Saturday, 30 September 2017

9-11 & CHECHNYA :WHY RUSSIA ATTACKED THAT DAY


The 9-11 attacks were blowback for the covert war the American Ruling Class (ARC) was conducting inside the borders of Russia in Chechnya. The ARC was trying to dismantle Russia in much the same way that the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia disintegrated into various republics at the end of the Cold War. Russia has several ethnic enclaves inside her borders that the ARC intended to inflame in order to do this. Chechnya one of the most disloyal and pro-Nazi enclaves inside the Soviet Union would become this battle ground. 


9-11 demonstrated to the American Military and Warhawk politicians the worthlessness of their SDI system. Star Wars can do nothing to stop mini-thermonuclear bombs. A bomb the size of a soda can have yield greater than the bombs used on Japan. These weapons are next to impossible to detect. The forward deployment of these weapons took place in the early 70's with the roll out of SDI. 


Enter Dzhokar Dudayev, a former Soviet air force officer and the first Islamo-Nazi terrorist leader of Chechnya. From November of 1991 until his alleged death in April 1996, he led a terrorist campaign for the ARC inside the borders of Russia that displaced nearly a million people from their homes and killed according to some estimates 40,000 Russian soldiers. When all was said and done some 160,000 people would be dead as a consequence from the war the ARC waged in Russia. Chechen terrorists actually bragged about their Nazi roots in radio interviews. Dudayev's terrorists hijacked planes, conducted kamikaze attacks, threatened to dirty bomb Russian cities and attack nuclear power plants. Dudayev had the full backing of the West during this campaign. The National Security Agency provided communications support in the form satellite phones, which could not be tracked by Russia. The CIA provided weapons such as TOW missiles to destroy tanks and MANPADS used to shootdown Russian military helicopters. The CIA also funneled in harded Afghan Arab veterans into Chechnya to fight the Russians. The heavily intelligence operative penetrated Western media i.e. propaganda agencies gave sympathetic coverage to the terrorists. Western media refused to call the Chechens terrorists. They used the more sympathetic moniker of "rebel."  



Dudayev was part of the Nazi stay behind program initiated by this man, the infamous Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen. Chechnya was one of the most disloyal enclaves during WW2. 90% of their conscripted men decided to go AWOL and fight for the Nazi's instead of the Red Army. General Reinhard Gehlen was the man who assisted these Nazi sympathizers in their treachery. It was so bad that the Soviet government was forced to relocate the Chechens to the east in order to stop these Nazi's. The ARC used this network during the Cold War to cache weapons and to safely house spies that were parachuted into the Soviet Union during the Cold War.



Needless to say the Russians did not just look the other way while the ARC attempted to dismantle their country; they fought back. The WTC-93, OKC Bombing, Khobar Towers, the East African Embassy Bombings and 9-11 among others were all retaliatory strikes for the ARC's policy of trying to dismantle Russia using Islamo-Nazi's. 



This blog is pretty much dedicated to U.S. military's nuclear aerospace program. But these attacks show just how impotent control of space is in controlling things on the ground. 9-11 and the preceding attacks were all so sophisticated that only a very technologically advanced nation state could have been their sponsor. The 9-11 attacks were so sophisticated that only a nation state could have been sponsored the attack. With a 75% success rate the Boeing 757 – 767 kamikaze style attacks of September 11th were unusually successful. The Japanese kamikazes had an 11% success rate in that only 11% of the planes hit their targets. Only 4% actually destroyed their targets. The 9-11 planes destroyed 50% of their targets. It took a great deal of espionage to conduct these attacks. In the case of 9-11 the attackers knew how to hack the autopilots, they knew where the holes where in TRACON's radar coverage were, they knew exactly how much they could push the air frames before the planes would begin to fall apart and they knew where to place the suitcase nukes to take down the buildings. There was also a Forward Air Controller (FAC) on the ground. The second plane was much better placed than the first you would need a FAC to make that correction. 



