The B2 Must have Anti Gravity Propulsion

Originally posted by Bobbox1980
Technically any engineer who has worked in the business of manufacturing or selling aircraft is subject to ITAR regulations. These prior restraint rules on freedom of speech seem to be unconstitutional but that has not been challenged in court. Violating them can result in heavy fines and/or jail sentences.

Furthermore any engineer working on classified projects has signed NDA's with their company and the government behind the project. Violating these NDA's pretty much means loss of job, loss of pension, inability to work in the field anymore due to being blacklisted, losing one's security clearance, huge fines and potential jail on top of the fines and jail one can get for violating ITAR.

Lastly, Jim has said that he didn't even know what the final B2 aircraft looked like until the craft was made public. Information in that industry is so compartmentalized he likely did not have a need to know about anything other than the parts he and his unit built.

Dead on. Also the computer that I am using to make these posts is subject to monitoring. Everything that I type here is stored. I have no problem with it and agreeed to it as part of my employment. I am not working on anything that is classified by the government anymore, but, I do work with my company's propriatary information and one of the reasons that I was able to obtain this job is my having had a clearance and the fact that I safeguard confidential information.

reply to post by The Wave


Sorry to be off topic but this is worth mentioning.

I run my own website and it tells me who has visited, when, what OS and PC, their IP address and so on etc.

I get quiet a few visits from RAF Menwith Hill.

Always thought that was odd but I guess they may have seen my posts on here the last 6 years and I also signed the Official Secrets Act when I was with the Police for 5 years.

Mmmmm, got me thinking now!

reply to post by minkey53


Hi!,

Always here to help! :-)

I don't mean to be an alarmist - but honestly, we are all being monitored - for whatever reason - those I mentioned earlier plus Facebook, Google.... usually for $'s or £'s but also for 'control'.

As I have nothing to hide, I'm not overly concerned but if I've signed an NDA then I abide by it and I respect others that do so.

A gentle recommendation read; 'The Shadow Factory' by James Bamford - there's a lot of solid information regarding the NSA.

Apologies for being off topic...

Peace!

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by butcherguy

 

What does that thread prove? I'm not arguing, it just looks like a thread like any other.

The quote in my post is from that thread. It proves that government agencies monitor ATS, that's all. That thread is (I think) the longest thread on ATS. You don't have to read all 531 pages, though. I think the quote is from one of the last two pages.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by butcherguy]

The people looking over our shoulders must be laughing their asses off about this anti-gravity stuff. The B-2 is a good stealth platform, but it isn't the optimal shape for stealth. The problem with the optimal shape is that there is no way in hell you can get it to fly. If we did have an anti-grav system, why not use it to get that shape to fly. No I don't know what the shape is.

ok, I'll take the bait.....

I believe Ufimtsev's mathematical treatment can be used to show that the optimum shape for avoiding radar returns is a disc......


'so how the hell do we make this disc fly??'

reply to post by Catalytic


It is? I honestly don't know. There was no intent to bait anyone with my last post.

Originally posted by nsaeyes
which plant did you work?

second line...

Why are you a spy? People are not that stupid and especially the ones who have worked on the B-2 project.

Originally posted by Catalytic
ok, I'll take the bait.....

I believe Ufimtsev's mathematical treatment can be used to show that the optimum shape for avoiding radar returns is a disc......


'so how the hell do we make this disc fly??'

You have baited me in with your question. Antigravity of course, is the answer. That is why I don't think that the B-2 is using antigravity technology. Antigravity would be able to make a disc-shaped airframe fly, and if a disc is the best stealth shape, why stick antigrav in a B-2?

reply to post by minkey53


If it did have that tech, the design itself was taken from the Nazi's so guess they beat everyone to it..again

Easy Tigers!

Bill Gunston also burned himself with charged leading edge claims for the B2!

If it's real, occams razor would dictate that the purpose is aerodynamic efficiency or stealth not anti-gravity.

If it's aerodynamic efficiency, then in these days of realisation of the finite nature of fossil fuels, I for one would like to see this progress to the white world

burn less for longer

the b2 bomber is old hat. if you really want to be amazed check out the b1 lancer supersonic, its replacement.

Originally posted by davesidious
I suggest everyone finds that book, and flushes it.

