Norway Spiral - Was It A Live Nuke

I originally started this as a post in the smash hit thread "Norway Spiral Case reopened- The anatomy of an event" by tauristercus on page 7. (A wonderfully laid out thread, by the way), but I think this is worthy of it's own thread, and it seemed no one wanted to touch it there. hmmmm

Now I put this in the weaponry board since that is the going accepted story. I am not sure what is the cause really is, as no one really does. The "official" story does not jive with me. So we will have to build on what we got. We can only speculate. Though it does seem to add up to a ICBM. The expansion rate of the explosion does not add up for a solid fuel ICBM, more like a nuclear detonation. So you trig guy's explain the expansion rate we see. That said, what really happened?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is my own research into this and I am no way an ICBM expert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original post:

I do not buy the third stage failure. The third stage is a single engine, I'm not sure about altitude control thrusters, cannot find a good diagram. But if it was the altitude control thrusters there would be three or more sources of fuel ejection right? If it was the main engine nozzle jamming it would only be a single source?

A failure of flight control computers, attitude control thrusters or jamming of the main propulsion system's nozzle in a wrong position could all lead to the tumbling of the the missile in flight.

Russian Space Web

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a39cde810d1b.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cce4cc4a36e1.jpg[/atsimg]

Now on the following diagram the Bulava M is the on on the far left. If that is the altitude control thrusters or the spin gas generators on the top that would make 5 sources of ejection.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ba7e88b0bbad.gif[/atsimg]

The entire space vehicle itself can be spun up to stabilize the orientation of a single vehicle axis. This method is widely used to stabilize the final stage of a launch vehicle. The entire spacecraft and an attached solid rocket motor are spun up about the rocket's thrust axis, on a "spin table" oriented by the attitude control system of the lower stage on which the spin table is mounted.

Wikipedia

Does the Bulava utilize the above?

I am not sure how the Bulava design differs from the Minuteman III, but the Minuteman does not have spin gas generators initiated until the Reentry Vehicle is ready to descend.

If you watch the following video it shows all stages of the Minuteman from beginning to end. It is a video made by the USAF 341st Space Wing. It is a bit long but trust me it is worth the time.



Now lastly, if an explosion happens in the vacuum of space, the fireball would not look like it did not like the "black hole" in the Norway video, there was no fireball, and the black hole should have kept moving at the velocity as the spiral. Unless it was a live nuke then the fireball would expand in milliseconds, like it appeared to. Also it would vaporize any debris. This might explain why we see no debris. This raises a whole other question. If it was a live nuke, WHAT were they shooting at?

For a nuclear explosion, the fireball would radiate mainly in the x-ray and ultraviolet, which are not visible to the eye, although the visible part of the radiation would produce a blue-white flash. The expansion speed would be many hundreds or thousands of times faster than for a chemical explosion, so that the time scale would be less than a millisecond. All the material near the source would be vaporized, so there would be no fragments.

Mad Scientist: Explosions in Space



Now look at the example below of 2007 explosion of the Russian Proton/Breeze M rocket. The outer globe traveling around what's left of the rocket is the expanding fireball. Fireball and Debris! In Space.........

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0a59c38086c5.gif[/atsimg]

Any way that's my 2c.


[edit on 2-2-2010 by timewalker]

I don't think it was a nuke...if a nuke had of gone off at such a low altitude, but still outside our lower atmosphere...it would produce an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) capable of blacking out multiple cities...I'm not sure, were there any blackout's around the same time and location at which the spiral appeared?

[edit on 2/2/10 by CHA0S]

reply to post by CHA0S
Not sure either the going equation is 296 km = 183.925 mi. That's pretty high. Plus I think that area is pretty sparsely inhabited



[edit on 2-2-2010 by timewalker]

reply to post by CHA0S

You definitely raise a good point, from what I can find it also depends on the yield of the device.

The 1.4 Mt total yield 1962 Starfish test had an output of 0.1%, hence 1.4 kt of prompt gamma rays.

Wikipedia

Well digging into the EMP thing some more, I got a headache trying to corroborate some information that gives credence to my theory, but I might have found something...

The 1962 Starfish Prime Test.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/851836187cf0.gif[/atsimg]

The Dec. 9th anomaly did not look like that



The after effect of the Starfish Prime test as seen from Hawaii 1445 km away.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a299be4917cc.jpg[/atsimg]

Nope not that either.



