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.

 

Houston We Have A Problem. ISS is over NYC on 911 instead of Africa

page: 2
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Evil
 

Please provide the orbital elements you are using for your "tracking".
For example:

TWO LINE MEAN ELEMENT SET ISS
1 25544U 98067A 09334.51620127 .00016717 00000-0 10270-3 0 9000
2 25544 51.6413 172.1354 0007417 28.7332 331.4239 15.76183689 32160

spaceflight.nasa.gov...


[edit on 11/30/2009 by Phage]




posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 

Exactly...

...and as 'remymartin' pointed out in his post above, the interview with the ISS was at 10:30 AM -- which is more than enough time after the attacks for the natural and usual orbit of the ISS to take it from the Horn of Africa to a place that they could see the smoke coming from New York City.

Like I said before, this theory is full of holes. It doesn't stand up to even the easiest scrutiny.


[edit on 11/30/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Anti-Evil
 


OMG!!!

People with no understanding of orbital mechanics, unite!!!

Folks....the ISS has no engines. It cannot alter its orbital trajectory. Those who think it can are sorely misinformed.

Further research into how satellites move, on orbit, and the energy required to alter their orbits is warranted. Just google...look for 'plane change' in the keywords. Because, an object in orbit describes a 'plane' of motion...and to alter that plane, into a new trajectory, reuires a LOT of energy. We don't (AFAIK) have 'Star Trek' technology yet.....





Gyroscopes, that simple.

Second line, and yes they do have that technology, wake up already and put down the sicle.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 

Gyroscopes cannot be used to alter an orbit. They can only adjust the attitude of a satellite.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 

Yes -- The "Zvezda" module has two engines for raising the altitude of the ISS. The ISS could also be moved by using the engines on a docked "Progress" supply ship, or the engines on a docked Space Shuttle.

HOWEVER, as I said in my post above, the rest of the OP's theory does not hold up to scrutiny. If the ISS was over Africa at 9:00 AM (and the OP hasn't proven this yet. either), ithe station's normal orbit would then take it over New York well before 10:30 AM to be able to see the smoke.

[edit on 11/30/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

[edit on 11/30/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
What makes me sceptical of the story is not feasibiliy. There is no doubt they could arrange for the ISS to be over New York at a certain time with enough advanced notice.

The real issue here is "who is they". It's an international space station right? Russia is heavily involved it it. You could say that really, it's their baby.

Any odd adjustments of the orbital path that couldn't be justified within their existing game plan for the station would, in retrospect, be highly suspicious to the Russians. One widely quoted Russian general already thinks that 9/11 was an inside job. Is this the sort of fancy dance that the 9/11 plotters are likely to have tried to slip past the Russians?

To me it sounds unlikely, but there are other stupidities evident on that day, so maybe showbiz trumped prudence in this case. It did make great television.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Double post.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
For a government which needed to keep their plot secret in order to pull it off, they sure were telling a lot of people.
I mean, really, why the hell would you tip off NASA of all people. For what possible reason would you need a 'view from space'?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
What makes me sceptical of the story is not feasibiliy. There is no doubt they could arrange for the ISS to be over New York at a certain time with enough advanced notice.

But no evidence has been given by the OP that they DID alter the orbit!

Sure -- I suppose they are able to adjust the orbit, but please-oh-please show me even some evidence that they did so on 9/11.

The Op is getting quite a few "S&F's" for a theory that is pure conjecture.
Actually, taking the normal ISS orbit into account, the facts as the OP states them (that the ISS was over Africa at 9:00 AM) is 100% consistent with the idea that they saw the smoke before 10:30 AM. There wasn't a lot of smoke at 9:00, but there was plenty later.

So the OP's "evidence" actually could be used to prove that the ISS was NOT intentionally moved into position.


[edit on 11/30/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Anti-Evil
 


OMG!!!

People with no understanding of orbital mechanics, unite!!!

Folks....the ISS has no engines. It cannot alter its orbital trajectory. Those who think it can are sorely misinformed.

Further research into how satellites move, on orbit, and the energy required to alter their orbits is warranted. Just google...look for 'plane change' in the keywords. Because, an object in orbit describes a 'plane' of motion...and to alter that plane, into a new trajectory, reuires a LOT of energy. We don't (AFAIK) have 'Star Trek' technology yet.....