The companies that Russia needed to penetrate in order to pull off this attack were Boeing, Honeywell and Raytheon. Boeing had built a research center in Moscow in the early 90's and had sold a number of 757 and 767 airplanes to Russian airlines giving them a hands on knowledge of just what the airframes were capable of handling. Honeywell manufactured the avionics suites used in the planes and have the longest history of doing business inside Russia/USSR going back to the early 1970's. An expert knowledge of the Honeywell avionics suite was needed to pull off the 9-11 attacks. It would take a team of aviation and electrical engineers to figure out how to hack the systems. Only a nation state with access to these systems would have the resources to do it. Raytheon had cut a deal to "modernize" Russia's air traffic control system in the mid-90s. Raytheon is the main contractor on building air traffic control systems inside the United States. Again a team of electrical and aviation engineers would be needed to hack these systems. Only a nation state would have the resources to do it. 





These three companies basically sold out America and were paid with dollars from the IMF loans given to Russia in the 1990's. Of course no investigation of these companies was ever conducted and the ARC framed up Osama Bin Laden et al for the attacks. But the sophistication of the attacks point elsewhere. They point to Russia.  


Sources:

http://www.internal-displacement.org/europe-the-caucasus-and-central-asia/russian-federation/summary

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/world/europe/chechen-official-puts-death-toll-for-2-wars-at-up-to-160000.html?mcubz=0



Bibliography 
1. Neuborne, Ellen. “KGB threat doesn’t shake resolve of U.S. firms.” USA TODAY, 01 February 1991, Final Edition. p. B 1. 
2. Perry, Samuel, (Reuters). “Boeing signs with Russia.” Calgary Herald, 14 August 1992, Final Edition., p. C13 
3. Rao, Sujata. “New Venture to Sell TU-204” The Moscow Times, 17 December 1996., Section No.1110 
4. Baranov, Yuri. “Boeing getting a foothold on the CIS.” Moscow News, 22 October 1993, Economics; No. 43
5. Fuerbringer, Jonathan. “World Markets; Doing Business in Eastern Europe.” The New York Times, 23 December 1990, Late Edition – Final, Section 3., p. 12
6. Gulyayev, Michael. “Fliers Glide by American GPS.” The Moscow Times, 21 June 1995.,  No. 736
7. Davis, Riccardo A. “HONEYWELL PART TESTED IN TWA PROBE.” Saint Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota), 11 December 1996, p. 1D
8. Davies, John; “EX-USSR OKS BOEING JETS FOR DOMESTIC ROUTES.” Journal of Commerce, 20 September 1993., p. 4B
9. News Services. “Chechenian Emergency.” The Washington Post, 11 November 1992, Final Edition, First Section; p. A3.
10. Brodie, Ian. “Time running out for Clinton fence-sitting.” The Times, 04 January 1995., Overseas news 
11. Scott, Carey. “Yeltsin fears the wild men of Chechnya.” The Sunday Times (London), 04 December 1994., Overseas news
12. Reuters. “Russia Says It Will Ignore Parts Of Pact on Conventional Forces.” The New York Times, 17 April 1995., Section A, p.6. 
13. “Aeroflot hijack.” The Times (London), 09 June 1992., Section Overseas news
14. Hoffman, David. “Suitcase Nuclear Weapons Safely Kept, Russian Says; But Former Republics May Still Have Bombs.” The Washington Post, 14 September 1997, p. A23. 


Wednesday, 20 September 2017

MOL TIMELINE

MOL TIME-LINE
MOL Chronology

·        1959 June 22 - Preliminary design of a two-man space laboratory. - Program: Gemini.
H. Kurt Strass of Space Task Group's Flight Systems Division (FSD) recommended the establishment of a committee to consider the preliminary design of a two-man space laboratory. Representatives from each of the specialist groups within FSD would work with a special projects group, the work to culminate in a set of design specifications for the two-man Mercury.

·        1962 May 23 - Avco proposal for a space station. - Launch Vehicle: Titan 2.
Representatives from Avco Manufacturing Corporation made a presentation to MSC on a proposal for a space station. Prime purpose of the station, company spokesmen said, was to determine the effects of zero-g on the crew's ability to stand reentry and thus fix the limit that man could safely remain in orbit. Avco's proposed station design comprised three separate tubes about 3 m in diameter and 6 m long, launched separately aboard Titan IIs and joined in a triangular shape in orbit. A standard Gemini spacecraft was to serve as ferry vehicle.

·        1963 August 30 - Study for a military, orbiting, space station. -
The Director of Defense for Research and Engineering approved a study program for a military, orbiting, space station.

·        1963 August 9 - McNamara sees necessity of multi-manned orbital flights of long duration. -
In his reply to the Vice President, Secretary McNamara stressed the necessity of multi-manned orbital flights of long duration.