We don't need some joker called Paul LaViolette to start spewing on about Tesla, alien UFOs, and other nonsense. This is the science and technology board, not the make a bunch of stuff up and sit around going "oooh!" board.

Here's the "joker" who "spews" nonsense...This guy seems pretty intelligent if you ask me.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Uhhh, I helped build the leading edges of the wing for the first six aircraft. There's none of that crap in there and there is no way to put it in there.

Just to keep the fun going. What would power this anti-grav system that isn't there?

I'm sure all versions of the B2 are the same, and they could never incorporate any other technology within the B2 without "you" knowing about it.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
No I don't know what the shape is.

A disc... I would think you would know that. Project king fish ring a bell? Robert Widmer..

Sure the B-2 is "anti-gravity", but only insofar as it is able to produce thrust lifting it off the ground.

If it were actually capable of propelling gravity, you wouldn't ever see it. It would be too easy to figure out. Trust me, you aren't just discovering some secret about a plane that has been flying about for two decades now.

This design is quite old, actually.

Originally posted by SuperSlovak
the b2 bomber is old hat. if you really want to be amazed check out the b1 lancer supersonic, its replacement.

Umm.. the B1 first flew in 1974, the B2 in 1989. How does the B1 replace the B2 when the B1 came first?

I too once heard somewhere that the government was experimenting with conventional wings that ionize the air around it to create extra thrust which in turn would make the aircraft fly longer distances.

Like an Ionocraft which ionizes the air to create thrust.

Also, I'm pretty sure they have tried putting nuclear reactors in jets by now. Wont have to land to refuel for 25 years, like a submarine.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Also, I'm pretty sure they have tried putting nuclear reactors in jets by now. Wont have to land to refuel for 25 years, like a submarine.

Well they did, and the Russians even made a number of successful flights (only because they did not care about the crew's dying from the massive amount of radiation they received)...

Both the Americans and the Russians have pretty much dropped the idea now, one method was very very difficult to build, the other was ridiculously simple but would irradiate every thing and everything under it's flight path!

Also the shielding for the crew was very very heavy - wiped out all the advantage of having a big bomber in the first place - it wouldn't of been able to carry much else.

And by that time any way nuke powered subs were a much better option, no need to worry about the weight so much with a sub.

The only way we might see this again is a doomsday massive cruise missile, it would loiter over the enemy territory at super high speed for as long as you like (months even) firing off smaller cruise missiles and bombs - irradiating hundreds of square miles as it does so, and as a final act it would suicide it's self into the last target, that would make one heck of a mess seeing how it is a reactor with wings!

Not a nice weapon at all!

[edit on 26/1/2010 by Now_Then]

reply to post by minkey53


Mate, from the USA to here is quite a short distance if you use great circle navigation and fly from A to B on a sphere.

Plus the higher the B2 is, the less drag it encounters as the air is thiner.

Then any sensible army will always distort performance specs to keep the enemy guessing.

As mentioned before, the wing is also a very good shape for flight.

Don't worry about the B2 having anti gravity =)

reply to post by The Wave


A gentle recommendation read; 'The Shadow Factory' by James Bamford - there's a lot of solid information regarding the NSA.


I just ordered this book on Amazon, looks amazing, thanks for that!

Originally posted by nsaeyes
with regards to this topic: I suggest everyone find the book, "Secrets of Anti-Gravity Propulsion, Telsa, Ufos & Classified Aerospace Technology" by Dr. Paul Laviolette.

Your assumptions about the B2 are correct, and the schematics for how they did it are in the book.

Basically they ran an electric coil through the leading edge of the wings to create a positive charge -- thus electrifying the skin of the aircraft. Then, they created a negative charge back by the exhaust somewhere (been a year or so since I read the book) and the two charges together create an anti-grav field.

apparently this is also one of the reasons that ground crews are not allowed near the plane once it lands for a considerable period of time, due to the skin of the plane still holding an immense charge and ground crews getting the "shock" of their lives...

hah, I made a joke

read the book, it's extremely interesting, although a bit scientific and dry in parts if you're not that up to date on cutting edge scientific principles.

Fantastic and true in my oppinion. Talking with Airman who have worked B2's it is mysterious even to crew chiefs.