I agree that this is a non issue IMHO, but I think a retraction, or apology would be in order since what you posted is not accurate, and has been corrected by another user. Not trying to start trouble, just sayin.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


well just what is available and known, has me concerned. when you think about this:
video.google.com...

and if this is true and I suppose it is, then where is this weapon:
www.youtube.com...

well now, I no scientist but it still looks to me Nasa has a math problem, they were at the right place at the wrong time. dwn load and run the software. turn the clock back and you will see what i saw... ah, math problem. answer please.. after all, its probably nothing, but facts are better than hunches in a murder investigation.


[edit on 30-11-2009 by Anti-Evil]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Phage's post does make things clear, so there is no point in continuing. But the question of the ISS being able to change it's inclination is still open, since it apparently does have engines on a Russian segment which have been unused since it was attached to the ISS..or maybe the other way round.

www.thespacereview.com...

There is also a more exotic, but long term way of doing it using thrusters,


"The knee jerk rocket propulsion guy's reaction is it would take as much propellant to change ISS inclination to 28 degrees as to ship it to lunar orbit!" This is based on simplistic brute force thinking.

"There is another, more elegant, clever way to decrease ISS orbital inclination: a small thruster burst every equator crossing in the right vector will eventually change the inclination. Like tacking into the wind, it would probably take months to transit ISS from 51 to 28 degree inclination, but there is no doubt it could be done.

However, this transition would change the mission of ISS and place her in a favorable translunar departure orbit and bring her into alignment with an exploration architecture. As she flies now, ISS is headed towards a dead end and doomed to deorbit. Such a waste! Yes inclination does matter, for departure of exploration missions. Standard inclination change manuevers done in hours or minutes cost a lot of propellant.

Some theory is in this reference, there are better papers out there, this is all I can find right now:"

www.scribd.com...

The first link is interesting in that it highlights the precarious state of the ISS should it have to make a relatively fast manoeuvre.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I think people are missing the point that the anonymous dude was trying to make.
It isn't that the station was moved into position. Instead, that the attack coincided with the station's passing overhead. If that is the case then there is no need to alert NASA... well, until just before they pass over so they can film it from the space station.

Anyhow, if it is true that the station only passed over NYC once in three days, or whatever it was, and it just so happened to have been minutes after the attack, it is a little odd.

I mean, that precise time was chosen for a reason, right? I guess it could be that. Or it could be something else.
In the end I see it as a coincidence of little to no real interest.

Edit - Actually, it appears that the researcher was trying to make a case for the station having been in NYC rather than over the horn of Africa. I guess my comment was more applicable to the researcher's last remarks in the thread about it still being a theory.
Seems this researcher is a fictitious charater, or at the very least lying about being a NASA scientist.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by JayinAR]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Evil..well now, I no scientist but it still looks to me Nasa has a math problem, they were at the right place at the wrong time. dwn load and run the software. turn the clock back and you will see what i saw... ah, math problem. answer please.. after all, its probably nothing, but facts are better than hunches in a murder investigation.


Please explain this math problem, because I don't see it.

You're saying that the ISS was over Africa at 9:00. So how exactly is that inconsistent with being able to see the smoke on the next pass of the ISS over New York City (which happened around 10:30 AM)?

The math seems to work for me.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Except for the fact that the station passed over NYC two hours AFTER the attack occurred, not "a few minutes". It's not strange at all, when you consider that it takes a little over 90 minutes for the ISS to orbit the planet.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Evil
 


I answered your "math problem". You have no way of knowing the station was anywhere other than where they say they were at 10:30 on Sept. 11th.

[edit on 11/30/2009 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
also, notice there is no ISS identification to this video...?
all official Video has official markings - why not this one..>?
the trajectory does not pass over NYC until 3AM Sept. 12th.
Yea, I would say I have a few questions. thought I would hash them out
here on ATS. Cant find a better qualified audiance than here... hello Boys.,



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Evil
 

Then why don't you listen to anything that's being said?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by minkey53
Does this mean that even NASA knew about the events of 9/11 before they happened?

Were they tipped off or just told to change course of the ISS (just in case like lol)?

This sheds more light on 9/11 as being "fixed" or "staged" by some part of the US Government!


Of course, how else could they get the space lasers over the target? It's kinda hard to vaporize the buildings unless your over them.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Evil
 


I suspect taht perhaps you should actually do some actual research before posting this kind of thing on any forum anywhere.

For goodness sakes! It borders on the ... nevermind. It's nonsense. If we could vote to lock threads, this would be one for that.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join