·        1963 December 10 - Cancellation of the X-20 DynaSoar project and start of the MOL project -
Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara announced cancellation of the X-20 Dyna Soar project at a news briefing at the Pentagon. McNamara stated that fiscal resources thereby saved would be channeled into broader research on the problems and potential value of manned military operations in space, chiefly the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) project. These decisions on the X-20 and MOL had been discussed and coordinated with NASA, and, although the Air Force received responsibility for the MOL project, NASA would continue to provide technical support. By the end of 1963 $410 million had been spent on Dynasoar, with another $373 million needed through the first flight. It was decided to complete re-entry testing of the Asset subscale unmanned vehicle, at a cost of $ 41 million.

·        1963 December 19 - NASA position on the Defense Department's Manned Orbiting Laboratory project. -
NASA Hq advised the centers regarding the agency's official position vis-a-vis the Defense Department's Manned Orbiting Laboratory project. Both NASA and DOD viewed MOL as a project designed to fulfill immediate military requirements. The project could not be construed as meeting the much broader objectives and goals of a national space station program being studied by both organizations under post-Apollo research and development program policy agreements between NASA Administrator James E. Webb and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara (dated 14 September 1963).

·        1963 December 31 - NASA/USAF discussions on MOL joint control and support. -
MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth apprised George E. Mueller, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, of recent discussions with officers from the Air Force's Space Systems Division regarding MSC's joint participation in the MOL project in the area of operational control and support. Such joint cooperation might comprise two separate areas: manning requirements for the control center and staffing of actual facilities. Gilruth suggested that such joint cooperation would work to the benefit of both organizations involved. Furthermore, because a number of unidentified problems inevitably existed, he recommended the creation of a joint NASA Air Force group to study the entire question so that such uncertainties might be identified and resolved.

·        1963 December 4 - Military space station program which employed the X-20 proposed. -
In a memorandum to the Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. Flax disagreed with Dr. Brown's space station proposal and argued against the cancellation of the X-20. Secretary Zuckert informed the Secretary of Defense that he supported the posit of Dr. Flax. Major General I. K. Hester, Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, offered a space station program which employed the X-20.

·        1963 December 5 - X-20 proposed as part of a space station program. -
Secretary Zuckert forwarded General Hester's proposal to the Secretary of Defense and stated that there was no reason to omit the X-20 from consideration as part of a space station program.

·        1963 July 22 - Johnson requests statement on the importance to national security of a space station. -
Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson requested the Secretary of the Defense to prepare a statement on the importance to national security of a space station.

·        1963 November 14 - Cancellation of X-20 program proposed. -
The Director of Defense for Research and Engineering recommended to the Secretary of Defense cancellation of the X-20 program and initiation of a space station program. Harold Brown believed that Blue Gemini could accommodate significantly greater payload for such missions. He recommended that DynaSoar be cancelled and replaced by a Gemini-serviced space station.

·        1963 November 30 - MOL orbiting laboratory program suggested. -
Largely because of NASA objections to the space station proposal, Dr. Brown suggested to the Secretary of Defense an orbiting laboratory program, employing Gemini capsule and a 1,500 cubic foot test module.

·        1963 September 12 - Gemini, Apollo, and X-20 studied for military space missions. -
The President's Scientific Advisory Committee requested a briefing from the Air Force on possible military space missions, biomedical experiments to be performed in space, and the capability of Gemini, Apollo, and the X-20 vehicles to execute these requirements.

·        1964 December 7 - Recommendation that the Air Force's MOL and NASA's Apollo X programs be merged. -
In a letter to President Lyndon B. Johnson, Senator Clinton P. Anderson, Chairman of the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, recommended that the Air Force's MOL and NASA's Apollo X programs be merged. Senator Anderson argued that a jointly operated national space station program would most effectively use the nation's available resources. He claimed that $1 billion could be saved during the next five years if the MOL were canceled and those funds applied to NASA's Apollo-based space station program.Additional Details: Recommendation that the Air Force's MOL and NASA's Apollo X programs be merged. (21913).

