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.

 

Norway spiral - Russia accepts blame even though Norway may have been responsible ! !

page: 23
286
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Well who sucks at reading?


YOU


Originally posted by Point of No Return
I've pointed out that the exhaust was burning several times in my past posts.


So... this entire time you have been denying it is even a rocket......
Now you are saying the exhaust was burning...


You are either really confused, or you are being a troll.


Originally posted by Point of No Return
I also pointed out that sim was not accurate, but you said at least 2 times that it explained everything.

Now you are making different statements.


ERHH!!! You are taking it out of context! I was talking about the physics and motion! The simulation explains everything about the physics and motion......

Stop taking things out of context and using that to highlight non-existent inconsistencies. In other words, stop be a troll.

If you aren't doing this and acting this way on purpose then I suggest you go see a mental health specialist ASAP.



Originally posted by Point of No Return
Now you are saying that there wasn't even a leak, remember the sim showed two exhausts.


Ive read somewhere that there could have been a leak, so I always kept that possibility open, but I personally don't think there was a fuel leak. I think the two exhausts ejections are both burning fuel, and a problem with the nozzle being bent or deformed is what is causing both of them to exit at different angles.


Originally posted by Point of No Return
Now you say the guidance system failed, you never mentioned that before.


..you never herd that because you don't know how to read. I have said many times that the nozzle is bent (or deformed). The nozzle is the main part of the entire rockets guidance, its propulsion.


Originally posted by Point of No Return
You did change your mind apparently.


No I didn't.... you are either just playing games, or you are naturally a troll. Either one, you are really getting on my nerves now. You keep taking things out of context, making things up, and asking questions that are formed with false information. You don't comprehend what I say, and you go off and reply with nonsense formed by your lack of comprehension.

How on Earth do you even stay alive? Natural selection should have taken its course on you by now.



Originally posted by Point of No Return
That's been my point the whole time, OMG.

And I suck at reading.



So your whole point is what again?? You don't have a point. You are pointless. I bet your entire life is pointless.

On one hand you say it's burned exhaust, but on another hand you deny it is even a rocket. So which is it?

If you agree it is a rocket then why the heck are you even replying to me??? Why the heck are you still typing? Why are you asking questions that can easily be answered if you just used your brain?



[edit on 17-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


So, you made it back from the library already?
pop quiz for ya.
library.thinkquest.org...

library.thinkquest.org...

Because, until you until you do a little study on how
and why the spiral looks and behaves the way it did, we
cannot get you to the next level of discussion. As to why.

That's been my point the whole time

What EXACTLY is your point?
That rockets spin around the axis of travel to stabilize trajectory?? Really?

What is your point? and your theory?

If it is not a rocket. what was it?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
The Russians originally DENIED it was them only to admit to it some hours later !


Can you prove that, because I'm pretty sure that is a rumor, or an out of context misunderstanding. I have yet to see anyone back up that claim.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 





So... this entire time you have been denying it is even a rocket...... Now you are saying the exhaust was burning...

You are either really confused, or you are being a troll.


I never denied it was a rocket, nowhere.

posted by me;




No, you are oversimplyfying. Yes I find it strange that it reaches 3rd stage, where it starts leaking fuel out of a random hole in the container, wich has an unexplained cause, with the thrusters still burning, and yet makes a perfect spiral.





Yes I understand the basic physics behind it. But from the footage it seems the exhaust is still burning, making one part of the spiral, and the stuff leaking make the other part.







ERHH!!! You are taking it out of context! I was talking about the physics and motion! The simulation explains everything about the physics and motion......


No it doesn't, it talks about two points from where fuel leaks that is making the object spin, wich you now say isn't the case, so it does not explain what happened, since it's not the same.

It is in context, what else was the point of the sim besides showing the physics and motion?

I said it sucked, you said multiple times it explained everything, so whatever.

You indeed talked about the nuzzle before, you didn't mention it in our conversation, strange, because it makes the sim you endorsed even more irrelevant.




On one hand you say it's burned exhaust, but on another hand you deny it is even a rocket. So which is it?


Please qoute the part where I denied it was a rocket.




f you agree it is a rocket then why the heck are you even replying to me??? Why the heck are you still typing? Why are you asking questions that can easily be answered if you just used your brain?


I know it's hard for you to understand, but i have something called an open mind, wich enables me to ask questions from all angles, even angles I don't nessecarily believe in.

I won't even respond to the pathetic insults you spewed, says more about you than me.

Let's leave it at that then.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Point of No Return]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Zeptepi
 





What EXACTLY is your point?


My point, in that particular conversation, with that particular poster(not you), was that the simulation was inaccurate, since it was talking about two leaks of fuel, and not about the thruster.

It actually had nothing at all to do with you, and what's up with this library man?

You must be the coolest guy there.



You couldn't even spell "dumbing".

Sheesh, cut down on the attitude.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 




The particles are just flying away radially from the center. When the particles stop ejecting from the missile, "emptiness" is flying away radially from the center causing a clear sky.


So shouldn't the outer most rings of whatever continue to expand. If it was a rocket and the fuel was cut off, the spiral would cease to be created but the spiral that is already there should continue to expand outwards with an "emptiness" in the middle. In the videos, when the "black hole" begins the rings stop expanding and disappear almost instantly. I don't know if I am explaining this where others can understand or not but I am trying. This would seem to be especially true if it occurred in space as nothing should stop the outer "bands" from continuing to expand outwards...Not continuing to be created but continuing to expand with a "black hole" expanding outwards from the middle but it shouldn't "catch up" with the outer bands at any point.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


What do you think a rocket's exhaust is if not a controlled leak of burning fuel? That's why it's a different colour in the simulation. The rocket was wobbling because the leak wasn't perfectly perpendicular to the axis of travel, and wasn't pointed directly at the centre of gravity of the rocket (which would change as the rocket lost fuel). You seem surprised that those two highly improbable (and indeed impossible) circumstances didn't happen, which seems to indicate you really don't have a clue.

