popeye]



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I read an article in a magazine which said the TR3A would not be only the black Manta triangle, but also the name of an anti-gravity american flying saucer (TR3A Sportster). Of course, this information has to be taken with a grain of salt.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Ghost, you missed MY POINT!

MY point is being that it doesn't matter, they can both be TR3's because they are both listed under the same project of development, they have probably been renamed anyways, possibly two completely different things.

O well, I guess we will never know for sure.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I'm not sure if this had been said yet, but there is what some would say to be a TR-3B in Google Earth.

30°30'36.73"S, 115°22'58.00"E



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ghost
 



First let me say that I do not believe in the so called TR-3B AT ALL, however in the interest of fairmess let me post a counterpoint to your argument Tim.

Using the same designation twice for different aircraft HAS happened before where secrecy is required. During WW2 the XP-59 was a prototype piston engined fighter which went no further than initial tests but when America's first jet was being built it was designated XP-59A, despite having no relation to the earlier type, purely to hide its existence.

So you see, there is a precedent.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
Once again I am skeptical, but I can't reconcile my skepticism with things seen by my eyes. A rather unusual place to be...
[edit on 27-1-2005 by intelgurl]


Welcome to my world.
It is like watching a performance of an illusionist who actually can do magic. Is what you are watching them cheating, or reality? Or one wrapped around the other...



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I don't know about the specifics laid out by Fouche regarding pressurization, rpm, or whatnot... but like I posted in another thread on this subject the theory is sound. In theory )

Once I'd heard/seen the hubbub about the "Astra" on youtube.com, I decided to do some research so as to make a better opinion on it. Following some of the reported "technologies" presented by folks commenting on the airframe on wikipedia.org led me on an interesting journey of discovery on quantum mechanical theories being proven mathematically (and a few reputed live experiments). The theories behind this aircraft are sound.

Whether they've *actually* got the technologies working is another


If this IS a hoax or 'cover story' it's close enough to burgeoning modern-day physics discoveries to be remotely plausible. Most interesting to me (even more so than the varying characteristics and application of metallic quasicrystals) is the Magnetic Field Disruptor. One paper that I read stated that if you take certain liquid elements and rotate it at a high velocity, it will actually rotate on two axis in a torroidal shape. Meaning- if you rotate a donut shape of a certain element with superconductive capability, it will not only spin centrifugially but it will also rotate uniformly from outside loop to inside loop. They stated that this combination of spin causes a magetogravitic warping that diminishes the effect of gravity across the plane of spin in the center of the torroidal ring due to the characteristics of a superconductor to repulse a magnetic field (persumably Earth's in this example.)
I suppose what they are suggesting is that mercury at X atmospheres of pressure at X degrees Kelvin at Xrpm will generate enough of a magnetogravitic displacement to hoist 4 guys, a nuke reactor, and a big arse airframe with very little additional thrust.

Again, I'll state that I'm not suggesting that this bird is real, but... even a Quantum Mechanics for Dummies course (like I gave myself) is enough to suggest that you need more argument than "It's just not possible" to debunk it.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I 'saw' a tr-3 black manta fly over my home on Long Island in Nov. 1994 around 9 pm heading due south and going out over the ocean.
It was completely black roughly triangular, (pointed nose and lifting body type wind shape).
Completely silent, i only noticed it as its shape passed infront of the stars overhead and obscured them.As i watched i could make out its form,roughly.
I mistook it for a hang glider, but realised it was around 20 degrees out and no one would be that crazy to fly hang glider at night in that weather.
suddenly i noticed 2 florescent, noodle like contrails roll off the trailing edges of each wing,they literely rolled off and kept their noodle like shape spinning as the plane moved away from them.
I then noticed that the wing had begun to crank its shape, like variable wing technology on the f-14. it became more slender as the wings tightened up.
all the while not a single sound. My dad worked for the Airlines so ive always looked up and could generally id almost any air frame, even newer military silhouettes. but this silent black beauty has left me speechless.
from what ive read and seen its a TR-3 Black Manta alright.
Either that or a UFO!



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost



Above is the drawing of a TR-3A. Below is a TR-3B:



I don't know what you all think, but I say they are MUCH TOO Different to be the same aircraft. The basic shape and layout are distinctly different. The Designations A and B indicate that both aircraft are supposed to be different versions of the same model/aircraft.