·        1964 February 15 - American space plans -
Following an overview of the planned trip of Bykovsky and Gagarin to Sweden and Norway on 1-15 March, American military space plans are reviewed. There are many fantastic projects, over a wide and well-financed front. Currently reconnaissance satellites are flying, to be followed by inspection, and then anti-satellite satellites in 3 to 5 years. After that manned military space stations are planned, manoeuvrable manned spacecraft, and the establishment of scientific and military bases on the moon. Despite this big US program, the Soviet military leadership shows no interest in Russian exploitation of space for military purposes.

·        1964 January 1 - Air Force's Manned Orbiting Laboratory and NASA's Manned Orbiting Research Laboratory studied. -
In the wake of the Air Force's Manned Orbiting Laboratory project and the likelihood of NASA's undertaking some type of manned orbiting research laboratory, Director of Advanced Manned Missions Studies Edward Z. Gray sought to achieve within NASA a better understanding of the utility of such projects as a base for experiments in space. Accordingly, he created three separate working groups to deal with possible experiments in three separate categories: (l) big-medical, (2) scientific, and (3) engineering.

·        1964 January 10 - Manned Orbiting Laboratory "an ominous harbinger...". -
James J. Haggerty, Jr., Space Editor for the Army-Navy-Air Force Journal and Register, called the assignment of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory to the Department of Defense 'an ominous harbinger of a reversal in trend, an indication that the military services may play a more prominent role in future space exploration at NASA's expense.... Whether you label it development platform, satellite platform, satellite or laboratory, it is clearly intended as a beginning for space station technology. It is also clearly the intent of this administration that, at least in the initial stages, space station development shall be under military rather than civil cognizance....'

·        1964 June 5 - Three firms received authorization to begin work on space station studies. - Launch Vehicle: Titan 3C.
Secretary of the Air Force Eugene M. Zuckert announced that three firms, Douglas Aircraft Company, General Electric Company, and The Martin Company, had received authorization to begin work on space station studies. Zuckert predicted also that the Titan III would be test-flown that summer and would launch the Manned Orbiting Laboratory sometime in 1967 or 1968.

·        1965 August 25 - President Johnson announced approval for the Department of Defense's $1.5-billion Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL). -
At a White House news conference, President Lyndon B. Johnson announced approval for the Department of Defense's development of the $1.5-billion Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL). Such a program, the President said, would bring 'new knowledge about what man is able to do in space.' Further, MOL 'will enable us to relate that ability to the defense of America.'

·        1965 August 25 - MOL to be launched from Canaveral and Vandenberg - Launch Site: Vandenberg. Launch Vehicle: Titan 3M.
DoD revealed that newly-authorized Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) program (announced by President Lyndon Johnson the same day) would be launched from both the Air Force Eastern and Western Test Ranges.

·        1965 December 29 - NASA support to the Air Force on the MOL summarized. -
In the initial activity report outlining MSC's support to the Air Force on the MOL, Gemini Program Manager Charles W. Mathews summarized activity to date. He cited receipt on 20 November 1965 of authority to transfer surplus Gemini equipment to the MOL project. Since that time, he said, MSC had delivered to the Air Force several boilerplate test vehicles and a variety of support and handling equipment. MOL program officials and astronauts had also visited Houston for technical discussions and briefings.

·        1965 January 23 - Department of Defense requesting proposals for design / development of the MOL. -
Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara announced that the Department of Defense was requesting proposals from the aerospace industry for design studies to support development of the MOL (especially cost and technical data). Three contractors would be chosen to conduct the studies, a step preliminary to any DOD decision to proceed with full-scale development of the space laboratory.

·        1966 March 12 - Start of construction (site preparation) for SLC-6 - Launch Site: Vandenberg. Launch Vehicle: Titan 3C.
Start of construction (site preparation) for Space Launch Complex 6 facilities at former Sudden Ranch property.

·        1966 March 21 - House Committee recommended combining NASA's Apollo Applications Program with the Air Force's Manned Orbiting Laboratory. -
A report by the Military Operations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations recommended combining NASA's Apollo Applications Program with the Air Force's Manned Orbiting Laboratory. 'Inasmuch as both programs are still research and development projects without definitive operational missions,' stated the Committee's report, 'there is reason to expect that with earnest efforts both agencies could get together on a joint program incorporating both unique and similar experiments of each agency.'

