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: 25
286
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Solid Rocket Boosters: The space shuttle solid rocket boosters are the largest solid propellant motors ever built and the first to be used on a manned spacecraft. Each motor is made of 11 individual weld-free steel segments joined together with high-strength steel pins. Each assembled motor is 116 feet long, 12 feet in diameter, and contains more than l million pounds of solid propellant. The propellant burns at a temperature of 5,800 degrees (F) and generates a lift-off thrust of 2.65 million pounds.

www.angelfire.com...

Bulava and then Trident I
Number of stages 3 , 3
Length of assembled missile without front section, m 11.5 Bulava, Trident 10.3
Maximum diameter of missile airframe (without stabilizers, raceways, protruding elements), m 2 / 1.88
Launch weight, tonnes 36.8 / 32.3
Total length of missile as a unit with launch canister (with front section), m 12.1 n/a
Length of launch canister body. m 12.1 n/a
Diameter of launch canister body (without protruding elements), m 2.1 n/a
First stage
Stage length. m 3.8 / 4.5
Stage diameter, m 2 / 1.88
Weight of fully loaded stage, tonnes 18.6 / 19.1
Second stage
Diameter (if different from first) --
--
Third stage
Diameter (if different from first) --
0.76
Declared number of warheads 6 8/6
Throwweight, kg 1150 / 1500

russianforces.org...

So we have one little solid rocket verses the two largest ones ever made that are way over twice as long and wide. Now lets look at the Main engines of the shuttle.

Main Engines: Each main engine, operating on a mixture of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, produces a sea level thrust of 375,000 pounds and a vacuum thrust of 470,000 pounds. They can be throttled over a thrust range of 65 to 109 percent, allowing a high power setting during liftoff and initial ascent, but a power reduction to limit acceleration of the orbiter to 3Gs during final ascent. The engines are gimbaled (movable) to provide pitch, yaw, and roll control during ascent phases of flight. Normal engine operating time on each flight is about 8.5 minutes. Each engine has a designed lifetime of about 7.5 operating hours.
en.wikipedia.org...

Just one of these stands alsmost as tall as the Russian missile. All three going at once is the power output of 23 Hoover dams.




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


We aint talkin bout the icbm (and yes i have seen a launch ! I was in the navy) ! We ar talking about the velocity of the particulates !



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I just wanted to take a moment to thank tauristercus and ALLisONE for showing how a civil debate can be done on ATS (even if it did get a little heated, and there were some jabs here and there), with excellent reasoning and support for both sides of the argument.... Great job!!!
(and yep, Applauses all around)....

(my apologies if I missed any other standouts throughout this thread...as I'm still going through all of these pages!
)

*claps*

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Gazrok]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Sky watcher
 


Wow. That's intense. The Space Shuttle solid fuel boosters only lift the Shuttle to 46km. That's still in the Earth's atmosphere, so their plume will be severely affected by the atmosphere (wind, air resistance, etc.). The ICBM, in its third stage, will be over 150km high, well out of the atmosphere. Comparing the two is pointless.

And then banging on about HAARP is also pretty weird, as you have no evidence for that, even evidence that it is anything other than it claims to be (ionospheric research).

The failed ICBM launch has by far the most supporting evidence. I've yet to hear of another theory that even approaches that level. HAARP? No - there's no evidence it can do anything visible (and EISCAT is even less-well-powered). Laser light show? No - there's nothing up there to project anything on to, so nothing would be visible.

Throw something in space and it will keep moving until it reaches something to slow it down or stop it. Fuel or exhaust leaking out of a rocket, in a vacuum, will behave exactly as we saw in the Norwegian sky. No bizarre physics or guesswork is required - Newton had the required physics pegged hundreds of years ago.

But that's not enough - some people want magic and excitement in their lives, and believe their eyes and brains over those of experts, leading to this silly state where we have people banging on about HAARP and the like, for no apparent reason.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Still not convinced? It gets better: the EISCAT ionospheric heating facility documented a major surge of power usage -- right as the apparition was happening.

The power surged up to the maximum level the EISCAT facility is capable of generating -- nearly a gigawatt.

Look at the bottom of the graph to confirm that it was indeed the morning of December 9th, 2009:




posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 


Oooh! Circumstantial evidence! In the photos taken 30km from EISCAT, the phenomenon is seen originating from over the horizon in a different direction from EISCAT, so please explain how an antenna can create such a phenomenon, and we can start to talk.

We know how a Russian missile can create exactly this phenomenon, so your theory is still playing catch-up.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious

 


We know how a Russian missile can create exactly this phenomenon, so your theory is still playing catch-up.


Dude, that's it! I can't take any more of your tunnel vision crap. "YOU" don't know squat.

There has never..ever been another documented missile failure that looks just like the Norway spiral.
Put your money where your mouth is and show us proof of any rocket or missile, model or full scale created a spiral "exactly (your words) like the one we saw in Norway.

Here is your problem: You do not understand physics, and you can't grasp the fact that a rocket could not create the perfection seen. You can't even see that what you are proposing is not feasable. Look at the facts, then think (not out loud on ats) about what you are proposing.

Lastly, no one here seems to "know" what this was, so to just attempt to shove your theory down everyones throat as gospel, makes you look the fool.

[edit on 27-12-2009 by SLaPPiE]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 





We know how a Russian missile can create exactly this phenomenon, so your theory is still playing catch-up.


