Simon Shack Vs NASA. This is a post at Clues Forum: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=935&start=60

THIS THING is what NASA and their engineers purportedly pieced together to send to the moon:







For all of 42 years, NASA has been telling us that this ridiculous piece of ‘engineering’ went to the moon and back. Most people on this planet have bought this excruciatingly silly and outrageous lie - uncritically accepting it at face value. And they did all this with FAKE IMAGERY - I hope we can all agree with this. My point here should be clear: as we now take a due, critical look at the Space Shuttle program, let’s keep in mind that we are dealing with a sorry gang of shameless, manic-compulsive liars. And since they faked the moon landing AND 9/11 with counterfeit imagery (as demonstrated by September Clues) - are we to be blamed now for verifying whether they might have kept staging further 'Hollywood’ deceptions?



Now, I am not going to boast of any particular engineering qualifications of mine, but I spent several years in close contact with the motorsport arena, visiting Formula 1 factories, wind tunnels and so forth. As you may know, Formula 1 research and development is a hugely intensive, state-of-the-art engineering affair, a constant tech-race to stay ahead of the opposition; some of the foremost research areas in F1 are, of course, aerodynamics and mechanical design - with ever more refined and sophisticated materials/composites/carbon fibres/titanium/etc being employed to build ever lighter, stronger and performing racing cars. One thing you can count on is that, whenever the aviation/space industry comes up with some new technological advances, you will see it applied in Formula 1 - faster than you can say “snatched”. However, for all the top-notch technology employed - and under the stress of speed (aerodynamic forces) and vibrations (mechanical forces), Formula 1 cars will break apart, bolts will come loose and ailerons will, now and then, shear off. So let’s just keep this in mind and proceed.



So, the first Space Shuttle design issue I would like to address - and it’s something which has long been nagging me - has to do with aerodynamics and mechanical/structural design. One aerodynamic notion we can learn from Formula 1 racing is that, in order to increase the downforce of a racing car (so as to make it 'stick’ to the race track), you need to have a so-called venturi tunnel underneath it. Basically, it is like an inverted airplane wing: instead of generating lift, it generates downforce by creating an area of low pressure under the car. Here is an illustration of such a design:







Now, in the Space Shuttle design and its placement on top of the big fuel tank, there is nothing to suggest such downforce being generated. On the contrary: the shuttle’s underside is basically a flat area - and its pitch is slightly tilting upwards. Moreover, of course, the shuttle has wings just like an airplane which certainly generate lift - not downforce:







It is therefore easy to imagine what sort of massive aerodynamic lift forces, at Mach+ speeds, must be withstood by the anchoring of the shuttle on its fuel tank. And, with all due caution, I would submit that the brunt of these lift forces are withstood by the two frontal anchoring rods.



Or more precisely, by THIS lone WONDERBOLT:







Quite honestly, this particular - uh - engineering solution to keep the shuttle from detaching itself from the tank during its 10.000+ mph ascent, offensively defies whatever humble notions of mechanics/aerodynamics I may have (correctly or incorrectly) assimilated in the course of my lifetime. The pull forces exerted on that single, lone bolt must be phenomenal; to make matters worse, not only do we have one single bolt 'securing’ the front end of the Shuttle - as well as the lives of these astronaughts and the success of all these shuttle launches, it is also a moving part ! (a fact which, notoriously, makes it even more vulnerable to disfunction/breakage - titanium or not titanium).



I’ll stop here my technical considerations for now, but allow me to add just one more which dawned upon me as nonhocapito helped me understand what THIS alarmingly bobbing/shaking object is (supposed to be).It is clearly supposed to be that pipe over which the camera must be - supposedly - placed:







Seriously now: are we asked to believe that such a dramatic pipe-vibration could ever occur on a spacecraft - ANY spacecraft - without causing immediate concern? Really? Who buys it? I don’t. But then again, we are dealing with FAKE IMAGERY - and I submit that this next gif conclusively settles the matter.

ONLY the pipe ring is moving here - NOTHING else. And no - no changes in focal length/zoom settings of the 'camera lens’ are observed:



(Tip: just put your cursor over any given area of the picture. Check it out. Note: The two frames are of course, taken from the same shuttle launch video.)