Well, okay. But the idea that he is a "flipped asset" is trumped by the fact that he is an obvious asshole, trying his best to avoid personal doom by continuing the facade, hellhole, and killing field that is Ukraine. He is the globalists' point man---but his assignment is failing. (Because their basic plan was batshit crazy.) Other bit players in this melodrama can be erased from the script without compunction.
People seem to think that big events need to be guided by wranglers. They don't understand that massive events are like avalanches; they can be provoked into happening, but there is little control over what happens next---except for the certainty that it will all go downhill. Nobody can wrangle an avalanche...but its direction and conclusion are inescapable. Don't attribute to White Hats that which is really under God's control.
Structural steel loses 70% of its room-temperature strength at a temperature of 600 C (1,112 F). (It gains about 35% in strength by a temperature of 225 C / 437 F, but slides downhill from there.) I don't have knowledge of other examples, except to note that the same dynamic undoubtedly happened with the Twin Towers. It is a question of whether a fire can proceed to attain such temperatures. As I understand from a past reading of the WTC7 event, the fire fighting systems were initially disabled by shock.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html
I will see it when it happens. So much of this is like listening to the faithful declare the End Times are at hand. "Soon" has practical meaning of "maybe in our lifetime." It is annoying, like the signal of a broken fire alarm.
And I truly don't believe that there is any good purpose to concealing any of the truth. What is the point of truth, if it is to be concealed? Somehow, humanity withstands devastating natural events like floods, tidal waves, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, overwhelming hurricanes and so forth, where there is no possibility of hiding the truth. We think we can conceal the truth of war, but it has a tendency to have the last word. We weathered the disclosure of the Holocaust (although there are some here who retreat into the hospital of denial) and the Japanese mistreatment of war prisoners. We have weathered the disclosure of the deaths under Stalin and Mao Zedong (although many are simply ignorant). People are told every day that they are going to die soon of cancer, or that family members have perished in an accident. What are we? Human beings...or toilet tissue?
Solzhenitsyn lived his life as a sacrifice to fight The Lie, and we are going to decide how much truth to provide a world that has been starving for it for generations? I don't think so. Pray God that all the truth will be revealed. What cannot withstand the truth should not stand.
It will wind up looking like a starfish. The only practically useful part would be near the pole of the unpeeling, which gives rise to the polar projection maps used for latitudes above 60 degrees. Most regional maps are local polar projections, as the angular radius is seldom very great and the distortion is minor. There are some very interesting projection systems that attempt to reconcile minimal distortion with true semblance of continental relationships. Buckminster Fuller created an unusual projection concept of representing the globe as it would be projected onto the surface of a surrounding polyhedron. The map stretches out quite a bit, but it preserves a high degree of accuracy and it is possible to show the continents all connected. The oceans are divvied up, however.
- They are in conflict with the same people---far more credentialed architects and engineers agree with the established case---so that they assert they know the truth by reason of a contrived "theory" is in the same ballpark as the "climate scientists" (who are also credentialed) who serve up a contrived theory. I focus on the theory, not on the argument from authority. When the leading members of this organization say "I knew from the beginning that something was wrong," their bias is unmistakable. So, they go on a quest to confirm their bias---just like a lot of people on this page.
What problem do I have with credentials? I have a bachelor of science, a master of science, and a master's of aeronautics and astronautics from the University of Washington (Seattle). I worked for 40 years at was began as the Boeing Aerospace Company and ended as its Defense and Information Division, interacting from time to time with Boeing Commercial Airplanes. I became an Associate Technical Fellow and had the highest performance ratings throughout my career. A key accomplishment was to edit and re-write what became the winning proposal for the YAL-1A airborne laser system, the most powerful military directed weapon yet constructed. I have 9 patents and preceded by about 5 year's NASA's invention of an afterburning nuclear thermal rocket engine. I had Secret, Top Secret, SCI, NATO Cosmic Top Secret, and Classified Nuclear Weapon Design Information clearances. That's just skimming the record.
-
I'm good with evidence, as reflected by the fact that I always refer to it. I give no credence to interpretations that are inconsistent with the evidence (e.g., that the Pentagon crash was a "cruise missile."
-
I'm fine with one issue at a time, but we were not originally discussing WTC7.
