A FEW TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
I would now like to make some considerations of non-photographical nature. So far, I have submitted a series of questions, mostly concerning imagery oddities and aberrations, most of which are still unsolved. But if we are going to entertain a serious, no-nonsense discourse about this 'marvel of modern engineering' known as the Space Shuttle, we should also look at some technical aspects that we can - without being rocket scientists - easily assess and evaluate. As nonhocapito wrote, debating technical aspects is hazardous ground for non-engineers (although I believe we have a few on board this forum) but that cannot stop us from using our grey matter to assess certain issues which require only the application of logic and common sense. I don't think we should entirely shy away from technical considerations just because we don't have NASA qualifications - and stay frozen in awe at what we imagine must be the top engineering hub on this planet. I mean, for Heaven's sake, 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 (well, to be precise, the top part of this contraption supposedly ignited some rockets and went back to the Apollo command module orbiting the moon - allegedly piloted by Michael Collins). A bit like this :
(Official NASA "footage" of the Apollo 17 returning to the Command module orbiting the moon):
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 thing :
In the below NASA image we can see where the 'on-board camera' (responsible for the "WONDERBOLT" imagery) is supposed to be located. At top right of the picture, we see that the black/grey box that would house the camera is mounted on top of a long pipe, rigidly attached by some rings onto the main tank:
Well, here are two frames taken from the very same shuttle launch video:
Tip: just put your cursor over any given area of the picture. You will see that ONLY the ring appears to "move" (in ghostly fashion) - and this, in spite of NO apparent changes whatsoever of the "onboard camera's" position / zoom level / or focal aperture. The only rational explanation for this, is that we are looking at CGI imagery - but feel free to submit any alternative (and sensible) explanation of your own.
I have now done my fair share of work to understand what the Shuttle program was/is all about. Whatever rockets have been witnessed shooting up in the Florida skies cannot be the same as those shuttles aired on TV - this much is clear. All other considerations are now open for debate - as to the possible alternative scenarios that might have played out. I am going to take a short break - (off to the beach!) - and hope this discussion will evolve and be enriched with new discoveries.
Happy digging - and warm hugs to all valiant researchers !
Simon Shack
)
Don't personally care if you believe I watched a vehicle designed for space travel launch from a pad in Florida, yeah every resident of this state is in on it, it's all a Big Sham!! 
)