Cool! Can you show us the indisputable evidence that a Russian missile can create the exact spiral that was seen?

You know footage, pictures etc. of previous launches that created the exact spiral.

Thank you dave.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SLaPPiE
 


Erm



Imagine the above failed rocket launch photographed with a long exposure.

Would it not be similar to the Norway rocket?



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


No, it didn't create the exact large spiral seen in Norway, it also has nothing to do with that one "long exposure" picture, since the spiral was also clearly visible in the video footage.

And, were is the proof that that video you posted was in fact a Russian missile?

[edit on 27-12-2009 by Point of No Return]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


What you're asking most likely can't be done.

It would be asking someone to show two identical cloud formations.

You asked for a video of a failed rocket launch with a spiral, I posted one....And who says it was a Russian rocket? Maybe it really is a wormhole or portal, so the the nagging question is...Why does this wormhole look different to the Norway one?


I've seen DS9! Wormholes all look the same dammit!

[edit on 27/12/09 by Chadwickus]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Thanks, I have seen that one B4, and it is most convincing. That is no doubt very similar looking in many ways to the Norway event. I have a pretty good eye though (I think), and I see differences

That video cut short unfortunatly. It would have been interesting to see that spiral develop.

Please note this one fact about the video you just posted, that makes me think this is different. The begining of the spiral kind of just hangs there..right?
Note how the begining starts to deform...kind of hook.
Notice how it does not really move, or expand.
Note the difference in scale and compair to the Norway event.
If the Norway photo was massive time lapse (I "think" it was just a long exposure), and the spiral was expanding, I assume it would have blurred.

So I dismissed this event as different.

[spelling edit]

[edit on 27-12-2009 by SLaPPiE]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Hey Slappie and Point of No Return You both seem to have taken over from where tauristercus, trigNspirals and myself left of ! Theres no point trying to convince the FAARTS of anything but what they are adamannt it is ! They refuse to listen to any theory but theyre own totally flawed one ! We non FARRTS know that it was'nt a missile and that does for me ! I know in MY mind it wasn't and to me thats what is important ! The FARRTS have not shown us one decently composed and researched theory apart from an effort by Phage, unlike both tauristercus, trigNspirals and i think bsbray and thats the truth ! What it was who knows but at least we know what it was'nt !



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 





What you're asking most likely can't be done.

It would be asking someone to show two identical cloud formations.


Then maybe you shouldn't have posted that video in response to someone asking for exact same Russian missile effects.




You asked for a video of a failed rocket launch with a spiral, I posted one....And who says it was a Russian rocket? Maybe it really is a wormhole or portal, so the the nagging question is...Why does this wormhole look different to the Norway one?


I asked this:




Can you show us the indisputable evidence that a Russian missile can create the exact spiral that was seen?


So your post doesn't make sense.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Well I did say it would look similar didn't I? Not exactly, perfectly identical.

Anyway, no doubt everything I have said and everything you have said has been said in this thread already, so let's not go round in circles saying things that have already been said, which I just said.

 


I actually popped on over here to respond to my good friend Imagir and his picture of the power consumption chart.

Conveniently timed I must say (the chart, not the post), but here one will find all power consumption charts dating back to 2004:

dynamite.eiscat.uit.no...

Weirdly, the day preceding the spiralictic event shows quite a lot of power consumption, yet no spiral?




And another from earlier on in the year:


(This one is actually using more power than the supposed spiral making one!)

So unfortunately the chart proves nothing, but please all you non FAARTS, add it to your absurdly large pile of circumstantial evidence!

How you keep track of it all is beyond me!





Oh and WTF is a FAART? A term of endearment directed towards your fellow ATS comrades?

I would hope so, because if it's some kind of derogatory term, used as an attempt to belittle people, well that truly would be a childish and immature thing to do now wouldn't it?

We all know that no one round here would stoop so low as to start childish name calling right?


right....?




[edit on 27/12/09 by Chadwickus]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I wonder why on the power consumption plots, it does not show any heating during the times of large consumption? The heating would show up in green, in the space right below the red line area. I saw some heating on 12/12/09. You would think that you would see some if it was at max power consumption. I personally do not believe that it was a failed rocket either, I believe that it may have had something to do with the Eiscat as well.

Heating



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 





Well I did say it would look similar didn't I? Not exactly, perfectly identical.


Again, we asked for the exact same effect, and proof that it was a Russian missile.

You posted a video of something not exactly the same, and without proof that it was a Russian missile.

Why post it?

You said yourself that what I was asking for couldn't be done.

Well then, why is it so obvious to you that the spiral effect was created by a Russian missile, if you can't produce evidence of a russian missile doing this exact same thing?



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Chadwickus :- FARRT = FAiled Russian Rocket Theorist ! Coined originally by yours truly !



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 





Oh and WTF is a FAART? A term of endearment directed towards your fellow ATS comrades? I would hope so, because if it's some kind of derogatory term, used as an attempt to belittle people, well that truly would be a childish and immature thing to do now wouldn't it? We all know that no one round here would stoop so low as to start childish name calling right?


I don't know if this is aimed at me personally, but I never used the term.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Hi fart! (points and laughs...childishly)

How can you look at a power usage curve and say what happened? I mean wow! You could be very valuable.

You don't need to hear all the things that use power, but here are two
1)electric arc furnace
2)Welder


LOL

[edit on 27-12-2009 by SLaPPiE]



new topics

top topics



 
286
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join