What video are you watching? The basic view has a frontal image of the ship and maneuvering cannot be seen. Or are we seeing the effect of a crossing current that the ship was countering---until the propulsion power cut out?
No evidence of any DEW "events." Don't turn speculations into proven facts.
Moreover, if the red light / flash was a demolition event, how does that explain the fact that this particular section of the bridge REMAINS INTACT while the rest of the bridge is pulling apart? Kind of violates the First Rule of Demolition (blow it apart).
Nope. The bridge did what any truss bridge would do if the support was kicked from beneath it: pull apart and collapse.
Complete nonsense. He is just viewing phantoms in a Rorschach blot.
Reminds me of an on-air joke by Graham Kerr ("The Galloping Gourmet") about a wounded Vincent Van Gogh arriving at the doctor's office, and the doctor asking in an English accent, "What's this 'ere?" As usual, you had to be there. (Kerr is still living at 90, by the way.)
Let me cram in one more of his jokes, about a prim mother taking her innocent daughter someplace in a taxi. They happen to drive past some garish Parisian prostitutes and the daughter exclaims, "Mummy, who are those women?" The mother attempts haltingly to concoct a parlor-room answer, but to such pitiful effect that the impatient cabdriver bursts out with, "Zey are Scarlet Women!" There is a shocked silence, and the daughter sits back with an "oh." And then, "Mummy, what are Scarlet Women?" The mother, fuming, with venom in her voice, says, "My dear, they are mothers...of cabdrivers."
I would say the western world should at least observe higher moral standards than the people they attack. The U.S. is bloody with all the Ukrainian attacks on civilian populations---with U.S. weapons.
One guy had his ear cut off. The brand of knife that was used has become overnight popular.
The job was apparently "curated" by the Ukrainian embassy in Tajikistan. This is what prompted the recent declaration that a "state of war" exists. The U.S. is trying to wash its hands in public, but there is too much pitch on our palms.
Like the joke about the sunken liner with a thousand lawyers on board, this is a good start. Or at least a necessary start. It's one thing to remove people. It's another thing to remove bad policy, or reverse board strategy based on "shareholder value" (i.e., the self-serving wishes of the largest shareholders).
My concern now is that there will be no rethinking of corporate policy and strategy, but there will be an obsessive attempt to "inspect in" quality. At the higher management levels, they have become so used to "traveled work," that it would be traumatic to actually hew to the defined quality standards for program progress.
That would make you a majority of the ignorant. I won't debate whether the post-merger Board of Boeing was "Deep State." Some of them individually were (ex-military or government office holders), but it is enough that they were partners. I would certainly hesitate to fly on any 737 MAX aircraft. Who knows what other flaw was allowed to slide on past any review process? 787s built in the Pacific Northwest are probably safe enough (mostly 787-9 models). All earlier models have an exemplary track record.
As for the Shuttle, you are out of your mind. NASA had permitted a long-standing flight anomaly to be "normalized," and it wound up killing the Columbia. The system flaw was so serious, there was no possibility of "fixing" it in either a timely or economical way. So, to prevent further loss of life, the system was retired. It would have had little operational significance under Trump. Obama was also "good" with canceling any government operational abilities, just as he canceled F-22 production. I thought so at the time.
This is funny. I am someone who knows Boeing from the inside and was familiar with all these systems. And somehow, you guys who don't know anything, are able to say things without any substantiation. Don't lecture me about making sense. Make good on your allegations.
They've been using the hypersonic missiles. A worthy substitute.
Which makes one wonder what is really driving Macron. This has the odor of a Really Big Favor, combined with terror of the alternative (what?). There is something Macron is scared of, to take such a drastic and fatal step.
Yes, and also no secret that the Russians have been systematically destroying them in the pockets where they are located. At least, to those who are not smelling the lotus-fumes of the Western media.
Unfair. The Italian rifles were of good quality. (Read an article on the Carcano rifle in the latest NRA American Rifleman.)
That was the problem. The original plan for the Line was to go completely along the French border. But the diplomats in Paris protested that doing so would signify a complete lack of trust in Belgium, which could not be. So... To its credit, the Line was considered so impregnable by the Germans, they never considered the idea that they could punch through it.
You're welcome and thanks for the good regard. It was the Boeing Company. I started out in love with it. On my last day, I felt like Lot leaving Sodom, not looking back as I drove out the gate.
It may be a basic disposition to believe a desired fantasy, than be suspicious of that fantasy.
The Q statements are so cryptic, they have become Rorschach blots. The Q following read their own conspiracies into them. "Implication"? Implied by Q or by his reader? I don't see a lick of scientific feasibility in the notion, and I don't back down from questioning "Q" (if it is indeed Q and not someone over-presenting an ambiguous statement).
Please don't lecture me about possibilities. I mentioned that I designed and patented microchips that could be full-fledged radios, small enough to be aerosols. They haven't happened yet. There is no jump between these particles and what you are talking about.
You go watch films. I've already watched a great company brought to its knees, killing 346 persons in the process. We are arguing at cross-purposes.
What is your point? You point to a movie. I point to terrible harm done to a corporation and innocent people. I think real-life events are more relevant.
I am talking about it not happening as a fact. It is not a matter of if. No chemtrails. What nanotech? What 5G interaction? All arm-waving. I have patented a concept for tiny microchips to be held aloft as chaff, with active elements on board, so I know what is possible---but nobody is doing it, yet. (Too big to be "nanotechnology.")
Have we come to the point where we disregard science and the logical method of analysis, for the sake of hero-worship?
General Flynn is a nice guy, but this is like talking about leprechauns. If he wants to write a book to document proof, that would be one thing. But here he is just going off on a speculation.
Are you referring to the frames normal to the spars? That makes it far stronger than a box beam, so I don't know what your point would be.
It was ambiguous from your sentence structure whether you were referencing the building structure or the airplane structure. As you didn't clearly switch topics, I presumed you were continuing. I have reservations about calling the building structure a box beam. There were columns and floors throughout.
In a high speed collision, structural members can (and do) collapse like an accordion, and the result could be a consolidated thickness of 100 mm. That's only 4 inches.
I notice you completely duck the point about water being able to rip structures apart, even though it has absolutely no mechanical strength at all. This is because what is key to a structural failure is application of force, and this is represented by the oncoming momentum of the airplane (mass x velocity), just as it it with the oncoming momentum of a stream of water. This would be true, even when the airplane is shredded as through a french fries cutter.
You made reference to the image, to make a point that the wing had no resistance, so I was obliged to point out that the leading edge of wings are nowhere as strong as the structural members of a wing. Not irrelevant, if you are using the image to bolster your argument.
Sorry, but your ignorance about the effects of momentum is evident.
That would be one scenario to produce the image. Another scenario would be that the ship was navigating across a current, and when the ship power went off the Diesel engines also went offline, the ship lost headway (steerage), then drifted into the bridge support. Commenters were remarking that there was a strong flow beneath the bridge, which would have the effect of aligning a drifting ship to be perpendicular to the bridge span.