That's only when you are thousands of feet away. In this case the light and the explosion were simultaneous. The light in the background was undoubtedly a floodlight already lit. Because such lights have reflectors, it would have reflected back the light pulse from the explosion.
There are no imaginary weapons, and there are no DEWs at disposal to attempt such an event. The videos showed someone coming up to the stones at night, and leaving---and showed what was clearly an explosion. You might as well imagine the Pixies did it.
I've seen photos of scenes at car fires where the car was essentially destroyed, but other objects "across the street" were untouched. Distance and draft can make the difference between scorch and unscorched. Now you've heard of it.
Dynamite is the most likely possibility, as it is the most commonly available explosive. The "investigation" into the event would have established what? That the explosive was a nitrated organic compound? Any fingerprints? Any footprints? The problem is that you are using too much imagination and not enough hard reason.
So what happens with a search warrant when the police plant evidence? The warrant simply becomes a cover story. Remember we are talking about the FBI, with a proven record of constructing falsifications about Trump (FISA warrant). The actual warrant in this case was overly broad; it was a warrant for a fishing expedition, not specifying what was to be sought or where to look for it. The lack of any discussion of custody receipts strikes to the very assertion that "classified" materials were in custody.
A proper inventory of material goods, for example, would include brand identification, model number (or name), and serial number (if available). The corresponding identification of classified material would be the document number (standard) and any unclassified title. Possibly the name of the classification authority. You are entirely trusting the FBI to be honest and complete, which I have to regard as being hopelessly naive and credulous. If there is no inventory of identified items, how is it possible to say that any of them were improperly in custody? Suppose you were looking for stolen goods? How would you know any of them were stolen unless you could compare them to a list of serial numbers of known stolen goods? All you are justifying is going through the motions of a search without particular awareness of what a search means for CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS.
This is not a "proper receipt." This is a laundry list prepared by someone who is basically illiterate, describing what they handled, but not touching on any other information pertinent to document identification. And how is anyone going to be able to verify this supposed list, when Trump's representatives were not allowed the opportunity to observe and record for themselves? (Surveillance cameras are nice, but they are wholly inadequate to the identification of documents.)
The Constitution has specific requirements for searches and seizures, regarding identification of what is to be seized and where is to be searched.
Was box 2A taken from Trump's location, or was it brought by the FBI for collection of materials? How are we to know that any of the materials displayed in the photograph were found at Trump's location? Since they were boilerplate cover sheets, how are we to know they were associated with any actual "classified" documents? The ruler is almost superfluous, since the standard page size in America is 8 1/2 x 11 inches.
Indeed---have Trump's lawyers complained about this? Only they would know. And who would report any complaint they might make to the press? We have such a neutral press, right?
You are not only swallowing the government story hook, line, and sinker, you are dreaming up exculpatory rationale. And it is clear that you are not at all familiar with the standard procedures relating to the handling and custody of actual classified material---which would preclude treating is as junk evidence to be thrown in boxes, mixing together potentially differing classification levels and guides. If this was truly classified material, the FBI failed to treat it as such. And if it was not classified material, the FBI has performed a hoax.
You seem to think the surveillance footage would reveal any subterfuge the FBI conducted. I don't know why you would think that, since some of these subterfuges would be undetectable by camera. And as good as cameras can be, they are not perfect and they are not eagle's eyes. Don't put the cameras in the position of being God's Own. Their failure to prove a subterfuge does not reduce the possibility of there being a subterfuge.
You utterly fail to address the question: So what? It could have been the U.S. Postal Service. It could have been the YMCA. It could have been Rotary International. Aside from being a place where geeks work, CERN means nothing.
There was some source of light already operating, and the reflector for the light element reflected the light pulse of the explosion, which was hidden behind the stones. The pulse was simultaneous with the explosion. Why would any lightbulb be destroyed? It was far enough away to not be affected by the blast.
How can you "agree with others" that a directed energy weapon hit the stones? None of you have any expertise in this area, just imagination. For one thing, you wouldn't be able to see any such DEW pulse, as it would be invisible. A peculiar method to use, when a satchel bomb can do (and did) the trick. Would you use a laser pointer to deal with a fly, when you can use a flyswatter? This fantasy theory (no evidence) is grotesquely elaborate and expensive.
The reporting was "quick and quiet" because the Guidestones were only a strange curiosity, having no meaning to anyone real. The remains were demolished because they posed a hazard of collapse to anyone poking around the site, and they were worthless to begin with.
Wrong again.
It depends on which effect one is counting. The warhead is intended to penetrate the armor and then detonate within the tank. Sympathetic detonation of the ammunition inside the hull generally creates an overpressure that throws the turret up and out and sets the hull on fire. What happens to the humans is better left unremarked. Tank remains are generally quite pitiable to contemplate. The tank as a whole is not typically moved any distance (although I can't guarantee that a blown turret wouldn't be accompanied by a moved hull). In the end, there is considerable uncertainty as to what will happen.
And if Berners-Lee had worked for Mattel Toys, what difference would that have made? CERN is just a place to work (and a waste of money). Trying to extract meaning out of it is like pulling apple juice from a stone.