As for the video, their own argument is self-refuting. Free fall for 7 seconds at an acceleration of ~32.2 feet/second/second results in a distance of 789 feet. The building itself was 610 feet tall. If one only accounted a distance of 100 feet in 7 seconds, then the acceleration would have been 4 ft/sec/sec or 12.7% of free fall. So, they are cherry-picking the data to find a spot where it was in free fall.
I have already explained repeatedly that, in an environment where the supporting columns have their strength reduced to below structural margins, the time taken for a column to fail in compressive shear is essentially instantaneous and that the interval for the next column to fall is on the order of a millisecond, so that the whole failure process for each floor amounts to about a tenth of a second at most. That would be 4.7 seconds for the whole building, if even that much. No, when the shear failures are happening as fast as a floor can fail, it will look like free fall when the process is running. Reading the data as best I can from the grainy image of the curve plot, it appears that the linear part of the velocity/time trace starts at 1 m/sec @ t = 0.8 second and ends at 26 m/sec at t = 3.2 second (they annotate 3.18 second). This gives an acceleration of 10,4 m/sec2 which is 12% higher than free fall. I'm not saying that is the true acceleration, since it can never be higher than 9.8 m/sec2. What it tells me is that the reconstruction is in error by as much as +/- 12%.
All the self-assured talk about "that's why we have all this structural steel in this building" comes apart once you take into account that high temperatures short of melting will reduce the column strength of the steel to practically nothing, and compressive sheer failures will occur at the speed of sound in the steel.
It's like navigating if you cannot measure your distance traveled directly. It turns out not to be necessary.
Oh, for Pete's sake. The levees were neglected for years. The money that was supposedly reserved for maintenance was diverted to other, more hobby-horse priorities. This is very old news. No stories of explosions, etc. It's like failing to weed your garden. You don't just turn around and exclaim "My God, there are weeds!" In the case of levees, they finally get to a point where they fail. And they did. No nitwit "conspiracy theory" necessary.
The real political story is: Why were the maintenance funds diverted, and who diverted them? Those people should be sued for damages, but I don't think anything was done.
Milley could be informed he will be subject to Solomonic justice: cut the baby in half. Kill one half and send the other to the orphanage. (Tasteless humor. Not to be confused with a hasteless tumor.)
Conspiracy (or intent) to commit treason. Being a military man in a military responsibility, he would necessarily be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If it devolves into simple incarceration, he could probably have his rank and honors stripped from him.
I think you mean anti-tank rounds made of uranium (extreme high density). Beryllium is very unsuitable for the purpose (extreme low density).
Zelensky has insisted on pre-conditions (Russia Begone!) that essentially preclude any peace negotiation. He wants his cake (a peace plan) and eating it, too (victory). As Col. MacGregor is always saying, the thinking in Washington D.C. (and Zelensky is merely a client) is irrational. One sign of irrationality is the attempt to hold contradictory principles or statements simultaneously.
But I was rated for my breadth and depth of technical knowledge. Not for any lapse of decorum. And what I know is solid. Enough to win military development contracts by competitive procurement (e.g., YAL-1A).
Credentials are public evidence of your competence. Being shy about offering them is basically a cover for not having any. I don't subscribe to the internet principle of egalitarianism, where we are all experts until shown otherwise.
I "understand" insults in only one way: When your opponent is out of argument, they are his last resort. It's playground stuff. I'm long over it.
The stupid and misguided ones lack basic education and logical powers. This is based on listening closely to what they have to say. They are perhaps the most profoundly ignorant lot I have encountered. (The recent flap in these pages over the Mercator map projection illustrates the point.)
The difference between us is that I do bother, to communicate. You seem interested mainly in playing to the Peanut Gallery. I know all about that. So, we've had all this interaction in the spirit of dick-fighting, and there has been no discussion of any important point. Don't you see that as a missed opportunity?
I worked in the business of engineering such things. The factory for the AGM-86 was in the next building over from my office. I worked with ex-military experts all the time on subjects like this. You may view horseshit on Wikipedia, but I am relying on my experience and professional training.
