Columbia brought down by a UFO weapon?

Originally posted by Lokey13
Cool Hand are you a family member or have information that the family members are not pushing for a further investigation? Unless you do your statement is null.

I am not a family member. Do you have any information that they are requesting any further investigation? Otherwise, your statement is just as null as mine.

Also the people that you are believing are the people we constantly conspire about on here. So really how good is your source of information. You call them facts, I call them expensive opinions.

Let me see if I got this right, you are calling the CAIB report an "expensive opinion?" Have you even read it or any of the books about the disaster that have come out since it happened? What research have you personally done to show that it was anything besides what science has proven?

The ball is in your court. You need to start showing some proof, or this is not much of a debate/discussion after all.

reply to post by citizen truth


You are referring to Bearden and his scalar weapons theory. According to him the Russians can shoot down anything with their scalar weapons grid. By this theory, the tracking lightning would probably be their automated system doing some fine tuned calibration prior to locking on to the target.

www.rumormillnews.com...

www.cheniere.org...

Originally posted by SevenThunders
According to him the Russians can shoot down anything with their scalar weapons grid.

Would that grid encompass the US at the altitude of the shuttle as it passes the west coast?

WOW... I don't kwo what to say. People actually believe an alien craft would shoot as our space shuttle. What for? I'd love to hear the reasoning. Then we have teh few who feel this too was a gov hit on the shuttle. The one who tried to show evidence made me laugh. I'd love to hear a well reasoned agrument for either of these two theories. One of the astronauts was a super spy perhaps? Come on people. This Serita character lost me when he said he knew what the alien craft were using for propultion based only on a photograph. Sorry but that shows sever lack of perspective and objectivity.

I have seen lightning to strange things. Once I even saw lighting form a ring in the sky which lasted a few seconds. I guess aliens or the government were tryiong to entertain us kids sitting at the bus stop?

Originally posted by poltergeist
The purple bolt of lightening that hit the spaceship was actually Scalar EM. Scalar EM is energy generated from decompressing time/ space to create a negative vacuum, hence it is called negative vacuum energy as well.

I never heard this before. It's possible to decompress time-space?

(I'm not criticizing what you said, I've just never heard this before).

I'm not an expert, I've only studied basic physics in college.

What pops into my mind is that if technology does exist currently on earth to "decompress time-space" and create a "negative vacuum", wouldn't we be seeing much, much more stranger things happening?

Would we even need a space shuttle, or have to generate a lightning bold as a weapon? (Why would we need to decompress time-space to make a lightening bolt?)

Tesla was doing this in 1900. I don't think he needed to "decompress" time and space to create a "negative vacuum".

Wasn't he just trying to excite the ionosphere, or charge the ionosphere by shooting electricity into it?

If we can decompress time and space, would we need rocket fuel to propell us into space?

I never even knew that time/space was compressed.

I'm just trying to understand. Maybe someone with more knowledge (then I) can help.

I'm gonna have trouble sleeping again tonight, this was the last thing I needed to know. Some guy in Russia has a time/space decompressor... Thanks!

[edit on 10-10-2007 by Electro38]

Originally posted by norman619
WOW... I don't kwo what to say. People actually believe an alien craft would shoot as our space shuttle. What for? I'd love to hear the reasoning. Then we have teh few who feel this too was a gov hit on the shuttle. The one who tried to show evidence made me laugh. I'd love to hear a well reasoned agrument for either of these two theories. One of the astronauts was a super spy perhaps? Come on people. This Serita character lost me when he said he knew what the alien craft were using for propultion based only on a photograph. Sorry but that shows sever lack of perspective and objectivity.

I have seen lightning to strange things. Once I even saw lighting form a ring in the sky which lasted a few seconds. I guess aliens or the government were tryiong to entertain us kids sitting at the bus stop?

30 second lightning... give me a break. I am a storm NUT. I live in Texas and have watched literally thousands of storms very carefully and with great interest and have never EVER witnessed lightining lasting more than a couple of seconds... and that is being generous. Did alien craft shoot it down? Hell I dunno, sounds out there.. But I do know the San Fran chronicle reporter said "wow" and they clearly stated the shutter speed, it was manually operated and the number of pictures in which this thing appears. If you think it is lightning you seriously make yourself look far more ignorant than anyone that thinks its an alien craft.

Just another thing that got me thinking here, sorry.

If the Russians have Scalar weapons then why would they be so pissed off over America's crappy missle defense system?

I'm just curious.

reply to post by SevenThunders


Thanks, this is what I am referring to but not the exact links.The video I watched talked in detail about Tesla,Russia and the technology.It also showed radar or thermal images of a "shield?"The shuttle was a small part of this and illustrated how this technology works.
You covered most of it though, thanks.
I wasn't saying this was "the" answer, only that some put it out as a theory.