F=ma? It's a truism, but it doesn't dictate in quite the way you think. Think of an explosion as the creation, instantaneously, of a bubble of hot gas about the size and shape of the container of explosive. The gas will expand, with pressure on any resisting surface. If it is inside something, it can tear it apart. If it is outside of something, it can slam it really hard. Hard enough to break it into pieces. Things farther away will be afflicted with a shock wave and a tremendous wind.
Which reminds me, if the detonation is standing off from the confining surface, the shock wave may reflect off that surface and cause an exponential increase in the static pressure.
In which case, I apologize. I've grown a hard hide from the assails of the unlettered. Deadens the touch, perhaps.
Tell that to a nuclear detonation. If the chemical explosive is like Torpex or Amatol, it will have powdered metal as part of the composition and the metal combustion will be brightly luminous. Ever noticed the exhaust of large solid-propellant rocket motors?
You don't know much about warheads. If it was an anti-tank warhead, it would penetrate. Otherwise, it is an area burst with a spherical distribution (in order to make up for targeting error). Some anti-aircraft warheads produce expanding perimeters or clouds of fragments. Artillery shells make craters, debris in all directions. I've worked with warheads...I don't know why I am arguing this with you.
First, there were no "California DEWs." The fires were strong enough to melt cars.
Hard to say whether even a megawatt-class laser could perform the feat. It could probably melt an area of the rock. But it would have to happen really fast in order to cause the rock to fracture from thermal expansion. Hypothetically, a pulsed laser might be able to impart an impulse, but research into that area dwindled in the 1970s (lots of problems).
When in doubt, a "blunt object" works just fine, and a satchel charge of even dynamite would be dandy.
And who says it was a shaped charge? That is what they are intended to do. A big satchel of TNT would apply a huge push and break the stone into chunks.
I'm sorry, but you continue to demonstrate knowledge that is not even applicable to the situation. Which means you don't actually have knowledge.
This has as much to do with CERN as a broom has to do with witchcraft.
Yeah. Kinda puts the kibosh on the idea that they meant a lot to all sorts of people. What? We're celebrating an event that means nothing to nobody? Stranger things have happened...
They don't exist. Please stop imagining these things, which were only ever a fictional suggestion. It would be a pain in the ass to even build them, and there would be no confidence they would do anything but penetrate.
Which would mean that you don't understand it at all, since DEWs of the laser variety are primarily in the infrared spectrum. Microwave weapons are not anywhere near as powerful as would be required to produce an explosive reaction. And a laser DEW might attempt to melt the rock. No divinity needed for an ordinary explosion.
I'd love to see this video. I don't notice it posted on this page. You are aware that light travels faster than sound, and the flash of an explosion would always precede the blast? (Best example: nuclear detonation.)
Exactly what you would expect from a contact explosive charge. The blast was soaked up by the stone, shielding the other stones. You have a very imaginary conception of blast effects. Have you ever seen video of an anti-tank missile hitting its target? Blast in virtually all directions.
To second "anonymooser," the answer is "yes, they did" (see video).
I know we landed on the Moon, 6 times. It is not a matter of "belief." Changing the topic, I see. Another trait of a failed argument. Are you a Moon Hoaxer? (You don't need to answer. It is a rhetorical question.) If so, it would pretty much seal the deal on your ignorance of scientific and technical matters. And your resentment of anyone who actually has such knowledge.
They shooed the lawyers away while they poked around, collecting things. This is beyond dispute. It establishes my contention that they did not conduct an inventory with the lawyers, nor did they execute any custody receipts.
The "report" inventory lacks any specificity. No document identification numbers or unclassified titles. It includes actual trash. Without any corroboration by Trump or his attorneys, it amounts to an allegation, to be proven in court. By what? "Your honor, this was found at Trump's residence." Trump's attorney: "I object. This was never at my client's residence. It was planted by the agents who prevented us from witnessing their search or confirming what they seized."
The "evidence photo" documents nothing. There is no way to tell when or where the photo was taken, and the photo itself consists of a pile of cover sheets, which are like boilerplate....not documents. Where are the documents? Nowhere to be seen.
This is what questioning the narrative is really like. Funny that you should find it questionable.
I revere Norman Rockwell. Everyone rightfully honors him for his wonderful images of patriotism and American life. But, insofar as artistic technique is concerned, I think he rates with the Masters. His figures are both iconic and authentic, people not so much larger than life, but filled so much with life that we accept them into our own lives. Like photographs of the spirit of America. It is how we know that God gives us gifts of artistry.
I like this a lot. It echoes the wisdom of Ecclesiastes, in which it is said there is nothing new under the sun...which includes "generations." For example, in a cultural sense, even though I was born in the 1950s, I feel a strong sense of attachment, sympathy, and kinship to the 1940s.
What do you call YAL-1A? I worked on preliminary designs, the winning proposal, and program mission analysis. Look it up, Mr. Shill-detector, and weep. If a megawatt-class laser is not a death ray, I don't know what is---nor do you. (We actually had to consider what would happen if a beam penetrated a canopy into a cockpit. The answer was grim: the pilot would be cooked to a crisp in a second, like something having spent too much time in a microwave oven.)
Back in grad school, I had a laboratory director who was a pretty salty guy. We were all working on various aspects of laser technology. One day, he was entirely exasperated with the speculations about laser death rays. "We already HAVE death rays!" he declared out loud. "They're called 'machine guns'! You point them at someone and shoot!"