It depends on what you want to call a cruise missile, but self-navigating long-distance missiles need to avoid ground clutter and typically travel at least tens of feet above the ground, if not hundreds. Yes, they can close on the target when they are close enough not to risk a collision with the ground clutter. Usually in a dive in order to suppress the effect of altitude error on the projection of the ground error. Vertical dive is best, but you can't go through a window without some slant angle (I've seen that done).
A battlefield missile like a Javelin does not fit the definition of a cruise missile.
But the size of the object in the video is not compatible with cruise missile dimensions. Nor was the resulting wreckage. Nor was the fact that clipping the light standard would have been fatal for the missile (which is why they don't fly that low). You want to focus on the most slender evidence and disregard all the other evidence and disconfirming circumstances. Sorry. That doesn't much solve real problems.
Now, if you can recount examples of site doctoring to accomplish a cover-up, that would be of interest. All I can say is that the 1976 mid-air breakup of the Canadian CF-101 resulted in a crash that was not covered up. Visible as hell. International incident.
Your comments only reflect the fact that you don't know how to use a Mercator projection. No one imagines the length scale is constant across the map (the horizontal scale varies as the cosine of the latitude). The point is that North is always vertical (on the map) and you can use that to determine your heading to your next objective point. It will not be a Great Circle, but it will get you there.
If you know the coordinates of two points, you can use spherical trigonometry to find the distance.
I am a bit of a "know it all." I was rated high for that in my performance reviews at work. But what I do know is solid; I don't much butt in when the matter is not my strength. You, on the other hand, have no credentials and use this opportunity to throw insults at me. The stupid and misguided ones are the Flat-Earthers, Moon-Hoaxers, space travel deniers, chemtrail hawkers, and orbiting DEW believers. (But on the last point, stay tuned. The Chinese have announced they plan to orbit a 1 MW laser next year, and I will be very interested to see if and how they pull it off.)
Suppose I am. How would you convince me otherwise? It was the video you recommended.
The guy that watches a video many times---with the wrong understanding---will not be an expert. He will be an ignoramus. Way too much bias confirmation interpretation going on here.
If you "understood" why modern fighting aircraft are expensive, it didn't show up in your comment. And I didn't call you a "dude" (whatever that is supposed to mean these days).
Look under the bed. Airplane mishaps are far from unusual.
No. You always know what is in the hold. You always know where you are. You can plot your progress per day.
Your video showed a vehicle much too long to be a cruise missile, and too big in diameter, where a cruise missile would be imperceptible at distance.
Air to surface cruise missiles always dive on their target, in order to reduce the miss distance due to altitude error. They do not fly nap of the Earth, because they cannot respond to obstacles, such as lamp standards. And if they clipped a lamp standard, to the point of breaking it off (which happened), the wing would also have broken off, causing a missile to fly out of control.
There is ample evidence for the airplane hit and continuous air traffic radar tracking from take-off to crash. I don't know why you say the event doesn't "add up." All the claims for a cruise missile are unsubstantiated.
As for Pennsylvania, I don't make a profession of all this. Why don't you take it up with the families of those who died? I recall reading of tests conducted with rocket sleds throwing fuselages at high speed into reinforced concrete walls (e.g., solid ground) and the fuselages were practically atomized by the energy of the crash. It seems like everyone has a cartoon conception of how airplanes crash. Reality is often different. I have seen photos of crash scenes where the fuselage is practically gone from melting.
I like to say it is just an acronym for "pervert."
Which anyone who uses it for navigation thoroughly understands. Because the distortion is a convenience for navigational simplicity. I get the idea that hardly anyone here has looked at maps.
Then use another map. There are many other projections. Since you evidently haven't been paying attention to RandomNumber's posts, you are missing the fact that the Mercator projection was devised specifically to facilitate navigation.
Not really. All they knew at the time was where they were. Distances were effectively measured in days of progress from one location to another. It was crucial to go in the right direction and be in the right place. A day or so variation in trip time was normal. Let's say your automobile odometer is broken and doesn't register, but you have a map. Is that a problem, or is that a "no big deal"?
More fundamental than that. It is mathematics. One must use spherical geometry to determine distances and angles on a globe.
It was understood for some time that the feint toward Kiev was intended to pin down Ukrainian forces so they couldn't be moved to the Donbass, where the real Russian operation was in play. The Russians may have underestimated the Kiev government's insane viciousness.