·        1966 May 20 - Representatives of the Air Force and NASA met at Brooks AFB, Texas, to exchange information on medical experiments planned for the Air Force's MOL project and NASA's AAP. -
Stanley White, who headed the USAF group of aerospace medical experts, expressed strong interest in exploiting NASA's AAP project to study the effects of long-duration space flight on human life processes. White stated the Air Force's desire that MOL thus be relieved of this experiment burden so program planners could direct the program more closely toward evaluating man's utility for military space operations. The meeting furnished the basis for closer ties between the two organizations on their biomedical activities, observed NASA's Acting Director of Space Medicine, Jack Bollerud.

·        1966 November 3 - MOL Mockup - Launch Site: Cape Canaveral. Launch Vehicle: Titan 3C. Mass: 9,680 kg (21,340 lb).
This modified Titan 2 propellant tank represented the MOL station itself. It allowed study of the aerodynamic loads associated with launching the MOL into orbit and validated the very long length to diameter core represented by the MOL/Titan 3M configuration. It is possible certain prototype MOL equipment was flown as well.

·        1967 February 14 - MOL major subcontractors selected -
MOL major subcontractors announced by prime contractor Douglas: Republic for the waste management system; Marquardt for 45 kgf and 20 kgf orientation thrusters; IBM for computers; Garrett for ECS; Scientific Data Systems for ground support equipment.

·        1967 March 1 - NASA / USAF MOL Collaboration -
NASA agrees to fly four Deparment of Defense experiments planned for MOL on Apollo Applications mission instead (later Skylab). These included an inflatable airlock experiment. NASA also provided the Gemini 6 capsule to the Air Force for MOL crew training.

·        1967 March 20 - MOL project delays, cost growth. -
Weight growth of the MOL station forced the Air Force to consider upgrading of the Titan booster. Stretching of the booster core or use of 156 inch solid rocket motors was considered. The Air Force also dithered as to whether to compete the Titan booster contract. Eight months were spent making the decision, and at the end of it all the first manned MOL flight was delayed to 1970 and the projected total cost increased from $ 1.5 billion to $ 2.2 billion.

·        1967 May 2 - NASA briefing to Manned Orbiting Laboratory staff on fire hazards - Program: Apollo.
The Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory Systems Program Office requested that MSC present a briefing to selected office and contractor personnel on NASA's progress in safety studies and tests associated with fire hazards aboard manned space vehicles. Information was requested for the MOL program to help formulate studies and activities that would not duplicate MSC efforts. The briefing was given at MSC May 10.

·        1968 March 1 - MOL qualification test underway. -
The MOL mockup was completed, static structural test of flight representative assemblies was underway, and major equpment was in qualification test.

·        1969 April 27 - First static test firing of Titan 3M SRB. - Launch Vehicle: Titan 3M.
First test firing of seven segment solid rocket booster motor for Titan 3M for MOL. The test at Coyote Canyon, California, generated 0.7 million kgf for two minutes.

·        1969 August 4 - Seven astronauts from the defunct MOL project transferred to NASA -
Acting on an offer made by the Defense Department to assign a number of astronauts from the defunct MOL project to NASA, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller chose seven astronauts to augment MSC's flight crews. They were Karol J. Bobko, Charles G. Fullerton, Henry W. Hartsfield, and Donald H. Peterson (USAF); Richard H. Truly and Robert L. Crippin (USN); and Robert F. Overmyer (USMC). The decision to utilize these individuals, Mueller stated, derived from their extensive training and experience on the MOL project and the important national aspect of future manned space flight programs.

·        1969 June 10 - The DOD announced cancellation of its MOL Program. -
The program was initiated in 1965 to advance the development of both manned and unmanned defense-oriented space equipment and to ascertain the full extent of man's utility in space for defense purposes. Following MOL termination, NASA requested that the MOL food and diet contract with Whirlpool Corporation and the space suit development contract with Hamilton Standard Division, United Aircraft Corporation, be transferred to NASA.

·        1969 June 10 - MOL Program cancelled - Launch Site: Vandenberg. Launch Vehicle: Titan 3C.
Department of Defense announced cancellation of the planned Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) program from Space Launch Complex 6 at Vandenberg AFB. The cancellation was expected to save $ 1.5 billion of the projected total $ 3.0 billion program costs. The SLC-6 launch facility at Vandenberg, 90% complete, would be finished and mothballed. MOL reconnaisance systems useful on unmanned satellites would be completed for a total cost of $ 225 million. Ten thousand aerospace workers were laid off as a result of the cancellation.