How do you know those are even anything at all? Looks like stuff someone just did on a home computer.

I am firmly in the camp of not believing any of this nonsense either.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Tesla Research group-Boeing PhantomWorks ~V~ TR-3astra 300ft, TR-3Boomerang 1100ft, looks like the capital letter V, not a triangle, its used as an ARk in worst case comet impact, nuclear winter, etc etc. It returns when planet has stabilized. You can see the TR-3astra on youtube.com in ( ufo over southern illonois)We have just sold 3 of them to Israel, they are mach 20 craft. The New TR-3Chameleon is the most advanced craft ever built by mankind, its a mach-50+ craft, It needs no martin black Radar paint, it has Plasma adaptive camofladge, carries 40 New nuetron Nukes, High energy Solid state Partical Pulse laser's, and extreme high energy scalar wave blasters, making the enemy put their rifles down and walk back home , never knowing just why they do this. An antique like the TR-3astra made all boomer submarines antiques over night. They can go through the heated Ionisphere while HARRP is up and running, ICBMs cant
, in the very near future as you see iran blown off the face of this planet, you will see russia meet the same fate at the same time



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 



lol, please prove the BS you posted firstly , if its alien tinfoil conspiracy BS , then heres my reply

if you are dealing with conspiracy , heres what scalar weapons theorists like Bearden have to say ,Former SSSR/Russia have the most advanced scalar weapons , and yes your HAARP is based on Soviet Sura station(accoridng to the book Psychotronic Golgotha written by a Russian Author , possibly speculates the HAARP is based on stolen tech from Russia used in Sura


The Sura facility was commissioned in 1981. Using this facility, Russian researchers achieved extremely interesting results regarding the ionosphere behavior and discovered the effect of generation of low-frequency emission at the modulation of ionosphere current[1]. At the beginning, Soviet Defense Department mostly footed the bill. The American HAARP ionospheric heater is similar to the Sura facility. The HAARP project began in 1993
en.wikipedia.org...



and yes , soviets were first to test and deploy particle beam ,plasma and laser weapons...

also had limited numbers hypersonic AYAKS(2-3 according to former Soviet Colonel Ivan Krutov) operational late 70's capable of mach 50 , and was equipped with super EMP weapons and plasma weapons

LOL , IF CONSPIRACY BS IS TRUE , THEN RUSSIA WILL SURELY DEFEAT USA ....

[edit on 29-6-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Off_The_Street
 


I would have to disagree. I watched a show about rockets on the history channel couple months ago. The Nuke powered engine was perfected in 1970. The scientist who led the project was interviewed on the show. Nasa created the engine but it was not used because supposedly us citizens would not like the idea of a nuke engine flying around in our skies. The project was taken from over Nasa by the CIA.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ShatteredSkies
 


[snip]


removed insulting remark

[edit on 24-7-2008 by elevatedone]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Off_The_Street
 


[snip]


removed insulting remark

[edit on 24-7-2008 by elevatedone]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


[snip]


removed insulting remark

[edit on 24-7-2008 by elevatedone]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
It would help if you properly quoted, so people had some idea of what you were talking about. And YOU DO NOT HAVE TO YELL either, so take the caps lock off


[edit on 5-7-2008 by firepilot]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
If such electromagnetic(/plasma)propulsion technology exist than I'd really like to know WHY it isnt being used as a propulsion technology for Spacecraft?!?!? Advanced Technology developed in secrecy by Goverments can only remain secret for so long...........before it finally sees the light of day. A good example of this is the Stealth technology developed in the early 80s. There is talk about retiring the Space Shuttle fleet in 2011 and if such exotic propulsion technology is sufficient developed as you folks claim there are PLENTY of reasons for employing such technology as a successor to the Space Shuttle as well as unmaned interplanetary probes. Plasma Propulsion does exist but at this time plasma engines Do NOT have enough power to propel a spacecraft into orbit from Earth. If such technology existed it would render rocket motors obsolete. I think it IS highly likely that sometime within the next 30-40 years Electromagnetic Propulsion Tech will be advanced enough to lift a spacecraft into orbit from earth and when it arrives it will DRASTICALLY reduce the cost and improve the efficiency of human space travel.





top topics
 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join