Taken from here: Tesla

"It will be possible to destroy anything approaching within 200 miles. My invention will provide a wall of power," declares Tesla. Progress along such lines will be impossible while nations persist in the savage practice of killing each other off. I inherited from my father, an erudite man who labored hard for peace, an ineradicable hatred of war. Like other inventors, I believed at one time that war could he stopped by making it more destructive. But I found that I was mistaken. I underestimated man's combative instinct, which it will take more than a century to breed out. We cannot abolish war by outlawing it. We cannot end it by disarming the strong. War can be stopped, not by making the strong weak but by making every nation, weak or strong, able to defend itself.

Hitherto all devices that could be used for defense could also be utilized to serve for aggression. This nullified the value of the improvement for purposes of peace. But I was fortunate enough to evolve a new idea and to perfect means which can be used chiefly for defense. If it is adopted, it will revolutionize the relations between nations. It will make any country, large or small, impregnable against armies, airplanes, and other means for attack. My invention requires a large plant, but once it is established it will he possible to destroy anything, men or machines, approaching within a radius of 200 miles. It will, so to speak, provide a wall of power offering an insuperable obstacle against any effective aggression.

If no country can be attacked successfully, there can be no purpose in war. My discovery ends the menace of airplanes or submarines, but it insures the supremacy of the battleship, because battleships may be provided with some of the required equipment. There might still be war at sea, but no warship could successfully attack the shore line, as the coast equipment will be superior to the armament of any battleship. I want to state explicitly that this invention of mine does not contemplate the use of any so-called "death rays." Rays are not applicable because they cannot be produced in requisite quantities and diminish rapidly in intensity with distance. All the energy of New York City (approximately two million horsepower) transformed into rays and projected twenty miles, could not kill a human being, because, according to a well known law of physics, it would disperse to such an extent as to be ineffectual.

After some searches it would appear that I have debunked myself. I can live with that.

I really do hesitate before I write this... I may regret the effort. I honestly become somewhat emotional thinking of the loss to this day.

A 1.67 pound chunk of foam struck Columbia's left wing leading edge at over 500MPH on launch. It damaged the wing roughly in front of a fore/aft plane in line with the left wheel gear bay. The wing leading edge was not RCC at that time but more like a fancy silica-impregnated fiberglass lay-up.

Although not conclusive Air Force photos do show a wing leading edge anomaly prior to the Criticality-1 Malfunction and the loss of the vehicle and her her crew. They are on the Net. So's the CAIB report. NASA even has some on-orbit photos showing the wing and lots of video from the crew activities.

Internal wing sensors went off-scale high and then failed. The nav system did it's job and fought the port side drag compensating by bringing up vernier RCS and flight control surfaces.

The structural aspect of the wing fore-box failed. The TPS was breached. The plasma entered the body of the wing and the wheel well. The tire and hydraulics may have exploded at that point or the wing may have fallen away from the aero-load and the the plasma thermo-load.

The orbital vehicle disintegrated violently. The crew were lost. Two SAR helo-personnel perished during the search efforts.

Some really, really fine human beings died. I believe it was on Flight Day 7 that the crew was awakened with John Lennon's "Imagine".

I encourage folks to explore all avenues for the truth. Decide for yourself.

Respectfully,

Vic

reply to post by citizen truth


I think Bearden goes into Tesla's development of this technology on his site. Of course Bearden's credibility leaves much to be desired. We are still waiting for his free energy device to become available after many years.

However I do know that other researchers believe in scalar wave propagation and certainly Tesla's work lends credence to the idea. Moreover there are several tweaks of Maxwell's equations that give rise to such a theory.

Whether or not the Yakuza or the Russians brought down the shuttle seems a bit speculative I must say.

reply to post by V Kaminski


What is especially galling is the continued PC use of the 'liberal' foam after it was proven to be considerably less stable than the original formulation. I call it liberal since they banned a number of greehouse gas materials from the foam, causing the enviro-friendly foam to break away catastrophically. Now you'd think that they would allow an exception for something of vital national interest as the space shuttle, but apparently not. Better to toss a few billion dollars and the lives of astronauts then to upset environmentalists.

There were as many as 4 separate types of foam used at different times on different external tanks. The chunk that struck Columbia was the earlier freon-containing foam called BX-250. It's replacement is BX-265 STEPANFOAM® which is no environmental winner either.

Some think the super lightweight ablator (SLA) actually vibrated free of the ET skin right at (or just above) the Oh-Two "waterline" ahead of the intertank area on STS-107. SLA is thin cork-like sheet glued on with a skiff-coat of RTV and the foam is sprayed over top. Complete technical data on the foam as well as the TPS can be found on the Dryden Technical Reports Server. Just Google. There are a great many documents, mostly PDF format.

The chunk that hit Discovery was rather large and created a weakened area about 6 to 10 inches by some accounts. The weakened area failed upon re-entry.

NASA knew about the foam strike but the Management team dismissed the JSC Engineering Team's (amongst others) recommendations for inspection. All this is well-known and available data. Email records confirm this.