·        1970 December 1 - MOL 1 - Launch Vehicle: Titan 3M.
The first unmanned Gemini-B/Titan 3M qualification flight was planned for late 1970 at the time the program was cancelled.

·        1970 February 9 - Manned Orbiting Laboratory environment conditioning units delivered. -
With the termination of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, the Air Force provided MSFC with three environment conditioning units capable of delivering fresh air into a small enclosed space at a desired temperature and humidity. The units would be used during bench checks and troubleshooting on the ATM experiments and the related ground support equipment during storage and the preinstallation period.

·        1971 June 1 - MOL 2 - Launch Vehicle: Titan 3M.
The second unmanned Gemini-B/Titan 3M qualification flight would have taken place in 1971 and set the stage for the first manned mission in 1971.

·        1972 February 1 - MOL 3 (cancelled) - Crew: Taylor, Crews. Flight: MOL 3. Launch Vehicle: Titan 3M.
At the time of the cancellation of the MOL program in June 1969, the first manned mission was planned for early 1972. A crew of two would have spent thirty days in orbit operating sophisticated military reconnaisance equipment and other experiments.

·        1972 November 1 - MOL 4 (cancelled) - Flight: MOL 4. Launch Vehicle: Titan 3M.
Planned date of second manned MOL mission at time of the program cancellation.

·        1973 August 1 - MOL 5 (cancelled) - Flight: MOL 5. Launch Vehicle: Titan 3M.
Planned date of third manned MOL mission at time of the program cancellation.

·        1974 May 1 - MOL 6 (cancelled) - Crew: Truly, Crippen. Flight: MOL 6. Launch Vehicle: Titan 3M.
Planned date of fourth manned MOL mission at time of the program cancellation. From the beginning of the project, the Navy had demanded that this be an all-Navy crew.

·        1975 February 1 - MOL 7 (cancelled) - Flight: MOL 7. Launch Vehicle: Titan 3M.
Planned date of fifth manned MOL mission. This mission was already deleted from the FY 1970 budget request in April 1969, two months before the entire project was cancelled.


The MOL Space Suit System Wins
For MOL, the Air Force wanted intra-vehicular suits with EVA capability. MOL suits were to operate at 3.7 psi and derive life support via umbilicals from the space station, like NASA's later Skylab program. MOL suits were to be less expensive, more compact and more flexible than Apollo units. The requirements for compactness and flexibility were driven by the MOL program's plan to use already designed and manufactured Gemini capsules for launch/return vehicles. The cabins, hatches and couches of Gemini were more compact than Apollo counterparts. MOL suits were to be provided in standardized sizes for use by the MOL Astronaut Corps

In pursuit of the MOL space suit contract, HS developed, fabricated, and evaluated seven suit designs in 18 months. HS won the MOL suit competition at Wright Paterson Air Force Base in January of 1967. Under the MOL suit contract, HS delivered 22 suits between September 1967 and July 1969. This effort culminated with the flight MH-8 (MOL-Hamilton Standard, 8th suit design) configuration. The MH-8 Emergency Oxygen System was a strap-on assembly located on the front of the right upper leg that offered 10 minutes of backup life support.

Saturday, 2 September 2017

HEIGHT 611 CRASH WAS A SOVIET SHOOTDOWN OF AN SR-71 BLACKBIRD




The January 1986 Height 611 UFO story lines up with Ben Rich's account of receiving a piece of stealth skirting from a crash site in Siberia in February of 1986 (Rich & Janos, 270). Rich claims that it was part of a D-21 drone from a 1969 mission over China. The drone went off course and landed in Siberia. The timing suggests otherwise. The historical record shows that the American Ruling Class never stopped their overflight of the Soviet Union as was claimed after the 1960 shoot down of Gary Powers. It is also notable that the elements not known to be part of the Blackbird's make up found at Height 611 are known to be used in molten salt reactors. 