The 2004 EMP Commission Executive report shows a more direct EMP from a slow pulse detonation.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/45d466771c13.jpg[/atsimg]
EMP Commision

Now the one that might give some credence.

EVIDENCE OF RUSSIAN DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SUBKILOTON NUCLEAR WARHEADS

Facts.org/cia/docs



[edit on 2-2-2010 by timewalker]

If it was a live nuke, the three or so dozen of atmopsheric or air sampling monitors (in Europe) of radioactive emissions would have picked up increased amounts of radionucleide particulates.

I used to work at a weather station where we had to change the filters for those things, and when North Korea tested their weapons we had a slight increase. The monitors in Japan and South Korea went nuts

reply to post by OzWeatherman

What about the sub kiloton thing, would it give off very much particulates?

edit: Never mind, I see NK was subkiloton.

But the explosion itself defies any other type of exoatmospheric blast I can find


[edit on 2-2-2010 by timewalker]

I don't find a Nuke plausible.

There are just to many extra things a nuke gives off, so it is easy to tell one has been set off.

Like others said, radiation and EMP would be noticed.

good try on being creative and trying to figure somethnig out though.



[edit on 2-2-2010 by Quickfix]

reply to post by Quickfix
Maybe I'm going down the wrong wabbit hole. Maybe we got some new device that does not fit into any category we "know" of?

NO Fireball from an explosion? Does not seem logical.



[edit on 2-2-2010 by timewalker]

Just from experience.....

While testing a new missile class like the Russians were doing, a live warhead is NOT used. The warhead is not put in place on a new missile platform until all of the testing is done and the unit is "proven."

An EMP would not occur unless you had an actual nuke detonation.

reply to post by Submarines
Ahh.. glad to see a weapons guy here. Have you ever witnessed a detonation without any kind of, redundant saying for me, a fireball or lacking any kind of debris?

reply to post by timewalker


If you look at the original video of the spiral, you can see that there is a blue beam that you can trace from the spiral down to the mountains.

With that being said you should look at the video again for a refresher.

The spiral could be many things. It could be a new type of defense system that super heats certain parts of the atmosphere causing incoming missles to explode.

That is just one theory.

The other I think about is if it is a projection.

I wouldn't know but those would be my guesses.

Deffinately not a rocket though. The weapon theory i suggested could be a different type of weapon.

Just my thoughts.

reply to post by Quickfix

I agree. Nothing about it seems conventional. Enough unconventional to get it's own Wikipedia entry. I brought up earlier in the thread, it might not be a nuke, but something else, we are not aware of. I am focusing on the detonation, or explosion, expanding black hole. It defies all my logic. I do not write off "ANY" explanation.

reply to post by timewalker


I write off a few explanations

I do it because some of the theories people have don't show any shread of evidence of what they claim it to be. I.E. a rocket.

An expanding black hole, well I haven't really done any research on those so I don't know.

There isn't really an explosion/detonation on the video, it is just there.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock holmes

reply to post by Quickfix

Meaning the expanding black hole in the video. Problem is there is no hard evidence to lend to really any theory. It is an enigma. Just retracted statements from "official" sources. The only thing that really makes me look at a missile failure is the exhaust plume in the distance from the source. The corkscrew is another story, it does not look like exhaust, it is too smooth IMO. But I have no evidence of UFO's, Blackholes, EISCAT, GOD, or anything else we can sink our teeth into. Believe me, I wish there were more interesting evidence to point towards anything but more killing devices.

Just a thought but what if the CERN experiment was timed to create a black hole just as the instant the missle from russia was lost to thwart a nuclear blast over Norway where all the world leaders were at the time.

reply to post by timewalker


There is some evidence on Gad, it is just hard to find, since its distorted by a few centuries and war (the victor rewrites history). There is also evidence on UFO's you can thank NASA for being a failure of a front.

The likely possibility of it being a weapon or a means of defense is most likely.


reply to post by TheRandomUser


All of the leaders were in Norway? Any proof of that? I am curious.

Thinking about how the spiral could elimante a rocket/missle threat of some kind is plausible I think, but did it really happen?

We just don't know, if there were more tests run then maybe we could get somewhere, but it was just a 1 time deal.

A test firing never has a live warhead. The rocket would have been instrumented and ballasted for the weight of the actual warhead.