It is somewhat likely that the STS-107 occupants felt the hit on the way up... maybe didn't "hear" it but felt something. It was a big piece hitting with big league kinetics. It's all in the CAIB report. There were photos around of a CAD-CAM representation of what the foam chunk looked like.

STS-118 dodged a foam bullet - ricochet - belly wound... foam will continue to be an issue on STS-120 as well an the other tanks in the work flow with the same LOX feedpipe bracket design... amongst other issues.

Columbia was brought down by, as Frank Borman put it so succinctly to the senate Apollo 204 fire investigative panel concerning the loss of Grissom, White and Chaffey, "Failure of imagination." Imagine.

Cheers,

Vic

[edit on 10-10-2007 by V Kaminski]

Originally posted by SevenThunders
reply to post by V Kaminski

 

What is especially galling is the continued PC use of the 'liberal' foam after it was proven to be considerably less stable than the original formulation. I call it liberal since they banned a number of greehouse gas materials from the foam, causing the enviro-friendly foam to break away catastrophically. Now you'd think that they would allow an exception for something of vital national interest as the space shuttle, but apparently not. Better to toss a few billion dollars and the lives of astronauts then to upset environmentalists.

They also redesigned the area where the particular piece of foam fell off. It is all contained in the CAIB.

There really is no better option than the foam to prevent the loss of fuel on the shuttle after fueling. If there was one, I am sure they would have switched to it by now.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

I am not a family member. Do you have any information that they are requesting any further investigation? Otherwise, your statement is just as null as mine.

Let me see if I got this right, you are calling the CAIB report an "expensive opinion?" Have you even read it or any of the books about the disaster that have come out since it happened? What research have you personally done to show that it was anything besides what science has proven?

The ball is in your court. You need to start showing some proof, or this is not much of a debate/discussion after all.

Well first off your proof isn't proof at all. It's proof in the eyes of anyone who believes the government(and or the left over remnance of the nazi regime, do research nasa was started by nazi's). Like you simple white sheep. An I don't have to find any proof you have to find me proof that they aren't looking any further, you brought the families into this not me. So stop trying to be "sarcastic", and get proof from a source outside the government. An i'll be awaiting the article that says the families are at home knitting away. By the way you don't seem to have an open mind, why do you post here anyway?

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Lokey13]

Originally posted by Lokey13
Well first off your proof isn't proof at all. It's proof in the eyes of anyone who believes the government(and or the left over remnance of the nazi regime, do research nasa was started by nazi's). Like you simple white sheep. An I don't have to find any proof you have to find me proof that they aren't looking any further, you brought the families into this not me. So stop trying to be "sarcastic", and get proof from a source outside the government. An i'll be awaiting the article that says the families are at home knitting away. By the way you don't seem to have an open mind, why do you post here anyway?

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Lokey13]

First off, I do not appreciate the personal attack from you. I do not consider myself to be one of your "sheep."

Next, there are several books on the subject (one of which was written by the CDRs wife) which describe the families reactions to the CAIB. You will note that none of the families have gone public and requested further investigations into the incidents. That tells me that they accept the findings of the board. Unless you can prove me wrong with some evidence to support your side.

Second, NASA was not started by Nazi's they just employed former Nazi's to get things going. No one in the US (at the time) had their skill set.

Lastly, I do have an open mind. I find it shocking that someone who does not agree with you is immediately branded as having a closed mind. Isn't there a chance that I am just as right as you think you are?

Interesting we are having this discussion here the last couple days and I run across an article addressing concerns with the shuttle Discovery's wing this morning.

NASA is studying a possible problem with the thermal shielding on Discovery's wings that could force a delay in this month's launch.

Discovery's seven astronauts climbed aboard the shuttle at the launch pad Wednesday for a practice countdown. At the same time, shuttle managers discussed whether three of the 44 reinforced carbon panels that line the edges of Discovery's wings should be replaced.

The shuttle would have to be returned to the hangar for that kind of work, which would mean a launch delay. Discovery is scheduled to lift off Oct. 23 with a new live-in compartment for the international space station.

source

reply to post by Icarus Rising
No worries. A review of this thread shows that the only concern should be a strike from a fairly large piece of foam to that spot on the wing. Every thing else should not have any consequences. I really hope the program gets is right.

What is the name of the photographer???

Peter ..?? what?

reply to post by V Kaminski


That's interesting. I based my response on this article, which claims that they had not restored the original foam formulation but were still using the 'environmental friendly version' on Columbia despite known problems.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

Wow, I wasn't expecting my first thread to be so popular and it has boosted my ATS points (I still don't get what the other points mean [BTS, PTS] and if they have any significance).

I'll keep searching the internet and Youtube for more interesting topics that need to be discussed, and hopefully find some answers to my (and everyone else's) questions on the topics that ATS covers.