TIMELINE 

09 March 1964
A-11 BLACKBIRD is reportedly flying over "Red Area." 
1978
The Soviet Union deploys the S-300 missile system, designed to shootdown the SR-71. 
1982
DARPA begins research on the successor to the SR-71. The program conducted under the name Copper Canyon took place roughly 20 years after the first A-12 Blackbird flight. 
1984
The Soviets deploy the 9M82 variant of the S-300 capable of 5400 mph or Mach 8.19.
29 January 1986 
HEIGHT 611 UFO CRASH in Siberia. 
04 February 1986
President Reagan mentions the National Aerospace Plane, a cover for the development of the SR-71's successor codenamed AURORA in the State of the Union Address. 
?? February 1986 
A CIA agent hands Ben Rich of Lockheed a stealth panel, received as a Christmas gift from a KGB “friend." It came from a crashed skunk works plane in Siberia. Rich claims it was from the first D-21, Tagboard mission that was lost over China and landing in Siberia. in November of 1969. Rich goes on to tease saying, the panel looked like "it had been made yesterday" and that the Soviets mistook the panel for our current stealth technology. The rare earth metals found at the HEIGHT 611 site are found in molten salt reactors and used in stealth planes. 
(Rich & Janos 270)
26 April 1986
Chernobyl Terrorist Attack occurs. Chernobyl provided power to the Russian Woodpecker, the Soviet Union's over the horizon radar and direct energy weapon. 
Early 1987
First sightings of AURORA 
09 April 1989
Air Force retires the SR-71 claiming among other things that Blackbird was vulnerable to the Soviet Sam-5 missile. 
May 1989 
First interviews with Bob Lazar are aired on KLAS-TV.
10 August 1989
An unsubstantiated UFO case comes to us from Russia. According to the reports, not far from the city of Prohlandnyi at 1:00 AM, on August 10, 1989, Soviet military radar units picked up an unidentified flying object. An attempt was made to contact the craft, without success. The UFO was classified as "hostile." Russian defenses were put on alert, and Mig-25s were put in the air to find and identify the UFO. Soviet military radar units picked up an unidentified flying object. An attempt was made to contact the craft, without success. The UFO was classified as "hostile." Russian defenses were put on alert, and Mig-25s were put in the air to find and identify the UFO.

BIBLIOGRAPHY/SOURCES 
Hiatt, F. (1986). Space Plane Soars on Reagan's Support. The Washington Post. [online] Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/02/06/space-plane-soars-on-reagans-support/bb97b23a-d94b-4490-8a6e-8739b0ccbe8d/?utm_term=.293e368fb627 [Accessed 18 Jun. 2018].
Los Angeles Times (1964). NEW SPY FLIGHTS?: A-11 Reported Over Red Area Magazine Statement ... p.1.
RAND (1993). The National Aerospace Plane (NASP): Developmental Issues for the Follow-on Vehicle. [online] Santa Monica, CA: RAND, pp.https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2007/R3878.1.pdf. Available at: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2007/R3878.1.pdf [Accessed 18 Jun. 2018].
Rich, B. and Janos, L. (1996). Skunk Works. Boston: Back Bay Books.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_611_UFO_incident
Richelson, J. (1989). Air Force Tries to Shoot Down Its Own Spy. The Los Angeles Times. [online] Available at: http://articles.latimes.com/1989-04-09/opinion/op-1582_1_air-force-chief-blackbird-spy-plane [Accessed 18 Jun. 2018].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_missile_system






Friday, 1 September 2017

RUSSIAN'S LOOKING TO ACHIEVE PARITY WITH ANNOUNCEMENT OF MiG-41









The Soviet's never built a plane capable of catching the SR-71. The MiG-25 and MiG 31 could fly Mach 3+ but only at the expense of destroying it's turbojet engines. This is why the American's opted for a Turbo-Ramjet/Turbo-Rocket powered SR-71. The SR-71 was a Single Stage To Orbit SSTO aerospace superiority vehicle. It was designed to be at least 20 years ahead of what the Soviets could shootdown. This turned out to be the case. The Russians began shooting down Blackbirds in the 1980's. The Height-611 UFO incident was a Soviet shootdown of a Blackbird. The American's deployed the AURORA, a codename reminiscent of its main theater of operation, namely the North Pole, in the late 80's, with its first test flights occurring sometime in 1987. The Aurora developed under the auspices of the National Aerospace Plane. Basically the same cover gambit the Americans used in the late 50's to develop the Blackbird although at that time it was the SST. The SST never happened. America did use the prospect of the SST to convince the Soviets to sell them the titanium used to build the Blackbird. This was a useful gambit in that Soviet metallurgical analysis of any crashed vehicle would suggest that the planes were theirs. 

So, it looks like the Russians are finally going for some kind of parity. The question is, is this 60 years too late?