The physics in the simulation are sound. It makes perfect sense. Newton's laws agree, as does all the evidence.

But don't let that stop you.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Just a thought, but isnt there a HAARP facilty located just on the other side of the mountain there in norway? Is it possible this is a result of some of that testing?



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
just put more 2 cents

Apollo 17 rejected flags


from
ATS Aliens Featured On Air Force Insignias. Strange NASA And Black Projects Patches!

also in the first video at 4:42
NASA photograph pyramid on moon

so the flag on the right show a rocket launch from a stonehedge like temple from the moon to cross a spiral

this spiral is a galaxy or something else ?




[edit on 18-12-2009 by mixmix]

[edit on 18-12-2009 by mixmix]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


So you say the exhaust was burning and it was leaking fuel out of another hole?

But your boy just said it was all due to a bent exhaust nozzle.

So did a scientist.

So wich is it?



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
The Russians originally DENIED it was them only to admit to it some hours later !


This is not unusual.

Remember the Chernobyl nuclear disaster? The Soviet government denied that anything had happened for several days after the accident. Only when confronted with American satellite imagery, did they admit that an accident had taken place.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Well I for one wish to thank and congratulate the poster and everyone else who posted well thought out and explanatory rebuttals to original post. It's posts like these that make me come back to ATS for more. I can't tell you how refreshing it was to read many pages of this post.

Firstly, This was a real event..(explaining it is the only argument)

Secondly, Government claims are made (falsely or truthfully is for discovery)

Thirdly, the posters presented the event and its possibilities very thoughtfully and elegantly.

This wasn't another “God doesn't exist” post or another “My Step Father is a lizard” post. In my opinion, each of you who posted this thread and presented past and possible explanations deserve major praise.

Final thoughts, Please bring me more real events! There are too many things going on in our world today are not being covered. I don't know of any other place where I can find these things out or talk to such intelligent and interesting points of view about them.

Keep up the good work.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


The white spiral is unburned fuel. We can see that because no rockets have vents on the side that release that much fuel that quickly, as it would be akin to a car having a hole in the fuel tank that can dump its entire load of fuel on the highway in 20 seconds.

As for the bent exhaust nozzle, I said the same thing (that's how the blue spiral was formed) - that it was its guidance mechanism that was attempting to correct for the perversions in its course due to the venting of compressed fuel. Missiles do have guidance mechanisms, you know, and they can, and do, work by venting the exhaust in different directions. It might be due to guidance, it might be due to some failure.

Either way there's more evidence for that than some crazy basless EISCAT/HAARP conspiracy nonsense.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by beachmonkey
 


No. They don't have the equipment to cause what looks exactly like a Russian sub-launched ICMB missile launch gone awry. EISCAT is an ionospheric heater experiment, not a military weapon installation.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I did not come here to get in a wizzing match, so let's all be cool and respectfull to one another. I do not believe what I'm seeing could be caused by a missle failure, so I may be an idot in your mind already. I am not trying to prove any theory wrong, I just need to grasp the physics of it all.

Couple of questions for the expert(s):

1) What is the estimated atmospheric density where this happened?

2)What is the fuel leak or bent thrust nozzle velocity?(I assume the ejecta is non solid)

3)What would the velocity be just 50 feet away from the source of ejecta in this thin atmoshere?

4)When would the vapor disperse(stop moving outward)?

5)How large has the white spiral been estimated to be?(it looks to be miles across to me).

6)Did this projectile loose it's forward momentum and start to spin stationary like a pinwheel?

_________________________________________________________

help me on this rant

Assuming the white spiral was created with a spinning projectile moving away from the camera, the vapor trails might not interfere (blend blow)with one another due to being stacked like a spring. If that was the case, how could the black hole at the end act as it did? I would assume the existing matter would continue to move outward, while none fills it's place in the center, but in a spiral shape as created, not just a dark matter explosion as seen in video.

Why did the siral have such a defined outline, and not expand farther and farther away?


Peace



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SLaPPiE
 


You can watch the simulation, and you'll see how a spinning body spewing ejecta out of two places explains what we saw.

If you are willing to listen to, and believe, experts, then you can stop wondering what the phenomenon was, as they all agree with the explanation that it was a Russian ICBM. All of them. It's only people on ATS and other conspiracy websites, where folks trust their own gut feelings more than the reasoned logic of experts, where this doubt exists. The rest of the world has gone on with their lives.

The missile, being an ICBM, and being illuminated by the sun, was up very high indeed, where the atmosphere is a tiny, tiny fraction of what we have down here. It was still being illuminated by the sun, hence the light show.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


So the only exhaust was the rocket engine, there was no secondairy exhaust(leak), as the simulation claims?



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Exhaust is what you get when something burns. So yes, as there is only one engine on that rocket, there is only one exhaust plume. The other plume was liquid fuel leaking from the side.

Is your reading comprehension really that bad? And you wonder why you can't make sense of this?



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


So it was leaking fuel from one side, plus it had a bent exhaust nozzle, and these factors made it spin in a perfect spiral?

Seems like there were a lot of variables.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Well, the nozzle might have been bent, but the same effect would be achieved with a fully-functioning guidance system, which would have continually compensated for the trajectory deviations a lateral venting of fuel would cause. Unless the lateral venting was aligned directly with the rocket's centre of gravity, which is an impossibility for a burning rocket (as the hole would have to move), then that's exactly what we'd see.

So no, the number of variables could be as low as 1 to produce a spiral that looks like the one we saw.




top topics



 
286
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join